I have never seen how downloading and somehow managing a separate 'app' for every destination I'm interested in visiting on the web is more convenient. I much prefer visiting those destinations using a single tool equipped with a range of mature and hyper-convenient favorites mechanisms.
I fully agree. However you must have noticed that plenty of people don't live like that. Apps for websites, or apps that closely approximate websites, are very popular. Wikipedia, Google Search, Amazon, bus and train timetables, city transit/route-planning... certain people simply seem to like an app for a specific function.
And I agree with you too. There is a place for apps. But it is annoying how every site these days seems to want you to download their app. No thanks, I am just browsing the web, I don't want to commit to a relationship yet !
Another benefit is content that is available offline, on the go. Without having to access internet, imagine your users could down all your content while on a flight? This is all assuming a website worth reading whether online or offline.
There is the HTML5 Offline APIs for that. If you have an offline-capable web app, I think it should be possible for a tool like ManifoldJS to find out all of the assets it requires and package them into the app. Whether it actually does this, I don't know.
HTML5 Offline storage can be used without an app. Part of the issue is not the storage, but how to run the app in the background to pre-fetch the content. Here's a table showing the limited access that hosted apps have. Looks like they do have access to certain device storage APIs, as well as desktop notifications, microphone, etc. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Build/App_permissio... Here's another page comparing "packaged" to "hosted" apps which seems to imply they are mutually exclusive - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Marketplace/Options/Pack...
