I think the interaction levels are incredibly similar. The primary difference is the amount of images displayed, but that really isn't a significant aspect of web design or Internet traffic in 2025.

	▲	dzhiurgis 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		When you posit like that makes me think doordash shouldn’t be an app at first place.

▲

xyzsparetimexyz 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I suppose that's valid. Feels fairly arbitrary though

▲

layer8 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Document-centric, form-driven websites aren’t traditionally called apps. The Wikipedia website isn’t an app. Web forums aren’t apps. “App” implies that essential parts of the interaction logic are driven by client-side code (JS, not HTML) that couldn’t similarly be implemented by HTML forms.

▲

chuckadams 4 days ago | parent [-]

Sure Wikipedia is an app, long as you think of static websites as a subset of web apps. One might say that makes the term meaningless, I say it's a deliberately vague term because people don't want or need to get cornered by fine distinctions. Otherwise it's endless quibbling over whether things like search do or do not count toward a site being a "real" app.

	▲	layer8 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Your definition of the term simply doesn’t match common usage.