> For most of that period, the size of the Gmail app hovered around 12 MB, with a sudden jump to more than 200 MB near the start of 2017... The Gmail app, on the App Store, is currently 760.7 MB in size.
I had no idea common apps used to be just 10-30 MB. But are now hundreds of MB.
Something like Gmail doesn't have massive hi-resolution bitmap graphics. Since the article doesn't give any answer, I'm assuming it's a hand-wavy "frameworks", but that's an enormous amount of compiled code.
> I had no idea common apps used to be just 10-30 MB.
More like a few dozen kilobytes to a handful of megabytes. If you look in F-Droid you can find some good old apps where graphics are either small or it uses the default styles for buttons and the like
Looking at a tiny utility app I made 6 years ago, it's 9KB, most of which will be the default things the compiler includes
> I had no idea common apps used to be just 10-30 MB. But are now hundreds of MB.
This is Android, but: 13+ years ago I had an HTC Desire. I was really struggling with internal storage space, regularly uninstalling and replacing apps just to be able to update others. Eventually I moved to custom ROMs just because they allowed some apps to be moved to the SD card.
I remember the biggest problem was WhatsApp, which was somehow over 7MB while the average was closer to 1MB.
On my current phone WhatsApp is 231MB. It's still pretty high up in the rankings, but doesn't stand out, and barely any apps are below that then-huge 7MB.
On Android most apps started bundling androidx/jetpack compat libraries that help deal with various API versions, and generally make the development much, _much_ easier. These days apps will also bundle the entire new Android UI framework (Compose) while in the past all the UI code was using framework classes.
Other than that, some popular and useful libraries will bundle native libs (for example for sql), and some ad/analytics/corporate SDKs will use native libs to share code between platforms and for obfuscation. These corporate SDKs (like Zendesk) will also notoriously break Android minification tools, because why bother
One of the struggles on my first android phone was fitting updates for the multiple google docs apps since they were all getting bigger and didn't share their redundant data. That phone had about 150MB for apps.
It's sad the laziness that happens when there's no pushback. The devs gain barely anything from leaving things this bloated, but barely anything isn't zero so now a million people have to deal with big files and wasted RAM.
My back-of-my-head benchmark is still my old Amiga. Here's[0] a full-blown GUI email app that was perfectly nice to use. The entire package, complete with all its custom GUI classes and 3 sets of icons, took 1.4MB uncompressed.
I know the thousand legitimate reasons why modern apps are larger. It's not all bloat and inefficiency, either, except in the harshest sense that old apps tended to use byte-optimized data structures like linked lists instead of faster, but less space-efficient structures like hash maps. They have to deal with higher resolutions, although the command to draw an empty white 320x200 square on the screen should be approximately the same size as to draw a 2000x1500 one. And yet, wow, it doesn't seem like it should need to be that much bigger.
Thunderbird for Android supports pretty much everything Gmail supports and probably more, but it's "only" 40MiB in size. Even on Android, that's a 3x size reduction.
I don't know why iOS apps in general are so much larger than Android apps (that doesn't just seem to be a Google problem) but you certainly don't need the full size of the Gmail app.
I don’t think this fully explains it. In the nineties you could build a whole application using a toolkit like MFC, and you could ship the entire .dll, which bundled a whole bunch of (low-res, remarkably tasteless even for the time) bitmapped UI assets, and the resulting package didn’t hold a candle to modern bloat. Nor could it: you wanted that self-extracting installer (this predated MSI!) to be reasonable to download on a 56k modem, and even if you used a CD, you wanted room for something else on that CD.
Of course, there were multi-hundred-MB software packages in that era, but they were complex, multifunctional, and highly capable. And IIRC all of Microsoft Office (RIP!) except for some rarely used extras still managed to fit in one CD for a long time.
I'm wondering what the source for these apps were. Google Store downloads strip unnecessary localized assets at download time. This used to be a BIG deal back when icons were bitmaps; but compiled binaries do provide COMPLETE pre-rendered sets of bitmap icons if your downlevel minimum version (Android 5.0? Android 6.0?) extends that far. Which are then stripped whenever you download to modern phone. Assuming that you have SVG replacements for all legacy bitmap icons. Perhaps Gmail does not. So if there are multiple localizations, that would suggest that either the user is measuring the pre-installed app (which almost immediately upgraded and is therefore effectively replaced), or has obtained the APKs from a different source.
The publicly available email app in the Android sources is NOT gmail (and is therefore likely to be unloved and uncared for, and probaly will contain massive blobs of bitmap icons. So if it was that...
Any native code ALSO bloats compiled binary size dramatically (since binaries include code compiled for each processor you have selected when you performed the native build). Unnecessary binary blobs are stripped by the Play Store when you download. It is conceivable that gmail carries ancient crusty pieces of native code, I suppose, given its long heritage.
And also includes pre-compile maps to speed up startup. Very strange process. Apparently, the Google Play Store profiles the startup of the first 20-odd users who download your app, and then transmit the pre-compile map to all subsequent downloads. I'm not sure whether apps are pre-jitted at install time or whether the pre-jitted code is downloaded from the Play Store.(Play Store does tells you they are going to do it when you upload, and -- sure enough -- load time "magically" improves by a significant amount shortly after you push the binary to production. I don't honestly know whether pre-jitting has taken place before first load. (And whether that code shows up as cache space or app size).
Compat frameworks, on the other hand.... absolutely yes! I'm not sure that native Android framework code EVER gets executed on a modern app, to be honest. Almost all compat layers, and extensions, I think.
>iOS apps also need to include all localized assets in each app bundle.
Is this a hard requirement? I use two languages or at best three. The other 100 language don't matter to me. Why do I have to waste space on my smartphone. This adds up if I have hundreds of apps.
When I doing mobile app development a decade ago, I found that many interviewers and clients were evaluating my experience more like an artist's portfolio, alongside a couple of arbitrary metrics to determine app scope
One of those arbitrary metrics was bundle size, how many megabytes on the app store was the app. The bigger the better and more serious it was.
At the time I was knee deep in optimizations, using SVGs, doing compression, even bitshifting, to make apps smaller for the companies I worked for. Reducing how many people would be bounced from downloading or installing the app.
And yet, that impressive 12MB app from a venture backed company with hundreds of thousands of users was getting me penalized for taking up so little space
I literally started putting dummy files in the app bundles and it worked for my professional goals. All kinds of premium marketing has similar fictions in them to convey value
so I can emphasize how its the difference between $50/hr upwork gigs inconsistently, and $500,000/yr at Google
Back in the time of 3.5" demo disks, I know one group that filled up their disk image with random numbers so it wouldn't compress so it would look bigger and more impressive in file listings.
This seems to be true for writing code generally. Why do something simple when you can show off how complex you can make a project?
I keep seeing tools that should be a for loop inside a script that instead are a sprawling project with all sorts of different files and class hierarchies and abstractions...
As long as you don't need a lot of hi-res graphics. One of the no-frills icon themes installed on my Linux laptop (from which I'm typing) is 170M, just because it has a pack of icons rendered for each of the 8, 16, 18, 24, 32, 48, and 64 pixel sizes.
(And no, vector icons are not equally useful in this whole range of resolutions; you need to lower the level of detail for small resolutions to avoid pixel sludge, and increase the level of detail for high resolutions to avoid the barren look. Still, say, 3 versions in SVG format could be sufficient.)
Part of it is resolution. The icons and such in apps are much larger now than they were in 2013. Besides that I mentioned this in another thread but rarely will a team clean up after itself. There's probably tons of dead code and what not in a lot of these larger apps. I know all the ones I've worked in had a lot of bloat just from years of work. Some feature gets added 5 years ago by a team that no longer exists, it was turned off and no longer used but who is going to remove it?
Besides that, there's just a lot of garbage that gets added by various people with different interests. An unoptimized version of the app I'm currently working on has a ~15mb binary, the core app not including all the "extras" people have asked for. It has about 75mb of assets, probably 10-15% are unused but I have no idea. The download size is about 400mb.
> An unoptimized version of the app I'm currently working on has a ~15mb binary, the core app not including all the "extras" people have asked for. It has about 75mb of assets, probably 10-15% are unused but I have no idea. The download size is about 400mb.
I remember my first PC had a HD of around 20Mb. It was vast at the time, I had so much software to keep me busy for a while that I I felt overwhelmed. Amongst those there was Windows 3.0, taking probably a whopping 3mb
My first PC (my parents splurged on a high-end machine (for the time, of course) only had 8MiB of memory and a 1 GiB HDD. It ran windows 95 and encarta just fine.
Guys, do you think AI is like newage bloatware? Like, it's gigabytes of just things you're never going to need, and now ram prices are skyrocketing because they have no idea how to make it efficient.
In fact, they state the oppposite: To really make it go, they need petawatts of energy and compute. It's like Windows incarnate.
>"I had no idea common apps used to be just 10-30 MB"
I wrote native Windows desktop application 10 years ago that still brings me some money. It has boatload of functionality and the size is 12MB. Competitors have similar app written in .NET. The install is about 1GB.
There are full-featured operating systems that fit on like one or a few floppy disks. Standard Linux distros would fit on a standard 600-700 MB CD, with some made for mini CDs being much smaller.
A significant portion of larger sizes is likely due to how Google handles shared code across its iOS suite. They rely heavily on a shared C++ backend (using tools like J2ObjC or similar internal transpilers) to keep logic consistent between Android, iOS and of course the web.
When you pull in the gmail dependency from the internal monorepo, you are most likely pulling in the entire visual stack for Google meet, chat and spaces, plus the heavy protocol buffer definitions and gRPC libraries that underpin them.
Even if you don't use the "meet" tab, the binary could be including the video codecs, the real-time transmission logic plus the AR filter assets, because the app is compiled as a "Super App" container rather than a modular mail client. I feel it's an organizational artifact as much as a technical one.
This is more like the what causes these apps to be so large, but when you ask why then you see that they simply do not care about the amount of space they take on users’ devices. There’s no obvious effort to reduce app size with modular design, it simply feels like they don’t care.
As a Google engineer, I believe it is largely accurate to say that we "don't care", or at least "not caring" is the emergent behavior at Google. There are many things we don't care about at Google that I think would shock many engineers who have a healthy amount of pride in craftsmanship. It's hard for me to precisely describe why we "don't care", but I will try anyways.
As the parent commenter has pointed out, pulling in client code can be very large. If the backend team owns the client code, they may not be properly incentivized to improve the product of the clients, sadly. And calling it the backend "team" might be overly simplistic. There may be additional layers to the the client code owned by other teams, such as different protocol implementation and definitions of those protocols, etc. Pushing for change can be viewed negatively, since it could leave a poor impression. E.g. if you improve someone else's code, that could make them look bad, and that would have negative consequences for you as you have violated (a variation of) Greene's first law of power: never outshine the master.
Since the code and the organization are so convoluted and complicated, it's a lose-lose proposition. If you mess up your optimization, you will get blamed. Even if you succeed, you may have reduced someone's reputation of someone you can't even identify in the bureaucracy, and thus have made an enemy of someone you can't even identify.
I think a simpler explanation the some of the others is.. why care? Phones these days, even cheaper ones, have oodles of GB available. They're not losing customers from the size. And I don't think making it smaller is going to draw in new gmail/workspace customers. So why spend time on it when there are tons of new features or active bugs that could be fixed instead?
Right, I wouldn't be surprised of the app includes its own cryptography instead of relying on platform libraries, and/or contains what amounts to a userspace network stack in the form of QUIC (Cronet).
Very insightful, rather than unjustified speculation. Of course it doesn’t explain why many other apps are so big, e.g. Withings, Bunq (bank), and Albert Heijn (supermarket) together eat 1GB of my storage. All 3 are things I need to list data, but somehow are the size they are.
I don't know much about app development, but I was curious and downloaded the Albert Heijn apk for ARM64. Inside the apk, the three largest entities are:
- libflutter.so 140 MBytes (flutter, obviously)
- flutter_assets 29 MBytes (this is a directory. The name is a bit misleading because it mostly consists of AH-specific icons.)
- libapp.so 20 MBytes (also related to flutter, I think)
There is a 640 KByte json file in the assets that stores an animation in base64 format. Now you know what the CPU and storage resources of your devices are used for nowadays...
It's pretty much the results of inter-platform competition. None of the actors want to use what the others are making for various reasons which I think are valid. For example, history has showned that being completly dependant on Apple tooling/frameworks/APIs isn't really a good idea because they are not a trustworthy player.
The same thing could be said about the reverse I guess and about most companies in general.
Software really has a big dependency problem because the sellers always bundle it with a service or a hardware in order to make money. I doubt it can be solved, since one has to make money somehow.
The table at the end is seriously misguided. You can’t compare the sizes of an iOS preinstalled app against a non-preinstalled app. It’s just a thin UI shell where the code for all the functionality is inside system frameworks. The Photos app is quoted at 4.2MB. Guess what, if you delete that, you still have system components to render photos, UI for a photo picker, perform analysis on photos such as face recognition, all the iCloud networking code to support iCloud Photo Library, etc.
You can though because a lot of those things you're talking about are available for any app. Sure Apple does have some private frameworks and what not that aren't available to everyone but I imagine if you wanted to recreate what the photo app is doing you'd be able to in 4.2mb or less.
The iCloud Photo Library doesn’t have any public APIs that I know of. You simply can’t recreate the Photos app completely, regardless of app sizes. Apple values deep integration into the system more than it values giving third party developers a fair chance at cloning their app.
> why is the Gmail app almost 80x the size of the native Mail app?
Apple Mail leverages libraries and frameworks already present on the device.
Google uses libraries and frameworks very likely already present on say Android, but on iOS they have to ship a gigantic runtime that implements those things the app depends on; this way they only have to write the app once for several supported platforms.
I’m just speculating by the way but it sounds like the likely reason.
You’ll notice Google Docs or sheets are equally gigantic because each also ships a copy of those enormous runtimes.
There's actually a bit more to it than that. A lot of what Apple apps actually do is hidden in frameworks made for that one specific app, which, unlike with 3rd-party applications, are part of the system, not of the app itself.
Compare the size of Safari.app versus Safari Technology Preview.app (which actually ships all the frameworks it needs).
I don't think that Safari should be used for comparison here since web views have a special place in the OS. Which of the other stock apps have a similar architecture?
To add to the comparisons. Protonmail is showing as 180 MB on GrapheneOS. Add in user data and cache and it's 495 MB. I don't consider myself a big email user so I am a bit appalled.
Windows 98 and Office 97 in their entirety are less than 700MB combined. How have things gotten so out of hand that a single email client needs more than an entire OS and office suite used to?
I’m sorry but ~700MB of compiled code, text, and vector graphics is a lot of assets, almost a truck load. It doesn’t look like they care about how much space they take in users’ devices at all.
There's a few other apps that are ridiculously big. Like the DJI Mimo app. It's an app I need for my DJI Mic, to change 4 settings on it. It needs 800MB for that which is absolutely ridiculous. Also I need to sign up for an account to use it even though the Mic works completely locally and it just changes the settings over USB.
It's absolutely fucking ridiculous to have an 800MB app for this and the reason is just marketing. It's full of stupid videos promoting their stuff. And the account just causes stupid spam. I should have returned the damn thing to be honest.
Ps pardon my french but I'm really annoyed about this and in this case it's warranted in my opinion. 800MB is ridiculous.
I call it Marketing Driven Development, having lived through it at a previous job. It really sucks. They give engineers no time to breathe and do maintenance code changes.
Doesn't the Mimo app work for many devices not just your mic? While your mic might not need a lot of the code, someone using one of their other devices might not need your mic's code either. I can totally see why DJI would want a single app to control any of the DJI branded devices rather than dealing with multiple app store approvals. It would also be confusing for the end user as in "Which device am I using so which app do I need to use" would be a nightmare for all involved.
DJI lost the plot years ago unfortunately. They reeeeally wanted their app to be this whole bespoke platform experience thing and it’s been downhill ever since.
Apps like that often contain (many?) short high resolution videos to show how to do an initial connection or something that can take up a ton of space.
The article is the question though, the question deserved to be asked.
And Gmail deserve to be shamed for shipping almost a gigabyte of stuff for a mailbox. Wouldn't be surprised if they accidentally/intentionally built the whole youtube client in there.
I think this might be closer to the truth than you might think.
Due to the absence of (cross-app) shared libraries on at least iOS, developers often end up building big company-internal libraries that then have to be shipped with all of their apps.
Tree shaking isn’t perfect, and the result are these > 0.5 GB monstrosities.
Gmail started by giving 1 GB of free storage to users as a carrot. Over 2 decades later, how much does it really matter if the app goes from 70% of that down to even 10% of that, and would that outweigh what else people actually want to see done instead?
I mean, it's certainly not anything to boast about from a technical perspective. I just don't know whether it's really enough to warrant any shame for the product though.
It's not just Gmail. Most of the popular apps on iOS are literally 10x bigger than their Android versions. It's hard to find a popular iOS app that's smaller than an Electron app.
Instead of Gboard, get Anysoft keyboard from https://f-droid.org, enable Gestures in the settings. You'll thank me later.
Also, F-Droid has different keyboard layouts for Ansyoft such as better ones for SSH and OFC language related layouts.
Well, something fishy is going on because there is literally no way that Safari, in its entirety, is 5.1 MB. The numbers for the others app seem similarly off.
It would be really hard to believe that somehow Apple has found some magic formula to make their apps 100x smaller than Google and Microsoft.
Much more likely is that the reporting by the OS is off somehow (probably most of the app functionality is tied up in shared resources counted towards system files, and not counted towards the app's size).
With respect, I would expect more from articles posted on Hacker News. More thorough research, and in fact an answer to the question.
Safari is not a WebKit wrapper. Out of the box, WebKit can only display web views inside rectangles, and nothing else. A web browser is a lot more than its rendering engine.
The article compares the native (iOS) mail app which is (from the article) 8.7MB. What I believe is happening is that the gmail app is not a native app, it is some cross-platform monstrosity, so Google has to bring all the widgets and doo-dads that they wrote so that it looks just like it does on all the other platforms. The native iOS mail app is so tiny because part of iOS that the article mentions taking up 25GB contains all the native widgets and doo-dads that the native mail app can use.
I think that's true and it's also a convenient way to "smuggle" in Google's most important doodads: their tracking apparatus which includes all of the single sign on and MFA stuff on top of the usual analytics
It’s wild when you put it into context. I remember when Gmail first opened to the public with a whopping *1 GB* of storage… now the app alone almost exceeds that.
Readit News
With charts:
https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/the-top-iphone-apps-are-tak...
I had no idea common apps used to be just 10-30 MB. But are now hundreds of MB.
Something like Gmail doesn't have massive hi-resolution bitmap graphics. Since the article doesn't give any answer, I'm assuming it's a hand-wavy "frameworks", but that's an enormous amount of compiled code.
More like a few dozen kilobytes to a handful of megabytes. If you look in F-Droid you can find some good old apps where graphics are either small or it uses the default styles for buttons and the like
Looking at a tiny utility app I made 6 years ago, it's 9KB, most of which will be the default things the compiler includes
According to my phone it's 25MB.
There's no assets, not even an app icon.
I have no idea what would be taking up more than a few hundred kb, let alone 25MB.
A "hello world" Android starts at ~5MB.
It is possible to make it smaller if choosing some non-default different tools.
This is Android, but: 13+ years ago I had an HTC Desire. I was really struggling with internal storage space, regularly uninstalling and replacing apps just to be able to update others. Eventually I moved to custom ROMs just because they allowed some apps to be moved to the SD card.
I remember the biggest problem was WhatsApp, which was somehow over 7MB while the average was closer to 1MB.
On my current phone WhatsApp is 231MB. It's still pretty high up in the rankings, but doesn't stand out, and barely any apps are below that then-huge 7MB.
Other than that, some popular and useful libraries will bundle native libs (for example for sql), and some ad/analytics/corporate SDKs will use native libs to share code between platforms and for obfuscation. These corporate SDKs (like Zendesk) will also notoriously break Android minification tools, because why bother
It's sad the laziness that happens when there's no pushback. The devs gain barely anything from leaving things this bloated, but barely anything isn't zero so now a million people have to deal with big files and wasted RAM.
I know the thousand legitimate reasons why modern apps are larger. It's not all bloat and inefficiency, either, except in the harshest sense that old apps tended to use byte-optimized data structures like linked lists instead of faster, but less space-efficient structures like hash maps. They have to deal with higher resolutions, although the command to draw an empty white 320x200 square on the screen should be approximately the same size as to draw a 2000x1500 one. And yet, wow, it doesn't seem like it should need to be that much bigger.
[0] https://aminet.net/package/comm/yam/YAM20
I don't know why iOS apps in general are so much larger than Android apps (that doesn't just seem to be a Google problem) but you certainly don't need the full size of the Gmail app.
With dynamically linked frameworks you bear the cost of the entire framework (and its dependencies) even if you just use a few functions.
iOS apps also need to include all localized assets in each app bundle.
Of course, there were multi-hundred-MB software packages in that era, but they were complex, multifunctional, and highly capable. And IIRC all of Microsoft Office (RIP!) except for some rarely used extras still managed to fit in one CD for a long time.
Also, afaik, it is possible to ship an iOS app in a way certain modules can be downloaded as needed.
It would be nice if Google paid some respect to user devices, or at least go back to “don’t be evil”
The publicly available email app in the Android sources is NOT gmail (and is therefore likely to be unloved and uncared for, and probaly will contain massive blobs of bitmap icons. So if it was that...
Any native code ALSO bloats compiled binary size dramatically (since binaries include code compiled for each processor you have selected when you performed the native build). Unnecessary binary blobs are stripped by the Play Store when you download. It is conceivable that gmail carries ancient crusty pieces of native code, I suppose, given its long heritage.
And also includes pre-compile maps to speed up startup. Very strange process. Apparently, the Google Play Store profiles the startup of the first 20-odd users who download your app, and then transmit the pre-compile map to all subsequent downloads. I'm not sure whether apps are pre-jitted at install time or whether the pre-jitted code is downloaded from the Play Store.(Play Store does tells you they are going to do it when you upload, and -- sure enough -- load time "magically" improves by a significant amount shortly after you push the binary to production. I don't honestly know whether pre-jitting has taken place before first load. (And whether that code shows up as cache space or app size).
Compat frameworks, on the other hand.... absolutely yes! I'm not sure that native Android framework code EVER gets executed on a modern app, to be honest. Almost all compat layers, and extensions, I think.
Likewise on Android, on the NDK, and R8/D8 take care of removing all the extra stuff as well.
Sandboxed applications don't make sense to have dynamic linking beyond what is required by some OS workflows, e.g. loading native code into ART.
Is this a hard requirement? I use two languages or at best three. The other 100 language don't matter to me. Why do I have to waste space on my smartphone. This adds up if I have hundreds of apps.
Google Meet was launched in March 2017.
One of those arbitrary metrics was bundle size, how many megabytes on the app store was the app. The bigger the better and more serious it was.
At the time I was knee deep in optimizations, using SVGs, doing compression, even bitshifting, to make apps smaller for the companies I worked for. Reducing how many people would be bounced from downloading or installing the app.
And yet, that impressive 12MB app from a venture backed company with hundreds of thousands of users was getting me penalized for taking up so little space
I literally started putting dummy files in the app bundles and it worked for my professional goals. All kinds of premium marketing has similar fictions in them to convey value
so I can emphasize how its the difference between $50/hr upwork gigs inconsistently, and $500,000/yr at Google
I keep seeing tools that should be a for loop inside a script that instead are a sprawling project with all sorts of different files and class hierarchies and abstractions...
(And no, vector icons are not equally useful in this whole range of resolutions; you need to lower the level of detail for small resolutions to avoid pixel sludge, and increase the level of detail for high resolutions to avoid the barren look. Still, say, 3 versions in SVG format could be sufficient.)
Besides that, there's just a lot of garbage that gets added by various people with different interests. An unoptimized version of the app I'm currently working on has a ~15mb binary, the core app not including all the "extras" people have asked for. It has about 75mb of assets, probably 10-15% are unused but I have no idea. The download size is about 400mb.
What are the other 310?
Deleted Comment
We crossed lunacy long ago.
I agree, that we crossed lunacy long ago, and that LLMs have not helped in the slightest.
This is one of the reasons why these apps grow: because the user doesn't notice!
In fact, they state the oppposite: To really make it go, they need petawatts of energy and compute. It's like Windows incarnate.
I wrote native Windows desktop application 10 years ago that still brings me some money. It has boatload of functionality and the size is 12MB. Competitors have similar app written in .NET. The install is about 1GB.
Phones used to have 4GB of flash memory... Some had 2GB.
When you pull in the gmail dependency from the internal monorepo, you are most likely pulling in the entire visual stack for Google meet, chat and spaces, plus the heavy protocol buffer definitions and gRPC libraries that underpin them.
Even if you don't use the "meet" tab, the binary could be including the video codecs, the real-time transmission logic plus the AR filter assets, because the app is compiled as a "Super App" container rather than a modular mail client. I feel it's an organizational artifact as much as a technical one.
(And yes I know it’s a tiny fraction of the size, let me have my fun).
This is more like the what causes these apps to be so large, but when you ask why then you see that they simply do not care about the amount of space they take on users’ devices. There’s no obvious effort to reduce app size with modular design, it simply feels like they don’t care.
As the parent commenter has pointed out, pulling in client code can be very large. If the backend team owns the client code, they may not be properly incentivized to improve the product of the clients, sadly. And calling it the backend "team" might be overly simplistic. There may be additional layers to the the client code owned by other teams, such as different protocol implementation and definitions of those protocols, etc. Pushing for change can be viewed negatively, since it could leave a poor impression. E.g. if you improve someone else's code, that could make them look bad, and that would have negative consequences for you as you have violated (a variation of) Greene's first law of power: never outshine the master.
Since the code and the organization are so convoluted and complicated, it's a lose-lose proposition. If you mess up your optimization, you will get blamed. Even if you succeed, you may have reduced someone's reputation of someone you can't even identify in the bureaucracy, and thus have made an enemy of someone you can't even identify.
Right, I wouldn't be surprised of the app includes its own cryptography instead of relying on platform libraries, and/or contains what amounts to a userspace network stack in the form of QUIC (Cronet).
- libflutter.so 140 MBytes (flutter, obviously)
- flutter_assets 29 MBytes (this is a directory. The name is a bit misleading because it mostly consists of AH-specific icons.)
- libapp.so 20 MBytes (also related to flutter, I think)
There is a 640 KByte json file in the assets that stores an animation in base64 format. Now you know what the CPU and storage resources of your devices are used for nowadays...
Software really has a big dependency problem because the sellers always bundle it with a service or a hardware in order to make money. I doubt it can be solved, since one has to make money somehow.
Apple Mail leverages libraries and frameworks already present on the device.
Google uses libraries and frameworks very likely already present on say Android, but on iOS they have to ship a gigantic runtime that implements those things the app depends on; this way they only have to write the app once for several supported platforms.
I’m just speculating by the way but it sounds like the likely reason.
You’ll notice Google Docs or sheets are equally gigantic because each also ships a copy of those enormous runtimes.
Compare the size of Safari.app versus Safari Technology Preview.app (which actually ships all the frameworks it needs).
It's absolutely fucking ridiculous to have an 800MB app for this and the reason is just marketing. It's full of stupid videos promoting their stuff. And the account just causes stupid spam. I should have returned the damn thing to be honest.
Ps pardon my french but I'm really annoyed about this and in this case it's warranted in my opinion. 800MB is ridiculous.
lol remember the Karma?
Gmail has no such excuse.
The past year or so I've stopped buying stuff with an app before checking out how big the app is (if I plan to use it).
If enough people actually did that, the companies would start caring.
Dead Comment
And Gmail deserve to be shamed for shipping almost a gigabyte of stuff for a mailbox. Wouldn't be surprised if they accidentally/intentionally built the whole youtube client in there.
Due to the absence of (cross-app) shared libraries on at least iOS, developers often end up building big company-internal libraries that then have to be shipped with all of their apps.
Tree shaking isn’t perfect, and the result are these > 0.5 GB monstrosities.
I mean, it's certainly not anything to boast about from a technical perspective. I just don't know whether it's really enough to warrant any shame for the product though.
Why IS the Gmail app 700MB?
WHAT THE FUCK!
There are 4k videos there...
Just unbelievable.
Gboard 247MB
Google 415MB
Google Play Services 1330MB
Google Play Store 165MB
Messages 321MB
Gmail 233MB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
It would be really hard to believe that somehow Apple has found some magic formula to make their apps 100x smaller than Google and Microsoft.
Much more likely is that the reporting by the OS is off somehow (probably most of the app functionality is tied up in shared resources counted towards system files, and not counted towards the app's size).
With respect, I would expect more from articles posted on Hacker News. More thorough research, and in fact an answer to the question.