> 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
Hello world Android app includes a lot of dependencies like compat libs, constraint layout, kotlin runtime. These are not essential and can be removed.
> 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 know why iOS apps in general are so much larger than Android apps [...]
Rough guess: It probably wouldn't be this dramatic of an increase, but could it be something to do with iOS disallowing Just-in-Time compilation, and forcing Ahead-of-Time? I've always wondered.
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.
You could get localizations OTA, but that's engineering you need to do to make that happen.. or a product you purchase, as there's various localization managers offering these options in their software.
Proper unicode font support is like 1.2GiB (noto, but I haven't found any complete unicode font collections that are significantly smaller). There's bloat for sure, but supporting universal text is one that I think is not a waste of space.
Maybe not proper support, but when I tried NetBSD recently my entire installation was around 1.5 GB on disk and seemed to handle Unicode well enough for me (for languages I care about). Not doubting some more packages would be needed to support every language, but happy everything wasn't installed by default.
Ye by proper i mean being able to render unicode in any language without tofu. I get that not everyone needs that, but its a reasonable thing to have on your disk in 2025.
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.)
I have a couple that are honest sub 5mb apps. Some of my favorite apps on my phone. Limited featureset that does what it says on the tin. Loads instantly. Hardly uses battery at all. I wish everything was like this.
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.
Frameworks from other companies. A lot of it is analytics/tracking, some payment processing, etc. There are a few open source libraries we're using as well but those probably are <5mb if I had to guess although I never checked.
Again, a lot of these companies have also been around so if my app has a ton of bloat from years of work, we're bringing in frameworks from other companies who have been around for years as well and probably have a similar amount of crap in their code. Plus they probably want to track everything we're doing so they're bringing in their own third party libraries. It's kind of ridiculous but that's where we're at.
Bigger companies won't have as many third party libraries as they can afford to do it in house but they're still bringing in similar sized libraries to do the same things.
Imagine, it's not just making sure your code is secure, but your also counting on all those libraries's being secure. Let alone all these frameworks as you say - payment, advertising, analytics... You could have the most secure code ever, but when it is just one link in a chain outside your control, best not overthink it or you won't sleep.
You can see why bug bounties get rewarded well. Though mindful, money is not what drives everyone. Then there are the greedy, in which such exploits value on the black market can be higher. Not forgetting government agencies level.
I wonder which email client will break the 1GB mark, and when we will see a resurgence in reducing bloat. I'm sure that phase will come, did for Microsoft once.
Woof. This is just so wild if one ever stops to think about it. ~300mb of tracking for a single app is bigger than the entire hard drive of a fully internet-capable desktop computer in the mid '90s.
Huh, is there a requirement that they be rasterized at build time? If I had a choice, I'd rather ship the SVGs in the bundle alongside a renderer like ThorVG and render at runtime. The renders could even be cached if the rendering itself was expensive.
If you’re including these assets as UI elements, they would be rasterized anyway and copied to a GPU bound buffer for the frame blit. Doing so at compile time increases runtime performance.
You can of course override this behavior and redraw your vector every 8.3 ms if you want, but I promise you that this is not faster. For sparse pyramid-tiled vector images like Google/Apple maps, this is a two step process using the latter method followed by the former.
Historically, raster graphics won out because they used less resources. Perhaps that's changed. If so, it would make sense for various OS's to start working on native support. Irix did it in the 90's. It can be done now.
Yeah but I would argue that they just used cheaper ressources since historically has been cheaper than compute.
It's not clear if compute can be cheaper than storage still today.
On one hand you can afford to use less storage but you have to use GPU power everytime to draw graphics, if the chip can support the compute requirement you can save on storage, but you pay with higher power draw at every interraction.
On the other hand you can just put more storage, chip assest that are rendered for the device they'll be used on and be ok.
Outside of crisis like now, storage should be cheaper in the long term I think. I doubt there is that much benefit in having assets being able to resize to any arbitrary resolution. The definition used in phones isn't that far away than what is used in laptops, monitors and now even TVs.
Something to think about is that icons/assets often need to change shape slightly as they become smaller or bigger for optical reasons. So even if you manage a fully vector scaled UI, you might still need to have difference depending on DPI to reading distance ratio. Rasterized assests might still be the real answer for a very long time.
Considering how bad is the iOS 26 release on performance, because of its dynamically computed interface, I'm not sure it's worth pursuing vector UIs, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make a more powerfull chip just to draw prettier or more "pure" interfaces...
we've been able to "preserve vector data" with pdf and svg image resources on ios for a long while now... compile-time rasterization is the default though...
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.
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.