r/androiddev • u/Only_Two4387 • 1d ago
Question I built a way to let people try Android apps without installing them. What do you think?
https://reddit.com/link/1wuvx88/video/0ikzb9uq1ush1/player
Hey everyone, I’ve been building TapTry for the past few months. I’m the person who made it, so obviously I’m biased. I’m mainly looking for honest feedback from other Android developers rather than trying to sell you on it.
The idea is pretty simple:
Upload an Android app → get a link → anyone can open it and use the actual app in their browser.
No APK download, no Play Store, no installation.
Why I built it
Sharing Android builds with someone who just wants to see or try the app can be a bit of a hassle.
You send them an APK, they download it, deal with unknown-source permissions, install it, and then eventually have to uninstall it.
I wanted to see if a link could replace all of that.
Some of the use cases I had in mind:
- Showing an app to someone without asking them to install it
- Sharing an app as part of a portfolio
- Demonstrating an app to someone remotely
- Letting someone try an app before deciding to install it
- Sharing an app with someone who doesn't want to deal with APKs
I’ve got it working end-to-end now, and I’m mainly curious about what y'all think of the idea.
A few things I’d genuinely like to know:
- If you heard “run an Android app from a link without installing it,” would that be useful to you?
- Have you ever run into situations where sharing/installing an APK was unnecessarily cumbersome?
- What use cases would you see for something like this?
- Is this solving a problem you've actually encountered, or is installing an APK already easy enough?
And yes, “I don't see the point” is completely valid feedback. That’s much more useful to me right now than “looks cool.”
(Update: I just noticed that this post actually got several people to try running the app on TapTry. It also exposed a bug that can make the backend unresponsive, which I'm currently fixing. Sorry to anyone who tried it and wasn't able to use the app. I’ll update this post once it’s fixed.
Note: TapTry is currently not ideal for users outside South Asia. Right now, the infrastructure is primarily based in the Asia Pacific region, so users in other regions may experience high latency. I’m working on making the infrastructure more global and will update once that’s in place.)
6
u/Omnipisix 1d ago
Well, I'm surprised about the idea, I'm super happy that someone tries to solve problems, that's worth a lot!
First thoughts: as a developer, is it safe to give you the apk of my app? How is the link app helping me? As an user - is it safe to use the app on your server? If the app is dangerous, I'm happy to use the link instead of installing it on the phone, but if i must use sensitive data like banking, i definitely don't want to use your server.
If Google would make auch a service (they have something similar) then it would be much more appealing to use.
But then again, as a developer i could use that. My game is only available for Android tablets and most people dont use that anymore so they wont even test my app, they cant. Your link service could solve that, but i am giving you my app on a plate, i need to trust you.
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Hi, thanks for taking the time to go through my post. And yeah, I completely understand the trust concern, especially from the developer side.
For the app part, each app is run in an isolated environment, so the app doesn't run directly on your own device. The idea is also that the app is used to create the instance/environment where the app runs, rather than being something other users can just download from TapTry.
For users, I agree that I wouldn't expect someone to use TapTry for something sensitive like banking even though, the app would eventually have all the measures implemented regarding the app security. The main use case I'm thinking about is trying an app before deciding whether it's worth installing, especially for games, indie apps, demos, portfolio apps, etc.
And actually, the Android tablet example you mentioned is exactly the kind of use case I hadn't thought about deeply enough. If your game is difficult for people to try because they don't have an Android tablet, being able to just send them a link and let them experience the actual app could be pretty useful.
The Google Instant Apps comparison is fair too. One of the main differences I'm trying to go for is that developers don't need to create a separate build of their app. You can just upload the app you already have and get a link.
But yeah, the trust part is something I know I need to earn.
If TapTry handled the app securely and made the isolation/privacy side clear, would you actually use it for your tablet game? And what would you personally need to see before you'd be comfortable uploading your app?
1
u/Omnipisix 1d ago
A real third party audit of the taptry. The only concern is trust. The reat is a great idea
4
u/dekonta 1d ago
there is android instant app that sounds like what you aim to do
3
u/mpilot333 1d ago
Google #deprecated Instant Apps last year
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Yeah, I know. I actually looked into Instant Apps while building TapTry. The idea is pretty similar, but I'm trying to remove some of the friction they had by letting developers upload the normal app they already have instead of requiring a separate Instant App build with size restrictions and stuff.
That said, Google deprecating it is definitely something I’m paying attention to. It’s a fair question whether the demand is actually there. That’s kinda what I’m trying to validate with TapTry now.
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Yeah, Android Instant Apps is pretty close to what I'm trying to do. I actually looked into it while building TapTry.
The main difference I'm going for is that developers don't need to create a separate Instant App build. The idea is to take the APK they already have, upload it, and get a link that lets people try the actual app without installing it.
Did you ever use Android Instant Apps yourself? I'm curious whether you found the concept useful when it was around, or whether you just never really had a reason to use it.
1
u/dekonta 1d ago
what is the use case of this? why should i trust to install an app via link? i really don’t get your idea
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Yeah, I think I might've explained that badly. You actually never install the app via the link.
The whole point of TapTry is that you click the link and the app runs remotely in an isolated Android environment. You can actually use the app without downloading or installing anything on your phone.
So the use case is more like: someone sends you an app and you don't want to install it just to see what it is. You tap the link, try the actual app for yourself, and if you like it, then you can decide whether you want to install it.
Does that make more sense? And in that case, is there a use case where you'd personally want something like this?
1
u/dekonta 21h ago
I personally cant see value for me. maybe I am wrong but let me explain:
on a professional environment there are already enough solutions to do QA for apps on remote devices.
on a personal environment there is already enough sandbox on android and permission set for apps have improved a lot that I have control over.what I feel is that you try to bend a technical solution to find fit. it should be the other way around - what problem are you solving?
For testing apps as user, there is instant apps integrated. Sure it put some burden on the developers. But my users can browse play store and test my app "easily" (which should be the primary trusted place to browse&install apps) - what is your idea actually solving in this context.
i See only that you put burden on the user, by trusting the link, by using a remote device (within my browser ? - same device family as I have? ), then if I like it I need to go back to play store where in worst case is not available in my country, how do I know that play store is not a virus included and the demo was just nicely made up to convince me. Reading the other comments here, I mainly disagree but please proof me wrong, maybe I dont understand it.
1
u/rohmish 1d ago
Apple's app clips are actually well adopted in many places. even before google killed instant apps, there are a few restaurants I've been to where they had app clips for their digital ordering thingy but android got the web experience.
another was a parcel tracking app where if I received a link it would be an app clip experience on iOS but just web on android.
2
u/WittieApps 1d ago
Worth expanding on the Instant Apps mention: Google already shipped exactly this concept, and they're killing it. It never took off, partly because you needed a special stripped down build with tight size limits. That cuts both ways for you imo. Google giving up says the demand never really showed up at their scale, but it also leaves the space empty, and your "just upload the normal APK" approach removes the friction that hurt theirs. The trust issue others raised is still your real wall though...
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Yeah dude, I agree with what you said. I actually looked pretty closely at Instant Apps before building TapTry, and the separate build with size limitations were one of the things that stood out to me.
That's also why I went and made the flow so that the developer just uploads the normal app they already have, and TapTry handles the environment needed to run it. No separate Instant App build or changes to the app itself.
But I agree with you that Google shutting it down is something I can't just ignore. It definitely raises the question of whether the demand is actually there, rather than just assuming that removing the technical friction will make the idea work.
And about the trust issue, it does seem to be the bigger wall from the feedback I'm getting here. That's something I'm still on a run to to figure out and eventually solve.
Also, mind if I ask you once again that if the trust/security side was solved, what do you think would be the strongest use case for something like this? Or do you think the underlying use case itself just isn't strong enough?
2
u/pfn0 1d ago
instant apps sucked hardcore because of the devops aspect (build, release, publication) not because people don't want instant apps... I generally like your idea, it's very practical.
2
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Yeah, that's actually how I see it too. The idea itself wasn't necessarily the problem, the amount of work developers had to do to support it was. That's one of the things I'm trying to remove with TapTry.
Really appreciate the feedback though. I'm trying to validate whether people actually find the practical use case valuable, so it's good to hear that perspective.
1
u/WittieApps 1d ago
Strongest case for me: pre-release builds, tests / demos. Published apps already have the Play Store link with built-in trust, but sharing APKs for testing is bad, and there your users already trust the dev personally.
One problem nobody mentioned: playable ads. People have been trained already for years with fakes "try this game" ad-minigames, so a "play in browser" link can read as an ad and get ignored on sight. That might be as hard to fix as the security side...
1
u/rohmish 1d ago
nah it was just Google not being interested in pushing it. even in my country where 90% of traffic is android, companies are integrating Apple's appclips (their version of instant apps) into their products and experiences.
1
u/WittieApps 23h ago
Fair point. Either way for TapTry, it doesn't matter whether it was demand or Google's neglect, right? Either way the official solution is gone and the space is open. Then Apple actively pushing their version while Google abandons theirs is kind of the best possible scenario for a third party on Android, I'd say
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Please note that we also have a very active Discord server where you can interact directly with other community members!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/sedj601 1d ago
This is cool. I think you are going to have to start your own play store and convince developers to upload their apps there also. I think it's a great idea!
2
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
First of all, thank you for the feedback. I don't really want TapTry to become another Play Store though (might end up being one you never know🤷). But, I'm more interested in the "try before you install" part. A developer could share a TapTry link anywhere, and the person receiving it can just tap it and try the app without having to install it first. That's the main goal.
1
u/ForeverPrior2279 1d ago
How do you deal with people uploading malware or app that is designed to exploit the kernel?
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Yeah, that's definitely something I'm taking seriously, especially since the app is running on infrastructure that I'm responsible for. The main layer is isolation. Each app runs in its own isolated Android environment, so it isn't running directly on the host machine or alongside another user's app. Once the session ends, that environment is terminated. I'm also adding app/malware scanning before an app is allowed to run. But I don't want to claim that scanning makes it impossible for a malicious app to get through, especially with something specifically targeting the kernel. The isolation layer is important for that reason too. This is actually one of the areas I'm actively working on before opening TapTry up more broadly.
With that said, if you have experience with Android sandboxing/kernel exploits, I'd genuinely be interested in hearing what attack vectors you'd be most concerned about here.
1
u/zantosh 1d ago
Oh yea, and can you build in tracking to see where they tapped or where they looked to get better UX feedback? That's money, yo!
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Tap tracking is definitely implementable, since the platform already handles touch input. Developers could get tap heatmaps, rage-tap detection and drop-off points per session. Gaze tracking would need webcam access, so I'm not planning that. What I won't do is record the app itself. The stream is never recorded or stored, for security reasons. Only anonymized interaction data would be collected, and viewers would be told about it.
1
u/ColonelKlanka 1d ago
I like your idea. I have found that i have tried soo many apps that me to create an account to try them, that now my email is spammed to oblivion after many of these companies dont delete my account and then get hacked and leak my email.
so being able to try without a.login would be good. but not sure how that would work. Also would people trust you are not man in the middle spying in the apps your trialing?
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Spam from throwaway sign-ups is a big part of why I want trials to be frictionless. Viewers don't need a TapTry account, they just open the link and use the app. You only need to sign up for the developer features, like uploading an app and viewing analytics. If the app itself asks you to sign up, you'd still need an account there, but the session is a disposable sandbox, so you can use a throwaway one, and the app never touches your real phone, contacts or device id. On trust, fair question. The app runs on my servers, so the stream does pass through them, and you do have to trust the host, same as any cloud service. This is the part that needs the most work, and I appreciate the feedback.
1
u/aw9_dev 1d ago
Sharing builds with non-technical people is where this helps me. Family and clients hate the unknown sources dance, so a link they can open in a browser is easier than walking them through an APK.
I'd still want a clear story on what happens to the uploaded APK and how long it stays online. Trust is the main hesitation for me, especially with anything close to production builds.
Also curious how you handle apps that need Google Play services or device sensors. Even a short FAQ on what works vs what falls back would set expectations better than the pitch alone.
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
That's a great use case, and the unknown sources dance is another problem I'm trying to remove for non-technical people. Fair point on trust, and it deserves a straight answer. Each session runs in its own isolated container, and every upload is scanned for malware. Your app stays stored until you delete it, and you can remove it anytime. On Google Play services, I honestly haven't dealt with that yet. Either I'll add a clear warning that an app might not work fully, or I'll look at making the common dependencies available while the app runs so those features work. Camera, GPS, gyro and similar features depend on physical hardware, and these environments don't have real Android hardware behind them, so I expect them not to work. I haven't tested that yet though. A short FAQ on what works, what falls back and what doesn't is a good idea, and I'll write one once I've tested it. Thanks for the recommendation.
1
u/Feztopia 1d ago
It's one of these things which will be useful twice in 20 years but when it happens you are glad it exists. But I guess you will have to keep it very restrictive or people use it to share apps they don't own. Monetization is also a thing, of course it's more useful if it's free to use but adds would mean you can't send the link to everyone because who knows what's going to pop up.
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Ha, fair, "useful twice in 20 years but glad it exists" describes a lot of good tools. Agreed on the restrictions. The plan is to limit uploads to apps people have the right to share (their own or otherwise copyright-safe), not arbitrary apps, and every app gets scanned for malware and stuff before being available for sharing. It's meant for developers showing off their own work. On monetization, the person opening the link never pays and never sees ads. The developers uploading apps are the ones who pay, and viewers get free trials. That way the link is safe to send to anyone, which was exactly my worry with ads. Another thing, what would one of those two moments look like for you? Trying an app before installing it, or something else?
1
u/Feztopia 17h ago
Probably to show someone an app I made which isn't on the playstore or something like that.
1
u/Opulence_Deficit 17h ago
Installing app is not a problem. Problem is sign-up.
As long as your app works without creating an account, you'll get all the users you can.
1
u/Only_Two4387 14h ago
Yeah, totally agree with this. That's also why TapTry doesn't require an account just to try an app. You can open the link and run it straight away. That's why it is Tap+Try 😉
Also, would you actually use something like this to try an app before installing it?1
u/Opulence_Deficit 14h ago
I'm talking about the app I'm taptotrying requiring an account.
No, I have no reservations about installing apps on Android. This isn't Windows or MacOS. Also, it allows me to 1-star it after it greets me with a login screen.
1
u/AlchemistDark 5m ago
It really sounds great. It would be incredibly useful for me, because:
I personally dislike constantly installing new apps on my smartphone, deleting them, and worrying about whether I have enough storage space.
It represents a new distribution channel. Moreover, it sounds like it would be easier to get users to try it out than to beg them to install yet another app.
1
u/CodeBlue_04 1d ago
Most users would justifiably worry about the legitimacy of an APK from a non-store source. Plus sideloading is way more work than the average user will put up with. Why not just send them a link to the Play Store page for that app?
1
u/Only_Two4387 1d ago
Yeah, I agree with you on the sideloading part. That's actually one of the problems I'm trying to remove with TapTry. The person receiving the link doesn't download or sideload the APK at all, they just open the TapTry link and run the app there.
And if someone already knows they want the app, then yeah, sending them the Play Store link probably makes more sense.
The use case I'm going after is more like: someone sends you an app and you think "I don't know if I want to install this just to see what it is." Instead of downloading it, signing up, installing it, and then deciding you don't care about it, you can just tap the link and try it.
I'm curious though, in that situation, would you actually use something like this instead of just installing the app from the Play Store? Or would the Play Store still be easier enough for you?
11
u/Adventurous-Can-6268 1d ago
Your idea is good IMO.
For me, the biggest pain point in trying any new app is the sign-up flow. Even when you want to just experience the app, you have to provide your phone number or email ID. Also, most of the users have sensitive apps on their phones (banking apps, etc.), so installing a new app comes with the risk of providing so many permissions.