Fully agree. I think this question about a proposed name change is a typical example of the XY problem. Make it so that users don’t have to care about the difference. I’d consider myself a medium advanced user in the space of HA users, and a very advanced user in the real world. I don’t even know what decides that certain functionalities need a separate container and others don’t. And tbh I don’t care much either.
I’m not 100% sold on the idea of changing it to apps; the idea of having apps at two ends of the spectrum (ones to support the end user interacting with the ecosystem and ones that provide supporting infrastructure) just doesn’t quite sit right with me.
I think, though, it’s foolish to consider this proposal separately from a wider proposal for ensuring that all of the naming is still fit for purpose.
I’m also a bit lost as to whether this proposal is backed by any real data that suggests it’s a necessary change - has this come up as an issue in the community survey?
I can’t vote because you missed “Add-on Apps”.
Excellent idea.
Whatever 
(It’s just a democracy simulator 
)
IMHO, the term “App” appeared as a marketing term for mobile “App Stores” 
with the increased use of phones slowly evolving the term into a generic for any software. In the usage that reaches my ears, it has become almost meaningless.
I will concede that Music Assistant or AdGuard Home have more of a case to be called an Application (capital A, oldskool) as they have a function all their own and can be run separately (atomic).
The Shelly Integration extends Core for a new device - it has no purpose on its own. It is a driver library, a component, not an Application, not an application.
The Android HA “app” has no purpose without HA itself, so is an “app” due to being in an “app store”, but to me it can’t be an Application.
Again, the issue is not how we define “Application”, but how the term is going to be used here and in Discord, email, etc. We need to choose terms that are distinct and meaningful for effective communication especially for non-native English speakers.
This disucssion already shows Application is confused with “App Store” , app, etc.
Put me in the camp of App Add-on or similar for existing external documentation continuity reasons if a change is indeed done.
But simply renaming Add-ons to Apps blurs a distinction of what an Add-ons role actually is in the context of HA vs. what an App is on a phone or similar. In the HA case they are adding to the core functionality of HA itself - and are tightly coupled to HA’s overall functioning and it’s comparatively narrow end purpose.
In the phone context, Apps are more along the lines of something the user installs and then interacts with in a way that is largely independent of the phone itself or most of the other apps also installed on the phone. The phone device just a means to host them all in one place, so the Apps in the case of phones isn’t typically adding to the function of, or integrating with, all of the other things also running on the phone. In the HA case they (Add-ons) do.
So in reality the HA server and it’s SW core isn’t truly the equivalent to a phone type device, or even a typical desktop computer for that matter. The HA back-end HW/SW is much more narrowly defined in it’s purpose.
Why not Add-on Services
That’s not going to be good.
We used to have services before it was renamed to actions.
With old guides still existing that could be very confusing.
Add-Ons are entrenched everywhere forums to YouTube clips etc.
Add-Ons have been a feature of HA since 2017 (7years) when it was “Hass.io”
You have managed to shake the Branding of Hass / Hassio which was implemented in 2020.
It is now natural to say HA, HAOS or Home Assistant.
People will adapt to change.
2013 - Estimated <1,000 users
2017 - Estimated 70-100 thousand users
2025 - Estimated 2.5-3.5 million users
2030 (5 years from now) Estimated: 6–8 million active users
2035 (10 years from now) - Estimated: 10–15 million active users
I agree to changing it to “App” or “App Add-On”, the estimated amount of potential new users is far greater than the current user base.
The current user base will know an “App” was once an "“Add-On” and in time the terminology of “Add-On” will fade.
Much like “Services” to “Actions” which also makes more sense to someone coming in
12 Years has past since Hass.io was first developed and there is a lot more years than that ahead of us.
Assimilating to more commonly used language will help reduce the learning curve of new users.
Who knows, new users (even with 40 years in IT) may not have to “Reset the Frontend Cache” anymore ONLY after looking it up to make sure it is what they thought it was “Reset Browser Cache”
Unfortunately some of these Architectural naming conventions should have been changed years ago. But that is a direct result of the user base at the time.
Early days would have been Developers, with a more technical language and knowing programming as a job.
Then it was the Tech-Savvy a generation that grew up knowing what it meant to program each line of Asteroids prior playing it and if you got any line wrong you had to start again.
The new generation of users (no-offense, when I say this) have the attention span of a Tik-Tok, know how to download and use an App. But may not know fundamental knowledge of how it works.
We need to keep up with the times, commonplace and intuitive language where it can be used.
I’d actually argue that we shouldn’t lower ourselves to the brain capacity of tiktok users simply to help them survive in the world…
I was actually going to change my argument for just that expected response @sparkydave. There will be a lot of new and technically proficient people coming in as HA gets more popular and they get sick of just simple App control.
But we do have the next generations coming in as they get old enough to have houses of their own.
Also there will be a point in time in the future where AI will just do this all for us, but we are not there yet.
Find three places on the internet that define the term “app”, so the function of the integrations and the addons are clearly understood and distinguish from each other.
I have to repeat my objection. “App” implies OFFICIAL support, add-on does not. I don’t think the Home Assistant devs would welcome the flood of “my app doesn’t work” when the question should be directed to the add-on developer.
It might in your world, but if you search the web for definition, then you will find there actually is none, so it is what the reader makes it up to be.
That is only more confirmation that add-ons should not be confused with apps.
In my opinion app is less of an official thing than add-on.
Looking at apps for Android or Apple, you wouldn’t hold Google or Apple accountable for a broken app.
Same thing with a Windows app.
An add-on is probably in the unsure category for me.
Looking at the add-on store of HA there is no clear developer where you install the add-on so it could be interpreted as official.
If HA is an OS, then I would call “intergrations” as “Apps” (as they allow me to do specific thingis within the System and are / should be developed for the System).
The thingy that is “Add-on” now, I’d call System Extensions or… Addons. So, well, no need to change it for me xd
But they aren’t applications where addons are applications.
That’s a bit of a misinterpretation of the OS name. HA is not the OS. Home Assistant is a docker container that can be stopped while the OS still is running fine. Just go to Developer tools, select actions and type homeassistant.stop and click perform action. You just killed Home Assistant. The HA web UI will no longer respond, but the OS is still running. Other docker containers, like “Observer” still work fine.
HAOS simply means “An OS purpose built to run the application Home Assistant”. In fact, it goes out of its way to attempt to ensure you can’t modify it meaningfully.