Since the article doesn't actually repeat what Apple has said, here's what Apple says:
== Begin quote ==
The iOS system has traditionally provided support for Home Screen web apps by building directly on WebKit and its security architecture. That integration means Home Screen web apps are managed to align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS, including isolation of storage and enforcement of system prompts to access privacy impacting capabilities on a per-site basis.
Without this type of isolation and enforcement, malicious web apps could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent. Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent. Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake given the other demands of the DMA and the very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps. And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU.
EU users will be able to continue accessing websites directly from their Home Screen through a bookmark with minimal impact to their functionality. We expect this change to affect a small number of users. Still, we regret any impact this change — that was made as part of the work to comply with the DMA — may have on developers of Home Screen web apps and our users.
The “low usage” comment is going to be more ammo against Apple unfortunately. The whole reason they are low usage on PWAs is because of a lack of investment from Apple and a lack of parity, yet for the longest time Apple has played both sides by saying PWAs are a viable alternative to the App Store, all while channeling people to App Store for actual app downloads and not providing similar marketing or anything for PWAs
Are you sure this isn't a tech industry viewpoint? I don't know anyone who knows what the difference between an app and a PWA is. I don't think I've seen anyone outside of the tech industry with a PWA active.
In context 99% of the users I meet don't even know what USB-C is.
Apple’s decision is going to kill businesses and break apps used by hundreds of thousands of people in Europe, many of whom are healthcare workers delivering patient care.
From Apple’s PoV, PWAs don’t earn them any money, aren’t forced through review by Apple, and decrease lock-in. There is no incentive for Apple to support PWAs.
> The whole reason they are low usage on PWAs is because of a lack of investment from Apple and a lack of parity
This is a trite argument that hasn’t been true ever since Jen Simmons joined Apple in 2020 and changed the course of Safari significantly to the point that PWAs not only are viable, they have been given feature parity with native apps on many fronts.
Simultaneously, the argument completely bypasses the fact that install rates of PWAs are abysmal on any platform. Whether it be iOS, Android or Windows.
Contrary to what PWA developers, industry organizations and other stakeholders proselytize, PWAs aren’t the second coming and the next best thing since sliced bread. At least not when it comes to install rates.
Edit:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure they’re great as “websites”.
Lord knows people who sell PWAs[0] love to brag about bounce rates and conversion rates and what not.
But there’s a reason why you can find barely anything about install rates other than some vague statistics about individual unnamed PWAs[1] or PWA sellers[2] talking about obviously bogus 10x and 3-5x install rates, and it’s not because the PWA crowd is too shy to brag.
It really doesn't make sense. By that logic, I shouldn't be allowed to load web pages because it's impossible to secure a browser. PWA's only need a few extra integration privileges like badge- and window control, rest is just a web as usual.
What you link is a case of one app (edge) reading the data of another app (chrome), which is entirely unrelated to PWAs.
Why should we trust Apple for security in that context? Apple also provides all those functionalities via their proprietary API, which is not even audit-able. If Apple really believes in that argument, they should disable their own API as well.
Android handles this just fine. These are the world's largest corporations we're talking about, not some mom and pop shop that will be crushed under the heel of overzealous regulation.
> The HN crowed might not LIKE apples response but they have a very defensible position.
You and Apple both are ignoring the fact that these permission APIs exist even if the website isn’t being displayed in standalone/full screen mode. The modern web is built on them, and third-party browser engines WILL provide access to these APIs in Europe.
But the plain browser already can request camera permissions, in a bad security situation a site that didn't request it still receives it from the browser's system level request.
This is just Apple wanting to avoid people being able to develop a platform on top of their platform without paying a tax.
It makes absolutely no sense. Apple could have pointed out to the EU that there are major and not - in the given time - fixable security issues with allowing other browsers on the home screen. PWA runtime platform could be seen as imho. other market than general web browsers. PWA serve niche markets (and corporate in-house) and this move may hurt the long tail in the EU but also globally.
Lol, no. They were fine for years but are not throwing a hissy fit. It's all utter nonsense. Third party apps are subject to the same security guarantees the system has been operating on for years.
But a legislator forced their hand so now they gotta cry about it.
I guess that's why they say that "would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake given the other demands of the DMA and the very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps"
So, as an abusive stepparent, you run the "Spy on Me" PWA on your stepdaughter's phone, and click the permission dialog, and she's none the wiser. Do you think that's great?
You don't want random processes firing off permissions prompts, you want them to remain meaningful to users on a platform else they'll get prompt fatigue. Think of all the prompts users see and just press 'ok' to.
Thanks for posting that. I'm no iOS expert but it actually sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation. It's at least good to hear Apple's side here, and more knowledgeable commenters here can weigh in as to whether it really does seem genuine.
It's a massive blow for PWAs. There are a lot of corporate apps that are PWAs as the app stores do not really support "private" distribution of apps (other than via MDM-based solutions which doesn't work for use cases where you don't control the users' devices). Furthermore, by forcing the apps to load in a browser tab (rather than as a full screen home screen app) it breaks the support for push notifications. In my opinion this is malicious compliance.
"EU users will be able to continue accessing websites directly from their Home Screen through a bookmark with minimal impact to their functionality. "
Does this "minimal impact to their functionality" mean, the app will loose its local data after 7 days of not using the app, like it is for normal websites? That is a pretty heavy impact.
What an absolute crock of shit. Someone at apple must be feeling really, really pathetic lately. Why can't they just get over themselves and actually deliver a useful product instead of trying to achieve cult status?
I've been thinking about this and I think Apple has two motivations.
1. The DMA is striking at the heart of their revenue model by targeting the app store. Tim Cook testified before Congress and said that Apple would be "giving up our total return" on their intellectual property if they did not monetize the app store aggressively. So my read is that this move is intended to prevent a shift to PWAs as a way to get around the new policies.
2. Legislation like the DMA, if successful, could spread to other countries, much in the same way the link tax spread from Australia to Canada. I think Apple has an explicit goal to make this legislation as painful as possible, for both the legislators and the citizens, so that other countries do not attempt to pass similar laws.
There was a time between 2007 and 2011 where I bought Apple computers and was a big fan. These days, despite the very cool new processors Apple has released, it's very hard for me to see them as anything other than antagonistic. What a fall from grace.
Apple's argument was the iOS was a robustly secure platform AND the app store made it even more secure. The reality of the situation looks more like the app store was a bandaid over a maybe-not-as-robustly-secure-as-we-hoped platform.
I think the DMA is not the best legislation. Some parts don't require regulation whereas missing parts definitively require regulation. For example, I cannot publish my app in the app store. I don't need an alternative market. I'd like to have an anti-discrimination law for app publishers (side note, I'm not trying to publish a porn app, just a small productivity app for a limited audience).
In a previous comment [1], I considered abandoning Apple. With this official statement, I'll actually switch to Android. I'll welcome the F-Droid store very much.
Apple, I've been your customer since 2006. I started with the iPod. During this time I had a significant fraction of your lineup. I'm not affected by your changes but I'm using some PWAs. With this erratic behavior, I'm afraid you kill features that I'm using.
I'm a little confused. So that long list of requirements is useless for PWAs?
Some people will actually believe this. I'm utterly disgusted by Apple and their arrogance regarding the DMA, and the way they've managed all of this. My perception of them has completely changed. However, they seem very obedient when China asks them to censor apps or, for example, limit AirDrop when there's a protest going on.
Feels like the same kind of malicious compliance with the rest of their DMA changes:
1. WebKit has access to special OS-level APIs that allow it to install and power web apps.
2. The DMA requires support for alternative browser engines with the same abilities as WebKit.
3. It is reasonable to assume this requirement extends to PWAs.
4. By taking away WebKit's ability to power PWAs, all browser engines are now on a level playing field.
_Could_ they have done it differently? Maybe, maybe not: software development always takes longer than you think, and throwing more engineers at a problem doesn't always make it go faster. Do I think they saw another chance to be petulant and took it? Yes.
So yeah, I'm disappointed, but no more here than with the rest of Apple's DMA response.
> Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture
Translation from Apple talk to real talk: allowing competing browser engines will undermine our grip on the market through lock-in to the engine we fully control. We don't want to lose power. As control freaks, we'll do all we can to sabotage it.
>low usage
This is hilarious. As a developer, if PWAs work properly I'm much more interested in writing them, test them on ios and market them to ios users. If the feature is uncertain, or outright broken like now of course no sane, businesses sense driven dev will spend the time to build a PWA app specifically for iOS.
Oh wow. I'd assumed, in earlier discussions about this, that Apple'd just keep forcing Safari-only for PWA installation and use.
Does the rule not allow that? If so... yeah, as a user deep in their ecosystem and once-developer for the platform, hard agree on this. Whatever their other motivations (and Apple are masters at arranging things so that their interests happen to coincide with legitimate concerns about UX) the user-facing issues expressed are worth worrying about.
Apple cannot simply invoke DMA (50) as a free pass. For its arguments to align with the intent of the legislation, here's a roadmap of what they need to do to justify their security-based restrictions on iOS:
Apple must be transparent about the exact security issues posed by alternative browser engines with concrete instances (not merely speculative risks). They need to prove that these are unique to iOS, given the successful use of unrestricted browser engines on macOS (and every other OS).
Before opting for the extreme step of removing functionality, Apple needs to offer documentation of all the methods for managing and mitigating specific threats that were considered and subsequently ruled out as infeasible (sandboxing, enhanced APIs, etc.). This emphasizes that their actions are indeed the last resort and not merely a way to suppress competition.
The company needs to demonstrate how they would proactively work with browser engine developers to establish strong security controls and threat monitoring on par with or exceeding their current practices for native-only experiences. This shifts the focus to building a safe environment rather than merely limiting the scope of capabilities.
Apple must guarantee that if and when these security challenges are met, it will progressively expand support for unrestricted use of web standards for third-party browser engines. This creates the long-term perspective the DMA is designed to protect and gives confidence to developers investing in advanced web app solutions.
Without taking action in these key areas, Apple's reliance on this DMA portion won't hold up to regulatory scrutiny. They cannot cite generic security dangers then fall back on "practicality" arguments without robust, evidence-backed reasoning.
This would be a lot easier to believe if they allowed you to stop apps from accessing the internet. As they don't, I simply don't buy any argument they make from a privacy or security perspective.
My hat's off to Apple PR on this one: they came up with some spin for why they were adding a malicious component to how they are complying with the DMA.
They're likely not lying when they say that it's more difficult to maintain their security standards while at the same time allowing any browser engine to run PWAs. But this is a problem they absolutely could solve, and a company with Apple's size and skill absolutely has the resources to make this work. But they've chosen not to.
Another option would be to actually engage with EU regulators on the issue, and see if they could carve out an exception -- temporary or otherwise -- to allow them to require PWAs to run under their existing WebKit-based framework, regardless of the default browser. But they've again chosen not to do that.
PWA adoption is likely as low as Apple claims. I think they're toeing a line here: because Home Screen Apps are a bit of a niche feature, they can break it without pissing off too many users, but also give a subtle middle finger to the EU. "Poor Apple users, Apple just has to disable a feature some people like because of the evil, overreaching EU and its burdensome DMA!"
This is a shame in that I personally think we all should be relying less on mostly-closed-source, proprietary apps for everything. While the web platform is a bit of a mess, it actually does (or could) offer the same functionality that native apps do, especially if Apple and Google had worked on that sort of thing over the past 15+ years rather than pushing native apps so hard. We'd be in a much better place if that were the case: consider the savings in time and money if every company out there could just write a single PWA and not have to build two completely separate apps for iOS and Android. (Yes, I know there'd be some extra people dedicated to fixing issues caused minor but significant-enough differences between the platforms, but it'd still be a ton less work than two apps for two different platforms.)
Also consider how much easier it would be for other smartphone platforms to break into the space, if all existing apps (as PWAs in my imaginary smartphone-utopia) would run on their platforms without much work. A big reason I will likely never adopt an alternative smartphone platform is because none of the apps I rely on day-to-day exist on them. Even though I'd absolutely love to ditch Android, but don't consider iOS any more palatable.
Anyway, that ship sailed a long time ago. I'm still bitter about it, though.
Ultimately this won't matter much. The number of people using PWAs on iOS is probably a rounding error. Restrict that to only people in the EU and it's even smaller. But Apple still gets in a jab at the EU over this, and most affected users will likely side with Apple on this one.
> While the web platform is a bit of a mess, it actually does (or could) offer the same functionality that native apps do
I beg people making these claims to look outside their web bubble for at least a nanosecond.
> especially if Apple and Google had worked on that sort of thing over the past 15+ years rather than pushing native apps so hard.
Google couldn't care less about "as good as native". If they did, this project wouldn't have been started by devs from Microsoft (of all companies) in 2020: https://open-ui.org
> consider the savings in time and money if every company out there could just write a single PWA and not have to build two completely separate apps for iOS and Android.
Yes, you should be building native apps for each platform unless your "app" is a barely functioning text-only page.
> malicious web apps could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent.
How is this even possible? It's shocking that these APIs even exist for any browser to use.
I assume you mean the "read data from other web apps" part. That'd be because there's (presumably) not a system-level way to launch a third-party browser in "web app mode", with all data siloed off per-PWA. Thus the only way they could currently make web apps work would be to launch the third-party browser and trust that it silos everything adequately itself internally.
Apple could add a bunch of new APIs to support this case for third-party browsers. Presumably there's something equivalent that's being done for said web apps currently in Safari. But they're not wrong to say that there's not an existing system in place that said third-party browsers are already written to use. (And, you know, they're clearly not invested in trying to make this law succeed.)
They simply could ask browser vendor to follow strict rules, that they can check themselves. This is not like they would have to verify dozens of browsers every day. Only a few per months, top.
They are not saying it is impossible, only that they have not done it. How long do you think it will take to spin up such a review and certification program? How much will it cost, and how many sales will they lose because of the lack of this feature in the EU?
It makes sense. This is one of the many reasons why I’m not in favor of the government demanding things of Apple, it’s not like people don’t have another platform to choose from.
As the governments demand more and more, I predict we will see several monkey paw moments.
so, tldr: Apple tries to bullshit the EU again. EU commission - get them.
They say themselves it would be possible to be compliant with the DMA without removing what is obviously competition they don't like. But they try to take the road which - just by chance, obviously, the security is the real reason - helps them to keep more people away from competition. I don't buy it.
From the (admittedly little) I know about how iOS handles security and the speed at which they responded this sounds like a pretty credible explanation to me. What makes you think it isn't?
>Without this type of isolation and enforcement, malicious web apps could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent
Sounds like Apple is saying webkit is insecure and to not use safari or iOS webviews because if they can't be trusted to run a PWA then they can't be trusted for anything ;3
Said it before and it seems clearer every day, that we're in an era
reminiscent of the 1920s with big mobs fighting it out. One of the old
games back in town is protection rackets [0], digital forms of
ransacking, vandalism, threats and "tax" collecting are all the rage
dontchyknow.
Everyone's got their "security" to give you. But it ain't your
security, and it ain't compatible with noone else's.
Nice app store you got here. Shame if anything might 'appen
to it!
I don’t think Apple’s pettiness is gonna work in their favor.
I am not in the EU but my next iPhone is almost certainly not gonna be an iPhone despite me having used a non iPhone for about 6 months in the last 15 years.
Their throwing their customers under the bus just to throw a tantrum in the EU does not bode well for how they would treat their customers in other situations.
Whatever they manage to eek out in the EU, is the future of what iOS will be in the US and worldwide eventually. If they go with fully fledged PWAs that the other browser engines will enable - there’s little reason to use the Appstore, hence Apple losing their 30% commission.
From their perspective it’s not so much throwing a tantrum but clawing and screaming their way into giving up as little revenue as possible.
And as a developer, I see how I'm going to be collateral damage, and am less likely to do anything that gives Apple more power over me and my customers. If that means a bookmarked web app, so be it.
We also know 70% of revenue comes from games. And there's no way proper game is going run on a PWA.
I also invoke Android again... PWAs exist, Google still holds the lions share. Google has freaked out about it too and is being sanctioned as we speak for it, but most customers simply aren't going to look for an alt app store outside of niche uses.
Im going to ditch my iPhone in favor of a Pixel. This attitude has pushed me over the edge, and the device isn't really any better than Android. Some aspects yes, but other are much worse. Dark patterns like the appstore/web/browsers restrictions and iCloud upselling are a big no-no. Never again.
I still can’t fathom how people can look at the pixel range with their multi-generational emergency call issues and still think “yep, that’s the phone for me”.
> I am not in the EU but my next iPhone is almost certainly not gonna be an iPhone despite me having used a non iPhone for about 6 months in the last 15 years.
Did you just subconsciously equate phones to iPhones in your rebuke of Apple?
To be honest an iPhone and a phone have been synonymous for me for 15 years. The 6 months was a period of madness (or genius, considering I actually loved it) when I was using a Windows Phone, until basically all the 3rd party apps I used dropped support.
What customers? The ones that use PWAs? I would bet a good portion of my arm that fewer than 10% of Apple’s user ship relies on PWAs.
This is Apple saying “if it’s important to you dozen folks out there who use PWAs or care about installing a non-web view browser on your phone, that you can continue doing that, we’re not the company for you.”
This entire mindset is wrong and is exactly what the DMA is trying to address. Apple, Google and other big tech companies aren't just small random companies whose product you can switch between every time they do something you dislike. Due to a lack of interoperability there's huge switching cost associated. They're digital gatekeepers with platform effects massively working in their favor.
But I do like the way Apple does things. To be specific, I want to buy Apple hardware and I want to run Linux on it.
What I don't like is the little digital fiefdom they created. When we buy stuff, we're supposed to own them. The problem is they just refuse to give us the keys to the machines. So we absolutely should make it a matter of law.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at—the statement is that it was too much work to make the feature compliant with the rules of the DMA, so the feature was removed since few people used it.
Are you arguing that Apple is lying about how much work it was to execute that?
In combination with the 'Core Technology Fee' that financially cripples any developer that tries to release a popular app outside the official app store, this is pathetic behavior. Hopefully the EU smacks them down for this temper tantrum at being forced to adhere to the DMA. They are trying to flex their market power and should be reminded they operate within a system of laws that doesn't bend for anyone, regardless of their size.
Yeah, this isn't a parlor game, I have no idea why they think the antitrust pressure will abate by such bad faith nonsense moves. Next step for the EU is to make Tim Cook choose whether he wants to be CEO of the device side or service side of the broken up Apple. It's clear that fining them is useless.
I interpret 6 (a) as basically requiring you to be able to install whatever software you like and to provide no mechanism whereby any fee can be demanded for such installation to be possible.
Apple tries to get around this by this core technology stuff, but APIs aren't even subject to copyright protection, and it's also basic interoperability stuff. I don't think the courts will see it the way I interpret your comment.
Deliberately removing useful features from your own product so that you don't have to let other people implement the same features may be technically conforming to the letter of the law, but is clearly violating it in spirit. The spirit of the law is platform interoperability: your control over the platform shouldn't restrict what other people can make it do (be it "run an app store" or "run a web app").
I’m going to be level with you: there is nothing so great about PWAs that they’re worth mandating or protecting by law in any jurisdiction and the EU doesn’t owe it to you to try.
Web developers like them. That’s it, and their PWA advocacy completely disregards what a privacy and security nightmare they can be without proper safeguards, because this little device I carry around in my pocket is 1) always with me and 2) stores a lot of information about me 3) has a full sensory array installed within it.
Every new feature browsers add for better hardware access gets immediately disabled on any system I manage: cameras, mics, USB access, sensors, location, notifications, local storage, the whole works because the alternative is letting every website access those or getting spammed with access requests on every site I visit and the more crap that is added, the longer it takes me every time I setup a new browser install from scratch. Why disable them at all? Because 99% of these new features are primarily used to build a better supercookie to track and profile people without their consent. The actual marketable reasons are a secondary use at best.
So if it’s not on Apple’s priority list to build out whatever they need to support and allow other browsers to support PWAs in a secure and privacy conscious manner, good for them. Web developers who want to circumvent Apple’s fees entirely don’t need to be anywhere near their top priority and can wait. For Apple: users come before developers, and App developers before web developers.
As a European dev I want apple to fail super hard and implode. They used to be so cool and make slick hardware for their nische but now I'm happy to use worse hardware as long as they disapear from the face of the earth.
Yes, that's the way I feel too. I learned to program on an Apple ][ that I loved, before Jobs started his nefarious business practices. Woz's Apple was cool. Jobs' Apple makes me feel like they want to enslave developers, or at least milk them to the last drop.
It's only turned really cynical under Cook, chargers no longer included, cables sold separately from chargers to nickel and dime customers, refusal to adopt standards like USB-C unless threatened in court, refusing to pay patent license fee for blood O2 monitoring on the Apple Watch and trying to scalp all the talent from the company instead, anti-competitive behavior in the EU. Jobs version of Apple was pretty benign compared to the win-at-any-cost Cook version of Apple.
I feel like that maybe Apple's ideas or innovation has begun to run dry. Now they're just trying to milk every single penny before they become a background player.
Isn't that the one that's super expensive, ships like an unreliable Kickstarter, and lives in a Linux ecosystem that's just a sad replica of old smartphones?
I just wish they weren't the _only_ company making decent hardware. They've made the only laptop trackpads worth a damn since at least 2009, if not earlier, and PC OEMs seemingly have ZERO desire to catch up. They'd prefer to invest in gimmicks like touchscreens.
They ain't never been cool. The shit practices they are trying to defend were there from day 1 and are baked into their DNA. Treating their users like stupid animals that don't know what's good for them is what they do. And they will fight tooth and nail to continue to do it. Even as EU tries to kick their predatory ways out of them.
To think there's a hardware thing in 2024 that does not allow its owner to compile and install arbitrary software while still calling itself a smartphone is just laughable.
It's a good thing people are starting to wake up to this even on legislative level.
> Treating their users like stupid animals that don't know what's good for them is what they do.
The problem I have with that is that they are selling a ContentFilter as an integrated part of their OS, when it can be a separate, optional part, and even offered by a third party.
Also, they equate AppStore == ContentFilter, which are clearly two separate concepts.
Most users are stupid though. Reminder that a US congressman once grilled Google's CEO about whether Google was tracking his iPhone's precise location. And this one was smart enough to con his way into Congress.
"I have an iPhone, and if I move from here and go over there and sit with my Democrat friends, which would make them real nervous, does Google track my movement?" -- Ted Poe
As an American dev I can't wait to see tech companies leave the EU and leave it in shambles as the EU realizes it never learnt how to innovate, only legislate and rent-seek from our companies.
Frankly, the region needs us far more than we need it.
> Frankly, the region needs us far more than we need it.
If that were what companies genuinely felt they'd already have left, but pecunia non olet, even if you have to pay taxes on it
Moreover essentially the only relevant systemic differences between the US and Europe in the tech sector are:
- pre-existing capital
- a better financial system and regulations (of the financial system) in the US (or rather, a combination of quality and size)
- better bankruptcy laws
Even if one of the big companies left the market that'd just leave space for a (at first) slightly worse product/products to fill the niche. Not exactly "shambles"
That’s true, I would always choose to fly Boeing instead of Airbus. Bosch and Siemens don’t exist, and Mercedes certainly didn’t beat Tesla all-hollow with self-driving technology.
These sweeping generalizations are pointless, especially because international finance means a lot of things happen at American companies offices in European countries. Does the fact that you’re using Brotli to view this webpage count for Google or Switzerland? A bumper sticker-level political philosophy probably won’t help there.
> EU realizes it never learnt how to innovate, only legislate and rent-seek from our companies.
That's rich, you ought to look in the mirror. Apple and most of big tech started the "rent seeking and legislation" war by screwing over their users and developers, milking them both for every dime and their approach to so-called "innovation" is surprise - legislation. They've decided to simply ban competition from their platforms, neat!
Stop this bureaucracy in the EU and build something for a change. Shipping for EU is stupid hard. And you guys are declining in economy. Pretty soon, there won't be any economic arguments to continue doing business in EU with all the cost of this bureaucracy involved.
1) You can predict the future economic state of the EU as well as the next person
2) Most of the "bureaucracy" that hits small to medium sized companies is the GDPR, which any business with the slightest of integrity should have no problem to follow
Very questionable argumentation. This can be seen from two different angles:
1. PWA is a native wrapper for a web application, not a browser. It is supposed to be limited to the app website. DMA does not tell Apple that every app with embedded WebView should offer users possibility to switch the engine. Why PWA should be treated differently here? I‘d rather clarify this with regulators first, before harming end users.
2. There’s no browser engines currently supporting PWA on Apple mobile devices. Apple has enough resources and time to figure out how to sandbox PWAs on other engines together with the first browser vendor that decides to offer such support and commit engineering resources to this project. In the meantime current solution could stay simply because it does not hinder any competition.
I’m not a legal expert, so maybe I miss something here. But Apple statement does not look convincing to me.
>I don’t see how that’s related to the issue being discussed.
PWA is not a browser, it is a native app using a browser engine to render a specific website.
>Why do you think “you can install a third party browser, but if you do, you can’t add PWAs to the Home Screen” doesn’t hinder competition?
I literally explained it in my comment you are replying to, but I can repeat. Competition does not exist yet. Browsers do not offer PWA support out of the box, it is a feature to be implemented separately from rendering engine. See Firefox on Windows for an example — it doesn’t support PWA out of the box. This feature has to be built: if Apple were to hinder the competition, they would resist it by not offering the APIs. But they can offer them through the cooperation with vendors, even if those APIs do not exist yet. Say, Mozilla comes and asks for APIs: Apple starts negotiating and proposes the compatibility requirements and a reasonable timeline. They both work on their part and eventually Firefox is released with PWA support. Who would fine or sue them if it worked this way? How the violation of DMA could be proven?
> Why do you think “you can install a third party browser, but if you do, you can’t add PWAs to the Home Screen” doesn’t hinder competition?
Because you can't add PWAs to the Home Screen if you use the first-party browser, either. The whole point of this article is they're turning off PWAs for Safari so that they're all on the same feature footing.
> In the meantime current solution could stay simply because it does not hinder any competition.
As I understand it, this is specifically not allowed by the DMA, since it would be considered an unfair advantage to Safari, if that browser/engine was the only one allowed to run PWAs.
By the same logic the mere existence of Safari would be unfair because other browsers are not ported yet. This is of course incorrect reading of DMA. Have a look yourself:
If Apple demonstrates that the entry barrier is sufficiently low by cooperating with other vendors, how one could possibly build a legal case under DMA against them? On the contrary, by disabling PWA in Safari Apple acts as a gate keeper complicating access to the platform for business users. THIS is what DMA forbids.
Also it has to be taken into account that the less PWA engines exist the lower is actually the entry barrier. We only need 2-3 competing solutions max to support innovation without harming PWA developers.
I’m primed to be upset with Apple these days, but this doesn’t seem like an unreasonable position. The EU is forcing them to do a bunch of work to support alternate browser engines, this in turn creates a bunch of additional work if Apple wants to fully support PWAs, and PWAs aren’t really in Apple’s financial interest to begin with, so f-it. They're not going to spend resources to add support for PWAs in the EU. It's easier to just disable them and call it a day.
It's a rational choice. Apple isn’t a charity, so why would they spend resources on extra work that they didn’t want to do in the first place, given that work is not required for legal compliance. The security spin is clearly nonsense, but other than that I can't really fault Apple for their position on this, even if I wish it were different.
The EU is not forcing Apple to do any work. Apple is choosing to do the work mostly to make competing browsers as limited and non-compelling as possible, while still hoping to stay within the letter of the law. They could in reality comply pretty much by removing their arbitrary restrictions.
> It's a rational choice. Apple isn’t a charity, so why would they spend resources on extra work that they didn’t want to do in the first place, given that work is not required for legal compliance.
I mean, the obvious answer would be that it actually is required. And the outcome of that would be that Apple gets a bunch of bad press, pays a ton in fines, and ends up with a consent decree that restricts them more than just acting in good faith would have.
It feels like a really stupid gamble. There's so little to gain from it, in comparison to the cost if the gamble fails. Apple owns their users, lock, stock and barrel. Basically none of them is going to switch to a competing app store or browser even once those exist. And when the users don't move, neither will the developers.
Yes, I agree here. To me, this feels like the cookie legislation all over again, in the sense that the end result was a lot of annoying cookie banners instead of websites stopping the usage of cookies. And yes, I know that answering 'no' in these banners reduces the amount of cookies used, but I am seeing more and more websites where things like videos don't work unless you accept cookies.
Bad move from Apple. It's time to boycott iOS and move to FOSS alternatives, such as: AOSP, Ubuntu Touch, GNOME Mobile, KDE Plasma, Sailfish OS. Personally I am using both UBports and Sailfish OS and I appreciate the privacy they provide.
As a possible workaround to fullscreen PWAs in iOS in the EU, I propose a convention to append some hash to the Web App Manifest start_url, e.g. #__pwa__, then set the default iOS web browser to e.g. Firefox, then add the PWA to the home screen from it with this special hash. When a user clicks on a PWA icon in the home screen, it would open in the default browser (e.g. Firefox), the browser then checks if the newly opened tab is opened from external source and its URL ends with #__pwa__ and if so, then hides the UI providing a fullscreen viewport for the opened PWA.
Because it's replacing one closed OS for another closed OS. AOSP is open source and unlike stock Android it doesn't have a bunch of preinstalled spying apps from Google/Samsung/you-name-it which you cannot easily uninstall.
I have looked. If you look for a clean experience and not an OS that tracks your every breath and every shake, none. Absolutely none.
If you care about a sanely sized phone and not a phablet, then double absolutely none — as in there’s no option in Apple’s stable either. Been using my 14 for some 9 months after 12 mini and every time I look at this monstrosity I regret moving to iPhones because I kinda knew they’d stoop down to be like Androids eventually.
Anyway, so no option really. Again, I have looked.
Did you mean to replace 13 mini without any such criteria I have mentioned above? Well, then go to any phone listing site or Amazon and filter Android devices based on cost and features and just buy the one that fits the bill. Because you didn’t say anything else.
Readit News
== Begin quote ==
The iOS system has traditionally provided support for Home Screen web apps by building directly on WebKit and its security architecture. That integration means Home Screen web apps are managed to align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS, including isolation of storage and enforcement of system prompts to access privacy impacting capabilities on a per-site basis.
Without this type of isolation and enforcement, malicious web apps could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent. Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent. Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake given the other demands of the DMA and the very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps. And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU.
EU users will be able to continue accessing websites directly from their Home Screen through a bookmark with minimal impact to their functionality. We expect this change to affect a small number of users. Still, we regret any impact this change — that was made as part of the work to comply with the DMA — may have on developers of Home Screen web apps and our users.
== End quote ==
Source: https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
In context 99% of the users I meet don't even know what USB-C is.
Apple’s decision is going to kill businesses and break apps used by hundreds of thousands of people in Europe, many of whom are healthcare workers delivering patient care.
I don’t know if this ironic given that apple originally didn’t want to support native apps and gave in due to developer demand.
Apple both did and didn’t want web apps
This is a trite argument that hasn’t been true ever since Jen Simmons joined Apple in 2020 and changed the course of Safari significantly to the point that PWAs not only are viable, they have been given feature parity with native apps on many fronts.
Simultaneously, the argument completely bypasses the fact that install rates of PWAs are abysmal on any platform. Whether it be iOS, Android or Windows.
Contrary to what PWA developers, industry organizations and other stakeholders proselytize, PWAs aren’t the second coming and the next best thing since sliced bread. At least not when it comes to install rates.
Edit:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure they’re great as “websites”.
Lord knows people who sell PWAs[0] love to brag about bounce rates and conversion rates and what not. But there’s a reason why you can find barely anything about install rates other than some vague statistics about individual unnamed PWAs[1] or PWA sellers[2] talking about obviously bogus 10x and 3-5x install rates, and it’s not because the PWA crowd is too shy to brag.
0: https://www.pwastats.com/
1: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/pwa-install-features
2: https://mobsted.com/pwa_vs_native_mobile_apps_install_rates_...
It's functionality to add an arbitrary webpage. What exactly are you expecting them to "provide"?
30 some million lines of code in chromium browsers.
Thats bigger than the linux kernel.
The HN crowed might not LIKE apples response but they have a very defensible position.
Edit: Its not like we haven't seen this play out on the desktop recently: https://www.theverge.com/24054329/microsoft-edge-automatic-c...
What you link is a case of one app (edge) reading the data of another app (chrome), which is entirely unrelated to PWAs.
You and Apple both are ignoring the fact that these permission APIs exist even if the website isn’t being displayed in standalone/full screen mode. The modern web is built on them, and third-party browser engines WILL provide access to these APIs in Europe.
This is just Apple wanting to avoid people being able to develop a platform on top of their platform without paying a tax.
And if PWAs from chrome are the problem, then it would also be possible to not allow chrome PWA's but still allow webkit PWA's.
If the browser engine can't be trusted to segregate camera access through a PWA then why is it trusted to segregate it in-app?
But a legislator forced their hand so now they gotta cry about it.
If I was not I can choose to leave.
I know this is a divisive comment. Please see my further extrapolation in a child comment.
>Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent.
Couldn't this be entirely solved with an OS permission-like prompt "are you sure you want [progressive web app name] added to home screen?"
Deleted Comment
Apple does not.
This is essentially saying no-one can build a secure browser.
Does this "minimal impact to their functionality" mean, the app will loose its local data after 7 days of not using the app, like it is for normal websites? That is a pretty heavy impact.
1. The DMA is striking at the heart of their revenue model by targeting the app store. Tim Cook testified before Congress and said that Apple would be "giving up our total return" on their intellectual property if they did not monetize the app store aggressively. So my read is that this move is intended to prevent a shift to PWAs as a way to get around the new policies.
2. Legislation like the DMA, if successful, could spread to other countries, much in the same way the link tax spread from Australia to Canada. I think Apple has an explicit goal to make this legislation as painful as possible, for both the legislators and the citizens, so that other countries do not attempt to pass similar laws.
There was a time between 2007 and 2011 where I bought Apple computers and was a big fan. These days, despite the very cool new processors Apple has released, it's very hard for me to see them as anything other than antagonistic. What a fall from grace.
Couldn’t they allow you open PWAs in Safari, or fall back to opening a URL in another browser?
Is there some part of the DMA which demands full feature parity?
Very likely the EU wouldn't like them prioritizing their own browser for a feature
Deleted Comment
In a previous comment [1], I considered abandoning Apple. With this official statement, I'll actually switch to Android. I'll welcome the F-Droid store very much.
Apple, I've been your customer since 2006. I started with the iPod. During this time I had a significant fraction of your lineup. I'm not affected by your changes but I'm using some PWAs. With this erratic behavior, I'm afraid you kill features that I'm using.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007#39299469
I'm a little confused. So that long list of requirements is useless for PWAs?
Some people will actually believe this. I'm utterly disgusted by Apple and their arrogance regarding the DMA, and the way they've managed all of this. My perception of them has completely changed. However, they seem very obedient when China asks them to censor apps or, for example, limit AirDrop when there's a protest going on.
1. WebKit has access to special OS-level APIs that allow it to install and power web apps. 2. The DMA requires support for alternative browser engines with the same abilities as WebKit. 3. It is reasonable to assume this requirement extends to PWAs. 4. By taking away WebKit's ability to power PWAs, all browser engines are now on a level playing field.
_Could_ they have done it differently? Maybe, maybe not: software development always takes longer than you think, and throwing more engineers at a problem doesn't always make it go faster. Do I think they saw another chance to be petulant and took it? Yes.
So yeah, I'm disappointed, but no more here than with the rest of Apple's DMA response.
Translation from Apple talk to real talk: allowing competing browser engines will undermine our grip on the market through lock-in to the engine we fully control. We don't want to lose power. As control freaks, we'll do all we can to sabotage it.
Dead Comment
Does the rule not allow that? If so... yeah, as a user deep in their ecosystem and once-developer for the platform, hard agree on this. Whatever their other motivations (and Apple are masters at arranging things so that their interests happen to coincide with legitimate concerns about UX) the user-facing issues expressed are worth worrying about.
Apple cannot simply invoke DMA (50) as a free pass. For its arguments to align with the intent of the legislation, here's a roadmap of what they need to do to justify their security-based restrictions on iOS:
Apple must be transparent about the exact security issues posed by alternative browser engines with concrete instances (not merely speculative risks). They need to prove that these are unique to iOS, given the successful use of unrestricted browser engines on macOS (and every other OS).
Before opting for the extreme step of removing functionality, Apple needs to offer documentation of all the methods for managing and mitigating specific threats that were considered and subsequently ruled out as infeasible (sandboxing, enhanced APIs, etc.). This emphasizes that their actions are indeed the last resort and not merely a way to suppress competition.
The company needs to demonstrate how they would proactively work with browser engine developers to establish strong security controls and threat monitoring on par with or exceeding their current practices for native-only experiences. This shifts the focus to building a safe environment rather than merely limiting the scope of capabilities.
Apple must guarantee that if and when these security challenges are met, it will progressively expand support for unrestricted use of web standards for third-party browser engines. This creates the long-term perspective the DMA is designed to protect and gives confidence to developers investing in advanced web app solutions.
Without taking action in these key areas, Apple's reliance on this DMA portion won't hold up to regulatory scrutiny. They cannot cite generic security dangers then fall back on "practicality" arguments without robust, evidence-backed reasoning.
They're likely not lying when they say that it's more difficult to maintain their security standards while at the same time allowing any browser engine to run PWAs. But this is a problem they absolutely could solve, and a company with Apple's size and skill absolutely has the resources to make this work. But they've chosen not to.
Another option would be to actually engage with EU regulators on the issue, and see if they could carve out an exception -- temporary or otherwise -- to allow them to require PWAs to run under their existing WebKit-based framework, regardless of the default browser. But they've again chosen not to do that.
PWA adoption is likely as low as Apple claims. I think they're toeing a line here: because Home Screen Apps are a bit of a niche feature, they can break it without pissing off too many users, but also give a subtle middle finger to the EU. "Poor Apple users, Apple just has to disable a feature some people like because of the evil, overreaching EU and its burdensome DMA!"
This is a shame in that I personally think we all should be relying less on mostly-closed-source, proprietary apps for everything. While the web platform is a bit of a mess, it actually does (or could) offer the same functionality that native apps do, especially if Apple and Google had worked on that sort of thing over the past 15+ years rather than pushing native apps so hard. We'd be in a much better place if that were the case: consider the savings in time and money if every company out there could just write a single PWA and not have to build two completely separate apps for iOS and Android. (Yes, I know there'd be some extra people dedicated to fixing issues caused minor but significant-enough differences between the platforms, but it'd still be a ton less work than two apps for two different platforms.)
Also consider how much easier it would be for other smartphone platforms to break into the space, if all existing apps (as PWAs in my imaginary smartphone-utopia) would run on their platforms without much work. A big reason I will likely never adopt an alternative smartphone platform is because none of the apps I rely on day-to-day exist on them. Even though I'd absolutely love to ditch Android, but don't consider iOS any more palatable.
Anyway, that ship sailed a long time ago. I'm still bitter about it, though.
Ultimately this won't matter much. The number of people using PWAs on iOS is probably a rounding error. Restrict that to only people in the EU and it's even smaller. But Apple still gets in a jab at the EU over this, and most affected users will likely side with Apple on this one.
I beg people making these claims to look outside their web bubble for at least a nanosecond.
> especially if Apple and Google had worked on that sort of thing over the past 15+ years rather than pushing native apps so hard.
Google couldn't care less about "as good as native". If they did, this project wouldn't have been started by devs from Microsoft (of all companies) in 2020: https://open-ui.org
> consider the savings in time and money if every company out there could just write a single PWA and not have to build two completely separate apps for iOS and Android.
Yes, you should be building native apps for each platform unless your "app" is a barely functioning text-only page.
How is this even possible? It's shocking that these APIs even exist for any browser to use.
Apple could add a bunch of new APIs to support this case for third-party browsers. Presumably there's something equivalent that's being done for said web apps currently in Safari. But they're not wrong to say that there's not an existing system in place that said third-party browsers are already written to use. (And, you know, they're clearly not invested in trying to make this law succeed.)
https://www.theverge.com/24054329/microsoft-edge-automatic-c...
Ask MS, they already did it.
They simply could ask browser vendor to follow strict rules, that they can check themselves. This is not like they would have to verify dozens of browsers every day. Only a few per months, top.
Deleted Comment
The "community note" of HN.
As the governments demand more and more, I predict we will see several monkey paw moments.
They say themselves it would be possible to be compliant with the DMA without removing what is obviously competition they don't like. But they try to take the road which - just by chance, obviously, the security is the real reason - helps them to keep more people away from competition. I don't buy it.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Sounds like Apple is saying webkit is insecure and to not use safari or iOS webviews because if they can't be trusted to run a PWA then they can't be trusted for anything ;3
Everyone's got their "security" to give you. But it ain't your security, and it ain't compatible with noone else's.
Nice app store you got here. Shame if anything might 'appen to it!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket
history often rhymes and really rhymes on this one.
Dead Comment
I am not in the EU but my next iPhone is almost certainly not gonna be an iPhone despite me having used a non iPhone for about 6 months in the last 15 years.
Their throwing their customers under the bus just to throw a tantrum in the EU does not bode well for how they would treat their customers in other situations.
From their perspective it’s not so much throwing a tantrum but clawing and screaming their way into giving up as little revenue as possible.
I also invoke Android again... PWAs exist, Google still holds the lions share. Google has freaked out about it too and is being sanctioned as we speak for it, but most customers simply aren't going to look for an alt app store outside of niche uses.
Did you just subconsciously equate phones to iPhones in your rebuke of Apple?
Next phone, right?
To be honest an iPhone and a phone have been synonymous for me for 15 years. The 6 months was a period of madness (or genius, considering I actually loved it) when I was using a Windows Phone, until basically all the 3rd party apps I used dropped support.
Android is fine but it's not as smooth as iOS. Still, I hate what Apple has become.
This is Apple saying “if it’s important to you dozen folks out there who use PWAs or care about installing a non-web view browser on your phone, that you can continue doing that, we’re not the company for you.”
They won’t blink because who gives a shit?
What I don't like is the little digital fiefdom they created. When we buy stuff, we're supposed to own them. The problem is they just refuse to give us the keys to the machines. So we absolutely should make it a matter of law.
Are you arguing that Apple is lying about how much work it was to execute that?
Some of y'all need to be reminded to be realistic.
I interpret 6 (a) as basically requiring you to be able to install whatever software you like and to provide no mechanism whereby any fee can be demanded for such installation to be possible.
Apple tries to get around this by this core technology stuff, but APIs aren't even subject to copyright protection, and it's also basic interoperability stuff. I don't think the courts will see it the way I interpret your comment.
Web developers like them. That’s it, and their PWA advocacy completely disregards what a privacy and security nightmare they can be without proper safeguards, because this little device I carry around in my pocket is 1) always with me and 2) stores a lot of information about me 3) has a full sensory array installed within it.
Every new feature browsers add for better hardware access gets immediately disabled on any system I manage: cameras, mics, USB access, sensors, location, notifications, local storage, the whole works because the alternative is letting every website access those or getting spammed with access requests on every site I visit and the more crap that is added, the longer it takes me every time I setup a new browser install from scratch. Why disable them at all? Because 99% of these new features are primarily used to build a better supercookie to track and profile people without their consent. The actual marketable reasons are a secondary use at best.
So if it’s not on Apple’s priority list to build out whatever they need to support and allow other browsers to support PWAs in a secure and privacy conscious manner, good for them. Web developers who want to circumvent Apple’s fees entirely don’t need to be anywhere near their top priority and can wait. For Apple: users come before developers, and App developers before web developers.
The only reason PWAs were interesting on iOS was to get an app on iOS, while feeling relatively native, without paying Apple.
To think there's a hardware thing in 2024 that does not allow its owner to compile and install arbitrary software while still calling itself a smartphone is just laughable.
It's a good thing people are starting to wake up to this even on legislative level.
The problem I have with that is that they are selling a ContentFilter as an integrated part of their OS, when it can be a separate, optional part, and even offered by a third party.
Also, they equate AppStore == ContentFilter, which are clearly two separate concepts.
"I have an iPhone, and if I move from here and go over there and sit with my Democrat friends, which would make them real nervous, does Google track my movement?" -- Ted Poe
https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/google-ceo-pichai-grilled-o...
Frankly, the region needs us far more than we need it.
Hint: neither is/was American. Just to throw some examples.
If that were what companies genuinely felt they'd already have left, but pecunia non olet, even if you have to pay taxes on it
Moreover essentially the only relevant systemic differences between the US and Europe in the tech sector are:
- pre-existing capital
- a better financial system and regulations (of the financial system) in the US (or rather, a combination of quality and size)
- better bankruptcy laws
Even if one of the big companies left the market that'd just leave space for a (at first) slightly worse product/products to fill the niche. Not exactly "shambles"
These sweeping generalizations are pointless, especially because international finance means a lot of things happen at American companies offices in European countries. Does the fact that you’re using Brotli to view this webpage count for Google or Switzerland? A bumper sticker-level political philosophy probably won’t help there.
That's rich, you ought to look in the mirror. Apple and most of big tech started the "rent seeking and legislation" war by screwing over their users and developers, milking them both for every dime and their approach to so-called "innovation" is surprise - legislation. They've decided to simply ban competition from their platforms, neat!
Frankly the US needs it far more than the EU needs it's tech sector.
2) Most of the "bureaucracy" that hits small to medium sized companies is the GDPR, which any business with the slightest of integrity should have no problem to follow
1. PWA is a native wrapper for a web application, not a browser. It is supposed to be limited to the app website. DMA does not tell Apple that every app with embedded WebView should offer users possibility to switch the engine. Why PWA should be treated differently here? I‘d rather clarify this with regulators first, before harming end users.
2. There’s no browser engines currently supporting PWA on Apple mobile devices. Apple has enough resources and time to figure out how to sandbox PWAs on other engines together with the first browser vendor that decides to offer such support and commit engineering resources to this project. In the meantime current solution could stay simply because it does not hinder any competition.
I’m not a legal expert, so maybe I miss something here. But Apple statement does not look convincing to me.
I don’t see how that’s related to the issue being discussed.
> In the meantime current solution could stay simply because it does not hinder any competition.
Why do you think “you can install a third party browser, but if you do, you can’t add PWAs to the Home Screen” doesn’t hinder competition?
PWA is not a browser, it is a native app using a browser engine to render a specific website.
>Why do you think “you can install a third party browser, but if you do, you can’t add PWAs to the Home Screen” doesn’t hinder competition?
I literally explained it in my comment you are replying to, but I can repeat. Competition does not exist yet. Browsers do not offer PWA support out of the box, it is a feature to be implemented separately from rendering engine. See Firefox on Windows for an example — it doesn’t support PWA out of the box. This feature has to be built: if Apple were to hinder the competition, they would resist it by not offering the APIs. But they can offer them through the cooperation with vendors, even if those APIs do not exist yet. Say, Mozilla comes and asks for APIs: Apple starts negotiating and proposes the compatibility requirements and a reasonable timeline. They both work on their part and eventually Firefox is released with PWA support. Who would fine or sue them if it worked this way? How the violation of DMA could be proven?
Because you can't add PWAs to the Home Screen if you use the first-party browser, either. The whole point of this article is they're turning off PWAs for Safari so that they're all on the same feature footing.
Is there any reason that you couldn't just install a third-party browser and add PWAs to the home screen that use WebKit as a rendering engine?
Why would these two different things affect each other?
As I understand it, this is specifically not allowed by the DMA, since it would be considered an unfair advantage to Safari, if that browser/engine was the only one allowed to run PWAs.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?toc=OJ%3AL%3...
If Apple demonstrates that the entry barrier is sufficiently low by cooperating with other vendors, how one could possibly build a legal case under DMA against them? On the contrary, by disabling PWA in Safari Apple acts as a gate keeper complicating access to the platform for business users. THIS is what DMA forbids.
Also it has to be taken into account that the less PWA engines exist the lower is actually the entry barrier. We only need 2-3 competing solutions max to support innovation without harming PWA developers.
It's a rational choice. Apple isn’t a charity, so why would they spend resources on extra work that they didn’t want to do in the first place, given that work is not required for legal compliance. The security spin is clearly nonsense, but other than that I can't really fault Apple for their position on this, even if I wish it were different.
Translation: Apple hates developers who believe in open tech, despite being built on mountains of foundational open tech, like every other company.
> It's a rational choice. Apple isn’t a charity, so why would they spend resources on extra work that they didn’t want to do in the first place, given that work is not required for legal compliance.
I mean, the obvious answer would be that it actually is required. And the outcome of that would be that Apple gets a bunch of bad press, pays a ton in fines, and ends up with a consent decree that restricts them more than just acting in good faith would have.
It feels like a really stupid gamble. There's so little to gain from it, in comparison to the cost if the gamble fails. Apple owns their users, lock, stock and barrel. Basically none of them is going to switch to a competing app store or browser even once those exist. And when the users don't move, neither will the developers.
Yes, I agree here. To me, this feels like the cookie legislation all over again, in the sense that the end result was a lot of annoying cookie banners instead of websites stopping the usage of cookies. And yes, I know that answering 'no' in these banners reduces the amount of cookies used, but I am seeing more and more websites where things like videos don't work unless you accept cookies.
As a possible workaround to fullscreen PWAs in iOS in the EU, I propose a convention to append some hash to the Web App Manifest start_url, e.g. #__pwa__, then set the default iOS web browser to e.g. Firefox, then add the PWA to the home screen from it with this special hash. When a user clicks on a PWA icon in the home screen, it would open in the default browser (e.g. Firefox), the browser then checks if the newly opened tab is opened from external source and its URL ends with #__pwa__ and if so, then hides the UI providing a fullscreen viewport for the opened PWA.
Someone moving of iOS should just pick up a Nokia device with a stock standard Android OS. It will serve them fine without all the hassle of flashing.
If they want a higher end device with stock Android, go for a Pixel.
Plus Nokia is no more: https://www.gizchina.com/2024/02/01/mobile-phone-brand-trans...
Specifically, I like its battery life, its camera, and that it has a headphone jack.
Deleted Comment
If you care about a sanely sized phone and not a phablet, then double absolutely none — as in there’s no option in Apple’s stable either. Been using my 14 for some 9 months after 12 mini and every time I look at this monstrosity I regret moving to iPhones because I kinda knew they’d stoop down to be like Androids eventually.
Anyway, so no option really. Again, I have looked.
Did you mean to replace 13 mini without any such criteria I have mentioned above? Well, then go to any phone listing site or Amazon and filter Android devices based on cost and features and just buy the one that fits the bill. Because you didn’t say anything else.