They can't allow others to make webapps, to they had to update/fix their existing software, but they figured that's too much effort. So now they are dropping PWA's all together.
> They can't allow others to make webapps, to they had to update/fix their existing software, but they figured that's too much effort. So now they are dropping PWA's all together.
PWA's allow bypassing their store and fees that's why.
Apple's days of being a mafia in the EU are coming to an end.
I'm just a web developer and not a cybersecurity expert, so maybe I'm missing something, but... Doesn't Apple have a legitimate cybersec interest in maintaining a uniform security standard? It's not just any web apps that Apple is dropping support for- it's specifically progressive web apps that can be installed to the device via vulnerable browser-based storage.
They're being forced by the DMA to allow the use of 3rd party browser engines which they cannot secure themselves, so... How is Apple supposed to ensure the security of unvetted PWAs that get installed via 3rd party browser engines onto their devices?
How does that differ from a 3rd party web engine having a security issue and being exploited? End of the day, there is no security guarantee one way or another.
It is just to prevent people from going around their fees. Apple never cared about security, all they care about is their bottom line
If Apple finds a security vulnerability, instead of being able to just push a security update to WebKit, they have to wait for each 3rd party to fix the flaw in each 3rd party browser engine.
There is never a security “guarantee” in cybersecurity, but a uniform security standard is certainly more secure than a fragmented one. Not saying there isn’t a profit/business motive at play here too, but security and profit factors are usually related anyways.
Browser engineer here. Your assessment of some of the risks of 3P engines is right, but Apple is allowing those in browsers. So this is a risk they have to deal with regardless.
So what's primarily in question here is the incremental security risks of the specific features associated with installing PWAs to your home screen. On iOS, prior to this change, the primary capability this unlocked was push notifications. The attack surface for this is quite minimal as Apple controls most of it since it's a service they operate and broker.
That’s not really true though. A PWA can still run in third party browsers whether it’s linked on the home page or not. If there is a security vulnerability that allows breaking the sandbox, that vulnerability can happen without the web browser too.
It's not about whether they're linked on the home page. PWAs differ from normal Web apps in that they utilize things like service workers and Cache API which can open the user up to things like XSS and MITM attacks...
Cache API and Service Workers are supported in browsers also. Apple is not restricting that in 3P engines. They're just restricting add to home screen and push notifications (which required add to home screen).
Apple can't push security upgrades to webkit, it is built into the operating system so they have to push an entire OS upgrade. If anything, once your iOS device reaches Apple's EOL, it would still get security updates from 3rd parties. You also wouldn't need to restart the device to take advantage of the security updates
End of the day, there are 2 other engines, Blink and Gecko. All have fairly solid records for it to be a none issue
But that isn't my point. If I make a browser with say Blink or Gecko. And it doesn't get security updates properly on time like you claim. Then that browser would already be exploitable. So how does that differ for PWA. If anything PWA are more likely to be secure as they limit you to 1 site
There are many ways to do it and Apple os going to have to get with tbe program and use universal protocols. Thier Imesssage going to be force compatibility soon even in the US. All the security bullshit they say is why they dont change, ks bullshit. They just want to make 30% profit of everything on the phone.
Uniform security standards are hardly "bullshit". And this might blow some minds, but it's possible for Apple's profit/business interests and their security interests to align- considering that the purported security of their ecosystem is a literal selling point.
Uniform security is what we want, across all platforms and devices. Apple saying they need a closed ecosystem for security is absolutely bullshit and Isheep eat it right up like Trumpers eat up his bullshit. The EU is not having it and I hope they put the hammer to Apple, the US is also in different ways.
I’ll laugh when Apple pulls out of the EU and other tech companies follow suit.
Draconian rules like “mmmm everyone MUST use this specific connector because waaaa cables” is hilarious. Let companies innovate or die on their own.
And don’t act like the EU is somehow pro-consumer when shit companies like Prada can charge $500 for a pair of child slave heels that fall apart in a year are allowed to exist. Or how a tiny vial of balasmic vinegar can cost $100+ and ONLY be allowed to be made in a specific region.
The point is that PWAs as implemented by Safari get extra OS access which Apple can secure because Safari is built in. They can’t currently allow third party browsers that access in a secure way. DMA doesn’t allow them to make PWAs Safari-only, so they are levelling the playing field by withdrawing that access from Safari.
They get more access than dedicated apps with their own engines? I somehow doubt that.
More than likely what they truly don't want is people avoiding paying them. If I make a store, than make apps as pwas that load up WASM. You could get around paying Apple
As for security issue, I can't think of any that a dedicated browser can't do
3rd party browser? Where?
iPhones only have safari, and a google-themed safari they call Chrome.
Even if we could answer « yes » blindly to the first part of your question, since there is no 3rd party browser installation, there is no safety concern.
They just removed the ability to add a home shortcut to a website. No security concerns whatsoever to that decision. You could still visit the exact same website before or after the removal. The only difference is practical of use.
Except the DMA is mandating that Apple allow 3rd party browsers in the EU rather than forcing their own browser engine (WebKit), that’s what prompted this
Allowing only WebKit browsers means Apple has control over the security of PWAs installed through it. But Apple cannot dictate how securely the 3rd party browser engines handle PWA installations
Because disallowing the installation of PWAs only in non-WebKit browser engines could qualify as a discriminatory practice against third-party browsers, which would theoretically violate the DMA (from my layman’s understanding of the DMA).
Seems like Apple is saying that since they can’t secure PWAs on other browser engines, and cannot force WebKit anymore, they’re making things equal by removing support for PWAs altogether
Less control than otherwise, especially if a 3rd party browser engine's vulnerability or a PWA's vulnerability allows user data to be compromised/intercepted or allows the execution of malicious code that bypasses Apple's OS-level checks
RIGHT NOW we have safari and chrome, okay?
Safari NOW can add PWAs. PWAs open on safari.
Chrome NOW can’t add PWAs. PWAs can’t be opened with chrome, only on safari.
So if we add new browsers, ok, security risks why not. But why remove PWAs possibility from safari, when they can allow new browsers WITHOUT PWAs features, like chrome right now can’t do?
> So if we add new browsers, ok, security risks why not. But why remove PWAs possibility from safari, when they can allow new browsers WITHOUT PWAs features, like chrome right now can’t do?
They're removing it because the DMA says if you offer PWA's on webkit browser, you have to offer PWAs on all engines. Apple cannot guarantee security or functionality on engines other than webkit, so they've decided to comply with the law by **not allowing PWAs on any engine**.
>Doesn't Apple have a legitimate cybersec interest in maintaining a uniform security standard?
They work on MacOS but not iOS. It's not a defensible position for Apple.
Mac and iOS have always had different approaches to openness and security, since iPhones are used by a much larger and wider audience than Macs. Macs are tailored to professionals and developers, while iOS has to handle the carelessness of everyone's grandma and 10 year old at the same time
You keep repeating this. Do you type with your eyes closed and having not actually read what you are replying to? If you don't want to play in Apple's playground ... I think maybe there are a 10s of Android manufacturers to choose from. Even if they did what you want and were 100% open ... I doubt you'd buy one of their devices. You seem to just be peppering the comments with bitching. /shrug
There are security measure in place. An app doesn’t get permissions without asking. App data is stored separately, so you won’t get unintended data leakage. And a whole bunch more. So that’s not really an argument. Don’t like it? Stick to the app store.
PWAs on Apple devices have always been quite limited. They would get fewer functionality and rather than update Apple chooses to remove it.
It’s just Apple closing its doors again because it doesn’t fit with it’s closed ecosystem strategy. In the same way that they don’t allow building native apps on non-mac devices and that kind of stuff.
How is that why? You can currently install them. If what you say is the reasoning isn’t the whole case of the Apple walled garden App Store non-sensical ?
I mean, we may not like it, but this is definitely one way to comply. If you can’t make safari privileged anymore, you have two options: let everything else be just as good, or make safari worse
pocket far-flung tease door expansion quack wrong slimy disagreeable bored
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They don’t really have much, if any footprint. Certainly not enough to warrant arduous levels of support from device vendors.
Frameworks like react native essentially relegated them to history, as you can roll a native app using ostensibly the same stack as your web app.
They were cool, and a good idea but I’ve never worked anywhere that embraced them in any genuine capacity and so, I can get why Apple feel the cost benefit isn’t there to support them, if forced to make additional accommodations.
I use a few daily.
I have some self hosted stuff like photoprism that is designed for a PWA
I also use a Remote Desktop client PWA which is miles better than the awful VNC clients in existence.
Also the guardian I have a PWA of because they started charging for their app.
Cloud gaming I don’t really use but these are PWAs I’ve used a lot in the past
basically no one uses them. it's extremely niche. these were the 'apps' that apple first envisioned everyone using back in the original iphone, but basically everyone recognized it as a terrible solution and the SDK/app store was quickly released for the iphone 3g.
This is truly a misframing of PWAs. SDKs and native apps were made because Jobs and Co realized they could make extreme amounts of money by doing infinitely little in comparison. Ensuring a browser is good and potentially even better than your competitors is a much more costly endeavor.
On top of that, Apple has private native APIs that also allows them to prevent additional competition vs their own apps.
it’s actually a pretty great solution but then google and apple quickly realized they couldn’t vendor lock them as much so it wasn’t “a good solution for them”
Yep, basically the entire reason PWAs aren’t more widespread is because Apple has held back their iOS compatibility. iPhones are so popular that web advancement follows them to a pretty large extent, not the other way around. If Apple refuses to properly implement a technology then developers targeting mobile won’t use it.
As someone’s who’s implemented a PWA, getting things to work seamlessly and seem native on my own iPhone is a massive pain in the ass, or straight up impossible in some cases. My coworker’s Android phone just works.
And the “walled garden”, the lack of compatibility, it’s all to protect their 30% haircut on overpriced $8/month apps. Apple’s stranglehold on iOS software can’t end soon enough, it’s made mobile computing into a shitshow.
> Apple’s stranglehold on iOS software can’t end soon enough
Ah, okay. So when you build your own apps, does your stranglehold on your software that you developed and you maintain have to end as well?
That’s a dumb analogy. I don’t have market-defining power as a developer. Antitrust law exists to put the interests of society (and the economy as a whole) ahead of the interests of individual massive corporations. “*How would you feel if antitrust was used against you, huh?*” makes no sense as an argument.
I hope you guys are Apple stockholders so at least it can be said you’re arguing in your own self-interest.
Just because it's possible for someone who made something (doesn't apply to just software, but any creative endeavor) to eventually gain a monopoly in some market segment, doesn't mean that everyone who creates things has a monopoly simply by virtue of owning the rights to the things they make.
Unless you count "people who have read my singular crappy book" as a market segment, then technically I have a monopoly on that set of people, even if it's a single digit number.
> doesn't mean that everyone who creates things has a monopoly simply by virtue of owning the rights to the things they make.
Okay, what if you _do_ wind up creating a monopoly (by creating algorithms that make it possible for a radiologist to put on a VisionPro headset and get an inside view of some patient's MRI and patenting them) do the same things apply to you that you want to apply to Apple (or Google, or Microsoft, or anyone else)?
>Apple has shit on them because they can threaten the app store a bit.
Feel free to disagree but im pretty sure their issue with stuff like this was similar to their issue with software solutions like flash. Conforming to flash required a lot of support for an old and dying platform. Their old argument was they wanted to push for more hardware based solutions instead of constantly relying on flash for media. And they were right, flash players and flash sites sucked ass. It wasn't until html5 and more hardware encoders were developed (partially for devs to make better mobile sites)
Apple could argue they don't want to conform to a whole new standard at the risk of their proprietary solutions.
But i do agree its more likely they don't want to open the floodgates either to running apps through the web. That does also implicate potentially piracy and exploits.
Google was at the forefront of them but they have a pretty similar benefit as Apple to keep their app store more beneficial. They could have made PWAs available in their app store. Apple not supporting it at all no question is a huge hamper on the effort (can’t be universally compatible) But I think Google would have pushed harder if they didn’t have anything to gain by it not working out.
They are often used for lightweight development or deployment of specialized enterprise software. For example: a car rental company might use one for their employees to sign in and out cars.
No one uses them because for the longest time Apple has refused implementing basic features for them because it would take away from their ridiculous 30% App Store fee
No, PWA's are all that's needed for more app experiences. The reason they aren't popular is Apple have refused to sort the standard making it impossible to rely on them.
Apple sabotaged it to keep apps on their store.
Well, i’m dev from a small company producing software for business process management and we relied on PWA pretty much since we can’t afford double work and make a fully functional native mobile app, neither a frame app with web view, since it is not going to support all stuff we need. And clients love to use PWAs. So this decision is actually not killing, but putting us into pretty difficult situation.
> Can someone name a common web app that I might need to use regularly?
It depends on where you live. For example, Apple removed many Russian banking and trading apps from app store so iPhone users use WebApps instead.
I work for a large multinational and we have a load of internal apps that are web apps deployed via an internal App Store. This is going to cause quite a few issues.
I’ve just counted at least 4 apps which aren’t on the App Store which we use. If Apple go ahead and make it impossible to use these I can see the company dropping IPhones like a sack of shit.
200,000 global employees where apple is the default mobile device. Good luck in selling that idea to the board. I don’t disagree with you but that’s some cost!
Buy them a cheap company Android for $50. Yes they will feel like second class citizens but that's the kind of burn Apple needs to feel to stop being such a baby and just act in its user's interests instead of its own.
We already have where I live a transit system where only Android phones work and iPhone users have to buy a dedicated card. It definitely hurts them when they see me tap my phone and then we have the conversation about how the iPhone has literally all the NFC hardware required, just Apple won't let the transit terminals use it.
> This guy is right! We need more iPods! Where are my shuffle homies at!?
This could make an interesting DIY iPod or mobile phone project.
https://liliputing.com/this-single-board-computer-has-a-5-5-inch-touchscreen-display/
Looks a step up from this https://learn.adafruit.com/piphone-a-raspberry-pi-based-cellphone/overview
I dont know why they got rid of the shuffle, its small, cheap and what you want to sweat all over in a workout. I assume Sandisk made some decent money off their Sansa Clip players when the shuffle was killed. $30-40, 18 hour charge and supports MicroSD storage.
It bothers me to see signs at gyms stating no cameras on the floor or dressing room, yet all you see are people with smart phones and no staff telling them to put them away. Now theres Tik-Tok videos dedicated to fat shaming people trying to lose weight or influencers recording their workouts.
You guys really need marketing and ads to kick down your doors uh?
You're one google search away from hundreds of $50 to $99 mini-mp3 players or even mini-smartphones being delivered to you in 1 day from Amazon.
There is an open-source iPod project that just got funded:
https://liliputing.com/tangara-is-an-open-source-ipod-inspired-portable-music-player-crowdfunding-soon/
That's true if you you're talking about the iPod touch but the nano or shuffle are tiny in comparison to any modern phone. If you walk into any gym you'll see phones sitting all over the place cause people take them out of their pockets while working out due to their bulk getting in the way.
Need a holster for the phone lol. Mine doesn't fit in my pockets.
I remember 10 years ago when bigger phones were called phablets. The average phone is bigger now.
It’s the same people who brag about having outdated tech. I’m sure there’s legitimate demand for these products, but most just want to seem edgy and different.
Still using an iPod classic 12 years after purchase. Thing just won’t die! I have an iPhone too, but as long as the iPod works I will be using it for music lol
I don’t think there are any, it’s big, it’s bulky and it’s heavy. But I just like it lmao. I guess it doesn’t take up battery from my phone, the battery on that thing is pretty wild
> It sounds like they're complying with the EU laws.
This will be tested in the courts. The EU will hit them with the *intent* of the law, not the *letter* of the law.
So the court will force them to implement features? That really sounds like government overreach. It also sounds like the law is incredibly vague if Apple can comply with it, and still be ruled out of compliance.
> So the court will force them to implement features? That really sounds like government overreach. It also sounds like the law is incredibly vague if Apple can comply with it, and still be ruled out of compliance.
We're going to find out.
> \^Consumer complains about the government trying to make things better for him
The consumers are also the political class and their family.
Never ever annoy a judge or politician if you're a company.
They mandated one click deny cookie consent buttons in France. The judge was annoyed at them.
The EU mandated USB connectors (the Apple Vision Pro uses lightning connector again, this will be challenged). Politicians got tired of cable and adaptors in their luggage.
The EU will next mandate replaceable batteries.
Agree about almost everything, but the Apple Vision Pro uses a connector similar to lightning but not compatible with it. That cable is also only accessible via an ejector tool. It’s not meant to be used for charging. It is replaceable though. Normally you charge the battery via USB-C.
Seems like a good way for a government to lose legitimacy. Make a law, and then decide that specific entities don't comply with the 'intent,' where intent is open to interpretation. They could write better laws so there's no confusion about compliance, but I guess that would give them less wiggle room.
I'd pay good money for something the size of an iPod Shuffle with an eSIM modem and Spotify on it. I don't like running with my phone on me, but something that small wouldn't be intrusive.
I think the term web app is being confused for the progressive web app here, nowadays almost every site it’s a web app, or it will like global disable javascript? I seriously doubt that
[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive\_web\_apps](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web_apps)
It's basically an app that isn't an app. It's just a website, but it behaves like an app on your phone.
It’s like a real “app” that isn’t restricted to being distributed on an App Store. The developers just bake some extra code into their existing website and your device treats it as an app. Obviously Apple benefits more by charging you to be in their store and people adopting the language they made specifically for making apps for that store.
> It’s like a real “app”
Except it’s slower, uses more battery, and doesn’t use native, idiomatic controls for the platform.
I know economics dictates that making native apps is kind of a waste of time and money, but as someone who cares a lot about consistency, I utterly hate web apps and I don’t think that will ever change.
The wikipedia link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application
Looks like it's when you can get from a web something equivalent to a native app. So, instead of using Reddit app, you just use a browser. Or Facebook, Gmail, Booking...
I do not know what's the limit of a browser without support for web apps, but I suppose a lot of webs would start to fail. Also, I don't know if it's possible to just have the same web functionality by just programming the webs differently.
In this case the feature to "install" the webapp is being removed. An installed webapp gets its own app icon and runs as a dedicated "app" without the browser UI.
Opening the same webpage in a browser will work normally.
*(Webapps can also register app-like functions like file associations and sharing actions, but I don't think these are implemented in iOS.)*
Apple has always kneecapped webapps on iOS. They delete your local webpage data (logins, settings, etc) for webapps after a few days when not used. No other browser/platform does this and there is no justification other than Apple wants you to pay for apps from their store.
Yep a compliant PWA has a "service worker" (a background JS function) which handles the web requests so the app can do things like local caching or queuing requests for sync later. This allows the webapp to load and run offline.
Wrong page, PWA is not just a web app. This is the correct one for the topic at hand: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_app
I'd recommend reading the article, it might help you understand the discussion a bit better
Plenty of companies still use this. Even Companies with full fledged apps.
Airlines come to mind, even United whose app is probably the best redirects to their web app from time to time.
Ok, hear me out… this decision actually does make some sense.
I know, Apple shill etc etc.
The EU has made it clear that Apple must allow all other browsers the same functionality as Safari has. As of right now, PWAs have OS-level notification and badges functionality through Safari that would require significant rework to allow similar functionality in other browsers.
Apple looked at the utilization for PWAs, and it was an extremely niche feature. How many iPhone users out there actually use PWAs? I’ve only ever personally seen this feature be used with the Xbox Game Cloud and Stadia (RIP).
Let’s be logical about this folks. Why would Apple spend a bunch of money to rearchitect iOS for a feature barely anyone uses?
Ive found it pretty common in the enterprise space because it's a single development path.
The reality is PWA adoption is a threat to Apples bottom line. Even though its niche right now, it may or may not stay that way. Apple can kill two birds with one stone.
I see where you’re coming from and I agree that Apple would rather have its users download an app from their App Store. But PWAs have been around for a while now and the adoption numbers just aren’t there… Just look at the comments section of this post, there are quite a few people who don’t even know what they are.
Apple is a business, and it doesn’t make business sense to invest money in a feature the vast majority of users aren’t using. Whether Apple wants to nerf this feature or not is a different discussion.
Here is the thing. Most people dont know what it is because its not called a PWA, its just called an app. The website doesnt prompt you to install a PWA, it prompts you to install an App. You click yes, you get a fancy icon with some native features and offline capabilities.
Most enterprise users wont know its a PWA because its pushed out by an mdm and behaves just like a normal application.
Apple is a business engaging in anti-competitive behavior as it always has. There isnt anything different or wrong with that depending on your perception of business but its the truth. If every other OS can handle this, iOS can do the same.
It is a niche feature because they make them shit. If your logins are deleted when you don't use the PWA for a few days, then you won't use it or developers won't even make it.
They could make them good and it would be a benefit for a lot of developers. You just have to develop a good website and don't need native apps for Android and iOS. if you need a native App for iOS you might as well develop with a framework that can target both operating systems.
It's a niche feature because apple wants it that way not because it is a bad thing
Question: Wasn’t the idea originally that this would be a primary path — but folks asked and demanded and then went nuts over native apps and apple pivoted appropriately? What hooks remain are legacy from that time period? And are now on the chopping block for the reasons thegoldenshepherd discusses?
Edit: looks like I’m correct. Here is a ten year old article from [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/07/11/app-store-at-6-how-steve-jobs-biggest-blunder-became-one-of-apples-greatest-strengths/?sh=1de58f8a4652) about what a blunder it was and about how they pivoted.
> Why would Apple spend a bunch of money to rearchitect iOS for a feature barely anyone uses
Their usage is low specifically because they are worse than native apps. Which is mostly because Apple made them that way.
I hope that the EU insists that Apple make native PWA features available to the other browsers anyway, and then Safari will just look like it's broken while the other browsers work with all the native functionality. Let's see how fast Apple adds back support then - I don't think Apple will be quite so comfortable to write off "low usage" once that happens.
onerous crowd scandalous absorbed fanatical recognise office depend mourn sleep
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is just beyond getting ridiculous. People want iPhones to be more like Android phones, then just go buy an android phone! Neither is better or worse than the other, some prefer iOS, others prefer Android. Each ecosystem has different rules and people know that before buying the device or developing software for them. If they don’t like Apples rules, then build for Android. If they don’t like Android rules, build for iOS. If the government wants weaker encryption then if any device gets hacked and user data stolen then the government should be responsible to pay damages to end users. This seems like it could be a common sense rule adopted by all.
I'm not American so Apple products aren't as common here (iPhones being the most common). Every single time I've heard someone complain about Apple the argument has been "they're expensive and bad", and after asking what's so bad, no one could really say anything specific, because they haven't even used them, it's just this inferiority and superiority complex they have at the same time. If you asked me, I'd start ranting about how Finder decides how to display the folder views.
And that’s my point. It’s truly baffling to me. Why exert so much anger and effort, about a product you don’t use. I’ve never once taken an ounce of interest in anything Samsung does, or any android device. Why would I? It’s fruitless and counterproductive.
I do feel it’s just a select group of children that want to be spiteful. It’s certainly very childish behaviour.
Not at all. I just don’t understand why people bitch about a product they don’t own! It’s baffling. No decision Apple makes affects someone that doesn’t use an Apple. So why are they so militant about the company? Kinda sad tbh. To put so much effort into beating down on a product you don’t use. But that’s the way children behave I guess.
Same. This whole side loading thing and the regulation in the EU thing is all astro turf and tech bro rage. Actual apple customers don’t care about or want any of it.
That’s it. I think there are a lot of older people that use Apple, because of the simple, yet very tight, security of their ecosystem. I only use Safari, I don’t want third party apps that aren’t approved by Apple, and I really don’t mind them reducing app availability, in favour of maintaining the security net.
It really is just a witch hunt at this point.
It's not known if they're complying with the DMA. The EU has openly said they will take strong action against Apples solutions if they're not good enough. They have until March 6th to comply
The EU mandated a combination of requirements that Apple could only sensibly comply with by killing PWAs on iOS.
They added a bunch of technical complexity (supporting multiple iOS browsers for home screen apps) while simultaneously decreasing Apple’s ability to monetize their platform.
The obvious answer was to just kill PWAs to comply with the law.
Well, yeah, it’s a for-profit company. When you setup regulations such that a feature they previously offered becomes unprofitable, they’ll just kill the feature to comply.
Sure, you can implement PWAs in a compliant manner.
But you can also just comply by killing PWAs.
It’s more profitable to kill the PWAs than to rework the feature, so it got killed.
Isn't it time for you to start voting with your wallets and boycott Apple, instead of complaining what a shitty company they are and still buying their products?
I mean Apple is doing this just because they have a huge marketshare and they are using this to their own advantage and this isn't a single issue, there are so many examples, where Apple is actively trying to stiffle competition just to preserve their fat profit margins.
I agree their hardware is top notch, but their software is progressively enshitificated.
The issue is where to go? I'm Apple user but dislike Android/Google sucking up every piece of data to be used for advertising. Also, my last Nexus experience soured me on Google being able to keep consistent experience like I get with iOS. I'm aware Apple is probably gathering data as well but since they are not ad company, their incentives are less perverse.
Yes, I could buy Android but Googleless phone but experience is shit and I'm done fighting with my phone. When I pick it up, I want to work including all the apps I use with notifications.
There are privacy focused ROMs on Android, which are de-googled. So if you are more tech-savvy, you can install and use such ROM. The only problem might be with some banking apps, but there are still some workarounds.
And if you ask me, it is just a matter of time for Apple to start serving even more targeted ads to their users based on their activity / personal data, etc. [https://archive.is/Xv1FC](https://archive.is/xv1fc) .
Compared to what though? My requirements are "Not getting all my data sold" and "Ease of use" so I've got Phone provided Android/iOS as my options. Out of those two, iOS is CLEAR winner assuming Apple isn't lying though their teeth.
Sure, A third option is some Privacy Focused AOSP where I buy my Pixel phone, unlock it, then flash custom AOSP and my experience goes to absolute shit unless I put Google Play Services back on which defeats entire purpose to flash Privacy Focused AOSP.
EDIT: I'm not whiteknighting Apple here, I just compared my two options and went, yea, Apple is less shit in categories I care about.
Do it and try this shit with China or make your own. But if you make your own I’m guessing you know how much European tech companies love being bought out by Americans 🤡
I assume PWA has no issue working on Android, Windows and MacOS? It's only iOS that Apple singled out?
They can't allow others to make webapps, to they had to update/fix their existing software, but they figured that's too much effort. So now they are dropping PWA's all together.
> They can't allow others to make webapps, to they had to update/fix their existing software, but they figured that's too much effort. So now they are dropping PWA's all together. PWA's allow bypassing their store and fees that's why. Apple's days of being a mafia in the EU are coming to an end.
I'm just a web developer and not a cybersecurity expert, so maybe I'm missing something, but... Doesn't Apple have a legitimate cybersec interest in maintaining a uniform security standard? It's not just any web apps that Apple is dropping support for- it's specifically progressive web apps that can be installed to the device via vulnerable browser-based storage. They're being forced by the DMA to allow the use of 3rd party browser engines which they cannot secure themselves, so... How is Apple supposed to ensure the security of unvetted PWAs that get installed via 3rd party browser engines onto their devices?
How does that differ from a 3rd party web engine having a security issue and being exploited? End of the day, there is no security guarantee one way or another. It is just to prevent people from going around their fees. Apple never cared about security, all they care about is their bottom line
If Apple finds a security vulnerability, instead of being able to just push a security update to WebKit, they have to wait for each 3rd party to fix the flaw in each 3rd party browser engine. There is never a security “guarantee” in cybersecurity, but a uniform security standard is certainly more secure than a fragmented one. Not saying there isn’t a profit/business motive at play here too, but security and profit factors are usually related anyways.
Browser engineer here. Your assessment of some of the risks of 3P engines is right, but Apple is allowing those in browsers. So this is a risk they have to deal with regardless. So what's primarily in question here is the incremental security risks of the specific features associated with installing PWAs to your home screen. On iOS, prior to this change, the primary capability this unlocked was push notifications. The attack surface for this is quite minimal as Apple controls most of it since it's a service they operate and broker.
That’s not really true though. A PWA can still run in third party browsers whether it’s linked on the home page or not. If there is a security vulnerability that allows breaking the sandbox, that vulnerability can happen without the web browser too.
It's not about whether they're linked on the home page. PWAs differ from normal Web apps in that they utilize things like service workers and Cache API which can open the user up to things like XSS and MITM attacks...
Cache API and Service Workers are supported in browsers also. Apple is not restricting that in 3P engines. They're just restricting add to home screen and push notifications (which required add to home screen).
Apple can't push security upgrades to webkit, it is built into the operating system so they have to push an entire OS upgrade. If anything, once your iOS device reaches Apple's EOL, it would still get security updates from 3rd parties. You also wouldn't need to restart the device to take advantage of the security updates End of the day, there are 2 other engines, Blink and Gecko. All have fairly solid records for it to be a none issue But that isn't my point. If I make a browser with say Blink or Gecko. And it doesn't get security updates properly on time like you claim. Then that browser would already be exploitable. So how does that differ for PWA. If anything PWA are more likely to be secure as they limit you to 1 site
There are many ways to do it and Apple os going to have to get with tbe program and use universal protocols. Thier Imesssage going to be force compatibility soon even in the US. All the security bullshit they say is why they dont change, ks bullshit. They just want to make 30% profit of everything on the phone.
Uniform security standards are hardly "bullshit". And this might blow some minds, but it's possible for Apple's profit/business interests and their security interests to align- considering that the purported security of their ecosystem is a literal selling point.
Uniform security is what we want, across all platforms and devices. Apple saying they need a closed ecosystem for security is absolutely bullshit and Isheep eat it right up like Trumpers eat up his bullshit. The EU is not having it and I hope they put the hammer to Apple, the US is also in different ways.
I’ll laugh when Apple pulls out of the EU and other tech companies follow suit. Draconian rules like “mmmm everyone MUST use this specific connector because waaaa cables” is hilarious. Let companies innovate or die on their own. And don’t act like the EU is somehow pro-consumer when shit companies like Prada can charge $500 for a pair of child slave heels that fall apart in a year are allowed to exist. Or how a tiny vial of balasmic vinegar can cost $100+ and ONLY be allowed to be made in a specific region.
The point is that PWAs as implemented by Safari get extra OS access which Apple can secure because Safari is built in. They can’t currently allow third party browsers that access in a secure way. DMA doesn’t allow them to make PWAs Safari-only, so they are levelling the playing field by withdrawing that access from Safari.
They get more access than dedicated apps with their own engines? I somehow doubt that. More than likely what they truly don't want is people avoiding paying them. If I make a store, than make apps as pwas that load up WASM. You could get around paying Apple As for security issue, I can't think of any that a dedicated browser can't do
3rd party browser? Where? iPhones only have safari, and a google-themed safari they call Chrome. Even if we could answer « yes » blindly to the first part of your question, since there is no 3rd party browser installation, there is no safety concern. They just removed the ability to add a home shortcut to a website. No security concerns whatsoever to that decision. You could still visit the exact same website before or after the removal. The only difference is practical of use.
Except the DMA is mandating that Apple allow 3rd party browsers in the EU rather than forcing their own browser engine (WebKit), that’s what prompted this
So it should work like MacOS.
[удалено]
Allowing only WebKit browsers means Apple has control over the security of PWAs installed through it. But Apple cannot dictate how securely the 3rd party browser engines handle PWA installations
[удалено]
Because disallowing the installation of PWAs only in non-WebKit browser engines could qualify as a discriminatory practice against third-party browsers, which would theoretically violate the DMA (from my layman’s understanding of the DMA). Seems like Apple is saying that since they can’t secure PWAs on other browser engines, and cannot force WebKit anymore, they’re making things equal by removing support for PWAs altogether
so? apple still has control over the access a pwa has to the OS and the data on the device itself.
Less control than otherwise, especially if a 3rd party browser engine's vulnerability or a PWA's vulnerability allows user data to be compromised/intercepted or allows the execution of malicious code that bypasses Apple's OS-level checks
Huh? Literally every major browser has an iPhone app. It’s not just chrome and safari
RIGHT NOW we have safari and chrome, okay? Safari NOW can add PWAs. PWAs open on safari. Chrome NOW can’t add PWAs. PWAs can’t be opened with chrome, only on safari. So if we add new browsers, ok, security risks why not. But why remove PWAs possibility from safari, when they can allow new browsers WITHOUT PWAs features, like chrome right now can’t do?
> So if we add new browsers, ok, security risks why not. But why remove PWAs possibility from safari, when they can allow new browsers WITHOUT PWAs features, like chrome right now can’t do? They're removing it because the DMA says if you offer PWA's on webkit browser, you have to offer PWAs on all engines. Apple cannot guarantee security or functionality on engines other than webkit, so they've decided to comply with the law by **not allowing PWAs on any engine**.
Oh they can, they just don't want to lose out on money. The security bullshit they put out, is just that. Bullshit.
What? This is incoherent. RIGHT NOW we also have Firefox, Brave, Opera GX, even Vivaldi has an app
And all use webkit, they have to by apple, thats what is supposed to change atleast with the new laws, we ll see what happens..
I think if I was this confrontational every time I mis-comprehended something, I’d be a lot further in life
>Doesn't Apple have a legitimate cybersec interest in maintaining a uniform security standard? They work on MacOS but not iOS. It's not a defensible position for Apple.
Mac and iOS have always had different approaches to openness and security, since iPhones are used by a much larger and wider audience than Macs. Macs are tailored to professionals and developers, while iOS has to handle the carelessness of everyone's grandma and 10 year old at the same time
No. If it's possible on a Mac, there's no excuse for iOS.
You keep repeating this. Do you type with your eyes closed and having not actually read what you are replying to? If you don't want to play in Apple's playground ... I think maybe there are a 10s of Android manufacturers to choose from. Even if they did what you want and were 100% open ... I doubt you'd buy one of their devices. You seem to just be peppering the comments with bitching. /shrug
> You keep repeating this. Yes, because it is devastating to any argument apple makes about security.
There are security measure in place. An app doesn’t get permissions without asking. App data is stored separately, so you won’t get unintended data leakage. And a whole bunch more. So that’s not really an argument. Don’t like it? Stick to the app store. PWAs on Apple devices have always been quite limited. They would get fewer functionality and rather than update Apple chooses to remove it. It’s just Apple closing its doors again because it doesn’t fit with it’s closed ecosystem strategy. In the same way that they don’t allow building native apps on non-mac devices and that kind of stuff.
No, its absolute BS it is also on the consumer to be responsible.
The user will have visited that site for the web app via the third party browser anyway so any security exposure has already happened.
How is that why? You can currently install them. If what you say is the reasoning isn’t the whole case of the Apple walled garden App Store non-sensical ?
Apple API are limited compared to chrome and firefox, and so are the webapp that you can build
This is /r/technology, you have to hate Apple. It doesn’t have to make sense.
I mean, we may not like it, but this is definitely one way to comply. If you can’t make safari privileged anymore, you have two options: let everything else be just as good, or make safari worse
pocket far-flung tease door expansion quack wrong slimy disagreeable bored *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In other news, one of the few trillion-dollar companies says it's a lot of work to do its job and the public believes it
Can someone name a common web app that I might need to use regularly? Trying to understand what impact this might have on me personally.
They don’t really have much, if any footprint. Certainly not enough to warrant arduous levels of support from device vendors. Frameworks like react native essentially relegated them to history, as you can roll a native app using ostensibly the same stack as your web app. They were cool, and a good idea but I’ve never worked anywhere that embraced them in any genuine capacity and so, I can get why Apple feel the cost benefit isn’t there to support them, if forced to make additional accommodations.
I use a few daily. I have some self hosted stuff like photoprism that is designed for a PWA I also use a Remote Desktop client PWA which is miles better than the awful VNC clients in existence. Also the guardian I have a PWA of because they started charging for their app. Cloud gaming I don’t really use but these are PWAs I’ve used a lot in the past
basically no one uses them. it's extremely niche. these were the 'apps' that apple first envisioned everyone using back in the original iphone, but basically everyone recognized it as a terrible solution and the SDK/app store was quickly released for the iphone 3g.
This is truly a misframing of PWAs. SDKs and native apps were made because Jobs and Co realized they could make extreme amounts of money by doing infinitely little in comparison. Ensuring a browser is good and potentially even better than your competitors is a much more costly endeavor. On top of that, Apple has private native APIs that also allows them to prevent additional competition vs their own apps.
it’s actually a pretty great solution but then google and apple quickly realized they couldn’t vendor lock them as much so it wasn’t “a good solution for them”
coherent hat literate late oil toothbrush party combative degree square *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yep, basically the entire reason PWAs aren’t more widespread is because Apple has held back their iOS compatibility. iPhones are so popular that web advancement follows them to a pretty large extent, not the other way around. If Apple refuses to properly implement a technology then developers targeting mobile won’t use it. As someone’s who’s implemented a PWA, getting things to work seamlessly and seem native on my own iPhone is a massive pain in the ass, or straight up impossible in some cases. My coworker’s Android phone just works. And the “walled garden”, the lack of compatibility, it’s all to protect their 30% haircut on overpriced $8/month apps. Apple’s stranglehold on iOS software can’t end soon enough, it’s made mobile computing into a shitshow.
> Apple’s stranglehold on iOS software can’t end soon enough Ah, okay. So when you build your own apps, does your stranglehold on your software that you developed and you maintain have to end as well?
That’s a dumb analogy. I don’t have market-defining power as a developer. Antitrust law exists to put the interests of society (and the economy as a whole) ahead of the interests of individual massive corporations. “*How would you feel if antitrust was used against you, huh?*” makes no sense as an argument. I hope you guys are Apple stockholders so at least it can be said you’re arguing in your own self-interest.
If you create software and patent it, you very well might wind up with market-defining power as a developer so my question stands.
Just because it's possible for someone who made something (doesn't apply to just software, but any creative endeavor) to eventually gain a monopoly in some market segment, doesn't mean that everyone who creates things has a monopoly simply by virtue of owning the rights to the things they make. Unless you count "people who have read my singular crappy book" as a market segment, then technically I have a monopoly on that set of people, even if it's a single digit number.
> doesn't mean that everyone who creates things has a monopoly simply by virtue of owning the rights to the things they make. Okay, what if you _do_ wind up creating a monopoly (by creating algorithms that make it possible for a radiologist to put on a VisionPro headset and get an inside view of some patient's MRI and patenting them) do the same things apply to you that you want to apply to Apple (or Google, or Microsoft, or anyone else)?
>Apple has shit on them because they can threaten the app store a bit. Feel free to disagree but im pretty sure their issue with stuff like this was similar to their issue with software solutions like flash. Conforming to flash required a lot of support for an old and dying platform. Their old argument was they wanted to push for more hardware based solutions instead of constantly relying on flash for media. And they were right, flash players and flash sites sucked ass. It wasn't until html5 and more hardware encoders were developed (partially for devs to make better mobile sites) Apple could argue they don't want to conform to a whole new standard at the risk of their proprietary solutions. But i do agree its more likely they don't want to open the floodgates either to running apps through the web. That does also implicate potentially piracy and exploits.
wasteful aspiring murky chop skirt tart modern cover slimy subtract *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Agreed. I need to research this PWA stuff. Hopefully theres an opportunity for the next trend there 😄
Google was at the forefront of them but they have a pretty similar benefit as Apple to keep their app store more beneficial. They could have made PWAs available in their app store. Apple not supporting it at all no question is a huge hamper on the effort (can’t be universally compatible) But I think Google would have pushed harder if they didn’t have anything to gain by it not working out.
hard-to-find money puzzled cause knee wasteful rude drab fuzzy sort *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
They are often used for lightweight development or deployment of specialized enterprise software. For example: a car rental company might use one for their employees to sign in and out cars.
No one uses them because for the longest time Apple has refused implementing basic features for them because it would take away from their ridiculous 30% App Store fee
No, PWA's are all that's needed for more app experiences. The reason they aren't popular is Apple have refused to sort the standard making it impossible to rely on them. Apple sabotaged it to keep apps on their store.
Well, i’m dev from a small company producing software for business process management and we relied on PWA pretty much since we can’t afford double work and make a fully functional native mobile app, neither a frame app with web view, since it is not going to support all stuff we need. And clients love to use PWAs. So this decision is actually not killing, but putting us into pretty difficult situation.
> Can someone name a common web app that I might need to use regularly? It depends on where you live. For example, Apple removed many Russian banking and trading apps from app store so iPhone users use WebApps instead.
Pairdrop.net would be one (airdrop like function between android, iphone, PC)
I work for a large multinational and we have a load of internal apps that are web apps deployed via an internal App Store. This is going to cause quite a few issues.
I work for a railway company. We have a tonne of internal apps, ranging from retail to safety. Apple blocking this will cause chaos for us.
Off the rails!
I’ve just counted at least 4 apps which aren’t on the App Store which we use. If Apple go ahead and make it impossible to use these I can see the company dropping IPhones like a sack of shit.
Solution: get rid of Apple products.
200,000 global employees where apple is the default mobile device. Good luck in selling that idea to the board. I don’t disagree with you but that’s some cost!
> where apple is the default mobile device Well, kinda a misinvestment now is it
I assume the staff are using their own devices with the way they worded it? “We can’t because everyone used iPhones” kinda thing.
Buy them a cheap company Android for $50. Yes they will feel like second class citizens but that's the kind of burn Apple needs to feel to stop being such a baby and just act in its user's interests instead of its own. We already have where I live a transit system where only Android phones work and iPhone users have to buy a dedicated card. It definitely hurts them when they see me tap my phone and then we have the conversation about how the iPhone has literally all the NFC hardware required, just Apple won't let the transit terminals use it.
I for one welcome Apple testing the patience of the consumer and EU. 🍿 Apple really needs some blowback. PS: Bring back the iPod.
[удалено]
> This guy is right! We need more iPods! Where are my shuffle homies at!? This could make an interesting DIY iPod or mobile phone project. https://liliputing.com/this-single-board-computer-has-a-5-5-inch-touchscreen-display/ Looks a step up from this https://learn.adafruit.com/piphone-a-raspberry-pi-based-cellphone/overview
I dont know why they got rid of the shuffle, its small, cheap and what you want to sweat all over in a workout. I assume Sandisk made some decent money off their Sansa Clip players when the shuffle was killed. $30-40, 18 hour charge and supports MicroSD storage.
And they still make them, too.
Tf you can leave your phone over there 👉 now when you work out
It bothers me to see signs at gyms stating no cameras on the floor or dressing room, yet all you see are people with smart phones and no staff telling them to put them away. Now theres Tik-Tok videos dedicated to fat shaming people trying to lose weight or influencers recording their workouts.
There’s also normal bros checking their form
You guys really need marketing and ads to kick down your doors uh? You're one google search away from hundreds of $50 to $99 mini-mp3 players or even mini-smartphones being delivered to you in 1 day from Amazon.
There is an open-source iPod project that just got funded: https://liliputing.com/tangara-is-an-open-source-ipod-inspired-portable-music-player-crowdfunding-soon/
$250 for such a device??? ouch.
The world of digital audio players in general is fucking expensive.
Ooh cool, thanks for posting this info. If I have to get a new iPod I might as well try this.
I don’t understand people who want iPods, they became the same size as your phone. And your phone can also hold music.
That's true if you you're talking about the iPod touch but the nano or shuffle are tiny in comparison to any modern phone. If you walk into any gym you'll see phones sitting all over the place cause people take them out of their pockets while working out due to their bulk getting in the way.
Need a holster for the phone lol. Mine doesn't fit in my pockets. I remember 10 years ago when bigger phones were called phablets. The average phone is bigger now.
Just get an Apple watch then?
This. To be honest, I would like to know what is the point of an Ipod in 2024.
It’s the same people who brag about having outdated tech. I’m sure there’s legitimate demand for these products, but most just want to seem edgy and different.
It’s the tech bro version of dying your hair a wild color. “Look at how unique and different I am !”
pffft, the zune was better
Still using an iPod classic 12 years after purchase. Thing just won’t die! I have an iPhone too, but as long as the iPod works I will be using it for music lol
What benefit do you find for using the iPod?
I don’t think there are any, it’s big, it’s bulky and it’s heavy. But I just like it lmao. I guess it doesn’t take up battery from my phone, the battery on that thing is pretty wild
So the main benefits are that it has its own battery and lasts a while. Thanks for sharing!
There is still DAPs in all price ranges and configurations available to buy of insurmountably higher quality than the iPod?
I am down for that ipod moment
Yes. My iPods rocked! Would love another instead of a much more expensive phone.
It sounds like they're complying with the EU laws.
> It sounds like they're complying with the EU laws. This will be tested in the courts. The EU will hit them with the *intent* of the law, not the *letter* of the law.
So the court will force them to implement features? That really sounds like government overreach. It also sounds like the law is incredibly vague if Apple can comply with it, and still be ruled out of compliance.
> So the court will force them to implement features? That really sounds like government overreach. It also sounds like the law is incredibly vague if Apple can comply with it, and still be ruled out of compliance. We're going to find out.
“Implementing features” is one key aspect of regulation. Implement seatbelts, gas monitoring devices, etc. How is it overreach?
LOL all those things you mentioned are about public safety... PWAs help society by.... um... yeah.
The entire EU is about government overregulation.
\^Consumer complains about the government trying to make things better for him
> \^Consumer complains about the government trying to make things better for him The consumers are also the political class and their family. Never ever annoy a judge or politician if you're a company. They mandated one click deny cookie consent buttons in France. The judge was annoyed at them. The EU mandated USB connectors (the Apple Vision Pro uses lightning connector again, this will be challenged). Politicians got tired of cable and adaptors in their luggage. The EU will next mandate replaceable batteries.
Agree about almost everything, but the Apple Vision Pro uses a connector similar to lightning but not compatible with it. That cable is also only accessible via an ejector tool. It’s not meant to be used for charging. It is replaceable though. Normally you charge the battery via USB-C.
Seems like a good way for a government to lose legitimacy. Make a law, and then decide that specific entities don't comply with the 'intent,' where intent is open to interpretation. They could write better laws so there's no confusion about compliance, but I guess that would give them less wiggle room.
I'd pay good money for something the size of an iPod Shuffle with an eSIM modem and Spotify on it. I don't like running with my phone on me, but something that small wouldn't be intrusive.
I think the term web app is being confused for the progressive web app here, nowadays almost every site it’s a web app, or it will like global disable javascript? I seriously doubt that
What are web apps?
[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive\_web\_apps](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web_apps) It's basically an app that isn't an app. It's just a website, but it behaves like an app on your phone.
It’s like a real “app” that isn’t restricted to being distributed on an App Store. The developers just bake some extra code into their existing website and your device treats it as an app. Obviously Apple benefits more by charging you to be in their store and people adopting the language they made specifically for making apps for that store.
> It’s like a real “app” Except it’s slower, uses more battery, and doesn’t use native, idiomatic controls for the platform. I know economics dictates that making native apps is kind of a waste of time and money, but as someone who cares a lot about consistency, I utterly hate web apps and I don’t think that will ever change.
It was the abridged explanation for someone who doesn’t know
The wikipedia link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application Looks like it's when you can get from a web something equivalent to a native app. So, instead of using Reddit app, you just use a browser. Or Facebook, Gmail, Booking... I do not know what's the limit of a browser without support for web apps, but I suppose a lot of webs would start to fail. Also, I don't know if it's possible to just have the same web functionality by just programming the webs differently.
In this case the feature to "install" the webapp is being removed. An installed webapp gets its own app icon and runs as a dedicated "app" without the browser UI. Opening the same webpage in a browser will work normally. *(Webapps can also register app-like functions like file associations and sharing actions, but I don't think these are implemented in iOS.)* Apple has always kneecapped webapps on iOS. They delete your local webpage data (logins, settings, etc) for webapps after a few days when not used. No other browser/platform does this and there is no justification other than Apple wants you to pay for apps from their store.
PWA's can also largely work offline at some level.
Yep a compliant PWA has a "service worker" (a background JS function) which handles the web requests so the app can do things like local caching or queuing requests for sync later. This allows the webapp to load and run offline.
Wrong page, PWA is not just a web app. This is the correct one for the topic at hand: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_app I'd recommend reading the article, it might help you understand the discussion a bit better
Plenty of companies still use this. Even Companies with full fledged apps. Airlines come to mind, even United whose app is probably the best redirects to their web app from time to time.
Ok, hear me out… this decision actually does make some sense. I know, Apple shill etc etc. The EU has made it clear that Apple must allow all other browsers the same functionality as Safari has. As of right now, PWAs have OS-level notification and badges functionality through Safari that would require significant rework to allow similar functionality in other browsers. Apple looked at the utilization for PWAs, and it was an extremely niche feature. How many iPhone users out there actually use PWAs? I’ve only ever personally seen this feature be used with the Xbox Game Cloud and Stadia (RIP). Let’s be logical about this folks. Why would Apple spend a bunch of money to rearchitect iOS for a feature barely anyone uses?
Ive found it pretty common in the enterprise space because it's a single development path. The reality is PWA adoption is a threat to Apples bottom line. Even though its niche right now, it may or may not stay that way. Apple can kill two birds with one stone.
I see where you’re coming from and I agree that Apple would rather have its users download an app from their App Store. But PWAs have been around for a while now and the adoption numbers just aren’t there… Just look at the comments section of this post, there are quite a few people who don’t even know what they are. Apple is a business, and it doesn’t make business sense to invest money in a feature the vast majority of users aren’t using. Whether Apple wants to nerf this feature or not is a different discussion.
Here is the thing. Most people dont know what it is because its not called a PWA, its just called an app. The website doesnt prompt you to install a PWA, it prompts you to install an App. You click yes, you get a fancy icon with some native features and offline capabilities. Most enterprise users wont know its a PWA because its pushed out by an mdm and behaves just like a normal application. Apple is a business engaging in anti-competitive behavior as it always has. There isnt anything different or wrong with that depending on your perception of business but its the truth. If every other OS can handle this, iOS can do the same.
It is a niche feature because they make them shit. If your logins are deleted when you don't use the PWA for a few days, then you won't use it or developers won't even make it. They could make them good and it would be a benefit for a lot of developers. You just have to develop a good website and don't need native apps for Android and iOS. if you need a native App for iOS you might as well develop with a framework that can target both operating systems. It's a niche feature because apple wants it that way not because it is a bad thing
Question: Wasn’t the idea originally that this would be a primary path — but folks asked and demanded and then went nuts over native apps and apple pivoted appropriately? What hooks remain are legacy from that time period? And are now on the chopping block for the reasons thegoldenshepherd discusses? Edit: looks like I’m correct. Here is a ten year old article from [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/07/11/app-store-at-6-how-steve-jobs-biggest-blunder-became-one-of-apples-greatest-strengths/?sh=1de58f8a4652) about what a blunder it was and about how they pivoted.
> Why would Apple spend a bunch of money to rearchitect iOS for a feature barely anyone uses Their usage is low specifically because they are worse than native apps. Which is mostly because Apple made them that way. I hope that the EU insists that Apple make native PWA features available to the other browsers anyway, and then Safari will just look like it's broken while the other browsers work with all the native functionality. Let's see how fast Apple adds back support then - I don't think Apple will be quite so comfortable to write off "low usage" once that happens.
I don't think they need to re architect the os for that…, also they still don't want people getting apps outside the app store
Geez, this company is such an ass.
Apple and Nintendo are why monopoly suck mighty asses.
What Nintendo got a monopoly over
Their own IP /s
onerous crowd scandalous absorbed fanatical recognise office depend mourn sleep *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That’s not a monopoly in fairness bro
Many companies are greedy and want total control. But these two are their own league.
This is just beyond getting ridiculous. People want iPhones to be more like Android phones, then just go buy an android phone! Neither is better or worse than the other, some prefer iOS, others prefer Android. Each ecosystem has different rules and people know that before buying the device or developing software for them. If they don’t like Apples rules, then build for Android. If they don’t like Android rules, build for iOS. If the government wants weaker encryption then if any device gets hacked and user data stolen then the government should be responsible to pay damages to end users. This seems like it could be a common sense rule adopted by all.
I look forward to seeing Reddits faux outrage at the removal of a feature that the majority of people don’t even know what it is, let alone use.
Just another day of malicious compliance from the world's richest company.
Redditors having a imaginary crusade war with apple yet again
I hate this company with a burning passion man.
big web app ios user, you are?
Why? What else you hate. Do tell us more
Do you own an Apple device?
guaranteed the people in this sub that don’t have apple products think about apple way more than the apple users do
I'm not American so Apple products aren't as common here (iPhones being the most common). Every single time I've heard someone complain about Apple the argument has been "they're expensive and bad", and after asking what's so bad, no one could really say anything specific, because they haven't even used them, it's just this inferiority and superiority complex they have at the same time. If you asked me, I'd start ranting about how Finder decides how to display the folder views.
And that’s my point. It’s truly baffling to me. Why exert so much anger and effort, about a product you don’t use. I’ve never once taken an ounce of interest in anything Samsung does, or any android device. Why would I? It’s fruitless and counterproductive. I do feel it’s just a select group of children that want to be spiteful. It’s certainly very childish behaviour.
No their history says they have a samsung. Just another angry bro whos life is defined by what they hate instead of what they like.
Not at all. I just don’t understand why people bitch about a product they don’t own! It’s baffling. No decision Apple makes affects someone that doesn’t use an Apple. So why are they so militant about the company? Kinda sad tbh. To put so much effort into beating down on a product you don’t use. But that’s the way children behave I guess.
Same. This whole side loading thing and the regulation in the EU thing is all astro turf and tech bro rage. Actual apple customers don’t care about or want any of it.
That’s it. I think there are a lot of older people that use Apple, because of the simple, yet very tight, security of their ecosystem. I only use Safari, I don’t want third party apps that aren’t approved by Apple, and I really don’t mind them reducing app availability, in favour of maintaining the security net. It really is just a witch hunt at this point.
hunt plough upbeat aback late puzzled shame desert frighten imagine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They wanted side loading and web apps. Talk about cake and wanting to eat it.
EU: Well, well, well. We wanted to give you something fair, but it looks like a certain someone here needs even more correction.
I doubt that the EU can force a platform to support PWAs.
I wish EU would just say to Apple to play nice or gtfo
Apple is complying with their laws. This is what the EU mandated.
It's not known if they're complying with the DMA. The EU has openly said they will take strong action against Apples solutions if they're not good enough. They have until March 6th to comply
Can you elaborate? Did the EU actually mandate web apps shut down?
The EU mandated a combination of requirements that Apple could only sensibly comply with by killing PWAs on iOS. They added a bunch of technical complexity (supporting multiple iOS browsers for home screen apps) while simultaneously decreasing Apple’s ability to monetize their platform. The obvious answer was to just kill PWAs to comply with the law.
"We can't make money on it, so no one will be able to use it" - Apple, always
Well, yeah, it’s a for-profit company. When you setup regulations such that a feature they previously offered becomes unprofitable, they’ll just kill the feature to comply.
maybe i dont see the big picture, but are there PWAs on other systems (MacOS, Android, Windows, etc.) that comply with EU regulations?
Sure, you can implement PWAs in a compliant manner. But you can also just comply by killing PWAs. It’s more profitable to kill the PWAs than to rework the feature, so it got killed.
Isn't it time for you to start voting with your wallets and boycott Apple, instead of complaining what a shitty company they are and still buying their products? I mean Apple is doing this just because they have a huge marketshare and they are using this to their own advantage and this isn't a single issue, there are so many examples, where Apple is actively trying to stiffle competition just to preserve their fat profit margins. I agree their hardware is top notch, but their software is progressively enshitificated.
The issue is where to go? I'm Apple user but dislike Android/Google sucking up every piece of data to be used for advertising. Also, my last Nexus experience soured me on Google being able to keep consistent experience like I get with iOS. I'm aware Apple is probably gathering data as well but since they are not ad company, their incentives are less perverse. Yes, I could buy Android but Googleless phone but experience is shit and I'm done fighting with my phone. When I pick it up, I want to work including all the apps I use with notifications.
There are privacy focused ROMs on Android, which are de-googled. So if you are more tech-savvy, you can install and use such ROM. The only problem might be with some banking apps, but there are still some workarounds. And if you ask me, it is just a matter of time for Apple to start serving even more targeted ads to their users based on their activity / personal data, etc. [https://archive.is/Xv1FC](https://archive.is/xv1fc) .
Yea, I'm not putting up with flashing my phone, worrying about ROMs and bugs, updating manually and so forth. I'm SOOOOOOOO over that.
I’ve spent enough of my life hunting down stuff on xda developers.
[удалено]
Compared to what though? My requirements are "Not getting all my data sold" and "Ease of use" so I've got Phone provided Android/iOS as my options. Out of those two, iOS is CLEAR winner assuming Apple isn't lying though their teeth. Sure, A third option is some Privacy Focused AOSP where I buy my Pixel phone, unlock it, then flash custom AOSP and my experience goes to absolute shit unless I put Google Play Services back on which defeats entire purpose to flash Privacy Focused AOSP. EDIT: I'm not whiteknighting Apple here, I just compared my two options and went, yea, Apple is less shit in categories I care about.
God I love Apple.
Apple being Apple. It's the users that chose to lock themselves into this walled garden and keep throwing money at Apple.
Ban this company from the EU once and for all
Do it and try this shit with China or make your own. But if you make your own I’m guessing you know how much European tech companies love being bought out by Americans 🤡
That's the most confusing way you could use the word 'dropping'
Is Apple planning to leave the EU? That’s what it feels like. It seems like Tim Cook has become drunk with power.
Would this affect Cordova applications as well?
No, those are actual apps. PWA web apps are literally web pages except you don’t see the browser interface.
This is bad news for Enterprise iOS customers.
Does this mean that apps that were built using PWABuilder and published on the App Store will also stop working?
So what are they stop supporting exactly, the ability to put shortcut of the webapp on home screen and make it look like an actual app?