It’s Official, Apple Kills Web Apps in the EU

https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/its-official-apple-kills-web-apps-in-the-eu/

by szasamasa • 2 years ago

232 325 2 years ago

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

Apps are standalone user experiences. Native apps play by the operating system's security rules, while web domains operate within the sandbox of the browser. Web apps are just websites in standalone mode. If you misunderstand web apps as some wicked things coming out of your trusted browser to party on your device, you might not see clearly in the Apple vs. EU debate.

Apple just made their true target crystal clear: they have always been aiming at web capabilities: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/capabilities/fugu-showcase. We see now: they will do so until they are stopped by legal force.

Apple hides no longer behind browser engine restrictions, they are going after the heart of what lets developers deliver full-fledged app experiences without the need for native installs from app stores. Apple sees these capabilities as a direct threat to their app store model: the web IS the potential rival store diminishing that sweet revenue close to 100 billion dollars a year.

Apple loves to claim in legal debates and at congressional hearings (which is a company smell) that web apps offer a viable alternative, thus denying an App Store monopoly. But behind the scenes, they've choked browser engine choice on iOS and crippled WebKit to undermine that exact web alternative. The ability to deliver compelling standalone experiences from the web stalls because major platforms like iOS can't be trusted to keep pace with industry standards.

It's like a public transport company deliberately making their service inaccessible: "Sure, wheelchair ramps are nice in theory, but since nobody really uses our trains this way (because we never installed toilets for this user group), forget the ramps. Sorry for the inconvenience it might cause to this group who tried using trains anyhow, instead of the suggested Apple Car with our innovative iPiss system. Oh, and those pesky other train companies we're forced to allow on our tracks? You have to make your trains just as inaccessible because, uh, Apple Car is just safer to deliver wheelchair experiences!

Security is not an argument. WebKit was capable of sandboxing websites, as are Gecko and Chromium. If Apple wants to protect its users and treat them as adults, they should warn them when downloading browsers, that is it. If you want to play apple safe, stay by Safari. You do not need web apps, anyways. Your system is not in danger if I download “shit” on MY iPhone. In addition, Apple is capable and it is not an unreasonable ask to make iOS secure for web browsers. Every other OS, including their own macOS, does this.

It's baffling how Apple underestimates the intelligence of judges and lawmakers. Should Apple try to cripple web capabilities for alternative browsers (directly like the current plan is or even subtly with keeping iOS sub-optimal regarding web app security), may those fines come and let them be staggering. Apple choked web capabilities with WebKit and now does this directly by misusing the power of iOS. Apple shouldn't get to block the web alternative to their App Store while pretending to offer one on legal battlefields.

For web apps you need developers who are not threatened by Apple and iOS to pull the plug on their product any time. Like they are trying to do now. Web app usage and adoption would also be boosted if the developer community stopped calling “install” what is a switch from tab to standalone mode. Using the word "install" undermines not just the inherent simplicity of web apps but the long established trust in the safety of browsing websites within a controlled tab. The word "install" creates a false sense of heightened risk and potential device alteration. This creates unnecessary confusion and suspicion, hindering user adoption. We should build upon the success of the web, emphasizing the truth that web apps are simply enhanced websites and leverage the implicit trust users already place in the web security model.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

I would like this thread to be a somewhat deeper discussion about DMA and web apps.

I would welcome true tech or legal arguments. But please if you are an apple-bot or rather less familiar with web tech, read more before commenting. I don't really want spam arguments like you claim I must be protected from myself using web apps via Gecko or Chromium. I am fully capable to make my decision and you can make yours: just NEVER download a browser engine other than Safari and you are Apple-Safe.

I miss a discussion about legalities and technicalities, about freedom of choice and competition. Apple must prove why users who trust other browser engines should not get access to web capabilities those OTHER browser companies find secure enough. Some potential talking points I would suggest:

– concrete examples of web capabilities that are NOT going to be available on iOS versus macOS (and every other OS): service workers, camera access, local storage persistence? Does anybody know?

– do you think Gecko and Chromium are just as safe on the CURRENT iOS as Webkit was when Apple allowed service workers for example? Apple cites dangers, are these theoretical dangers of potential not-industry-standard-browsers or does these dangers apply to Firefox and Chrome too? Is it really necessary and to what extent for Apple to make changes on iOS so that battle tested browsers from companies like Mozilla, Google, Microsoft could use modern web capabilities with clear conscience on iOS too? https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu#8

– what is this ”new integration architecture” that would make web apps more secure and how much effort would it really be to foster web app security on OS level if not already in place on iOS? Being Apple one of the richest companies in the world and having macOS that has a good enough architecture I am sure Apple legally is bound to change iOS to support secure web apps if the effort is reasonable.

– Apple was forced to allow competing browser engines and apparently must be forced to give other browser engines access to modern web capabilities. How?

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... “In particular, each browser is built on a web browser engine, which is responsible for key browser functionality such as speed, reliability and web compatibility. When gatekeepers operate and impose web browser engines, they are in a position to determine the functionality and standards that will apply not only to their own web browsers, but also to competing web browsers and, in turn, to web software applications.”

Will this suffice legally or does the DMA text need improvement? I think this is enough since the text requires Apple to give way to alternative web browsers with the CLEAR INTENTION that the gatekeeper could not determine the functionality and web standards that are accessible on iOS. The text explicitly mentions web apps and that the goal is breaking a gatekeeper's power to cripple web apps.

lozenge5• 2 years ago

Will this suffice legally or does the DMA text need improvement?

We can't tell until this goes to court, and Apple was always going to fight every step of the way and make the EU take them to court.

anon3738398• 2 years ago

what is this ”new integration architecture” that would make web apps more secure

I think this "new integration architecture" is a very flimsy excuse. To host PWAs, a browser needs the ability to (1) ask iOS for permission to place an icon on the Home Screen, (2) launch certain "tabs" (Home Screen apps) in a separate window. Safari can already do this; they just need let others do the same. Since the PWA is hosted by a specific browser, I suppose you also need a dialog telling the user that XYZ app will also be deleted if they try to delete the browser.

What else am I not thinking of?

midasuni• 2 years ago

Apple just made their true target crystal clear: they have always been aiming at web capabilities:

Not what Jobs said

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vq993Td6ys

Originally there wasn’t an SDK at all.

RyanHamilton• 2 years ago

When you have a tiny market share, argue for open standards. When you gain the majority, close the gates and pull up the ladder. Oldest playbook in tech. We've particularly seen it many many times with chat platforms.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

You are right. At the very beginning, Safari was innovation and Jobs wanted the web succeed. I meant of course the period when webkit was the only browser engine allowed and Apple claimed the reason was they wanted security etc. Now it is clear that even then, the true target was web capabilities and the hindrance of them via webkit control. Now that they use iOS to disallow these modern web capabilities in competing browser engines too, they admit to their true target of the past 10 years or so too.

gizmo3• 2 years ago

I agree with all of this except for your bafflement. Justice doesn’t always prevail and Apple’s legal gambit might work.

Remember how Microsoft got in legal trouble for bundling software in the 90s? A judge ruled that Microsoft had to be broken up for their monopolistic and anticompetitive practices. And today Microsoft has leveraged the popularity of Excel and Powerpoint to get every business to use Teams and the rest of the suite.

Sometimes big business can just defy the courts and get away with it.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

you are right, I could have expected this

but I just did not... I did not expect Apple to try another round... their argument is just so transparent and weak in my eyes

I am studying DMA and I still think there is no way they can get away with this

I would really love some open discussion somewhere with legal experts and Chromium, Gecko, Webkit engineers, even android, windows, linux, mac, ios engineers.

But even without them, web apps just literally work in all OS so Apple cannot really claim it is that much effort to be secure on iOS.

Does anybody know any security issues that ever happened because of modern web app capabilities?

How on earth is a native app more secure, does apple has access to source code?

throwaway498495• 2 years ago

The creation of the Vision Pro, and now this direct assault on the open web, makes me believe that Apple is no longer has the vision to lead the industry effectively. It's a shame because it has enormous momentum behind it, which means every bad decision, like this one, will be felt be millions of people for years.

pas• 2 years ago

could you please elaborate on how/what the Vision Pro contributes to this problem?

mettamage• 2 years ago

Apple not allowing the open web stifles innovation, including the AVP. The apps in the app store will be dictated by Apple. So whatever their ethical framework is, that is what will receive innovation.

While that seems fair, the problem is that the strongest form of software innovation I have seen is where developers can freely plug in.

mouzogu• 2 years ago

spending 10s of billions of R&D towards a closed off walled garden for consuming Apple services.

afaik you cant even order AVP without an iPhone.

throwaway498495• 2 years ago

The AVP is one of the most out of touch products I've ever seen from a respected brand, and I can almost hear Steve Job's scathing criticisms of it, based on everything I know about him. Not to mention, it goes against the increasing trend of less screens and less tech. The fact that it got made and is being pushed so hard as the next step in computing, is bonkers.

So to me, it contributes because it is another data point that the leadership has compromised its ability to consistently make forward thinking decisions.

gizmo3• 2 years ago

Apple is a 3 trillion business that is out of growth drivers. They will need to squeeze more money out of everybody in the ecosystem to appease wall street. Or launch a new 500bn product line but I don’t think they have anything big in the pipeline.

pretext-1• 2 years ago

They’re working on cars for sure

sitkack• 2 years ago

The problem is that a large percentage of that pie is just rent seeking from App Store fees. The App Store should be opt in for all parties.

I think the analysis in this thread is correct, Apple wants to remove the “loophole” that was originally the only way to get apps on the device.

mrkeen• 2 years ago

Eh.

Lightning instead of usb.

Firewire instead of usb.

Getting rid of all non-usbc ports.

Touch bar without physical escape.

Ctrl in the wrong place on the keyboard.

Every mbp looking the same with their attrocious glowing branding on the lid.

One-button mouse.

No audio jack.

The walled garden.

Charging a fee for the dev tools.

Yeah, these are all subjective - it's all crap I hate.

But my point is: is anything that anyone dislikes actually out of character for Apple? Or is it business as usual? Maybe Samsung will also create a useless headset and directly assault the open web too, making Apple still the 'industry leader'.

tyleo• 2 years ago

Agreed with this. I feel like everyone complains about new Apple products. “The watch is square, no one will want it.”

Apple is still doing fine. I'm at least going to wait a few years before making claims about the Vision Pro being a failure.

Cockbrand• 2 years ago

OK, I'll bite. While I agree with many of your criticisms, some are IMHO incorrect.

- Apple did Firewire at a time when it was the leading interface for professional video stuff. As Apple marketed their computers to video professionals back then, it made a lot of sense. Also, USB 2.0 wasn't on the market yet or hardly had any adoption, and FW was pretty much the only modern high-speed serial interface. At the time, FW was also a much more capable (if more complex) interface than USB. After USB 2.0 got more adoption, FW 800 was released with almost twice the bandwidth of USB 2.0.

- Forcing USB C adoption upon the industry was a good thing, just like getting rid of floppy disks, serial and parallel ports, and Flash (the latter one being debatable as the beginner-friendly authoring system still leaves a big gap that hasn't been filled since). The transition period was admittedly very painful with all the adapters. But now pretty much all devices charge via USB C, just how neat is that? I know that Apple didn't give up Lightning for USB C in iPhones voluntarily, so they needed a bit of help by the EU in their own mission here :)

- They reversed on the touch bar, thus admitting their mistake. It was indeed horrible, though.

- The glowing Apple on the lid hasn't been there any more for a decade or so

- Dev tools aka Xcode are free, the fee you're probably referring to is for getting stuff into the App Store

In the end, you're correct - haters gonna hate, Apple will be Apple, people will buy their stuff anyway.

threeseed4• 2 years ago

Any chance we can get the original title which doesn't sound so childish:

It’s Official, Apple Kills Web Apps in the EU

And if PWA were such a threat to Apple's business then why are they allowed in US.

Nursie• 2 years ago

IIRC In the EU apple may be forced to open up iOS to other browsers, including PWA using non-safari engines.

Not sure why this is such a threat.

I’m torn on this whole issue. I both enjoy my walled garden and want full-fat Firefox on iOS.

troupo22• 2 years ago

It's unfortunate that the whole discourse is about one of the worst imaginable outcomes: replacing apps with shitty slow bloated underperforming web apps.

That is, the discourse is valid, and Apple is to blame. But why did it have to be around PWAs of all things?

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

well you can use Firefox as it is

you trust Mozilla and (the real) Firefox on iOS will not implement anything that is insecure

right now, Mozilla will not be able to implement plenty of web standards even if it was secure according to Mozilla browser engineers

no question with time, Apple will be forced to allow modern web capabilities in Firefox too and also make the iOS welcoming for modern web browsers like Firefox just like literally every other OS is welcoming, including macOS

it will be a debate around whether these OS changes Apple supposedly has to make are a reasonable effort for Apple to make... being that big and and having macOS already capable, iOS will be just as secure for Firefox as every other OS

however, you can trust Mozilla engineers that they will not expose Firefox browsers to security problems on iOS even when it is sub-optimal, so in some weeks just check out what Firefox on iOS already can and use it

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

no chance and it is not childish but the truth

in the US there are no alternative browser engines to webkit and the control of web capabilities is exercised through webkit, in the eu it is no longer possible and the control is planned to be exercised via iOS

if the profit threat is not there, why not allow web capabilities in competing browsers? Apple could even claim if iPhone got compromised via Firefox or Chrome that they told you so from the very beginning, on your next iPhone you would just use Safari...

fifafu3• 2 years ago

One example: a while ago I worked on a bluetooth le based companion app for industrial sensors. The client would absolutely have built this as a web app if iOS had offered web bluetooth. With alternative engines this would be possible and Apple does not want these kind of applications outside the App Store.

With the right engine basically any kind of app could be created as a webapp / pwa

So in the US it doesn’t matter because users are still stuck with Safari there

troupo22• 2 years ago

One example: a while ago I worked on a bluetooth le based companion app for industrial sensors. The client would absolutely have built this as a web app if iOS had offered web bluetooth. With alternative engines

Do you know that the only "alternative egnine" that implements hardware APIs is Chrome? Because it's a Chrome-only non-standard that Firefox opposes, too?

ncruces• 2 years ago

Because in the US they will not be forced to (and likely won't) allow Firefox, Chrome, Brave, etc, with their own rendering engines, on the App Store, and if they do, they will definitely not allow them to become the PWA storefronts they are on Android.

Adoption of PWA on Apple platforms is low because they've always had a significantly degraded experience when compared to PWA on Android, ChromeOS, or desktop browsers other than Safari.

dang7• 2 years ago

Yes - the submitted title ("iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close to 100B App Store Tax") broke the site guidelines badly and a moderator reverted it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Aerbil3132• 2 years ago

This is criminal. After decades I finally had the ability to develop for iOS without a Mac and a yearly $99 fee - only for it to be crippled again?

threeseed4• 2 years ago

I finally had the ability to develop for iOS without a Mac

Cordova, React Native, Xamarin, Flutter etc.

Seems like the only thing criminal here is your inability to use Google.

Aerbil3132• 2 years ago

They all still require the yearly $99 fee. Not to mention the need to learn another platform. I already know the web.

wiseowise14• 2 years ago

You still need to deploy the application via Mac, genius.

stephenr2• 2 years ago

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call a web app "develop[ed] for iOS"

The whole point of the web is that it is cross platform. That isn't a negative thing it's a positive, but calling it "develop for iOS" is arguably disingenuous.

amadeuspagel• 2 years ago

Most people just want to make apps for themselves. If you use an iOS device but not a Mac, there was no way to do that before web apps (which still offered a terrible dev experience, without debugging) and now there's again no way to do it.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

had the ability... he did not mention specifically

and yes, with web apps you can develop for iOS too, one code base for all

and whether it is criminal, sadly, must be determined on court... the DMA explicitly supports web apps without rstrictions, so in the enfd it can turn out to be literally criminal what Apple does

anon3738398• 2 years ago

It’s telling that this is the feature that Apple refused to share. And it makes sense: the idea that users could install safe and secure apps that Apple can’t tax, block or control is terrifying to them.

I think that’s what this decision is all about. When Safari was the only browser engine on iOS, PWAs didn’t threaten the App Store because Safari delivers a degraded experience with them.

With alternative browser engines mandated by law, Apple faced the possibility that Chrome or Firefox might make PWAs easy to discover, easy to install, and feature-complete. They might have begun to see serious adoption and investment. I think Apple did not want to risk letting that happen.

neximo643• 2 years ago

This is quite often where people make the greatest mistake. It's all about distribution and customer usage. Most people hate and don't use PWAs.

What stands in the way are Native iPhone apps are better. It also goes for android too. That's why PWAs fail. If they were successful Apple would find a way to monetise the hell out of them.

lozenge5• 2 years ago

Most people don't use PWAs... as they exist today.

What would happen if Google added all the APIs to Chrome that are needed for every one of their iOS apps, and then offered them as "PWAs that work best with Google Chrome"? Google would not have to abide by App Store rules, nor the rules for app marketplaces, nor pay the Core Technology Fee of half a euro per install. Apple's entire approach of using their status as a popular phone manufacturer to control the software market would fall.

holoduke• 2 years ago

Our apps are available as webapps. 100% identical user experience. All functionality. Including notifications, offline, storage, performance and more. We have over 50m installs. Where do you get your info from? Really curious.

phartenfeller2• 2 years ago

I agree that native apps can offer better experiences and often do because they get more development effort. I disagree that most people hate PWAs because they are just websites.

I think many mix bad websites with "PWA is a bad technology". All the cookie banners, ads and prompts to install the native app are the reason the experience is worse.

What could a native app for Wikipedia, Google or a basic news pages (without ads) do better? I use the Twitter PWA for years as it saves battery and offers the same experience. Maybe animations are not as smooth but most people won't even notice that. I also rather use YouTube in Firefox mobile so I can use uBlock even though the app offers more features and generally more ambition. For hardware heavy use cases native apps are obviously better.

Also when companies push people to install the native apps for quick access, push notifications and better data collection you can't take customer usage as a metric for people's taste.

wiseowise14• 2 years ago

The only reason why I would install native application is if it's the only way of distribution and I absolutely NEED to use it (banking, government, etc.), for everything else if it's not in a browser - it doesn't exist to me.

Native applications might offer marginal performance boost, but given how optimized modern web is and how powerful are devices that I use - that's not an argument to me unless I do something computing intensive.

I don't know how incredibly self-centered and obtuse you might be to think that your specific crud #383835 is not like all those other™ crud apps and absolutely requires a native application.

In a browser I can: * Freely select ANY text(unless for some reason some special snowflake website thinks that it needs to disable text selection) * Bookmark, add tags, sort, organize websites how I want * Sync all of my information and access it on all platforms, not platforms that vendor decided to lock me in * Add plugins that allow me to modify and work with content how I see fit * Prohibit JS, ads or any sorts of tracking

And probably at least another 10 things if I think longer than 2 minutes about it.

All of this is just from perspective of a user. If I were to write from perspective of a developer, that would take a whole blogpost to explain how native applications are relic of the past and should just roll over and die.

kibwen4• 2 years ago

If PWAs are so bad, why is Apple utterly terrified at the idea of letting them compete with native apps? I avoid native apps at every turn. If an app is only available natively, I look for a competitor who offers a web version. Finding native apps is a mess compared to finding a website; it's truly impressive how app stores still manage to have worse search results than Google despite Google's quality plummeting. Installing native apps is a hassle. Managing permissions is a hassle. Dealing with their internal ads is a hassle.

deergomoo3• 2 years ago

I almost universally prefer native apps, and I'm also an iPhone user, but it's hard to claim PWAs are unpopular on their own merits when Apple has seemingly deliberately stifled them.

On Android you can go to a mobile webpage and see a fairly unintrusive, one-time banner which will let you install it to the homescreen. Sure it's only two taps on iOS (Share -> Add to homescreen), but for a start your users need to know that functionality even exists, which alone is a massive roadblock to adoption.

As a user, if I want to get notifications and an "app-ish" experience, and the developer is unable or unwilling to create decent platform-specific apps, I would happily take a PWA over a "native" app that is actually just an embedded web view or something trying to recreate the world like Flutter. If I'm not gonna get the benefits of my chosen platform, I'd at least like to not also have to deal with the downsides of App Store apps, like large install sizes and stuff getting held up or nerfed by app review.

I recognise that giving PWAs unimpeded access to the core capabilities that native apps have might result in a worse offering of native apps—as more developers choose to just not bother—but then I'd say it's on Apple (and Google!) to step up and make native a more compelling option. Any veteran iOS developer will agree there's an enormous list of stuff dying for improvement in the development and submission process.

chii2• 2 years ago

I think Apple did not want to risk letting that happen.

they've already shown a shadow of their true colors when they banned flash under the guise of security (which is also a problem, but for which apple conveniently uses as an excuse).

This is their true intention. The app store and the easy revenue from those sales are just not something they'll willingly give up.

lesuorac• 2 years ago

Loosen up that tinfoil hat.

Apple banned flash when web apps were the _only_ apps on the iphone (besides the preloaded apps). The App Store [1] is ~18 months after the iPhone [2] was released.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(Apple)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone

mobilemidget• 2 years ago

Which was about same time or just after adobe, the author of flash recommended everybody to stop using it.

marcus0x623• 2 years ago

Flash was a security dumpster fire and wasn't designed for touch interfaces. That said, I don't think Apple - or any other vendor - should be able to prohibit users from running software on devices the user putatively owns.

Offer an (optional) walled-garden experience, ok, but locking down users from installing their own software is predatory.

caskstrength3• 2 years ago

they've already shown a shadow of their true colors when they banned flash under the guise of security

For which I'm eternally grateful to them even though I don't have any Apple devices.

scarface_7422• 2 years ago

This is also not true.

Adobe claimed that they could have gotten flash running on the first iPhone in 2007. The first iPhone had 128MB of RAM and a 400Mhz processor.

Safari barely ran on the first iPhone. It had to draw a checker box on the screen when you scrolled fast and then slowly render the image.

When flash finally did come to Android. It required a 1Ghz CPU and 1 GB of RAM in 2011. It still ran slow and ate up users batteries. That’s about the time the first iPhone came out with those specs

alsetmusic• 2 years ago

Steve Jobs's "Thoughts on Flash," was written when I was a tech at an Apple Store. I remember pulling up crash logs on a customer's computer and showing her over and over that Flash was related to Safari crashing. Flash was garbage on the Mac. Blocking (or not implementing) it on the phone wasn't a grand conspiracy. It was smart business.

I'm not denying that they're predatory with the App Store. I'm saying that not supporting Flash can be explained quite easily without ulterior motives.

scarface_7422• 2 years ago

Everyone thinks that Apple really cares if you use PWAs?

It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of the App Store revenue comes from pay to win games and in app purchases of loot boxes and coins.

Those apps aren’t going to be PWAs.

If it’s only mean old Apple keeping the great world of cross platform apps using web technologies, why aren’t PWAs more popular on Android?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF• 2 years ago

Those apps aren’t going to be PWAs.

Except when a manager learns that they can keep Apple’s 30% if they release a PWA instead. They don’t even need to know what a PWA is, they just ask the developer if it’s possible, who says “something something WebGL and web sockets?”

The manager thinks it’s a great idea.

Whether that translates to their users migrating to the new implementation could be up in the air. I suspect Apple will lose some revenue, at any rate, and they’re likely thinking similarly.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

if apple did not care, they would not have crippled web capabilities in the last 10+ years and they would just let chromium/gecko based browsers make use of web standards

web apps are the future that may take as much as 90%+ of the 100B app store revenue

web apps will succeed once good programmers and companies make strategic decisions to build good web apps

crippling web apps on one important major platform like iOS stalls these strategic decisions since it is not easy to tell your programmers that now you learn js and web technologies if you still need those native apps

in addition, most companies have already published native apps, web apps will start to gain success after apple is forced to let them work with feature parity on iOS etc. AND 3-5-10 years pass since rather new companies choose web apps

get back to your observation of "popularity" after apple is forced from governments and competition authorities to support web apps on iOS (just like on macOS or every other OS does) plus 5 years!

mmcnl6• 2 years ago

90% _today_. Strategic chess moves like this are about the next decade. The web is becoming more and more powerful and who says Fortnite can't run in a browser in 5 years? Especially if EU forces Apple to allow alternative browser engines that Apple can't control. It's an existential threat to the App Store model.

themacguffinman6• 2 years ago

Because Apple ruins the "cross platform" part by crippling it on their own popular platforms. It's a lot less appealing to develop cross platform code when you still have to make a native app for one of the biggest platforms out there: iOS.

I also wouldn't bet on games being exclusively native now that cloud gaming is available and WebGPU is in heavy development. Right now cloud gaming is locked out of the iOS App Store but Apple has managed to lock it into Safari.

mmcnl6• 2 years ago

Exactly. It's a loophole in their alternative App Store model so they closed it. Nothing more, nothing less.

polynomial2• 2 years ago

because Safari delivers a degraded experience with them.

Can you recommend any sources that go deeper into particulars of degraded experience?

t00• 2 years ago

WebKit development is Apple oriented leading to several incompatibilities with other major browsers. Reasoning is usually either WebKit works according to standards, or that bug is accepted but it is basically abandoned. Possibly strategically, to keep Apple controlling some niche use cases. Ingenious but nasty strategy indeed.

https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?order=changeddate%2Cbug_...

duiker101• 2 years ago

Did anyone actually ever put web apps on their home screen?

rambambram• 2 years ago

Definitely, but only the simple web apps (like an icon that links to an url in the browser) that aren't affected by Apple's changes, so no notifications and stuff because it wasn't a PWA. It was a nice experience. I had a fast hosting provider and it worked seamless.

Right now I use Android on a cheap Samsung and loading webpages takes ages with Firefox. I don't think Google goes freely in killing the web, but we already knew that.

jcmontx• 2 years ago

I have a few. X has a pretty good PWA.

geraldhh• 2 years ago

have a 'link' to fast.com on my homescreen, but it's just a shortcut to an url, no 'web app' or am i mistaken?

c-hendricks2• 2 years ago

You can add any website to your home screen.

If the site has some special meta information, it can display like any other app (full screen, its own entry in your multitasking UI). Otherwise it just opens in your regular browser.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

web apps are the future, not the present

Apple was holding them back and just pulled the plug. Only if web programmers can count on future proof support will they produce web apps.

In addition, most companies have already created native apps so again, web apps are the future, it is not an argument that there are few on iOS

and yes, outlook or X are good examples

meepmorp• 2 years ago

web apps are a lowest common denominator solution that result in shittier software with worse features, security, and privacy

jacooper• 2 years ago

I was using X's PWA for years, but I recently gave up on it because it's just very janky and the opposite of smooth, it also drained the battery much faster than the native app. This may be an issue with android, but even with 12GB of ram the PWA still crashes often, something I never get when using the app.

Luckily I didn't have to compromise on my AdBlock thanks to vanced patches, which patch the x app to remove ads.

Eupolemos• 2 years ago

Yeah.

c-hendricks2• 2 years ago

The majority of mine are, yeah

sccxy2• 2 years ago

I have 11 Web Apps in iOS Home Screen, 9 Web Apps (MS Edge) in macOS & Windows.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

and I guess we all use a lot of responsive websites that are minimally web apps in funtionality, even if they did not offer manifest files for standalone mode

I just found out that hover which is a responsive website without mobile apps can be added to home screen ("install") on mobile...

well I tried it and it is on my home screen as a web app! vow!

I mean a web app is not a website you download or install, no need to ask how many are on the home screen...

the real question is web capabilities, we need good web programmers, companies with web strategies to get a lot of powerful websites

it is actually not the most important thing whether you add it to the homescreen or what...

the most important thing is to support the web capabilities with security in mind

it is not a fight against native, it is a choice and competition, freedom, free choices are normally good

bsenftner• 2 years ago

I was an original Mac OS Developer, and way back then I saw that Apple wanted to create monopoly and deeply hates any developer not on their payroll whose output they own. As a result, I have never published Apple software. It is not worth it, never has been worth it.

tremarley• 2 years ago

Since iOS 17.4 for EU users 1. Apple will DELETE user's data without notice

2. Lot of apps will stop working and there will be no way to access them without update

3. Web Push will stop working; users expecting notifications will never get them

4. Apple breaks the Web platform

This was published in the document "Update on apps distributed in the European Union" https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/

andy_ppp3• 2 years ago

I take it this is just for PWAs?

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

it must be for all websites since a web app is just a website that may or may not implement web capabilities

actually no such thing as PWA, there are plenty of web standards but no web standard about PWA

the web standard that governs standalone mode and home screen button and such is a draft (web app manifest)

the website does not need to be progressive, not even offline capable to get standalone and home screen button

the "very dangerouos" service workers can run in any website silently without standalone mode or app buttons or any user interaction (maybe because they are not that creepy after all, an open source javascript that tells browsers how to cache)

I really hate this web app distinction and install language because 1. it is not standard 2. it is not true 3. it is contra-productive

I wrote a piece about this somewhere in a top level comment. Apple breaks web capabilities both in websites and standalone websites (web apps).

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

is this true? I mean they cannot delete Chrome data

which web capabilities will actually not work any more?

I mean service workers will not, and it is a big one... all they do is caching and you can create an offline working website with them

web push another big one (not for me, but many use them)

which other web capabilities does Apple target?

mwest217• 2 years ago

The biggest one is that Apple allows local storage to last longer than 7 days for webpages installed as apps on the home screen, but deletes local storage for ordinary websites 7 days after they are last opened.

sccxy2• 2 years ago

If your PWA is deleted in iOS 17.4 then your data is gone. (PWA does not share data with browser)

nottorp• 2 years ago

I'm not a fan of web "apps" for the usual reasons: resource hungry, limited functionality, low quality overall.

However, I want DaisyDisk for iOS. When will Apple allow DaisyDisk for iOS? :)

merricksb• 2 years ago

Previously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 - Apple confirms it's breaking iPhone web apps in the EU on purpose (techcrunch.com)

(815 points / 1 day ago / 766 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 - Apple confirms iOS 17.4 removes Home Screen web apps in the EU (9to5mac.com)

(112 points / 1 day ago/ 125 comments)

agust2• 2 years ago

Did this just get marked as dupe to pull it off the front page? How outrageous.

The link has not been posted before.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

and they changed my title

not just the link was new from open web advocacy, I also posted actually a piece to try to have a more focused and deep conversation

so they changed my original title that was actually funny and to the point, marked as duplicate and so the writer of the article from open web advocacy and my article-like comment was shadow banned, thanks!

anon3738398• 2 years ago

This was a new article and the focus of the discussion was different.

throwaway498495• 2 years ago

It's funny that this post is considered dupes of those 2, but those 2 are not dupes of each other.

jsnell3• 2 years ago

Dupes are not just for the exact same URL. This topic has gotten a lot of attention on the frontpage, and there's no significant new information in this article.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

the article I posted was from: https://open-web-advocacy.org/

and I wrote a nice article-ish piece myself, trying to get above "I want my walled garden" and "everybody hates pwa" comments you find under those links above...

but I guess you had your reasons!

oaiey• 2 years ago

The amount of money lost in corporations for internal or app store avoiding apps by this decision is mind blowing.

pcdoodle• 2 years ago

Perhaps they didn't want to give Apple the leverage over their companies right to run software freely without red tape in between them and their customers.

Having to worry about rejections, API deprecations, architecture changes, Appearance guidelines et al would defiantly make me want to avoid it as much as possible.

It's akin to avoiding a marriage to an aloof partner that will never love you.

bambax3• 2 years ago

I made the mistake of only carrying an iPad during my most recent holidays. What a useless piece of junk this is.

iPads work well enough at home to watch movies or play a couple of games, but trying to do any kind of serious work on them, either editing photos, writing something, sending files, even trying to use a sequencer is an exercise in frustration.

We are sooo lucky there (still) exist alternative computing solutions other than these things made by a company obsessed with control and extracting the maximum possible value out of every movement of their users.

Apple is the evilest of evils. It must be fought with great determination if we are concerned with freedom.

monkin• 2 years ago

You can code on it, design, edit photos, write books, sketch, edit videos... and a lot more with ease. For 3 years, I used only an iPad for work. Can you expand on your problems? Or was that a "it works differently on my beloved OS" kind of thing?

wiseowise14• 2 years ago

You can code on it

In castrated terminal that is walking on the edge of what is "permitted" by overlords.

Or are you talking about open thin IDE that connects to a remote machine in a browser?

emsy• 2 years ago

You can’t compile on it. You can’t run software in the background (for example a terminal, where you don’t have to bring the app to the foreground every few minutes). You can’t install software on it that Apple doesn’t want you to (regardless of whether or not they’re malicious). And the software you can run is more likely than not a subscription, because the only place you can buy it is the App Store, which pushes the subscription model unto users and devs.

bambax3• 2 years ago

You can't install a random program. You need to go through the appstore for everything. There is no shared filesystem. Trying to export an image from a photo editing app takes a couple of seconds just to build the list of possible target apps. Everything is not only gratuitously complex, but reminds you you're not in control. You're a guest in Apple's world, instead of Apple being there to serve you.

BrandoElFollito• 2 years ago

Can you expand on how you code on an iPad? (the IDE, the languages and the kind of compilation you do (or lack of))

Always42• 2 years ago

is someone forcing you to buy apple products?

wiseowise14• 2 years ago

Lack of alternatives.

meyum33• 2 years ago

It weird so many young people do most of their work on iPhone, including producing videos, photos, and text. Yet when it comes to iPads most people don't want to touch it for work.

antasvara• 2 years ago

For a lot of use cases, iPads are worse at those things. For video and photos, the iPhone camera is night and day better. It's also easier to hold for taking those photos, while also being portable (so you don't have to carry an iPad around).

For a generation that has been texting on touchscreen for years, the muscle memory for typing on a phone is pretty well defined. In my experience, typing on a tablet requires different muscle memory and is slower.

If you add a keyboard and stylus, the iPad could be more useful than a phone. But at that point, you're spending a lot of money to improve a device that still has all of the limitations of iOS.

Ezhik2• 2 years ago

I remember everyone always was fascinated by all the kids in Japan that had a fancy flip phone but not a computer. Seems like Japan was simply 20 years ahead of everyone, as usual.

beezlebroxxxxxx• 2 years ago

iPads aren't setup for "serious work" out of the box. There's a whole community who have developed workarounds and apps for serious work on it, but it prioritizes being "grandma proof" over a serious work machine from the get go.

idle_zealot• 2 years ago

My Grandma has an iPad. Every time I visit we end up sitting down for hours reviewing how to do things in various apps and switch between them. The system constantly hide navigation control, moves things around in response to scrolling, and requires precise swipes or taps on flat or near-invisible controls to reveal information or get around. Watching her try to use iPadOS is always useful in keeping myself grounded in terms of UI design. Suffice to say that the thing is not at all Grandma-proof.

And sure, at least there aren't tens of sketchy toolbars doing god-knows-what each time she opens Safari, but there are tens of sketchy-looking games and apps installed on the 4th home screen that she doesn't want or use, and opening any immediately throws up full-screen autoplaying ads with audio before letting her into some cheap sudoku implementation. I don't want to hear this "walled garden keeps you safe" nonsense; there are plenty of scams on the App Store.

deergomoo3• 2 years ago

but it prioritizes being "grandma proof" over a serious work machine from the get go

Which is kind of absurd considering they sell a device called "iPad Pro" which costs as much as their entry-level laptops, which are—by and large—enormously more capable, despite sharing the same internals.

I appreciate the iPad as a computer for people who aren't interested in computers (my mum has been happily iPad-only for years now), and I recognise that I have a degree of saltiness because I'm a software developer and the "Pro" in "iPad Pro" seems far more geared to artists and other creative professions, but it's a terrible shame there's no way to take the training wheels off what is otherwise a fantastic ultraportable computer.

My MacBook Pro is a great computer that I like a lot, but the only reason I even need it is because my iPad is incapable of doing anything I need for development, and the ~15% of dev I do away from my desk is still important to me. If I could do some casual noodling or prototyping work on my iPad with a keyboard, I could have just bought a desktop Mac instead.

caskstrength3• 2 years ago

Apple is the evilest of evils. It must be fought with great determination if we are concerned with freedom.

Continuing using Apple products while periodically expressing your frustration on Reddit/HN is not a good way to "fight" Apple. Consider using PC with Linux or something.

bambax3• 2 years ago

Yes, hence "mistake". (Also I only buy products second hand.)

PaulHoule• 2 years ago

Kinda funny but when the rubber hit the road they did delete the word “Progressive” from “Profressive Web Apps”. Talk about a complete failure in branding, they should have done that years ago but the PWA pushers had the congenital fault almost all marketers have which is the inability to see themselves the way others see them.

tempodox2• 2 years ago

“Progressive” just sounds too good. Who wouldn't want to be associated with progress? Today we have the label “AI” for stuff that has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever, but who wouldn't want to be associated with intelligence?

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

I dont like the progressive word because you do not need it and I am minimalistic

however, at the beginning they tried to force some "progressive" things like responsive design or offline etc. I can understan what they wanted, no need to think of it as self marketing

I like the clarity of websites and we should learn that they can be very powerful: responsive websites, offline functioning websites etc... they can use sooo many web capabilities

I define apps as standalone UX and I use "switch to standalone" instead of "install" (that is what actually happens if someone creates a manifest file which is governed by a draft, not yet standard)

so a website can be implicitly a web app in the sense of rich functionality (responsive, offline) without being used in standalone mode

it will be explicitly a web app if switched to standalone mode from tab mode... this is an important distinction since even if nothing is installed this is a decision from the user to use it from the OS and outside of the browser as a standalone window and on some platforms it may give it some extra rights (local data storage will never be cleared by nice companies like Apple without asking the user, push notifications might be coupled with this decision now or in the future etc)

but I agree, this progressive thing is the past... it actually became the past when browsers gave a shit about what the site ctually functionally can when granting that app button and standalone mode

ghusto• 2 years ago

Tip: To be taken more seriously, don't use such childish language. I was reading the first part and nearly switched off without checking the comments here. I'm glad I did, because I see now how serious (and maybe _illegal?_) this is.

Don't turn your audience away with emotional wording, for something that can easily have impact if you communicate it purely for what it is.

jart• 2 years ago

It's not childish it's manipulative and it's the sort of rhetoric that only manipulates people at least a standard deviation to the left of the bell curve here. But even by that standard, gosh this piece lays it down so thick that it honestly made me cringe.

tempodox2• 2 years ago

What I find especially conspicuous is that they quote Apple's reasoning for doing that and then do nothing to counter it. If they find Apple's decision so wrong, they should say why.

osrec• 2 years ago

For me, this shows fear and a sense of insecurity within Apple. They've built their walled garden and are doing whatever they can to protect it. They've probably even convinced users that it's in their interest. Yet, they know there is an inevitability that polished web apps will exist (and that time will come fairly soon, imo), and will match and replace their native counterparts. They also know, it's the correct and overwhelmingly more efficient way to deliver 99% of apps. Yet they want to stifle that future, all in the name of money.

Create all the titanium cased phones you like - eventually, the masses will be smart enough to prioritise openness and forward-thinking over almost anything else. If you start to hold people back with your decisions, questions will start to arise about your priorities and eventually your products. And people are fickle enough, that they won't be your fanboys/girls forever.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

I checked DMA and Apple will be forced to comply (this thing they do is far from it), however, they can prolonge it with this tactic and break all existing web apps for a year on iOS to punch them in the face...

however, web apps are the future and not the present... we will have them on iOS in 1-2 years in Europe, I dont know when everywhere in the world

crazygringo2• 2 years ago

This subject was already discussed here 2 days ago (819 points, 778 comments) [1] and the top comment highlighted that Apple gives its reasoning in a way that is at least worth considering. From Apple [2]:

----

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.

----

There were 451 comments responding just to that [3].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218

[2] https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652

appplication• 2 years ago

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.

I’m not sure I fully understand the ire at Apple here. If any of this is true, killing PWAs sounds like the right move.

Everyone who is pissed off at Apple is just fine with this? The fact that this can all happen without user consent completely throws away any arguments of “I’m a responsible user who should be able to choose what apps run in my phone, not some big company”. Because if you really believe that, then you would also not want apps like this to exist under the new EU rules.

I’ll be honest I just don’t get it.

ruszki• 2 years ago

[it] 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 it can be done, DMA doesn’t require this, even according to Apple.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

in a hypothetical spy browser maybe :) not in any of the modern browser engines like Gecko/Firefox

just be responsible and use Safari if you want the status quo or use a trusted browser engine like from a big company like Firefox/Edge/Chrome

do not be fooled, you people use web capabilities including service workers on websites in all OS, you even did it with Safari on iOS

if iOS had some vulnerability vs. android, windows, linux, mac that made this possible in other browser engines than webkit then Apple has to make the changes

you really think it is an effort if every other OS does this, including macOS?

and if with more information you see Apple tried something fishy here, do not forget like most LLMs most of the prompts in the past... never trust Apple again in this regard!

but you can use other browser engines in macOS (where no app store revenue originates) and Apple never had a problem implementing it and never fear mongered... this should be some kind of implicit proof

but of course Apple will have to prove this and they will fail to do so... they are just pushing the boundaries

anon3738398• 2 years ago

I’m not sure I fully understand the ire at Apple here. If any of this is true, killing PWAs sounds like the right move.

Well, that’s just it: it’s a lie.

Full-screen web apps are using the same web APIs that websites in browser tabs use. The exact same hypothetical security risks exist for ordinary browser tabs. Full-screen web apps pose zero additional security risks.

All Apple has done is to harm the usability of web apps. Not one user will be made safer by this move.

szasamasa54• 2 years ago

dma here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

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.

jmull• 2 years ago

I usually find myself rolling my eyes when HN collectively complains about Apple, because the perspective is so dev-centric, completely ignoring the concerns of the actual users.

But this is a kick to @#&!s of users (and devs).

Even you stipulate that the DMA is a horrible, terrible regulation that should never have been enacted, Apple still absolutely has to find a better way to comply than this. This isn't going to just piss off some whiney developers, but also hit their customers.

I think this is a major screw-up by Apple that will have long term consequences for them.

(BTW, we don't have to wonder if freely allowing "side-loading" will cause a security catastrophe, as Apple claims. We already know it won't. "side-loading" is just called "installing" on Mac OS, linux, windows, and various other OSs, and is being done all the time on those OSs now. Yes, it's not perfect and people get scammed/pwned/etc, but that's true of iOS anyway. Go ahead and make the apple store the only built-in one and make a scary prompt to do others and have your kill switches and other modern protections -- its a rather dumb straw man to pretend the alternative to the current system is literally nothing.)

jcul• 2 years ago

What has changed here, it isn't very clear to me from the link.

It sounds like webapps now will open the browser like a bookmark and not open full screen.

PWAs are just websites right, so will they still work in the browser?

It’s Official, Apple Kills Web Apps in the EU

Related Stories