Open Letter to Tim Cook, Sabotaging Web Apps Is Indefensible

https://letter.open-web-advocacy.org/

by Sephr • 2 years ago

180 77 2 years ago

letter.open-web-advocacy.org

thomas-guettler4• 2 years ago

I have sold my Apple shares.

Apple will lose that fight.

Just like MS was forced to allow other browsers 15 years ago.

scarface_7414• 2 years ago

That never happened in the US

goosedragons2• 2 years ago

It did happen in the EU where they have sabotaged web apps though...

over_byte5• 2 years ago

Neither did the necessity to add cookie collection warnings to all sites that use them. In spite of what some Americans believe, if the EU sneezes, the US catches a cold (and vice versa, for the record)

bamboozled• 2 years ago

You sold your shares on principal, or you think they're about to lose value, because if you think you'll lose money, take a look at the M$ share price.

thomas-guettler4• 2 years ago

Both. I don't do day trading. I focus on the long run.

At the moment Apple looks healthy.

Somehow they were able to suppress the next steps of evolution of web tech.

The topic is so difficult because you can install third party browser, but not third party browser engines.

I never thought lawmakers will understand that issue. But some did and EU DMA is just the beginning.

Nobody needs native apps.

Why are there only few PWAs?

Because of AppleBrowserBan. Apple want you to pay the AppStore Tax.

As soon as there are alternative browser engines on iOS, the next innovation cycle starts.

I am optimistic, the web, the universal platform, will shine stronger and beautifully after the decade of "we need native apps".

scarface_7414• 2 years ago

Yes, because if Safari was as good at supporting PWAs as Android and Chrome you would see developers abandoning the App Store in droves for PWAs like how they decide not to create apps for Android and just use PWAs…

This is especially true for the pay to win games where 90% of App Store revenue comes from. That’s why most game app developers choose to use PWAs to avoid the “Google tax”.

Wait…none of that is true today. The year of the PWA is the new “year of Linux on the desktop”.

No user is asking for web apps anymore than they are clamoring for the next great Electron app on the desktop

over_byte5• 2 years ago

Electron is a useful hack with the same resource problems as Chrome rather than an ideal solution.

More the point though, PWAs are part of the existing web ecosystem. Apple has dragged its heels bringing Safari and their Webview up to spec on anything that might damage the AppStore ecosystem for years. They've also forced browser developers to use their webview instead of the browser's engines and has kept the API broken for functionality which they support in Safari - I mean try running a webrtc application in both safari and either chrome or firefox on iOS and see the problems.

By enforcing the Webview on everyone they also ensure that all web developers need to have a mac to debug Safari specific issues that happen on a level unseen since IE7.

The EU is simply telling Apple they can't leverage this anti-competitive behaviour, just like they rightly did for Microsoft in the 90s and Apple are just trying to salt the earth in the EU. It's a joke

scarface_7414• 2 years ago

And you still didn’t dispute anything I said. If it’s only Apple keeping the wonderful world of PWAs back, why are the same companies that create iOS apps creating Android apps instead of just creating a PWA?

pests• 2 years ago

Users don't know or care where they get their apps from. Web vs native, they don't care.

If letting PWAs be made better and cheaper... users will benefit.

dspillett7• 2 years ago

The year of the PWA is the new “year of Linux on the desktop”.

Because Apple, a large part of the market, are actively fighting to stop it.

No user is asking for web apps

And they shouldn't. They should not have to care if their app is a PWA or not. Developers need to care so they use the right tool for the job (native if they need the benefits offered by that, such as a performance boost or device wide access, PWA in most other cases where cross-platform concerns are more important than that) but the user shouldn't have to clamour for either.

scarface_7414• 2 years ago

So because Apple ID fighting it, companies aren’t creating PWAs for Android to avoid the “Google tax”?

Cross platform concerns and worse performance are never a benefit to the user.

over_byte5• 2 years ago

Apple is attempting to leverage its position as a platform holder, as it always has, by threatening the open web. It's APIs to support the web platform are shockingly, even purposely, terrible and it uses it's app developer licence to ensure that open development cannot happen on its closed OS. Worse, it doesn't even play on an even playing field, as it ensures that the WebView that developers are required to use is less up to date than the already poor Safari browser on iOS. This is anti-competitive and is the way Apple has always operated.

The EU has enacted its laws to protect users and developers working with the platform from these limitations. PWAs are just a part of it (see per install charges, WebView limitations, Apple malicious compliance). It's pretty obvious that Apple will not allow its AppStore cash cow to be tampered with so they will need to be strongarmed.

scarface_7414• 2 years ago

Well, first it came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue comes from games and in app purchases. Those companies aren’t going to move to the web because they want the direct access to users wallets that they get from the in app purchase mechanisms.

People aren’t as willing to put their credit card on random sites and people have access to pay via in app purchases that don’t have access to credit cards.

But you still didn’t answer the question, if it were just Apple, then why aren’t companies abandoning the Google Plau Store in droves and just creating PWAs that will work on Android devices and PCs and avoid the “Google tax”?

over_byte5• 2 years ago

Signed - Apple is collectively behaving like a spoilt child throwing a tantrum because the stupid-head EU said that it can't force the app ecosystem on everyone along with the broken webview. Finally we can get some good browser engines on the platform so they decide to pull a unity with the per install charges and pull in-place functionality from PWAs.

bouncing3• 2 years ago

You’re conflating two separate issues.

One is App Store distribution. The per install license thing is bullshit but it might comply with the law. Keep in mind the DMA was written to privilege companies like Spotify, not to give you a property right to install whatever you want on your own device.

The other issue, which deals with a different DMA rule, is that Apple can’t privilege WebKit over other rendering engines. That means PWAs have to be able to run in any rendering engine installed.

To make that work, they’d have to build out APIs to allow third party rendering engines to do all that WebKit does to render PWAs. Or they could disable PWAs altogether and then nothing is privileged.

Seems like a case study in unintended consequences. If the EU has consulted with anyone who understands technology, this could have been explained beforehand. Or maybe it was. Either way, the WebKit issue might be lazy compliance but it doesn’t strike me as malicious.

cbxyp• 2 years ago

The problem for me is that it's yet another thing that allows Apple (and other in the EU soon to be commonly installed app stores) to censor content they don't like. Telegram is forced to censor channels that Apple/Google don't like. There are no porn apps on the app store. No gab.com apps anywhere (there was a massive effort to censor them up to and including banning Mastodon clients when they produced a compatible Mastodon instance) The effects on political censorship are heavy.

dbbk• 2 years ago

What a ludicrous take. You can still access anything you want inside Safari. Or Chrome. Or any other browser. There is zero censorship.

fsflover2• 2 years ago

There is zero censorship of the websites (and there is only Safari on iOS at the moment). For apps, there is definitely a censorship. Without web apps, it's indeed very impactful.

bouncing3• 2 years ago

Saying that some channels are not censored thus no censorship happens is obviously wrong.

SergeAx• 2 years ago

You may install Telegram APK from their website, and there's no censorship there. It will also auto-update faster than Google Play version, for obvious reason.

This is particularly why iPhone users need side loading. Root would be nice too.

asadotzler• 2 years ago

They don't need the excuse. Why does it matter then?

ciwolsey• 2 years ago

I don't know why people are shocked by Apple anymore. We know exactly what to expect from them.

If you want to support a terrible company, then you can endure the terrible results.

What are we trying to achieve here? A u-turn on a terrible decision so that we can keep using Apples devices in complete ignorance for yet another decade or until their next disgusting move? How about we let them be terrible and go elsewhere?

No way I'm signing this, you've all made your bed now lie in it.

incrudible• 2 years ago

Your attitude is not helpful. Even if you choose to not use an Apple device, as a developer you do not get to choose the devices of your audience, and dropping every Apple user is a tough sell. Apple is also correct in that few people use PWAs, so they will get away with it, unless pressured otherwise.

dspillett7• 2 years ago

As an industry we need to try to make sure that if this holds anything back it is Apple users not everyone else. The platform being deliberately broken in a childish hissy fit should not be allowed to be an inconvenience to users of other platforms.

Instead of not implementing features because they won't work on iOS state that your stuff works on standards compliant browsers, if the user has a system that is deliberately standing in the way of standard features then some things may not work as well as expected and they should contact their system vendor, not the app vendor, for resolution.

Unfortunately this will be difficult because iDevice users tend to be a mix of cultishly supportive of their platform¹ and/or bully like in demanding what they want from people that are not Apple, so this stance might be hard for those with commercial interests to take.

Away from DayJob I have the luxury of being able to declare Apple platforms to be at best a third-class citizen³, maybe forth³ or worse, when it comes to support in anything⁴ I do, but we'd not get away with that in DayJob.

I'll be adding to all my personal online output a statement to the effect “As Apple have a record of not properly implementing standards in a timely manner, and even retroactively breaking features when they have a hissy fit with regulators who try to stop them bullying developers, I can not guarantee that this site/app/other will work on Apple operating systems.”.

----

[1] If <something> doesn't work on the platform <something> must be broken or just a <something> that no one would ever want, it isn't the platform's fault.

[2] If <something> doesn't work on iDevices then its name will be beaten up until it gives in and hands Apple its lunch money.

[3] 1st class is “if it anything doesn't work, this is a serious problem to be addressed ASAP, how did this shit go live?”, 2nd class is “everything should work, if it doesn't then I'll look into it quickly, maybe less quickly if it is just a display/UX issue rather than broken functionality”, 3rd class is “it should work as it is compliant with relevant standards (official or generally accepted), if it doesn't I'll try to resolve as soon as practical”, 4th class is “I think it might work, if it does work for you then great, if it doesn't then rest assured that I don't actually care”. 5th is “I do not intend this to work for you, instead telling me if I won't make it work you'll go somewhere else, skip a step and just go away immediately”.

[4] even things that don't depend on features currently known to be broken by Apple – if they will deliberately break an existing feature now what is to say they won't do the same to others in future?

nchmy3• 2 years ago

Yes, if this nonsense does manage to succeed, I'll be adding similar notices to everything i make as well.

But, we have to fight with everything we've got to make sure this doesn't succeed. Please share this petition with everyone you know.

dspillett7• 2 years ago

I've signed it, and passed it around, but I really think it'll have no effect.

If they are willing to be a bag of dicks like this to thumb their nose at the whole EU, they aren't going to care about a polite open letter. What needs to be done it to make sure that people know anything broken by this (and Safari being slow to adopt other standards) is Apple's fault.

Most likely me refusing to support Apple anything won't affect them either, but at least I'll feel better not supporting such tactics.

geysersam2• 2 years ago

Stopping this kind of shit is incredibly important if the app store monopolists are not to kidnap an entire generation of developers and users.

Open platforms and standards are valuable and innovative. Much more so than the walled gardens.

This is what the EU digital legislation should focus on, not on Chat Control and other similar crap.

amf122• 2 years ago

Open platforms and standards are valuable and innovative. Much more so than the walled gardens.
This is what the EU digital legislation should focus on, not on Chat Control and other similar crap.

Isn't that what they are focusing on? Interoperability across big platforms, which requires them to be open.

geysersam2• 2 years ago

They're probably focusing on both, I imagine they have the manpower. What I meant was they should stop trying to read our encrypted messages.

chucke1992• 2 years ago

Safari is really the Internet Explorer of this era.

tacone2• 2 years ago

Also Firefox doesn't really support installing a PWA on the desktop (while it does on mobile). I don't see any clear intention from anybody to make PWA a viable alternative to the various App stores and software repositories in general.

postalrat• 2 years ago

It does on Mobile. As does chrome.

rayiner• 2 years ago

Open Letter to Tim Cook: Ban web apps, they suck. Even better, fork the web and base it on Swift. If anyone can do it Apple can.

demondemidi2• 2 years ago

We’re still doing internet petitions? I’ve been seeing these since 1995. Any luck with them working, ever?

fsflover2• 2 years ago

Yes? https://www.change.org/impact

urbandw311er• 2 years ago

Good link.

“Nearly every hour, a petition on Change.org achieves victory”

That’s encouraging — I guess there’s no causal data though. (Ie what percentage of those would have happened without the petition)

demondemidi2• 2 years ago

That's fascinating, thanks! Except the lead-off link with SpongeBob doesn't really do justice to their efforts.

(Apparently I ticked off a lot of people asking a question.)

stonogo2• 2 years ago

Weird how they claim the undersigned “end users” and “business users” but Cory Doctorow seems to be the only actual end user involved. I would have expected a lot more people to be up in arms over this.

nchmy3• 2 years ago

Wut? There's 900 individuals who have signed so far...

stonogo2• 2 years ago

All of them web developers. They have a business interest in this. I'm asking where the end users are.

Jyaif• 2 years ago

They should have dropped PWAs in the previous version of iOS, or at least dropped them in every market.

Bad move :-)

I'm sure they learned their lesson though!

nchmy3• 2 years ago

They'll only learn their lesson if we keep applying pressure so that the European Commission takes this seriously and enforces their right to fine up to 10% of global revenues ($30bn) if Apple doesn't get in line

dartharva• 2 years ago

I have always stayed away from Apple products, because "luxury" brands are disgusting.

These events only increase the smug sense of superiority I have from it.

varenc• 2 years ago

Apple's core argument seems to be that building out secure PWA support for 3rd party browser engines is quite onerous. Does that seem credible? Anyone have more insight that can speak to this?

A short term compromise would just be to keep existing PWA support where it's Safari/WebKit only. That seems strictly better.

skrowl• 2 years ago

That's their public core argument.

Their real argument (to shareholders etc) is that they want that 30% rake on everything you buy, so they want you to have 900 apps on your phone instead of a web browser than visits 900 websites.

jamwil• 2 years ago

Doesn’t this whole thing hinge on the DMA not allowing them to favour webkit like that?

bouncing3• 2 years ago

I’d wager the C Suite at Apple, at most, approved PWA support but it was an engineer-boosted project. In contrast the DMA compliance stuff is definitely driven exclusively by the legal and strategic teams.

The legal team isn’t concerned with gutting PWA feature and PWAs aren’t strategic for the company.

deprecative• 2 years ago

I don't want to pick a fight with anyone about this. Is this not what Apple does? What immediately comes to mind is browsers on iOS, proprietary cables, and locking iMessage to their platform. Apple is a walled gardener and they'll wall their gardens.

Open Letter to Tim Cook, Sabotaging Web Apps Is Indefensible

Related Stories