> No, DMA wording made it very clear that it's about web browser engine.
You follow this up by quoting a clause that manages core platform services.
What it says is:
> The gatekeeper shall not require [people] to use, to offer or interoperate with [stuff] of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by [third party devs] who use the gatekeeper’s core platform services.
A good example where this is applicable is the App Store, which is designated as a core platform service. PWAs aren’t designated as core platform service and there’s also an argument to be made that web developers aren’t considered “third party devs” (or as the DMA calls them “business users” due to a lack of agreement between Apple and them.
> And they cannot make self-preferencing on their products.
Same here. This one is even narrower because it’s only limited to preferential treatment in the sense of “ranking and related indexing and crawling”
> The gatekeeper shall not treat more favourably [in ranking and related stuff] [their own products and services] than [similar products and services by others]
This applies to ranking apps in the App Store. It has no bearing whatsoever on PWAs unless somehow Apple starts ranking PWAs in a list and then chooses to rank their own PWAs higher.
The other one is also much narrower than you’re reading it.
> The gatekeeper [shall not prevent users from switching to and subscribing to different apps including browsers]
This mainly pertains to setting default apps and switching default apps. This tangentially relates to PWAs, but installed PWAs are technically not run in Safari and instead in their own app that uses WebKit under the hood, so it’s not so clear if this would apply to PWAs.
> There's no room for this kind of interpretation in the view of enforcement entity. Apple is just trying to buy time by pretending ignorance.
I can’t distill a lifetime worth of legal experience into a tangible piece of evidence nor are there readily available authoritative sources on compliance with government regulation narrow and simple enough that I can just present them without much worry of you understanding them, especially since you’re already struggling with, what is considered in European legal standards, rather straightforward legal text.
So all I have is a trust me bro, and perhaps an appeal to common sense: Apple’s lawyers didn’t just wake up today and said to themselves “You know what, we were too cautious with interpreting the DMA a couple of weeks ago, I’m sure it’ll be fine if we keep PWA installs without implementing a way for other browsers to install them as well”, much less a variation in which they are trying to buy time by feigning ignorance.
We already know that the EU reached out to Apple about disabling PWA installs. So with that in mind, do you think the lawyers woke up one day and said “fuck it” or do you think it’s more likely the lawyers gave the go ahead after the EU told them that PWA installs as implemented in iOS are beyond the scope of the DMA?