agust

Yes, the EU immediately stepped in and explained them what the consequences of breaking the law would be, and Apple budged, caved, backed down. Not getting out of this one.

Sure, Apple takes a strong decision which breaks a just-enforced law, and two days later they back down because they had a nice talk with Epic. /s

The EU told Apple that breaking the law would have dire consequences. That's the only reason Apple backed down.

Stop spreading Apple propaganda.

The EU reacted immediately and asked Apple for clarification. That means, they reminded Apple that the law is the law, which they seemed to have forgotten. You're the one dreaming if you think Apple got their shot together by themselves.

I'm not sure Apple needs anyone but itself to look bad.

Apple is not allowing "sideloading" understood as downloading directly from the web, they require all apps to go through a store (either theirs or an alternative one). So this app would have to pass some review process, presumably.

Given the requirements Apple has set, be it for alternative browser engines, app stores and payment service providers, and the reaction from stakeholders, this release seems very unlikely to lead to any meaningful change on iOS for now.

What remains to be seen is how long the EU will take to react and force Apple to actually comply with the DMA.

Lol, good one. And they just forgot to remove them for native apps, right?

Given the number of comments trying to find the craziest justifications for a giant corporation just attempting to break a law, silently kill thousands of apps used by millions of users, destroy businesses and kill the only open and free app distribution platform competing with their closed and taxed one, there is indeed very little doubt that a lot of people here have a vested interest in Apple.

Of course, Apple $1B legal department thought they had to kill web apps to conform with the DMA whose purpose is to open iOS to competition. Sure ;)

I'd say this is not a cynical view at all, rather a quite realistic one.

They only added support for push notifications to iOS in 2023 (7 years after Firefox and 8 years after Chrome on Android), right after the UK regulator started its investigation in mobile ecosystems.

Apple banning browser engines is what has prevented the web from becoming relevant on mobile, and the reason why browsers like Firefox cannot distinguish themselves from Safari and end up becoming irrelevant.

So no, it is not in anyway good for the browser landscape or the web, it only serves the interest of one company: Apple.

Blink was forked 12 years ago, and the size of the team behind Chrome is probably at least ten times the size of the team behind Safari. So yes, there are major differences between two, and it's not just additional advanced APIs like Web Bluetooth. WebKit is lagging behind in all areas and ridden with bugs.

Web apps were the first apps that Apple supported on the iPhone, as of 2007. Back then they did not have native apps, that's why they bothered supporting them.

They then realized that they could make much more money with locked-down proprietary apps that they could tax at will through their App Store. Since then Apple has blocked any meaningful evolution of web apps, to prevent them from competing with native apps.

For sure Apple doesn't want anyone to know how it has crippled the web for over a decade, prevented browser competition, and just tried to kill web apps once and for good, that's why they tried to sneak this change without even making it public before two weeks after it was introduced in iOS beta.

Apple not wanting PWA to work properly on iPhones has nothing to do with performance, security, privacy, battery life or whatever excuse they may officially come up with.

The only reason Apple does not want PWA is because it threatens their App Store profit.

More information: https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apple-backs-off-killing-w...

The DMA plainly states that they have to give other browser vendors access to all features present on device, and that they cannot degrade the quality of their services.

Removing PWA support goes against both these obligations.

Apple didn't have to ask though, they fully knew they were breaking the law here. They are only backing down because of the pressure from the web community and from the DMA team starting an investigation.

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

The link has not been posted before.

Electron-based apps are not PWAs. PWAs do not need to be wrapped in a browser engine of their own, they use the installed browser engine. They are not inherently bloated or resource-intensive in any way.

There are not many good example of great PWAs precisely because Apple has been crippling web capabilities on iOS by banning other engines and degrading the experience in Safari for a decade.

Just like they had when asked to support alternative browser engines, but the DMA formally mandates it, sot they did comply and allowed them.

All other OSes support web app installation from any browser, including macOS. This is a lot more secure than installing any native app.

This is just Apple spreading FUD as an excuse to keep preventing web apps from competing with native apps.

They could develop APIs to support alternate browser engines but could not allow them to install sandboxed web apps on the system? Like all other OSes do, including macOS?

How surprising.

These APIs are implemented in Chromium, included in a lot of browsers (Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, etc.), and used by thousands of web apps.

They are absolutely part of the web platform.

Because Apple has a say in what features are added there, and they'll do whatever they can to keep slowing down the progress of Web Apps.

Oh yes with this one (yours) you can! I was referring to the official ChatGPT web app.

It has the one most important feature ChatGPT is missing: add to homescreen/install. Not sure why they haven't added it yet. Thank you for making this!

Apple's monopoly combined with its underinvestment in WebKit is definitely the main reason why web apps are subpar compared to native at the moment.

Allowing competing browser engines is actually included in EU's DMA, so it should be happening at the same time as sideloading and competing app stores.

You realise that's what Apple has been doing for the past 15 years? Force users to do what's best for them, and only them? Anti-competitive practices do not serve customers, they increase prices and prevent innovation.

Yes it does, that's a totally different situation. Edge chose to use Chromium as its engine, Microsoft takes part in its development, they are free to remove or add any component from it, and if ever they wanted to they would be free to fork it and drop it for another engine at any time. None of that is true for WebKit skins on iOS.

Open Web Advocacy does address anti-competitive practices from Google. See their submission to the Japanese regulator: https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...

Section 3.1.7 - No Chrome Preferencing and section 3.1.8 - Website Transparency Obligations.

Chrome is competition, and no, it's not alone: on the desktop market, where competition is not rigged as much as on mobile, Edge has 10% market share, and Firefox 7.5%. It's not insignificant.

> I want one of these “just open iOS” calls to include the consequences of what they’re calling for and how they plan to deal with it.

OWA has taken into account anti-competitive practices used by Google to gain browser market share, and made recommendation to mitigate or prevent them. In there submission to the japanese regulator [1], they include:

- 3.1.7: No Chrome Preferencing: > Google should not use their control over the operating system to provide unfair preference to their own browser, Chrome, either through the operating system or agreements with partners.

- 3.1.8: Website Transparency Obligations: > OWA suggests that where a Gatekeeper’s website does not support a browser which has above a 2% market share, they be compelled to publish a document containing detailed reasoning that prevents support of certain engines.

[1]: https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...