9 ms·

>And in one fell swoop, Apple has made it effectively impossible to install this app on your phone. There's no realistic workaround. Make the app a Web App and

by s_dev 7y ago

>And in one fell swoop, Apple has made it effectively impossible to install this app on your phone. There's no realistic workaround. Make the app a Web App and visit it in Safari. Apple has banned it being notarized and distributed from their App Store but iPhones still have access to the conventional web which Apple has no control over.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Apple has been (I suspect purposefully!) dragging their feet on progressive web app support. There list of limitations is long, but most critically for this app (I would imagine), they can't send notifications and they can't work offline.
- mehhh 7y ago
  There are a number of interesting use cases for PWAs, but part of Apple's fear is (potentially) many of their clients will migrate to PWA only, reducing App Store revenue severely. Apple also loses all code auditing and screening, meaning they can't ban GPL licensed PWAs like they ban alternative Linphone builds (as they are GPLv2), Signal Private Messenger builds (GPLv3) and only the official developer can build and submit these apps to the app store. Apple's GPL ban also effiectively mandates these apps having broad CLAs to ensure they can relicense the code for use in the Apple App Store. Edit: removed bonus apostrophe
  - frenchyatwork 7y ago
    > many of their clients will migrate to PWA only, reducing App Store revenue severely This was also the music industy's fear of digital data about 20-30 years ago.
    - mehhh 7y ago
      The business model is outdated, Safari purposefully being a laggard with no alternatives on iOS will eventually bite Apple in the butt, it is just a question of when. Both the Music industry and Apple seek to maintain their control and thus their cash cows, but whether that will continue to work out for Apple remains to be seen...
      - riffraff 7y ago
        > The business model is outdated And what is it's replacement? It seems in app purchases are what keeps up a large part of mobile apps. iTunes changed the music business, but I have not noticed a similar change for mobile apps, web or not.
        mehhh 7y ago
        SaaS and Entertainment as a service are the replacements, hence Apple Music and their new streaming service. This is also why AT&T, Verizon, Sinclair and Comcast have spent the last half decade buying media companies.
        thenewnewguy 7y ago
        Why does there need to be a replacement? Apple already sells the hardware and their software (iOS and the preinstalled apps) and makes money off of that. If I make my app available via my website as a PWA, and all the hosting costs are my own, and don't use any of the app store's services, why does Apple deserve a share of the in app (in PWA?) purchases?
  - curt15 7y ago
    What interest would Apple have in banning GPL-licensed web apps?
    - mehhh 7y ago
      Of that I am not certain, but Apple has banned VLC and many other apps, and continues to ban any GPL code from the app store: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
      - irrational 7y ago
        I've used VLC on Apple products (phone, tablet, laptop) for years. I can't remember a time it wasn't available. Do you mean some VLC other than the video/media playing application?
        mehhh 7y ago
        VLC had to relicense to LGPL to make that happen: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player#History
      - rrix2 7y ago
        They do that to "protect" their DRM and application support libraries from GPL virality which wouldn't be a problem with PWAs
        api 7y ago
        GPL virality does not apply backward from app to platform. There are loads of GPL apps on Windows and on Mac outside the app store.
      - torpidor 7y ago
        VLC was removed because a VLC developer (copyrightholder) asked them to. Specifically, they alleged apple did not have the rights to distribute VLC unless they also allowed users to modify / recompile the software. There is a way for end users to modify their software now, but I don’t know if it would satisfy that developer. VLC relicensed to make clear they don’t require distributors to do this.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    I’ve been looking at the App Store Guidelines recently and I don’t see much in them that seems to block GPL specifically. Maybe it’s OK now?
    - mehhh 7y ago
      If you have citations of GPLv2 or GPLv3 apps that are in the App Store, I would be highly interested. As far as I can discern, Linphone is provided in the App Store under a proprietary license, VLC had to relicense as LGPL, and GNU Go is still not on the App Store.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        I don’t think anyone’s tried it, because it was certainly not allowed a couple of years ago. But the language that the FSF used to point to is no longer there, so I’d like to hope that it might be possible today.
      - dwaite 7y ago
        My understanding is that Apple doesn't ban GPLvX code - that doesn't mean other people won't write Apple and ask the app to be removed, claiming the app developer did not have proper copyright license.
      - dwaite 7y ago
        VLC-iOS is licensed GPLv2. https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc-ios/#license https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc-ios/#license
        mehhh 7y ago
        The App store version is almost certainly using MPLv2, which is a file based copyleft license. Much weaker than GPLv2.
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      It’s not so much that it’s banned; it’s that because the GPLv3 allows users to modify their software and Apple doesn’t without their developer licenses, you can’t give the user all the freedoms the license provides.
  - nicky0 7y ago
    Apple hasn't banned GPL apps. It would be more accurate to say GPL bans Apple.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  It's pitiful there hasn't been a widely adopted open source notification framework like linux is to OS. Apple and Google both implement their own and it gave them overwhelming power over the app developers. Ironically, this framework may start in China as while majority of the people use Android they have no access to G-suite, apps develop their own notifications and eats up tonnes of RAM, this will neatly solve that problem.
  - mehhh 7y ago
    Apple is the one holding up Web Push on iOS at this point, Chrome, Firefox, Edge and a number of other browsers support it: https://caniuse.com/#search=push https://caniuse.com/#search=push
- s_dev 7y ago
  > Apple has been (I suspect purposefully!) dragging their feet on progressive web app support. The original point was that apparently there are no "work arounds" not mentioning that it could be done via WebApp seems a little disingenous.
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    The statement is referring to the user, there is no practical "work around" for getting their previously functioning, natively executing application operational again, on a computer they supposedly own. Pointing out a "work around" for the developer is meaningless, in terms of "hey! they can reimplement it as a web app to bypass Apple's shitty walled garden!" is completely useless to these folks in HongKong right now.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I meant, there's no workaround for getting native software that has the capabilities of native software. If web apps were similarly capable I'd agree with you, but as it stands they aren't anywhere near equivalent.
- mr_toad 7y ago
  You don’t need progressive web apps to display markers on a map. And anyway, a PWA should be actually progressive. If it requires all the features it’s the opposite of progressive.
  - collinmanderson 7y ago
    You’re referring to Progressive Enhancement, where you make sure it works on old devices but only new devices get the enhancements.
wnkrshm 7y ago
I wonder whether Hong Kong is behind the great firewall or not. Specifically, whether HK is behind it but the firewall is transparent for HK requests.
- hhw 7y ago
  China has state run Telecom companies providing all the eyeball access, so it's relatively straightforward to ensure outside connectivity goes through the great firewall. Hong Kong has multiple private companies providing eyeball access. It would be far more difficult for the Chinese government to get all of their compliance. If they just wanted to get traffic information, it would be far easier to just collect a statistical sampling collected from flows data on core routers for general info or to monitor specific IP's using rulesets without the massive undertaking needed for always on firewall capabilities on every single packet.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  It is definitely not, However, a surprising (to me) number of people in HK use WeChat for nearly everything, so...
- angry_octet 7y ago
  It isn't behind the Great Firewall, but it is behind an increasing number of government controlled boxes that could be turned into the Little Firewall. There are many direct fiber paths into HK that go directly to big companies and it would take time to bring them under control, but it would take only be a matter of time. The other aspect of the Great Firewall is the alternative ecosystem inside it, and the censorship system embedded in weibo etc. It will be interesting to see if surveillance capitalism apps like Wepay and Alipay suffer a setback in HK in the wake of the protests. Cf https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/alipay-s-push-into-western-banks-turf-kicks-off-in-hong-kong https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/alipay-s-...
- rrix2 7y ago
  Back in October the HK ISP association put this out [1] about how bad it would be for them to be moved towards a GFW model, so I guess they're somewhere closer to Western style access requests still: https://www.hkispa.org.hk/139-urgent-statement-of-hkispa-on-selective-blocking-of-internet-services.html https://www.hkispa.org.hk/139-urgent-statement-of-hkispa-on-...
techntoke 7y ago
Or just switch to Android and you can install the APK, and likely unlock your bootloader and install a custom ROM.
- xtracto 7y ago
  I don't know why are people against your comment. What happened to "vote with your wallet?" it used to be the way Americans punished companies. What gives power to these companies to be evil is that we as a society keep giving them money. Just stop giving them money and they will change.
  - cr0sh 7y ago
    It's not as easy due to network effects. Part of these are social network effects (all my friends use it, plus the apps they use need you to use the same apps, meaning you have to use the same OS or one of the big ones, etc). Part of them are actual network effects (you've already used the same g-suite or whatever apple provides, and moving to something else - if it exists at all - is either very difficult or impossible). I'm sure there's others I am not thinking of right now. But both leave only the "hardcore" privacy and open source activists as your only market - and that's so small that only others of similar persuasion even both to create and host those alternatives, if they exist at all. Since the market is small, and developers/time is lacking, UI and other parts of such apps/operating systems/ecospaces tend to be non-existant or suffer other oddities that keep them out of being adopted by the masses, unless those people get fed up enough with the existing products to be willing to put up with all the downsides of a more free and open system. Which is kinda where Linux is today - a combination of becoming "good enough" - but also coupled with more than a bit of "corporate America" (and/or "corporate west") helping to make it just a tad better (for business use, for gaming, etc) - and the masses who are getting fed up with Apple and/or Microsoft - a few of them peel off to see what it's all about. Dual boot, or virtualization (and Microsoft has made that easier, too), they get a taste, and some think "hey this isn't really that bad - I can do almost everything" and some migrate over (with the big exception - games - but Valve and Steam are helping in that regard, too). That's what is needed in the mobile realm, and nothing exists yet. Yes, there are alternatives, but the real bugger has been the hardware - which is very locked down, and only (again) the hardcore and activists are willing to go the extra mile to break open (root, jailbreak) consumer-available hardware, or purchase already "open" hardware, or go so far as to build their own hardware (I am contemplating this option, personally). Until it gets easier for the "masses" to get a more open hardware mobile platform, the next step of an open ecosystem, operating systems, and apps is much for difficult to make happen. With Apple and Samsung being the main two hardware providers (for iOS and Android respectively), with the way both lock down their hardware, it will stay this way. But really - for Android at least - Samsung does this mainly for the providers themselves. For instance (in my case), I have a G7 - but it's a T-Mobile version. I paid for it in full (I don't have a contract with T-Mobile, but they are my provider) - but Samsung provides a different version of the G7 (with a different processor and such) than they do outside the USA. That hardware is much easier to root, while the USA version is seemingly made to be as airtight as possible to root (with a constant back-and-forth game being played behind the scenes). It is strange - it's partly Samsung, partly the providers. Ultimately, I'm just going to opt-out of this hardware game and build my own platform; I already have the 4G module to support phone and data (and I am planning on using it for data only, as I virtually never use my phone for voice calls). If I am lucky, it will be my winter project.
eli 7y ago
If China asked forcefully enough, think they'd start blacklisting sites in Safari?
- ycombonator 7y ago
  That could potentially be the next step in forced censorship.
  - jethro_tell 7y ago
    Well, I'm sure they just extend parts of the great firewall. Not need to get apple in on it.
ajross 7y ago
Web pages are trivially censorable directly by the Chinese government though. I don't see how that's responsive solution to the problem here.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  They’re less censorable than a platform owned by a single company with a standardized process for taking down content.
- glennpratt 7y ago
  Trivially? In Hong Kong? I don't think this is accurate, though it may come to be in the future. Which is sort of the point, why allow the techno dystopia to come?
joeyprr 7y ago
https://hkmap.live https://hkmap.live
shadowgovt 7y ago
Converting an iOS app to "a web app" isn't exactly a trivial undertaking. Remember you're likely saying "Reimplement the app atop an entirely different family of libraries and APIs."
- rollinDyno 7y ago
  Additionally, a part of the device's API is not going to be available to the webapp.
everdev 7y ago
> Make the app a Web App and visit it in Safari. Is the web censored in HK?
- vertis 7y ago
  To the best of my knowledge, no. It's certainly not behind the Great Firewall of China.
retpirato 7y ago
OR go to android that allows you to sideload apps from other sources. Of course, you run the risk of malware, then but at least if Google were to pull something like this you could just sideload it.
michaelmrose 7y ago
What's to stop safari from blocking it since every browser on iPhone is basically a safari skin and actual alternative browser engines are banned

by s_dev 7y ago

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

Apple has been (I suspect purposefully!) dragging their feet on progressive web app support. There list of limitations is long, but most critically for this app (I would imagine), they can't send notifications and they can't work offline.

mehhh 7y ago
There are a number of interesting use cases for PWAs, but part of Apple's fear is (potentially) many of their clients will migrate to PWA only, reducing App Store revenue severely. Apple also loses all code auditing and screening, meaning they can't ban GPL licensed PWAs like they ban alternative Linphone builds (as they are GPLv2), Signal Private Messenger builds (GPLv3) and only the official developer can build and submit these apps to the app store. Apple's GPL ban also effiectively mandates these apps having broad CLAs to ensure they can relicense the code for use in the Apple App Store. Edit: removed bonus apostrophe
- frenchyatwork 7y ago
  > many of their clients will migrate to PWA only, reducing App Store revenue severely This was also the music industy's fear of digital data about 20-30 years ago.
  - mehhh 7y ago
    The business model is outdated, Safari purposefully being a laggard with no alternatives on iOS will eventually bite Apple in the butt, it is just a question of when. Both the Music industry and Apple seek to maintain their control and thus their cash cows, but whether that will continue to work out for Apple remains to be seen...
    - riffraff 7y ago
      > The business model is outdated And what is it's replacement? It seems in app purchases are what keeps up a large part of mobile apps. iTunes changed the music business, but I have not noticed a similar change for mobile apps, web or not.
      - mehhh 7y ago
        SaaS and Entertainment as a service are the replacements, hence Apple Music and their new streaming service. This is also why AT&T, Verizon, Sinclair and Comcast have spent the last half decade buying media companies.
      - thenewnewguy 7y ago
        Why does there need to be a replacement? Apple already sells the hardware and their software (iOS and the preinstalled apps) and makes money off of that. If I make my app available via my website as a PWA, and all the hosting costs are my own, and don't use any of the app store's services, why does Apple deserve a share of the in app (in PWA?) purchases?
- curt15 7y ago
  What interest would Apple have in banning GPL-licensed web apps?
  - mehhh 7y ago
    Of that I am not certain, but Apple has banned VLC and many other apps, and continues to ban any GPL code from the app store: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
    - irrational 7y ago
      I've used VLC on Apple products (phone, tablet, laptop) for years. I can't remember a time it wasn't available. Do you mean some VLC other than the video/media playing application?
      - mehhh 7y ago
        VLC had to relicense to LGPL to make that happen: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player#History
    - rrix2 7y ago
      They do that to "protect" their DRM and application support libraries from GPL virality which wouldn't be a problem with PWAs
      - api 7y ago
        GPL virality does not apply backward from app to platform. There are loads of GPL apps on Windows and on Mac outside the app store.
    - torpidor 7y ago
      VLC was removed because a VLC developer (copyrightholder) asked them to. Specifically, they alleged apple did not have the rights to distribute VLC unless they also allowed users to modify / recompile the software. There is a way for end users to modify their software now, but I don’t know if it would satisfy that developer. VLC relicensed to make clear they don’t require distributors to do this.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I’ve been looking at the App Store Guidelines recently and I don’t see much in them that seems to block GPL specifically. Maybe it’s OK now?
  - mehhh 7y ago
    If you have citations of GPLv2 or GPLv3 apps that are in the App Store, I would be highly interested. As far as I can discern, Linphone is provided in the App Store under a proprietary license, VLC had to relicense as LGPL, and GNU Go is still not on the App Store.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      I don’t think anyone’s tried it, because it was certainly not allowed a couple of years ago. But the language that the FSF used to point to is no longer there, so I’d like to hope that it might be possible today.
    - dwaite 7y ago
      My understanding is that Apple doesn't ban GPLvX code - that doesn't mean other people won't write Apple and ask the app to be removed, claiming the app developer did not have proper copyright license.
    - dwaite 7y ago
      VLC-iOS is licensed GPLv2. https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc-ios/#license https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc-ios/#license
      - mehhh 7y ago
        The App store version is almost certainly using MPLv2, which is a file based copyleft license. Much weaker than GPLv2.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    It’s not so much that it’s banned; it’s that because the GPLv3 allows users to modify their software and Apple doesn’t without their developer licenses, you can’t give the user all the freedoms the license provides.
- nicky0 7y ago
  Apple hasn't banned GPL apps. It would be more accurate to say GPL bans Apple.
Aperocky 7y ago
It's pitiful there hasn't been a widely adopted open source notification framework like linux is to OS. Apple and Google both implement their own and it gave them overwhelming power over the app developers. Ironically, this framework may start in China as while majority of the people use Android they have no access to G-suite, apps develop their own notifications and eats up tonnes of RAM, this will neatly solve that problem.
- mehhh 7y ago
  Apple is the one holding up Web Push on iOS at this point, Chrome, Firefox, Edge and a number of other browsers support it: https://caniuse.com/#search=push https://caniuse.com/#search=push
s_dev 7y ago
> Apple has been (I suspect purposefully!) dragging their feet on progressive web app support. The original point was that apparently there are no "work arounds" not mentioning that it could be done via WebApp seems a little disingenous.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  The statement is referring to the user, there is no practical "work around" for getting their previously functioning, natively executing application operational again, on a computer they supposedly own. Pointing out a "work around" for the developer is meaningless, in terms of "hey! they can reimplement it as a web app to bypass Apple's shitty walled garden!" is completely useless to these folks in HongKong right now.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I meant, there's no workaround for getting native software that has the capabilities of native software. If web apps were similarly capable I'd agree with you, but as it stands they aren't anywhere near equivalent.
mr_toad 7y ago
You don’t need progressive web apps to display markers on a map. And anyway, a PWA should be actually progressive. If it requires all the features it’s the opposite of progressive.
- collinmanderson 7y ago
  You’re referring to Progressive Enhancement, where you make sure it works on old devices but only new devices get the enhancements.

wnkrshm 7y ago

I wonder whether Hong Kong is behind the great firewall or not. Specifically, whether HK is behind it but the firewall is transparent for HK requests.

hhw 7y ago
China has state run Telecom companies providing all the eyeball access, so it's relatively straightforward to ensure outside connectivity goes through the great firewall. Hong Kong has multiple private companies providing eyeball access. It would be far more difficult for the Chinese government to get all of their compliance. If they just wanted to get traffic information, it would be far easier to just collect a statistical sampling collected from flows data on core routers for general info or to monitor specific IP's using rulesets without the massive undertaking needed for always on firewall capabilities on every single packet.
pwinnski 7y ago
It is definitely not, However, a surprising (to me) number of people in HK use WeChat for nearly everything, so...
angry_octet 7y ago
It isn't behind the Great Firewall, but it is behind an increasing number of government controlled boxes that could be turned into the Little Firewall. There are many direct fiber paths into HK that go directly to big companies and it would take time to bring them under control, but it would take only be a matter of time. The other aspect of the Great Firewall is the alternative ecosystem inside it, and the censorship system embedded in weibo etc. It will be interesting to see if surveillance capitalism apps like Wepay and Alipay suffer a setback in HK in the wake of the protests. Cf https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/alipay-s-push-into-western-banks-turf-kicks-off-in-hong-kong https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/alipay-s-...
rrix2 7y ago
Back in October the HK ISP association put this out [1] about how bad it would be for them to be moved towards a GFW model, so I guess they're somewhere closer to Western style access requests still: https://www.hkispa.org.hk/139-urgent-statement-of-hkispa-on-selective-blocking-of-internet-services.html https://www.hkispa.org.hk/139-urgent-statement-of-hkispa-on-...

techntoke 7y ago

Or just switch to Android and you can install the APK, and likely unlock your bootloader and install a custom ROM.

xtracto 7y ago
I don't know why are people against your comment. What happened to "vote with your wallet?" it used to be the way Americans punished companies. What gives power to these companies to be evil is that we as a society keep giving them money. Just stop giving them money and they will change.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  It's not as easy due to network effects. Part of these are social network effects (all my friends use it, plus the apps they use need you to use the same apps, meaning you have to use the same OS or one of the big ones, etc). Part of them are actual network effects (you've already used the same g-suite or whatever apple provides, and moving to something else - if it exists at all - is either very difficult or impossible). I'm sure there's others I am not thinking of right now. But both leave only the "hardcore" privacy and open source activists as your only market - and that's so small that only others of similar persuasion even both to create and host those alternatives, if they exist at all. Since the market is small, and developers/time is lacking, UI and other parts of such apps/operating systems/ecospaces tend to be non-existant or suffer other oddities that keep them out of being adopted by the masses, unless those people get fed up enough with the existing products to be willing to put up with all the downsides of a more free and open system. Which is kinda where Linux is today - a combination of becoming "good enough" - but also coupled with more than a bit of "corporate America" (and/or "corporate west") helping to make it just a tad better (for business use, for gaming, etc) - and the masses who are getting fed up with Apple and/or Microsoft - a few of them peel off to see what it's all about. Dual boot, or virtualization (and Microsoft has made that easier, too), they get a taste, and some think "hey this isn't really that bad - I can do almost everything" and some migrate over (with the big exception - games - but Valve and Steam are helping in that regard, too). That's what is needed in the mobile realm, and nothing exists yet. Yes, there are alternatives, but the real bugger has been the hardware - which is very locked down, and only (again) the hardcore and activists are willing to go the extra mile to break open (root, jailbreak) consumer-available hardware, or purchase already "open" hardware, or go so far as to build their own hardware (I am contemplating this option, personally). Until it gets easier for the "masses" to get a more open hardware mobile platform, the next step of an open ecosystem, operating systems, and apps is much for difficult to make happen. With Apple and Samsung being the main two hardware providers (for iOS and Android respectively), with the way both lock down their hardware, it will stay this way. But really - for Android at least - Samsung does this mainly for the providers themselves. For instance (in my case), I have a G7 - but it's a T-Mobile version. I paid for it in full (I don't have a contract with T-Mobile, but they are my provider) - but Samsung provides a different version of the G7 (with a different processor and such) than they do outside the USA. That hardware is much easier to root, while the USA version is seemingly made to be as airtight as possible to root (with a constant back-and-forth game being played behind the scenes). It is strange - it's partly Samsung, partly the providers. Ultimately, I'm just going to opt-out of this hardware game and build my own platform; I already have the 4G module to support phone and data (and I am planning on using it for data only, as I virtually never use my phone for voice calls). If I am lucky, it will be my winter project.

eli 7y ago

If China asked forcefully enough, think they'd start blacklisting sites in Safari?

ycombonator 7y ago
That could potentially be the next step in forced censorship.
- jethro_tell 7y ago
  Well, I'm sure they just extend parts of the great firewall. Not need to get apple in on it.

ajross 7y ago

Web pages are trivially censorable directly by the Chinese government though. I don't see how that's responsive solution to the problem here.

saagarjha 7y ago
They’re less censorable than a platform owned by a single company with a standardized process for taking down content.
glennpratt 7y ago
Trivially? In Hong Kong? I don't think this is accurate, though it may come to be in the future. Which is sort of the point, why allow the techno dystopia to come?

joeyprr 7y ago

https://hkmap.live https://hkmap.live

shadowgovt 7y ago

Converting an iOS app to "a web app" isn't exactly a trivial undertaking. Remember you're likely saying "Reimplement the app atop an entirely different family of libraries and APIs."

rollinDyno 7y ago
Additionally, a part of the device's API is not going to be available to the webapp.

everdev 7y ago

> Make the app a Web App and visit it in Safari. Is the web censored in HK?

vertis 7y ago
To the best of my knowledge, no. It's certainly not behind the Great Firewall of China.

retpirato 7y ago

OR go to android that allows you to sideload apps from other sources. Of course, you run the risk of malware, then but at least if Google were to pull something like this you could just sideload it.

michaelmrose 7y ago

What's to stop safari from blocking it since every browser on iPhone is basically a safari skin and actual alternative browser engines are banned