5 ms·

Apple has almost single-handedly held back the dream of native-quality experiences on the web. Want service workers to perform background sync? Want push notif

Apple has almost single-handedly held back the dream of native-quality experiences on the web. Want service workers to perform background sync? Want push notifications? Sorry, you're out of luck on iOS. It's a blatantly protectionist policy to make devs provide App Store apps, and it's harming the entire web platform.

30367286 5y ago
>Want service workers to perform background sync? Want push notifications? No. Not even a little. I don't want these for my native apps. I turn them off for everything.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  Fair enough, but for some categories of apps (e.g. messengers), most people find them indispensable.
  - octoberfranklin 5y ago
    The problem is the "we must never break the web" attitude. Once any feature, no matter how exotic, becomes part of "the web" it can never be removed from browsers ever, for the rest of time. Either that policy must change, or we must be ultraconservative about accepting new "web standards". One or the other. Either choice has disadvantages, but we cannot choose neither.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      You can turn off service workers and still access the website. Heck you can turn off Javascript and still make a ton of the web work. Did adding location access, or Bluetooth access break the web for you?
      - JimDabell 5y ago
        Bluetooth access was never added to the web. It’s not on the standards track, it’s only implemented in Blink, and both Mozilla and Apple have refused to implement it. The web isn’t simply whatever Google decides to add to Chrome.
        octoberfranklin 5y ago
        > Apple have refused to implement it. Yes, and I'm glad they did. The article at the top of this discussion is whining about the fact that Apple does this.
- grupthink 5y ago
  Apple could just add this functionality and put it in the settings panel in Mobile Safari. They won't add these features though because they want you to pay for apps from the App store. That's all.
- colordrops 5y ago
  You'd have even more control in a browser - you can easily turn these on or off globally or per domain on other platforms. Others want the features, so who are you to say they can't have them?
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
> it's harming the entire web platform I fully disagree. The web platform will no longer be an open platform once Google is able to use it's standard suite of tactics to force everyone on iOS to switch over to Chrome. As irritating as the iOS WebKit monopoly may be for a handful of web developers, it's the last line in the sand against Google's complete control of the web that forces them to at least try to involve standards bodies. Apple can be your enemy in every other day and respect, but we all need to line up and support them in this one key area. The open web depends entirely on it.
- AgentME 5y ago
  Saying that the situation with Apple refusing standards now is good in order to possibly protect us from Google pushing harmful non-standards later feels like a bad excuse for them.
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    The "standards" Apple is currently refusing to implement are already standards in name only: They're Google written specs solely implemented on Google's browser which generally is only also adopted by rebranded clones of Google's browser. Mozilla has also refused most of them, but since Mozilla doesn't also have an operating system, Google happily sidesteps them.
- rvz 5y ago
  Google seems to have given the ‘false promise’ of the open-web ever since Chrome released and taken over IE. Now they get to push whatever web feature they want by the web standards committee and is immediately available in Chrome, other Chromium Based browsers and Electron apps, with other browsers needing to implement them to keep up. All along the ‘open web’ was the exchange from one behemoth to another. It is a two horse race between Google and Apple with Google winning and calling the shots - hence the web developers always supporting Chrome first and calling Safari ‘the new IE’ and telling everyone else using other non-Chromium browser just to switch to one via banners or messages.
petmon 5y ago
So build something great that doesn't run on iOS. Lots of software is exclusive to Mac or iOS; why not software that is exclusive to Android or Chrome? If it's compelling enough, Apple will change its tune.
- mdoms 5y ago
JimDabell 5y ago
> Apple has almost single-handedly held back the dream of native-quality experiences on the web. This doesn't seem true. Where are the native quality experiences when using a PWA on Android? If it were Apple single-handedly holding things back, we should see plenty of these, right?
- aaomidi 5y ago
  Why would someone put in extra time to develop those when it's only useful on half of mobile phones?
  - petmon 5y ago
    For the same reason that developers build iOS-exclusive apps all the time.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      People build iOS exclusive apps since iOS has a large majority of paying users. Android have poor users that are harder to monetize, so if you just build for one group you build for the rich iOS users.
  - JimDabell 5y ago
    People build native Android applications all the time and they are only useful on half of mobile phones. There are millions of them. How come people aren’t choosing to build PWAs in this situation? If you’re writing code intended only for Android, Apple’s influence in both cases is the same – irrelevant. Yet when you look at only the cases where Apple is irrelevant, people still overwhelmingly continue to choose native Android applications over PWAs. Blaming Apple for this doesn’t seem reasonable.
  - randomsilence 5y ago
    Because the other half can access the app with a react native wrapper or something like that. In the long run, having to install the native app is an inconvenience to those users and their next phone will be less limiting. Apple is famous for their creative destruction, but sticking to their native apps breaks their appetite for innovation. Drifting in Space [1] has just been announced. After 30 years, the General Magic[2] concept is almost reality apart from the fluid integration of client and server. How can that happen on an iPhone if Apple locks the browser? In other words, sooner or later, they either have to open the browser or become irrelevant. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30502978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30502978 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic
fassssst 5y ago
The web is Google’s platform, so it’s understandable.
musicale 5y ago
Apple has little business incentive to encourage web apps on iOS vs. native apps. (And there is even less incentive to implement every API that Google sees fit to stuff into Chrome.) In addition to making money for Apple and enhancing its platform control, native apps tend to be more power efficient, more responsive, and more consistent with Apple's UI guidelines – features which, in Apple's view at least, lead to a better user experience. That being said, I personally hate it when web sites (e.g. reddit) demand that I install an app when I just want to use the web site.

30367286 5y ago

>Want service workers to perform background sync? Want push notifications? No. Not even a little. I don't want these for my native apps. I turn them off for everything.

aluminum96 5y ago
Fair enough, but for some categories of apps (e.g. messengers), most people find them indispensable.
- octoberfranklin 5y ago
  The problem is the "we must never break the web" attitude. Once any feature, no matter how exotic, becomes part of "the web" it can never be removed from browsers ever, for the rest of time. Either that policy must change, or we must be ultraconservative about accepting new "web standards". One or the other. Either choice has disadvantages, but we cannot choose neither.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    You can turn off service workers and still access the website. Heck you can turn off Javascript and still make a ton of the web work. Did adding location access, or Bluetooth access break the web for you?
    - JimDabell 5y ago
      Bluetooth access was never added to the web. It’s not on the standards track, it’s only implemented in Blink, and both Mozilla and Apple have refused to implement it. The web isn’t simply whatever Google decides to add to Chrome.
      - octoberfranklin 5y ago
        > Apple have refused to implement it. Yes, and I'm glad they did. The article at the top of this discussion is whining about the fact that Apple does this.
grupthink 5y ago
Apple could just add this functionality and put it in the settings panel in Mobile Safari. They won't add these features though because they want you to pay for apps from the App store. That's all.
colordrops 5y ago
You'd have even more control in a browser - you can easily turn these on or off globally or per domain on other platforms. Others want the features, so who are you to say they can't have them?

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

> it's harming the entire web platform I fully disagree. The web platform will no longer be an open platform once Google is able to use it's standard suite of tactics to force everyone on iOS to switch over to Chrome. As irritating as the iOS WebKit monopoly may be for a handful of web developers, it's the last line in the sand against Google's complete control of the web that forces them to at least try to involve standards bodies. Apple can be your enemy in every other day and respect, but we all need to line up and support them in this one key area. The open web depends entirely on it.

AgentME 5y ago
Saying that the situation with Apple refusing standards now is good in order to possibly protect us from Google pushing harmful non-standards later feels like a bad excuse for them.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  The "standards" Apple is currently refusing to implement are already standards in name only: They're Google written specs solely implemented on Google's browser which generally is only also adopted by rebranded clones of Google's browser. Mozilla has also refused most of them, but since Mozilla doesn't also have an operating system, Google happily sidesteps them.
rvz 5y ago
Google seems to have given the ‘false promise’ of the open-web ever since Chrome released and taken over IE. Now they get to push whatever web feature they want by the web standards committee and is immediately available in Chrome, other Chromium Based browsers and Electron apps, with other browsers needing to implement them to keep up. All along the ‘open web’ was the exchange from one behemoth to another. It is a two horse race between Google and Apple with Google winning and calling the shots - hence the web developers always supporting Chrome first and calling Safari ‘the new IE’ and telling everyone else using other non-Chromium browser just to switch to one via banners or messages.

petmon 5y ago

So build something great that doesn't run on iOS. Lots of software is exclusive to Mac or iOS; why not software that is exclusive to Android or Chrome? If it's compelling enough, Apple will change its tune.

mdoms 5y ago

JimDabell 5y ago

> Apple has almost single-handedly held back the dream of native-quality experiences on the web. This doesn't seem true. Where are the native quality experiences when using a PWA on Android? If it were Apple single-handedly holding things back, we should see plenty of these, right?

aaomidi 5y ago
Why would someone put in extra time to develop those when it's only useful on half of mobile phones?
- petmon 5y ago
  For the same reason that developers build iOS-exclusive apps all the time.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    People build iOS exclusive apps since iOS has a large majority of paying users. Android have poor users that are harder to monetize, so if you just build for one group you build for the rich iOS users.
- JimDabell 5y ago
  People build native Android applications all the time and they are only useful on half of mobile phones. There are millions of them. How come people aren’t choosing to build PWAs in this situation? If you’re writing code intended only for Android, Apple’s influence in both cases is the same – irrelevant. Yet when you look at only the cases where Apple is irrelevant, people still overwhelmingly continue to choose native Android applications over PWAs. Blaming Apple for this doesn’t seem reasonable.
- randomsilence 5y ago
  Because the other half can access the app with a react native wrapper or something like that. In the long run, having to install the native app is an inconvenience to those users and their next phone will be less limiting. Apple is famous for their creative destruction, but sticking to their native apps breaks their appetite for innovation. Drifting in Space [1] has just been announced. After 30 years, the General Magic[2] concept is almost reality apart from the fluid integration of client and server. How can that happen on an iPhone if Apple locks the browser? In other words, sooner or later, they either have to open the browser or become irrelevant. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30502978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30502978 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic

fassssst 5y ago

The web is Google’s platform, so it’s understandable.

musicale 5y ago

Apple has little business incentive to encourage web apps on iOS vs. native apps. (And there is even less incentive to implement every API that Google sees fit to stuff into Chrome.) In addition to making money for Apple and enhancing its platform control, native apps tend to be more power efficient, more responsive, and more consistent with Apple's UI guidelines – features which, in Apple's view at least, lead to a better user experience. That being said, I personally hate it when web sites (e.g. reddit) demand that I install an app when I just want to use the web site.