4 ms·

If they want it, download the app then. Allow others to not download it and use a PWA if they'd like. Actually I believe you're wrong: if people actually prefe

If they want it, download the app then. Allow others to not download it and use a PWA if they'd like. Actually I believe you're wrong: if people actually preferred Apple's way of doing it, Apple would have no reason to restrict other ways. They restrict it because people prefer the other way, and that would harm Apple's profits.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
They continue to restrict it because look at how much trash was (is?) on the Android store; they restricted it even more in the early days because of the torrent of low effort fart / gag apps.
- matsemann 4y ago
  That's a problem of having a single app store everyone has to go through. Why would you care about a thousand fart apps existing as PWAs online? They wouldn't affect you at all.
- capableweb 4y ago
  > They continue to restrict it because look at how much trash was (is?) on the Android store You're saying this like there isn't any trash on the Apple App Store? Come on... Beyond the top lists or other discovery models, the Apple App Store contains bunch of things that will never even be downloaded by anyone... It was more exclusive in the beginning, I give you that. But today, it has as much trash as any other app store.
- tormeh 4y ago
  The iOS app store has way more trash than the Android one. Android has lots of open source software. iOS has a bajillion crappy $2 apps instead. I got an iPad from work, and not only does it not have a calculator from Apple, it's really hard to find a lightweight, low-permission, ad-free calculator on the App Store. I eventually had to settle for one designed for iPhones.
- palata 4y ago
  I don't think that they care about not having useless apps. They care about the apps looking "integrated" in their system, right? I am an Android user and an Android developer, and I must admit that iOS apps usually look more consistent (in terms of UX). And that's one of the values of Apple: this vertical integration that makes the overall thing look more polished (and probably easier to use to some extent). Of course, they are happy to keep the restriction because they can take 30% commission on the paid apps, I'm not saying they are perfect and that there is nothing to improve. But I am not completely convinced that forcing them to lower their standards of integration (by allowing any kind of apps) is necessarily beneficial for the users. After all, why do developers want PWAs? Probably mostly because it is cheaper for them, not because it's better for their users, right?
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    > After all, why do developers want PWAs? Probably mostly because it is cheaper for them, not because it's better for their users, right? Wrong, PWAs can provide better services for users, and the lack of PWAs and enforcement of the App Store monopoly can hurt them[1]: > The fact that Apple refuses to implement basic features in mobile Safari that Firefox and Chrome have had for years now, and the fact that they refuse to allow other browser engines on iOS is the reason why we can't have nice things like progressive web apps. > I recently worked on a health app related to the COVID pandemic. The most common use case would be served really well by a PWA, and as such, there's no reason users would need to install an app on their phones to access the web app's full set of features. > Despite the web app working perfectly on Android and across Windows, Linux and macOS without native integration, we now must dedicate time and resources to develop an additional iOS app just so iOS users, which over half of Americans are, aren't left out. > This is an expensive endeavor time-wise and money-wise, during a pandemic where time is of the essence and resources are stretched thin. It shouldn't be this way, but it is. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26520148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26520148
    - palata 4y ago
      You start by saying that PWAs provide better services than native apps (I don't believe it), and then you go on giving an example where it does not, but where you would like it to do because it would be cheaper? Seems like you do confirm my points.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > They continue to restrict it because look at how much trash was (is?) on the Android store; they restricted it even more in the early days because of the torrent of low effort fart / gag apps. A yet there are a ton of low effort and literal fart apps on the App Store[1]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/AINmvSf.png https://i.imgur.com/AINmvSf.png
nicce 4y ago
Average person does not know what they want. They don’t know how technology works. They don’t even see difference between PWA and apps. If everything becomes PWA, there is no transparency for the apps. No indication what data they collect. No control for the quality of the apps. No moderation over malicious apps. PWAs need more permissions to provide the functionality people need, it is not just website.
- bookofjoe 4y ago
  This "average person"[non-techie] doesn't even know what PWA is/means/stands for. Truth.
  - sirsinsalot 4y ago
    Do they need to know what AAC or MP4 is to use Spotify? The point is the experience, not the name of it.
- devjab 4y ago
  > Average person does not know what they want. The problem with statements like that, aside from the loftiness, is that you end up with a world where people who think they know better get to decide. I worked in the public sector digitalisation, and while I’m a programmer we were bundled with the rest of IT so I experienced what the supporters had to deal with. This included a lot of employees who genuinely couldn’t tell if the device they needed help for was an iOS or Android device without some guidance. So I’m not going to dispute the claims you make about how it’s nice to protect the “average person” from themselves, but I don’t think any of us will like the what that sort of thinking creates. Well, maybe some people will, but a lot won’t. I recently wanted something for my two-factor keys and the best all I could find was for Android but not iOS. I ended up filming over a few $ for a Bitwarden subscription, but there are just a lot of little stories like that. I mean, I’m not in the audience for Fortnite, but I’m sure a lot of people were sad when it left iOS. A of which can be avoided if we stop giving all the power to the tech companies. I’m not sure Apple really has anything to fear from it either in terms of security or usability. Part of the reason they sell so well, at least to me, is that they have the ease of use and tech that works out of the box. It’s very rare that I need side loading. I’m not a huge fan of the Safari enforcement, but it doesn’t really bother me either as I can still use FireFox and the sync. I think Google might have more to fear from it, since they need to peddle commercials inside apps like YouTube, and you can block that if they allow you to side-load app blockers, but for Apple I think almost everyone will just keep on trucking. It will of course hurt their control over payments, like the original poster points out, but that’s not really “my” or the “average persons” problem.
incongruity 4y ago
Well, for one, this isn’t just a two-party ecosystem. It’s not just the consumer and Apple. It’s also the app developers. App developers are largely the ones pushing things like PWA. Apple’s long-standing heavy handed take on design standards has always been driven by a focus on consumer/end-user experience and it has often been chafed against by developers and more technical types. For instance- Apple rightly refused to allow flash and Java apps on iOS devices and I think my user experience was the better for it.
palata 4y ago
Users don't choose what they use, they use what they must. I can't choose to use Signal if everybody uses WhatsApp. I can't choose a non-ElectronJS Slack client because it doesn't exist. If PWA is cheaper to make, companies will go there. Whether or not it's better for the users. Companies want to make money, not help users.
- kajaktum 4y ago
  > Company wants to make money, not help users Yea but Apple is a company too…
  - s3p 4y ago
    Good for them?
    - kajaktum 4y ago
      I am simply countering back what GP said about other companies cheapening out on features by stating that Apple is also a company. Yes, the point is that no company cares about you. Making customer happy is a side effect of them making money.
brookst 4y ago
Too much Kool aid there. Apple values vertical integration and control of the OS. The fact that they do not allow users to set pink text on green background as the system default should not be taken as proof that most users prefer reading pink on green.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

They continue to restrict it because look at how much trash was (is?) on the Android store; they restricted it even more in the early days because of the torrent of low effort fart / gag apps.

matsemann 4y ago
That's a problem of having a single app store everyone has to go through. Why would you care about a thousand fart apps existing as PWAs online? They wouldn't affect you at all.
capableweb 4y ago
> They continue to restrict it because look at how much trash was (is?) on the Android store You're saying this like there isn't any trash on the Apple App Store? Come on... Beyond the top lists or other discovery models, the Apple App Store contains bunch of things that will never even be downloaded by anyone... It was more exclusive in the beginning, I give you that. But today, it has as much trash as any other app store.
tormeh 4y ago
The iOS app store has way more trash than the Android one. Android has lots of open source software. iOS has a bajillion crappy $2 apps instead. I got an iPad from work, and not only does it not have a calculator from Apple, it's really hard to find a lightweight, low-permission, ad-free calculator on the App Store. I eventually had to settle for one designed for iPhones.
palata 4y ago
I don't think that they care about not having useless apps. They care about the apps looking "integrated" in their system, right? I am an Android user and an Android developer, and I must admit that iOS apps usually look more consistent (in terms of UX). And that's one of the values of Apple: this vertical integration that makes the overall thing look more polished (and probably easier to use to some extent). Of course, they are happy to keep the restriction because they can take 30% commission on the paid apps, I'm not saying they are perfect and that there is nothing to improve. But I am not completely convinced that forcing them to lower their standards of integration (by allowing any kind of apps) is necessarily beneficial for the users. After all, why do developers want PWAs? Probably mostly because it is cheaper for them, not because it's better for their users, right?
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > After all, why do developers want PWAs? Probably mostly because it is cheaper for them, not because it's better for their users, right? Wrong, PWAs can provide better services for users, and the lack of PWAs and enforcement of the App Store monopoly can hurt them[1]: > The fact that Apple refuses to implement basic features in mobile Safari that Firefox and Chrome have had for years now, and the fact that they refuse to allow other browser engines on iOS is the reason why we can't have nice things like progressive web apps. > I recently worked on a health app related to the COVID pandemic. The most common use case would be served really well by a PWA, and as such, there's no reason users would need to install an app on their phones to access the web app's full set of features. > Despite the web app working perfectly on Android and across Windows, Linux and macOS without native integration, we now must dedicate time and resources to develop an additional iOS app just so iOS users, which over half of Americans are, aren't left out. > This is an expensive endeavor time-wise and money-wise, during a pandemic where time is of the essence and resources are stretched thin. It shouldn't be this way, but it is. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26520148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26520148
  - palata 4y ago
    You start by saying that PWAs provide better services than native apps (I don't believe it), and then you go on giving an example where it does not, but where you would like it to do because it would be cheaper? Seems like you do confirm my points.
heavyset_go 4y ago
> They continue to restrict it because look at how much trash was (is?) on the Android store; they restricted it even more in the early days because of the torrent of low effort fart / gag apps. A yet there are a ton of low effort and literal fart apps on the App Store[1]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/AINmvSf.png https://i.imgur.com/AINmvSf.png

nicce 4y ago

Average person does not know what they want. They don’t know how technology works. They don’t even see difference between PWA and apps. If everything becomes PWA, there is no transparency for the apps. No indication what data they collect. No control for the quality of the apps. No moderation over malicious apps. PWAs need more permissions to provide the functionality people need, it is not just website.

bookofjoe 4y ago
This "average person"[non-techie] doesn't even know what PWA is/means/stands for. Truth.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  Do they need to know what AAC or MP4 is to use Spotify? The point is the experience, not the name of it.
devjab 4y ago
> Average person does not know what they want. The problem with statements like that, aside from the loftiness, is that you end up with a world where people who think they know better get to decide. I worked in the public sector digitalisation, and while I’m a programmer we were bundled with the rest of IT so I experienced what the supporters had to deal with. This included a lot of employees who genuinely couldn’t tell if the device they needed help for was an iOS or Android device without some guidance. So I’m not going to dispute the claims you make about how it’s nice to protect the “average person” from themselves, but I don’t think any of us will like the what that sort of thinking creates. Well, maybe some people will, but a lot won’t. I recently wanted something for my two-factor keys and the best all I could find was for Android but not iOS. I ended up filming over a few $ for a Bitwarden subscription, but there are just a lot of little stories like that. I mean, I’m not in the audience for Fortnite, but I’m sure a lot of people were sad when it left iOS. A of which can be avoided if we stop giving all the power to the tech companies. I’m not sure Apple really has anything to fear from it either in terms of security or usability. Part of the reason they sell so well, at least to me, is that they have the ease of use and tech that works out of the box. It’s very rare that I need side loading. I’m not a huge fan of the Safari enforcement, but it doesn’t really bother me either as I can still use FireFox and the sync. I think Google might have more to fear from it, since they need to peddle commercials inside apps like YouTube, and you can block that if they allow you to side-load app blockers, but for Apple I think almost everyone will just keep on trucking. It will of course hurt their control over payments, like the original poster points out, but that’s not really “my” or the “average persons” problem.

incongruity 4y ago

Well, for one, this isn’t just a two-party ecosystem. It’s not just the consumer and Apple. It’s also the app developers. App developers are largely the ones pushing things like PWA. Apple’s long-standing heavy handed take on design standards has always been driven by a focus on consumer/end-user experience and it has often been chafed against by developers and more technical types. For instance- Apple rightly refused to allow flash and Java apps on iOS devices and I think my user experience was the better for it.

palata 4y ago

Users don't choose what they use, they use what they must. I can't choose to use Signal if everybody uses WhatsApp. I can't choose a non-ElectronJS Slack client because it doesn't exist. If PWA is cheaper to make, companies will go there. Whether or not it's better for the users. Companies want to make money, not help users.

kajaktum 4y ago
> Company wants to make money, not help users Yea but Apple is a company too…
- s3p 4y ago
  Good for them?
  - kajaktum 4y ago
    I am simply countering back what GP said about other companies cheapening out on features by stating that Apple is also a company. Yes, the point is that no company cares about you. Making customer happy is a side effect of them making money.

brookst 4y ago

Too much Kool aid there. Apple values vertical integration and control of the OS. The fact that they do not allow users to set pink text on green background as the system default should not be taken as proof that most users prefer reading pink on green.