6 ms·

iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

48 points by dattiimo 3y ago

chongli 3y ago
Can someone help me understand what the strategy is here? As an outsider, it seems like Apple is just defying the EU for spite. How does this change contribute to Apple’s bottom line?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  A crack in the app store walled garden would be an existential threat because it's their fire hose of cash. It's the whole reason they make so much more money than other hardware manufacturers. They will defend it aggressively.
- _v7gu 3y ago
  They are racing to be number one in the EU fine rankings
- JadeNB 3y ago
  This is a beta release—it seems very plausible that it's just a mistake, rather than some sort of elaborate-but-subtle act of defiance.
  - striking 3y ago
    > There are indications that iOS 17.4 is using SIM carrier information to geo-lock the changes to web app functionality singularly to users in the EU. Web apps in other regions around the world remain unaffected.
    - JadeNB 3y ago
      > > There are indications that iOS 17.4 is using SIM carrier information to geo-lock the changes to web app functionality singularly to users in the EU. Web apps in other regions around the world remain unaffected. Right, we know that they're doing things in the EU specifically because they're required to do so; their insistence on using geo-locking for that is grudging but not sinister. It would be sinister to say "let's intentionally remove web app functionality, only for EU users", but I don't see anything in the story that makes it implausible that what actually happened is that somebody rushed out shoddily written code for EU users, and it had this unintended effect. This may seem like special pleading for Apple, but, as chongli's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39321362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39321362 to which I responded pointed out, why would they want to do this? Apple is many things as a company, but small minded and spiteful (as opposed to simply dictatorial) against its users isn't usually one of them. At the very least, to present that as the only possible explanation seems to be over-reaching.
      - striking 3y ago
        I don't usually go back into my comment history to reply to someone with new facts, but it took only six days for Apple to tell us how they really feel. > And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652 They are small minded, they are spiteful, and you are specially pleading on their behalf. I don't blame you for being wrong. I just hope you learn not to trust companies, as their interests will almost certainly never be aligned with yours.
  - jowea 3y ago
    Or they're testing the waters.
  - JadeNB 3y ago
    > This is a beta release—it seems very plausible that it's just a mistake, rather than some sort of elaborate-but-subtle act of defiance. I was wrong. I still think that this was plausible, but, as a TechCrunch article https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/15/apple-confirms-its-breaking-iphone-web-apps-in-the-eu-on-purpose https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/15/apple-confirms-its-breakin... now on the front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 makes clear, it's not true.
- uxjw 3y ago
  It's probably to prevent alternate app stores from offering PWAs that might bypass Apple's controls and fees.
alphabettsy 3y ago
This smells like malicious compliance. It’s also possible that given the timeline, this was the only way to comply with the law and allow a different default browser and it’ll be fixed in the future?
- PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
  It's not even like Apple is hiding that they hate their DMA when they're announcing their compliances with it. Looking forward to the EU Commission taking Apple to the ECJ over this, I strongly suspect the EU Commission will win, because even if it doesn't, it will just propose legislation changes to outlaw Apple's behaviour anyway.
  - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
    So much for „free market”. > You can do it your own way > If it’s done just how I say
    - andersa 3y ago
      Indeed, you can do it in your own way that complies with the intention of the law. We don't do this malicious compliance weasel wording game in the EU.
      - deaddodo 3y ago
        Intention leaves room for interpretation. Despite common belief in Europe, there is plenty of strongly binding consumer and labor protection legislation in the US (especially at the state level). It just happens to be much more verbose and specific to take "interpretation" out of the equation. And when companies slither around some loophole, it gets amended, ideally; if some corporate lobbyist doesn't get their way (something that also, definitely occurs in the EU). That being said, I'm rooting for the ECJ to win here. Maybe it would kickstart a change that's also sorely needed in the US.
      - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
ilmiont 3y ago
This does not seem to be accurate - see https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755411290107863429 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755411290107863429 (I have not personally verified the behavior described in that tweet, but if it's true then a lot of the reporting and commentary around this story has left out important details and the actual change is positive for users. Intentionally configured PWAs still work; everything else opens in your default browser, without any potentially unwanted magic.)
buran77 3y ago
Hoping it's just a beta issue. Otherwise there goes the "for the user" pretense, reminding us that there are no "trustworthy" companies, only temporarily aligning interests. Edit. Links below suggest a less than nefarious explanation but the reality of the point above stands.
gnabgib 3y ago
Some dupes /w comments: [0](48 points, 7 days ago, 19 comments) [1](93 points, 2 days ago, 79 comments) [2](7 points, 10 hours ago, 2 comments, same URL) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39314074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39314074
danibx 3y ago
PWAs pose a security risk. Any malicious site can masquerade as another app, such as your bank. If Apple is implementing this intentionally, then they are justified.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] This and more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862
jitl 3y ago
I think what’s happening here is that the EU mandated browser choice, but Apple hasn’t had enough time to implement APIs for other browsers to handle launching PWAs. So to make things fair and equal between Safari and the other browsers and to ensure that your default browser choice is respected, they disabled the Safari frameless PWA mode. It’s EU mandated browser choice, and hopefully they’ll figure out hooks so you can have eg frameless Firefox launch when tapping a homescreen browser bookmark.
- akmarinov 3y ago
  Also if they allow PWAs from other browser engines- their whole appstore and core technology fee related shenanigans are useless
- devilkin 3y ago
  They knew the DMA was coming for years. For a company with the resources like Apple to not have enough time is just a load of crap. They don't want to, and will go out of their way to make their statement.
- pretext-1 3y ago
  The DSA was not written overnight. The agreement was made in 2022, the text is from 2020, preliminary versions probably available years before that. And even without having the exact wording Apple must have known their anticompetitive behavior wouldn’t be tolerated forever way before that. Mandatory Browser Choice exists since when, Windows XP times? There was enough time, there is no excuse. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A825%3AFIN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20...

48 points by dattiimo 3y ago

Can someone help me understand what the strategy is here? As an outsider, it seems like Apple is just defying the EU for spite. How does this change contribute to Apple’s bottom line?

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
A crack in the app store walled garden would be an existential threat because it's their fire hose of cash. It's the whole reason they make so much more money than other hardware manufacturers. They will defend it aggressively.
_v7gu 3y ago
They are racing to be number one in the EU fine rankings
JadeNB 3y ago
This is a beta release—it seems very plausible that it's just a mistake, rather than some sort of elaborate-but-subtle act of defiance.
- striking 3y ago
  > There are indications that iOS 17.4 is using SIM carrier information to geo-lock the changes to web app functionality singularly to users in the EU. Web apps in other regions around the world remain unaffected.
  - JadeNB 3y ago
    > > There are indications that iOS 17.4 is using SIM carrier information to geo-lock the changes to web app functionality singularly to users in the EU. Web apps in other regions around the world remain unaffected. Right, we know that they're doing things in the EU specifically because they're required to do so; their insistence on using geo-locking for that is grudging but not sinister. It would be sinister to say "let's intentionally remove web app functionality, only for EU users", but I don't see anything in the story that makes it implausible that what actually happened is that somebody rushed out shoddily written code for EU users, and it had this unintended effect. This may seem like special pleading for Apple, but, as chongli's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39321362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39321362 to which I responded pointed out, why would they want to do this? Apple is many things as a company, but small minded and spiteful (as opposed to simply dictatorial) against its users isn't usually one of them. At the very least, to present that as the only possible explanation seems to be over-reaching.
    - striking 3y ago
      I don't usually go back into my comment history to reply to someone with new facts, but it took only six days for Apple to tell us how they really feel. > And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652 They are small minded, they are spiteful, and you are specially pleading on their behalf. I don't blame you for being wrong. I just hope you learn not to trust companies, as their interests will almost certainly never be aligned with yours.
- jowea 3y ago
  Or they're testing the waters.
- JadeNB 3y ago
  > This is a beta release—it seems very plausible that it's just a mistake, rather than some sort of elaborate-but-subtle act of defiance. I was wrong. I still think that this was plausible, but, as a TechCrunch article https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/15/apple-confirms-its-breaking-iphone-web-apps-in-the-eu-on-purpose https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/15/apple-confirms-its-breakin... now on the front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 makes clear, it's not true.
uxjw 3y ago
It's probably to prevent alternate app stores from offering PWAs that might bypass Apple's controls and fees.

alphabettsy 3y ago

This smells like malicious compliance. It’s also possible that given the timeline, this was the only way to comply with the law and allow a different default browser and it’ll be fixed in the future?

PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
It's not even like Apple is hiding that they hate their DMA when they're announcing their compliances with it. Looking forward to the EU Commission taking Apple to the ECJ over this, I strongly suspect the EU Commission will win, because even if it doesn't, it will just propose legislation changes to outlaw Apple's behaviour anyway.
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  So much for „free market”. > You can do it your own way > If it’s done just how I say
  - andersa 3y ago
    Indeed, you can do it in your own way that complies with the intention of the law. We don't do this malicious compliance weasel wording game in the EU.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      Intention leaves room for interpretation. Despite common belief in Europe, there is plenty of strongly binding consumer and labor protection legislation in the US (especially at the state level). It just happens to be much more verbose and specific to take "interpretation" out of the equation. And when companies slither around some loophole, it gets amended, ideally; if some corporate lobbyist doesn't get their way (something that also, definitely occurs in the EU). That being said, I'm rooting for the ECJ to win here. Maybe it would kickstart a change that's also sorely needed in the US.
    - rad_gruchalski 3y ago

ilmiont 3y ago

This does not seem to be accurate - see https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755411290107863429 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755411290107863429 (I have not personally verified the behavior described in that tweet, but if it's true then a lot of the reporting and commentary around this story has left out important details and the actual change is positive for users. Intentionally configured PWAs still work; everything else opens in your default browser, without any potentially unwanted magic.)

buran77 3y ago

Hoping it's just a beta issue. Otherwise there goes the "for the user" pretense, reminding us that there are no "trustworthy" companies, only temporarily aligning interests. Edit. Links below suggest a less than nefarious explanation but the reality of the point above stands.

gnabgib 3y ago

Some dupes /w comments: [0](48 points, 7 days ago, 19 comments) [1](93 points, 2 days ago, 79 comments) [2](7 points, 10 hours ago, 2 comments, same URL) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39314074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39314074

danibx 3y ago

PWAs pose a security risk. Any malicious site can masquerade as another app, such as your bank. If Apple is implementing this intentionally, then they are justified.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] This and more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862

jitl 3y ago

I think what’s happening here is that the EU mandated browser choice, but Apple hasn’t had enough time to implement APIs for other browsers to handle launching PWAs. So to make things fair and equal between Safari and the other browsers and to ensure that your default browser choice is respected, they disabled the Safari frameless PWA mode. It’s EU mandated browser choice, and hopefully they’ll figure out hooks so you can have eg frameless Firefox launch when tapping a homescreen browser bookmark.

akmarinov 3y ago
Also if they allow PWAs from other browser engines- their whole appstore and core technology fee related shenanigans are useless
devilkin 3y ago
They knew the DMA was coming for years. For a company with the resources like Apple to not have enough time is just a load of crap. They don't want to, and will go out of their way to make their statement.
pretext-1 3y ago
The DSA was not written overnight. The agreement was made in 2022, the text is from 2020, preliminary versions probably available years before that. And even without having the exact wording Apple must have known their anticompetitive behavior wouldn’t be tolerated forever way before that. Mandatory Browser Choice exists since when, Windows XP times? There was enough time, there is no excuse. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A825%3AFIN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20...