5 ms·

EU DMA requirements have killed iPhone progressive web apps

30 points by alwillis 3y ago

superkuh 3y ago
Malicious compliance is the default action of megacorps in response to vague all-covering regulations. You end up with the laws only being enforced against human persons (without armies of lawyers or market leverage) while the corporate persons go on their merry way continuing their behavior, barely bothered.
- betaby 3y ago
  Developed countries are well past useful regulations for telecom/software.
seydor 3y ago
is this some kind of corporate disobedience?
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  No, the EU fucked itself. Apple cares about one group of people: its customers and their security. They are, in fact, the only company that does. As the family nerd, I dont ever need to support Apple devices. It's the only brand im going to recommend to them because they are security and customer satisfaction first. The only people who are upset about Apples policies are people MAKING MONEY off the platform. Do I feel bad for any of the business involved in this. No, because they are BUSINESS and dont require sympathy.
  - kristiandupont 3y ago
    I'm upset about this and I am not making any money off the platform.
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    > Apple cares about one group of people: its customers and their security. They literally installed a backdoor into Apple Silicon due to pressure from the CCP (lest they kill Apple by cutting their cheap manufacturing): https://www.kaspersky.com/about/press-releases/2023_kaspersky-discloses-iphone-hardware-feature-vital-in-operation-triangulation-case https://www.kaspersky.com/about/press-releases/2023_kaspersk...
    - zer00eyz 3y ago
      >> They literally installed a backdoor into Apple Silicon due to pressure from the CCP The link you presented does not support that idea at all. Vs something well covered and known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute Can we get some links that support your CCP claim from any kind of reputable source?
      - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        Nah; that's just my personal conspiracy theory. I think Apple is way more afraid of the CCP than the FBI/NSA, so the CCP is my bet.
  - ranger_danger 3y ago
    The only people who are upset about Apples policies are people MAKING MONEY off the platform. r/confidentlyincorrect
  - aeurielesn 3y ago
    Honestly, they don't care. Apple is using this as a chance to spin the public opinion against DMA — which it's hurting their walled garden — to kill a feature they never wanted. It was confirmed in another thread they killed PWAs for Safari too which it doesn't make sense.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    Apple cares so much about security, the App Store regularly has all the things Apple says will be a problem without them as gatekeepers. Scams, intransparent pricing, phishing apps and "whale hunting" (with a nice 30% cut for Apple from exploting gambling addictions). Just last week: https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/08/lastpass_lookalike_apple_app_store/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/08/lastpass_lookalike_ap...
  - szasamasa 3y ago
    are your relatives that dumb potatoes you cannot recommend using safari as their web browser? safari can ban web capabilities and you and your family can use it let me and others make our own choices of web browsers
vdaea 3y ago
Thank you, EU!
kristiandupont 3y ago
This is so frustrating, PWA's were finally starting to be a real option on iOS. But I am sure they will get away with this pathetic excuse, so I guess that's it.
curtis3389 3y ago
So, do devs now need to definitively write-off PWAs as a failed experiment? Many of the promises of PWAs have fallen short, so maybe this is just the final nail in the coffin.
- Arch485 3y ago
  PWAs work _great_ on everything that isn't an Apple product. Linux and Windows support PWAs without issue. MacOS, iOS, etc. all do not. Chrome (I think any Chromium browser, but I'm not 100% sure), Firefox, and most other browsers support PWAs without issue (unless it's running on an aforementioned Apple platform). Apple's poor support for PWAs and subsequent removal of them is just Apple being anticompetitive, as usual: If PWAs don't work, your only option is the App Store.
  - mmcnl 3y ago
    Linux does not support PWAs without issue. Badge icons don't work for example. Quite an important feature.
  - TrianguloY 3y ago
    I've never been able to run PWA on Firefox for linux, only using Chromium. I don't even thing they work on windows. And from a quick internet search it appears there is no official support, although apparently you can install a third party extension+app on linux to support it
nottorp 3y ago
Next step in Apple's malicious compliance: kill phone calls in the EU :) Can we please change the title into "Apple claims that EU DMA requirements blabla..."?
buran77 3y ago
Was "Safari as PWA engine" targeted by DMA too? Google managed to not cripple Android System WebView so Apple could learn... If there is a legitimate explanation then Android's WebView should be hit just as hard. > The removal is odd, given Apple's previous stance on the matter. It has used the existence of the functionality as an anti-trust defense internationally. And when that failed the pretense was no longer required. Nothing odd there. For Apple this is just extra effort for little to no incentive given the overall usage of PWAs.
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  I assume this is the reason: "The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper." Article 5(3) here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... Although I'm not sure how that couldn't just apply to the entire operating system e.g. you would be forced to let people run third party OSes. And also Article 5(7): "The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services."
  - aftbit 3y ago
    I still do not understand. What part of this prohibits them from allowing PWAs? Shouldn't this actually prohibit them from preventing 3rd party browsers instead? Like Firefox with Gecko should be allowed now right?
    - HL33tibCe7 3y ago
      Maybe read the article? Apple go into some detail about the security and privacy concerns involved in allowing non-Safari PWAs
zigzag312 3y ago
Original title: "Apple blames new law for why progressive web apps don't work right in the EU" Why was the title changed?
- soco 3y ago
  Because why should a title make Apple look even remotely bad.
mmcnl 3y ago
This is terrible. This is basically the end of PWAs. The EU iPhone market is too big to ignore.
alwillis 3y ago
Apple is holding the EU to the letter of the law and there are unintended consequences which some people don’t like.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  This seems like a really aggressive interpretation of the letter of the law, combined with an intentional unwillingness to do any work to comply with it in a customer-focused manner. "Technically the law would require us to enhance this feature by doing <thing>, but we don't want to, so we're going to remove the entire feature instead." They already supposedly had to do a ton of work to enable secure distribution of alternative browser engines on iOS. Why not apply this same logic there? "Enabling third-party alternative browser engines on iOS is too much work, so we're removing Safari." (I know the answer to this hypothetical) I understand that allowing Firefox and Chrome to put PWAs on the home screen would probably not be trivial, but I've been writing software long enough to know it's probably a couple man-years of engineering work at most, and it's probably much less. Android has supported this for ages. Apple could afford to do it.
AshleysBrain 3y ago
Does the DMA actually require that other browsers support 'Add to home screen'?
- kevingadd 3y ago
  Firefox supports home screen PWAs on Android, so I'm sure they would have been happy to implement it on iOS if given the opportunity. Same for Chrome. But it sounds like Apple doesn't want to do the work.
occz 3y ago
More completely transparent lying from Apple. Time to bust out that absolutely massive fine, EU. Make them regret their nonsense already.
- HL33tibCe7 3y ago
  On what basis would such a fine be given exactly?
  - polotics 3y ago
    look up malicious compliance
bruce343434 3y ago
Holy based. No more multi-second pageloads and spinners and layout shifts??? No more back history mangling? No more reimplemented scrolling and pagination? Holy shit what a great unintended consequence
rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
Title is false. Apple pretends they had to because they wanted more control in exchange for DMA compliance. DMA killed nothing or PWA wouldn't exist on Android.
znpy 3y ago
Apple is just retaliating for an act it doesn't like. I really hope the EU retaliates back on Apple for its anti-competitive and user-hostile behavior.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
_cenw 3y ago
Terrible framing on the title, untrue even. Apple has killed iPhone progressive web apps out of spite, not the EU.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39371119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39371119
ouksal 3y ago
The app store shouldn't have the power to destroy the web (apps).
szasamasa 3y ago
are you an apple bot or an apple employee or you just get money from apple? APPLE is TRYing to kill web capabilities because they threaten to become practically an alternative app store where develoers can bring great UX to people WITHOUT apple monopoly tax mac os has no problems? why not ban web app capabilities from Safari? it protects apple fanboys because they can use their super better more secure webkit engines WITHOUT any concern OTHER people using other web engines on THEIR apple devices NEVER download chrome or firefox and you ARE SAFE who the fuck do you want to sell that you care for me by banning chromium or gecko features? who are you to tell me whether I trust a browser or a web domain to grant some extra capabilities to MY device?

30 points by alwillis 3y ago

Malicious compliance is the default action of megacorps in response to vague all-covering regulations. You end up with the laws only being enforced against human persons (without armies of lawyers or market leverage) while the corporate persons go on their merry way continuing their behavior, barely bothered.

betaby 3y ago
Developed countries are well past useful regulations for telecom/software.

seydor 3y ago

is this some kind of corporate disobedience?

zer00eyz 3y ago
No, the EU fucked itself. Apple cares about one group of people: its customers and their security. They are, in fact, the only company that does. As the family nerd, I dont ever need to support Apple devices. It's the only brand im going to recommend to them because they are security and customer satisfaction first. The only people who are upset about Apples policies are people MAKING MONEY off the platform. Do I feel bad for any of the business involved in this. No, because they are BUSINESS and dont require sympathy.
- kristiandupont 3y ago
  I'm upset about this and I am not making any money off the platform.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  > Apple cares about one group of people: its customers and their security. They literally installed a backdoor into Apple Silicon due to pressure from the CCP (lest they kill Apple by cutting their cheap manufacturing): https://www.kaspersky.com/about/press-releases/2023_kaspersky-discloses-iphone-hardware-feature-vital-in-operation-triangulation-case https://www.kaspersky.com/about/press-releases/2023_kaspersk...
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    >> They literally installed a backdoor into Apple Silicon due to pressure from the CCP The link you presented does not support that idea at all. Vs something well covered and known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute Can we get some links that support your CCP claim from any kind of reputable source?
    - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
      Nah; that's just my personal conspiracy theory. I think Apple is way more afraid of the CCP than the FBI/NSA, so the CCP is my bet.
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  The only people who are upset about Apples policies are people MAKING MONEY off the platform. r/confidentlyincorrect
- aeurielesn 3y ago
  Honestly, they don't care. Apple is using this as a chance to spin the public opinion against DMA — which it's hurting their walled garden — to kill a feature they never wanted. It was confirmed in another thread they killed PWAs for Safari too which it doesn't make sense.
- _cenw 3y ago
  Apple cares so much about security, the App Store regularly has all the things Apple says will be a problem without them as gatekeepers. Scams, intransparent pricing, phishing apps and "whale hunting" (with a nice 30% cut for Apple from exploting gambling addictions). Just last week: https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/08/lastpass_lookalike_apple_app_store/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/08/lastpass_lookalike_ap...
- szasamasa 3y ago
  are your relatives that dumb potatoes you cannot recommend using safari as their web browser? safari can ban web capabilities and you and your family can use it let me and others make our own choices of web browsers

vdaea 3y ago

Thank you, EU!

kristiandupont 3y ago

This is so frustrating, PWA's were finally starting to be a real option on iOS. But I am sure they will get away with this pathetic excuse, so I guess that's it.

curtis3389 3y ago

So, do devs now need to definitively write-off PWAs as a failed experiment? Many of the promises of PWAs have fallen short, so maybe this is just the final nail in the coffin.

Arch485 3y ago
PWAs work _great_ on everything that isn't an Apple product. Linux and Windows support PWAs without issue. MacOS, iOS, etc. all do not. Chrome (I think any Chromium browser, but I'm not 100% sure), Firefox, and most other browsers support PWAs without issue (unless it's running on an aforementioned Apple platform). Apple's poor support for PWAs and subsequent removal of them is just Apple being anticompetitive, as usual: If PWAs don't work, your only option is the App Store.
- mmcnl 3y ago
  Linux does not support PWAs without issue. Badge icons don't work for example. Quite an important feature.
- TrianguloY 3y ago
  I've never been able to run PWA on Firefox for linux, only using Chromium. I don't even thing they work on windows. And from a quick internet search it appears there is no official support, although apparently you can install a third party extension+app on linux to support it

nottorp 3y ago

Next step in Apple's malicious compliance: kill phone calls in the EU :) Can we please change the title into "Apple claims that EU DMA requirements blabla..."?

buran77 3y ago

Was "Safari as PWA engine" targeted by DMA too? Google managed to not cripple Android System WebView so Apple could learn... If there is a legitimate explanation then Android's WebView should be hit just as hard. > The removal is odd, given Apple's previous stance on the matter. It has used the existence of the functionality as an anti-trust defense internationally. And when that failed the pretense was no longer required. Nothing odd there. For Apple this is just extra effort for little to no incentive given the overall usage of PWAs.

ranger_danger 3y ago
I assume this is the reason: "The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper." Article 5(3) here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... Although I'm not sure how that couldn't just apply to the entire operating system e.g. you would be forced to let people run third party OSes. And also Article 5(7): "The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services."
- aftbit 3y ago
  I still do not understand. What part of this prohibits them from allowing PWAs? Shouldn't this actually prohibit them from preventing 3rd party browsers instead? Like Firefox with Gecko should be allowed now right?
  - HL33tibCe7 3y ago
    Maybe read the article? Apple go into some detail about the security and privacy concerns involved in allowing non-Safari PWAs

zigzag312 3y ago

Original title: "Apple blames new law for why progressive web apps don't work right in the EU" Why was the title changed?

soco 3y ago
Because why should a title make Apple look even remotely bad.

mmcnl 3y ago

This is terrible. This is basically the end of PWAs. The EU iPhone market is too big to ignore.

alwillis 3y ago

Apple is holding the EU to the letter of the law and there are unintended consequences which some people don’t like.

kevingadd 3y ago
This seems like a really aggressive interpretation of the letter of the law, combined with an intentional unwillingness to do any work to comply with it in a customer-focused manner. "Technically the law would require us to enhance this feature by doing <thing>, but we don't want to, so we're going to remove the entire feature instead." They already supposedly had to do a ton of work to enable secure distribution of alternative browser engines on iOS. Why not apply this same logic there? "Enabling third-party alternative browser engines on iOS is too much work, so we're removing Safari." (I know the answer to this hypothetical) I understand that allowing Firefox and Chrome to put PWAs on the home screen would probably not be trivial, but I've been writing software long enough to know it's probably a couple man-years of engineering work at most, and it's probably much less. Android has supported this for ages. Apple could afford to do it.

AshleysBrain 3y ago

Does the DMA actually require that other browsers support 'Add to home screen'?

kevingadd 3y ago
Firefox supports home screen PWAs on Android, so I'm sure they would have been happy to implement it on iOS if given the opportunity. Same for Chrome. But it sounds like Apple doesn't want to do the work.

occz 3y ago

More completely transparent lying from Apple. Time to bust out that absolutely massive fine, EU. Make them regret their nonsense already.

HL33tibCe7 3y ago
On what basis would such a fine be given exactly?
- polotics 3y ago
  look up malicious compliance

bruce343434 3y ago

Holy based. No more multi-second pageloads and spinners and layout shifts??? No more back history mangling? No more reimplemented scrolling and pagination? Holy shit what a great unintended consequence

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago

Title is false. Apple pretends they had to because they wanted more control in exchange for DMA compliance. DMA killed nothing or PWA wouldn't exist on Android.

znpy 3y ago

Apple is just retaliating for an act it doesn't like. I really hope the EU retaliates back on Apple for its anti-competitive and user-hostile behavior.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

_cenw 3y ago

Terrible framing on the title, untrue even. Apple has killed iPhone progressive web apps out of spite, not the EU.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39371119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39371119

ouksal 3y ago

The app store shouldn't have the power to destroy the web (apps).

szasamasa 3y ago

are you an apple bot or an apple employee or you just get money from apple? APPLE is TRYing to kill web capabilities because they threaten to become practically an alternative app store where develoers can bring great UX to people WITHOUT apple monopoly tax mac os has no problems? why not ban web app capabilities from Safari? it protects apple fanboys because they can use their super better more secure webkit engines WITHOUT any concern OTHER people using other web engines on THEIR apple devices NEVER download chrome or firefox and you ARE SAFE who the fuck do you want to sell that you care for me by banning chromium or gecko features? who are you to tell me whether I trust a browser or a web domain to grant some extra capabilities to MY device?