3 ms·

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

by 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
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  The way I read the text of the law though, it doesn't say that you have to prevent third party browsers in every way possible, what if they just allow one or a few of the ways to use one? That way PWA could still use their own system. Not trying to take anyone's side here just arguing a theoretical.
- pointlessone 3y ago
  Have those concerns been addressed on macOS? Or maybe PWAs on macOS leaking user data all over the place? Are they implying that they can’t make sure this will not come to pass even with all the restrictions and process they put in for custom browsers?
- aftbit 3y ago
  I did read the article. I still don't get it. The way I read the parent post's law snippet, prohibiting Firefox or Chrome from shipping a browser based on their own rendering engine (as opposed to the Safari skins that they currently ship on iOS) would be a violation. If they're going to allow that, what is the downside of allowing the device to create a PWA? The browser will have that same access and could (theoretically) leak that to any website that visits. If they're not going to allow alternative browsers, then how is that not a violation in itself? I really don't appreciate the "security" argument here. Apps are sandboxed. PWAs could be sandboxed too. Yeah, it would take some work to implement, but probably not as much as they're already going to have to do to support alternative app stores and sideloading. Just really comes off as petty and anti-consumer. But then I'm not their target market anyway. I believe that my security is up to me, not my phone vendor. If I want to run a 3rd party unsigned app from a source that I've chosen to trust, then I ought to be able to do so on my hardware. Apple believes its their hardware, not mine.
kevingadd 3y ago
They don't want to design/expose the necessary hooks to let Firefox or Chrome add PWAs to the home screen, so they removed all that machinery in the EU (which means Safari can't do it anymore).
- szasamasa 3y ago
  well, in the eu you have to make the effort to design with disability in mind even if it costs a business i am sure ios programmers will just be able to design whatever is needed if mac os, android, windows or linux programmers can or else tim cook must hire some engineer time from the mac os team i guess

by aftbit 3y ago

HL33tibCe7 3y ago

Maybe read the article? Apple go into some detail about the security and privacy concerns involved in allowing non-Safari PWAs

ranger_danger 3y ago
The way I read the text of the law though, it doesn't say that you have to prevent third party browsers in every way possible, what if they just allow one or a few of the ways to use one? That way PWA could still use their own system. Not trying to take anyone's side here just arguing a theoretical.
pointlessone 3y ago
Have those concerns been addressed on macOS? Or maybe PWAs on macOS leaking user data all over the place? Are they implying that they can’t make sure this will not come to pass even with all the restrictions and process they put in for custom browsers?
aftbit 3y ago
I did read the article. I still don't get it. The way I read the parent post's law snippet, prohibiting Firefox or Chrome from shipping a browser based on their own rendering engine (as opposed to the Safari skins that they currently ship on iOS) would be a violation. If they're going to allow that, what is the downside of allowing the device to create a PWA? The browser will have that same access and could (theoretically) leak that to any website that visits. If they're not going to allow alternative browsers, then how is that not a violation in itself? I really don't appreciate the "security" argument here. Apps are sandboxed. PWAs could be sandboxed too. Yeah, it would take some work to implement, but probably not as much as they're already going to have to do to support alternative app stores and sideloading. Just really comes off as petty and anti-consumer. But then I'm not their target market anyway. I believe that my security is up to me, not my phone vendor. If I want to run a 3rd party unsigned app from a source that I've chosen to trust, then I ought to be able to do so on my hardware. Apple believes its their hardware, not mine.

kevingadd 3y ago

They don't want to design/expose the necessary hooks to let Firefox or Chrome add PWAs to the home screen, so they removed all that machinery in the EU (which means Safari can't do it anymore).

szasamasa 3y ago
well, in the eu you have to make the effort to design with disability in mind even if it costs a business i am sure ios programmers will just be able to design whatever is needed if mac os, android, windows or linux programmers can or else tim cook must hire some engineer time from the mac os team i guess