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 cu

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.