7 ms·

Seems like an OS problem. They should fix that.

by jensensbutton 3y ago

lannisterstark 3y ago
Or they could just not.
- agust 3y ago
  They could develop APIs to support alternate browser engines but could not allow them to install sandboxed web apps on the system? Like all other OSes do, including macOS? How surprising.
  - kmbfjr 3y ago
    Are not some of the changes in the EU so that people won’t have to rely on Apple’s APIs?
  - bobbylarrybobby 3y ago
    The whole point is that doing so would privilege safari over other browsers, which is illegal.
- luuurker 3y ago
  What's the benefit for you as a user to side with Apple on things like this?
  - moogly 3y ago
    A seat at Steve Jobs' table in the lunch cafeteria in he...aven?
  - vdaea 3y ago
    He's not necessarily siding with Apple. He's pointing out they don't have to do that.
    - luuurker 3y ago
      I think we all know that a company doesn't have to improve their OS. What I'm trying to understand is why are they defending/coming up with an excuse for something that doesn't really benefit them.
  - gretch 3y ago
    Apple has a decade+ track record of making devices that i really like. (At several points I’ve compared solutions across the market). Instead of siding with Apple, why would I side with anonymous and random internet commentators who have never made devices I want to buy?
    - pompino 3y ago
      It is definitely odd to outsource your moral principles based on which mega corp you opened your wallet to.
      - gretch 3y ago
        Morals? You think you’re some kind of righteous crusader? I’m talking about toys and gadgets. The ability to view memes.
        mthoms 3y ago
        If that's your use case, then great! My iPhone connects me to my government, my bank, my school, my family on the other side of the world, my portfolio, and perhaps most importantly; critical safety services (local avalanche forecasts in my case). You can be damn well sure I'll be passionate about how it's controlled, and what capabilities the manufacturer is derailing in the interest of record profits. (For clarity - I'm not the person you responded to, but this is HN so I thought I'd chime in on why some people are so passionate about this so called "toy")
        pompino 3y ago
        Let me correct some of your misunderstandings. The comment you were replying to, correctly, pointed out that there is no benefit to the user to side with Apple's anti-user stance. This story, and comments about the story are having to do with a users right to install a browser of their choice, choose a payment method of their choice, etc - which is collectively under the DMA that the EU passed into law - democratically. Apple has repeatedly tried their best to spin this, but it is easy to see past the spin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
    Please drop the tribalistic vitriol and be an adult about this. The statement is “or they could not”. It’s factual. It’s what Apple did. It’s not a religious stance.
    - masto 3y ago
      The question was "What's the benefit for you as a user to side with Apple on things like this?". There's no vitriol there. Jumping to the defense of a trillion dollar corporation seems religious or at least tribalistic to me. And lest I be dismissed as a hater, I currently own five Apple computers, an iPhone I've upgraded every year since they came out, an iPad, a watch, and a virtu^wspatial computing heads^wdevice. But that's because of the transactional value they provide, not because I believe Apple loves me and has my best interests at heart. They love my money and that's where it ends. I use several PWAs and I will be very disappointed if this is the stick Apple uses to close the window on this short period of time where we had a reasonably interoperable standard for making "apps" using web technologies. I can run Elk in a browser, but it's suboptimal.
  - pb7 3y ago
    Pretty simple: I like the way Apple does most things. I'm rarely disappointed by the culmination of all of their decisions. I'm frequently disappointed with how other companies do things therefore I don't want their disease to spread to things I'm perfectly content with.
    - adamtaylor_13 3y ago
      I couldn’t put my feelings into words but this sums it up fairly well. Apple, for all their flaws, typically creates an outstanding product from a security, privacy, and general end-user perspective. At the end of the day, Apple has earned my trust to make choices that maybe aren’t the most “open” choices, because usually they end up being the best experience for me as an end consumer.
      - luuurker 3y ago
        Apple typically makes good decisions, but they don't always do that or act in your best interest. And that's the problem with supporting all their decisions without checking if they're good or not for you. In this case, iOS isn't capable of handling different rending engines well. So instead of asking them to improve iOS so this isn't a problem (like it isn't on Android and even other iOS apps), you side with their decision of breaking/removing a feature, even though it doesn't benefit you in any way. I'm sure you can see the problem with this.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    The sides in this debate are: Apple, Chrome advocates (with a little bit of separation), and the EU. It's not that perplexing to choose the first.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > What's the benefit for you as a user to side with Apple on things like this? Looking at these things as sides is a mistake. Instead of just being tribal, it's better to look positions on their merits.
    - breather 3y ago
      > it's better to look positions on their merits How do you do this when any value a "merit" could have is based in this dichotomy of vendor/user?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        It's not based on that, as far as I can see. Saying "browsers are extremely complex from a security perspective and we will only allow the one we made on to our platform" is in service of making a better product. You might say that that's not true, and browsers are easy to secure, but that would be arguing the point on its merits. Not on the tribalist lens you're seeing this situation through.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      I've been asking these people for the merits of Apple's decisions for years, and all I ever get in response is "Apple knows best, I don't need these features."
      - shuckles 3y ago
        That seems like a perfectly reasonable argument on the merits. What user actually needs web apps? What's the market for apps whose developers can't stomach a $99 developer fee and/or with functionality not allowable by app review?
        breather 3y ago
        Well shit, what user needs an app store to begin with? It was never about need, it was about what they could convince users to put up with.
  - vundercind 3y ago
    I don't care about PWAs and would generally prefer companies not have the option so they can't try to push me into one. Anything that makes that less-viable is good for me. I wish Apple'd held a hard line on the "no apps that should be a web site" rule(s) for similar reasons. Alas, they did not.
    - jquery 3y ago
      I agree. My experience with PWAs is they are usually downgrade from a safari bookmark... they are created to benefit the provider, not the user, by taking away browser abilities from me (back, forward, copy url, etc).
  - natch 3y ago
    Advocating for security and user privacy protection.
    - luuurker 3y ago
      The comment I replied to wasn't advocating for either of that. It was essentially an excuse to support Apple's decision to remove/break a feature because their OS isn't capable of handling a different rendering engine. From my point of view, I don't benefit if 1) Apple removes this option in my region and 2) there's no good reason for me to be against iOS handling better permissions of web apps and other rendering engines, like it already does for all other apps (and something that Android handles without problems).
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    There are lots of things that Apple could do to benefit me that aren’t reasonable.
  - breather 3y ago
    There's little benefit to the user for many of Apple's design decisions; that seems like an odd way to predict their behavior.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    boots taste good and these kids are too young to recall why any of this matters.
  - elbear 3y ago
    The fact that Apple controls the entire stack means that they can provide better guarantees for security and experience and also make optimisations that are difficult or impossible when integrating 3rd party software.
TheGlav 3y ago
Of course they could. They looked at the cost of rewriting the entire integration and framework for running PWAs and said, "eh, nah."
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  They'll have to allow some kind of app installation API to allow for alternative app stores. If Google implements some kind of WebAPK technology on iOS, they may just be able to launch a Google Play for iOS to work around these PWAs as a workaround, and Safari will be down a feature. I have the feeling Apple is betting on Google not caring enough about the PWA platform to try to compete. Maybe they're right, but if they're not, they're only making the browser wars worse for themselves.
  - jdminhbg 3y ago
    > I have the feeling Apple is betting on Google not caring enough about the PWA platform to try to compete. I don't think it's about Google, I think they assume consumers won't care, and they're probably right.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    My guess is it's easier for developers to throw their website into Cordova than to start paying Apple a Core Technology Fee and convince users to download an alternative app marketplace to support what is effectively a differently packaged Cordova app.
mixmastamyk 3y ago
Spend money to lose money, not a great investment in their eyes.

Seems like an OS problem. They should fix that.

lannisterstark 3y ago

Or they could just not.

agust 3y ago
They could develop APIs to support alternate browser engines but could not allow them to install sandboxed web apps on the system? Like all other OSes do, including macOS? How surprising.
- kmbfjr 3y ago
  Are not some of the changes in the EU so that people won’t have to rely on Apple’s APIs?
- bobbylarrybobby 3y ago
  The whole point is that doing so would privilege safari over other browsers, which is illegal.
luuurker 3y ago
What's the benefit for you as a user to side with Apple on things like this?
- moogly 3y ago
  A seat at Steve Jobs' table in the lunch cafeteria in he...aven?
- vdaea 3y ago
  He's not necessarily siding with Apple. He's pointing out they don't have to do that.
  - luuurker 3y ago
    I think we all know that a company doesn't have to improve their OS. What I'm trying to understand is why are they defending/coming up with an excuse for something that doesn't really benefit them.
- gretch 3y ago
  Apple has a decade+ track record of making devices that i really like. (At several points I’ve compared solutions across the market). Instead of siding with Apple, why would I side with anonymous and random internet commentators who have never made devices I want to buy?
  - pompino 3y ago
    It is definitely odd to outsource your moral principles based on which mega corp you opened your wallet to.
    - gretch 3y ago
      Morals? You think you’re some kind of righteous crusader? I’m talking about toys and gadgets. The ability to view memes.
      - mthoms 3y ago
        If that's your use case, then great! My iPhone connects me to my government, my bank, my school, my family on the other side of the world, my portfolio, and perhaps most importantly; critical safety services (local avalanche forecasts in my case). You can be damn well sure I'll be passionate about how it's controlled, and what capabilities the manufacturer is derailing in the interest of record profits. (For clarity - I'm not the person you responded to, but this is HN so I thought I'd chime in on why some people are so passionate about this so called "toy")
      - pompino 3y ago
        Let me correct some of your misunderstandings. The comment you were replying to, correctly, pointed out that there is no benefit to the user to side with Apple's anti-user stance. This story, and comments about the story are having to do with a users right to install a browser of their choice, choose a payment method of their choice, etc - which is collectively under the DMA that the EU passed into law - democratically. Apple has repeatedly tried their best to spin this, but it is easy to see past the spin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  Please drop the tribalistic vitriol and be an adult about this. The statement is “or they could not”. It’s factual. It’s what Apple did. It’s not a religious stance.
  - masto 3y ago
    The question was "What's the benefit for you as a user to side with Apple on things like this?". There's no vitriol there. Jumping to the defense of a trillion dollar corporation seems religious or at least tribalistic to me. And lest I be dismissed as a hater, I currently own five Apple computers, an iPhone I've upgraded every year since they came out, an iPad, a watch, and a virtu^wspatial computing heads^wdevice. But that's because of the transactional value they provide, not because I believe Apple loves me and has my best interests at heart. They love my money and that's where it ends. I use several PWAs and I will be very disappointed if this is the stick Apple uses to close the window on this short period of time where we had a reasonably interoperable standard for making "apps" using web technologies. I can run Elk in a browser, but it's suboptimal.
- pb7 3y ago
  Pretty simple: I like the way Apple does most things. I'm rarely disappointed by the culmination of all of their decisions. I'm frequently disappointed with how other companies do things therefore I don't want their disease to spread to things I'm perfectly content with.
  - adamtaylor_13 3y ago
    I couldn’t put my feelings into words but this sums it up fairly well. Apple, for all their flaws, typically creates an outstanding product from a security, privacy, and general end-user perspective. At the end of the day, Apple has earned my trust to make choices that maybe aren’t the most “open” choices, because usually they end up being the best experience for me as an end consumer.
    - luuurker 3y ago
      Apple typically makes good decisions, but they don't always do that or act in your best interest. And that's the problem with supporting all their decisions without checking if they're good or not for you. In this case, iOS isn't capable of handling different rending engines well. So instead of asking them to improve iOS so this isn't a problem (like it isn't on Android and even other iOS apps), you side with their decision of breaking/removing a feature, even though it doesn't benefit you in any way. I'm sure you can see the problem with this.
- shuckles 3y ago
  The sides in this debate are: Apple, Chrome advocates (with a little bit of separation), and the EU. It's not that perplexing to choose the first.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > What's the benefit for you as a user to side with Apple on things like this? Looking at these things as sides is a mistake. Instead of just being tribal, it's better to look positions on their merits.
  - breather 3y ago
    > it's better to look positions on their merits How do you do this when any value a "merit" could have is based in this dichotomy of vendor/user?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      It's not based on that, as far as I can see. Saying "browsers are extremely complex from a security perspective and we will only allow the one we made on to our platform" is in service of making a better product. You might say that that's not true, and browsers are easy to secure, but that would be arguing the point on its merits. Not on the tribalist lens you're seeing this situation through.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    I've been asking these people for the merits of Apple's decisions for years, and all I ever get in response is "Apple knows best, I don't need these features."
    - shuckles 3y ago
      That seems like a perfectly reasonable argument on the merits. What user actually needs web apps? What's the market for apps whose developers can't stomach a $99 developer fee and/or with functionality not allowable by app review?
      - breather 3y ago
        Well shit, what user needs an app store to begin with? It was never about need, it was about what they could convince users to put up with.
- vundercind 3y ago
  I don't care about PWAs and would generally prefer companies not have the option so they can't try to push me into one. Anything that makes that less-viable is good for me. I wish Apple'd held a hard line on the "no apps that should be a web site" rule(s) for similar reasons. Alas, they did not.
  - jquery 3y ago
    I agree. My experience with PWAs is they are usually downgrade from a safari bookmark... they are created to benefit the provider, not the user, by taking away browser abilities from me (back, forward, copy url, etc).
- natch 3y ago
  Advocating for security and user privacy protection.
  - luuurker 3y ago
    The comment I replied to wasn't advocating for either of that. It was essentially an excuse to support Apple's decision to remove/break a feature because their OS isn't capable of handling a different rendering engine. From my point of view, I don't benefit if 1) Apple removes this option in my region and 2) there's no good reason for me to be against iOS handling better permissions of web apps and other rendering engines, like it already does for all other apps (and something that Android handles without problems).
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  There are lots of things that Apple could do to benefit me that aren’t reasonable.
- breather 3y ago
  There's little benefit to the user for many of Apple's design decisions; that seems like an odd way to predict their behavior.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  boots taste good and these kids are too young to recall why any of this matters.
- elbear 3y ago
  The fact that Apple controls the entire stack means that they can provide better guarantees for security and experience and also make optimisations that are difficult or impossible when integrating 3rd party software.

TheGlav 3y ago

Of course they could. They looked at the cost of rewriting the entire integration and framework for running PWAs and said, "eh, nah."

jeroenhd 3y ago
They'll have to allow some kind of app installation API to allow for alternative app stores. If Google implements some kind of WebAPK technology on iOS, they may just be able to launch a Google Play for iOS to work around these PWAs as a workaround, and Safari will be down a feature. I have the feeling Apple is betting on Google not caring enough about the PWA platform to try to compete. Maybe they're right, but if they're not, they're only making the browser wars worse for themselves.
- jdminhbg 3y ago
  > I have the feeling Apple is betting on Google not caring enough about the PWA platform to try to compete. I don't think it's about Google, I think they assume consumers won't care, and they're probably right.
- shuckles 3y ago
  My guess is it's easier for developers to throw their website into Cordova than to start paying Apple a Core Technology Fee and convince users to download an alternative app marketplace to support what is effectively a differently packaged Cordova app.

mixmastamyk 3y ago

Spend money to lose money, not a great investment in their eyes.