5 ms·

Because that's literally what it says when you really read into it? They acknowledge that 1) Safari already has all the integrations required to support PWA sec

by veeti 3y ago

Because that's literally what it says when you really read into it? They acknowledge that 1) Safari already has all the integrations required to support PWA securely and that 2) they can't be bothered to provide the same API's for third party browsers because it's not "practical". They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater.

rimunroe 3y ago
> Because that's literally what it says when you really read into it? I know it's used as an intensifier, but this feels like a particularly bad place to use "literally" that way. > They acknowledge that 1) Safari already has all the integrations required to support PWA securely Not really sure how to respond to this. An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? But my more serious point: > 2) they can't be bothered to provide the same API's for third party browsers because it's not "practical". Why are you glossing over "practical" there and putting it in sarcastic quotes? This sounds like a huge change in the security model given how tightly Safari is integrated with the rest of iOS. Heavily restricting permissions and sometimes functionality to prevent security threats is very consistent with what I've seen from Apple in the past (and is one of the reasons I prefer them). Even if they intended to open this stuff up, I can't imagine this is a change which wouldn't require massive changes to iOS and a long review and testing process. > They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater. They built their PWA support for the architecture they've had since the iPhone's release. Why should they have wasted time building affordances for a world in which they were forced to support other browsers?
- gkbrk 3y ago
  > An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? Flying a plane badly risks the lives of your passengers, the lives of people on other planes, and people in the nearby area. Doing whatever you want with your phone doesn't risk other people's phones.
- veeti 3y ago
  > Not really sure how to respond to this. An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? What kind of ridiculous "argument" is this? Am I putting hundreds of other people in risk by installing Firefox on my iPhone? The fact remains that the EU in fact does intend to put you in front the airliner's controls. You can of course choose to turn on autopilot and keep using Safari. > Why should they have wasted time building affordances for a world in which they were forced to support other browsers? Guess what, "tight integration" of Internet Explorer into Windows for whatever technical reasons was not a favorable argument for Microsoft in front of the European Commission either. Lack of foresight to design open systems is not an excuse in front of the law.
  - rimunroe 3y ago
    > What kind of ridiculous "argument" is this? Am I putting hundreds of other people in risk by installing Firefox on my iPhone? Certainly it’s an extreme example, but yes, giving people the ability to install other browsers and app stores is increasing their risk. This ruling makes it possible for some companies to decide to only allow their app to be installed through an alternate app store, which won’t necessarily restrict malicious code in the same way.
    - gkbrk 3y ago
      > giving people the ability to install other browsers and app stores is increasing their risk But it is increasing _their_ risk. That's the massive difference from your example. Installing other browsers and app stores is increasing _your_ risk
Elidrake42 3y ago
This is why I purchase iOS devices - ultimately their closed garden provides a smaller attack surface, clearly evidenced by the comparative (to Android) cost of exploits on the black market. I cannot see this as anticompetitive. If you want open, you have that choice in Android.
- rimunroe 3y ago
  This is exactly my feeling too. I don't want the platform to open up more. I left Android because I wanted to make fewer decisions about my device, and to just think about it less in general. Also, Safari is a non-Chromium-based (though still related) browser which developers are forced to support because it's the only thing allowed on iPhones. Most users aren't going to install Firefox on their iPhone, they're going to install Chrome, which is just going to make Chromium's market dominance worse.
- veeti 3y ago
  I'm sorry to say the EU regulators disagree with you on that.
  - rimunroe 3y ago
    We noticed! I’m not thrilled about the decision.
- louthy 3y ago
  > I cannot see this as anticompetitive. If you want open, you have that choice in Android If Apple doesn’t support PWAs then PWAs stop being a viable method of app deployment - killing the platform outright. That’s anticompetitive.
  - spacedcowboy 3y ago
    Only if you give a damn about PWA's. Evidenced by the fact I have none on my phone, and don't feel the need for any either, I'm fine with them being out. "Hey PWA, don't let the door hit you on the backside, on your way out". The browser is just about the most vulnerable attack surface on any computer. Using it as a general-purpose application host is nuts, IMHO.
TheGlav 3y ago
They built their PWA support with assumptions about how the application, OS, and WebKit were going to run. That's like saying, "Oh, Microsoft didn't build an API layer into Windows to support running X11 apps side by side with Win32 apps, so they were being monopolistic." No, you have limited engineering time and you make engineering tradeoffs. You don't need to design an interface layer and API and hooks between system components if your design doesn't call for it or doesn't need it. > They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater. They built it in such a way that it was sustainable and sensible for the time it was made (iOS 2.0). That's a really long time ago in the software world. More than a dozen versions of the OS have been built on top of this. Saying "they should have just figured it out back then" is completely ignoring the reality of what was offered by the OS and the mobile space entirely at the time. Now laws have been passed that say "you must provide alternatives." OK. They can choose to spend an ungodly amount of time refactoring the OS to undo 16 revisions of the OS of assumptions for zero benefit for the company, or they can say "Sorry we can't comply with that for your market." It sucks. But it's a result of reasonable business decisions and their evolutions from a significantly different era.
- veeti 3y ago
  No, it's saying that they shouldn't have designed a operating system with no support for other browsers (unlike lesser known alternatives such as "Apple Mac OS X") in the first place and that you shouldn't have any sympathy when such an anticompetitive technical design and behavior blows up in their face. > They built it in such a way that it was sustainable and sensible for the time it was made (iOS 2.0). Support for installing progressive web apps was added in iOS 11 [1], released in 2017. This is decade(s) after Microsoft was dragged to court in the US and EU for similar behavior with Internet Explorer. Of course being the authoritarian company they are, Apple would rather dig their heels until the bitter end instead of just doing the right thing. > Saying "they should have just figured it out back then" is completely ignoring the reality of what was offered by the OS and the mobile space entirely at the time. Sorry, but the rest of the mobile space did figure it out at the same time. All of the things being debated in this thread simply just work on any Android phone and Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox in a secure manner. I'm so tired of this reality distortion field. [1] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/releasenotes/General/WhatsNewInSafari/Articles/Safari_11_1.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/releasenotes/Gen...

by veeti 3y ago

rimunroe 3y ago

> Because that's literally what it says when you really read into it? I know it's used as an intensifier, but this feels like a particularly bad place to use "literally" that way. > They acknowledge that 1) Safari already has all the integrations required to support PWA securely Not really sure how to respond to this. An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? But my more serious point: > 2) they can't be bothered to provide the same API's for third party browsers because it's not "practical". Why are you glossing over "practical" there and putting it in sarcastic quotes? This sounds like a huge change in the security model given how tightly Safari is integrated with the rest of iOS. Heavily restricting permissions and sometimes functionality to prevent security threats is very consistent with what I've seen from Apple in the past (and is one of the reasons I prefer them). Even if they intended to open this stuff up, I can't imagine this is a change which wouldn't require massive changes to iOS and a long review and testing process. > They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater. They built their PWA support for the architecture they've had since the iPhone's release. Why should they have wasted time building affordances for a world in which they were forced to support other browsers?

gkbrk 3y ago
> An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? Flying a plane badly risks the lives of your passengers, the lives of people on other planes, and people in the nearby area. Doing whatever you want with your phone doesn't risk other people's phones.
veeti 3y ago
> Not really sure how to respond to this. An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? What kind of ridiculous "argument" is this? Am I putting hundreds of other people in risk by installing Firefox on my iPhone? The fact remains that the EU in fact does intend to put you in front the airliner's controls. You can of course choose to turn on autopilot and keep using Safari. > Why should they have wasted time building affordances for a world in which they were forced to support other browsers? Guess what, "tight integration" of Internet Explorer into Windows for whatever technical reasons was not a favorable argument for Microsoft in front of the European Commission either. Lack of foresight to design open systems is not an excuse in front of the law.
- rimunroe 3y ago
  > What kind of ridiculous "argument" is this? Am I putting hundreds of other people in risk by installing Firefox on my iPhone? Certainly it’s an extreme example, but yes, giving people the ability to install other browsers and app stores is increasing their risk. This ruling makes it possible for some companies to decide to only allow their app to be installed through an alternate app store, which won’t necessarily restrict malicious code in the same way.
  - gkbrk 3y ago
    > giving people the ability to install other browsers and app stores is increasing their risk But it is increasing _their_ risk. That's the massive difference from your example. Installing other browsers and app stores is increasing _your_ risk

Elidrake42 3y ago

This is why I purchase iOS devices - ultimately their closed garden provides a smaller attack surface, clearly evidenced by the comparative (to Android) cost of exploits on the black market. I cannot see this as anticompetitive. If you want open, you have that choice in Android.

rimunroe 3y ago
This is exactly my feeling too. I don't want the platform to open up more. I left Android because I wanted to make fewer decisions about my device, and to just think about it less in general. Also, Safari is a non-Chromium-based (though still related) browser which developers are forced to support because it's the only thing allowed on iPhones. Most users aren't going to install Firefox on their iPhone, they're going to install Chrome, which is just going to make Chromium's market dominance worse.
veeti 3y ago
I'm sorry to say the EU regulators disagree with you on that.
- rimunroe 3y ago
  We noticed! I’m not thrilled about the decision.
louthy 3y ago
> I cannot see this as anticompetitive. If you want open, you have that choice in Android If Apple doesn’t support PWAs then PWAs stop being a viable method of app deployment - killing the platform outright. That’s anticompetitive.
- spacedcowboy 3y ago
  Only if you give a damn about PWA's. Evidenced by the fact I have none on my phone, and don't feel the need for any either, I'm fine with them being out. "Hey PWA, don't let the door hit you on the backside, on your way out". The browser is just about the most vulnerable attack surface on any computer. Using it as a general-purpose application host is nuts, IMHO.

TheGlav 3y ago

They built their PWA support with assumptions about how the application, OS, and WebKit were going to run. That's like saying, "Oh, Microsoft didn't build an API layer into Windows to support running X11 apps side by side with Win32 apps, so they were being monopolistic." No, you have limited engineering time and you make engineering tradeoffs. You don't need to design an interface layer and API and hooks between system components if your design doesn't call for it or doesn't need it. > They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater. They built it in such a way that it was sustainable and sensible for the time it was made (iOS 2.0). That's a really long time ago in the software world. More than a dozen versions of the OS have been built on top of this. Saying "they should have just figured it out back then" is completely ignoring the reality of what was offered by the OS and the mobile space entirely at the time. Now laws have been passed that say "you must provide alternatives." OK. They can choose to spend an ungodly amount of time refactoring the OS to undo 16 revisions of the OS of assumptions for zero benefit for the company, or they can say "Sorry we can't comply with that for your market." It sucks. But it's a result of reasonable business decisions and their evolutions from a significantly different era.

veeti 3y ago
No, it's saying that they shouldn't have designed a operating system with no support for other browsers (unlike lesser known alternatives such as "Apple Mac OS X") in the first place and that you shouldn't have any sympathy when such an anticompetitive technical design and behavior blows up in their face. > They built it in such a way that it was sustainable and sensible for the time it was made (iOS 2.0). Support for installing progressive web apps was added in iOS 11 [1], released in 2017. This is decade(s) after Microsoft was dragged to court in the US and EU for similar behavior with Internet Explorer. Of course being the authoritarian company they are, Apple would rather dig their heels until the bitter end instead of just doing the right thing. > Saying "they should have just figured it out back then" is completely ignoring the reality of what was offered by the OS and the mobile space entirely at the time. Sorry, but the rest of the mobile space did figure it out at the same time. All of the things being debated in this thread simply just work on any Android phone and Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox in a secure manner. I'm so tired of this reality distortion field. [1] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/releasenotes/General/WhatsNewInSafari/Articles/Safari_11_1.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/releasenotes/Gen...