17 ms·

It’s Official, Apple Kills Web Apps in the EU

232 points by szasamasa 3y ago

szasamasa 3y ago
Apps are standalone user experiences. Native apps play by the operating system's security rules, while web domains operate within the sandbox of the browser. Web apps are just websites in standalone mode. If you misunderstand web apps as some wicked things coming out of your trusted browser to party on your device, you might not see clearly in the Apple vs. EU debate. Apple just made their true target crystal clear: they have always been aiming at web capabilities: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/capabilities/fugu-showcase https://developer.chrome.com/docs/capabilities/fugu-showcase. We see now: they will do so until they are stopped by legal force. Apple hides no longer behind browser engine restrictions, they are going after the heart of what lets developers deliver full-fledged app experiences without the need for native installs from app stores. Apple sees these capabilities as a direct threat to their app store model: the web IS the potential rival store diminishing that sweet revenue close to 100 billion dollars a year. Apple loves to claim in legal debates and at congressional hearings (which is a company smell) that web apps offer a viable alternative, thus denying an App Store monopoly. But behind the scenes, they've choked browser engine choice on iOS and crippled WebKit to undermine that exact web alternative. The ability to deliver compelling standalone experiences from the web stalls because major platforms like iOS can't be trusted to keep pace with industry standards. It's like a public transport company deliberately making their service inaccessible: "Sure, wheelchair ramps are nice in theory, but since nobody really uses our trains this way (because we never installed toilets for this user group), forget the ramps. Sorry for the inconvenience it might cause to this group who tried using trains anyhow, instead of the suggested Apple Car with our innovative iPiss system. Oh, and those pesky other train companies we're forced to allow on our tracks? You have to make your trains just as inaccessible because, uh, Apple Car is just safer to deliver wheelchair experiences! Security is not an argument. WebKit was capable of sandboxing websites, as are Gecko and Chromium. If Apple wants to protect its users and treat them as adults, they should warn them when downloading browsers, that is it. If you want to play apple safe, stay by Safari. You do not need web apps, anyways. Your system is not in danger if I download “shit” on MY iPhone. In addition, Apple is capable and it is not an unreasonable ask to make iOS secure for web browsers. Every other OS, including their own macOS, does this. It's baffling how Apple underestimates the intelligence of judges and lawmakers. Should Apple try to cripple web capabilities for alternative browsers (directly like the current plan is or even subtly with keeping iOS sub-optimal regarding web app security), may those fines come and let them be staggering. Apple choked web capabilities with WebKit and now does this directly by misusing the power of iOS. Apple shouldn't get to block the web alternative to their App Store while pretending to offer one on legal battlefields. For web apps you need developers who are not threatened by Apple and iOS to pull the plug on their product any time. Like they are trying to do now. Web app usage and adoption would also be boosted if the developer community stopped calling “install” what is a switch from tab to standalone mode. Using the word "install" undermines not just the inherent simplicity of web apps but the long established trust in the safety of browsing websites within a controlled tab. The word "install" creates a false sense of heightened risk and potential device alteration. This creates unnecessary confusion and suspicion, hindering user adoption. We should build upon the success of the web, emphasizing the truth that web apps are simply enhanced websites and leverage the implicit trust users already place in the web security model.
- szasamasa 3y ago
  I would like this thread to be a somewhat deeper discussion about DMA and web apps. I would welcome true tech or legal arguments. But please if you are an apple-bot or rather less familiar with web tech, read more before commenting. I don't really want spam arguments like you claim I must be protected from myself using web apps via Gecko or Chromium. I am fully capable to make my decision and you can make yours: just NEVER download a browser engine other than Safari and you are Apple-Safe. I miss a discussion about legalities and technicalities, about freedom of choice and competition. Apple must prove why users who trust other browser engines should not get access to web capabilities those OTHER browser companies find secure enough. Some potential talking points I would suggest: – concrete examples of web capabilities that are NOT going to be available on iOS versus macOS (and every other OS): service workers, camera access, local storage persistence? Does anybody know? – do you think Gecko and Chromium are just as safe on the CURRENT iOS as Webkit was when Apple allowed service workers for example? Apple cites dangers, are these theoretical dangers of potential not-industry-standard-browsers or does these dangers apply to Firefox and Chrome too? Is it really necessary and to what extent for Apple to make changes on iOS so that battle tested browsers from companies like Mozilla, Google, Microsoft could use modern web capabilities with clear conscience on iOS too? https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu#8 https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu#8 – what is this ”new integration architecture” that would make web apps more secure and how much effort would it really be to foster web app security on OS level if not already in place on iOS? Being Apple one of the richest companies in the world and having macOS that has a good enough architecture I am sure Apple legally is bound to change iOS to support secure web apps if the effort is reasonable. – Apple was forced to allow competing browser engines and apparently must be forced to give other browser engines access to modern web capabilities. How? https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... “In particular, each browser is built on a web browser engine, which is responsible for key browser functionality such as speed, reliability and web compatibility. When gatekeepers operate and impose web browser engines, they are in a position to determine the functionality and standards that will apply not only to their own web browsers, but also to competing web browsers and, in turn, to web software applications.” Will this suffice legally or does the DMA text need improvement? I think this is enough since the text requires Apple to give way to alternative web browsers with the CLEAR INTENTION that the gatekeeper could not determine the functionality and web standards that are accessible on iOS. The text explicitly mentions web apps and that the goal is breaking a gatekeeper's power to cripple web apps.
throwaway49849 3y ago
The creation of the Vision Pro, and now this direct assault on the open web, makes me believe that Apple is no longer has the vision to lead the industry effectively. It's a shame because it has enormous momentum behind it, which means every bad decision, like this one, will be felt be millions of people for years.
- pas 3y ago
  could you please elaborate on how/what the Vision Pro contributes to this problem?
  - 5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
    spending 10s of billions of R&D towards a closed off walled garden for consuming Apple services. afaik you cant even order AVP without an iPhone.
  - mettamage 3y ago
    Apple not allowing the open web stifles innovation, including the AVP. The apps in the app store will be dictated by Apple. So whatever their ethical framework is, that is what will receive innovation. While that seems fair, the problem is that the strongest form of software innovation I have seen is where developers can freely plug in.
    - jimmySixDOF 3y ago
      AVP has support for WebXR behind a flag in Safari that allows the full immersive mode of spatial computing (don't say Vee Are) and that -- so far untill now - is an opening for non-app store third party experiences.
  - throwaway49849 3y ago
    The AVP is one of the most out of touch products I've ever seen from a respected brand, and I can almost hear Steve Job's scathing criticisms of it, based on everything I know about him. Not to mention, it goes against the increasing trend of less screens and less tech. The fact that it got made and is being pushed so hard as the next step in computing, is bonkers. So to me, it contributes because it is another data point that the leadership has compromised its ability to consistently make forward thinking decisions.
threeseed 3y ago
Any chance we can get the original title which doesn't sound so childish: It’s Official, Apple Kills Web Apps in the EU And if PWA were such a threat to Apple's business then why are they allowed in US.
- Nursie 3y ago
  IIRC In the EU apple may be forced to open up iOS to other browsers, including PWA using non-safari engines. Not sure why this is such a threat. I’m torn on this whole issue. I both enjoy my walled garden and want full-fat Firefox on iOS.
  - troupo 3y ago
    It's unfortunate that the whole discourse is about one of the worst imaginable outcomes: replacing apps with shitty slow bloated underperforming web apps. That is, the discourse is valid, and Apple is to blame. But why did it have to be around PWAs of all things?
    - anon373839 3y ago
      Web apps aren’t inherently slow, bloated or underperforming. You can absolutely build a snappy, polished web app with a UI layer that rivals a native app. (I don’t personally enjoy working with JavaScript, but the reward of truly cross-platform development makes it worth doing when it’s a viable option.)
      - vinay427 3y ago
        I'm genuinely curious: do you have any examples you'd like to share? Not that React Native is the same as a PWA, but even in that space I have yet to find an RN app (at least those I know about from their Showcase page [1]) that rivals a native app on iOS, but perhaps it's wrong to assume a React Native app would be comparable to or strictly better than a PWA. [1] https://reactnative.dev/showcase https://reactnative.dev/showcase
Aerbil313 3y ago
This is criminal. After decades I finally had the ability to develop for iOS without a Mac and a yearly $99 fee - only for it to be crippled again?
- threeseed 3y ago
  > I finally had the ability to develop for iOS without a Mac Cordova, React Native, Xamarin, Flutter etc. Seems like the only thing criminal here is your inability to use Google.
  - Aerbil313 3y ago
    They all still require the yearly $99 fee. Not to mention the need to learn another platform. I already know the web.
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    You still need to deploy the application via Mac, genius.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      You can build application using Github Actions or EC2 Mac for almost nothing.
- stephenr 3y ago
  I think it's a bit of a stretch to call a web app "develop[ed] for iOS" The whole point of the web is that it is cross platform. That isn't a negative thing it's a positive, but calling it "develop for iOS" is arguably disingenuous.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    Most people just want to make apps for themselves. If you use an iOS device but not a Mac, there was no way to do that before web apps (which still offered a terrible dev experience, without debugging) and now there's again no way to do it.
anon373839 3y ago
> It’s telling that this is the feature that Apple refused to share. And it makes sense: the idea that users could install safe and secure apps that Apple can’t tax, block or control is terrifying to them. I think that’s what this decision is all about. When Safari was the only browser engine on iOS, PWAs didn’t threaten the App Store because Safari delivers a degraded experience with them. With alternative browser engines mandated by law, Apple faced the possibility that Chrome or Firefox might make PWAs easy to discover, easy to install, and feature-complete. They might have begun to see serious adoption and investment. I think Apple did not want to risk letting that happen.
- neximo64 3y ago
  This is quite often where people make the greatest mistake. It's all about distribution and customer usage. Most people hate and don't use PWAs. What stands in the way are Native iPhone apps are better. It also goes for android too. That's why PWAs fail. If they were successful Apple would find a way to monetise the hell out of them.
  - lozenge 3y ago
    Most people don't use PWAs... as they exist today. What would happen if Google added all the APIs to Chrome that are needed for every one of their iOS apps, and then offered them as "PWAs that work best with Google Chrome"? Google would not have to abide by App Store rules, nor the rules for app marketplaces, nor pay the Core Technology Fee of half a euro per install. Apple's entire approach of using their status as a popular phone manufacturer to control the software market would fall.
    - neximo64 3y ago
      PWA's can do most things: https://whatpwacando.today https://whatpwacando.today. Steve Jobs also preferred PWAs and hated the app store. I'm curious as to ask what they can't do that a native app can do without any workaround whatsoever? I don't know of a single person, ordinary person, who uses PWAs. A Cordova app is a better experience.
duiker101 3y ago
Did anyone actually ever put web apps on their home screen?
- rambambram 3y ago
  Definitely, but only the simple web apps (like an icon that links to an url in the browser) that aren't affected by Apple's changes, so no notifications and stuff because it wasn't a PWA. It was a nice experience. I had a fast hosting provider and it worked seamless. Right now I use Android on a cheap Samsung and loading webpages takes ages with Firefox. I don't think Google goes freely in killing the web, but we already knew that.
- jcmontx 3y ago
  I have a few. X has a pretty good PWA.
- geraldhh 3y ago
  have a 'link' to fast.com on my homescreen, but it's just a shortcut to an url, no 'web app' or am i mistaken?
  - c-hendricks 3y ago
    You can add any website to your home screen. If the site has some special meta information, it can display like any other app (full screen, its own entry in your multitasking UI). Otherwise it just opens in your regular browser.
- szasamasa 3y ago
  web apps are the future, not the present Apple was holding them back and just pulled the plug. Only if web programmers can count on future proof support will they produce web apps. In addition, most companies have already created native apps so again, web apps are the future, it is not an argument that there are few on iOS and yes, outlook or X are good examples
  - meepmorp 3y ago
bsenftner 3y ago
I was an original Mac OS Developer, and way back then I saw that Apple wanted to create monopoly and deeply hates any developer not on their payroll whose output they own. As a result, I have never published Apple software. It is not worth it, never has been worth it.
tremarley 3y ago
Since iOS 17.4 for EU users 1. Apple will DELETE user's data without notice 2. Lot of apps will stop working and there will be no way to access them without update 3. Web Push will stop working; users expecting notifications will never get them 4. Apple breaks the Web platform This was published in the document "Update on apps distributed in the European Union" https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/
- andy_ppp 3y ago
  I take it this is just for PWAs?
  - szasamasa 3y ago
    it must be for all websites since a web app is just a website that may or may not implement web capabilities actually no such thing as PWA, there are plenty of web standards but no web standard about PWA the web standard that governs standalone mode and home screen button and such is a draft (web app manifest) the website does not need to be progressive, not even offline capable to get standalone and home screen button the "very dangerouos" service workers can run in any website silently without standalone mode or app buttons or any user interaction (maybe because they are not that creepy after all, an open source javascript that tells browsers how to cache) I really hate this web app distinction and install language because 1. it is not standard 2. it is not true 3. it is contra-productive I wrote a piece about this somewhere in a top level comment. Apple breaks web capabilities both in websites and standalone websites (web apps).
- szasamasa 3y ago
  is this true? I mean they cannot delete Chrome data which web capabilities will actually not work any more? I mean service workers will not, and it is a big one... all they do is caching and you can create an offline working website with them web push another big one (not for me, but many use them) which other web capabilities does Apple target?
  - 3y ago
nottorp 3y ago
I'm not a fan of web "apps" for the usual reasons: resource hungry, limited functionality, low quality overall. However, I want DaisyDisk for iOS. When will Apple allow DaisyDisk for iOS? :)
merricksb 3y ago
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 - Apple confirms it's breaking iPhone web apps in the EU on purpose (techcrunch.com) (815 points / 1 day ago / 766 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 - Apple confirms iOS 17.4 removes Home Screen web apps in the EU (9to5mac.com) (112 points / 1 day ago/ 125 comments)
- agust 3y ago
  Did this just get marked as dupe to pull it off the front page? How outrageous. The link has not been posted before.
  - szasamasa 3y ago
    and they changed my title not just the link was new from open web advocacy, I also posted actually a piece to try to have a more focused and deep conversation so they changed my original title that was actually funny and to the point, marked as duplicate and so the writer of the article from open web advocacy and my article-like comment was shadow banned, thanks!
    - firtoz 3y ago
      The title does need to match the one within the website
      - szasamasa 3y ago
        apparently my former title was too much for this site: "iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B App Store Tax" which was relating to the article (and you can read the title of the original article after clicking) but I did not like "kills web apps" because it is not true in my opinion, tries to kill web apps or fights against them or cripples them in the next iOS release... it sounded too eternal and I think Apple will be forced by DMA to do the opposite I really am curiouos why and who did my creativity bother?
oaiey 3y ago
The amount of money lost in corporations for internal or app store avoiding apps by this decision is mind blowing.
- pcdoodle 3y ago
  Perhaps they didn't want to give Apple the leverage over their companies right to run software freely without red tape in between them and their customers. Having to worry about rejections, API deprecations, architecture changes, Appearance guidelines et al would defiantly make me want to avoid it as much as possible. It's akin to avoiding a marriage to an aloof partner that will never love you.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bambax 3y ago
I made the mistake of only carrying an iPad during my most recent holidays. What a useless piece of junk this is. iPads work well enough at home to watch movies or play a couple of games, but trying to do any kind of serious work on them, either editing photos, writing something, sending files, even trying to use a sequencer is an exercise in frustration. We are sooo lucky there (still) exist alternative computing solutions other than these things made by a company obsessed with control and extracting the maximum possible value out of every movement of their users. Apple is the evilest of evils. It must be fought with great determination if we are concerned with freedom.
- monkin 3y ago
  You can code on it, design, edit photos, write books, sketch, edit videos... and a lot more with ease. For 3 years, I used only an iPad for work. Can you expand on your problems? Or was that a "it works differently on my beloved OS" kind of thing?
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    > You can code on it In castrated terminal that is walking on the edge of what is "permitted" by overlords. Or are you talking about open thin IDE that connects to a remote machine in a browser?
    - fragmede 3y ago
      https://vscode.dev/ https://vscode.dev/
      - wiseowise 3y ago
        So the second one.
  - emsy 3y ago
    You can’t compile on it. You can’t run software in the background (for example a terminal, where you don’t have to bring the app to the foreground every few minutes). You can’t install software on it that Apple doesn’t want you to (regardless of whether or not they’re malicious). And the software you can run is more likely than not a subscription, because the only place you can buy it is the App Store, which pushes the subscription model unto users and devs.
PaulHoule 3y ago
Kinda funny but when the rubber hit the road they did delete the word “Progressive” from “Profressive Web Apps”. Talk about a complete failure in branding, they should have done that years ago but the PWA pushers had the congenital fault almost all marketers have which is the inability to see themselves the way others see them.
- tempodox 3y ago
  “Progressive” just sounds too good. Who wouldn't want to be associated with progress? Today we have the label “AI” for stuff that has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever, but who wouldn't want to be associated with intelligence?
- szasamasa 3y ago
  I dont like the progressive word because you do not need it and I am minimalistic however, at the beginning they tried to force some "progressive" things like responsive design or offline etc. I can understan what they wanted, no need to think of it as self marketing I like the clarity of websites and we should learn that they can be very powerful: responsive websites, offline functioning websites etc... they can use sooo many web capabilities I define apps as standalone UX and I use "switch to standalone" instead of "install" (that is what actually happens if someone creates a manifest file which is governed by a draft, not yet standard) so a website can be implicitly a web app in the sense of rich functionality (responsive, offline) without being used in standalone mode it will be explicitly a web app if switched to standalone mode from tab mode... this is an important distinction since even if nothing is installed this is a decision from the user to use it from the OS and outside of the browser as a standalone window and on some platforms it may give it some extra rights (local data storage will never be cleared by nice companies like Apple without asking the user, push notifications might be coupled with this decision now or in the future etc) but I agree, this progressive thing is the past... it actually became the past when browsers gave a shit about what the site ctually functionally can when granting that app button and standalone mode
ghusto 3y ago
Tip: To be taken more seriously, don't use such childish language. I was reading the first part and nearly switched off without checking the comments here. I'm glad I did, because I see now how serious (and maybe _illegal?_) this is. Don't turn your audience away with emotional wording, for something that can easily have impact if you communicate it purely for what it is.
- jart 3y ago
  It's not childish it's manipulative and it's the sort of rhetoric that only manipulates people at least a standard deviation to the left of the bell curve here. But even by that standard, gosh this piece lays it down so thick that it honestly made me cringe.
  - tempodox 3y ago
    What I find especially conspicuous is that they quote Apple's reasoning for doing that and then do nothing to counter it. If they find Apple's decision so wrong, they should say why.
osrec 3y ago
For me, this shows fear and a sense of insecurity within Apple. They've built their walled garden and are doing whatever they can to protect it. They've probably even convinced users that it's in their interest. Yet, they know there is an inevitability that polished web apps will exist (and that time will come fairly soon, imo), and will match and replace their native counterparts. They also know, it's the correct and overwhelmingly more efficient way to deliver 99% of apps. Yet they want to stifle that future, all in the name of money. Create all the titanium cased phones you like - eventually, the masses will be smart enough to prioritise openness and forward-thinking over almost anything else. If you start to hold people back with your decisions, questions will start to arise about your priorities and eventually your products. And people are fickle enough, that they won't be your fanboys/girls forever.
- szasamasa 3y ago
  I checked DMA and Apple will be forced to comply (this thing they do is far from it), however, they can prolonge it with this tactic and break all existing web apps for a year on iOS to punch them in the face... however, web apps are the future and not the present... we will have them on iOS in 1-2 years in Europe, I dont know when everywhere in the world
crazygringo 3y ago
This subject was already discussed here 2 days ago (819 points, 778 comments) [1] and the top comment highlighted that Apple gives its reasoning in a way that is at least worth considering. From Apple [2]: ---- The iOS system has traditionally provided support for Home Screen web apps by building directly on WebKit and its security architecture. That integration means Home Screen web apps are managed to align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS, including isolation of storage and enforcement of system prompts to access privacy impacting capabilities on a per-site basis. Without this type of isolation and enforcement, malicious web apps could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent. Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent. Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake given the other demands of the DMA and the very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps. And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU. EU users will be able to continue accessing websites directly from their Home Screen through a bookmark with minimal impact to their functionality. We expect this change to affect a small number of users. Still, we regret any impact this change — that was made as part of the work to comply with the DMA — may have on developers of Home Screen web apps and our users. ---- There were 451 comments responding just to that [3]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 [2] https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#dev-qa https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652
- appplication 3y ago
  > Without this type of isolation and enforcement, malicious web apps could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent. Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent. I’m not sure I fully understand the ire at Apple here. If any of this is true, killing PWAs sounds like the right move. Everyone who is pissed off at Apple is just fine with this? The fact that this can all happen without user consent completely throws away any arguments of “I’m a responsible user who should be able to choose what apps run in my phone, not some big company”. Because if you really believe that, then you would also not want apps like this to exist under the new EU rules. I’ll be honest I just don’t get it.
jmull 3y ago
I usually find myself rolling my eyes when HN collectively complains about Apple, because the perspective is so dev-centric, completely ignoring the concerns of the actual users. But this is a kick to @#&!s of users (and devs). Even you stipulate that the DMA is a horrible, terrible regulation that should never have been enacted, Apple still absolutely has to find a better way to comply than this. This isn't going to just piss off some whiney developers, but also hit their customers. I think this is a major screw-up by Apple that will have long term consequences for them. (BTW, we don't have to wonder if freely allowing "side-loading" will cause a security catastrophe, as Apple claims. We already know it won't. "side-loading" is just called "installing" on Mac OS, linux, windows, and various other OSs, and is being done all the time on those OSs now. Yes, it's not perfect and people get scammed/pwned/etc, but that's true of iOS anyway. Go ahead and make the apple store the only built-in one and make a scary prompt to do others and have your kill switches and other modern protections -- its a rather dumb straw man to pretend the alternative to the current system is literally nothing.)
jcul 3y ago
What has changed here, it isn't very clear to me from the link. It sounds like webapps now will open the browser like a bookmark and not open full screen. PWAs are just websites right, so will they still work in the browser?

232 points by szasamasa 3y ago

Apps are standalone user experiences. Native apps play by the operating system's security rules, while web domains operate within the sandbox of the browser. Web apps are just websites in standalone mode. If you misunderstand web apps as some wicked things coming out of your trusted browser to party on your device, you might not see clearly in the Apple vs. EU debate. Apple just made their true target crystal clear: they have always been aiming at web capabilities: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/capabilities/fugu-showcase https://developer.chrome.com/docs/capabilities/fugu-showcase. We see now: they will do so until they are stopped by legal force. Apple hides no longer behind browser engine restrictions, they are going after the heart of what lets developers deliver full-fledged app experiences without the need for native installs from app stores. Apple sees these capabilities as a direct threat to their app store model: the web IS the potential rival store diminishing that sweet revenue close to 100 billion dollars a year. Apple loves to claim in legal debates and at congressional hearings (which is a company smell) that web apps offer a viable alternative, thus denying an App Store monopoly. But behind the scenes, they've choked browser engine choice on iOS and crippled WebKit to undermine that exact web alternative. The ability to deliver compelling standalone experiences from the web stalls because major platforms like iOS can't be trusted to keep pace with industry standards. It's like a public transport company deliberately making their service inaccessible: "Sure, wheelchair ramps are nice in theory, but since nobody really uses our trains this way (because we never installed toilets for this user group), forget the ramps. Sorry for the inconvenience it might cause to this group who tried using trains anyhow, instead of the suggested Apple Car with our innovative iPiss system. Oh, and those pesky other train companies we're forced to allow on our tracks? You have to make your trains just as inaccessible because, uh, Apple Car is just safer to deliver wheelchair experiences! Security is not an argument. WebKit was capable of sandboxing websites, as are Gecko and Chromium. If Apple wants to protect its users and treat them as adults, they should warn them when downloading browsers, that is it. If you want to play apple safe, stay by Safari. You do not need web apps, anyways. Your system is not in danger if I download “shit” on MY iPhone. In addition, Apple is capable and it is not an unreasonable ask to make iOS secure for web browsers. Every other OS, including their own macOS, does this. It's baffling how Apple underestimates the intelligence of judges and lawmakers. Should Apple try to cripple web capabilities for alternative browsers (directly like the current plan is or even subtly with keeping iOS sub-optimal regarding web app security), may those fines come and let them be staggering. Apple choked web capabilities with WebKit and now does this directly by misusing the power of iOS. Apple shouldn't get to block the web alternative to their App Store while pretending to offer one on legal battlefields. For web apps you need developers who are not threatened by Apple and iOS to pull the plug on their product any time. Like they are trying to do now. Web app usage and adoption would also be boosted if the developer community stopped calling “install” what is a switch from tab to standalone mode. Using the word "install" undermines not just the inherent simplicity of web apps but the long established trust in the safety of browsing websites within a controlled tab. The word "install" creates a false sense of heightened risk and potential device alteration. This creates unnecessary confusion and suspicion, hindering user adoption. We should build upon the success of the web, emphasizing the truth that web apps are simply enhanced websites and leverage the implicit trust users already place in the web security model.

szasamasa 3y ago
I would like this thread to be a somewhat deeper discussion about DMA and web apps. I would welcome true tech or legal arguments. But please if you are an apple-bot or rather less familiar with web tech, read more before commenting. I don't really want spam arguments like you claim I must be protected from myself using web apps via Gecko or Chromium. I am fully capable to make my decision and you can make yours: just NEVER download a browser engine other than Safari and you are Apple-Safe. I miss a discussion about legalities and technicalities, about freedom of choice and competition. Apple must prove why users who trust other browser engines should not get access to web capabilities those OTHER browser companies find secure enough. Some potential talking points I would suggest: – concrete examples of web capabilities that are NOT going to be available on iOS versus macOS (and every other OS): service workers, camera access, local storage persistence? Does anybody know? – do you think Gecko and Chromium are just as safe on the CURRENT iOS as Webkit was when Apple allowed service workers for example? Apple cites dangers, are these theoretical dangers of potential not-industry-standard-browsers or does these dangers apply to Firefox and Chrome too? Is it really necessary and to what extent for Apple to make changes on iOS so that battle tested browsers from companies like Mozilla, Google, Microsoft could use modern web capabilities with clear conscience on iOS too? https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu#8 https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu#8 – what is this ”new integration architecture” that would make web apps more secure and how much effort would it really be to foster web app security on OS level if not already in place on iOS? Being Apple one of the richest companies in the world and having macOS that has a good enough architecture I am sure Apple legally is bound to change iOS to support secure web apps if the effort is reasonable. – Apple was forced to allow competing browser engines and apparently must be forced to give other browser engines access to modern web capabilities. How? https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... “In particular, each browser is built on a web browser engine, which is responsible for key browser functionality such as speed, reliability and web compatibility. When gatekeepers operate and impose web browser engines, they are in a position to determine the functionality and standards that will apply not only to their own web browsers, but also to competing web browsers and, in turn, to web software applications.” Will this suffice legally or does the DMA text need improvement? I think this is enough since the text requires Apple to give way to alternative web browsers with the CLEAR INTENTION that the gatekeeper could not determine the functionality and web standards that are accessible on iOS. The text explicitly mentions web apps and that the goal is breaking a gatekeeper's power to cripple web apps.

throwaway49849 3y ago

The creation of the Vision Pro, and now this direct assault on the open web, makes me believe that Apple is no longer has the vision to lead the industry effectively. It's a shame because it has enormous momentum behind it, which means every bad decision, like this one, will be felt be millions of people for years.

pas 3y ago
could you please elaborate on how/what the Vision Pro contributes to this problem?
- 5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
  spending 10s of billions of R&D towards a closed off walled garden for consuming Apple services. afaik you cant even order AVP without an iPhone.
- mettamage 3y ago
  Apple not allowing the open web stifles innovation, including the AVP. The apps in the app store will be dictated by Apple. So whatever their ethical framework is, that is what will receive innovation. While that seems fair, the problem is that the strongest form of software innovation I have seen is where developers can freely plug in.
  - jimmySixDOF 3y ago
    AVP has support for WebXR behind a flag in Safari that allows the full immersive mode of spatial computing (don't say Vee Are) and that -- so far untill now - is an opening for non-app store third party experiences.
- throwaway49849 3y ago
  The AVP is one of the most out of touch products I've ever seen from a respected brand, and I can almost hear Steve Job's scathing criticisms of it, based on everything I know about him. Not to mention, it goes against the increasing trend of less screens and less tech. The fact that it got made and is being pushed so hard as the next step in computing, is bonkers. So to me, it contributes because it is another data point that the leadership has compromised its ability to consistently make forward thinking decisions.

threeseed 3y ago

Any chance we can get the original title which doesn't sound so childish: It’s Official, Apple Kills Web Apps in the EU And if PWA were such a threat to Apple's business then why are they allowed in US.

Nursie 3y ago
IIRC In the EU apple may be forced to open up iOS to other browsers, including PWA using non-safari engines. Not sure why this is such a threat. I’m torn on this whole issue. I both enjoy my walled garden and want full-fat Firefox on iOS.
- troupo 3y ago
  It's unfortunate that the whole discourse is about one of the worst imaginable outcomes: replacing apps with shitty slow bloated underperforming web apps. That is, the discourse is valid, and Apple is to blame. But why did it have to be around PWAs of all things?
  - anon373839 3y ago
    Web apps aren’t inherently slow, bloated or underperforming. You can absolutely build a snappy, polished web app with a UI layer that rivals a native app. (I don’t personally enjoy working with JavaScript, but the reward of truly cross-platform development makes it worth doing when it’s a viable option.)
    - vinay427 3y ago
      I'm genuinely curious: do you have any examples you'd like to share? Not that React Native is the same as a PWA, but even in that space I have yet to find an RN app (at least those I know about from their Showcase page [1]) that rivals a native app on iOS, but perhaps it's wrong to assume a React Native app would be comparable to or strictly better than a PWA. [1] https://reactnative.dev/showcase https://reactnative.dev/showcase

Aerbil313 3y ago

This is criminal. After decades I finally had the ability to develop for iOS without a Mac and a yearly $99 fee - only for it to be crippled again?

threeseed 3y ago
> I finally had the ability to develop for iOS without a Mac Cordova, React Native, Xamarin, Flutter etc. Seems like the only thing criminal here is your inability to use Google.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  They all still require the yearly $99 fee. Not to mention the need to learn another platform. I already know the web.
- wiseowise 3y ago
  You still need to deploy the application via Mac, genius.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    You can build application using Github Actions or EC2 Mac for almost nothing.
stephenr 3y ago
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call a web app "develop[ed] for iOS" The whole point of the web is that it is cross platform. That isn't a negative thing it's a positive, but calling it "develop for iOS" is arguably disingenuous.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  Most people just want to make apps for themselves. If you use an iOS device but not a Mac, there was no way to do that before web apps (which still offered a terrible dev experience, without debugging) and now there's again no way to do it.

anon373839 3y ago

> It’s telling that this is the feature that Apple refused to share. And it makes sense: the idea that users could install safe and secure apps that Apple can’t tax, block or control is terrifying to them. I think that’s what this decision is all about. When Safari was the only browser engine on iOS, PWAs didn’t threaten the App Store because Safari delivers a degraded experience with them. With alternative browser engines mandated by law, Apple faced the possibility that Chrome or Firefox might make PWAs easy to discover, easy to install, and feature-complete. They might have begun to see serious adoption and investment. I think Apple did not want to risk letting that happen.

neximo64 3y ago
This is quite often where people make the greatest mistake. It's all about distribution and customer usage. Most people hate and don't use PWAs. What stands in the way are Native iPhone apps are better. It also goes for android too. That's why PWAs fail. If they were successful Apple would find a way to monetise the hell out of them.
- lozenge 3y ago
  Most people don't use PWAs... as they exist today. What would happen if Google added all the APIs to Chrome that are needed for every one of their iOS apps, and then offered them as "PWAs that work best with Google Chrome"? Google would not have to abide by App Store rules, nor the rules for app marketplaces, nor pay the Core Technology Fee of half a euro per install. Apple's entire approach of using their status as a popular phone manufacturer to control the software market would fall.
  - neximo64 3y ago
    PWA's can do most things: https://whatpwacando.today https://whatpwacando.today. Steve Jobs also preferred PWAs and hated the app store. I'm curious as to ask what they can't do that a native app can do without any workaround whatsoever? I don't know of a single person, ordinary person, who uses PWAs. A Cordova app is a better experience.

duiker101 3y ago

Did anyone actually ever put web apps on their home screen?

rambambram 3y ago
Definitely, but only the simple web apps (like an icon that links to an url in the browser) that aren't affected by Apple's changes, so no notifications and stuff because it wasn't a PWA. It was a nice experience. I had a fast hosting provider and it worked seamless. Right now I use Android on a cheap Samsung and loading webpages takes ages with Firefox. I don't think Google goes freely in killing the web, but we already knew that.
jcmontx 3y ago
I have a few. X has a pretty good PWA.
geraldhh 3y ago
have a 'link' to fast.com on my homescreen, but it's just a shortcut to an url, no 'web app' or am i mistaken?
- c-hendricks 3y ago
  You can add any website to your home screen. If the site has some special meta information, it can display like any other app (full screen, its own entry in your multitasking UI). Otherwise it just opens in your regular browser.
szasamasa 3y ago
web apps are the future, not the present Apple was holding them back and just pulled the plug. Only if web programmers can count on future proof support will they produce web apps. In addition, most companies have already created native apps so again, web apps are the future, it is not an argument that there are few on iOS and yes, outlook or X are good examples
- meepmorp 3y ago

bsenftner 3y ago

I was an original Mac OS Developer, and way back then I saw that Apple wanted to create monopoly and deeply hates any developer not on their payroll whose output they own. As a result, I have never published Apple software. It is not worth it, never has been worth it.

tremarley 3y ago

Since iOS 17.4 for EU users 1. Apple will DELETE user's data without notice 2. Lot of apps will stop working and there will be no way to access them without update 3. Web Push will stop working; users expecting notifications will never get them 4. Apple breaks the Web platform This was published in the document "Update on apps distributed in the European Union" https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/

andy_ppp 3y ago
I take it this is just for PWAs?
- szasamasa 3y ago
  it must be for all websites since a web app is just a website that may or may not implement web capabilities actually no such thing as PWA, there are plenty of web standards but no web standard about PWA the web standard that governs standalone mode and home screen button and such is a draft (web app manifest) the website does not need to be progressive, not even offline capable to get standalone and home screen button the "very dangerouos" service workers can run in any website silently without standalone mode or app buttons or any user interaction (maybe because they are not that creepy after all, an open source javascript that tells browsers how to cache) I really hate this web app distinction and install language because 1. it is not standard 2. it is not true 3. it is contra-productive I wrote a piece about this somewhere in a top level comment. Apple breaks web capabilities both in websites and standalone websites (web apps).
szasamasa 3y ago
is this true? I mean they cannot delete Chrome data which web capabilities will actually not work any more? I mean service workers will not, and it is a big one... all they do is caching and you can create an offline working website with them web push another big one (not for me, but many use them) which other web capabilities does Apple target?
- 3y ago

nottorp 3y ago

I'm not a fan of web "apps" for the usual reasons: resource hungry, limited functionality, low quality overall. However, I want DaisyDisk for iOS. When will Apple allow DaisyDisk for iOS? :)

merricksb 3y ago

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 - Apple confirms it's breaking iPhone web apps in the EU on purpose (techcrunch.com) (815 points / 1 day ago / 766 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 - Apple confirms iOS 17.4 removes Home Screen web apps in the EU (9to5mac.com) (112 points / 1 day ago/ 125 comments)

agust 3y ago
Did this just get marked as dupe to pull it off the front page? How outrageous. The link has not been posted before.
- szasamasa 3y ago
  and they changed my title not just the link was new from open web advocacy, I also posted actually a piece to try to have a more focused and deep conversation so they changed my original title that was actually funny and to the point, marked as duplicate and so the writer of the article from open web advocacy and my article-like comment was shadow banned, thanks!
  - firtoz 3y ago
    The title does need to match the one within the website
    - szasamasa 3y ago
      apparently my former title was too much for this site: "iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B App Store Tax" which was relating to the article (and you can read the title of the original article after clicking) but I did not like "kills web apps" because it is not true in my opinion, tries to kill web apps or fights against them or cripples them in the next iOS release... it sounded too eternal and I think Apple will be forced by DMA to do the opposite I really am curiouos why and who did my creativity bother?

oaiey 3y ago

The amount of money lost in corporations for internal or app store avoiding apps by this decision is mind blowing.

pcdoodle 3y ago
Perhaps they didn't want to give Apple the leverage over their companies right to run software freely without red tape in between them and their customers. Having to worry about rejections, API deprecations, architecture changes, Appearance guidelines et al would defiantly make me want to avoid it as much as possible. It's akin to avoiding a marriage to an aloof partner that will never love you.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bambax 3y ago

I made the mistake of only carrying an iPad during my most recent holidays. What a useless piece of junk this is. iPads work well enough at home to watch movies or play a couple of games, but trying to do any kind of serious work on them, either editing photos, writing something, sending files, even trying to use a sequencer is an exercise in frustration. We are sooo lucky there (still) exist alternative computing solutions other than these things made by a company obsessed with control and extracting the maximum possible value out of every movement of their users. Apple is the evilest of evils. It must be fought with great determination if we are concerned with freedom.

monkin 3y ago
You can code on it, design, edit photos, write books, sketch, edit videos... and a lot more with ease. For 3 years, I used only an iPad for work. Can you expand on your problems? Or was that a "it works differently on my beloved OS" kind of thing?
- wiseowise 3y ago
  > You can code on it In castrated terminal that is walking on the edge of what is "permitted" by overlords. Or are you talking about open thin IDE that connects to a remote machine in a browser?
  - fragmede 3y ago
    https://vscode.dev/ https://vscode.dev/
    - wiseowise 3y ago
      So the second one.
- emsy 3y ago
  You can’t compile on it. You can’t run software in the background (for example a terminal, where you don’t have to bring the app to the foreground every few minutes). You can’t install software on it that Apple doesn’t want you to (regardless of whether or not they’re malicious). And the software you can run is more likely than not a subscription, because the only place you can buy it is the App Store, which pushes the subscription model unto users and devs.

PaulHoule 3y ago

Kinda funny but when the rubber hit the road they did delete the word “Progressive” from “Profressive Web Apps”. Talk about a complete failure in branding, they should have done that years ago but the PWA pushers had the congenital fault almost all marketers have which is the inability to see themselves the way others see them.

tempodox 3y ago
“Progressive” just sounds too good. Who wouldn't want to be associated with progress? Today we have the label “AI” for stuff that has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever, but who wouldn't want to be associated with intelligence?
szasamasa 3y ago
I dont like the progressive word because you do not need it and I am minimalistic however, at the beginning they tried to force some "progressive" things like responsive design or offline etc. I can understan what they wanted, no need to think of it as self marketing I like the clarity of websites and we should learn that they can be very powerful: responsive websites, offline functioning websites etc... they can use sooo many web capabilities I define apps as standalone UX and I use "switch to standalone" instead of "install" (that is what actually happens if someone creates a manifest file which is governed by a draft, not yet standard) so a website can be implicitly a web app in the sense of rich functionality (responsive, offline) without being used in standalone mode it will be explicitly a web app if switched to standalone mode from tab mode... this is an important distinction since even if nothing is installed this is a decision from the user to use it from the OS and outside of the browser as a standalone window and on some platforms it may give it some extra rights (local data storage will never be cleared by nice companies like Apple without asking the user, push notifications might be coupled with this decision now or in the future etc) but I agree, this progressive thing is the past... it actually became the past when browsers gave a shit about what the site ctually functionally can when granting that app button and standalone mode

ghusto 3y ago

Tip: To be taken more seriously, don't use such childish language. I was reading the first part and nearly switched off without checking the comments here. I'm glad I did, because I see now how serious (and maybe _illegal?_) this is. Don't turn your audience away with emotional wording, for something that can easily have impact if you communicate it purely for what it is.

jart 3y ago
It's not childish it's manipulative and it's the sort of rhetoric that only manipulates people at least a standard deviation to the left of the bell curve here. But even by that standard, gosh this piece lays it down so thick that it honestly made me cringe.
- tempodox 3y ago
  What I find especially conspicuous is that they quote Apple's reasoning for doing that and then do nothing to counter it. If they find Apple's decision so wrong, they should say why.

osrec 3y ago

For me, this shows fear and a sense of insecurity within Apple. They've built their walled garden and are doing whatever they can to protect it. They've probably even convinced users that it's in their interest. Yet, they know there is an inevitability that polished web apps will exist (and that time will come fairly soon, imo), and will match and replace their native counterparts. They also know, it's the correct and overwhelmingly more efficient way to deliver 99% of apps. Yet they want to stifle that future, all in the name of money. Create all the titanium cased phones you like - eventually, the masses will be smart enough to prioritise openness and forward-thinking over almost anything else. If you start to hold people back with your decisions, questions will start to arise about your priorities and eventually your products. And people are fickle enough, that they won't be your fanboys/girls forever.

szasamasa 3y ago
I checked DMA and Apple will be forced to comply (this thing they do is far from it), however, they can prolonge it with this tactic and break all existing web apps for a year on iOS to punch them in the face... however, web apps are the future and not the present... we will have them on iOS in 1-2 years in Europe, I dont know when everywhere in the world

crazygringo 3y ago

This subject was already discussed here 2 days ago (819 points, 778 comments) [1] and the top comment highlighted that Apple gives its reasoning in a way that is at least worth considering. From Apple [2]: ---- The iOS system has traditionally provided support for Home Screen web apps by building directly on WebKit and its security architecture. That integration means Home Screen web apps are managed to align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS, including isolation of storage and enforcement of system prompts to access privacy impacting capabilities on a per-site basis. Without this type of isolation and enforcement, malicious web apps could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent. Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent. Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake given the other demands of the DMA and the very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps. And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU. EU users will be able to continue accessing websites directly from their Home Screen through a bookmark with minimal impact to their functionality. We expect this change to affect a small number of users. Still, we regret any impact this change — that was made as part of the work to comply with the DMA — may have on developers of Home Screen web apps and our users. ---- There were 451 comments responding just to that [3]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 [2] https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#dev-qa https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652

appplication 3y ago
> Without this type of isolation and enforcement, malicious web apps could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent. Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent. I’m not sure I fully understand the ire at Apple here. If any of this is true, killing PWAs sounds like the right move. Everyone who is pissed off at Apple is just fine with this? The fact that this can all happen without user consent completely throws away any arguments of “I’m a responsible user who should be able to choose what apps run in my phone, not some big company”. Because if you really believe that, then you would also not want apps like this to exist under the new EU rules. I’ll be honest I just don’t get it.

jmull 3y ago

I usually find myself rolling my eyes when HN collectively complains about Apple, because the perspective is so dev-centric, completely ignoring the concerns of the actual users. But this is a kick to @#&!s of users (and devs). Even you stipulate that the DMA is a horrible, terrible regulation that should never have been enacted, Apple still absolutely has to find a better way to comply than this. This isn't going to just piss off some whiney developers, but also hit their customers. I think this is a major screw-up by Apple that will have long term consequences for them. (BTW, we don't have to wonder if freely allowing "side-loading" will cause a security catastrophe, as Apple claims. We already know it won't. "side-loading" is just called "installing" on Mac OS, linux, windows, and various other OSs, and is being done all the time on those OSs now. Yes, it's not perfect and people get scammed/pwned/etc, but that's true of iOS anyway. Go ahead and make the apple store the only built-in one and make a scary prompt to do others and have your kill switches and other modern protections -- its a rather dumb straw man to pretend the alternative to the current system is literally nothing.)

jcul 3y ago

What has changed here, it isn't very clear to me from the link. It sounds like webapps now will open the browser like a bookmark and not open full screen. PWAs are just websites right, so will they still work in the browser?