4 ms·

What are people's thoughts on Apple's argument: >Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engine

What are people's thoughts on Apple's argument: >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. >In short, Apple is saying it knows how to fix the problem but because it’s been burdened by having to comply with the DMA — which it noted had required “more than 600 new APIs and a wide range of developer tools” — it decided to skip fixing this one. Would allowing web apps require apple to build 600 new APIs? Would it require other web engines to integrate with those 600 APIs before being able to launch web apps?

cybrox 3y ago
It's not like the EU randomly compiled a list of 600 APIs that need to be added. This should be read more as "browser developers could now finally offer PWAs 600+ APIs that Apple explicitly forbid them to offer for years".
pornel 3y ago
The homescreen engine has always been dodgy — it has different bugs than Safari app, so it seems to be a different version/fork of WebKit. It was always against their interest to support this feature too well, so it's probably old and full of tech debt. I believe them when they say it would require a rewrite to work safely in a browser-agnostic way, but that sounds bizarrely like "complying with the law was too much work, so we chose not to". Now they've made all App Store alternatives suck in one way or another, and fragmented between EU and non-EU markets. It's a total mess that just happens to make App Store with Apple's usual fees the best option.
- ufocia 3y ago
  > "complying with the law was too much work, so we chose not to". Probably more like an unfunded, no value add venture.
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Lots of excuses are possible. How about, folks use the web on other platforms right now. Further, they publish all sorts of apps that other people make without inserting 600 APIs. So, no issue, almost by construction.

cybrox 3y ago

It's not like the EU randomly compiled a list of 600 APIs that need to be added. This should be read more as "browser developers could now finally offer PWAs 600+ APIs that Apple explicitly forbid them to offer for years".

pornel 3y ago

The homescreen engine has always been dodgy — it has different bugs than Safari app, so it seems to be a different version/fork of WebKit. It was always against their interest to support this feature too well, so it's probably old and full of tech debt. I believe them when they say it would require a rewrite to work safely in a browser-agnostic way, but that sounds bizarrely like "complying with the law was too much work, so we chose not to". Now they've made all App Store alternatives suck in one way or another, and fragmented between EU and non-EU markets. It's a total mess that just happens to make App Store with Apple's usual fees the best option.

ufocia 3y ago
> "complying with the law was too much work, so we chose not to". Probably more like an unfunded, no value add venture.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

Lots of excuses are possible. How about, folks use the web on other platforms right now. Further, they publish all sorts of apps that other people make without inserting 600 APIs. So, no issue, almost by construction.