3 ms·

> Throughout this process, they’ve chosen to maliciously comply as much as possible, resulting in a series of decisions meant to cripple the ability for anyone

by mrkeen 3y ago

> Throughout this process, they’ve chosen to maliciously comply as much as possible, resulting in a series of decisions meant to cripple the ability for anyone to compete on their platform outside of their App Store. I've seen this issue pop up a number of times recently, but haven't quite 'gotten it'. Is this just a complaint from people who pay Apple to maintain a walled garden, now complaining that they don't like the walls in said garden? Does Apple have any power to ruin anything outside their walled garden (in the context of this malicious compliance?)

rejhgadellaa 3y ago
Oh boy answering that is going to take a while. For now, this post should cover what Apple's trying to do: https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/its-official-apple-kills-web-apps-in-the-eu/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/its-official-apple-kills-... And if you really want to know what it's all about, this covers... all of it? https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/
- mrkeen 3y ago
  > Our main aim is to ensure open competition so that the Web and Web Apps can compete against the closed proprietary ecosystems. I'm in the EU and I don't feel like the Web and Web Apps (which I use) are threatened. Apple is not crippling the open web - it can't. It is crippling its own proprietary ecosystem, thus making the open web relatively more attractive and their proprietary ecosystem less attractive. If Apple laughably produced a desktop computer with a one-button mouse, (and I wrote desktop software that required two buttons for decent user experience): 1) would it be in my rights to compel them to add a second button? 2) if I pursued such action, would I be right in calling Apple's refusal to add a second button 'an attack on the open desktop software ecosystem'?
neodymiumphish 3y ago
I have to agree. If I buy into Apple’s system, I have no right to use the force of government to impose changes. I agreed to Apple’s terms at the onset. All of these impositions against Apple are unjustifiable; they’ve been known entities since Apple started selling iPhones.
- Alifatisk 3y ago
  So you’re telling me, as a developer who have to target both plattforms can instead say ”no, I am only going to target android because it’s the end-users fault for picking ios” and excuse Apples behavior? That doesn’t sit right with me.
  - mrkeen 3y ago
    > as a developer who have to target both plattforms If Apple blocks something, you don't need to make the moral decision as a developer, because they made it not your choice. > I am only going to target android Target the open web instead, since Google could do whatever it is that Apple's being accused of.
    - Alifatisk 3y ago
      > If Apple blocks something, you don't need to make the moral decision as a developer, because they made it not your choice. This is exactly what this is about, raising concerns and try to do something about it instead of sitting back and say "Oh well, that was it."
slowmovintarget 3y ago
Apple seems to have a legitimate take here: > "...malicious web apps [on the home screen] 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." Being "open" potentially has consequences that Apple has taken a decision on. It's reasonable, especially when most of their customers are not developers, and not technically savvy. PWAs as native apps have no answer for this security issue.

by mrkeen 3y ago

rejhgadellaa 3y ago

Oh boy answering that is going to take a while. For now, this post should cover what Apple's trying to do: https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/its-official-apple-kills-web-apps-in-the-eu/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/its-official-apple-kills-... And if you really want to know what it's all about, this covers... all of it? https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/

mrkeen 3y ago
> Our main aim is to ensure open competition so that the Web and Web Apps can compete against the closed proprietary ecosystems. I'm in the EU and I don't feel like the Web and Web Apps (which I use) are threatened. Apple is not crippling the open web - it can't. It is crippling its own proprietary ecosystem, thus making the open web relatively more attractive and their proprietary ecosystem less attractive. If Apple laughably produced a desktop computer with a one-button mouse, (and I wrote desktop software that required two buttons for decent user experience): 1) would it be in my rights to compel them to add a second button? 2) if I pursued such action, would I be right in calling Apple's refusal to add a second button 'an attack on the open desktop software ecosystem'?

neodymiumphish 3y ago

I have to agree. If I buy into Apple’s system, I have no right to use the force of government to impose changes. I agreed to Apple’s terms at the onset. All of these impositions against Apple are unjustifiable; they’ve been known entities since Apple started selling iPhones.

Alifatisk 3y ago
So you’re telling me, as a developer who have to target both plattforms can instead say ”no, I am only going to target android because it’s the end-users fault for picking ios” and excuse Apples behavior? That doesn’t sit right with me.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  > as a developer who have to target both plattforms If Apple blocks something, you don't need to make the moral decision as a developer, because they made it not your choice. > I am only going to target android Target the open web instead, since Google could do whatever it is that Apple's being accused of.
  - Alifatisk 3y ago
    > If Apple blocks something, you don't need to make the moral decision as a developer, because they made it not your choice. This is exactly what this is about, raising concerns and try to do something about it instead of sitting back and say "Oh well, that was it."

slowmovintarget 3y ago

Apple seems to have a legitimate take here: > "...malicious web apps [on the home screen] 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." Being "open" potentially has consequences that Apple has taken a decision on. It's reasonable, especially when most of their customers are not developers, and not technically savvy. PWAs as native apps have no answer for this security issue.