6 ms·

The fact that this could be so easily reversed probably provides evidence in favor of the argument that this was a purely punitive move by Apple as a way of thr

The fact that this could be so easily reversed probably provides evidence in favor of the argument that this was a purely punitive move by Apple as a way of throwing a tantrum against DMA. Somewhat akin to an abusive spouse saying "See! You _made_ me hit you!" If this sort of behavior doesn't ring alarm bells in the minds of the regulators I don't know what will.

dagmx 3y ago
Why would you assume that it’s malicious and not just the result of getting further clarification from lawyers on both ends? The DMA isn’t an exact set of steps to follow. A lot is left to interpretation
- RicoElectrico 3y ago
  Steve Jobs was legendarily spiteful and petty. They just carry over the tradition.
- arccy 3y ago
  they didn't need to remove a capability they already had, so any lawyer clarification would be on if they would be punished for being anticompetitive by removing the capability
  - dmitrygr 3y ago
    So..you've never written software with a lawyer standing over your shoulder? Very often legal requirements lead to removal of features that cannot easily comply rather than expansion of the feature to comply. Removal is less rick.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    Except they have had to do this multiple times (although usually patents). Examples include portions of AirPrint functionality on macOS, Bootcamp suspend/resume, and FaceTime peer-to-peer. The latter being the reason that Apple did not open up FaceTime as a broader industry initiative. In the US we currently have Apple Watch being sold without access to the blood oxygen feature due to an import restriction. There are also restrictions on showing certain maps in certain countries, as well as whether or not the Taiwan flag emoji displays in China.
- elevatedastalt 3y ago
  I won't say it is malicious. But I won't give Apple a pass either. Ultimately, the truth is that a company like Apple doesn't want to deal with DMA. Their whole services business model (whether it be the App Store monopoly or the iMessage monopoly) relies on behavior that is counter to DMA. It's also clear from their seething press releases about the DMA that they don't want to mince words about how much they don't like it or don't want to do it. It's always easy for them to give a vague privacy / security argument to justify whatever benefits their monopolistic control. It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want. I think it's important for users to keep calling them out at every opportunity so they don't get away with it.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Get away with what though? You’re the one who’s ascribing maliciousness to their actions. But you don’t have that backed up by anything concrete other than your subjective perception. From what they’ve written they removed it initially to keep all browsers equal, which is what the DMA implies is necessary. They now brought it back with only WebKit support. It’s completely logical that their lawyers worked with the EU to clear this exception. People here ascribe too much in the way of human emotion to corporations. If they were really trying to kill PWAs they’d have done it everywhere. If they were really trying to stick it to the DMA, PWAs are such an insignificant feature to do it with. What are the percentage of people who’d be so inconvenienced that the PWA would open in a browser tab instead of a pseudo browser instance?
  - latexr 3y ago
    > It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want. It is very different. The outcome from “think of the children” is loss of privacy, while Apple’s actions means loss of software functionality. The former is more dangerous for society and freedom of thought.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      How can we be certain that Apple's actions don't mean a loss of privacy too? Whenever they're asked about seriously decentralizing their own trust model Apple tends to fall back on the "legal compliance" note, if not directly on think-of-the-children. Their lack of transparency (even the base level that Google provides with the AOSP) isn't very reassuring, at least to me. Now, one could argue that Apple's decisions are less impactful than politicians. Circumstantially, they may be right, but I think it's appropriate to compare the line of reasoning. After all, Apple employs both.
lolinder 3y ago
Given that reversing course here means "Home Screen web apps continue to be built directly on WebKit", this pivot doesn't actually contradict their claim that safely supporting PWAs from other engines was too much engineering work. My hunch is that the initial change may have been performative, but it was likely performative for the EU regulators and not the customers. This pivot presumably means that the EU has now okayed browser engine lock in for PWAs.
- elevatedastalt 3y ago
  That's a good point
- masklinn 3y ago
  > My hunch is that the initial change may have been performative, but it was likely performative for the EU regulators and not the customers. Funny I was thinking the exact opposite: they floated it in case PWA removal got people to complain about the EU.
TheGlav 3y ago
> So easily reversed Yeah. It is easy to reverse committing an "if" statement.
ankit219 3y ago
This is not a reversal. They are allowing PWAs built on webkit, not other browser engines. Their argument was that they cannot reliably make sure that installing a webapp on other browser engines is secure. And that they do not have a way to do so reliably before the deadline, and other important things (with more uses)take priority. On Webkit, they already did it ages ago. In a few months, once we see newer browser engines on iOS, we will see calls that it is unfair Apple allows for one kind of web apps (on their own browser engine) but not others and that is self-preferencing.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > we will see calls that it is unfair Apple allows for one kind of web apps (on their own browser engine) but not others and that is self-preferencing. We have been seeing people say that for years. And mostly, they've been right; Apple's treatment of WebKit and Safari was anti-PWA for years. Even today, Apple has zero competitors who could meaningfully encourage them to adopt new PWA features or change Safari on iPhone.
  - bevekspldnw 3y ago
    Exactly, the Safari team has been openly hostile to PWA for a decade.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  And yet you can run any browser engine on MacOS and the world hasn’t ended. This is a cash grab, it’s not about security and I don’t understand why people keep repeating that.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    MacOS and iOS have different security architectures and different UX.
    - sircastor 3y ago
      And they have different attack surfaces and vulnerabilities. In the abstract, our phones are (for better or worse) far more critical to our lives than our laptops. They go with us everywhere, they're increasingly our keys for various physical and digital access. They're off-board brains and backup. Generally speaking, I would say a compromised phone puts the average person in a worse situation than a compromised laptop.
treffer 3y ago
Regulatory worried? The EU stated they will investigate this. And somehow Apple decides less than a week later that the feature will return. Looks like regulators should not be worried about Apple complying in the medium term. DMA has a catch-all: any circumvention can lead to penalties. You can try to play games like this, but it will just lead to fines. I would expect a few more U-turns, especially on the fee structure.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  I think they’ll keep pushing their luck but it’s not in a vacuum - Microsoft, Google, and Meta have been dealing with EU regulators a lot longer and on a much deeper level. They will see Apple’s missteps and use that towards their own benefit by gaming the refs. Ironically, Microsoft now has a fairly good argument that Apple is abusing its OS control to stifle competition in web browsers. What a world! Apple is playing checkers, Brad Smith is playing chess.
xyst 3y ago
Users have been abused for a decade now. It’s normalized. Unfortunately, not much competition in this space. OSS has potential to disrupt but needs a significant mover to patch it all together. And $$$ to motivate. Then there’s the hardware aspect.
bee_rider 3y ago
IMO it would be better to avoid the language of spousal abuse and physical violence when describing what are actually dry business decisions. It kind of cheapens the real physical harm befalls vulnerable people.

dagmx 3y ago

Why would you assume that it’s malicious and not just the result of getting further clarification from lawyers on both ends? The DMA isn’t an exact set of steps to follow. A lot is left to interpretation

RicoElectrico 3y ago
Steve Jobs was legendarily spiteful and petty. They just carry over the tradition.
arccy 3y ago
they didn't need to remove a capability they already had, so any lawyer clarification would be on if they would be punished for being anticompetitive by removing the capability
- dmitrygr 3y ago
  So..you've never written software with a lawyer standing over your shoulder? Very often legal requirements lead to removal of features that cannot easily comply rather than expansion of the feature to comply. Removal is less rick.
- dwaite 3y ago
  Except they have had to do this multiple times (although usually patents). Examples include portions of AirPrint functionality on macOS, Bootcamp suspend/resume, and FaceTime peer-to-peer. The latter being the reason that Apple did not open up FaceTime as a broader industry initiative. In the US we currently have Apple Watch being sold without access to the blood oxygen feature due to an import restriction. There are also restrictions on showing certain maps in certain countries, as well as whether or not the Taiwan flag emoji displays in China.
elevatedastalt 3y ago
I won't say it is malicious. But I won't give Apple a pass either. Ultimately, the truth is that a company like Apple doesn't want to deal with DMA. Their whole services business model (whether it be the App Store monopoly or the iMessage monopoly) relies on behavior that is counter to DMA. It's also clear from their seething press releases about the DMA that they don't want to mince words about how much they don't like it or don't want to do it. It's always easy for them to give a vague privacy / security argument to justify whatever benefits their monopolistic control. It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want. I think it's important for users to keep calling them out at every opportunity so they don't get away with it.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Get away with what though? You’re the one who’s ascribing maliciousness to their actions. But you don’t have that backed up by anything concrete other than your subjective perception. From what they’ve written they removed it initially to keep all browsers equal, which is what the DMA implies is necessary. They now brought it back with only WebKit support. It’s completely logical that their lawyers worked with the EU to clear this exception. People here ascribe too much in the way of human emotion to corporations. If they were really trying to kill PWAs they’d have done it everywhere. If they were really trying to stick it to the DMA, PWAs are such an insignificant feature to do it with. What are the percentage of people who’d be so inconvenienced that the PWA would open in a browser tab instead of a pseudo browser instance?
- latexr 3y ago
  > It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want. It is very different. The outcome from “think of the children” is loss of privacy, while Apple’s actions means loss of software functionality. The former is more dangerous for society and freedom of thought.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    How can we be certain that Apple's actions don't mean a loss of privacy too? Whenever they're asked about seriously decentralizing their own trust model Apple tends to fall back on the "legal compliance" note, if not directly on think-of-the-children. Their lack of transparency (even the base level that Google provides with the AOSP) isn't very reassuring, at least to me. Now, one could argue that Apple's decisions are less impactful than politicians. Circumstantially, they may be right, but I think it's appropriate to compare the line of reasoning. After all, Apple employs both.

lolinder 3y ago

Given that reversing course here means "Home Screen web apps continue to be built directly on WebKit", this pivot doesn't actually contradict their claim that safely supporting PWAs from other engines was too much engineering work. My hunch is that the initial change may have been performative, but it was likely performative for the EU regulators and not the customers. This pivot presumably means that the EU has now okayed browser engine lock in for PWAs.

elevatedastalt 3y ago
That's a good point
masklinn 3y ago
> My hunch is that the initial change may have been performative, but it was likely performative for the EU regulators and not the customers. Funny I was thinking the exact opposite: they floated it in case PWA removal got people to complain about the EU.

TheGlav 3y ago

> So easily reversed Yeah. It is easy to reverse committing an "if" statement.

ankit219 3y ago

This is not a reversal. They are allowing PWAs built on webkit, not other browser engines. Their argument was that they cannot reliably make sure that installing a webapp on other browser engines is secure. And that they do not have a way to do so reliably before the deadline, and other important things (with more uses)take priority. On Webkit, they already did it ages ago. In a few months, once we see newer browser engines on iOS, we will see calls that it is unfair Apple allows for one kind of web apps (on their own browser engine) but not others and that is self-preferencing.

smoldesu 3y ago
> we will see calls that it is unfair Apple allows for one kind of web apps (on their own browser engine) but not others and that is self-preferencing. We have been seeing people say that for years. And mostly, they've been right; Apple's treatment of WebKit and Safari was anti-PWA for years. Even today, Apple has zero competitors who could meaningfully encourage them to adopt new PWA features or change Safari on iPhone.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  Exactly, the Safari team has been openly hostile to PWA for a decade.
bevekspldnw 3y ago
And yet you can run any browser engine on MacOS and the world hasn’t ended. This is a cash grab, it’s not about security and I don’t understand why people keep repeating that.
- dwaite 3y ago
  MacOS and iOS have different security architectures and different UX.
  - sircastor 3y ago
    And they have different attack surfaces and vulnerabilities. In the abstract, our phones are (for better or worse) far more critical to our lives than our laptops. They go with us everywhere, they're increasingly our keys for various physical and digital access. They're off-board brains and backup. Generally speaking, I would say a compromised phone puts the average person in a worse situation than a compromised laptop.

treffer 3y ago

Regulatory worried? The EU stated they will investigate this. And somehow Apple decides less than a week later that the feature will return. Looks like regulators should not be worried about Apple complying in the medium term. DMA has a catch-all: any circumvention can lead to penalties. You can try to play games like this, but it will just lead to fines. I would expect a few more U-turns, especially on the fee structure.

bevekspldnw 3y ago
I think they’ll keep pushing their luck but it’s not in a vacuum - Microsoft, Google, and Meta have been dealing with EU regulators a lot longer and on a much deeper level. They will see Apple’s missteps and use that towards their own benefit by gaming the refs. Ironically, Microsoft now has a fairly good argument that Apple is abusing its OS control to stifle competition in web browsers. What a world! Apple is playing checkers, Brad Smith is playing chess.

xyst 3y ago

Users have been abused for a decade now. It’s normalized. Unfortunately, not much competition in this space. OSS has potential to disrupt but needs a significant mover to patch it all together. And $$$ to motivate. Then there’s the hardware aspect.

bee_rider 3y ago

IMO it would be better to avoid the language of spousal abuse and physical violence when describing what are actually dry business decisions. It kind of cheapens the real physical harm befalls vulnerable people.