20 ms·

> For support, the Progressive Web Apps will still need to be built on WebKit, with all that entails. I wonder if there was some sort of back channeling with t

> For support, the Progressive Web Apps will still need to be built on WebKit, with all that entails. I wonder if there was some sort of back channeling with the EU to determine that “actually this is fine, we don’t care about rendering engine competition for PWAs, WebKit-only is better than removing them.” The law ultimately only requires changes to features the EU cares about.

smoldesu 3y ago
I doubt there was back-channeling - Apple is seeing how liberally they can interpret this act. They tried doing the same thing when they threatened to use MFi on USB-C, up until an EU Comissioner threatened to boot them from the market. Plus, making per-company agreements would kinda render the entire "point" of the Digital Market Act moot. Apple knows exactly what the DMA wants from them, they're just deathly terrified of handing it over.
- Zak 3y ago
  I think terrified is the wrong take here. Apple could fully comply with the letter and spirit of the DMA and remain profitable in the EU, but they would be less profitable. They probably have a very good estimate of how much less profitable, and they're doing their best to minimize the impact.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    The fear of low-profitability is what drives that behavior, though. You're right that the DMA/DSA threatens Apple's bottom line, but as long as Apple continues to sell iPhone hardware in Europe then they should be turning a profit on hardware margins alone. Apple wants the control at any cost, and it's going to encourage more countries to draft even stronger legislation.
    - Zak 3y ago
      I'm surprised the EU appears to be letting them get away with charging a fee for apps installed outside the app store.
      - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
        They haven't hit the deadline yet, lobby your national and EU representatives if you want rid of this.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        Most companies e.g. Unreal charge a fee for using their SDKs. The idea that you would be forced to give it away for nothing would be a pretty extraordinary and unworkable intervention in the market.
        Zak 3y ago
        They can charge licensing fees for their SDKs, but the "core technology fee" is not structured that way. As currently structured, it would apply even to an app written from scratch in ARM assembly language (not that a reasonable person would build an iPhone app that way).
        threeseed 3y ago
        CLI apps are not supported on iOS. So at some point you have to interact with Apple SDKs.
        Zak 3y ago
        Making system/library calls to display something on the screen does not necessarily require the use of an SDK either; it might require quite a bit of reverse engineering work. As far as I understand copyright, that doesn't involve copying/distributing the library code and wouldn't be legally encumbered unless there's a patent covering it.
        justinclift 3y ago
        The fee kills any real world possibility of an OSS App Store though. 1 million downloads for an app sounds like a lot for a paid app. But on the desktop, popular OSS software packages do those kind of numbers in well under a year. There's no reason to believe OSS mobile apps on iPhone would be any different.
    - roamerz 3y ago
      >The fear of low-profitability is what drives that behavior Are you sure about that? Seems like a pretty bold statement where you would have to have some kind of inside information. I don't have anything to substantiate this but I would like to believe that Apple still has the best interest of it's customers and security in mind when fighting these kinds of legislation. I switched from Android to Apple BECAUSE of those restrictions and the improved security the walled garden model provides. The other reason was the middle finger Apple gave to the cell providers about applying firmware updates to their phones. When I was using Android it was maddening to wait months for an update to be 'approved' and able to install. That led me to rooting and installing firmware that was outside of the manufactures control and who knows what might have been in that. So for me everything that Apple does to keep a walled garden is what actually keeps me as a customer and helps their bottom line.
      - Zak 3y ago
        It does not seem to me that anything about the DMA will make it difficult for people who prefer to stay inside Apple's walled garden to do so. Most Android users only install apps from the Play Store and use Chrome as their browser.
      - albert180 3y ago
        Yeah, who knows what's inside of OpenSource Firmware like LineageOS. It's a huge mystery Also I never needed to wait for a carrier to approve an Update for my Android Phone. Neither for my Pixel, Nexus or Samsung Galaxy ones. And beside the "strict" controls, malicious Apps got in the App Store, and the iPhones themselves also pwned. Are there other Apple Fanboy Horror Stories about Android that you've missed?
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > Are you sure about that? Certain as I can be, without having seen the cards. Apple is a company about margins; you see it in their hardware profitability, but also in Tim Cook's service initiative. They fought Dutch regulators over this for months preceding the regulation, and it's not a stretch to say the DMA and DSA is a direct legislative response to Apple's wanton behavior. Apple can move literal mountains, when it aligns with their incentive of increasing profit margins. Anything that falls outside that purview ends up sidelined or worse-yet, lobbied against. > So for me everything that Apple does to keep a walled garden is what actually keeps me as a customer and helps their bottom line. That's great, and Apple has every right to provide you a differentiated experience. I've been a historical Apple customer, and I still keep a Magic Trackpad around because it's mostly quite good. But you and I aren't entitled to a sustained monopoly because it benefits us. Happy IE users or Bell Telephone customers aren't an argument against antitrust action, and it's ultimately entirely tangential to how legal they are. Consider how Apple behaves in hardware, sponsoring dubious Chinese labor to make shareholders happy. They set industry-leading profit margins by sparing no expense in their exploitation of labor and parts manufacturing. Is it legal? They say so. But of course Apple would, and they have no incentive to ever stop the squeeze if shareholders cheer them on. They will behave just as insidiously with software, and if you do not treat their every action with that scrutiny then you'll pave the road to hell with good intentions. I want businesses to be good people. I want God to run a killer froyo stand. But men are fickle, and Apple has been a swindling bastard of a company ever since Jobs cheated Woz out of $4,500 over an Atari contract.
- fh9302 3y ago
  There is no evidence that Apple ever planned to introduce a MFi system with USB-C. What likely happened is that leakers misinterpreted the USB-C E-Marker as a MFi chip.
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    Or that Apple was considering a "made for iPhone" certification program to allow manufacturers of USB-C devices to certify that they'll work with iOS devices -- which would be a perfectly reasonable thing for them to have! -- and misinterpreted that as meaning that Apple intended to implement a restrictive device authorization scheme like they had for Lightning devices. (Just because newer iOS devices have a USB-C port doesn't mean that all USB-C devices will work with them! Devices still require drivers; if iOS doesn't know how to handle a device, it won't work.)
- threeseed 3y ago
  > when they threatened to use MFi on USB-C, up until an EU Comissioner threatened to boot them from the market Except this never happened. And it doesn't even make any sense because MFi is when there is proprietary Apple technology involved which isn't the case for USB-C nor 3.5mm, Bluetooth etc.
  - whywhywhywhy 3y ago
    You need MFI to use Bluetooth unless it’s audio through the system UI or BTLE
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Bluetooth is not part of MFI for any of the standard profiles. https://mfi.apple.com/en/faqs https://mfi.apple.com/en/faqs
troupo 3y ago
> I wonder if there was some sort of back channeling with the EU No back channeling is required. It's literally written in the law that you can go ahead and ask if you're unsure: https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act Scroll to Law: Ask us if you find issues
- agust 3y ago
  Apple didn't have to ask though, they fully knew they were breaking the law here. They are only backing down because of the pressure from the web community and from the DMA team starting an investigation.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    They knew they were breaking the law in their lack if browser choice. The PWA issue is a completely different one. Although what I assume is they floated removing PWAs to see if that would get users / communities on their side. It might have worked if PWA support was first class rather than half abandoned.
    - agust 3y ago
      The DMA plainly states that they have to give other browser vendors access to all features present on device, and that they cannot degrade the quality of their services. Removing PWA support goes against both these obligations.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  There’s always back channel that’s how these things always work. One team of lawyers hashing it out with another.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  Nope, that’s not what iA says, and it would be a gross misrepresentation of the DMA to be honest. The section they’re referring to is clause 64 in the lead of the DMA[0] and it is not only limited to cases of interoperability, unlike what iA implies it doesn’t follow with a suggestion that gatekeepers can just ask if they’re unsure. Instead it states: > In all cases, the gatekeeper and the requesting provider should ensure that interoperability does not undermine a high level of security and data protection in line with their obligations laid down in this Regulation and applicable Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. The obligation related to interoperability should be without prejudice to the information and choices to be made available to end users of the number-independent interpersonal communication services of the gatekeeper and the requesting provider under this Regulation and other Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679. That’s why one of the main criticisms of the DMA is that gatekeepers generally can’t present proposals for approval and have to wait until after implementing to see if it is to the EC’s liking. That said, the EU has inquired about the PWA stuff[1] and it seems that the outcome of that has been that Home Screen install doesn’t need to be provided for other browsers. Allowing Apple to back down from their careful interpretation. 0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... 1: https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/26/apple-blocking-web-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/26/apple-blocking-web-apps/
M2Ys4U 3y ago
I hope that the UK CMA enforcement action will smack Apple over the head for this one.
- dwaite 3y ago
  ...to what end? Removal of the feature from iOS in the UK?
turquoisevar 3y ago
This is the most likely theory. The notion that Apple was purposefully trying to kill PWAs never made sense in light of their significant investment in supporting PWAs over the last four years, down to recruiting industry rockstars such as Jen Simmons. Nobody who was screaming bloody murder ever tried to reconcile that incongruence, much less succeeded. What’s more likely is that Apple’s lawyers went with the most careful interpretation of the DMA, concluded that they’d have to facilitate Home Screen install for other browsers as well, figured it wasn’t worth the engineering effort, especially on short notice, and instead just deactivated it for Safari as well. Then, after all the bloody murder that was being screamed about, the EU started to inquire[0] both with Apple as well as developers about the consequences for PWAs. Apple was told that their interpretation was too strict (or that they will be given more time to implement it for other browsers, but less likely because such decisions are typically made public) and that they’re fine (for now) with PWAs running in WebKit. 0: https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/26/apple-blocking-web-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/26/apple-blocking-web-apps/
- refulgentis 3y ago
  The histrionical descriptions of other people's takes are like nails on chalkboard and kinda gross. (bloody murder?) No one thought removing them in the EU was the first step to removing them everywhere. Jen Simmons isn't a "rock star." Hiring someone with a lot of Twitter followers to do something doesn't preclude the company from stopping doing something. I think everyone over 30 in tech has seen that first hand. Couple right off the top of my head for Apple: Graeme Devine, Max Howell... In general, it is important for discussions to have nuance. I'm sure you've seen some un-nuanced discussions that I haven't. However, escalating rhetoric to condemn lack of nuance in others rhetoric should be reconsidered.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    > The histrionical descriptions of other people's takes are like nails on chalkboard and kinda gross. (bloody murder?) Claiming that Apple is trying to “kill” PWAs is in and of itself histrionic. Especially when behavioral evidence that clearly points to the opposite is completely ignored and the bad faith intents are attributed wholly based on “vibes”. My categorizing that as screaming bloody murder isn’t an escalation in rhetoric[0] in the slightest. > Jen Simmons isn't a "rock star." It’s a figure of speech within the industry, granted, it typically also implies big ego issues, so perhaps the term isn’t so suitable when it comes to Simmons. > Hiring someone with a lot of Twitter followers Trying to diminish someone’s accomplishments and relevance within an industry by pretending they “just have a lot of Twitter followers” does nothing to refute my arguments. She’s one of 82 web developers with a Wiki bio and one of 177 programmers, that alone signifies notability. Point is that that she’s a high profile programmer and web developer and those come at a premium. That, plus the significant efforts made in the last four years to not only support PWAs but also improve standards, runs counter to the notion that Apple has ill will towards PWAs. While she has spearheaded a lot of the investment in PWAs, for the purposes of this debate I only brought her up to emphasize Apple’s investments in making improvements. Even with Simmons out of the equation there’s still four years of significant engineering efforts to reconcile. > doesn't preclude the company from stopping doing something. You’re begging the question here. Without you substantiating the implication that Apple has stopped improving PWAs, you’re just throwing around empty words. Nevertheless, it’s clear Apple hasn’t stopped their efforts on PWAs, given that the next Safari update will, again, include a slew of improvements to the benefit of PWAs as can be seen in the Safari Technology Preview release notes[1]. I’m amenable to debate this further, provided you put in some effort into make a credible case with substantiated arguments and you can keep the tone policing to yourself. 0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scream%20bloody%20murder https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scream%20bloody%2... 1: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-technology-preview-release-notes/stp-release-189 https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-technology-...
nguyenkien 3y ago
On android PWA home shortcut create by one browser, will use that browser, regardless of default browser. I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same.
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  Apple provided theirs reasoning on this (security issues due to how iOS is currently written...) when they initially stated they would be removing them and said the work was'nt worth the tiny base of users who use it.
- brookst 3y ago
  Only technical reasons. When PWA’s were introduced in iOS 11, they were built with the assumption of WebKit as a privileged process. A re-arch is definitely doable, just a big expense for little return. And probably not feasible in just a year, can’t imagine it would be a top priority against all of the other work.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    Myself, I'll use PWA to mean "promoted web app" - since it is closer in this context, and 99% of the market gets "progressive" wrong anyway. I believe that third party browser engines will have the same privileges as WebKit (in the EU, on iOS only). PWAs do not run directly on WebKit; they run on Web.app which is a WebKit-based application. Think something like Cordova, provided by the OS, but which does not require each PWA to be a separate wrapped app listed in the App Store. There is a recently-added interface to create one of these Web.app PWAs by third party browsers, as well as to create home screen bookmarks (which I believe open in the default browser not the running browser, but I am not a browser implementer). There is not however not a way for a browser vendor to ship their own Web.app-equivalent using their browser engine. Simulating some of the behaviors of a PWA on iOS outside of Web.app is also difficult. For instance - the multi-window functionality of iPadOS is not present, so a fullscreen web app would block usage of other tabs.
pier25 3y ago
Does this mean that users will only be able to add the pwa from Safari or that when adding it from any browser it will always run with WebKit?
- wintermutestwin 3y ago
  Great question. Orion is built on WebKit and works with firefox extensions (uBlock)
  - lxgr 3y ago
    That works (I suspect) because they run them as JavaScript in a different browsing context and have implemented some of the WebExtension APIs themselves on the backend, e.g. HTTP request filtering (which is one of uBlock's primary functions). That's a nifty workaround but not ideal, since it's not possible to actually provide all WebExtension APIs that way.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lilyball 3y ago
  Presumably that you can only add the PWA from Safari, because there does not exist any API to add a PWA from a third-party app.
  - robertoandred 3y ago
    Yes there does, other browsers already use it.
- robertoandred 3y ago
  Other browsers can already add PWAs. Presumably they'd just continue using WebKit to matter what engine the browser in question uses.
- pier25 3y ago
  > This means that all Home Screen web apps will still be powered by WebKit, regardless of whether the web app is added using Safari or not – exactly as it works today and has for years.
Despegar 3y ago
They were basically negotiating in public. I think the EC probably realized that the DMA as currently written is flawed and producing outcomes they don't want, and this episode basically highlighted it to them. They probably told Apple there won't be any enforcement against only Safari having it, because the alternative is worse. A basic principle is that you are very unlikely to compel Apple to engineer anything unless they choose to, and you would most likely lose in the EU courts if you tried to. Any regulation that doesn't factor that in is going to be doomed to fail.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > A basic principle is that you are very unlikely to compel Apple to engineer anything unless they choose to, and you would most likely lose in the EU courts if you tried to. Any regulation that doesn't factor that in is going to be doomed to fail. That sounds a bit like "Apple is beyond the law/regulations, regulators better accept that and move on" – is that what you mean? It worked just fine for USB-C, fwiw.
  - hananova 3y ago
    There's a big difference between those cases. In the USB-C case there was no room for argument. It was either include the new port, or stop selling the iPhone. In this case, they could just remove entire features and have the public do their lobbying for them.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      It shouldn't be too hard to make the case for that being malicious compliance, though. It seems to have worked in this particular case, for example: People called Apple's bluff.
      - Despegar 3y ago
        Malicious compliance and "spirit of the law" aren't real things when it comes to the legal system. You either comply with the law or you don't. And courts will ultimately decide if Apple's interpretation of the DMA complies or not.
rejhgadellaa 3y ago
The law requires Apple to open up iOS to 3rd-party browser engines and that Apple can't self-preference their own browser. This would mean that Apple has to open up anything that Safari can do (like run PWAs). I don't believe for a minute that the EU is OK with the WebKit restriction here, they simply haven't responded: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39565553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39565553
- lxgr 3y ago
  We just don't know that at this point. For all we know, the EU might be considering PWAs a thing completely orthogonal to DMA compliance, since they neither provide feature parity with native apps, nor are they widely used (at least according to Apple's measurements). > open up anything that Safari can do (like run PWAs). I think it would be just as valid a viewpoint to consider them an OS feature (as opposed to a browser feature). The question then is whether that OS feature would be considered protected under the DMA. For example, it's also impossible to provide your own kernel extensions (e.g. to facilitate hardware device drivers) for iOS – but that's completely fine (as far as I understand) under the DMA, since it's not one of the covered areas like app stores, NFC payments etc. I'm not very certain of the last point, FWIW – maybe the DMA does actually require Apple to provide, on demand, access to hardware interfaces available to their own product offerings! For example, wireless (Qi) outbound charging is supported by recent iPhones, but only works with Apple's own Magsafe power bank, and other power banks can only do inbound wireless charging and need to be charged via USB – maybe that's actually noncompliant too? That would likely kill, or at least strongly impact, Apple's MFI program in the EU – or maybe just expand it to cover all first-party hardware interfaces too?
  - summerlight 3y ago
    > For all we know, the EU might be considering PWAs a thing completely orthogonal to DMA compliance, since they neither provide feature parity with native apps, nor are they widely used (at least according to Apple's measurements). DMA wording made it very clear that it's about browser engine, not the browser product. And Safari is designated as a core platform service. > The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.
layer8 3y ago
The final authority lies with the courts. If any of the third-party browser providers sue for being disadvantaged by PWAs being restricted to WebKit, no previous “back-channeling” with the Commission will have any bearing on the judgment. And the Commission knows this, so is unlikely to engage in that manner.
- mastazi 3y ago
  What you said is true but not to the extent that you might think if you are used to the legal systems of countries like the USA or UK. Since Brexit, almost all EU member countries follow the civil law system (the only member country following common law that I can think of is Ireland, not sure if there are others). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems Additionally, there is no official doctrine of precedent in EU Law per se https://academic.oup.com/book/32630/chapter-abstract/270526814?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/book/32630/chapter-abstract/2705268... TL;DR - the authority of the courts in Europe is not the same as in USA or in the Commonwealth countries.
  - arlort 3y ago
    The authority of the courts is the same, it's precedent which has less relevance in civil law systems
- Nemo_bis 3y ago
  Setting the agenda matters. This drama probably made more people and businesses aware of the DMA and may influence the focus of some participants. For example, there's an "Apple DMA compliance workshop" in two weeks, to which interested stakeholders can register: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/events-poolpage/apple-dma-compliance-workshop-2024-03-18_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/events-poolpage/app...
summerlight 3y ago
No, DMA wording made it very clear that it's about web browser engine. > The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services. And they cannot make self-preferencing on their products. > The gatekeeper shall not treat more favourably, in ranking and related indexing and crawling, services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself than similar services or products of a third party. The gatekeeper shall apply transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking. > The gatekeeper shall not restrict technically or otherwise the ability of end users to switch between, and subscribe to, different software applications and services that are accessed using the core platform services of the gatekeeper, including as regards the choice of Internet access services for end users. And Safari has been explicitly designated as a separate core platform service. There's no room for this kind of interpretation in the view of enforcement entity. Apple is just trying to buy time by pretending ignorance.
- layer8 3y ago
  It’s more subtle than that. If Apple uses WebKit within one of their built-in apps or OS components, let’s say in their Weather app or some Apple Pay dialog, there surely is no requirement that this has to be replaceable by Chromium or Gecko. Similarly, the PWA runtime environment may not necessarily count as a “web browser engine”, since they aren’t used to browse the web. It remains to be seen how this will be judged by the EU institutions.
  - summerlight 3y ago
    It's because those apps are not core platform service. Safari and iOS both are core platform services, which are explicitly designated as a target of this regulation. Go read the actual wording and have some understanding before making this kind of assumption.
    - 3y ago
cogman10 3y ago
Who else even does PWAs? Firefox removed them which leaves chrome, edge, and now maybe safari.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Firefox still supports them on Android, and macOS just introduced them (last year IIRC). In other words, every major OS has at least one implementation!
Andrex 3y ago
Devil's advocate: having a stable (maybe too stable) runtime for all iOS PWAs might actually be a benefit. Native apps, for instance, don't have to worry about rendering issues in various "viewers." This actually brings PWAs closer to the world of native apps, which I believe is what users would prefer. That said, I literally did a jump for joy when the DMA news broke. (Then of course, I did scream bloody murder reading the details on PWAs.)
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  There's no such thing as an iOS-only PWA. You need to test with other browser engines regardless because other kinds of devices still exist.
andix 3y ago
I think nobody in the EU can make such assurances. It's a law, and courts will decide if apple is following them. The European Commission announced a few days ago that they will look into the decision of apple to remove PWAs, so they more or less announced they are trying to fine them because of it. Which means that completely removing PWAs could be the more risky choice instead of keeping them Safari-only. Completely removing PWAs already started an investigation. Keeping them Safari-only might not start an investigation at all, so it might be the lower risk. After all I think Android also has a Chrome-only implementation for PWAs, exactly like Windows, that runs PWAs on Edge. Also back in the days when Microsoft had to give users a choice to use another browser than Internet Explorer it was also not possible to exchange Internet Explorer as the engine for many system services that used the system web view component. I think it's still the case with the current Windiws WebView2 based on Edge.
- xiaomai 3y ago
  > After all I think Android also has a Chrome-only implementation for PWAs, exactly like Windows, that runs PWAs on Edge. This is not true for Android. I am using PWA's with Brave (the PWA does get a tiny brave-icon badge overlaid on the corner of the app icon).

smoldesu 3y ago

I doubt there was back-channeling - Apple is seeing how liberally they can interpret this act. They tried doing the same thing when they threatened to use MFi on USB-C, up until an EU Comissioner threatened to boot them from the market. Plus, making per-company agreements would kinda render the entire "point" of the Digital Market Act moot. Apple knows exactly what the DMA wants from them, they're just deathly terrified of handing it over.

Zak 3y ago
I think terrified is the wrong take here. Apple could fully comply with the letter and spirit of the DMA and remain profitable in the EU, but they would be less profitable. They probably have a very good estimate of how much less profitable, and they're doing their best to minimize the impact.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  The fear of low-profitability is what drives that behavior, though. You're right that the DMA/DSA threatens Apple's bottom line, but as long as Apple continues to sell iPhone hardware in Europe then they should be turning a profit on hardware margins alone. Apple wants the control at any cost, and it's going to encourage more countries to draft even stronger legislation.
  - Zak 3y ago
    I'm surprised the EU appears to be letting them get away with charging a fee for apps installed outside the app store.
    - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
      They haven't hit the deadline yet, lobby your national and EU representatives if you want rid of this.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Most companies e.g. Unreal charge a fee for using their SDKs. The idea that you would be forced to give it away for nothing would be a pretty extraordinary and unworkable intervention in the market.
      - Zak 3y ago
        They can charge licensing fees for their SDKs, but the "core technology fee" is not structured that way. As currently structured, it would apply even to an app written from scratch in ARM assembly language (not that a reasonable person would build an iPhone app that way).
        threeseed 3y ago
        CLI apps are not supported on iOS. So at some point you have to interact with Apple SDKs.
        Zak 3y ago
        Making system/library calls to display something on the screen does not necessarily require the use of an SDK either; it might require quite a bit of reverse engineering work. As far as I understand copyright, that doesn't involve copying/distributing the library code and wouldn't be legally encumbered unless there's a patent covering it.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        The fee kills any real world possibility of an OSS App Store though. 1 million downloads for an app sounds like a lot for a paid app. But on the desktop, popular OSS software packages do those kind of numbers in well under a year. There's no reason to believe OSS mobile apps on iPhone would be any different.
  - roamerz 3y ago
    >The fear of low-profitability is what drives that behavior Are you sure about that? Seems like a pretty bold statement where you would have to have some kind of inside information. I don't have anything to substantiate this but I would like to believe that Apple still has the best interest of it's customers and security in mind when fighting these kinds of legislation. I switched from Android to Apple BECAUSE of those restrictions and the improved security the walled garden model provides. The other reason was the middle finger Apple gave to the cell providers about applying firmware updates to their phones. When I was using Android it was maddening to wait months for an update to be 'approved' and able to install. That led me to rooting and installing firmware that was outside of the manufactures control and who knows what might have been in that. So for me everything that Apple does to keep a walled garden is what actually keeps me as a customer and helps their bottom line.
    - Zak 3y ago
      It does not seem to me that anything about the DMA will make it difficult for people who prefer to stay inside Apple's walled garden to do so. Most Android users only install apps from the Play Store and use Chrome as their browser.
    - albert180 3y ago
      Yeah, who knows what's inside of OpenSource Firmware like LineageOS. It's a huge mystery Also I never needed to wait for a carrier to approve an Update for my Android Phone. Neither for my Pixel, Nexus or Samsung Galaxy ones. And beside the "strict" controls, malicious Apps got in the App Store, and the iPhones themselves also pwned. Are there other Apple Fanboy Horror Stories about Android that you've missed?
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > Are you sure about that? Certain as I can be, without having seen the cards. Apple is a company about margins; you see it in their hardware profitability, but also in Tim Cook's service initiative. They fought Dutch regulators over this for months preceding the regulation, and it's not a stretch to say the DMA and DSA is a direct legislative response to Apple's wanton behavior. Apple can move literal mountains, when it aligns with their incentive of increasing profit margins. Anything that falls outside that purview ends up sidelined or worse-yet, lobbied against. > So for me everything that Apple does to keep a walled garden is what actually keeps me as a customer and helps their bottom line. That's great, and Apple has every right to provide you a differentiated experience. I've been a historical Apple customer, and I still keep a Magic Trackpad around because it's mostly quite good. But you and I aren't entitled to a sustained monopoly because it benefits us. Happy IE users or Bell Telephone customers aren't an argument against antitrust action, and it's ultimately entirely tangential to how legal they are. Consider how Apple behaves in hardware, sponsoring dubious Chinese labor to make shareholders happy. They set industry-leading profit margins by sparing no expense in their exploitation of labor and parts manufacturing. Is it legal? They say so. But of course Apple would, and they have no incentive to ever stop the squeeze if shareholders cheer them on. They will behave just as insidiously with software, and if you do not treat their every action with that scrutiny then you'll pave the road to hell with good intentions. I want businesses to be good people. I want God to run a killer froyo stand. But men are fickle, and Apple has been a swindling bastard of a company ever since Jobs cheated Woz out of $4,500 over an Atari contract.
fh9302 3y ago
There is no evidence that Apple ever planned to introduce a MFi system with USB-C. What likely happened is that leakers misinterpreted the USB-C E-Marker as a MFi chip.
- duskwuff 3y ago
  Or that Apple was considering a "made for iPhone" certification program to allow manufacturers of USB-C devices to certify that they'll work with iOS devices -- which would be a perfectly reasonable thing for them to have! -- and misinterpreted that as meaning that Apple intended to implement a restrictive device authorization scheme like they had for Lightning devices. (Just because newer iOS devices have a USB-C port doesn't mean that all USB-C devices will work with them! Devices still require drivers; if iOS doesn't know how to handle a device, it won't work.)
threeseed 3y ago
> when they threatened to use MFi on USB-C, up until an EU Comissioner threatened to boot them from the market Except this never happened. And it doesn't even make any sense because MFi is when there is proprietary Apple technology involved which isn't the case for USB-C nor 3.5mm, Bluetooth etc.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  You need MFI to use Bluetooth unless it’s audio through the system UI or BTLE
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Bluetooth is not part of MFI for any of the standard profiles. https://mfi.apple.com/en/faqs https://mfi.apple.com/en/faqs

troupo 3y ago

> I wonder if there was some sort of back channeling with the EU No back channeling is required. It's literally written in the law that you can go ahead and ask if you're unsure: https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act Scroll to Law: Ask us if you find issues

agust 3y ago
Apple didn't have to ask though, they fully knew they were breaking the law here. They are only backing down because of the pressure from the web community and from the DMA team starting an investigation.
- masklinn 3y ago
  They knew they were breaking the law in their lack if browser choice. The PWA issue is a completely different one. Although what I assume is they floated removing PWAs to see if that would get users / communities on their side. It might have worked if PWA support was first class rather than half abandoned.
  - agust 3y ago
    The DMA plainly states that they have to give other browser vendors access to all features present on device, and that they cannot degrade the quality of their services. Removing PWA support goes against both these obligations.
bevekspldnw 3y ago
There’s always back channel that’s how these things always work. One team of lawyers hashing it out with another.
turquoisevar 3y ago
Nope, that’s not what iA says, and it would be a gross misrepresentation of the DMA to be honest. The section they’re referring to is clause 64 in the lead of the DMA[0] and it is not only limited to cases of interoperability, unlike what iA implies it doesn’t follow with a suggestion that gatekeepers can just ask if they’re unsure. Instead it states: > In all cases, the gatekeeper and the requesting provider should ensure that interoperability does not undermine a high level of security and data protection in line with their obligations laid down in this Regulation and applicable Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. The obligation related to interoperability should be without prejudice to the information and choices to be made available to end users of the number-independent interpersonal communication services of the gatekeeper and the requesting provider under this Regulation and other Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679. That’s why one of the main criticisms of the DMA is that gatekeepers generally can’t present proposals for approval and have to wait until after implementing to see if it is to the EC’s liking. That said, the EU has inquired about the PWA stuff[1] and it seems that the outcome of that has been that Home Screen install doesn’t need to be provided for other browsers. Allowing Apple to back down from their careful interpretation. 0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... 1: https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/26/apple-blocking-web-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/26/apple-blocking-web-apps/

M2Ys4U 3y ago

I hope that the UK CMA enforcement action will smack Apple over the head for this one.

dwaite 3y ago
...to what end? Removal of the feature from iOS in the UK?

turquoisevar 3y ago

This is the most likely theory. The notion that Apple was purposefully trying to kill PWAs never made sense in light of their significant investment in supporting PWAs over the last four years, down to recruiting industry rockstars such as Jen Simmons. Nobody who was screaming bloody murder ever tried to reconcile that incongruence, much less succeeded. What’s more likely is that Apple’s lawyers went with the most careful interpretation of the DMA, concluded that they’d have to facilitate Home Screen install for other browsers as well, figured it wasn’t worth the engineering effort, especially on short notice, and instead just deactivated it for Safari as well. Then, after all the bloody murder that was being screamed about, the EU started to inquire[0] both with Apple as well as developers about the consequences for PWAs. Apple was told that their interpretation was too strict (or that they will be given more time to implement it for other browsers, but less likely because such decisions are typically made public) and that they’re fine (for now) with PWAs running in WebKit. 0: https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/26/apple-blocking-web-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/26/apple-blocking-web-apps/

refulgentis 3y ago
The histrionical descriptions of other people's takes are like nails on chalkboard and kinda gross. (bloody murder?) No one thought removing them in the EU was the first step to removing them everywhere. Jen Simmons isn't a "rock star." Hiring someone with a lot of Twitter followers to do something doesn't preclude the company from stopping doing something. I think everyone over 30 in tech has seen that first hand. Couple right off the top of my head for Apple: Graeme Devine, Max Howell... In general, it is important for discussions to have nuance. I'm sure you've seen some un-nuanced discussions that I haven't. However, escalating rhetoric to condemn lack of nuance in others rhetoric should be reconsidered.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  > The histrionical descriptions of other people's takes are like nails on chalkboard and kinda gross. (bloody murder?) Claiming that Apple is trying to “kill” PWAs is in and of itself histrionic. Especially when behavioral evidence that clearly points to the opposite is completely ignored and the bad faith intents are attributed wholly based on “vibes”. My categorizing that as screaming bloody murder isn’t an escalation in rhetoric[0] in the slightest. > Jen Simmons isn't a "rock star." It’s a figure of speech within the industry, granted, it typically also implies big ego issues, so perhaps the term isn’t so suitable when it comes to Simmons. > Hiring someone with a lot of Twitter followers Trying to diminish someone’s accomplishments and relevance within an industry by pretending they “just have a lot of Twitter followers” does nothing to refute my arguments. She’s one of 82 web developers with a Wiki bio and one of 177 programmers, that alone signifies notability. Point is that that she’s a high profile programmer and web developer and those come at a premium. That, plus the significant efforts made in the last four years to not only support PWAs but also improve standards, runs counter to the notion that Apple has ill will towards PWAs. While she has spearheaded a lot of the investment in PWAs, for the purposes of this debate I only brought her up to emphasize Apple’s investments in making improvements. Even with Simmons out of the equation there’s still four years of significant engineering efforts to reconcile. > doesn't preclude the company from stopping doing something. You’re begging the question here. Without you substantiating the implication that Apple has stopped improving PWAs, you’re just throwing around empty words. Nevertheless, it’s clear Apple hasn’t stopped their efforts on PWAs, given that the next Safari update will, again, include a slew of improvements to the benefit of PWAs as can be seen in the Safari Technology Preview release notes[1]. I’m amenable to debate this further, provided you put in some effort into make a credible case with substantiated arguments and you can keep the tone policing to yourself. 0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scream%20bloody%20murder https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scream%20bloody%2... 1: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-technology-preview-release-notes/stp-release-189 https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-technology-...

nguyenkien 3y ago

On android PWA home shortcut create by one browser, will use that browser, regardless of default browser. I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same.

nickthegreek 3y ago
Apple provided theirs reasoning on this (security issues due to how iOS is currently written...) when they initially stated they would be removing them and said the work was'nt worth the tiny base of users who use it.
brookst 3y ago
Only technical reasons. When PWA’s were introduced in iOS 11, they were built with the assumption of WebKit as a privileged process. A re-arch is definitely doable, just a big expense for little return. And probably not feasible in just a year, can’t imagine it would be a top priority against all of the other work.
- dwaite 3y ago
  Myself, I'll use PWA to mean "promoted web app" - since it is closer in this context, and 99% of the market gets "progressive" wrong anyway. I believe that third party browser engines will have the same privileges as WebKit (in the EU, on iOS only). PWAs do not run directly on WebKit; they run on Web.app which is a WebKit-based application. Think something like Cordova, provided by the OS, but which does not require each PWA to be a separate wrapped app listed in the App Store. There is a recently-added interface to create one of these Web.app PWAs by third party browsers, as well as to create home screen bookmarks (which I believe open in the default browser not the running browser, but I am not a browser implementer). There is not however not a way for a browser vendor to ship their own Web.app-equivalent using their browser engine. Simulating some of the behaviors of a PWA on iOS outside of Web.app is also difficult. For instance - the multi-window functionality of iPadOS is not present, so a fullscreen web app would block usage of other tabs.

pier25 3y ago

Does this mean that users will only be able to add the pwa from Safari or that when adding it from any browser it will always run with WebKit?

wintermutestwin 3y ago
Great question. Orion is built on WebKit and works with firefox extensions (uBlock)
- lxgr 3y ago
  That works (I suspect) because they run them as JavaScript in a different browsing context and have implemented some of the WebExtension APIs themselves on the backend, e.g. HTTP request filtering (which is one of uBlock's primary functions). That's a nifty workaround but not ideal, since it's not possible to actually provide all WebExtension APIs that way.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lilyball 3y ago
Presumably that you can only add the PWA from Safari, because there does not exist any API to add a PWA from a third-party app.
- robertoandred 3y ago
  Yes there does, other browsers already use it.
robertoandred 3y ago
Other browsers can already add PWAs. Presumably they'd just continue using WebKit to matter what engine the browser in question uses.
pier25 3y ago
> This means that all Home Screen web apps will still be powered by WebKit, regardless of whether the web app is added using Safari or not – exactly as it works today and has for years.

Despegar 3y ago

They were basically negotiating in public. I think the EC probably realized that the DMA as currently written is flawed and producing outcomes they don't want, and this episode basically highlighted it to them. They probably told Apple there won't be any enforcement against only Safari having it, because the alternative is worse. A basic principle is that you are very unlikely to compel Apple to engineer anything unless they choose to, and you would most likely lose in the EU courts if you tried to. Any regulation that doesn't factor that in is going to be doomed to fail.

lxgr 3y ago
> A basic principle is that you are very unlikely to compel Apple to engineer anything unless they choose to, and you would most likely lose in the EU courts if you tried to. Any regulation that doesn't factor that in is going to be doomed to fail. That sounds a bit like "Apple is beyond the law/regulations, regulators better accept that and move on" – is that what you mean? It worked just fine for USB-C, fwiw.
- hananova 3y ago
  There's a big difference between those cases. In the USB-C case there was no room for argument. It was either include the new port, or stop selling the iPhone. In this case, they could just remove entire features and have the public do their lobbying for them.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    It shouldn't be too hard to make the case for that being malicious compliance, though. It seems to have worked in this particular case, for example: People called Apple's bluff.
    - Despegar 3y ago
      Malicious compliance and "spirit of the law" aren't real things when it comes to the legal system. You either comply with the law or you don't. And courts will ultimately decide if Apple's interpretation of the DMA complies or not.

rejhgadellaa 3y ago

The law requires Apple to open up iOS to 3rd-party browser engines and that Apple can't self-preference their own browser. This would mean that Apple has to open up anything that Safari can do (like run PWAs). I don't believe for a minute that the EU is OK with the WebKit restriction here, they simply haven't responded: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39565553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39565553

lxgr 3y ago
We just don't know that at this point. For all we know, the EU might be considering PWAs a thing completely orthogonal to DMA compliance, since they neither provide feature parity with native apps, nor are they widely used (at least according to Apple's measurements). > open up anything that Safari can do (like run PWAs). I think it would be just as valid a viewpoint to consider them an OS feature (as opposed to a browser feature). The question then is whether that OS feature would be considered protected under the DMA. For example, it's also impossible to provide your own kernel extensions (e.g. to facilitate hardware device drivers) for iOS – but that's completely fine (as far as I understand) under the DMA, since it's not one of the covered areas like app stores, NFC payments etc. I'm not very certain of the last point, FWIW – maybe the DMA does actually require Apple to provide, on demand, access to hardware interfaces available to their own product offerings! For example, wireless (Qi) outbound charging is supported by recent iPhones, but only works with Apple's own Magsafe power bank, and other power banks can only do inbound wireless charging and need to be charged via USB – maybe that's actually noncompliant too? That would likely kill, or at least strongly impact, Apple's MFI program in the EU – or maybe just expand it to cover all first-party hardware interfaces too?
- summerlight 3y ago
  > For all we know, the EU might be considering PWAs a thing completely orthogonal to DMA compliance, since they neither provide feature parity with native apps, nor are they widely used (at least according to Apple's measurements). DMA wording made it very clear that it's about browser engine, not the browser product. And Safari is designated as a core platform service. > The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.

layer8 3y ago

The final authority lies with the courts. If any of the third-party browser providers sue for being disadvantaged by PWAs being restricted to WebKit, no previous “back-channeling” with the Commission will have any bearing on the judgment. And the Commission knows this, so is unlikely to engage in that manner.

mastazi 3y ago
What you said is true but not to the extent that you might think if you are used to the legal systems of countries like the USA or UK. Since Brexit, almost all EU member countries follow the civil law system (the only member country following common law that I can think of is Ireland, not sure if there are others). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems Additionally, there is no official doctrine of precedent in EU Law per se https://academic.oup.com/book/32630/chapter-abstract/270526814?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/book/32630/chapter-abstract/2705268... TL;DR - the authority of the courts in Europe is not the same as in USA or in the Commonwealth countries.
- arlort 3y ago
  The authority of the courts is the same, it's precedent which has less relevance in civil law systems
Nemo_bis 3y ago
Setting the agenda matters. This drama probably made more people and businesses aware of the DMA and may influence the focus of some participants. For example, there's an "Apple DMA compliance workshop" in two weeks, to which interested stakeholders can register: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/events-poolpage/apple-dma-compliance-workshop-2024-03-18_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/events-poolpage/app...

summerlight 3y ago

No, DMA wording made it very clear that it's about web browser engine. > The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services. And they cannot make self-preferencing on their products. > The gatekeeper shall not treat more favourably, in ranking and related indexing and crawling, services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself than similar services or products of a third party. The gatekeeper shall apply transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking. > The gatekeeper shall not restrict technically or otherwise the ability of end users to switch between, and subscribe to, different software applications and services that are accessed using the core platform services of the gatekeeper, including as regards the choice of Internet access services for end users. And Safari has been explicitly designated as a separate core platform service. There's no room for this kind of interpretation in the view of enforcement entity. Apple is just trying to buy time by pretending ignorance.

layer8 3y ago
It’s more subtle than that. If Apple uses WebKit within one of their built-in apps or OS components, let’s say in their Weather app or some Apple Pay dialog, there surely is no requirement that this has to be replaceable by Chromium or Gecko. Similarly, the PWA runtime environment may not necessarily count as a “web browser engine”, since they aren’t used to browse the web. It remains to be seen how this will be judged by the EU institutions.
- summerlight 3y ago
  It's because those apps are not core platform service. Safari and iOS both are core platform services, which are explicitly designated as a target of this regulation. Go read the actual wording and have some understanding before making this kind of assumption.
  - 3y ago

cogman10 3y ago

Who else even does PWAs? Firefox removed them which leaves chrome, edge, and now maybe safari.

lxgr 3y ago
Firefox still supports them on Android, and macOS just introduced them (last year IIRC). In other words, every major OS has at least one implementation!

Andrex 3y ago

Devil's advocate: having a stable (maybe too stable) runtime for all iOS PWAs might actually be a benefit. Native apps, for instance, don't have to worry about rendering issues in various "viewers." This actually brings PWAs closer to the world of native apps, which I believe is what users would prefer. That said, I literally did a jump for joy when the DMA news broke. (Then of course, I did scream bloody murder reading the details on PWAs.)

bastawhiz 3y ago
There's no such thing as an iOS-only PWA. You need to test with other browser engines regardless because other kinds of devices still exist.

andix 3y ago

I think nobody in the EU can make such assurances. It's a law, and courts will decide if apple is following them. The European Commission announced a few days ago that they will look into the decision of apple to remove PWAs, so they more or less announced they are trying to fine them because of it. Which means that completely removing PWAs could be the more risky choice instead of keeping them Safari-only. Completely removing PWAs already started an investigation. Keeping them Safari-only might not start an investigation at all, so it might be the lower risk. After all I think Android also has a Chrome-only implementation for PWAs, exactly like Windows, that runs PWAs on Edge. Also back in the days when Microsoft had to give users a choice to use another browser than Internet Explorer it was also not possible to exchange Internet Explorer as the engine for many system services that used the system web view component. I think it's still the case with the current Windiws WebView2 based on Edge.

xiaomai 3y ago
> After all I think Android also has a Chrome-only implementation for PWAs, exactly like Windows, that runs PWAs on Edge. This is not true for Android. I am using PWA's with Brave (the PWA does get a tiny brave-icon badge overlaid on the corner of the app icon).