4 ms·

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 installin

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.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      So why can't I benefit from a strong, secure virtualization on my phone, like I do with Qubes OS?
      - fsflover 3y ago
        Why downvotes?
    - bevekspldnw 3y ago
      Fine, but where’s the evidence alternate browser engines are such a massive security risk? I see none, but I see many billions of dollars Apple is making from applying a 30% tax on any app I buy. And to be clear, consumers pay that 30%, developers pass it on.
  - whywhywhywhy 3y ago
    Let’s stop pretending any of it makes sense. Why are Mac app devs not charged the “Technology Fee”.
    - latexr 3y ago
      Because they don’t have to sell on the Mac App Store, they can use their own website. That has nothing to do with other browser engines being available. And they still must pay the 100$ annually to sign and notarize.
    - Twisell 3y ago
      Because MacOs is around 10 to 15% market share it make sense to use every incentive available to attract developers to another platform than Windows. There is a hidden technology fee, but it make more sense not to charge for it. iOS is more like 50 to 55% market share so the goal is more to filter out bad actors and keep a high standard. Also let's milk that cash-cow. I'm not necessarily agreeing with this approach but I got to admit it makes sense.
- graftak 3y ago
  MacBook has 100wh battery, iPhone has 12wh. Chrome is notoriously inefficient, easy 2x more battery drain over Safari.
  - albert180 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Running an inefficient app is the user's choice, not Apple's.
    - Terretta 3y ago
      There's no legitimate choice without education. The consumer would switch their PWA default engine in one of the half dozen "you have to agree to continue" buttons when Edge and Chrome install themselves and demand every privacy and security toggle be turned off (as Microsoft Teams demands when you try to run it in Safari*), and then all PWAs would be insecure and monitored by the adtech engines. This weird idea to force Apple to have OS viewports use a foreign engine would not be 99.9% of users' real choice at all, just like the users who installed Avast anti-virus didn't choose to have all their browsing sold to adtech, or the users who chose "Private Browsing" in Chrome didn't choose to have Google recording that activity to the user's profile. * Note: Because Teams is actually "just" a skin on many different services and the Apple+CloudFlare private browsing confuse the coupling.
      - seszett 3y ago
        > The consumer would switch their PWA default engine in one of the half dozen "you have to agree to continue" buttons when Edge and Chrome install themselves and demand every privacy and security toggle be turned off (as Microsoft Teams demands when you try to run it in Safari), and then all PWAs would be insecure and monitored by the adtech engines.* I suggest Apple takes inspiration from Android then, since that doesn't happen on Android. Maybe Android's security model is better.
      - 3y ago
- Terretta 3y ago
  On MacOS, there are sandboxed apps, and not-sandboxed apps. iOS never had a not-sandboxed option.
  - seszett 3y ago
    Wouldn't that make it safer to allow any app or rendering engine on iOS than on macOS then? It seems like an argument against what Apple is claiming.
mort96 3y ago
It's 100% a reversal. Their previous statement was: "we will remove PWA support". Their new statement: "we won't remove PWA support, we will keep PWAs as they were in 17.3".
- freedomben 3y ago
  eh, you're both right. It's a 100% reversal of their decision to remove PWA support, but it's 100% consistent with their previous excuse/reason of it being too hard to support multiple browsers.

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.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    So why can't I benefit from a strong, secure virtualization on my phone, like I do with Qubes OS?
    - fsflover 3y ago
      Why downvotes?
  - bevekspldnw 3y ago
    Fine, but where’s the evidence alternate browser engines are such a massive security risk? I see none, but I see many billions of dollars Apple is making from applying a 30% tax on any app I buy. And to be clear, consumers pay that 30%, developers pass it on.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  Let’s stop pretending any of it makes sense. Why are Mac app devs not charged the “Technology Fee”.
  - latexr 3y ago
    Because they don’t have to sell on the Mac App Store, they can use their own website. That has nothing to do with other browser engines being available. And they still must pay the 100$ annually to sign and notarize.
  - Twisell 3y ago
    Because MacOs is around 10 to 15% market share it make sense to use every incentive available to attract developers to another platform than Windows. There is a hidden technology fee, but it make more sense not to charge for it. iOS is more like 50 to 55% market share so the goal is more to filter out bad actors and keep a high standard. Also let's milk that cash-cow. I'm not necessarily agreeing with this approach but I got to admit it makes sense.
graftak 3y ago
MacBook has 100wh battery, iPhone has 12wh. Chrome is notoriously inefficient, easy 2x more battery drain over Safari.
- albert180 3y ago
  [flagged]
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Running an inefficient app is the user's choice, not Apple's.
  - Terretta 3y ago
    There's no legitimate choice without education. The consumer would switch their PWA default engine in one of the half dozen "you have to agree to continue" buttons when Edge and Chrome install themselves and demand every privacy and security toggle be turned off (as Microsoft Teams demands when you try to run it in Safari*), and then all PWAs would be insecure and monitored by the adtech engines. This weird idea to force Apple to have OS viewports use a foreign engine would not be 99.9% of users' real choice at all, just like the users who installed Avast anti-virus didn't choose to have all their browsing sold to adtech, or the users who chose "Private Browsing" in Chrome didn't choose to have Google recording that activity to the user's profile. * Note: Because Teams is actually "just" a skin on many different services and the Apple+CloudFlare private browsing confuse the coupling.
    - seszett 3y ago
      > The consumer would switch their PWA default engine in one of the half dozen "you have to agree to continue" buttons when Edge and Chrome install themselves and demand every privacy and security toggle be turned off (as Microsoft Teams demands when you try to run it in Safari), and then all PWAs would be insecure and monitored by the adtech engines.* I suggest Apple takes inspiration from Android then, since that doesn't happen on Android. Maybe Android's security model is better.
    - 3y ago
Terretta 3y ago
On MacOS, there are sandboxed apps, and not-sandboxed apps. iOS never had a not-sandboxed option.
- seszett 3y ago
  Wouldn't that make it safer to allow any app or rendering engine on iOS than on macOS then? It seems like an argument against what Apple is claiming.

mort96 3y ago

It's 100% a reversal. Their previous statement was: "we will remove PWA support". Their new statement: "we won't remove PWA support, we will keep PWAs as they were in 17.3".

freedomben 3y ago
eh, you're both right. It's a 100% reversal of their decision to remove PWA support, but it's 100% consistent with their previous excuse/reason of it being too hard to support multiple browsers.