3 ms·

> and there are probably not many engineers for building out such a feature A trillion-dollar company with 161 000 employees that had known about the regulatio

by troupo 3y ago

> and there are probably not many engineers for building out such a feature A trillion-dollar company with 161 000 employees that had known about the regulation for two years cannot enable something they already implemented.

charcircuit 3y ago
>A trillion-dollar company A company wants RoI for what they spend money on. Having a high market cap doesn't mean money is able to be spent indescriminantly. >with 161000 employees Which may already be assigned to be doing work for something more important to Apple. >had known about the regulation for two years There are trade offs a company can make. Knowing about a potential trade off for years does not mean a company will pursue that option. >cannot enable something they already implemented PWAs being able to be supported in a secure way across arbitrary browser engines was not already implemented. Making it so PWAs can only use Webkit is a legal trade off that has seemingly been reconsidered since the original announcement.
- troupo 3y ago
  > A company wants RoI for what they spend money on. Indeed. They bet on being able to flaunt it weasel out of DMA by any means possible. So far that RoI bet hasn't panned out. Meanwhile you're defending a company that made 93 billion dollars in net profit last year.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >Meanwhile you're defending a company that made 93 billion dollars in net profit last year. Yes
- jsnell 3y ago
  The ROI is the approximately $100 billion they make in the EU each year. If that doesn't matter to Apple, I guess they could leave the EU market? The security issues with PWAs were a fabricated excuse. Apple has already mandated security reviews on 3rd party browser engines. All of their claims about malicious browsers sharing PWA information across apps could be caught during those reviews. Either the reviews were never about ensuring security but just performatively putting up roadblocks where they could, or the claims about PWAs on other browsers being a security issue were a cynical lie.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >The ROI is the approximately $100 billion they make in the EU each year. The RoI is how much they make from the PWA feature existing on their device. And yes, the PWA feature did leave the market for a period of time. >All of their claims about malicious browsers sharing PWA information across apps could be caught during those reviews. So they get caught and apple has no solution for 3rd parties to fix it so no other engines get approved for PWAs. That is essentially what we have now.
    - jsnell 3y ago
      As has been demonstrated, removing PWAs wasn't actually an option. Apple tried it and backed down without a fight. The options are to comply with the DMA, not comply with the DMA and be fined increasing amounts of money until they start complying, or to leave the EU market. (And let's be clear, Apple will rather compromise their products and users to the CCP than leave China. They're not leaving the EU either.) When the sales can't happen at all without doing the compliance work, the compliance work really will have a massive ROI. > So they get caught and apple has no solution for 3rd parties to fix it so no other engines get approved for PWAs. Huh? No. The other browser engines would obviously implement PWAs safely, not unsafely, even if Apple doesn't provide them with a special API for ensuring safety. The idea that the other browser vendors are inherently malicious is absurd.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        >The options are to comply with the DMA Which unshipping PWAs was doing. Putting Safari on an equal playing field as other browsers is what they needed to do. >The idea that the other browser vendors are inherently malicious is absurd. The point of the security is to protect even against browsers unintentionally doing malicous things due to bugs. Since it's impossible to prove that software is mug free, security is important.

by troupo 3y ago

charcircuit 3y ago

>A trillion-dollar company A company wants RoI for what they spend money on. Having a high market cap doesn't mean money is able to be spent indescriminantly. >with 161000 employees Which may already be assigned to be doing work for something more important to Apple. >had known about the regulation for two years There are trade offs a company can make. Knowing about a potential trade off for years does not mean a company will pursue that option. >cannot enable something they already implemented PWAs being able to be supported in a secure way across arbitrary browser engines was not already implemented. Making it so PWAs can only use Webkit is a legal trade off that has seemingly been reconsidered since the original announcement.

troupo 3y ago
> A company wants RoI for what they spend money on. Indeed. They bet on being able to flaunt it weasel out of DMA by any means possible. So far that RoI bet hasn't panned out. Meanwhile you're defending a company that made 93 billion dollars in net profit last year.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >Meanwhile you're defending a company that made 93 billion dollars in net profit last year. Yes
jsnell 3y ago
The ROI is the approximately $100 billion they make in the EU each year. If that doesn't matter to Apple, I guess they could leave the EU market? The security issues with PWAs were a fabricated excuse. Apple has already mandated security reviews on 3rd party browser engines. All of their claims about malicious browsers sharing PWA information across apps could be caught during those reviews. Either the reviews were never about ensuring security but just performatively putting up roadblocks where they could, or the claims about PWAs on other browsers being a security issue were a cynical lie.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >The ROI is the approximately $100 billion they make in the EU each year. The RoI is how much they make from the PWA feature existing on their device. And yes, the PWA feature did leave the market for a period of time. >All of their claims about malicious browsers sharing PWA information across apps could be caught during those reviews. So they get caught and apple has no solution for 3rd parties to fix it so no other engines get approved for PWAs. That is essentially what we have now.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    As has been demonstrated, removing PWAs wasn't actually an option. Apple tried it and backed down without a fight. The options are to comply with the DMA, not comply with the DMA and be fined increasing amounts of money until they start complying, or to leave the EU market. (And let's be clear, Apple will rather compromise their products and users to the CCP than leave China. They're not leaving the EU either.) When the sales can't happen at all without doing the compliance work, the compliance work really will have a massive ROI. > So they get caught and apple has no solution for 3rd parties to fix it so no other engines get approved for PWAs. Huh? No. The other browser engines would obviously implement PWAs safely, not unsafely, even if Apple doesn't provide them with a special API for ensuring safety. The idea that the other browser vendors are inherently malicious is absurd.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      >The options are to comply with the DMA Which unshipping PWAs was doing. Putting Safari on an equal playing field as other browsers is what they needed to do. >The idea that the other browser vendors are inherently malicious is absurd. The point of the security is to protect even against browsers unintentionally doing malicous things due to bugs. Since it's impossible to prove that software is mug free, security is important.