3 ms·
> Company gets money from variable App Store revenue which is directly threatened by PWAs. I don't see how a PWA-enabled Safari fits into this narrative. Time
by lloeki 3y ago
> Company gets money from variable App Store revenue which is directly threatened by PWAs.
I don't see how a PWA-enabled Safari fits into this narrative.
Timeline:
0) Apple hires key people and invests 4 years in PWA support for Safari on iOS.
1) Apple releases support for PWAs in Safari for iOS worldwide.
2) The DMA compliance thing happens.
3) Apple allows alternative browser engines + disables PWAs in the EU.
4) Apple rolls back PWA disablement in the EU.
I mean, 0 and 1 are not some skunkwork. It hasn't been sneaked into the release. PWA support predates this DMA drama. It was disabled only in the EU.
PWAs challenging App Store revenue is completely orthogonal to them being Safari-exclusive or not. PWA support for iOS has been invested on, released, enabled, and has even more features coming up and prereleased in the tech preview. Nobody forced Apple to do that. That alone is solid material fact, blowing away hypothetical claims of evil intent.
- mthoms 3y ago>Nobody forced Apple to do that. That alone is solid material fact, blowing away hypothetical claims of evil intent. Apple has been actively using the existence of PWA's as an argument in court that it's App Store does not have a monopoly on iOS app distribution. So, yes... It's likely Apple want's PWA's to exist on iOS. It's also very likely (given their financial incentives) that they don't want them to be a very good experience.