3 ms·
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
by 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.