agust

7 ms·

31.
by agust 3y ago
Yes, the EU immediately stepped in and explained them what the consequences of breaking the law would be, and Apple budged, caved, backed down. Not getting out of this one.
32.
by agust 3y ago
Sure, Apple takes a strong decision which breaks a just-enforced law, and two days later they back down because they had a nice talk with Epic. /s The EU told Apple that breaking the law would have dire consequences. That's the on
33.
by agust 3y ago
The EU reacted immediately and asked Apple for clarification. That means, they reminded Apple that the law is the law, which they seemed to have forgotten. You're the one dreaming if you think Apple got their shot together by themselve
34.
by agust 3y ago
I'm not sure Apple needs anyone but itself to look bad.
35.
by agust 3y ago
Apple is not allowing "sideloading" understood as downloading directly from the web, they require all apps to go through a store (either theirs or an alternative one). So this app would have to pass some review process, presumably
36.
by agust 3y ago
Given the requirements Apple has set, be it for alternative browser engines, app stores and payment service providers, and the reaction from stakeholders, this release seems very unlikely to lead to any meaningful change on iOS for now. Wha
37.
iOS 17.4 is here and ready for a whole new Europe(theverge.com)
18 points by agust 3y ago|5 comments
38.
by agust 3y ago
Lol, good one. And they just forgot to remove them for native apps, right?
39.
by agust 3y ago
Given the number of comments trying to find the craziest justifications for a giant corporation just attempting to break a law, silently kill thousands of apps used by millions of users, destroy businesses and kill the only open and free ap
40.
by agust 3y ago
I'd say this is not a cynical view at all, rather a quite realistic one. They only added support for push notifications to iOS in 2023 (7 years after Firefox and 8 years after Chrome on Android), right after the UK regulator started it
41.
by agust 3y ago
Apple banning browser engines is what has prevented the web from becoming relevant on mobile, and the reason why browsers like Firefox cannot distinguish themselves from Safari and end up becoming irrelevant. So no, it is not in anyway good
42.
by agust 3y ago
Blink was forked 12 years ago, and the size of the team behind Chrome is probably at least ten times the size of the team behind Safari. So yes, there are major differences between two, and it's not just additional advanced APIs like
43.
by agust 3y ago
Web apps were the first apps that Apple supported on the iPhone, as of 2007. Back then they did not have native apps, that's why they bothered supporting them. They then realized that they could make much more money with locked-down pr
44.
by agust 3y ago
For sure Apple doesn't want anyone to know how it has crippled the web for over a decade, prevented browser competition, and just tried to kill web apps once and for good, that's why they tried to sneak this change without even ma
45.
by agust 3y ago
Apple not wanting PWA to work properly on iPhones has nothing to do with performance, security, privacy, battery life or whatever excuse they may officially come up with. The only reason Apple does not want PWA is because it threatens their
46.
by 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.
47.
by 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.
48.
Apple backs off killing web apps, but the fight continues(open-web-advocacy.org)
81 points by agust 3y ago|3 comments
49.
by agust 3y ago
Did this just get marked as dupe to pull it off the front page? How outrageous. The link has not been posted before.
50.
by agust 3y ago
Electron-based apps are not PWAs. PWAs do not need to be wrapped in a browser engine of their own, they use the installed browser engine. They are not inherently bloated or resource-intensive in any way. There are not many good example of g
51.
by agust 3y ago
Just like they had when asked to support alternative browser engines, but the DMA formally mandates it, sot they did comply and allowed them. All other OSes support web app installation from any browser, including macOS. This is a lot more
52.
by agust 3y ago
They could develop APIs to support alternate browser engines but could not allow them to install sandboxed web apps on the system? Like all other OSes do, including macOS? How surprising.
53.
Apple appears to be breaking iPhone web apps in the EU(theverge.com)
79 points by agust 3y ago|39 comments
54.
Apple kills many browser games in the EU: unprecedented affront to regulation(gamesfray.com)
36 points by agust 3y ago|52 comments
55.
by agust 3y ago
These APIs are implemented in Chromium, included in a lot of browsers (Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, etc.), and used by thousands of web apps. They are absolutely part of the web platform.
56.
by agust 3y ago
Because Apple has a say in what features are added there, and they'll do whatever they can to keep slowing down the progress of Web Apps.
57.
by agust 4y ago
Oh yes with this one (yours) you can! I was referring to the official ChatGPT web app.
58.
by agust 4y ago
It has the one most important feature ChatGPT is missing: add to homescreen/install. Not sure why they haven't added it yet. Thank you for making this!
59.
by agust 4y ago
Apple's monopoly combined with its underinvestment in WebKit is definitely the main reason why web apps are subpar compared to native at the moment.
60.
by agust 4y ago
Allowing competing browser engines is actually included in EU's DMA, so it should be happening at the same time as sideloading and competing app stores.

More ›