> Throughout this process, they’ve chosen to maliciously comply as much as possible, resulting in a series of decisions meant to cripple the ability for anyone to compete on their platform outside of their App Store.
I've seen this issue pop up a number of times recently, but haven't quite 'gotten it'.
Is this just a complaint from people who pay Apple to maintain a walled garden, now complaining that they don't like the walls in said garden?
Does Apple have any power to ruin anything outside their walled garden (in the context of this malicious compliance?)
> Our main aim is to ensure open competition so that the Web and Web Apps can compete against the closed proprietary ecosystems.
I'm in the EU and I don't feel like the Web and Web Apps (which I use) are threatened.
Apple is not crippling the open web - it can't. It is crippling its own proprietary ecosystem, thus making the open web relatively more attractive and their proprietary ecosystem less attractive.
If Apple laughably produced a desktop computer with a one-button mouse, (and I wrote desktop software that required two buttons for decent user experience):
1) would it be in my rights to compel them to add a second button?
2) if I pursued such action, would I be right in calling Apple's refusal to add a second button 'an attack on the open desktop software ecosystem'?
If I buy into Apple’s system, I have no right to use the force of government to impose changes. I agreed to Apple’s terms at the onset. All of these impositions against Apple are unjustifiable; they’ve been known entities since Apple started selling iPhones.
So you’re telling me, as a developer who have to target both plattforms can instead say ”no, I am only going to target android because it’s the end-users fault for picking ios” and excuse Apples behavior?
> "...malicious web apps [on the home screen] could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent. Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent. Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake given the other demands of the DMA and the very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps. And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU."
Being "open" potentially has consequences that Apple has taken a decision on. It's reasonable, especially when most of their customers are not developers, and not technically savvy.
PWAs as native apps have no answer for this security issue.
Some of the stories that people have shared in the official bug report[1] are extremely disheartening.
Entire businesses ruined, healthcare applications that no longer work, everyone scrambling for answers and hoping that this is somehow a misunderstanding because Apple provided zero communication or transparency around this to developers.
The level of pettiness from them on this is truly disgusting. I hope the EU hits them with the mother of all fines in response to this.
I also don’t know how someone like Jen Simmons could possibly continue in her role as a Web Evangelist at Apple with any sense of credibility after this incident.
A lot of the complaints are that websites are opening in a tab of their browser instead of as an app. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that does not sound like a business ending catastrophe.
Are PWAs alive enough to have something to “kill” in the first place?
One still has the feeling that the driving force behind “let’s make the web work like native apps” comes from FAANGs who generate revenue by having people engage even more with web content.
Why on earth would we replace one set of walled gardens with another? PWAs are not an improvement, just a different take on the same system (only one would be enslaved to their browser maker and OS maker and not just OS maker like native apps).
> No need to develop a separate android and iOS app - just use open web standards
PWAs is just a name for cached documents the browser shows a bit differently. Notifications and badges do not make "an app".
> Literally not a walled garden
Literally demonstrated by Google recently (doing whatever they want in Chrome/imums) and Apple as per the topic of this post - PWAs are entirely dependent on the grace of the MFAANG developing your browser of choice. So yes, walled not only on device/OS level but also in user land.
But a better response is to show Apple the finger by boycotting its products. For instance, I've replaced iOS for Sailfish OS and Ubuntu Touch, which respect my privacy and are much more open.
16 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 59.1 ms ] threadI've seen this issue pop up a number of times recently, but haven't quite 'gotten it'.
Is this just a complaint from people who pay Apple to maintain a walled garden, now complaining that they don't like the walls in said garden?
Does Apple have any power to ruin anything outside their walled garden (in the context of this malicious compliance?)
And if you really want to know what it's all about, this covers... all of it? https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/
I'm in the EU and I don't feel like the Web and Web Apps (which I use) are threatened.
Apple is not crippling the open web - it can't. It is crippling its own proprietary ecosystem, thus making the open web relatively more attractive and their proprietary ecosystem less attractive.
If Apple laughably produced a desktop computer with a one-button mouse, (and I wrote desktop software that required two buttons for decent user experience):
1) would it be in my rights to compel them to add a second button?
2) if I pursued such action, would I be right in calling Apple's refusal to add a second button 'an attack on the open desktop software ecosystem'?
If I buy into Apple’s system, I have no right to use the force of government to impose changes. I agreed to Apple’s terms at the onset. All of these impositions against Apple are unjustifiable; they’ve been known entities since Apple started selling iPhones.
That doesn’t sit right with me.
If Apple blocks something, you don't need to make the moral decision as a developer, because they made it not your choice.
> I am only going to target android
Target the open web instead, since Google could do whatever it is that Apple's being accused of.
This is exactly what this is about, raising concerns and try to do something about it instead of sitting back and say "Oh well, that was it."
> "...malicious web apps [on the home screen] could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent. Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent. Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake given the other demands of the DMA and the very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps. And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU."
Being "open" potentially has consequences that Apple has taken a decision on. It's reasonable, especially when most of their customers are not developers, and not technically savvy.
PWAs as native apps have no answer for this security issue.
Entire businesses ruined, healthcare applications that no longer work, everyone scrambling for answers and hoping that this is somehow a misunderstanding because Apple provided zero communication or transparency around this to developers.
The level of pettiness from them on this is truly disgusting. I hope the EU hits them with the mother of all fines in response to this.
I also don’t know how someone like Jen Simmons could possibly continue in her role as a Web Evangelist at Apple with any sense of credibility after this incident.
[1] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=268643
One still has the feeling that the driving force behind “let’s make the web work like native apps” comes from FAANGs who generate revenue by having people engage even more with web content.
Why on earth would we replace one set of walled gardens with another? PWAs are not an improvement, just a different take on the same system (only one would be enslaved to their browser maker and OS maker and not just OS maker like native apps).
Just some advantages of PWAs
* No need to develop a separate android and iOS app - just use open web standards
* Native apps features such push notifications, badges etc
* Literally not a walled garden
PWAs are an actually open platform very far removed from what you are describing.
PWAs is just a name for cached documents the browser shows a bit differently. Notifications and badges do not make "an app".
> Literally not a walled garden
Literally demonstrated by Google recently (doing whatever they want in Chrome/imums) and Apple as per the topic of this post - PWAs are entirely dependent on the grace of the MFAANG developing your browser of choice. So yes, walled not only on device/OS level but also in user land.
But a better response is to show Apple the finger by boycotting its products. For instance, I've replaced iOS for Sailfish OS and Ubuntu Touch, which respect my privacy and are much more open.