Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Decision to Disable Web Apps Attracts Scrutiny in EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple missed every tech innovation within the last 10 years - completely.
Yeah one learned from MS mistake of integrating a web engine super deep into an OS core and the other made the mistake of not sandboxing it.
Foldable phones are still hot garbage and other companies don’t have to produce on the scale that Apple does with the iPhone. The amount of new tech/hardware Google and Samsung etc need to supply to support a year of sales on their flagships would only last Apple a fraction of that time. Apple also requires quality not let’s throw a feature at the phone and see if it works and doesn’t break everything.
Apple is innovating by bringing features that actually work and work well because they aren’t treating iPhone users like beta testers for every random thought enters their minds.
PWAs are over sold. They aren’t native apps. It’s just a shortcut to a webpage on the home screen. The web is plenty.
Last edited:
This would hurt the EU much more than it would Apple. 10’s of thousands of jobs would be lost and consumers would be outraged. Parallel imports of Apple products would resume, all while Apple wouldn’t have any operating costs.
The mere threat of retreat out of the EU would make them pull that DMA nonsense. Not that I want to beat that dead horse again but making such a threat credible would require someone with strong principles and Steve Jobs would have sacrificed money over his idea of iPhone. Tim Cook is not that guy.
When they have no clue what they are doing, yes, yes it is weird and stupid.
What if they made a rule that said all smartphones must have a battery that can last a week? Would you still argue the EU is doing the right thing? Even though that would mean phones would either have to:
1. Drop most features and capabilities to draw less power
2. Quintuple (or more) the size of their batteries and thus the size of their phones?
No, you’d probably (and rightly) think the EU was nuts.
Well that’s exactly what they are doing now on the software side. They are demanding changes without understanding the consequences and then getting upset about the consequences.
Now imagine they demand a phone that keeps the same features and same size but has week long battery life. That’s impossible. And the EU is moving even more in that direction. So. They’ll be setting rules that are impossible to meet (like demanding all chat platforms interop WHILE maintaining E2E encryption. Or creating backdoors ONLY the “good guys” can use).
The EU is clearly out of their depths here. They don’t know what they are talking about in a fundemental level and are making rules that help no one except maybe the Spotifys and Epic Games (and not the customers of those companies either).
It’s asinine and stupid and the people supporting the EU are demonstrating a similar lack of knowledgeable about technology and software development in how they keep cheering on decisions that will make their lives and devices worse.
Losing PWAs sucks (for me especially) but honestly, this is the tidbit that trips the EU? Not the absolute poster child of malicious compliance that is the changes they introduce with e.g. alternative App Stores?
EU really needs to get their priorities in check…
It‘ll probably be months of Apple coasting along with their changes, where developers a) fall for the bait and comply with the changes and b) Apple soaks in money via CTF etc. while not properly complying with the DMA. The whole thing screams Apple going „one last score before they bust us“ to me.
That might be their idea, but it’s not. Customers have different minds. I don’t like the DMA, it’s against me as a customer, specially when “implemented correctly”.
Think again?
How can it be that a company (Apple) dictates rules under which certain products may be sold (in their Appstore)?
Well, you may find out that there is no difference. Apple says „play by my rules or get out“ and so does the EU.
Of course it can be done with any app. But if you publish an app with a system that easily breaks the security, Apple would flat out block them from being released. Even with notarisation.
But a progressive web app is never going to be notarised by Apple. So if you could make a browser that is less secure than Safari, which would be allowed to run a PWA this could easily be done. In this case the damaging code isn't in the browser, so it will pass notarisation.
Apple not allowing sideloading has nothing to do with freedom. It’s a company offering a product that customers might buy or not. It’s absolutely voluntary. They’re not forcing anyone to do the same.
The EU forcing sideloading is absolutely about denying freedom. Everyone has to design their phones just like the EU wants.
How do you mean? They aren't adding side-loading in the March release, nor did the DMA mandate side-loading.
The DMA mandated the ability for competitive alternative marketplaces. Side-loading was called out explicitly as an option, partially because it leads to a lot of opportunities for the 'gatekeeper' to provide a second-tier experience (e.g. complex processes and security warnings to users during the set up and purchasing from an alternative marketplace).
For _any_ measures? Including far-reaching and poorly conceived ones? Measures that will have negative user impact, while not actually serving to make the experience better for consumer or corporate interests, and in fact having ramifications that will disrupt their ability to leverage existing technologies they were already using to try to exist outside those moats?
Asking on behalf of lots of EU developers
Most of the progressive features are chrome only, with several other browsers (with Safari and Firefox being the primary torchbearers) saying that the features are horribly insecure or have far-reaching privacy impacts. Things like Web MIDI, which allows for an 'access' prompt to update the firmware on local hardware. Or Bluetooth access which allows for tracking the user's location. Or USB access which allows for introspecting local hardware.
Apple's push for modern security includes having a model that users themselves can understand. That is why they try to push for the unit of measure to be an "app", which is by an identifiable company, which has a certain measure of accountability (such as Apple being able to revoke their ability to publish software), which the user shares information with (described in a privacy label), which has to ask for additional permission to get personal information or information that could be used to track behavior (such as location information).
The web has none of this, failing way up on sites not being necessarily divisible into apps, and not necessarily being by an identifiable company with a reputation or accountability. Specifically with notifications on the web, there was already rampant abuse of the feature - to the point where many browsers have been talking about how they might modify the feature, make it less attractive, prevent dark patterns, or possibly remove it completely. Apple has been pushing for users opting in a web page to have an app-like experience, which would enable additional features. Beyond the current featureset, this might eventually mean that the location permission gains persistence, a PWA becomes a share target with other apps on the system, and that permissions which were previously rejected could be configured through privacy settings.
But now with the alternative browser rules that the EU has put forth, Apple can't really do this. If the Safari team's goal was to offer the web as a second platform on the iPhone *through Safari*, the EU has now said that any app claiming to be a browser also needs to have the same abilities - e.g. to have the same deep system-manipulating features in order to create a full platform on the iPhone.
So until someone comes up with a really clever way to prevent abuse, Apple is attempting to satisfy the regulations around level playing fields by downgrading Safari in the EU. It is also likely that this will have a chilling effect on further progress for PWA features like we saw in 16.2 even in other markets. It really stinks.
Last edited:
Sure, but thats neither here nor there. The DMA didn't attempt to create a level playing field for cellular phone operating systems or for mobile phone manufacturers.
It attempts to create alternative marketplaces, because of complaints the official store policies by the gatekeepers prevented certain classes of applications from being published, and because the bundling of services both into the stores and into the core platform prevented competition in certain app categories.
This does nothing to break up that phone OS duopoly though. An alternative iOS marketplace is still selling iOS apps that only work on Apple's hardware.
No, in such case the damaging broken code would still be in the browser's source code, because the browser is executing the PWA.
Also PWA is just embedded browser running in full screen with few additional features on top of it. Should there be such security hole in the browser itself, it would be relevant in "normal browser mode" too. Not just when using PWA.
That's debatable. I don't prefer nor use foldable phones. But people around me use them and they work pretty well. Gone are times where foldable phones were hot garbage where screens messed up after few months.
You just repeated what I said in my initial post. Apple is iteratively improving existing features and existing technologies. I'm not saying that's wrong. Polished feature is good feature.
But it still means Apple is not innovating as much. Innovation means coming with the brand new technology. Bringing something completely new to the table. That's technological innovation. And Apple is lacking in this regards in the last decade or so. As said before except for the Apple Silicon and maybe Vision Pro, there's no innovation in terms of technologies. Using 10 year old polished tech is not called innovation in my book.
All right. Then let's agree to disagree. Just don't speak for all customers. Definitely not all customers have different opinion on this and many if not most prefers freedom of choice.
It's your opinion and that's all right.
But it's just an opinion and that's it. It's totally normal to have different opinion on things. We're different and many if not all things can be of subjective matter. This is one of them. You disagree with EU's choice there, I agree with it.
You're very wrong here. EU is understanding the consequences - just as Apple do. That's why Apple is complying maliciously.
Please, stop saying "if". If Apple was open source or non-profit... Uh. let's not deal with the what-ifs. Let's not deal with what "they'll be setting" based on you. You really don't know what EU will be setting or not. So don't fabulate like this, please.
No, again, you're wrong. And no, it helps to open up iOS more. Which is great. Bringing legit Firefox, Brave and other browsers to the iOS is great for customers. Don't like it? That's fine. Continue using Safari. Browser choice has nothing to do with Spotify or Epic.
It's stupid to assume that. I'm working in the software development segment so I'm pretty knowledgeable in the EU's DMA decision and I really support it. I may easily say - it's asine and stupid not wanting more freedom of choice, people not supporting this are demonstrating huge lack of knowledge about technology and software development.
Apple can't see the source code of the application. Not even with the stricter review process. Also PWA's have more capabilities then just the browser. (local storage, background workers and notifications) Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for PWA's.
Apple only receives binaries, so they could check for known security issues. But by then it would be too late.
That's correct. But all these are just using Apple's API. So it's not like they can access the storage directly or run any process in the background with any privileges.
There's Apple's framework as the layer in between. And purpose of this layer is mainly security. So what you're implying is this layer is very insecured compared to other standard APIs available? It's not like standard app can't access storage.
Anyway, all this discussion is futile, because there's basically no more PWA with 3rd party browsers. It's just desktop bookmark now.
So, really? The EU controls their marketplace, same is true for Apple.
Apple must and wants to be present in this market. That's why the devices must be certified, comply with all regulations, be compatible with our networks and so on. Apart from these technical aspects, we live in a free market economy and do not want monopolists in our market. Microsoft and Google have felt this and have given in. Apple has no carte blanche here.
Since Apple is a big player also in the EU, our companies need to be present in the AppStore of Apple. So BMW needs to release an App that is present in Apple AppStore. But also Spotify needs fair competition with Apple Music.
Our markets are trying to regulate this and create equal rights for all. If Apple does not want to abide by the rules, it will be fined until it does so or leaves the EU market.