Home Screen Advantage(infrequently.org)
infrequently.org
Home Screen Advantage
https://infrequently.org/2024/02/home-screen-advantage/
224 comments
Some of these changes by Apple are clearly user hostile. There's a consumer protection debate to be had about removing software features after selling a hardware + software package like this.
I think at least some of the "apologism" and "distraction" comes from more honest ideological differences though - like what should the role of the state be, what is a free market, should business be fair, how much consumer protection is the right amount...
I think at least some of the "apologism" and "distraction" comes from more honest ideological differences though - like what should the role of the state be, what is a free market, should business be fair, how much consumer protection is the right amount...
HN as a general crowd is pretty poorly informed. It does attract the odd subject matter expert on some topics but I feel like half the comments I read on any subject are really off the mark, which I am sure mine are too
Most of the people on this site have either worked for Apple before or hold Apple stock. Regulation is directly reaching into their pockets.
Also obvious by how this post is already on 14th place after 2 hours, with more than 200 votes. (Edit: now 31, 3 hours in)
Also obvious by how this post is already on 14th place after 2 hours, with more than 200 votes. (Edit: now 31, 3 hours in)
Apple has fostered an incredibly fanatic userbase.
Most of them unironically call themselves "apple users".
They don't use a device, they've made the device part of their identity, and even implying that it's not the best thing ever created consequently becomes a personal insult.
Google and Microsoft tried to replicate that kind of brand love but were thankfully unsuccessful for the most part, so you'll always get an incredible amount of comments on anything related to Apple.
Most of them unironically call themselves "apple users".
They don't use a device, they've made the device part of their identity, and even implying that it's not the best thing ever created consequently becomes a personal insult.
Google and Microsoft tried to replicate that kind of brand love but were thankfully unsuccessful for the most part, so you'll always get an incredible amount of comments on anything related to Apple.
> Most of the people on this site have either worked for Apple before or hold Apple stock
Is this supposed to be a joke? _Most_, so over 50% of the people on HN work/worked for Apple or hold Apple stock? That’s absurd.
Is this supposed to be a joke? _Most_, so over 50% of the people on HN work/worked for Apple or hold Apple stock? That’s absurd.
The issue is things that would make sense in a workplace setting (which should be on work devices, but that ship has sailed), have real social and privacy issues (see MDMs being used as stalkerware). I worked on an app which really did need as much sensor data as possible (field notebooks for academics), but you really wouldn't want to give that level of access without oversight. The more information you can collect without needing some kind of review (which I totally agree is rarely sufficient), the more this is an issue. Ideally there are different levels (e.g. business, personal, and locked down), and you need to do the setup in person so as to reduce harm.
I have yet to try an “installed” PWA on any device that actually worked correctly when I needed it most, so I will take a shitty electron or web view wrapper app over a PWA any day.
I think removing persistent storage and the ability to add websites to the home screen makes it obvious what their strategy is. The EU shows that they want interoperability for big players like they do with messenger interoperability in the DMA. The web is such a fundamental standard and its interoperability is so important I guess the EU will fine Apple for such behavior. The question is how soon this will happen.
I seriously hope the EU will intervene on this -- it's outrageous and malicious compliance.
> Removing persistent storage
They aren’t making any policy changes relating to storage.
Apple have been progressively locking down methods websites use to persistently track people for privacy reasons. All forms of permanent storage (e.g. cookies, local storage) are limited to a seven day lifetime unless the user interacts with that website / web app. If the user keeps visiting the website / web app at least once a week, the storage remains.
Another thing Apple have been doing is using the act of installing a PWA as a signal that it should be trusted more than anything you happen to come across in a browser. So the seven day lifecycle doesn’t apply to PWAs that you install to the home screen.
What is happening now is that because PWAs installed to the home screen are no longer available in the EU, people use those PWAs through a web browser. And due to this, the seven days lifetime without user interaction starts to apply.
It’s a problem, but this specific thing isn’t a recent policy change from Apple regarding storage, it’s fallout from PWAs not having the elevated privileges from being installed to the home screen.
They aren’t making any policy changes relating to storage.
Apple have been progressively locking down methods websites use to persistently track people for privacy reasons. All forms of permanent storage (e.g. cookies, local storage) are limited to a seven day lifetime unless the user interacts with that website / web app. If the user keeps visiting the website / web app at least once a week, the storage remains.
Another thing Apple have been doing is using the act of installing a PWA as a signal that it should be trusted more than anything you happen to come across in a browser. So the seven day lifecycle doesn’t apply to PWAs that you install to the home screen.
What is happening now is that because PWAs installed to the home screen are no longer available in the EU, people use those PWAs through a web browser. And due to this, the seven days lifetime without user interaction starts to apply.
It’s a problem, but this specific thing isn’t a recent policy change from Apple regarding storage, it’s fallout from PWAs not having the elevated privileges from being installed to the home screen.
"I didn't delete your files, I moved them from the bucket where they aren't deleted to the bucket where they are deleted, and then according to my own policies, I deleted them. This change is mandatory."
It's a policy change that impacts storage and has the practical effect that PWAs on iOS in the EU have had the persistent storage feature removed with no replacement.
Seems fair to gloss that as "Removing persistent storage."
It's a policy change that impacts storage and has the practical effect that PWAs on iOS in the EU have had the persistent storage feature removed with no replacement.
Seems fair to gloss that as "Removing persistent storage."
> It's a policy change that impacts storage
I agree. It has a knock-on effect. But their storage policy hasn’t changed, a different policy has.
> Seems fair to gloss that as "Removing persistent storage."
The problem is when you try to determine their intent from the misunderstanding that they have changed their policy specifically regarding storage. They haven’t done this. Their storage policy is the same as it has been for years.
I agree. It has a knock-on effect. But their storage policy hasn’t changed, a different policy has.
> Seems fair to gloss that as "Removing persistent storage."
The problem is when you try to determine their intent from the misunderstanding that they have changed their policy specifically regarding storage. They haven’t done this. Their storage policy is the same as it has been for years.
They could just make cookies a user choice, but it's Apple we are talking about here, it's all about hard coding and hand holding.
Agreed. I'm actually receptive to the idea that persistent storage is a privacy issue, but the solution is to ask the user, not delete their data after a week of inactivity. This policy actually creates a perverse incentive for PWAs to store user data on the server where privacy is even more of an issue rather than store it locally in IndexedDB/localStorage, since the local data is ephemeral. It would be akin to native mobile apps having their data removed after a week of inactivity, and them responding by storing all user data in the cloud behind a login wall.
It really makes me wonder what makes people engage in such pointless semantic handwringing like this. Your comment even acknowledges the end result: support for PWA's and as a result persistent storage has been removed. Do you think that end users care that you can make some theoretical mental gymnastic argument about how there hasn't been a "policy change" when from any practical point of view there actually has been one?
It’s not pointless semantic handwringing. I was specifically responding to this:
> I think removing persistent storage and the ability to add websites to the home screen makes it obvious what their strategy is.
Inferring their motives from a policy change that hasn’t taken place is pointless.
This would have been a reasonable thing to say:
> I think removing the ability to add websites to the home screen makes it obvious what their strategy is.
Specifically referring to the removal of persistent storage as if it were a policy change they are currently enacting is counterfactual.
> I think removing persistent storage and the ability to add websites to the home screen makes it obvious what their strategy is.
Inferring their motives from a policy change that hasn’t taken place is pointless.
This would have been a reasonable thing to say:
> I think removing the ability to add websites to the home screen makes it obvious what their strategy is.
Specifically referring to the removal of persistent storage as if it were a policy change they are currently enacting is counterfactual.
The argument is pedantic.
You are correct but Apple might get away with that because those users bought Apple phones because they like Apple and those phones. Some of those users might also not like the EU but that's not important. They made an explicit pro Apple choice as customers and they'll defend their choice not to concede that they were wrong at trusting Apple. The blame will be on the EU. Those bureacrats in Brussels...
The 7 day limit only applies to third-party cookies / storage, that has nothing to do with progressive web apps.
That’s incorrect. See the section Capped Lifetime For All Script-Writeable Website Data:
https://webkit.org/blog/9521/intelligent-tracking-prevention...
https://webkit.org/blog/9521/intelligent-tracking-prevention...
That's only for tracking-related cookies/storage as detected by Safari, regular cookies e.g. for authentication or storage of app-related data are not affected by this at all.
No I think you are mistaking the mechanism that enables this policy for some kind of Safari magic that tries to detect the purpose of the stored data.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Storage_API...
> Safari proactively evicts data when cross-site tracking prevention is turned on. If an origin has no user interaction, such as click or tap, in the last seven days of browser use, its data created from script will be deleted. Cookies set by server are exempt from this eviction.
It doesn't matter what the data actually is or whether it is used to track users. Safari deletes it.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Storage_API...
> Safari proactively evicts data when cross-site tracking prevention is turned on. If an origin has no user interaction, such as click or tap, in the last seven days of browser use, its data created from script will be deleted. Cookies set by server are exempt from this eviction.
It doesn't matter what the data actually is or whether it is used to track users. Safari deletes it.
> I guess the EU will fine Apple for such behavior. The question is how soon this will happen
Too late, I'm afraid. Apple has pulled a really smart trick against the tons of paper written by EU commissioners.
Too late, I'm afraid. Apple has pulled a really smart trick against the tons of paper written by EU commissioners.
Really smart tricks can buy you a few years, but in the end either you'll get sued for not complying with the intention of the law or the law gets changed to kill your trick.
The legal system doesn't like tricks, a "yes but I did X in a really clever way so it's not X" defence doesn't usually work.
The legal system doesn't like tricks, a "yes but I did X in a really clever way so it's not X" defence doesn't usually work.
I think you aren't aware that EU courts judge on intent, not letter of the law.
I did not mean to say that Apple will get away with this, it's just that I don't expect the EU to be exactly fast in its response. As the FA says, it will take its sweet time and by then Apple will have reinforced their dominant position. Of course Apple and their legal teams already know that.
Well that happened really fast
https://www.ft.com/content/d2f7328c-5851-4f16-8f8d-93f0098b6...
https://www.ft.com/content/d2f7328c-5851-4f16-8f8d-93f0098b6...
"True character is revealed in the choices a human being makes under pressure - the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation, the truer the choice to the character's essential nature."
— Robert McKee
Well, the "true character" of any company is essentially being a greedy asshole - and that's no surprise, if they weren't that way from the beginning, the shareholders would dictate this behavior. I know some people think Apple is an exception - maybe these latest shenanigans will change their minds, but I wouldn't bet on it...
It may often be a useful model to pretend "a company" has a character, but when the context is McKee on character, it is a mistaken perspective.
I'm sure McKee would argue for the exact opposite! Organisations are run by individuals, and it is their character that is revealed. The greedy assholery is the front they have to assume to uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders, but their true character is what happens underneath – the thing revealed under pressure.
And in this, we see large variation.
I'm sure McKee would argue for the exact opposite! Organisations are run by individuals, and it is their character that is revealed. The greedy assholery is the front they have to assume to uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders, but their true character is what happens underneath – the thing revealed under pressure.
And in this, we see large variation.
Nah, this is too much equivocation. Some companies are much more spiteful than others and shareholders also don't want you burning bridges.
So it is not about Apple being exceptionally good but rather them going out of their way to be exceptionally asshole-ish.
So it is not about Apple being exceptionally good but rather them going out of their way to be exceptionally asshole-ish.
It's just nonsensical to use a device that dictates what you can install on it. Well, Androids don't come with root permissions either ( you should be able to get it easily if you want imo ) but at least you can install any app, even just create your own.
You do not need root on android to install a .apk file. I see too many people thinking iOS and Android are on equal starting ground.
Android out of the box is fairly close to jailbroken iOS. Very few things require root.
Android out of the box is fairly close to jailbroken iOS. Very few things require root.
If we're getting technical you don't need to jailbreak to sideload on iOS either. AltStore automates the tedium but you can side load just fine on iOS too (for now).
With a 7 day expiration, max of 3 apps. It's more of a "developer account lite" testing tool than a bona fide sideloading mechanism.
A seven day expiration alone makes it useless. Why would anyone think side loading is supported when you can't open the app anymore after 7 days?
More likely to be iOS apologists looking for a narrative, they try it out and proclaim that it works, but have no intention to actually use their side loaded test app, so they don't even realize it only looked like it worked.
More likely to be iOS apologists looking for a narrative, they try it out and proclaim that it works, but have no intention to actually use their side loaded test app, so they don't even realize it only looked like it worked.
It automatically refreshes in the background. You can just set it and forget it. Not sure why people think it is complicated.
You don't need to sideload on android. You just install it.
For me, the issue is, who do I distrust less - Google or Apple?
Yes, they're both shitty in a number of ways. And while is is easier to root Android devices than it is to root iOS ones, last I checked you were still dependent on the vendor kernel and parts of the vendor display server on Android because not all of the necessary drivers and related config are upstreamed (and the lack of TIVO clauses in GPLv2 makes this possible) - meaning replacing 95% of userspace doesn't actually get you very far if your issue is not being able to trust the vendor.
I choose Apple because:
1. Apple is primarily a hardware company. When I buy their hardware, I am their customer. When they make noises about protecting my privacy, I am reasonably confident that very few parts of the business are working to undermine that. OTOH, Google is an advertising company. When I buy their hardware, my eyeballs become their product, which they rent out to their real customers, the advertisers. When they make noises about protecting my privacy, I see that as mostly marketing BS (or, "puffery") which large parts of their business are working to undermine.
2. My phone is not my primary computing device. I have a laptop running GNU/Linux that I use for most of my computing needs, including web browsing, email, and software development. I am fine with my mobile phone being an "appliance" that I use mostly for instant messaging, and occasionally checking the news and weather, taking photos, or making short temporary notes that I will (manually) transfer to my laptop later. And sometimes, even, making phone calls. But I generally stay away from "apps". No, I don't want to install your fucking app, no matter which device it would be on. Just make sure your website works.
Given those factors, I have an Apple phone.
That's not to say Apple is for everyone. My priorities are not everyone else's, and that's fine. Different people have different tradeoffs. If an Android device works better for you, that's great.
Yes, they're both shitty in a number of ways. And while is is easier to root Android devices than it is to root iOS ones, last I checked you were still dependent on the vendor kernel and parts of the vendor display server on Android because not all of the necessary drivers and related config are upstreamed (and the lack of TIVO clauses in GPLv2 makes this possible) - meaning replacing 95% of userspace doesn't actually get you very far if your issue is not being able to trust the vendor.
I choose Apple because:
1. Apple is primarily a hardware company. When I buy their hardware, I am their customer. When they make noises about protecting my privacy, I am reasonably confident that very few parts of the business are working to undermine that. OTOH, Google is an advertising company. When I buy their hardware, my eyeballs become their product, which they rent out to their real customers, the advertisers. When they make noises about protecting my privacy, I see that as mostly marketing BS (or, "puffery") which large parts of their business are working to undermine.
2. My phone is not my primary computing device. I have a laptop running GNU/Linux that I use for most of my computing needs, including web browsing, email, and software development. I am fine with my mobile phone being an "appliance" that I use mostly for instant messaging, and occasionally checking the news and weather, taking photos, or making short temporary notes that I will (manually) transfer to my laptop later. And sometimes, even, making phone calls. But I generally stay away from "apps". No, I don't want to install your fucking app, no matter which device it would be on. Just make sure your website works.
Given those factors, I have an Apple phone.
That's not to say Apple is for everyone. My priorities are not everyone else's, and that's fine. Different people have different tradeoffs. If an Android device works better for you, that's great.
Apple's no longer a hardware company, they're a platform rent extraction company. They are directly misleading and harming their users with this move, and also with the existing dark patterns around iCloud storage.
> Apple's no longer a hardware company, they're a platform rent extraction company.
Apple still make the vast majority of their revenue from hardware. All of their service revenue combined is only about 20% of their revenue.
Apple still make the vast majority of their revenue from hardware. All of their service revenue combined is only about 20% of their revenue.
Revenue doesn't really matter, you should look at profits. Amazon makes most of their revenue from the website, but pretty much all of their profits come from cloud. The tech giant business model is to dominate distribution and extract profits by self preferencing. Im sure apple's services division is a good portion of their profits.
> Revenue doesn't really matter
Grandparent is claiming that Apple aren’t a hardware company any more. Pointing out that the vast majority of their income comes from hardware is totally relevant.
Apple brings in hundreds of billions from selling hardware every year. They are definitely still a hardware company.
Grandparent is claiming that Apple aren’t a hardware company any more. Pointing out that the vast majority of their income comes from hardware is totally relevant.
Apple brings in hundreds of billions from selling hardware every year. They are definitely still a hardware company.
The income is irrelevant if it's just a vessel to make profits from the services. In detriment of the user, who once could trust that they were buying a device, but now are getting locked in some subscription schemes.
Apple has passed the event horizon of extracting profits now.
Apple has passed the event horizon of extracting profits now.
> The income is irrelevant if it's just a vessel to make profits from the services.
It’s not though. Apple are bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars every year from hardware. That’s not a means to an end, that is the end itself.
It’s not though. Apple are bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars every year from hardware. That’s not a means to an end, that is the end itself.
You seem to not understand the difference between income and profit.
I do, but unless you think Apple’s hundreds of billions in hardware revenue is some kind of loss leader, it’s irrelevant.
Apple are a hardware company. It’s bizarre that you are trying to argue otherwise. They make more money from selling consumer hardware than practically every other company in the world.
Apple are a hardware company. It’s bizarre that you are trying to argue otherwise. They make more money from selling consumer hardware than practically every other company in the world.
> Apple are a hardware company. It’s bizarre that you are trying to argue otherwise. They make more money from selling consumer hardware than practically every other company in the world.
You are definitely correct in that Apple are a hardware company.
However (and I think this is the point of disagreement) much of their revenue growth (and presumably profits, but that's harder to assess) comes from services, and from a stock price perspective revenue/profit growth is what matters (you're only as good as your last quarter and all that).
Understanding this is key to understanding lots of Apple's business decisions recently (my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant).
You are definitely correct in that Apple are a hardware company.
However (and I think this is the point of disagreement) much of their revenue growth (and presumably profits, but that's harder to assess) comes from services, and from a stock price perspective revenue/profit growth is what matters (you're only as good as your last quarter and all that).
Understanding this is key to understanding lots of Apple's business decisions recently (my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant).
> I think this is the point of disagreement
I appreciate you trying to steel-man their argument, but you’ve gone far enough that it doesn’t reflect what they were actually saying. The thing I’m disagreeing with is:
> Apple's no longer a hardware company
There’s no way to spin that into anything resembling reality. If they had said what you are saying, I wouldn’t have objected.
> my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant
It doesn’t really make sense to do so. Apple aren’t an unseen third-party; the user has explicitly chosen to use their products and services. Why would ATT apply here?
I appreciate you trying to steel-man their argument, but you’ve gone far enough that it doesn’t reflect what they were actually saying. The thing I’m disagreeing with is:
> Apple's no longer a hardware company
There’s no way to spin that into anything resembling reality. If they had said what you are saying, I wouldn’t have objected.
> my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant
It doesn’t really make sense to do so. Apple aren’t an unseen third-party; the user has explicitly chosen to use their products and services. Why would ATT apply here?
What makes you say that it's irrelevant unless it's a loss leader?
When BMW is gatekeeping features behind subscriptions, is that also irrelevant because they're a car company? We shouldn't just stop discussing it.
When BMW is gatekeeping features behind subscriptions, is that also irrelevant because they're a car company? We shouldn't just stop discussing it.
You’ve just switched out the argument for a different one.
I was saying that the difference between revenue and profit is irrelevant for the purpose of this argument. You’re now trying to draw an analogy with what I said and gatekeeping features behind subscriptions, which is not what I called irrelevant.
The analogous situation is if you said BMW were no longer a car company for doing so, and I’d disagree with that as well. Apple makes tonnes of money selling hardware, BMW makes tonnes of money selling cars. Apple is still a hardware company and BMW is still a car company.
I was saying that the difference between revenue and profit is irrelevant for the purpose of this argument. You’re now trying to draw an analogy with what I said and gatekeeping features behind subscriptions, which is not what I called irrelevant.
The analogous situation is if you said BMW were no longer a car company for doing so, and I’d disagree with that as well. Apple makes tonnes of money selling hardware, BMW makes tonnes of money selling cars. Apple is still a hardware company and BMW is still a car company.
aren't profit margins the main drivers for the decisions leading to this post to begin with?
if revenue was all they cared about, I don't think what's happening would come to fruition
He seems to have a habit of doing this.
A few weeks ago I was also stuck in a situation where he appeared to play dumb and refused to acknowledge the contradictions in his positions and the level of indignation that followed afterwards was unbelievable.
A few weeks ago I was also stuck in a situation where he appeared to play dumb and refused to acknowledge the contradictions in his positions and the level of indignation that followed afterwards was unbelievable.
No, you were repeatedly insulting me and when I rejected that, you told me I was getting worked up and continued insulting me. You were saying that it literally wasn’t possible to honestly disagree with you:
> this also isn’t a legitimate difference of opinion scenario.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39026820
You were being unreasonable and insulting. If you are going to continue to act like that, how about we stay out of each other’s way? Don’t drag this thread down into a flamewar as well.
> this also isn’t a legitimate difference of opinion scenario.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39026820
You were being unreasonable and insulting. If you are going to continue to act like that, how about we stay out of each other’s way? Don’t drag this thread down into a flamewar as well.
Out of curiosity, what is the margin on their service income vs. their hardware income?
It doesn’t matter. They bring in hundreds of billions of dollars per year from hardware. They are definitely still a hardware company.
You cannot simply state where the revenue comes from. Apple sells hardware and services. The services promote the hardware. The hardware promotes the services. It is an eco system into which many people and companies, including companies that create software for that system, are bought.
Of course Apple tries to squeeze out of this system as possible at different fronts.
That's where government laws come in, to make the playing field more even.
Of course Apple tries to squeeze out of this system as possible at different fronts.
That's where government laws come in, to make the playing field more even.
Can you give an example of dark patterns around iCloud storage?
What dark patterns are you talking about w.r.t. iCloud storage?
nonsensical to use a device that dictates what you can install on it
Xbox, PS, iPad are consoles. Not everyone wants to DIY the OS and app config and maintenance. Using (digital) cartridges gets all those non value added activities out of the way of just playing the game or using the app.
Xbox, PS, iPad are consoles. Not everyone wants to DIY the OS and app config and maintenance. Using (digital) cartridges gets all those non value added activities out of the way of just playing the game or using the app.
Creating your own app is actually pretty easy on iOS. I run an app on my phone right now that I built myself and that is not on the app store.
It's not easy, you need a multithousand dollar apple machine, and you can't share this app with anybody else.
No, you don’t. You need a Mac, but you don’t need to buy one. You can use a free tier on a build service like Bitrise if you don’t have a Mac.
Perhaps technically possible, but in practice it's against apple development directives. I doubt you do this yourself, or know anyone that actually develops iOS apps from a non-mac in the real world.
And you still can't share that app.
And you still can't share that app.
In practice no one cares what apples development directives are?
> in practice it's against apple development directives.
Most professional iOS developers use these kinds of services. They are totally commonplace and not against Apple’s terms in the slightest.
Most professional iOS developers use these kinds of services. They are totally commonplace and not against Apple’s terms in the slightest.
MacOS TOS clearly state that if you're someone renting out access to macOS, you may only rent it for periods longer than 24h. I heavily doubt bitrise does that, as cost would be prohibitive (oh hey I wonder why that is)
I feel you're being disingenuous. Close to zero professional iOS developers develop on a non-mac.
The post says you can run/develop what you want and get it to work on apple. Where do "professional" developers apply?
There isn’t a part of Apple’s terms where they say you are only allowed to use build servers if you are a professional iOS developer.
Build servers are absolutely fine.
Build servers are absolutely fine.
Again disingenuous, I never said "not allowed".
Oh and up until 2019 apple was forbidding any virtualization of macOS in its EULA, there certainly were no free cloud build servers for iOS since relatively recently.
Oh and up until 2019 apple was forbidding any virtualization of macOS in its EULA, there certainly were no free cloud build servers for iOS since relatively recently.
> there certainly were no free cloud build servers for iOS since relatively recently.
There definitely were. Bitrise had a free plan back in 2014 and they weren’t the only ones.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141103031325/http://www.bitris...
Are you an iOS developer? Because you are repeatedly taking what is considered run of the mill by iOS developers as if it were some outlandish concept you’ve never heard of before. Build servers – yes, with free tiers – have been commonplace for iOS apps for at least a decade.
There definitely were. Bitrise had a free plan back in 2014 and they weren’t the only ones.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141103031325/http://www.bitris...
Are you an iOS developer? Because you are repeatedly taking what is considered run of the mill by iOS developers as if it were some outlandish concept you’ve never heard of before. Build servers – yes, with free tiers – have been commonplace for iOS apps for at least a decade.
You're either being utterly blinded, or dishonest. I'll stop engaging with you. For the record, however:
NOBODY DEVELOPS iOS APPS BY ONLY BUILDING IN THE CLOUD. NEITHER PROFESSIONALS NOR HOBBYISTS. NOBODY ON EARTH. Every iOS developer has a mac, because it's impossible to develop when you can only build 200 times per month (per your link). Yes, professional developers run some CI in the cloud, nobody cares.
NOBODY DEVELOPS iOS APPS BY ONLY BUILDING IN THE CLOUD. NEITHER PROFESSIONALS NOR HOBBYISTS. NOBODY ON EARTH. Every iOS developer has a mac, because it's impossible to develop when you can only build 200 times per month (per your link). Yes, professional developers run some CI in the cloud, nobody cares.
Neither. I think we’ve been talking at cross-purposes. This was the start of the thread:
> It's just nonsensical to use a device that dictates what you can install on it. Well, Androids don't come with root permissions either ( you should be able to get it easily if you want imo ) but at least you can install any app, even just create your own.
I’m approaching this in the context of side loading (the “you can install any app” part). Other people in the thread have as well:
> If we're getting technical you don't need to jailbreak to sideload on iOS either. AltStore automates the tedium but you can side load just fine on iOS too (for now).
In case you are unaware, it’s somewhat popular to register Apple developer accounts to build and run apps that aren’t on the App Store. That’s what AltStore is all about.
If you don’t have a Mac, you can use a build server for this. Build servers are incredibly common and have been for many years. They haven’t just popped up in the last couple of years.
I see now that you aren’t talking about this at all; you are talking about developing apps. In that context, I agree. You wouldn’t normally use a service like that as a substitute for a development machine (although a very small number of people do actually do this!). But I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about the side loading case.
Nevertheless, you don’t need “a multithousand dollar apple machine” at all, even for development. I believe the cheapest machine you can buy from Apple brand new that lets you develop and submit an app to the App Store is the 9th gen iPad at 329 USD. Or, if you insist upon a computer, the Mac mini at 599 USD. And of course you don’t have to buy new, so the actual cost of the machine you need is significantly lower than that.
> It's just nonsensical to use a device that dictates what you can install on it. Well, Androids don't come with root permissions either ( you should be able to get it easily if you want imo ) but at least you can install any app, even just create your own.
I’m approaching this in the context of side loading (the “you can install any app” part). Other people in the thread have as well:
> If we're getting technical you don't need to jailbreak to sideload on iOS either. AltStore automates the tedium but you can side load just fine on iOS too (for now).
In case you are unaware, it’s somewhat popular to register Apple developer accounts to build and run apps that aren’t on the App Store. That’s what AltStore is all about.
If you don’t have a Mac, you can use a build server for this. Build servers are incredibly common and have been for many years. They haven’t just popped up in the last couple of years.
I see now that you aren’t talking about this at all; you are talking about developing apps. In that context, I agree. You wouldn’t normally use a service like that as a substitute for a development machine (although a very small number of people do actually do this!). But I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about the side loading case.
Nevertheless, you don’t need “a multithousand dollar apple machine” at all, even for development. I believe the cheapest machine you can buy from Apple brand new that lets you develop and submit an app to the App Store is the 9th gen iPad at 329 USD. Or, if you insist upon a computer, the Mac mini at 599 USD. And of course you don’t have to buy new, so the actual cost of the machine you need is significantly lower than that.
“it's impossible to develop when you can only build 200 times per month”
Seriously??? I am not a mobile developer, but that statement is totally bullshit.
I regularly code for 20-60min between running a build.
I highly doubt I get anywhere close to 200 builds a month on all of my hobby projects combined. Obviously work is a different story, but that’s what paid plans are for.
Seriously??? I am not a mobile developer, but that statement is totally bullshit.
I regularly code for 20-60min between running a build.
I highly doubt I get anywhere close to 200 builds a month on all of my hobby projects combined. Obviously work is a different story, but that’s what paid plans are for.
> Creating your own app is actually pretty easy on iOS.
I don't believe you. I believe that you probably left out some crucial detail, such as having to own a Mac first.
I don't believe you. I believe that you probably left out some crucial detail, such as having to own a Mac first.
Well.. Yea. Sure. But saying "you cannot" is very different from "you need a mac".
But this is exactly the kind of behaviour targeted by the DMA. Artificial restrictions in the functionality of iphone are inserted to drive sales of an unrelated product. It's page one of the Monopolist Playbook.
Maintaining a developer toolkit for Windows and Linux is a major hurdle.
If they intentionally prevent a third party Xcode-compatible implementation from existing, that’s monopolistic behavior. If they don’t want to provide it themselves, it’s a rightful business choice and theirs to make, in my book.
If they intentionally prevent a third party Xcode-compatible implementation from existing, that’s monopolistic behavior. If they don’t want to provide it themselves, it’s a rightful business choice and theirs to make, in my book.
I noticed that you moved the goalpost. Quite a bit. "Cannot" to "need a mac" is an enormous move.
If you think sales of macs are affected in a measurable way by the fact that xcode runs on it you are delusional.
If you think sales of macs are affected in a measurable way by the fact that xcode runs on it you are delusional.
You didn't say “can”, you said “actually pretty easy”.
Is the $100 developer fee not required for own - non app store - apps?
No, you can deploy to your own device with a free Apple developer account. However there is a fairly short time line (I think a week?), after which you have to reinstall it. It’s designed for running apps on your device as you are developing them, not as a long-term deployment method.
Months. I have one on my phone that I haven't reinstalled for months. And I do this on my wife's phone, and let me tell you the wife acceptance factor of the app breaking after a week would be absolutely zero.
I don't know where you get these rumors from honestly.
I don't know where you get these rumors from honestly.
With a free account?
I’ve heard many, many times that free accounts have a short expiry. I thought it was seven days, and I’ve just checked, and I remembered the duration correctly.
I can’t find an official source, but people mention this limit practically everywhere the topic is discussed. Here’s one reference, Google can help you find many, many more:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/73014888/8427
> Without Official Apple Dev Account
> If you don't have an official Apple Dev Account provisioning will only last for 1 week. The app will expire every 7 days (or less in some cases -- depending upon the day the initial certificate was created).
> With Official Apple Dev Account
> You will be able to provision your app for up to 1 year.
Can you create a provisioning profile with an expiry more than one week into the future with a free account?
I’ve heard many, many times that free accounts have a short expiry. I thought it was seven days, and I’ve just checked, and I remembered the duration correctly.
I can’t find an official source, but people mention this limit practically everywhere the topic is discussed. Here’s one reference, Google can help you find many, many more:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/73014888/8427
> Without Official Apple Dev Account
> If you don't have an official Apple Dev Account provisioning will only last for 1 week. The app will expire every 7 days (or less in some cases -- depending upon the day the initial certificate was created).
> With Official Apple Dev Account
> You will be able to provision your app for up to 1 year.
Can you create a provisioning profile with an expiry more than one week into the future with a free account?
Aha, yea ok. That's gotta be it. My bad. I do have paid account, since I have apps in the store and you have to pay that fee every year to keep that up (which is annoying for my free hobby apps!)
installing it without Apple's blessing is the real problem
It's not that easy on Android either. Rooting usually requires a factory reset and several apps (e.g. banking) will not work if they detect the system is rooted.
edit: Also, in some cases you lose warranty.
edit: Also, in some cases you lose warranty.
Installing F-Droid is not hard. No need for root. In fact, the usual criticism is that it's too easy.
There are a number of scary warnings to click through but that's it. Not great for security but the official distribution is good enough that it's not a problem outside a few select countries where doing business is hard.
There are a number of scary warnings to click through but that's it. Not great for security but the official distribution is good enough that it's not a problem outside a few select countries where doing business is hard.
The fact that you can't install apps from your own xcode and run locally (used to be at all now I guess seven day limit) is silly.
On Android, with Android 12, we can now have apps on neostore (fdroid frontend) auto update. There is no good reason to defend apple here. You as a user are always free to not install third party app stores.
On Android, with Android 12, we can now have apps on neostore (fdroid frontend) auto update. There is no good reason to defend apple here. You as a user are always free to not install third party app stores.
The official F-Droid client has auto updates, too, for what it's worth.
This is good to know.
Thank you.
I'll just install f-droid app on my next phone.
iirc it didn't do this when android 12 was new.
Yep, it was added fairly recently. Exciting times!
There is no need to root to install software on Android. Rooting is only required for permissions that no app (save pre installed apps), whether installed via Play store or not, can be given.
There's no need to root. Installing any app outside play store is a matter of clicking 2 buttons.
No, getting root permissions should not be possible. Having a concept of a super user which can do whatever they want is bad for security and doesn't follow the principle of least privilege. There are better ways for an OS to offer functionality than requiring such a dangerous concept to exist.
The fact that desktop and server Linux distros still have a root account, have sudo, or said binaries is evidence of how far behind they are in terms of security.
The fact that desktop and server Linux distros still have a root account, have sudo, or said binaries is evidence of how far behind they are in terms of security.
The entire web runs linux successfully and securely. Suggesting that Linux is insecure is mad, especially given the attack surface.
Considering there are websites that get bruteforced into that have a weak root password setup over ssh that is not true. Considering in the past there have been LPE exploits to get root it is relevant that root exists. Even without a LPE if you make a malicous NPM dependency which you have someone install on their server you can make it so that the next time the user issues sudo it steals the root password and runs malware as root. These things are bad for security. If you are not hearing about Linux users being hacked, or exploits that could have had their harm minimized, that is ignorance from you.
MacOS also has sudo.
and iOS, a newer OS where Apple could easily redo their security model while ignoring legacy baggage does not have sudo.
The superuser on iOS is Apple. Apple can do whatever they want, to any iPhone, whenever they want.
Final, ultimate control must always be vested somewhere. Your argument is that it's "more secure" for it to be in the hands of a profit-seeking corporation than in the hands that are holding the device.
Final, ultimate control must always be vested somewhere. Your argument is that it's "more secure" for it to be in the hands of a profit-seeking corporation than in the hands that are holding the device.
>Your argument is that it's "more secure" for it to be in the hands of a profit-seeking corporation than in the hands that are holding the device.
Yes. The identity a company like Apple is known and trusted. The person holding a device is not a known identity. This is unrelated to not having sudo though. Take for example the ping command. There is no reason why the user must have access to an account that has ultimate control over the device to use ping. ping should be possible to be used by a normal user. This could be implemented with a ping daemon that run with a dedicated user that has the capability to use raw sockets, and then normal users have a ping client that talks to such daemon. You can come up with everything someone would need root for and define a more secure way to offer that functionality to the user.
Yes. The identity a company like Apple is known and trusted. The person holding a device is not a known identity. This is unrelated to not having sudo though. Take for example the ping command. There is no reason why the user must have access to an account that has ultimate control over the device to use ping. ping should be possible to be used by a normal user. This could be implemented with a ping daemon that run with a dedicated user that has the capability to use raw sockets, and then normal users have a ping client that talks to such daemon. You can come up with everything someone would need root for and define a more secure way to offer that functionality to the user.
I hope the EU calls them on this and mandates that they offer equivalent OS API support for 3rd party browsers to implement PWAs to what Safari had at the time their initial ruling was made. Let's then watch how fast Apple restores PWA capabilities to Safari when web sites are actively encouraging users to install third party browsers so that PWA's keep working.
Not an IPhone user: but honesty I'd rather have things open an actual browser tab, as then I can interact with it via all my standard extensions (e.g. adblockers), rather than be opened in a webview.
Also, given how often you need to change phones (given build quality), if I have important data and you're a web app, I rather the server be the source of truth, and the phone a cache (so I don't loose data when the phone breaks).
Also, given how often you need to change phones (given build quality), if I have important data and you're a web app, I rather the server be the source of truth, and the phone a cache (so I don't loose data when the phone breaks).
With Firefox Mobile on Android, you can confiure webviews to open as Firefox webviews as well, and my extensions seem to be running because I don't see ads there. They're still webviews of course, you don't get the tabs, bookmarks etc. Just webviews with extension support.
There used to be an option to redirect the Custom Tabs API to just open a regular Firefox tab. I loved that option as it replaced a reduced functionality API with the full thing. Too bad it got lost in the great fenix rewrite.
That's what I do as well, but still sometimes it's chrome that opens, and so a "always really open an actual browser, never a webview" would be preferrable (and more recognisable when preferences are ignored.
This should be an option for the user then, like "Install" (as a PWA) or "Add bookmark to home screen" (as a browser tap).
There's reasons to want either, but as a heavy user of PWAs for a few online services / communities, I much prefer the former in most cases.
There's reasons to want either, but as a heavy user of PWAs for a few online services / communities, I much prefer the former in most cases.
Web apps are mostly optional and otherwise work as a normal web site. Differences are that some functions are exclusive to web apps, so you wouldn't get them on a web site anyway. A feature I do find annoying is the ability to save a page onto my (Android) phone screen is taken away and replaced by "install app". I work around that by going into airplane mode, fetching the page unsuccessfully, and saving that!
That doesn't mean they don't have ads, or other things I want to work around.
The point is that with EU mandating alt-browsers on iOS, it should have been a possibility to have "Installed" (home-)PWAs where the engine is the alt-browser, not safari/webview.
Those browsers could have implemented the Home-PWA functionality while maintaining your ability to install plugins such as adblockers within that PWA's context.
Apple has made this impossible by removing the OS APIs that allowed "Installed" (home-)PWAs entirely. This is just so they aren't forced to allow these under a different browser engine.
Of course, this is all done because "think of the children" (i.e.: think of the poor people ticked into using a non-privacy-respecting browser to run their PWAs).
Those browsers could have implemented the Home-PWA functionality while maintaining your ability to install plugins such as adblockers within that PWA's context.
Apple has made this impossible by removing the OS APIs that allowed "Installed" (home-)PWAs entirely. This is just so they aren't forced to allow these under a different browser engine.
Of course, this is all done because "think of the children" (i.e.: think of the poor people ticked into using a non-privacy-respecting browser to run their PWAs).
I prefer websites to apps too. That way the server takes care of storing the data and you don't have to worry about backups.
Still i will never buy apple products again because of their anti open stances. The last product i had from them was an iphone 4.
What sort of web experiences are you thinking of here? It kind of seems like you are thinking of websites.
This isn't to say some web apps don't have ads, but then again so do some native apps.
This isn't to say some web apps don't have ads, but then again so do some native apps.
That is at some level a distinction without a difference (and I have implemented PWAs, and tried to get them to work on mobile, including offline for significant periods of time). I've found (as a user) that most webview based apps (including those in the mobile stores) that I've used as a user tend to be held together with bits of string, and that running them in an actual browser tends to work better except in the case where there's literally no internet (i.e. for flaky internet browser beats wrapped pwa).
these are not inherent problems to PWAs tho. The data loss situation is pretty much the same for any native app. They can choose to be local only or sync to a server. Apple can also support iCloud for PWAs in theory.
Also there is nothing stopping extensions to work for PWAs. They do on Chrome desktop and you can disable/enable extensions per app. Not an Android user (yet) so I don't know how is it on mobile.
Also there is nothing stopping extensions to work for PWAs. They do on Chrome desktop and you can disable/enable extensions per app. Not an Android user (yet) so I don't know how is it on mobile.
I’d like to quickly address the second paragraph. From my experience, iPhones last until their software support runs out, barring any accidents. Furthermore, PWAs need not be offline applications (so TFA overblows the data loss potential ever so slightly) but often work exactly like you want them to.
I use the Outlook PWA. It’s great because I don’t have to let my company manage (part of) my phone.
I use the Outlook PWA. It’s great because I don’t have to let my company manage (part of) my phone.
Sure, caches make sense, and are where PWAs are a legitimate solution. But PWAs also are sold as a replacement for native apps (hint: they're not, but a whole bunch of native apps should be PWAs, or just static sites...), and the author of TFA does subscribe to that view.
But they can replace a lot of native apps. Calendar, Notes, Weather, Maps (to an extent), Reminders, Calculator, $CellProviderApp, Stocks, Cloud Drive (Apple, Google, Microsoft, …, to an extent), Translator, Mail, various Messengers, Youtube, Amazon, various public transport ticket apps, EV status apps, parcel tracking apps, …
I’m only on home screen 2 of 5 and oh my, it’s almost all of the apps. Granted, some would perform worse in some ways. Some could not realize all features (like automatic photo upload). More integration (like sharing to PWAs) would be needed. But some others? Yeah. Why even develop an app?
I’m only on home screen 2 of 5 and oh my, it’s almost all of the apps. Granted, some would perform worse in some ways. Some could not realize all features (like automatic photo upload). More integration (like sharing to PWAs) would be needed. But some others? Yeah. Why even develop an app?
Sure, and a bunch of those are already on the web, though it depends what you're trying to do e.g. mail could just be a view of an existing service (in which case it's just making the existing interface mobile friendly), or it could be an actual client (using IMAP/SMTP), in which case it should be native, rather than having some weird intermediary (which if you want to to do IMAP/SMTP via the web, you need to do). Personally, I'd rather native apps with well defined interfaces that use well defined standards (e.g. IMAP/SMTP/ical), rather than some hacked together web version. But people like reinventing wheels...
I've always been an Apple ecosystem user. Both main devices and accesories. Apart from my first one, all my smartphones had been Apple. I've only used Apple computers since 15 years.
But that's it. Once my current iPhone breaks (and I took my protector off), I'm not buying another one. This is malicious compliance at the expense of user.
But that's it. Once my current iPhone breaks (and I took my protector off), I'm not buying another one. This is malicious compliance at the expense of user.
I don’t use any PWA’s and I am not so sympathetic from claims of harm from removing/deprecating PWA’s without some data on the size and impact of this change.
Xbox Gamepass presumably would be the largest one/best example, is that how they ask people on iOS to stream games?
Xbox Gamepass presumably would be the largest one/best example, is that how they ask people on iOS to stream games?
> of harm from removing/deprecating PWA’s without some data on the size and impact of this change
Apple just introduced a lot of PWA feature on Desktop Safari on the last WWDC, and improvements on iOS like web-push were introduced with iOS 16.4 just less than 1 year ago [0]. The impact can't be that big for stuff Apple just released recently. And now they are killing it outright again.
[0]: https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-16-4-new-features/
Apple just introduced a lot of PWA feature on Desktop Safari on the last WWDC, and improvements on iOS like web-push were introduced with iOS 16.4 just less than 1 year ago [0]. The impact can't be that big for stuff Apple just released recently. And now they are killing it outright again.
[0]: https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-16-4-new-features/
I can't speak to whether this is still true, but there was a time period where Apple would reject certain categories of iOS app store submissions and tell people to just make a website - 'simple webview' type stuff, like apps for a small business etc.
The natural response to that is to make a PWA if Apple says you're not good enough for the store. Now that option is going away, so I can understand if people who previously relied on it are ticked off.
The natural response to that is to make a PWA if Apple says you're not good enough for the store. Now that option is going away, so I can understand if people who previously relied on it are ticked off.
Yes, it is the "Minimum Functionality" requirement , still in the books:
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#min...
> 4.2 Minimum Functionality
> Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website. If your app is not particularly useful, unique, or “app-like,” it doesn’t belong on the App Store. If your App doesn’t provide some sort of lasting entertainment value or adequate utility, it may not be accepted.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#min...
> 4.2 Minimum Functionality
> Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website. If your app is not particularly useful, unique, or “app-like,” it doesn’t belong on the App Store. If your App doesn’t provide some sort of lasting entertainment value or adequate utility, it may not be accepted.
That is for actual websites. A PWA is typically something app-like.
Think about it a little harder. If Apple says "only bikes are allowed in their bike store, and if you want to build something else, go put your product in a different store", then you said OK fine and proceeded to build a bike and put it in another store, does that make sense?
Apple would've accepted your bike. Websites and web apps are treated differently in Apple's rules.
Understand that Apple has used this rule to keep web based apps out of the app store, but they got burned on that and there's no such restriction today.
Think about it a little harder. If Apple says "only bikes are allowed in their bike store, and if you want to build something else, go put your product in a different store", then you said OK fine and proceeded to build a bike and put it in another store, does that make sense?
Apple would've accepted your bike. Websites and web apps are treated differently in Apple's rules.
Understand that Apple has used this rule to keep web based apps out of the app store, but they got burned on that and there's no such restriction today.
I sincerely don't understand your analogy or how it would apply to PWAs. But it sounds like you're saying they no longer enforce the policies that way? That's good.
I use many PWAs on my iPhone, they have a few issues but I find they’re way more preferably to installing apps
> I don’t use any PWA’s and I am not so sympathetic from claims of harm from removing/deprecating PWA’(...)
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
(...)
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
(...)
"Apple looks set to argue, contra everyone else subject to the DMA, that the moment from which features must be made interoperable is the end of the fair-warning period, not the date of designation." is an interesting point I hadn't seen before. I was under the impression that as long as they removed PWAs before the final deadline, they'd be able to claim they were complying in good faith. But I suppose that might not be true, and it could actually be as-of the warning period?
Like with the GDPR, the DMA had a long lead-in time in which the law has gone into effect but the EU wasn't prosecuting anyone for incompliance yet. The designation took place half a year ago but you can't expect companies to act on a rough draft and unmade commission decisions, so while the right EU people got started, nobody needed to comply yet.
Of course Apple could've acted earlier out of the goodness of their hearts and to serve customer interests (lol), but like with the GDPR, companies tend to prepare longer and only launch their changes right when they're about to see any real risk. The end of the fair warning period is the final deadline.
Microsoft and Google are doing the same thing, I think it's to be expected with regulation like this, and the regulation was designed for this.
Of course Apple could've acted earlier out of the goodness of their hearts and to serve customer interests (lol), but like with the GDPR, companies tend to prepare longer and only launch their changes right when they're about to see any real risk. The end of the fair warning period is the final deadline.
Microsoft and Google are doing the same thing, I think it's to be expected with regulation like this, and the regulation was designed for this.
There's fortunately no need to use any apple products. The ones most hurt by this will probably be Apple. Especially if functionality breaks as stated here. It will mean the 'luxury phone brand' is now a broken phone brand at least in the EU. Apple users might switch and I think Samsung is most likely to get them.
It’s not that easy. I switched to iPhone mainly because of Android phone makers’ abysmal update policies. Heck, I had a Nexus 5 and it was “killed” merely 1.5 years after I bought it. Because newer Android required newer graphics drivers and Qualcomm said “no”. Supposedly things are better now, but are they really?
My iPhone 7 was my daily driver for 5 years and was only retired because I got an offer that was too good to pass up.
And then there’s also the degrading storage on many Android phones. They just become sooooo slow. My iPhone 7 is slow now, too. After 7 years, not after 3.
My iPhone 7 was my daily driver for 5 years and was only retired because I got an offer that was too good to pass up.
And then there’s also the degrading storage on many Android phones. They just become sooooo slow. My iPhone 7 is slow now, too. After 7 years, not after 3.
Both Samsung and Google now offer 7 years of software support (security and features) on their latest phones, and Samsung is increasing that from 5 years.
> And then there’s also the degrading storage on many Android phones
Citation needed.
> And then there’s also the degrading storage on many Android phones
Citation needed.
The performance degradation is just my experience from a Galaxy Nexus, a Galaxy Tab 2, a Nexus 5 and most of the older Android phones friends & family have/had. I don't remember from the earlier Android days.
It's entirely possible this is "fixed" nowadays, because flash/UFS technology has progressed and/or device makers are finally using slightly less crappy components.
It's entirely possible this is "fixed" nowadays, because flash/UFS technology has progressed and/or device makers are finally using slightly less crappy components.
I am actually a moderately happy Apple user. The old phone I have is good. The smart watch works well for my needs. The laptop is light, quiet, cool, and I spend most of my productive time in a terminal.
I don’t really care about my phone as a general purpose computer.
Where the rubber hits the road for this one is what developers do. IMO the answer is to go all in on web apps. Make it obvious to the user that it’s Apple degrading the experience.
At this point of the game, all Apple will understand is churn. And it is churn. They are rent seekers.
I don’t really care about my phone as a general purpose computer.
Where the rubber hits the road for this one is what developers do. IMO the answer is to go all in on web apps. Make it obvious to the user that it’s Apple degrading the experience.
At this point of the game, all Apple will understand is churn. And it is churn. They are rent seekers.
that would be nice but when Apple dropped Flash it was Flash that died
Zero non-technical users actually care about PWA support.
> Apple has gamely sent $1600/yr lawyers
shouldn't this be "$1600/hr" ?
shouldn't this be "$1600/hr" ?
The author was thinking of public defenders ?
Fixed.
PWA - progressive web app, delivered via the web, html, CSS, JavaScript, etc.
Thank you! I hate when articles use acronyms and never actually expand what they mean - I read the entire article without any clue what PWAs actually are.
I agree, it's a bad writing practice. And it's very simple to be completely unambiguous - just use the complete phrase the first time. So in this case, the tagline could just be "Decoding Apple's Desperate Ploy To Scuttle Progressive Web Applications", and then, if people see PWA, they can decipher it themselves.
But of course this seems to be a personal blog, so much of it is up to personal taste, as it should be.
But of course this seems to be a personal blog, so much of it is up to personal taste, as it should be.
I totally agree. For this person, it's surely obvious. They probably didn't expect this to become a popular read on HN.
Do you remember when ai used to stand for 'artificial insemination'? Lol.
Do you remember when ai used to stand for 'artificial insemination'? Lol.
I know - I'm not in that area and got quite a way through before realising I had to look it up!
Maybe I don’t get it? I look at the list of features Apple is removing and they all seem like things I wouldn’t want a web browser to have to begin with.
> I look at the list of features Apple is removing and they all seem like things I wouldn’t want a web browser to have to begin with.
If only Apple just removed them from Safari, and allowed other browsers to compete...
If only Apple just removed them from Safari, and allowed other browsers to compete...
Not a browser, but a PWA. It's a web page, which you can "install" as an "app". Features like storage, background tasks and notifications are important for many applications, for example a messenger. These were available, and there is a market for those, but Apple has decided to kill that market.
That makes a ton more sense thank you.
Just look at the timing.
And there is a simple solution too: just offer multiple browsers in the appstore.
And there is a simple solution too: just offer multiple browsers in the appstore.
It's not about browsers. It's about OS APIs that browsers need to support PWAs. Apple is killing those APIs so that other browsers cannot offer PWAs.
That's what I meant: they could continue offering safari as a "basic web browser" but allow actual web browsers in the appstore, that can fully implement any web APIs.
This is probably not accurate given I was mistaken above but I thought that's what Apple was doing. You can load any browser but some OS APIs are going away.
I feel like something that gets brushed off on HN all the time is:
Do people actually want PWAs?
In my experience the answer is a resounding “NO”.
Android supports PWAs but they aren’t taking the world by storm. My Android friends don’t use any that I’m aware of and if you ask them about it they just get a blank look on the faces.
Heck, businesses don’t care about PWAs or websites even. I work in this space, I’ve written well over 10 cross platform apps (web/iOS/Android) and not only do they not care about PWAs but they don’t care much about the web. It’s the same codebase and normally we get the web version up and running first so we tell them they can start playing with it on their phone in the browser. They literally do not even open it until we provide the app version to them. I know because only once there is an app do we hear _any_ feedback. No matter how many times we tell them it’s the same, that they can start doing user acceptance testing or QA early, or to just check the UI/colors to make sure it’s what they want. They don’t care until it’s an app.
Do people actually want PWAs?
In my experience the answer is a resounding “NO”.
Android supports PWAs but they aren’t taking the world by storm. My Android friends don’t use any that I’m aware of and if you ask them about it they just get a blank look on the faces.
Heck, businesses don’t care about PWAs or websites even. I work in this space, I’ve written well over 10 cross platform apps (web/iOS/Android) and not only do they not care about PWAs but they don’t care much about the web. It’s the same codebase and normally we get the web version up and running first so we tell them they can start playing with it on their phone in the browser. They literally do not even open it until we provide the app version to them. I know because only once there is an app do we hear _any_ feedback. No matter how many times we tell them it’s the same, that they can start doing user acceptance testing or QA early, or to just check the UI/colors to make sure it’s what they want. They don’t care until it’s an app.
Do I want apps that install instantly from the page, can't reach into my photos or contacts, and that even I can develop for all platforms without learning OS-specific APIs? Yes. I use some already, though a lot of apps today are mobile-friendly versions of websites, so I just use the website (e.g. Twitter, YouTube, FreshRSS, ...)
> that even I can develop
This gives away that you are not a regular consumer.
This gives away that you are not a regular consumer.
I want PWAs in instances where the alternative is no app or no feature at all. For instance I use Firefox in iOS but it’s massively crippled (no extension support) thanks to Apple being shitheads. If the only option to have extension support is with PWA then I 100% want PWA
People have been trained to look for apps in the app stores. PWAs aren't there, and have a different installation method, for technical reasons that shouldn't matter in most cases.
If you ask differently: do you want apps that install almost instantly, and take almost no space on your phone? A lot of people would be interested.
Renting a scooter or charging an EV tends to require native apps for no good reason. These apps can be 100MB+ large, and it's infuriating to install them when paying for roaming, or being somewhere in the middle-of-nowhere where it takes ages to download. The QR-code-linked page that merely redirects to an app store could have been the app itself!
If you ask differently: do you want apps that install almost instantly, and take almost no space on your phone? A lot of people would be interested.
Renting a scooter or charging an EV tends to require native apps for no good reason. These apps can be 100MB+ large, and it's infuriating to install them when paying for roaming, or being somewhere in the middle-of-nowhere where it takes ages to download. The QR-code-linked page that merely redirects to an app store could have been the app itself!
Well Apple's proposed solution is App Clips, which is what Spin (and perhaps others?) use: https://developer.apple.com/app-clips/
Of course, an efficiently-coded webpage (e.g. no JS-heavy libs) could also work, with arguably less hassle all-around. But native apps do tend to "feel" nicer.
Of course, an efficiently-coded webpage (e.g. no JS-heavy libs) could also work, with arguably less hassle all-around. But native apps do tend to "feel" nicer.
App Clips are so much this: https://xkcd.com/1367/
I’ve seen App Clip in the wild only once, and it was a barely functional stop-gap-app that asked me to download the full app to finish the registration :/
I assume that the proposition of making a second app, Apple-only, which has even more restrictions and technical challenges than regular apps, is just not economical to catch on.
JS is often bloated, but there’s a lot of tooling for diagnosing and fixing the problem. There are libraries that care about size. Minified JS is pretty dense anyway.
Swift and its frameworks can easily be as bloated, but it’s harder to inspect bloat in compiled code. Languages with generics aren’t easier to keep in check than JS. You can easily accidentally multiply your code when it’s monomorphized, or prevent dead code removal when it’s not. It’s easy to find iOS apps that are 10x larger than a bloated website.
I’ve seen App Clip in the wild only once, and it was a barely functional stop-gap-app that asked me to download the full app to finish the registration :/
I assume that the proposition of making a second app, Apple-only, which has even more restrictions and technical challenges than regular apps, is just not economical to catch on.
JS is often bloated, but there’s a lot of tooling for diagnosing and fixing the problem. There are libraries that care about size. Minified JS is pretty dense anyway.
Swift and its frameworks can easily be as bloated, but it’s harder to inspect bloat in compiled code. Languages with generics aren’t easier to keep in check than JS. You can easily accidentally multiply your code when it’s monomorphized, or prevent dead code removal when it’s not. It’s easy to find iOS apps that are 10x larger than a bloated website.
Nope, every PWA I have used ended up loosing data. They are universally shit across all devices/os I have tried.
Off topic:
This site is next to unreadable on my phone.
Zigzagscrolling is an insult to the audience.
Zigzagscrolling is an insult to the audience.
The line length is hilarious.
Press the little book icon (or F9 in Firefox desktop), it fixes this just as it fixes so many other unreadable web sites.
Luckily our clients aren't completely strangled yet so this still works. How meta considering the subject.
Press the little book icon (or F9 in Firefox desktop), it fixes this just as it fixes so many other unreadable web sites.
Luckily our clients aren't completely strangled yet so this still works. How meta considering the subject.
It looks fine to me. (Firefox / Android)
It's perfectly readable on my phone and with various device dimensions set in my desktop browser.
If Safari supported extensions then you'd have the ability to resolve this by installing something like Readability.
If iOS supported other browsers then you could read it in a Chromium based browser, where it appears completely readable.
If iOS supported other browsers then you could read it in a Chromium based browser, where it appears completely readable.
> If Safari supported extensions
iOS Safari does support extensions. I've got a handful installed on my phone right now, including Userscripts to apply custom formatting and styling to this website.
iOS Safari does support extensions. I've got a handful installed on my phone right now, including Userscripts to apply custom formatting and styling to this website.
Safari does support extensions. And it has built-in Reader mode. And it needs none of that for this case since the website loads perfectly fine with no zigzagging required.
What Apple is doing sucks, for sure, but let’s not lose sight of reality and make stuff up or misinform people.
What Apple is doing sucks, for sure, but let’s not lose sight of reality and make stuff up or misinform people.
Show me how to get ublock origin on safari in iOS.
You can’t, and this is basically the top extension anyone wants, and so your blanket statement is also misinforming
You can’t, and this is basically the top extension anyone wants, and so your blanket statement is also misinforming
I didn’t say it supports all extensions from all browsers. Thanks to manifest v3 uBlock Origin will also not be viable on what is by far the most popular browser. Will you also say Google Chrome doesn’t support extensions then?
It’s not like Safari can’t do ad blocking. It can, and solutions like 1Blocker are quite capable. It can even block at the system level, which is more than uBlock Origin in the browser does.
Either way, none of this is relevant to your first comment. Extensions aren’t even necessary for the original complaint. Please don’t move the goalposts.
It’s not like Safari can’t do ad blocking. It can, and solutions like 1Blocker are quite capable. It can even block at the system level, which is more than uBlock Origin in the browser does.
Either way, none of this is relevant to your first comment. Extensions aren’t even necessary for the original complaint. Please don’t move the goalposts.
Saying iOS safari can do extensions is like saying North Korea is a democracy, and me pointing out that it really isn’t is not moving the goal posts
And yes I agree with your example, I would no longer say chrome does extensions as a blanket statement. I’d say it has restricted extension functionality.
And yes I agree with your example, I would no longer say chrome does extensions as a blanket statement. I’d say it has restricted extension functionality.
What a weak argument. So because uBlock Origin refuses to make an extension for iOS, extensions don’t exist?
I use Wipr, and it’s been better than the beloved uBlock has ever been.
I use Wipr, and it’s been better than the beloved uBlock has ever been.
It's not that they refuse, it's not possible to make an effective ad blocker
That’s simply not true.
Don’t take my word as an iOS dev for it, the fact that a bunch of effective ad blockers exist, one of which I use and just told you about, directly refutes your claim.
Don’t take my word as an iOS dev for it, the fact that a bunch of effective ad blockers exist, one of which I use and just told you about, directly refutes your claim.
[deleted]
But why should you need extensions to go around some site disrespecting you?
Me too. Using Safari on iPhone now. Is it intended?
Problems on ultrawide desktop too (severe horizontal scrolling).
To partially fix, open dev tools and change the body tag's display:grid to display:block. I'm not sure how you can stuff up a single column HTML article, but they've managed to.
To partially fix, open dev tools and change the body tag's display:grid to display:block. I'm not sure how you can stuff up a single column HTML article, but they've managed to.
It looks completely fine on my phone, what browser are you using? Did you perhaps leave Desktop Mode on?
Since Alex is here in the comments, I'm sure he'd reply if he had fixed something between each of us reading it.
Since Alex is here in the comments, I'm sure he'd reply if he had fixed something between each of us reading it.
FruitCo and the Chocolate Factory love to ramble on about "security" but considering how "untouchable" these companies are, coupled with their evasive, callous behaviour toward "users" as well as any reasonable notion of transparency, it would be insane to assume they care about you or your data even one iota, except to the extent they can exploit you. And they can do so with ease. The risk of losing you as a "user" is almost nonexistant. There is nowhere else to go. Thus, the greatest threats to a computer owner's "security" are, in fact, FruitCo and the Chocolate Factory. There is no defense and no escape. Common cybercriminals are a joke by comparison.
FruitCo and the Chocolate Factory will never allow computer users to protect themselves from FruitCo and the Chocolate Factory. "Trust" is assumed. It's not like they ever ask you, "Do you want to trust us?"
Of course, you can always give up and ignore the threat. You can claim you trust one of these companies. You can wax on about how one is better than the other. But the threat remains. They can do whatever they want, no matter how irrational or "evil", and we are watching them do so in real-time. It did not take much to get them to show their true colors. What if business were to really get worse. Imagine what they could do. They could set new levels for douchebag behaviour. Unstoppable.
FruitCo and the Chocolate Factory will never allow computer users to protect themselves from FruitCo and the Chocolate Factory. "Trust" is assumed. It's not like they ever ask you, "Do you want to trust us?"
Of course, you can always give up and ignore the threat. You can claim you trust one of these companies. You can wax on about how one is better than the other. But the threat remains. They can do whatever they want, no matter how irrational or "evil", and we are watching them do so in real-time. It did not take much to get them to show their true colors. What if business were to really get worse. Imagine what they could do. They could set new levels for douchebag behaviour. Unstoppable.
I've proposed a workaround for bringing back PWA support to iOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39454792
> ... very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps.
Well, if nobody wants to play with our total clusterfuck of inconsistent APIs, we might as well drop support for them >:(
Well, if nobody wants to play with our total clusterfuck of inconsistent APIs, we might as well drop support for them >:(
Although I agree with the article and the obvious sh!t move Apple is making, one needs to keep making a distinction between PWAs and web apps in general. Not every 'web app' needs local storage or push notifications.
Besides, I heard the 'simple' web apps still can have a place on the homescreen. Can anybody with an iPhone tell me if that works like the video from the article? Is it just with an address bar?
Besides, I heard the 'simple' web apps still can have a place on the homescreen. Can anybody with an iPhone tell me if that works like the video from the article? Is it just with an address bar?
The video in the article (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AST12aDGf0Q) shows that PWAs are completely gone. They are degraded to pinned bookmarks that open in your default browser. Yes, you can still pin bookmarks, as you always(?) could, but those are not PWAs.
Only PWAs can offer a true app-like experience.
Only PWAs can offer a true app-like experience.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these "pinned bookmarks" can be on the homescreen like a link that opens in your default browser, right?
> Only PWAs can offer a true app-like experience.
If one's definition of an app requires push notifications and local storage.
I get the d!ck move from Apple, but web apps can be way simpler without push notifications and storage on a server under your control. To me personally, push notifications and local storage are overrated.
> Only PWAs can offer a true app-like experience.
If one's definition of an app requires push notifications and local storage.
I get the d!ck move from Apple, but web apps can be way simpler without push notifications and storage on a server under your control. To me personally, push notifications and local storage are overrated.
? My definition of an app-like experience is that it’s not a browser. No address bar, no tabs, no GUI elements whatsoever but the web view. That’s a PWA. Local storage is merely a supporting technology. Push notifications are not required at all.
Its honestly a fantastic feat of marketing that JavaScript apps outside the browser are still referred to as web apps.
They’re not Javascript apps though. They’re HTML with Javascript over HTTPS, rendered by a browser engine and… oh wait, that’s a website.
Yes, it's only an app if it's approved in the Cupertino region of California. Anything else is a sparkling website.
Not what I was referring to. PWAs are a specific combination of web technologies. They're not "JavaScript apps". They really are web apps, even when "installed".
reactordev(1)
Thank god for Apple's lacklustre support for PWAs.
Else iOS would be like macOS, with every second app from a major vendor people need to run (for work, school, banking, etc) would be the equivalent of an Electron monstrocity.
Apparently that's the dream of the author.
Else iOS would be like macOS, with every second app from a major vendor people need to run (for work, school, banking, etc) would be the equivalent of an Electron monstrocity.
Apparently that's the dream of the author.
Funny that the reverse has already happened due to Apple's lackluster support of PWAs. PWAs run with the system's browser engine, unlike Electron apps that ship with their own customized Chromium engine. Each app is only a few megabytes tops, unlike the hundreds of megabytes of bloat native apps tend to take up nowadays.
The static megabytes on disk are not a problem [1], the runtime, battery, and memory overhead from them being written in JS+DOM is.
[1] never got anywhere near close to run out of space on iOS because of apps (at 50+ apps installed). Besides the big offenders space-wise are not general apps and their code dependencies, but games with huge asset libraries.
[1] never got anywhere near close to run out of space on iOS because of apps (at 50+ apps installed). Besides the big offenders space-wise are not general apps and their code dependencies, but games with huge asset libraries.
... Are you somehow under the impression that means companies won't go back to how it was before and simply package their website as an electron app for iOS? This is the reason PWAs were invented in the first place, to avoid every app shipping an entire browser when the user-selected one was right there, if only it presented the app like an app and not a website.
Companies aren't going to magically switch to a ios-compatible framework or language, it's cheaper to keep just web devs and hire one guy that knows how to package an electron app.
Companies aren't going to magically switch to a ios-compatible framework or language, it's cheaper to keep just web devs and hire one guy that knows how to package an electron app.
>... Are you somehow under the impression that means companies won't go back to how it was before and simply package their website as an electron app for iOS?
I'm not sure there that many doing "add to home screen PWAs" in the first place, for them to be "going back".
"Add to home screen PWAs" were used by users (not many either) for convenient access to this or that website they've used, but weren't ever a major app delivery use case in iOS. So, I see the whole post more like much ado about nothing.
And while companies do just package webkit (or use system webkit) + some web app framework as iOS native apps, iOS still encourages developing proper native apps.
Which I'm all for. If Slack, VS Code and co could be forced to create fully native apps on the desktop too, I'd jump at the chance of replacing their Electron stuff with those.
I'm not sure there that many doing "add to home screen PWAs" in the first place, for them to be "going back".
"Add to home screen PWAs" were used by users (not many either) for convenient access to this or that website they've used, but weren't ever a major app delivery use case in iOS. So, I see the whole post more like much ado about nothing.
And while companies do just package webkit (or use system webkit) + some web app framework as iOS native apps, iOS still encourages developing proper native apps.
Which I'm all for. If Slack, VS Code and co could be forced to create fully native apps on the desktop too, I'd jump at the chance of replacing their Electron stuff with those.
Many many apps are made with JS, HTML and CSS and run in a thin wrapper on top of WKWebView (Cordova, nowadays Capacitor). It is Electron sans a browser engine and has been around forever. Support for PWAs don't change a thing about how apps are developed at all. They only change how apps are deployed. Hence, your whole point about "better quality apps by banning PWAs" is completely wrong.
>Many many apps are made with JS, HTML and CSS and run in a thin wrapper on top of WKWebView (Cordova, nowadays Capacitor). It is Electron sans a browser engine and has been around forever.
I know, I already covered all that.
>They only change how apps are deployed. Hence, your whole point about "better quality apps by banning PWAs" is completely wrong.
I didn't say banning PWAs will result in better quality apps in general. I said:
(1) "Add to home screen PWAs" are not that used in the first place.
(2) "PWAs wrapped as native apps" are, but iOS encourages native apps more.
(3) Giving more parity to PWAs (going the opposite route of the current removal) will encourage them to be used more, which I don't particularly like, for the same reason I don't like Electron (including iOS wrapped-PWAs).
I know, I already covered all that.
>They only change how apps are deployed. Hence, your whole point about "better quality apps by banning PWAs" is completely wrong.
I didn't say banning PWAs will result in better quality apps in general. I said:
(1) "Add to home screen PWAs" are not that used in the first place.
(2) "PWAs wrapped as native apps" are, but iOS encourages native apps more.
(3) Giving more parity to PWAs (going the opposite route of the current removal) will encourage them to be used more, which I don't particularly like, for the same reason I don't like Electron (including iOS wrapped-PWAs).
Fair enough. Regarding (3): The alternative to Electron-Cordova-Wrapper-JS apps is not "native app" but "no app at all". Most people think about flashy apps that probably should be native. You mentioned Slack. But many apps are just stuff that don't have to be an app in the first place, like apps for specific hotels, bus tickets in a local city, app for the local library etc.
These (web) apps as PWAs would offer a better interface and more capabilities than a pure in-browser web app, but they lack the resources to provide a truly native app.
Banning PWAs doesn't encourage native apps, but even shittier web apps. I'd bet 90% of web apps wrapped in Cordova are there only because they need a) local storage and b) push notifications.
These (web) apps as PWAs would offer a better interface and more capabilities than a pure in-browser web app, but they lack the resources to provide a truly native app.
Banning PWAs doesn't encourage native apps, but even shittier web apps. I'd bet 90% of web apps wrapped in Cordova are there only because they need a) local storage and b) push notifications.
As for the topic being discussed - Apple have gone out of their way for the last _decade_ to avoid implementing things like ServiceWorkers properly. I remember having this same conversation back in 2015. It is a real shame, as things like the proposed w3c sensors api would totally eliminate the pain of deploying private/internal/enterprise apps to a fleet of employees, for example. There is so much that this enables for private apps. I won't be surprised if their decade+ old viewport meta tag reference documentation for home screen icons and status bar styling in full screen mode stops working at some point too - it's been neglected for years. It'll be a weird, heartbreaking example of corporate revisionism, especially considering Steve Jobs' original vision for apps on the iphone.
I'm not a huge fan of the big G either, but I honestly hope they take advantage of this with some clever (non-developer) product-centric marketing. PWAs are a very well thought out approach to 90% of what modern apps are. We absolutely should be sandboxing private browser instances per PWA, not shipping entire separate webkit wrappers for every app every time an app is updated. It's almost literally the same difference as shipping layered container images as updates instead of giant VM blobs. Such a huge loss.