Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

andregarzia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 927 posts

Re: Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

#151

Post by tarkin2 »

untog wrote: post #136
throaway9aaaapp wrote: post #131

Our company has started shaming iOS. We tell users that because of a commercial policy aiming to increase their revenue from their App Store, iPhones and Ipads "do not support the Web 2.0 technology enabling powerful experiences for web sites and web applications, while Android and Windows devices have been supporting this technology since 201x". We briefly explain in one sentence that it would not be the best use of…

What technologies does Safari not support that you need? That’s a genuine question by the way. I’ve been frustrated by Apple’s reluctance in the past but since they implemented Service Workers things have gotten better. I still really wish they had Web Push but I do understand at least conceptually why they’d be hesitant.

Web recording api. Only works in safari under a flag - they won't release the feature to chrome/firefox.

Re: Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

#152

Post by staplers »

throaway9aaaapp wrote: post #131

Our company has started shaming iOS. We tell users that because of a commercial policy aiming to increase their revenue from their App Store, iPhones and Ipads "do not support the Web 2.0 technology enabling powerful experiences for web sites and web applications, while Android and Windows devices have been supporting this technology since 201x". We briefly explain in one sentence that it would not be the best use of…

Sounds extremely condescending and off-putting. I'd be annoyed if a company said this to me.

There is a lot to love about Apple products outside of a few safari restrictions. They're not perfect but better than a lot of alternatives.

Re: Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

#153

Post by jbeam »

throaway9aaaapp wrote: post #131

Our company has started shaming iOS. We tell users that because of a commercial policy aiming to increase their revenue from their App Store, iPhones and Ipads "do not support the Web 2.0 technology enabling powerful experiences for web sites and web applications, while Android and Windows devices have been supporting this technology since 201x". We briefly explain in one sentence that it would not be the best use of…

I would have to REALLY love your service to want to carry around an extra device to use it.

Re: Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

#154

Post by blauditore »

Wait, does that mean that the only way to keep a login session for more than 7 days will be by using cookies? This seems like a terrible idea. Cookie authentication doesn't make sense in several scenarios, especially when working in a CORS context.

For webapps that keep a session token stored locally, this will be inevitably wiped, so users will have to re-login after that time. I can already hear the complaints coming. Should devs now build a back end just to keep the token, and connect there with a cookie?

Re: Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

#155

Post by dev_tty01 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #118
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they'd need to have me log in and send the config data to their servers You'd have to log in. That's a hurdle that involves implicit consent.

That's a hurdle that involves de-anonymization of the user.

No, Apple offers anonymous user credential technology. Server gets unique identifier and ability to authenticate with no actual user info. Server gets an anonymous redirected email for sending info to the user. Apple is the intermediary. Of course, you can choose not to trust Apple, but Apple already has my info and their business model is not predicated on tracking and advertising. I'd rather continue to trust them than spread my data across more orgs, but that's my choice. You might choose differently.

Re: Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

#156

Post by ratww »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #34
criddell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm still not sure why more vendors don't make iOS PWAs to get around the App Store payment rules. Because users won't use them. For users that don't have a technical background: if it isn't in the app store then it essentially isn't an app. For techie users: lots of us don't want web apps because of the power, memory, and bandwidth usage is often higher than a well written native app. The fact that there's a gatek…

> For users that don't have a technical background: if it isn't in the app store then it essentially isn't an app I'm not convinced of this. If it has an icon like proper apps, and feels like an app, I don't think users are going to mind if it came from the App Store. The question is whether the unfamiliar 'installation' process is too fiddly for non-technical users. I don't think it is. I figure a 10 second How to i…

I've seen a lot of news sites and random WordPress blogs doing that.

It has become spam, just like news sites asking to send notifications.

Re: Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

#158

Post by theNarrative24 »

spzb wrote: post #144
throaway9aaaapp wrote: post #131

Our company has started shaming iOS. We tell users that because of a commercial policy aiming to increase their revenue from their App Store, iPhones and Ipads "do not support the Web 2.0 technology enabling powerful experiences for web sites and web applications, while Android and Windows devices have been supporting this technology since 201x". We briefly explain in one sentence that it would not be the best use of…

Obviously I have no idea what your product is but if I got that message I'd just likely go to one of your competitors (assuming they exist). I wouldn't go and buy another device unless it was for an absolutely critical application.

It's a win win.

OP doesn't need to spend excessive money on developing for a Evil company, and those who buy their products can go to a competitor with a more expensive product.

Nearly everyone has at least one non apple product, so it seems like it would be a problem for a limited number of users.

OP, you are doing God's work.

Re: Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

#159

Post by [deleted] »

throaway9aaaapp wrote: post #131

Our company has started shaming iOS. We tell users that because of a commercial policy aiming to increase their revenue from their App Store, iPhones and Ipads "do not support the Web 2.0 technology enabling powerful experiences for web sites and web applications, while Android and Windows devices have been supporting this technology since 201x". We briefly explain in one sentence that it would not be the best use of…

[deleted]

Re: Private client-side-only PWAs are hard, but now Apple made them impossible

#160

Post by shadowgovt »

spzb wrote: post #144
throaway9aaaapp wrote: post #131

Our company has started shaming iOS. We tell users that because of a commercial policy aiming to increase their revenue from their App Store, iPhones and Ipads "do not support the Web 2.0 technology enabling powerful experiences for web sites and web applications, while Android and Windows devices have been supporting this technology since 201x". We briefly explain in one sentence that it would not be the best use of…

Obviously I have no idea what your product is but if I got that message I'd just likely go to one of your competitors (assuming they exist). I wouldn't go and buy another device unless it was for an absolutely critical application.

> assuming they exist

And that's the real nature of the market, isn't it? If enough third-parties aren't willing to play by Apple's rules, Apple will have to modify the rules.

They're a stubborn company, but it's happened before. They've also been burned trying to own a standard when a common consensus exists they can't control before.

Post reply on HN