Live data from Hacker News

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

andregarzia.com

161–170 of 927 posts

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

#161

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…

In addition to what others have said, I think the effectiveness of this likely depends heavily on the target audience - to a non-technical user, this will probably come across as lazy. From their perspective, everything else works fine on Apple, so you must be complaining about nothing.

Of course, if everyone did the same, people would start to realise the problem might be with Apple, but the chances of all (or most, or even many) big web services deciding to alienate such a large portion of their (potential) customers seem slim.

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

#162
post #137
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being logged out after 7 days of inactivity could be a little bit annoying but I can live with that, as long as I can log in again. I could be misinterpreting your comment but are you saying your keys are simply destroyed upon this “log out”? Then I’m not really sure why your platform was considered working in the first place, if it’s tied to a specific browser of a specific device and won’t survive a clearing of sto…

No, it's not tied to a specific device. You can of course log back in, and keys are not "destroyed". We ask users to store a 12-word seed phrase, from which all other keys are derived from.

Okay, I personally wouldn’t hate logging in to a seldom used app once a week too much.

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

#163
post #144

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.

Exactly. It sounds to me like websites that refuse to load in GDPR countries. Good, if you can’t support me I don’t need to support you.

90% of software engineering (or engineering in general) is finding solutions for difficult problems. Throwing up your hands and saying you refuse to support one of the most popular computing platforms is certainly a decision that any business is free to make, but then again as a consumer I’m free to make my own decisions as well.

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

#164
I think looking at Apple as saviour of Privacy, is for lack of better term just wrong. They have always favoured closed systems even if didn't provide privacy advantages or as in this case was counter-intuitive for privacy.

I feel the comparison of Apple with data companies such as Google, Facebook is by itself at fault. Apple like any computer company of 70's was not into data, just because Internet itself didn't exist at that point like it does now. 'Apple didn't choose to be in data' is projected as altruistic, instead of just a marketing ploy(they didn't choose, because it wasn't available).

Apple doesn't receive even the fraction of scrutiny Google, Facebook receive (which they should). e.g. iCloud hack, Apple's response to iOS vulnerabilities targeted by state actors, Newer Safari being incompatible with privacy extensions such as uBO etc.

Personally I feel good that Apple is not into data, just because I feel if they are into data; they might be more evil than Google or Facebook aided by their walled garden.

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

#165
I already have a comment on this subject in a thread here but I believe this should be stressed more explicitly.

Apple didn't kill offline web apps. You can always add an interaction to your app which exports the stored data into a file which then can be saved by the user. It can be done entirely on the client side as well. If anything died here, it is the implicit consent by the user for allowing unnoticed storage space consumption. Implementing an export function will automatically make your app portable, which is always appreciated I believe.

Most data on local storage is some kind of structured tree, table or blob. All can be exported with only little effort.

HTML5 games -> Prompt user with a dialog to download saves/assets after they play the game for a while.

Productivity apps -> Detect "ctrl/cmd + s" to prompt a save dialog. Add save buttons somewhere visible.

Map like apps -> Do nothing. If the user is not visiting the map for 7 days, they don't need the map data persisted either. If necessary, allow explicit save with UI buttons for people who travel often.

Apps/sites which use local storage for auth related artifacts -> Notify users if they click "Remember Me" and explain them the caveats. Allow for encrypted save if users ask for it.

Kiosks -> Use Electron or a similar tech.

I am open to counter arguments. I don't have any idea about how mobile browsers behave for the scenarios stated above.

Edit: I use draw.io since last year and the experience there is as refreshing as it can be in this SPA jungle. I use it as a good example to learn from for my own web app projects.

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

#166
post #161

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…

In addition to what others have said, I think the effectiveness of this likely depends heavily on the target audience - to a non-technical user, this will probably come across as lazy. From their perspective, everything else works fine on Apple, so you must be complaining about nothing. Of course, if everyone did the same, people would start to realise the problem might be with Apple, but the chances of all (or most,…

It very much depends on the market.

In the general case, almost all websites and web apps don't need offline storage at all.

But the ones that do often need it for very business-enterprise reasons, and here Apple is taking a bit of a risk. I've watched companies hang onto old versions of Flash well past the sell-by date because for quite some time, it was the most practical platform to build a cross-platform videoconferencing client in. And once it's built, the opportunity cost to throw it away and switch to [OTHER_TECHNOLOGY_X] matters.

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

#167
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a very rosy way of looking at it. iOS has had bugs with its “add to home screen” webapps that kicked around literally for years . If they were being “user first” they’d support it fully or not support it at all. Instead they implemented then neglected it.

How many users even know or care about that feature?

Once you take your head out of that iAss, you may see how defensive and idiotic your comment is.

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

#168
post #153

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.

... or find it really necessary. Banks, for example, have the clout to expect this kind of behavior. The built-up reputation and long-term partnerships a company and a bank build up can out-value all kinds of IT inconveniences.

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

#169
Perhaps the author doesn't realize that WebKit is open source. They could have used their screed to propose to the WebKit team that a first-party page loaded from a file:/// URI not have its client-side storage subject to the 7-day purge, by setting the "firstPartyWebsiteDataRemovalMode" network connection property to "none" — patch included! But they did not, which is quite disappointing.

The new change to ITP is here: https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/commit/4db42c1571d821572ea9...

The cookie filtering logic specifically is located here: https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/search?q=filtercookies

The file:/// handler is implemented here: https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/blob/master/Source/WebCore/...

(I don't have anything to do with Apple or WebKit.)

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

#170

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…

> If people love your product/service getting a $30 phone to be power users and make their life easier and their experience richer will not be a big deal for them.

So you're suggesting shifting the development costs of you building a native / cross platform app directly to your customers? Does this work?

Post reply on HN