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

591–600 of 927 posts

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

#591

Post by PunksATawnyFill »

untog wrote: post #545
wubin wrote: post #483

The source clarifies that this only applies to websites run within the Safari browser.[1] PWAs added to the home screen aren't affected. > As mentioned, the seven-day cap on script-writable storage is gated on "after seven days of Safari use without user interaction on the site." That is the case in Safari. Web applications added to the home screen are not part of Safari and thus have their own counter of days of use…

I don't think that's actually what it clarifies. Or at the very least it's very confusing. > have their own counter of days of use. Their days of use will match actual use of the web application which resets the timer. This makes it sound very much like homescreen apps will have their data wiped after 7 days of non-use. > We do not expect the first-party in such a web application to have its website data deleted. And…

It's beyond confusing. It's meaningless, and even grammatically nonsensical.

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

#592

Post by rimliu »

untog wrote: post #482
mulmen wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand this. If you want to make something local, make an app and distribute through the app store, that's what it is for. A web app on the other hand is connected by definition, no? Apple forcing local apps to distribute through the app store is a feature .

> A web app on the other hand is connected by definition, no? No, not in the era of "progressive web apps", which is really just a little bit of branding around interconnected APIs. The Cache API in particular means that a webapp can be downloaded and made available offline on a permanent basis. Unless it isn't actually permanent at all, which is what Apple are doing here. The web and the App Store are just delivery…

That's the same era as the "year of the Linux" desktop. I keep hearing "PWAs will win" for ten years now. Some people just want to use ill-fitted web tech everywhere, because that's all they know.

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

#593

Post by alkonaut »

koonsolo wrote: post #584
alkonaut wrote: post #434

Did PWA's take off? What are some famous/big PWA's now? I can't remember ever "installing" anything in a browser as an app, or even being asked if I wanted to do it. Am I misunderstanding what they are?

Twitter client is a PWA.

Ok I think I'll have to rephrase the question: are there many widely used PWAs that actually go one step further than being a web app using a few of these APIs (spotify, twitter), and actually try to "mimic" desktop apps more (installation, icons, fully offline etc)?

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

#594

Post by e12e »

fastball wrote: post #481
brlewis wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A web app on the other hand is connected by definition, no? No, it just has to run in a browser.

Well it needs to be downloaded from the internet at least the first time, so it's intrinsically going to be less secure than an app that you can guarantee never connects to the internet.

Has to come from somewhere. A pwa might have to come via http (I'm not sure) - but html+js+css can come from the (from a) filesystem too. Like an USB-c memory stick.

Or from an extracted archive (much like a native app).

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

#595

Post by cloverich »

notduncansmith wrote: post #515
dubcanada wrote: post #436

I don't understand what the problem is. I can easily go to the settings area and delete my entire browser cache (Remove All Website Data), in fact if you are running low of space it even tells you to do it. Why are people assuming things stored on a browser are a good place to store things. Nothing stored on a browser should be assumed to be forever.

I also don't understand the alarm. There is no hard limit on how long things will be stored. Data in localStorage might still be stored for weeks/months/years, as before. The only limit is on how long things will be stored if the user does not interact with the site/PWA . If you are a website, not a natively-installed app, that I haven't "used" in a first-party sense for 7 days or more, I don't think your data belong…

It is certainly a plan to further relegate PWAs because they directly challenge the monetization strategy of apple. Its an area where their interests do not align with user interests. A "properly written" PWA may offer things like not re-fetching data from the internet when you already have it locally, and / or not forcing you to create an account just to save some basic data (ex: A recipe app, a jobs search app, etc). Consider for example, saving a job search website as an app, and being able to search and save jobs without having to make an account. An account could be offered if you want cross device syncing, but is not required just to save jobs. Which is great because some users prefer to remain anonymous, and PWA's open the door to that type of thing (as a singular example).

This move is _an_ example of Apple's (understandable) hostility towards PWA's, but you must understand the context here: There is a threshold beyond which PWA's become a generally acceptable strategy, and the quality and diversity rise over time. Apple is preventing that with this move (and others). That's why people are upset. Moreover, the outcome of this will be more "native" apps that are actually just wrappers around web apps, that exist purely because some basic functionality is being actively blocked by Apple.

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

#598

Post by dragontamer »

icedchai wrote: post #582
rezz wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an end user there’s an icon on their screen, they tap it, the app opens. It didn’t matter if they downloaded from the AppStore or from a website. This is no longer the case which is why the OP is upset.

Pretty sure it is still the case if they have connectivity...

I actually have an old phone that I used as a remote-control for my home-threater PC. No connectivity needed, but the phone did everything I needed. Move the mouse, act as a keyboard, and mostly raise volume / change channel.

Phones are computers. Even if you remote all connectivity to the outside world, they still function as well as any PC from the early 90s (or earlier). A huge amount of compute power, tons of storage, etc. etc.

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

#599

Post by djsumdog »

I love that the app he wants to build is an RSS reader. I just did a post on why we should be making more use of RSS as individuals:

https://battlepenguin.com/tech/rss-the-original-federated-so...

Interesting he ran into the CORS situation with PWAs. It makes sense. It feels like even PWAs aren't that far off from Electron. Sure you're not launching another browser and can share a browser engine, but you hit other limitations.

I'd rather have a real, lightweight, stand alone app most of the times honestly. I wish people would write more stuff in Qt5. You can bundle Python+PyQt5 together for a reasonable licensing fee. A great example is the Resolve color/video editor is written in C++/Qt5.

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

#600

Post by [deleted] »

iameli wrote: post #493
redindian75 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Web applications added to the home screen are not part of Safari and thus have their own counter of days of use."[1] From WebKit: [1] https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocki... A Note On Web Applications Added to the Home Screen As mentioned, the seven-day cap on script-writable storage is gated on after seven days of Safari use without user interaction on the site.” That is the case in Safari.…

> Web applications added to the home screen are not part of Safari and thus have their own counter of days of use. [...] We do not expect the first-party in such a web application to have its website data deleted. I don't get it. Which of these statements is correct? 1. "Web applications added to the home screen are not part of Safari and thus have their own counter of days of use. Of course, that counter doesn't do…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN