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

831–840 of 927 posts

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

#831

Post by vbezhenar »

b1tr0t wrote: post #613
burtonator wrote: post #543

I ported Polar ( https://getpolarized.io/ ) over to a PWA about a year ago. It's kind of a nightmare due to both Google and Apple messing things up. PWAs could be an amazing platform but both companies are really messing it up. Apple is trying to kill them by giving plausible explanations as to why they can't have PWAs. Security this, blah blah blah. There's no reason they can't have PWAs work well in Safari other th…

Hi there, I'm the product manager for PWAs on the Chrome team. Very interested in hearing about pain points you've had building out PWAs, especially if there's features you were keen on that haven't been released. Easiest way to reach me is on Twitter: https://twitter.com/b1tr0t Fully agree with you that docs are all over the place. We've started to consolidate docs under web.dev, and the PWA section launched recentl…

Please consider contributing to MDN. It's the best source for web development and it would be great to keep everything there, properly cross-referenced, etc.

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

#832

Post by fierarul »

saagarjha wrote: post #809
fierarul wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I gave quite some details. Do you need the exact AdoptOpenJDK version (11.0.5+10 for macOS)? And I made a test about the non-global rules too (by trying to submit the same binary and getting rejected).

Apple may have stepped up notarization requirements, but I never heard them be inconsistent across developers. Are you sure you submitted the same binary? Nothing different about the signing or bundle layout?

Well, I would love to know how to change the bundle layout to have to sign less.

My notes are here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/34472331

You can take the same Apache-NetBeans-11.3-bin-macosx.dmg and see how you could submit it with your own key.

I guess there may be different rules on a .pkg vs .app in a DMG but it seems silly since the user gets the same bits on disk.

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

#833

Post by colinjoy »

gsnedders wrote: post #141
diggan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, as far as I understand, cookies is the only storage method that will be left to use for long-term storage of user data. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. Edit: getting downvoted without any reasoning provided, so I assume I'm incorrect, there are more/less ways of storing data in the future for Safari users?

Cookies expire in the same way.

great, sounds like we‘ll get to consent to storing cookies more frequently - everybody loves these banners. there’s even more fun to be had, thanks to GDPR dialogs with 73 nested toggles.

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

#834

Post by _0w8t »

searchableguy wrote: post #760
millstone wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is a web monoculture too. Non-Blink browsers on Android are at <1%.

You can install any browser you want from playstore or outside of playstore. There are no restrictions on what you can and cannot have on your phone on android.

Yet non-default browsers on Android are non-existent. So in practice Android has the same web-engine mono-culture as iPhone. Given how successfully Google was able to ensure Blink domination on desktop and even more so on Android it is very understandable what Apple has done. And for me having at least 2 web engines on mobile is better than 1.

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

#835

Post by diggan »

vbezhenar wrote: post #831
b1tr0t wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there, I'm the product manager for PWAs on the Chrome team. Very interested in hearing about pain points you've had building out PWAs, especially if there's features you were keen on that haven't been released. Easiest way to reach me is on Twitter: https://twitter.com/b1tr0t Fully agree with you that docs are all over the place. We've started to consolidate docs under web.dev, and the PWA section launched recentl…

Please consider contributing to MDN. It's the best source for web development and it would be great to keep everything there, properly cross-referenced, etc.

Heh, you're asking a googler who's basically responsible for some of the actions Google is taking with Chrome, trying to make the web only browseable via Chrome and centralizing information under their own Google brand, to contribute to a cross-company/community effort (Mozilla + Microsoft + open source hackers)? While noble, I can only wish you good luck.

I think the sail has long sailed for asking Chrome/Google to help out with the openness/sharing on the web/internet. It's time we just start ignoring them instead.

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

#836

Post by wmeredith »

schoenobates wrote: post #810
reilly3000 wrote: post #803

This is really in response to the irresponsible use of APIs for trackers. Evercookie is a stunning example of how far it can go... From their repo: - Standard HTTP Cookies - Flash Local Shared Objects - Silverlight Isolated Storage - CSS History Knocking - Storing cookies in HTTP ETags (Backend server required) - Storing cookies in Web cache (Backend server required) - HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) Pinning (w…

“... abusing over a dozen technologies...” is this a proof-of-concept or a real thing ? It just seems too horrendous to be real. I think your comment really hits the nail on the head, IMHO the frustration shouldn’t be directed toward Apple but more toward the groups who have pushed the tracking practice so far to necessitate such draconian measures.

This is 100% correct. Being upset at Apple here is exactly like publishers whining about ad blockers when they should direct their frustration and anger directly at the ad creators (or themselves) for foolishly abusing their audience.

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

#837

Post by ss3000 »

philistine wrote: post #763
Silhouette wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope not. Apple has had substandard support for modern web technologies in Safari for a long time, to the point where it is often referred to in the industry as the new IE. We've had enough of browsers breaking things that used to work in the name of false progress. Time for the grown-ups to take a careful look and see this for what it is.

Here’s my take on what it is: the most battery-efficient browser. I’ll take 30 more minutes on my laptop before some nebulous modern web standard.

Would you also take gradually losing access to other modern web standards apps rely on as time goes on until the only realistic option we have for building, deploying, and consuming apps are the walled gardens controlled by 2 corporations who have arbitrary rules on who can and can't participate, freely stifling innovation/competition as their interests dictate, and taking a more and more outrageous cut of all economic activity on the platform?

That's where this is going.

> "first they came for localStorage and I did nothing"

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

#838

Post by diegoperini »

vbezhenar wrote: post #443
diegoperini wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly oppose Apple's anti-consumer practices in their App Store policy, PWA policy (non-existent) and similar places. I just believe this (localStorage policy) is not one of those cases. Agreeing with Apple's disagreeable design choices isn't an apology, it's an honest opinion. If these choices are disagreeable, which I believe they are, they must be also agreeable by definition.

There's one simple thing that Apple could do. Do not delete local data if user bookmarked page from that website (or pinned it to home screen for mobile devices). Now bookmarked website treated like an "app" with slightly less restrictions and some random website data will be eventually purged (although I believe that 7 days should be extended to few months).

This is a great idea. Long forgotten bookmarks now has a purpose. I wish someone pitched this to all browsers out there.

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

#839

Post by dordoka »

soapdog wrote: post #370
hosteur wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what it is about. I welcome the move from Apple. Web devs can store state server side. They cry because tracking will be harder now.

I'm the OP and I'm crying because I'm working on apps that don't have backend so that your data is yours and never leave your computer. This is now impossible for WebKit users.

Sorry if I sound rude, but my conclusion from your article is that the problem here is you don't want to assume the costs and resources needed to build a backend and blame Apple.

Please read the HTML/Web Storage standard [0] and try to find where Apple is not honouring it.

Even before this move by Apple, you should already had to consider localStorage to be subjected to being wiped by actors not in your control.

On top of that, localStorage privacy concerns were also in the standard. See section 11.4.1 [1].

Nevertheless, I reckon Webkit should expose the option to the user.

I feel your pain, I really do, but I can't see how Apple made PWAs impossible.

[0] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webstorage.html#webst... [1] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webstorage.html#priva...

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

#840

Post by diegoperini »

aquadrop wrote: post #221
diegoperini wrote: post #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 s…

And for what? To save space? That's ridiculous. > If anything died here, it is the implicit consent by the user for allowing unnoticed storage space consumption What about explicit consent? It also dies. That's just inventing problems.

Implicit consent is lack of explicit consent so yes, apple fixed the problem by inventing another one. The thing is, this new problem of missing the explicit consent is easier to fix than going all in with the implicit approach. Not sure if Apple will follow though.
Post reply on HN