41–50 of 829 posts
As a European dev I want apple to fail super hard and implode. They used to be so cool and make slick hardware for their nische but now I'm happy to use worse hardware as long as they disapear from the face of the earth.
Since the article doesn't actually repeat what Apple has said, here's what Apple says: == Begin quote == The iOS system has traditionally provided support for Home Screen web apps by building directly on WebKit and its security architecture. That integration means Home Screen web apps are managed to align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS, including isolation of storage and enforcement of sys…
Translation from Apple talk to real talk: allowing competing browser engines will undermine our grip on the market through lock-in to the engine we fully control. We don't want to lose power. As control freaks, we'll do all we can to sabotage it.
Since the article doesn't actually repeat what Apple has said, here's what Apple says: == Begin quote == The iOS system has traditionally provided support for Home Screen web apps by building directly on WebKit and its security architecture. That integration means Home Screen web apps are managed to align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS, including isolation of storage and enforcement of sys…
Thanks for posting that. I'm no iOS expert but it actually sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation. It's at least good to hear Apple's side here, and more knowledgeable commenters here can weigh in as to whether it really does seem genuine.
This is essentially saying no-one can build a secure browser.
Since the article doesn't actually repeat what Apple has said, here's what Apple says: == Begin quote == The iOS system has traditionally provided support for Home Screen web apps by building directly on WebKit and its security architecture. That integration means Home Screen web apps are managed to align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS, including isolation of storage and enforcement of sys…
They say themselves it would be possible to be compliant with the DMA without removing what is obviously competition they don't like. But they try to take the road which - just by chance, obviously, the security is the real reason - helps them to keep more people away from competition. I don't buy it.
Since the article doesn't actually repeat what Apple has said, here's what Apple says: == Begin quote == The iOS system has traditionally provided support for Home Screen web apps by building directly on WebKit and its security architecture. That integration means Home Screen web apps are managed to align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS, including isolation of storage and enforcement of sys…
Seems like an OS problem. They should fix that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m going to be level with you: there is nothing so great about PWAs that they’re worth mandating or protecting by law in any jurisdiction and the EU doesn’t owe it to you to try. Web developers like them. That’s it, and their PWA advocacy completely disregards what a privacy and security nightmare they can be without proper safeguards, because this little device I carry around in my pocket is 1) always with me and 2…
I'm not a fan of PWAs either, but disabling them instead of allowing them to continue to run is an incredibly bad faith response to the DMA.
Even if Apple thinks it’s worth doing, that takes time, and web developers aren’t worth prioritizing for them when they have a lot of other ground to cover building out a new system of APIs and entitlements to comply with the DMA’s other requirements.
In combination with the 'Core Technology Fee' that financially cripples any developer that tries to release a popular app outside the official app store, this is pathetic behavior. Hopefully the EU smacks them down for this temper tantrum at being forced to adhere to the DMA. They are trying to flex their market power and should be reminded they operate within a system of laws that doesn't bend for anyone, regardless…
Yeah, this isn't a parlor game, I have no idea why they think the antitrust pressure will abate by such bad faith nonsense moves. Next step for the EU is to make Tim Cook choose whether he wants to be CEO of the device side or service side of the broken up Apple. It's clear that fining them is useless.
Some of y'all need to be reminded to be realistic.
As a European dev I want apple to fail super hard and implode. They used to be so cool and make slick hardware for their nische but now I'm happy to use worse hardware as long as they disapear from the face of the earth.
They ain't never been cool. The shit practices they are trying to defend were there from day 1 and are baked into their DNA. Treating their users like stupid animals that don't know what's good for them is what they do. And they will fight tooth and nail to continue to do it. Even as EU tries to kick their predatory ways out of them. To think there's a hardware thing in 2024 that does not allow its owner to compile a…
The problem I have with that is that they are selling a ContentFilter as an integrated part of their OS, when it can be a separate, optional part, and even offered by a third party.
Also, they equate AppStore == ContentFilter, which are clearly two separate concepts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TLDR: We did not want to give other browsers too powerful apis to compete with Safari & App Store.
From the (admittedly little) I know about how iOS handles security and the speed at which they responded this sounds like a pretty credible explanation to me. What makes you think it isn't?
They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater.