iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU
macrumors.com
macrumors.com
They don't want to, and will go out of their way to make their statement.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20...
Right, we know that they're doing things in the EU specifically because they're required to do so; their insistence on using geo-locking for that is grudging but not sinister. It would be sinister to say "let's intentionally remove web app functionality, only for EU users", but I don't see anything in the story that makes it implausible that what actually happened is that somebody rushed out shoddily written code for EU users, and it had this unintended effect.
This may seem like special pleading for Apple, but, as chongli's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39321362 to which I responded pointed out, why would they want to do this? Apple is many things as a company, but small minded and spiteful (as opposed to simply dictatorial) against its users isn't usually one of them. At the very least, to present that as the only possible explanation seems to be over-reaching.
> And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388652
They are small minded, they are spiteful, and you are specially pleading on their behalf. I don't blame you for being wrong. I just hope you learn not to trust companies, as their interests will almost certainly never be aligned with yours.
I was wrong. I still think that this was plausible, but, as a TechCrunch article https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/15/apple-confirms-its-breakin... now on the front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 makes clear, it's not true.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39314074
It’s also possible that given the timeline, this was the only way to comply with the law and allow a different default browser and it’ll be fixed in the future?
Looking forward to the EU Commission taking Apple to the ECJ over this, I strongly suspect the EU Commission will win, because even if it doesn't, it will just propose legislation changes to outlaw Apple's behaviour anyway.
> You can do it your own way
> If it’s done just how I say
Despite common belief in Europe, there is plenty of strongly binding consumer and labor protection legislation in the US (especially at the state level). It just happens to be much more verbose and specific to take "interpretation" out of the equation. And when companies slither around some loophole, it gets amended, ideally; if some corporate lobbyist doesn't get their way (something that also, definitely occurs in the EU).
That being said, I'm rooting for the ECJ to win here. Maybe it would kickstart a change that's also sorely needed in the US.
Legal and illegal is a human concept. In Nazi Germany it was illegal for Jewish doctors to treat non-Jewish people.
A workaround isn’t necessarily circumventing.
“The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
"Fair" is not any less weasel than "free" in "free market". There's no free market when monopolistic corporations abuse their power.
So then, who’s „fair” and who isn’t. Are you implying that I’m not „fair”? Can you please clarify how am I „not fair”? Tell me where it hurts you.
Am I not „fair” because I spent a couple of decades building something and it worked, or are you not „fair” because you clearly can’t compete so you you use legislation to force your „fair”.
In the context of this thread, this is a good summary of what is happening here:
> Apple's decision to alter the functionality of PWAs specifically in the EU could be interpreted as an attempt to navigate the regulatory landscape imposed by the DMA, but it may simply want to prevent users in Europe from using web apps with alternative browser engines. The company has not yet commented on its motivations.
Using PWA in a different browsing engine could be a viable way to bypass some limitations on the platform. Apple obviously doesn't want that, as it profits from those limitations.
Apple is abusing its power as the owner of the platform to both limit competition (everyone has to pay the rent for being in that platform) and limit user choice. It is inherently unfair.
If Microsoft did something similar on Windows, everyone would be up in arms about it, rightfully so. But when it is Apple there is a very tiresome parade of sycophants white-knighting for a manufacturer of luxury tech toys.
There's nothing else to be said on this matter. I'll not engage on this conversation any further. Feel free to have the last word.
It's the reason why they can't sell you food poisoned with lead in the supermarket.
"But but muh free market".
Edit. Links below suggest a less than nefarious explanation but the reality of the point above stands.
This and more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007
(I have not personally verified the behavior described in that tweet, but if it's true then a lot of the reporting and commentary around this story has left out important details and the actual change is positive for users. Intentionally configured PWAs still work; everything else opens in your default browser, without any potentially unwanted magic.)