Or they could just not.
Instead of siding with Apple, why would I side with anonymous and random internet commentators who have never made devices I want to buy?
I’m talking about toys and gadgets. The ability to view memes.
My iPhone connects me to my government, my bank, my school, my family on the other side of the world, my portfolio, and perhaps most importantly; critical safety services (local avalanche forecasts in my case).
You can be damn well sure I'll be passionate about how it's controlled, and what capabilities the manufacturer is derailing in the interest of record profits.
(For clarity - I'm not the person you responded to, but this is HN so I thought I'd chime in on why some people are so passionate about this so called "toy")
The comment you were replying to, correctly, pointed out that there is no benefit to the user to side with Apple's anti-user stance. This story, and comments about the story are having to do with a users right to install a browser of their choice, choose a payment method of their choice, etc - which is collectively under the DMA that the EU passed into law - democratically. Apple has repeatedly tried their best to spin this, but it is easy to see past the spin.
You're free to make up your own mind.
BTW, My morals, despite my personal failings, are superior to Apple's on this particular issue. Its an interlinked economy with interlinked dependencies on various entities that you may or may not agree with. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to protest them. Otherwise nobody can protest climate change if they drive a car - which is ridiculous.
I'm writing this on a Macbook Pro which I really like, but this decision has downsides for me as user and I'm not convinced by Apple's justification.
And lest I be dismissed as a hater, I currently own five Apple computers, an iPhone I've upgraded every year since they came out, an iPad, a watch, and a virtu^wspatial computing heads^wdevice. But that's because of the transactional value they provide, not because I believe Apple loves me and has my best interests at heart. They love my money and that's where it ends.
I use several PWAs and I will be very disappointed if this is the stick Apple uses to close the window on this short period of time where we had a reasonably interoperable standard for making "apps" using web technologies. I can run Elk in a browser, but it's suboptimal.
At the end of the day, Apple has earned my trust to make choices that maybe aren’t the most “open” choices, because usually they end up being the best experience for me as an end consumer.
In this case, iOS isn't capable of handling different rending engines well. So instead of asking them to improve iOS so this isn't a problem (like it isn't on Android and even other iOS apps), you side with their decision of breaking/removing a feature, even though it doesn't benefit you in any way.
I'm sure you can see the problem with this.
Looking at these things as sides is a mistake. Instead of just being tribal, it's better to look positions on their merits.
Because it seems to be that way on MacOS. On Mac, the App Store is absolutely useless and exclusively something people do not want. It does not distribute the software users want, it charges them extra fees, and limits the type of app you distribute.
Judging by every single professional Mac user I've met, circumventing the App Store is a functional necessity for some. Most of them absolutely "put up with" the limitations and issues of MacOS.
> What about the pre-app store world made it the one preferred by consumers in your mind?
The freedom? The cheaper software? The stronger OS security models and lack of social-manipulation-as-a-security-feature?
If the post-App Store world is so great, people will keep living in it even when alternative stores exist. I suspect that most users will not give a rats ass about convenience if there's a 30% cheaper subscription elsewhere.
Bear in mind I'm replying to someone who's saying app stores aren't necessary in general:
> Well shit, what user needs an app store to begin with
Apple could sign software the same way they do on Mac and effectively turn the App Store into an IPA-downloading PWA.
How do you do this when any value a "merit" could have is based in this dichotomy of vendor/user?
You might say that that's not true, and browsers are easy to secure, but that would be arguing the point on its merits. Not on the tribalist lens you're seeing this situation through.
I agree. English is not my main language and maybe I should have used a different word than "side".
Above someone said that this seems to be an OS problem, which should be fixed by Apple. The person I replied to said "Or they could just not."
And that's why I asked why they were siding with Apple here. What's the benefit for users if iOS doesn't work as expected when a different rendering engine is used for a web app? How is this good for EU users? I don't get it.
I wish Apple'd held a hard line on the "no apps that should be a web site" rule(s) for similar reasons. Alas, they did not.
From my point of view, I don't benefit if 1) Apple removes this option in my region and 2) there's no good reason for me to be against iOS handling better permissions of web apps and other rendering engines, like it already does for all other apps (and something that Android handles without problems).
How surprising.