Granted, this is just UI tweak so I'm not convinced it has to be private, but they probably just don't want to have to maintain that forever.
Now that Safari supports the HTML5 date picker (since iOS 14.1 - five years ago), this is more of a meme than fact-based reasoning. Unless you believe Google including something in Chrome automatically makes it a "standard."
I have a list (unfortunately on a device I can't access now) of web standards that are supported on Safari and Firefox, but not on Chrome. I need it because one web site I work on is 100% Safari users (about 800 people), and another is mostly Android (about 70%). So I need a cheat sheet of which does what.
>Now that Safari supports the HTML5 date picker (since iOS 14.1 - five years ago), this is more of a meme than fact-based reasoning
Apple forces all browsers on iOS to use the Safari browser engine, which they intentionally hobble by not implementing APIs that other browser engines have had forever so that Apple can force developers to create native apps for iOS which Apple then can extract 30% (or whatever they decide it is today) revenue from, where they can't do that from a web application. This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ for antitrust violations, and one reason they got sued by the EU and lost.
Go here:
https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+143,safari+26.0&compareC...
Note the non-supported Safari API's, the vast majority are not web standards.
Apple forcing Safari on iOS is present day, today, not 5 years ago (but it was also 5 years ago too, ever since there was an iOS webview). If Apple doesn't want to implement it, then they shouldn't force other browser makers to use their hobbled browser engine.
Your comments are some Stockholm-syndrome level nonsense you're spouting to protect your favorite brand.
I really never commented on lock-in, even said it's fine to dislike it. You're fighting an imaginary opponent here.
I really just pointed out that Safari largely caught up on web standards. It's Google doing the whole "embrace, extend, extinguish" thing that IE pioneered by stuffing non-standards into their browser so they can lock people in.
FTFY
Without IE we wouldn't have XMLHTTPRequest, something used by practically every web developer in existence today. Innovation happens, and apparently so do walled gardens that outright forbid any competition.
It's one thing to not implement web bluetooth, web midi, and other APIs on your own browser, it's quite another to block anyone else from doing so with their web browsers. The EU thought so too and forced Apple to let other browsers use their own engines. But not in the US yet, until the DOJ completes the case against Apple.
I’d love to debate you on the rest, but it’s a debate that’s been had here at least a thousand times.
** What matters is that Apple is still blocking other browser vendors from using anything but Safari. **
The fact you can't or won't see how fucked up that is tells me everything I need to know about you.
Edit: I looked it up, and apparently its added in Safari 26!
It mattered because Microsoft had 95% of the operating system market at the time and was using its monopoly position to take over the web, even after signing a decent decree with the US government.
The current web monopolist (Google) was coincidentally founded 2 months after the US antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft was decided (july - september 1998).
Similarly meh results with US vs Google two weeks ago.
I don't think that's a credible argument. Apple, at best, has about 55% smartphone marketshare in the United States--and significantly less in most other countries.
Remember, having a monopoly isn't itself illegal; it's using the monopoly to disadvantage competitors, especially in emerging markets, which was what the Microsoft case was all about.
I don't think there's a legal justification for suggesting that Apple creating a private feature only they can use--for now--gives them unfair advantage in the market.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple makes it a public feature in a future release of iOS 26.
Spent so much time trying to repro some functionality only to realize that Windows has an allow list for what apps it listens to for certain APIs.
Historically Microsoft had a 100% back compat guarantee for APIs, so the second an API was documented its external interface was frozen in stone forever. There are still APIs around to this day that have misspelled struct fields because someone made a typo 30+ years ago.
If an API isn't documented it is "use at your own risk", although if enough large software starts depending on it, the API may have to be frozen anyway (or compatibility shims put into place) to avoid breaking popular software programs.
*https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20031015-00/?p=42...
*https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20031223-00/?p=41...
*https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20230113-00/?p=10...
*https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20060109-27/?p=32...
“Timmy got away with it. I should get away with it, too.” -Elementary school students
But this is exactly why you SHOULD be outraged.
Is Google's "-webkit-tap-highlight-color" also anticompetitive? Should we ban the current practice of shipping proprietary CSS attributes while sometimes also proposing them for standardization?
It's just really hard for me to read that as a legit complaint.
If Apple uses this CSS liquid glass effect in their apps, it'll pass App Store review just fine.
Do you see the issue now?
But when Apple creates self-serving APIs in a web browser engine, it's just another private entitlement, a red herring and their right as the proprietor of Safari.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
It appears that this particular API is restricted to embedded webviews, too (doesn’t work in Safari), so it has no bearing on the open web, unlike APIs such as WebUSB in Chrome.
Do you have any evidence of this claim? It's possible that neither Apple or third party developers are able to ship apps through the app store with it.
Citation needed.
The blog article speculates this, but there is no proof.
They do not publish any "proof" to cite beyond what they write there. And they interpret and enforce the rules at their own whim.
The private API is here: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/613c42873c56e2b2073f91... it's on WKWebView and resembles other private APIs they forbid access to
Apple absolutely does reject apps for using private APIs. Here is a famous case where they started rejecting Electron apps for private API use: https://9to5mac.com/2019/11/04/electron-app-rejections/ You are welcome to sit and wait for Apple to publish proof that this new private API is just like the others but you shouldn't bother others demanding they cite it for you when clarification will not come for this particular API and there is already precedence on how they handle it categorically. You also shouldn't spread false confidence that it's OK to use these APIs due to lack of "proof" which meets your own standards when it can and has resulted not only in apps being removed but also threat of developer accounts being terminated. (Even if this is rare.)
I understand it can be confusing: they don't do it consistently and they change their enforcement of it over time as they please. Even when it's not done automatically, they can and have inspected closely "by hand" if they are looking for a reason to punish. It is a liability.
> Apple App Review Guidelines: 2.5.1 Apps may only use public APIs and must run on the currently shipping OS.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
And here's the (private) field that needs to be enabled on your webview to enable the CSS property. Otherwise (according to the author) it's just ignored: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/613c42873c56e2b2073f91...
What apple does and what the article talks about: They have a CSS property that ONLY they can use, you can't put that in your PWA, it won't work (no matter the browser).
This is much ado about nothing.
This isn't in the list of per se anticompetitive practises so it would need to be covered by the "rule of reason". That would require someone to demonstrate actual harm to competition that flowed directly from the illegal nature of the practise and was not compensated by some offsetting procompetitive benefit and there is no less restrictive alternative.
I don't see how a CSS property would meet the standard of actual harm to competition, especially since noone is stopping you from making your own liquid glass css if you want to (as far as I can see).
It's also quite likely that it's a) not being used at all, and the private API is just for internal testing until it's ready to be made public, and/or b) used by certain OS components that aren't competing with third-party apps (e.g. somewhere in the Settings panel).
And while I agree with your assertion in theory, some cosmetic styling is probably about the least important, most trivial example you could come up with... can't really get myself worked up about this one.
Apple does plenty of bad things, and many are worse than this, but it doesn't mean it's not fair to point out this one is bad, too.
It all comes down to "the vendor can do things with your computer you can't do yourself" in the end.
It's not even that. A console vendor that locks down everything behind the TPM helps to not deal with cheaters is arguably fine. A console vendor that is also a game develop and caps the FPS of all games that aren't their own is abusing their monopoly position in one market to gain unfair advantage on a different market.
More broadly, and not based on antitrust grounds but on property rights grounds, I am opposed to every kind of DRM. First, it should be legal to circumvent any and all DRM/anti-copying measures. Second, it should be illegal to deprive the next owner of their property rights so that you can exert ownership control over a product past its sale.
If I buy a computer, do nothing but install a keylogging rootkit on it, and sell it on to someone else, I would rightly risk jail time. "The malware is part of the product" is not a valid excuse. DRM is also malware. It should be prosecuted as such, and if existing legislation is found wanting, more specific laws need to be written.
For example, if there was a glowing light on the edge of the phone that only lights up with stock apps and company apps, and that signfies for security that an app belongs to a company, that is ok.
I don't consider design/appearance to be a feature. YMD.
So, if you wanted webviews that could leverage this you’d basically need a native swift app with webviews to get access.
Look at the m3/4 macs they are insane machines because even the hardware is unified.
If you mean "anti-competitive" without referring to monopolies, then, well, every company does that.
With every other app using a web view.
> without referring to monopolies
Of course it’s about monopolies. Safari is still “privileged” to be forced default browser. Making an alternative, Apple ensured to be very hard and expensive. So gating any kind of first party feature is a big no.
I'm an antitrust nerd - 20+ years since I made my first PACER account as a teenager to get documents from interesting cases..
95% of what people call "anticompetitive" or "monopolistic" has no legal bearing. People don't know the legal definition of those words and bandy them about based on vibes.
This however, is a very very clear case of violations of precedent. If we look at Microsoft's final judgement https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/final-judgment-133 see F(1)(a), H(2)(b), while these stipulations haven't been applied to Apple, if I were in a market dominant position, I'd be super careful about capricious restrictions like the example undocumented API, and behavior that mimics patterns of activity that were seen as actionably sanctionable to similar market dominant forces