Apple's intentional crippling of Mobile Safari
pwa.gripe
pwa.gripe
That being said, I am not sure why I would actually want most of these features in the browser? Many of these things feel like they further complicate what a browser is supposed to be doing and opens up security concerns at the same time.
I think the idea of using a web app for many tasks instead of apps is fine, but I don't think the idea that a web app can do everything is the way to go.
Edit: To be clear about the Firefox comment, notice that many of the features that are not supported non chromium browsers don't support on any platform. So the question on whether these are considered web standards is outside of whether iOS allows other engines.
Edit again: Apparently the third column is based on your current browser instead of always comparing chrome, mobile safari, and firefox like I assumed. I am currently on Firefox on Windows, and there are more red X's under Firefox for me. Seems like a weird choice to not always compare all major browsers.
A web app could ask you to use a different browser (not ideal, but if the web app requires a specific API, it's not an unreasonable).
Safari is in a very special position because it controls what the web can do on iOS (all browsers on iOS have to use Apple's WebKit engine, they can't add web features). Apple is not just gatekeeping native (through the app store), but its competition, too (the open web, through the webkit requirement)
The very important part about this is whether or not these features are actually considered a web standard or is it Google pushing their own agenda.
Which is where whether or not any non chromium browser supports any of these on any platform. Which many of these features they don't.
That completely changes the conversation here, from Apple purposefully ignoring standards to Google pushing things that are not standards yet. Which I will admit that the reality is a bit of both here, but it should not be considered a negative when a browser does not support a feature that is non standard... we heavily criticized IE for exactly this and yet we celebrate Chrome for it?
Apple is on the W3C board that gets to decide what APIs become standards, so Apple is definitely pushing their own agenda on the W3C.
So you can't really complain that Google is pushing their own agenda with these APIs when Apple is the one refusing to make them a standard. In this case, Apple is the one doing shady shit by holding back things like web bluetooth for no good reason. No, "security" is not a reason, this API has been in use on other platforms for a very long time with no real security issues.
There are lots of other standard APIs that have been implemented, but Apple refused to let the ones that eat into their app store go forward.
>we heavily criticized IE for exactly this and yet we celebrate Chrome for it?
I remember when IE implemented XMLHTTPRequest, and it did a lot of good for the web.
I also remember when Microsoft got an antitrust case for simply bundling IE with Windows, yet Apple seems to get a pass for forbidding all other browser engines on iOS? Well, fortunately Apple has its own antitrust case in the DOJ now for its own abusive business tactics.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
We really need to stop putting google on a pedestal as if they are truelly on the side of an open web, like every company they are looking out for their own interests. Which is fine, they are allowed to do this.
That doesn't change that many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. A discussion about why it may not be standard is worth it, but that is also a very important distinction that is not made on this page. Right now it is framing it as google supports a standard that the other's (including Firefox) do not.
Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX
That's not exactly how standards work. A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact:
"Working Groups don't gate what browsers ship, nor do they define what's useful or worthy. [...] In practice, they are thoughtful historians of recent design expeditions, critiquing, tweaking, then spreading the good news of proposals that already work through Web Standards ratified years after features first ship, serving to licence designs liberally to increase their spread."
https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-i...
1. Google often doesn't bother even with a spec. Or it creates a semblance of a spec, throws it up on a googler's Github account, ships it and advertises it as "emergin standard" on web.dev
I mean, the status of many (if not most) of the APIs that these sites push are literally "napkin scribble, not on any standards track".
2. Google pushes a lot of APIs quickly into production even if there's a very explicit open objection from other browser vendors (any objections are routinely ignored: from general objections to the shape of APIs to whether it can even be implemented outside Chrome).
3. I wouldn't really quote Alex Russel on anything related to standards, as he is responsible (directly or indirectly) for quite a few of those because of his work on Web Components. E.g. Constructable Stylesheets were shipped in Chrome because Google's own lit project needed them. They shipped it in production when the design contained a trivially triggered race condition, it was called out, and Google completely ignored it because "users want it" or something.
4. Browser vendors quite literally agreed not push incompatible only-exists-in-one-browser shit after the browser wars. The whole standards process is designed to minimize this. Well, Chrome is the dominant browser, so of course they shit all over the process, and quite a few people cheer them for that.
Internet Explorer in the 2000s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people boo them
Chrome in the 2010s-2020s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people cheer and blame other browsers for not implementing this crap because... Google is "the champion of open web" or some such bullshit.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be right. They have a process: https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/
> I wouldn't really quote Alex Russel on anything related to standards
I disagree :)
...but it's getting late here, have to shut down :)
Yes, they do. It's their process, and their timelines. Many features on the page we're discussing are literally "drew on a napkin, not part of any standards process at all, shipped in Chrome"
2. That's just your skewed take.
3. So what, bugs can be fixed. It's nowhere near as abusive as what Apple does by forcing Safari on every iOS browser.
4. You think the "browser wars" are over? Apple's actions clearly indicate the war is on, and they've selected the nuclear option of forbidding any other browser on their platform.
>Internet Explorer in the 2000s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people boo them
Did people "boo" XMLHTTPRequest? Because it actually revolutionized the web, and people cheered it.
When you deliberately ignore what Google is doing, every view that is not praising Google's take over of the web is skewed.
> So what, bugs can be fixed.
No. Not on the web they can't. Once it's shipped, people depend on the functionality. That is why we're stuck with so many crappy unfixable APIs in the platform.
> Did people "boo" XMLHTTPRequest? Because it actually revolutionized the web, and people cheered it.
And yet, they didn't cheer ActiveX. For some reason you assume that every single API Google pushes out is XHR, and not ActiveX
I am not praising Google. I'm simply pointing out that Apple is using abusive business tactics to prevent any competition. It's antitrust territory, and the DOJ agrees. I don't care which browser implements the APIs I need to access, so long as one of them does.
>No. Not on the web they can't. Once it's shipped, people depend on the functionality. That is why we're stuck with so many crappy unfixable APIs in the platform.
Just more skewed nonsense. This can and have been fixed on the web. I've had to reimplement countless APIs for all kinds of services. There are new APIs that make old ones deprecated all the time. Maybe you should try to keep up instead of stagnate like Apple is.
>And yet, they didn't cheer ActiveX. For some reason you assume that every single API Google pushes out is XHR, and not ActiveX
Just more bullshit from you. I'm tired of it. You aren't even attempting good faith arguments.
This pointless internet interaction is over.
How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google??
It's making web browsers more capable. It's not some evil conspiracy to enrich Google. If Apple wants to let the W3C move forward in making it a standard, then all browsers would benefit, and all users that would like to use a bluetooth enabled web-app would benefit.
The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple, because they get to force developers to make a native app, where Apple can extract a % of sales through the app.
>Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX
IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0". Everyone was glad that they created it, standards or not when it was first implemented.
If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies.
Never said it was, notice how in the thing you quoted I said "Topics API"? That is extremely evil and was only introduced to benefit a single company, Google.
I never made a claim that every single thing on this list that safari does not support is a negative.
> IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0".
Fantastic, that is an example of things working as they are supposed to work.
However IE also introduced things that were not made standard just as equally we celebrated that those things failed.
> If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies.
Obviously that is true or the companies would not be involved in W3C. But that does not mean that every idea they introduce is necessary in a browser and deserves to be a standard feature. Google alone cannot and should dictate a standard, even though apparently we are fine with them attempting to do just that.
If everyone is in agreement instead of it benefiting a single company.
> The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple
I would like to point out, once again. That this feature is also not available on Firefox for Android or Desktop. Your argument does not support why Mozilla has not implemented this feature. Which again, makes the "Apple bad" spin on this not as cut and dry.
They did not "dictate a standard". They saw a good use case for an API and made one for it (Web Bluetooth is what I'm really focused on). If the other W3C members want changes made, then they can make suggestions, and Google or someone else can implement the changes. They can even implement their own API and have a discussion about that. Then they can put their heads together and come up with a spec everyone agrees on. That is how it normally works. Nobody "dictates" as you suggest.
Apple is flat out refusing to let Web Bluetooth move forward based on "Security rEaSoNs", and they are just shutting down the entire feature set.
Where is the security risk when users have to explicitly opt-in to use the feature? I'm sorry if your grandma clicks yes to everything, but blocking my users from the entire feature because your grandma lost her mind years ago is asinine. There is no real security threat posed by Web Bluetooth and I'd love to see you argue how there is when plenty of other existing APIs already ask for permission before you can use them. Fingerprinting can be done in a lot of other ways.
But the real crux of the problem is Apple not allowing other browser engines on their iOS platform. If that changed, I wouldn't care what one company implements or blocks in the W3C.
>I would like to point out, once again. That this feature is also not available on Firefox for Android or Desktop.
I don't care at all what Firefox does or doesn't want. Neither do most people. Firefox also does not block other browser engines from running on iOS, so people are free not to use it. Unfortunately we're not free to use the browser engines we want on iOS.
I would love if you can actually respond to Topics API and other initiatves that google has attempted that only furthers their agenda, just like you are saying Apple is doing. The fact is both companies are incentivized to do exactly that, and as I have already said both companies do this, and yet you seem to want to give Google a free pass and ignore when they have been problematic.
Regarding Firefox, them not implementing something is a very important piece of the puzzle and you cannot choose to ignore them just to try to strengthen your own argument. This is my fundamental issue with this page since they do not by default show Firefox because it completely breaks the "Apple Bad" narrative they are trying to push.
The fact is, Firefox on both mobile and desktop has not implemented many of the same API's that Safari has not and in some cases has implemented less. The Why there is extremely important because it directly impacts the conversation. Mozilla does not have any of the incentives that either Google has for pushing these features or that Apple has for not implementing them and yet they have chosen not to implement them.
You obviously did not read my comment or understand it, so this pointless internet interaction is over.
I do find it quite fascinating that you have written this phrase 5 times in this thread instead of actually being able to engage in a conversation you disagree with. Frankly it's not cute.
Sure it is pointless but you also chose to start engaging in the conversation since you were confident in what you wanted to say. Just as I am.
On multiple occasions you are purposefully ignoring what people are saying and attempting to just talk about something else. I have acknowledged your bluetooth comment but you refuse to acknowledge topics api or any other instance that Google has also used their power to try to do exactly what you claim Apple is doing.
Google is not your friend, neither is Apple. And you may not care what Mozilla does but W3C does so they matter and they don't have the incentives Apple does and yet they also chose not to implement many of the same features, which you also won't acknowledge.
This pointless internet interaction is over.
Safari is in a very special position because it controls what the web can do on iOS (all browsers on iOS have to use Apple's WebKit engine, they can't add web features). Apple is not just gatekeeping native (through the app store), but its competition, too (the open web, through the webkit requirement)
Sonehow you seem to confuse open web with Chrome-only non-standard APIs
Yes, yes they can. They don't get to call it standard or essential. And Chrome-shilling sites like the pwa.gripe and a slew of others don't get to call those features "essential standards of the web".
> No single company in control.
That is literally not how standards work in the browser world by literal agreement of all browser vendors.
We literally lived through this with IE pushing its own non-standard features and calling it a day. Hence the whole "let's reach a consensus, and have several independent implementations of a feature before calling it a standard".
And if "no single company is in control", why then you're so enthusiastically pushing for a Google's full control of the web?
The page is about PWAs, applications that can be installed by the browser rather than the platform's App Store. Native applications already have those capabilities and a lot more.
On iOS, you’re either doing a native app, sharing 30% of your income with Apple, or you’re restricted to Safari’s feature set. No browser in iOS can use anything but WebKit
Going through some of the list from the top:
* Shortcuts in the manifest: This seems to be standard. Would be nice if mobile Safari supported it.
* Protocol Handling: This is non-standard.
* File Handling: MDN doesn't contain a reference to a standard, and it has this caveat: "At present this feature is only available on Chromium-based browsers, and only on desktop operating systems". So not only does it seem to be non-standard; Chrome on Android doesn't even support it!
* Contact Picker: This seems to be moving through the standardization process and is not yet standardized, if I understand MDN's "experimental" label correctly.
* Face Detection: This seems to be yet another not-yet-standard API.
* Vibration: This is standard, it's a shame Safari doesn't implement it.
I'll stop here but you get the point. 2/6 are actual standards; 4/6 are just features Chromium implemented even though they aren't standard.
I'm glad mobile Safari doesn't follow every Google whim. Google has enough power over the standardization process as it is; we don't want them to control which features browsers add outside of the standard too.
In addition, parts of the list seems to be extremely outdated: Safari on iOS does support the Web Push API and most of the Notifications API (at least for apps added to your home screen as PWAs). These APIs have been supported since iOS 16.4, according to MDN.
You missed the point completely.
Apple >forbids< any browser engine on iOS other than their own Safari. So you can't just install Chrome on iOS, because when you do you get Safari instead.
I would not care how Apple cripples their own web browser if they didn't force other browsers on iOS to use their browser engine. They are forcing me to write a native app instead of just tell my customers to install Chrome to have access to the APIs my product needs (web bluetooth).
I am not an iOS app developer, I'm a web developer. I don't have the resources to support that kind of code when I already have a perfectly working web app on the competing platform. I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app.
It doesn't matter what the standards are or aren't. Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows.
And to make it worse, Apple is on the board that decides what standards get into W3C, so they are blocking useful APIs based on their own greed.
This is part of the reason Apple is currently being sued by the DOJ
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Why don’t you encourage them to get an Android? What makes you think that people who prefer an iOS device over Android would even install Chrome after you nag them with dark patterns?
> I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app.
Sorry, not following you: Apple is forcing you to give them 30% of nothing? How exactly is that a problem?
> Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows.
Yes, how dare Apple look after their [checks notes] customers by preventing devs from using the features that would most annoy their customers?!? Such a greedy thing for a company to do, to give customers what they want! The only true purpose of a company ought to make it easy to slurp up customer data and monetize eyeballs!
100% guaranteed people would. I know this for a fact. You somehow have proof of the negative for some reason. Maybe you can share that.
Regardless, just because you are satisfied with iOS as a platform doesn't mean others don't continue to wish for improvements.
Can I ask which version of iOS was perfect in our mind?
6.
Anyway, if you want to exclusively argue "Users should be able to install the browser they want", that's fine. But you're not; both your comment and the pwa.gripe page brings up how Apple is "crippling" their own web browser. Since you use the same wording as pwa.gripe, I assume you too view the lack of non-standard Google-only features as "crippling mobile Safari". I disagree.
Also the constant crashing when using canvas and the web audio api, it’s a disaster to be honest and it feels intentional, like they want me to write an app instead so they can rent seek.
https://webventures.rejh.nl/blog/2024/history-of-safari-show...
And even this article falls prey to "failures in web platform tests" which are a very poor indicator. E.g. Safari passing all accessibility tests is much more important than Safari failing most accelerometer tests that only Chrome passes (because this is Chrome-only API).
If you're designing for <X> browser, how hard is it to make it work on <Y> browser?
Because if it's hard when targeting Chromium and adapting to {Safari,Firefox} but easy when targeting Safari and adapting to {Chromium,Firefox} then honestly it seems like Chromium is the problem.
What I want to distinguish is the biases in being used to programming in one environment and actual ease of programming for an arbitrary browser. Regardless of what official standards are, there are "in practice" standards, what is used in practice.
What would be nefarious is if Google is promoting people to program in ways that are not compatible with other browsers, cementing its monopoly. (This may even be achieved without explicit direction. Achievable simply by Chromium devs building tools for devs but not carrying about compatibility with other browsers). After all, the web is for everyone, but just because it's open doesn't mean monopolies/oligopolies/collusion/<other nefarious actions> can't happen.
Tdlr: does developing on chromium encourage browser incompatibility?
Exactly. Test and develop against Firefox and/or Safari first and Chrome afterwards. If it’s not a true web standard and isn’t widely implemented, don’t use it.
The web worked fine for decades without smart fridge integration or whatever weird thing Google has decided that browsers must be capable of most recently.
Are there any standard interaction rules on when media is allowed to play? I thought everyone implements it differently based on their own ideas of security and user engagement
No developing for chrome does not encourage browser incompatibility.
I have various avenues of monitization; sponsored ads and letting players buy cosmetic items.
I have yet to test it on android because my priorities are making it work on desktop and iOS first and then android after. Why? because of my past experiences with making games.
You really don’t think you need to consider the hardware capabilities of the average Android phone?
Hint: Facebook rewrite their apps years ago to not use web based technology because performance was horrible on the average Android phone.
I will eventually test it on android but I don’t see why it would not work with out any issues.
I wouldn’t use Facebook as a reference, I have an inside joke that they have the worst programmers. They managed to make a site that shows text and images make my computers fans spin which is honestly just embarrassing all things considered.
> Yes it does because it’s optimized and efficient because there is no bloat, everything in the engine is there to serve this specific game.
Everything is there to serve your game except the entire web browser.
"Apple Is Not Defending Browser Engine Choice"
https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-defending-brow...
I think Chromium out-competing every other browser engine is a bad thing.
Hmm. I believe that Apple can compete with Google if they want to. They have the money, they have the marketing chops, they have the incentive ($20B search engine deal) and they are the default browser.
(also, they have trained iOS users that Safari is the only default browser on iOS for 14 yrs by not allowing other browsers to be set as the default)
All Apple has to do is actually compete, not just rely on their monopoly.
I mean, keeping one monopoly at bay (Chromium) with the other (WebKit requirement) isn't really how this is supposed to work, right?
I don't think that would happen. I don't have much faith in Apple's abilities in this area, and their incentives are structured such that the less viable web apps are as a replacement to native apps, the more money they get from their 30% cut.
Again, your arguments would make sense if my opinion was: "good guy Apple valiantly defends the open web from Google out of the goodness of their hearts". But that isn't my argument. I don't care whether Apple could compete with Google if they tried. I care whether Apple would compete with Google, and they wouldn't.
> I mean, keeping one monopoly at bay (Chromium) with the other (WebKit requirement) isn't really how this is supposed to work, right?
WebKit isn't a browser monopoly, it has less than 20% of the browser market share. That 20% share is big enough to push web developers towards making websites work in browsers other than Chromium, but it's not big enough that there's a danger of web developers thinking, "everyone uses WebKit anyway so we won't bother testing on anything else".
Sure, it's a monopoly on iOS, but I don't see how this is relevant to my argument. The web is more important to me than iOS is.
They receive $20B a year from Google (search engine deal). Some estimates put WebKit/Safari's budget at $500M. That's a rounding error away from $20B of pure profits. I completely agree that Apple is not in it for the good of the web. They are in it for $20B a year.
And even if they wouldn't want to compete: fine. Let them give up. Make room for browsers that do want to compete (or at least, let them try).
> WebKit isn't a browser monopoly, it has less than 20% of the browser market share.
That monopoly on iOS is enough, though. The web has to work on iOS because the wealthiest users have an iPhone, and all they have is WebKit. I work at a place where most of our users are on mobile, and most of them are on iOS. So WebKit sets the bar for what we can do. In other words, Apple is in full control of what we are able to do. Building features for Android users is often not worth our time and money, so we just don't build it.
Again, this leads to Chromium out-competing everything else and getting as entrenched in mobile as it already is in desktop. This is a bad outcome.
> I work at a place where most of our users are on mobile, and most of them are on iOS. So WebKit sets the bar for what we can do.
In other words, Apple has successfully prevented you from writing a web application which only works in Chromium. This is a good outcome.
... by abusing their monopoly position on iOS (instead of competing).
Good outcome?
But somehow Apple gets a pass, and you think they're somehow saving the web? Just stop.
Apple is stifling progress in favor of profit.
Which I think is far worse than anything you think Google is trying to do.
I'm not giving Google a free pass here, sure they can be abusive, I hated "AMP" and I'm glad it got thrown on the junk pile. That was clearly abusive. But implementing Web Bluetooth? Not abusive, it's progress. And it's too bad Apple abuses their power and stifles progress in this case.
I did not say that at all. I'm not supporting iOS at all for the features that Apple won't implement in Safari. Tough titties Apple users. And why should I? iOS and MacOS world-wide are a small percentage of all users. And Apple doesn't care what their users don't get to access, so long as Apple is making money.
Apple is not the good guy here.
They are actually doing the opposite of you want, not sure how you can't see that. "The web" is now essentially all Apple will allow it to be, for their own greedy reasons.
Here's a good podcast episode with people from the Open Web Advocacy: https://changelog.com/jsparty/316
> I do, frankly, think that mobile Safari couldn't compete that well in an open market, just like desktop Firefox can't.
Couldn't compete isn't a justification to exploit platform control and ban competition. If Apple's so worried that Safari usage will fall off in favor of Chrome, then they can invest in Safari to make it a level playing field to keep their user base.
No thanks
I have very little faith in a legislative solution here since I believe politicians care about browsers, not browser engines. They see Chrome, Brave, Vivaldi, Edge and Opera and see a diverse marketplace with sufficient browser competition. They don't seem to care about the technical monoculture behind it all.
They need to wrap up the DOJ lawsuit against Apple, but I fear the current administration will look the other way because "Tim Apple" gave the guy in charge a golden trophy. I wish I were joking.
Same thing played out with ads and tracking a few years ago, and now look at the ads situation in the App Store.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
In their wildest of wet dreams Microsoft didn’t imagine they could get away with what Apple is getting away with.
Do you really think that you are going to get any level of monetization by forcing users to first download a hypothetical web browser that has all of the features you want? That web browser doesn’t exist on any mobile platform
I told you, this pointless internet interaction is over. You are not here to argue in good faith, so take it somewhere else.
I get the gist of the article but what specific features do you need to let people just use your app as a PWA on iOS? Do you need access to the NFC, for instance?
I would rather prefer web pages do not gain the ability to make my phone vibrate.
Your statement is true only outside of EU countries.
It's pure malicious compliance from Apple. Anybody defending Apple on this is simply delusional.
Browsers with alternative engines can be offered in regular AppStore. That's why I wonder why isn't this a thing. At the end of the day, browser makers probably want to reduce confusion and complexity of maintaining two vastly different applications under the same name. This most likely isn't a case of malicious compliance, you got yourself carried away here I think.
ETA: your link includes JIT; I’m pointing out that that’s why they don’t exist outside of the EU. Non-JIT browsers would just not be very performant.
Doctorow is right when he keeps saying that countries should make it legal to jailbreak devices. The problem is that first country that tries that will get hammer from the almighty POTUS.
Keeping money in your own country and not funding the B2s that will bomb you one day.
The other companies that are making money from mobile are usually front end for services that don’t monetize directly through in app purchases or give you the option of not paying through the App Store.
The first million in revenue is 15% not 30%
But also if it is just Apple, why do the same companies create apps for Android?
Let’s say in this world where there was an alternative browser engine that supported everything that you wanted, how much uptake do you think you would have for your app if someone had to download an alternate browser first?
Did I also mention that in the US at least you can link out to your own payment system?
It doesn’t necessarily change the point in the end but it is worth noting.
I use both Apple and Android ecosystems, so I’ll occasionally participate in normal user conversations about features, how-tos, etc. Posting anything about the Android ecosystem, unless I was talking about Samsung features I disliked using, is no more or less likely to get down/upvoted than anything else I post about any other technology. Using any tone more positive than a negative-leaning neutral when referring to any Apple product reliably collects a handful of downvotes, and often a negative comment or two. Same thing with negative sentiment and upvotes. I’ve never seen such a passionate dislike of a corporation among a small number of people. Even with famous brand loyalty rivalries like Ford/Chevy in the 80s and 90s it was more mutual. It wasn’t like 99% of drivers not giving a shit, .5% of Ford users being smug, and 2% of GMC drivers just being super mad at a product they don’t own.
I’ve never found myself in any online community that meets that description. Certainly not HN, and HN hardly seems big enough to have Apple fanboy niches that you could accidentally find yourself in.
In the heyday of Steve Jobs’ Apple there was certainly a lot of praise here, but also constant prominent complaints about Apple being overpriced, or not open enough, or too litigious, or having too many fanboys.
I’ve seen way more complaints about Apple fanboyism than actual fanboyism. I’m genuinely curious how you could find yourself in one of those communities by accident.
I think it’s a combination of underdog vibes and confirmation bias that people have adopted as a community identity.
Firefox refusing to implement a web standard: APPROPRIATE
Safari refusing to implement a web standard: INAPPROPRIATE
If you answered Firefox, you are WRONG.
You get Safari, because Apple forces all browsers on iOS to use their own crippled browser engine.
Apple also is part of the W3C board that gets to decide which APIs get to become standards, so they also influence what other browser makers do.
This would be a non-issue if Apple didn't force all browsers on iOS to use their Safari engine.
There is much more to a web browser than just its rendering engine. When you install Firefox on iOS, you get Firefox. It uses the WebKit rendering engine, but it’s still the Firefox browser.
To be frank, it’s pretty insulting and dismissive to all the people putting huge amounts of work into building browsers only to for you go around telling people that all their work is really just a mirage.
> Which browser engine are you getting on iOS when you install Firefox?
Emphasis mine.
The browser engine is the majority part of the browser, everything else around it is window dressing. So when you install Firefox on iOS, you are getting Safari with a thin wrapper around it. You are not getting the Firefox rendering engine, which is the most important part of a web browser.
> Which browser engine?
There's no Firefox engine, there's Gecko engine. That's the core of Firefox' extension APIs.
Now, tell me how do you implement `webRequest.filterResponseData()` API for content blocker extension with WebKit: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
I think it's more insulting to browser vendors that they have to throw away their browser engines to appease the monopolistic tendencies of one company.
Here is HN, where apple is the bad boy in town.
Since Webkit has been the only engine allowed on iOS, ultimately this is a disagreement on app distribution. I can see Apple and Mozilla's argument regarding Web NFC, but I also don't want to write a whole app so my friends and I can play around with NFC tags. I find it irresistible to draw comparisons to the new Android situation regarding non-Play Store apps. If there was a developer registration list for websites (that was better than DNS registrar records and TLS certificates), would Apple and Mozilla find that acceptable? After all, I need to give my real name and payment details to Apple just to write an app.
But for good measure I will add one for Mozilla too. Firefox Android still doesn't support the Web Codecs API [1], so I need to use the "jpeg" codec on Selkies remote desktop sites, which I assume is rather poor for my bandwidth and battery.
[0] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/238 [1] https://caniuse.com/webcodecs
Ad hominem is also not a valid argument against NFC. One of my friends built a whole automatic mahjong table with NFC tags. NFC apps are used in access control for offices, college dorms, apartment complexes. Businesses have obvious use cases for it, from inventory management to payments. Governments want to use NFC for government functions and visitor prearrival processing. Sure, maybe some of them want you to install apps for other reasons, but I can assure you not all of them do, so it's a shame that this function is so exclusive.
I think western users using NFC for payment, transit, gym access, etc. are not aware how apathetic the rest of the world would be if phones start taking out NFC, and one of the ultimate causes is that it's so difficult to work with across all users. It's just so much easier to make a website that shows a QR code that your PoS system or gym access gate can scan. Bottom of the barrel Android phones in India and China already ditched it and that's just going to exacerbate the issue. If it goes the way of the 3.5mm and microSD card in the next decade, we can put this in its autopsy report.
This has been going for at least as long as Blink was forked off WebKit.
And why Apple? Because Apple’s the only other browser giant, and they do have motivation to not implement a lot of these features. Frankly a lot of these are features I don’t want in my fucking browser either. But web developers, and businesses that predominantly rely on the web (such as Google) want as many complex APIs as possible implemented in the browser.
Firefox is entirely optional, not a monopoly anywhere.
The problem for me isn't making bad web browsers, it's enforcing those bad browsers as the only option on a computer platform.
It’s hard to delineate which of these are Chrome features or actual web standards. And it’s therefore hard to blame either Safari or Firefox for not supporting them if they’re not standardized yet.
I'm happy that Firefox doesn't expose Bluetooth, NFC or similar stuff to websites: the browser is huge enough without needing to mediate even more access to local hardware.
It's unclear how some of these would even work for other Browser. E.g.: contacts. What data source would you use? I keep my contacts as vcard files in ~/contacts, but other folks might use a remove CalDAV server, a web-based GUI, or data stored in SQL which can be read by some other native client (I think KDE does this).
So if your blocker to accept this feature is that it's "difficult to support on desktop Linux" then all I can say is cry me a river.
> We believe Web NFC poses risks to users security and privacy because of the wide range of functionality of the existing NFC devices on which it would be supported, because there is no system for ensuring that private information is not accidentally exposed other than relying on user consent, and because of the difficulty of meaningfully asking the user for permission to share or write data when the browser cannot explain to the user what is being shared or written.
— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-nfc
And here’s what they have to say about Web Bluetooth:
> This API provides access to the Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) of Bluetooth, which is not the lowest level of access that the specifications allow, but its generic nature makes it impossible to clearly evaluate. Like WebUSB there is significant uncertainty regarding how well prepared devices are to receive requests from arbitrary sites. The generic nature of the API means that this risk is difficult to manage. The Web Bluetooth CG has opted to only rely on user consent, which we believe is not sufficient protection. This proposal also uses a blocklist, which will require constant and active maintenance so that vulnerable devices aren't exploited. This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.
— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth
The fact is that Google wrote these specifications, couldn’t convince any other rendering engine to implement them, and somehow it’s Apple’s fault the rest of the world rejected their idea.
These are not web standards, they are Blink-only APIs that Google decided to build unilaterally. The web is not defined by whatever Google wants. Web standards are supposed to be arrived at through consensus, and the consensus is that these things should not be part of the web.
Apple is on the W3C board that gets to decide which APIs become standards. They are preventing these APIs from becoming standards. They have an interest to forbid Web Bluetooth and NFC from becoming standards, because they profit heavily from native apps on their iOS platform, where they collect a percentage of all sales made through apps, so they want to force developers to create native apps instead of web apps.
I'll also point out that Opera, Edge, Samsung and others did implement the Web Bluetooth API, so you are wrong about your assertion that they "couldn't convince any other rendering engine to implement them".
https://caniuse.com/web-bluetooth
If you don't think Apple is abusing their power here, then you are either lacking understanding of how Apple operates, or you just love Apple a little too much.
They are not. You have this almost entirely backwards. To become a standard, you only need two independent interoperable implementations. This means Apple cannot block something from becoming a standard. The only thing Google needs to do is convince anybody else to implement their proposals. So far they have managed to convince precisely zero other rendering engines to do so.
> I'll also point out that Opera, Edge, Samsung and others did implement the Web Bluetooth API, so you are wrong about your assertion that they "couldn't convince any other rendering engine to implement them".
All of these are Chromium / Blink users, not independent implementations.
Apple has a lot more control over this situation than Firefox does, and Firefox has limited resources.
So fucking moronic privacy virtue signalling BS holding technology back.
They're doing the same thing with Web Bluetooth.
"hurr de durr we can't ask permission" Yes you fucking can, you give me a modal to confirm leaving the current page and being redirected to a new one (in some cases, but not all), you give me a pop up when a site asks to send shitty notifications (as they all do).
An app can sit and use nfc/bluetooth in the background all day long...a site can only do it while I actually have it open in the browser and presumably it's foregrounded etc.
It's really, really NOT hard for them to implement this stuff & I feel like it's less "this tech that has been in phones for more than a decade is unsafe!" and more "we need to cry about features that Chrome is pushing for us to support because otherwise we're letting them lead".
Maybe you don't realize that Apple is on the W3C board that gets to decide which APIs become standards, so they can squash any API that they think could cut into their app store. Citing Firefox as some kind of evidence doesn't take into account the abusive business tactics that Apple uses to force developers to create native apps on their platform.
I don't care about Firefox does, because they aren't forbidding an entire platform from using any browser engine except their own browser engine, which Apple does with Safari on iOS.
So Apple controls iOS browser engines, and they also control which APIs get to become standards. This is plainly abusive. It's also part of the reason Apple is being sued by the DOJ
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Given the rest of your argument hinges on a misunderstanding of the process I’m not sure it holds much merit.
* Vibration
* Background Sync
* Bluetooth
* NFC
* Notifications
* Web Push
But why not Bluetooth or NFC? I can’t imagine any way those could be annoyances, or even why websites would want them outside of some extremely specialized applications.
Similarly, if my bank website could do NFC tap-to-pay securely, that would be pretty cool. I can imagine lots of interesting opt-in uses for NFC in a webapp.
Arguments that these features are held back by Apple specifically in order to keep apps on the app store where they can control things and take 30% at least hold water, I think, even if that reasoning doesn't apply to Mozilla rejecting features.
I suspect like many here, at $work we use a shit-ton of Flexoptix SFPs.
Flexoptix are not a $megacorp, they are a (very) small German company.
They manage to ship cross-platform apps to flash the SFPs. So its really not that difficult.
I would think a web app would be more of a pain the the butt to maintain because you have to deal with CSS reactive UI etc.
An enormous amount of the cost of developing a lot of native apps is customizing the appearance and behavior, to match some slide deck mockup or to make it “on-brand” or whatever. It’s better for the user, and way cheaper, if you just… don’t do that. Hell a lot of common UI elements are easier in native than web if you just don’t try to customize them a ton (data-backed tables and list views and such are sooooo nice)
Chromium gives 0 sh*t about users' privacy, and just pump the APIs out for websites to track their users more easily.
And even then, where does one draw the line on "privacy"? Especially given that every other app on the user's phone is granted every permission under the sun and feeding on as much data as possible.
The core of the problem isn't supporting web bluetooth etc or not...the core of the problem is that dumbass humans will go "yes use all the permissions" because their hands are already shaking from tiktok withdrawal.
I can think of several light weight patch editors I’d like be able to use. There’s probably not enough demand for someone to make a stand alone app for them.
I can’t see any reason why this needs to be controlled by apple’s app store.
The alternative is to install random software on your computer for every device (or, if you're a Linux user, you'll likely simply be excluded and whine about it).
Just look at all the old hardware like CNC machines still running just fine on old computers, and imagine if they were connected via WebUSB instead.
WebUSB is just a terrible idea if you're not an ad company.
Not if it's an Open Source project made by a bunch of people for the love of the game. Install a PWA and you have it even when the site is down, if not code available on GH. It's possible to do on a computer (write code and distribute an app not via an app store)...but not in the magical protected-profits land of mobile devices.
Your way of thinking is the reason why we now have a half dozen trillion dollar companies controlling the world.
A feature more devs should use- I've been surprised how much websites behave like native apps if you just "add to homescreen" instead of downloading an official app, e.g. twitter, instagram.
When you open the shortcut, it doesn't launch as a tab in safari, but appears independently in the app switcher. They are often indistinguishable from official apps!
Seems like a great way for devs to avoid app store pains
Things that should be removed, according to me:
* Audio recording
* Geolocation
* Motion
* Media capture
Complexity primarily.
I like to use Apple products for things that are commodities to me because I am not gonna look into the details of those and when I do Apple reasoning often make sense to me (just like this list).
There is a lot more we can criticize about these big tech corps (including Apple) than a product decision for a company that is known for making polarizing decisions on behalf of their customers. If people buy it... they must like it, no?
anyway the point here is that I don’t really care if Safari is behind in support. The article was about blaming Safari for being behind.
This of all web pages ought to be easy to read on an iPhone screen, but the way it's constructed prevents it. You can't zoom the whole page out to see the entire table width because the table is in a scrolling frame and wider than its box. You can only scroll the nested frame sideways to see how row labels relate to iPhone cells. If you give up and use landscape, it still scrolls vertically in its frame. You have to aim for the margin or else you'll scroll just an inch and be halted because you caught the table.
Because it's critical that the web be as free as it is:
• It's natural that some pages turn out like this
• So it's natural the web is a little bit shitty all over
• So it's natural the demand for richer web features is low
— Offline support
— Media capture
— Picture-in-picture
— Storage
— Speech synthesis
As well as five more APIs with caveats:
— Installation
— Notifications
— Web Push
— Barcode detection
— Speech recognition
Even taking into account that it also evidently loses support for one (audio session; I wonder if that that has to do with potential for fingerprinting), framing this feature differential between two minor(!) releases as “intentional crippling of Mobile Safari continues” strikes me as somewhat loaded.
Offline support has been available (and buggy, YMMV) for a long time.
Web Push has been available since 16.4 (with a lot of caveats)
I haven't heard anything about installation (but I may have missed something)
For example, in the column for my current iOS version offline support is crossed out, and for the upcoming version it has a check mark.
If the claim being made is that pwa.gripe is a bad source, I can only assure I have nothing to do with the site. If they misinform visitors about Safari’s capabilities with regard to PWAs, you should post it as a top-level comment.
It would be fine if they just made Safari bad, that's their choice. But they don't stop there: they make the entire web bad on iOS purposely to promote the native apps they can tax.
But for software, not so much.
Examples:
* Windows N (no media player stuff) and KN (no media player stuff, no messenger)
* Windows installed in the EEA (ability to disable / change start menu search with Bing, ability to remove Edge, ability to add widget providers)
* iOS with only allowing 3rd party app stores and 3rd party browser engines in the EEA.
* Google only allowing certain things when the phone is in the USA.
And it's gonna get worse with age verification. All of the sudden the manufacturers have even more data.
I don't think Apple is terribly interested in market share for Safari. What they are interested is preserving their competitive advantage in privacy.
How do you explain that all other OSes, including Apple's own macOS, manage to allow other browser engines?
Do you think the iOS team is that incompetent?
Google pays Apple $20B a year because of the market share Safari has on iOS.
I'd call that "interest"
That's 10% of their turnover (and likely mostly pure profit, as they seem to spend a fraction of that on Safari)
Having Safari is a default browser is another (valid) issue, but that is a separate concern from the web engine.
The browser engine is an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to getting people to switch browsers. If a site works faster or better on browser B, that's a reason to switch.
If Apple's WebKit engine doesn't allow you to do video calls, you could build that into your engine and actually compete.
Why would Google and Mozilla spend millions on developing and maintaining their own engines if they didn't think that it provides value, e.g. a competitive edge?
[1] In the past, Safari did get some features that other browsers on iOS didn't get, e.g. Being the default browser (you couldn't set Chrome or any other browser as the default until iOS 14(!), Nitro JIT (Safari was significantly faster than other browsers on iOS for 4 yrs), camera and microphone access (video calls only worked in Safari), Web Extensions, Apple Pay, Fullscreen API, Add to Home Screen (ironically)...
> WebKit’s sandbox profile on iOS is orders of magnitude more stringent than the sandbox for native iOS apps.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62277271d3bf7... [2] https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review
Based on what? Happy to be wrong, but the quote in my reply was Apple's stance on the WebKit vs native iOS apps
Where pwa.gripe cherry-picks and has an axe to grind, pwascore.com is intended to be a more thorough and dispassionate evaluation. I will add desktop browsers soon.
Click "Expand All" for a complete and detailed list. Click "How Scores Work" to understand the scoring heuristics.
If we had to ask users to go into their settings and switch the "enable notifications" flag we wouldn't call that supporting anything. The whole process of installing a shortcut to even get to the point where we can ask for notifications is even more convoluted on iOS.
For standards-based features I used a 4-tier model, described about halfway through the README (which I should also add to About):
┌────────┬──────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Weight │ Tier │ Rationale │
├────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 3.0 │ Core PWA │ Prerequisites for production PWAs (6 features │
│ │ │ features: Web App Manifest, Service Workers, │
│ │ │ Caching, HTTPS, etc.) │
├────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 2.0 │ Important │ Enhance PWA functionality (18 features: Push │
│ │ │ API, Add to Home Screen, Offline Support, │
│ │ │ Display Modes, etc.) │
├────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 1.0 │ Standard │ Default weight (94 features) │
├────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 0.5 │ Experimental │ Nice-to-have capabilities (43 features: │
│ │ │ Sensor APIs, Bluetooth, NFC, AR/VR, etc.) │
└────────┴──────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────┘
I'm very open to feedback. This is a sincere attempt to quantify vendors' PWA support.
It includes dates for when these things were first shipped, explanations for that they do, and what kind of standards (or not) they are.
Oh wait. You don't care about small details like that. None of these Chrome shilling websites do.
Second, Safari has a monopoly on iOS and controls what other browsers can support on the platform (that also usually means "less than Safari", because SF gets to support things first). They are in a unique position to hold back the entire web, even on other platforms. They're holding the standards hostage by not allowing the market to decide which features are important to them (and put pressure on Safari and FF to implement them)
No. No they can't. A feature that is shipped in a single browser is just that: that browser's non-interoperable feature.
We literally lived through this with Internet Explorer.
The only reason the web is thriving now is because browser vendors agreed not to push this shit any longer. Well, until Google decided that whatever it does is the web, and until people who are not even paid by Google started unironically pushing the idea of "whatever Google spits out is the essential web standard now".
I mean, the status of multiple APIs on any of those "Safari is bad PWA is good" sites are literally in the "it's a napkin scribble, not on any standards track".
> They're holding the standards hostage by not allowing the market to decide which features are important to them (and put pressure on Safari and FF to implement them)
Who puts the pressure on FF to not implement Chrome-only non-standard APIs? Even desktop Firefox doesn't want to touch that pile of garbage with a 10-yard stick. And yeah, let's not pretend that Chrome somehow got to where it is by "market deciding".
AFAIK, the popover and/or anchor positioning APIs was standards before it shipped in more than one browser. (I will say that all three(?) of them agreed to build it)
> "it's a napkin scribble, not on any standards track".
Chromium/Blink have a process, and it's quite rigorous (precisely because they understand that they're pushing things, so they have a responsibility to make sure it's good):
This is the key sentence
> Chromium/Blink have a process, and it's quite rigorous
It's Chrome's process, and Chrome's deadlines.
> they have a responsibility to make sure it's good)
Strange then that they routinely don't wait for and ignore any and all input from other browser vendors and ship their own APIs without any consensus or agreement because "their rigorous process is good" or something.
E.g. almost every single API marked as "experimental" on MDN docs [1] is already shipped in Chrome despite most specs being "not on any standards track", "has multiple issues", "no consensus and API is in flux" or "it is provided for discussion only and may change at any moment."
It's not strange when you consider that other browser vendors sometimes flat out refuse or delay. The only option, then, is to just go ahead, spec, build and launch it, and let the market decide whether to push those vendors to reconsider.
"The Power of 'No' in Internet Standards"
https://www.mnot.net/blog/2026/02/13/no
"How Do Committees Fail To Invent?"
https://infrequently.org/2025/08/how-do-committees-fail-to-i...
There are 34 features listed (IIRC it did contain a bunch of Chrome-only crap once upon the time, hence my harsh reaction). All of them enabled by default. If we limit this only to actual, you know, standards, and not "scribbled on a napkin, awaits review", we get a grand total of 9 (yes, nine). And even there many are not "not implemented" but "missing some features (sometimes big, sometimes small and irrelevant)".
I've had real-world experiences where I develop something that works on my Mac and my Pixel phone but cannot work on iOS WebKit (basically kaputt on iPhones). It inspired the creation of the site - specifically not being able to allow users to have Audio at anything but 100% seemed extremely weird.
I'm not offended by sites that also point out issues with a slant against Google. Ie: killedbygoogle - I think these things are great, fun, and interesting.
Likewise, you can click on the Chrome icon to change comparison browser. Here's a list of features implemented in Firefox on Android but not in Safari on iOS (and therefore, not in Firefox on iOS either):
https://ios404.com/?browsers=andff
Fwiw, I've been a Firefox user for about 9 years. I would love to see Firefox be able to ship their engine on iOS. The main reason Firefox haven't implemented as many features as Chrome is that they lack the resources to. Anti-competitive behaviour has hurt them a lot, and being forced to use a sub-par, undifferentiated browser engine on iOS - the world's most valuable and influential OS, has played a big part in this.
They’re the advertiser-focused company. Bluetooth and NFC aren’t being exposed for developers first.
Chrome APIs and Electron crap, and then everyone complains about Microsoft.
I have no desire for random websites to have that much access to my phone.
https://slack.engineering/reducing-slacks-memory-footprint/
When the obvious answer I gave about how to reduce the memory footprint and make it more performant was “to stop using fucking [web technologies]” and create a native app
But the question I always ask people who say that it’s mean old Apple keeping PWAs back, why is it that all of these same companies see a need to create an app for Android?
Versus with proper PWA support across the board, a single button on the company's site that installs a PWA no matter which platform your customers are on.
There must be some reason that every major company decided to have an app even though today all of the same functionality is available on the web.
I’m also not sure how accurate this page is. They claim Chrome on Android supports registerProtocolHandler while MDN says it’s not supported there.
You can of course dislike this, but not even native apps allow background sync anyway, so of course web apps would not be allowed to do this either.
I left after seeing Contact Picker API listed. Contact Picker API is, per the MDN link in the OP, marked as "This is an experimental technology." It is "not Baseline because it does not work in some of the most widely-used browsers."
Apple is not just holding back PWA on iOS, they're holding back the entire web everywhere.
Compare that with desktop, where web apps (maybe not PWAs, strictly speaking) are dominating: Gmail, Office/Docs, GitHub, Figma, you basically do everything in web apps.
And if you count Electron [1]: VSCode, Slack, Spotify, etc, etc.
[1] Importantly, Electron lets you bring your own (browser) engine. You can build a native app on iOS that is just a wrapper around a web app, but it has to run on iOS' WebKit, and is thus limited by what Apple deems worthy
Second: There are many reasons why businesses would opt for a native app. Notifications, for one (not available on the web on iOS until just a couple of years ago). Also, native apps allow for more tracking (whereas browsers are paranoid by default).
Third: A few years back, companies like FB, Google and Twitter all launched "Lite" versions of their apps, specifically targeted at Africa and other developing markets. They were all web apps (or wrappers around web apps). I will admit that this was years ago, and I have not checked if these Lite versions are still around and/or widely used.
So, instead of hiring a team to build an amazing PWA for Android, and an app for iOS, business hires three teams? One building a web app, a native app for iOS, and a native app for Android?
> Compare that with desktop, where web apps (maybe not PWAs, strictly speaking)
Indeed, these are not PWAs, not even strictly speaking. Also, they all depend on full desktop browser to work (often due to sheer fact that they are complex apps that don't work well on mobile screens), and none of them including Google have an amazing native-like PWA experience on Android.
I mean, you're bemoaning iOS crippling PWAs on iOS. It should be so easy to show amazing non-crippled PWAs on Android. After all, we've been told for the better part of the decade that PWAs are amazing native-like now. Android's market share is 68-70% worldwide. You'd think someone would finally be able to show the full power of a PWA? Anyone?
> And if you count Electron [1]: VSCode, Slack, Spotify, etc, etc.
One of them has millions of man-hours and millions of dollars of investment to make it somewhat performant. The others struggle to show a few pages of text and images in less than 1GB or RAM. Not the flex you think it is.
Yes. The web's winning feature is "it works everywhere". If your app doesn't work for the wealthiest 50% of users, why go that route? Making a desktop web app work on mobile, just for Android, is a lot of work. It needs to work on both iOS and Android to make it worthwhile.
> they all depend on full desktop browser to work (often due to sheer fact that they are complex apps that don't work well on mobile screens)
Gmail, Office, Docs - they all exist on mobile (as native apps). So it's not the complexity itself that makes it a problem on mobile screens. What does the native Gmail app do that the desktop web app doesn't?
> Android's market share is 68-70% worldwide.
Not in the wealthiest parts of the world, where the money is.
> If your app doesn't work for the wealthiest 50% of users, why go that route?
Why doesn't business hire two teams? One for the amazing native-like PWA, and one for iOS?
> Making a desktop web app work on mobile, just for Android, is a lot of work.
More work than hiring a separate Android team? More work than hiring a team to create a PWA which we've heard continuously for the past 10 years is amazingly easy and native-like?
> Gmail, Office, Docs - they all exist on mobile (as native apps). S
Yes, yes they do. As native apps
> Not in the wealthiest parts of the world, where the money is.
In 10 years you'd think we'd see actual examples of these amazing fast native-like PWAs on Android. All we hear is excuses.
Funnily enough I know of a few. E.g. Foodora's web app is surprisingly good, and it's possible that their "native" app is just running inside a webview, since it's indistibguishable from their website. But even MORE funnily enough, it takes a PWA sceptic to spot good PWA apps when none of the PWA proponents can point to a good PWA to save their life.
> Why doesn't business hire two teams? One for the amazing native-like PWA, and one for iOS?
You quote me, but missed the exact part where I already answered that question (I presume by accident ;)), so I'll just repeat myself:
> Yes. The web's winning feature is "it works everywhere". If your app doesn't work for the wealthiest 50% of users, why go that route? Making a desktop web app work on mobile, just for Android, is a lot of work. It needs to work on both iOS and Android to make it worthwhile.
For background, this piece by Alex Russell is worth reading:
Platform Adjacency Theory
- The app store tax
- The extra work of maintaining at least 2 separate apps (iOS, Android, optionally(?) desktop web app)
- Dealing with app store rules
Some of these are not just costs. I have experience with native apps that have to make things worse for users (compared to the web app) or risk getting booted off the app store.
App tax: 15-30%, which can drive the price for consumers up by up to 44%
https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#negativ...
I asked in the start of the thread: how does it impact you, or your customers?
For example, our platform requires a subscription, but we can't link to the page where you subscribe anywhere. That means that if our FAQ page links to the subscribe page, and we have a link to the FAQ anywhere, we have to block that from happening. This isn't just extra work (to prevent users from ending up on that subscription page), it actually prevents us from offering users a way to subscribe or even change their subscription from within the app. This directly hurts our business model (subscriptions) and UX (users have to change their subscription by manually visiting our site in a browser).
All of this work means we either have to charge the user extra money (increased costs for consumers) or do less with the money we have (decreased value for the consumers).
I know this doesn't fully answer your question, but I hope it sheds a bit of light on what these extra costs are and how consumers end up paying for it.
I agree an open web platform is good. But i also think some of the things added to the browser don’t belong in the browser. Face detection? i don’t need that.
I am much more partial to attempts to force apple to enable installing 3rd party apps than i am forcing them to bloat the browser with more ways for websites to monitize me.
You forgot to mention the long mustache your cartoon villain MBA is twisting while they sabotage Safari.
For me, I honestly don't care if Mobile Safari seems 'crippled' when everything I use works exactly the same on devices as on Firefox/Desktop. If anything I'd be more annoyed if it worked better on my fringe devices, but maybe I'm the outlier here - I only use mobile for comms/banking, tablet for light browsing, and it's more often I'll be on Desktop.
Do I think it should have less functionality in Mobile Safari - yes if I get more battery life. Conversely no, if those features could give me more battery life back through intelligent apps.
How is the barcode detection API a security risk for example? Having it implemented would be amazing for web apps.
Also there's features like deep linking into PWAs that ought to be pretty basic PWA functionality that's not on this list that even Safari on Mac OSX has but Safari on iOS doesn't. Even the add to home screen menu option is deliberately made hard to find.
Apple doing this for the benefit of the user is one of the less likely hypotheses.
PWAs are great. They were literally Steve Jobs' original vision for the iPhone. I don't know why people are arguing about Firefox or the individual features - that's not the point, they're not the ones that matter. It's the decade of sabotage.
Was it? I think one of IOSs strength is its operating system and proper native apps. PWAs are inaccessible, bloated, slow and awkward to use.
Yes. Here's a quote for you from the original WWDC 2007 iPhone launch[0]: _"We've come up with a very sweet solution. An innovative new way to create applications... it’s all based on the fact that we have the full Safari engine in the iPhone. And so you can write amazing Web 2.0 and Ajax apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone! And guess what? There’s no SDK that you need!"_
> I think one of IOSs strength is its operating system
one of the OS' strengths is its OS, cool
> and proper native apps
not what we're talking about here at all
> PWAs are inaccessible, bloated, slow and awkward to use.
literally the opposite of all those things
Woops, messed up the wording there.
It's an interesting way to go about it. But I am not sure it's the same as what we get now. We aren't just leveraging the webkit renderer, we are using the browser as a complete OS/runtime for your applications. On top of an OS that already has its own UI libraries.
The current standard is that when you visit a webpage you are downloading an application in the tens of megabytes. In 2007 that would barely be possible.
When I think of PWAs I think of Microsoft Teams. It's slow as a website and somehow slower as a >100mb "native" app.
Anyway thanks for the reference. I am curious how much the current method strays from what Apple envisioned back then.
Yes, they can't bring their own engine, but it's in their interest to lock users in and ensure they continue using Chrome on iOS. But it took them years to implement available APIs like passwords (AFAIR it was out for 3-4 years before they allowed Chrome iOS to supply your passwords).
It infuriates me a lot more than all the liquid glass stuff (on which I’m neutral overall).
That's where they burry all bodies.
Because I literally could not believe the archaic process previously used until very recently to set a ringtone on iOS. And now it's under the share menu?! Why do Apple people put up with this shit?
I've been able to set a custom ringtone in Android from the OS settings/any file browser app for at least 15 years and I would not be surprised if Android launched with it.
>Apple still sells 30-second song ringtones for $1.29 each through the iTunes Store app.
Oh...alright well now we know why.
Search is where it always was (type in the search bar, scroll past the google results to the in-page results) and bookmarking is also where it’s always been (share button “add bookmark”)
Either I’m dumb or there is a discoverability problem with all these features. Probably a bit of both.
Which is why i didn’t notice the change, as i had already set this setting to put the url back at the top an update or two ago.
And yes, definitely discoverability issues.
Nested scrollbars! Horizontal and vertical scroll!
I want to auto-deny websites asking me for location permissions. But I want to be able to grant location permissions to installed web apps on a case-by-case basis just like with regular apps.
you can disable all those "features"
Reminds me of the days when all the corporate coders thought the IE apis were the only ones worth using.
So if you accessed $megacorp website on a non-IE browser it was your fault for not using IE and not their fault for failing interop.
(tbh I don't know if the list is simply Chrome-centric or if there's a good reason behind, but it struck me as interesting)
unless it means having the webpage itself render in VR and not just an isolated model
People saying they don't want these features are missing the point. Its about control and if developers have the option to make something as a website that actually works that gives them less incentive to make an app that apple can take 30% of your profit from while you are forced to write in their proprietary language for the stuff that only works on their devices.
So much engineering duplication of effort and waste just to satisfy a bottom line.
And you can write iOS apps in objective c, swift, kotlin, jacascript, rust, ruby, and a few dozen other languages.
And yes, you can write native apps in a lot of languages, but you can't choose how/where you distribute.
On the web, you can. It's built that way.
But either way the issue is the same - apple preventing us from installing what we want. But my solution protects freedom in a more robust way: if you break the app store monopoly, you can install chrome or firefox and do all the web-app-platform nonsense you want. If safari adds all the features on that list you’re still stuck demanding apple add a new feature every time you want to innovate.
And as for programming - for the web you can write in a lot of languages but you only have two options For debugging - js and webassembly.
Apple would also need to be forced to provide the APIs that browsers need so they can properly integrate with the OS (a lot of those APIs are private, currently), but good point, that would absolutely be one way to break this open.
My only peeve is that Apple resets the feature flags with every update. So the one experimental feature I use I have to reenable each and every time I get a phone update.
99.9% of the things listed in that stupid table in the blog just stink of being potential attack vectors.
And we know just how heavily smartphones are targeted and how smart and sneaky some of the latest vectors are.
Push notifications are the #1 featured requests of my online community. Some even switched to Android over it.
And people don't understand adding sites to their homescreen, especially since Apple buried that feature in the Share menu.
No Android user of my website ever complained about the WebPush notifications.
That sounds like the market working, no? Some people like how Apple does things, so they stick with Apple. Others prefer Android, so they switch.
The point is that users should have choice, not force users to bend to the will of malicious developers.
Keep going Apple.
Instead we get “webapps”.
The UX of visiting a site and with a single click of a button having an app on my home screen sounds great. I'd also like to have the option of side loading a native app too. And if those options sound unappealing, you can keep using the App Store if you want the assurance of using an 'officially approved' app.
A lot of very prominent apps are written using web technologies anyways. Take a look at the continued popularity of React Native (and Flutter as well).
And it shows through their laggy interfaces and non-native UI/UX. The people don't like apps built with web tech; developers and LLMs like them because they're a shortcut.
Then why do most people spend > 90% of their time in a browser (or web-powered app) on desktop?