szasamasa

and I guess we all use a lot of responsive websites that are minimally web apps in funtionality, even if they did not offer manifest files for standalone mode

I just found out that hover which is a responsive website without mobile apps can be added to home screen ("install") on mobile...

well I tried it and it is on my home screen as a web app! vow!

I mean a web app is not a website you download or install, no need to ask how many are on the home screen...

the real question is web capabilities, we need good web programmers, companies with web strategies to get a lot of powerful websites

it is actually not the most important thing whether you add it to the homescreen or what...

the most important thing is to support the web capabilities with security in mind

it is not a fight against native, it is a choice and competition, freedom, free choices are normally good

yes, there are sooo many OS out there

linux and windows, then 3x linux derivatives (android, mac, ios)

so we have the linux kernel and windows, we still exist (1% open source)

browsers have the open source chromium kernel plus safari and firefox and some small others

it seems to me browser choice is good enough

I dont mind if google and microsoft engineers all work on chromium together...

I checked DMA and Apple will be forced to comply (this thing they do is far from it), however, they can prolonge it with this tactic and break all existing web apps for a year on iOS to punch them in the face...

however, web apps are the future and not the present... we will have them on iOS in 1-2 years in Europe, I dont know when everywhere in the world

I dont like the progressive word because you do not need it and I am minimalistic

however, at the beginning they tried to force some "progressive" things like responsive design or offline etc. I can understan what they wanted, no need to think of it as self marketing

I like the clarity of websites and we should learn that they can be very powerful: responsive websites, offline functioning websites etc... they can use sooo many web capabilities

I define apps as standalone UX and I use "switch to standalone" instead of "install" (that is what actually happens if someone creates a manifest file which is governed by a draft, not yet standard)

so a website can be implicitly a web app in the sense of rich functionality (responsive, offline) without being used in standalone mode

it will be explicitly a web app if switched to standalone mode from tab mode... this is an important distinction since even if nothing is installed this is a decision from the user to use it from the OS and outside of the browser as a standalone window and on some platforms it may give it some extra rights (local data storage will never be cleared by nice companies like Apple without asking the user, push notifications might be coupled with this decision now or in the future etc)

but I agree, this progressive thing is the past... it actually became the past when browsers gave a shit about what the site ctually functionally can when granting that app button and standalone mode

try hover.com

it is a responsive website, they do not have native apps, you can still use it on a phone

I just checked you can use it standalone if you want to, I myself choose to use this website from the browser on linux... but I actually "installed" it on android and if I used my mobile more, I might just want to use this "app" this way

every website is a potential web app if written responding to screen sizes correctly

inherently nothing is bloated...

actually, I do not really understand why you hate web apps that much, just do not use them! use them in your favourite browser or whatever

whether a sotware shit or not, depends on the developer, not whether it is c++, java, swift, android-java or js...

me too

it is just totally possible, there are so many web api-s, you just need to be a good programmer and study a lot

you will not really find or use big web apps because

1. most companies have already built their native apps with mobile engineers

2. web "programmers" or rather designers are stuck with old tech

3. web apps will start to become strategic targets(!) by most developers/companies if you are sure they are cross platform (which was crippled by Apple and now they even try to eliminate modern web capabilities on iOS

dma here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

Apple cannot simply invoke DMA (50) as a free pass. For its arguments to align with the intent of the legislation, here's a roadmap of what they need to do to justify their security-based restrictions on iOS:

Apple must be transparent about the exact security issues posed by alternative browser engines with concrete instances (not merely speculative risks). They need to prove that these are unique to iOS, given the successful use of unrestricted browser engines on macOS (and every other OS).

Before opting for the extreme step of removing functionality, Apple needs to offer documentation of all the methods for managing and mitigating specific threats that were considered and subsequently ruled out as infeasible (sandboxing, enhanced APIs, etc.). This emphasizes that their actions are indeed the last resort and not merely a way to suppress competition.

The company needs to demonstrate how they would proactively work with browser engine developers to establish strong security controls and threat monitoring on par with or exceeding their current practices for native-only experiences. This shifts the focus to building a safe environment rather than merely limiting the scope of capabilities.

Apple must guarantee that if and when these security challenges are met, it will progressively expand support for unrestricted use of web standards for third-party browser engines. This creates the long-term perspective the DMA is designed to protect and gives confidence to developers investing in advanced web app solutions.

Without taking action in these key areas, Apple's reliance on this DMA portion won't hold up to regulatory scrutiny. They cannot cite generic security dangers then fall back on "practicality" arguments without robust, evidence-backed reasoning.

dma here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

Apple cannot simply invoke DMA (50) as a free pass. For its arguments to align with the intent of the legislation, here's a roadmap of what they need to do to justify their security-based restrictions on iOS:

Apple must be transparent about the exact security issues posed by alternative browser engines with concrete instances (not merely speculative risks). They need to prove that these are unique to iOS, given the successful use of unrestricted browser engines on macOS (and every other OS).

Before opting for the extreme step of removing functionality, Apple needs to offer documentation of all the methods for managing and mitigating specific threats that were considered and subsequently ruled out as infeasible (sandboxing, enhanced APIs, etc.). This emphasizes that their actions are indeed the last resort and not merely a way to suppress competition.

The company needs to demonstrate how they would proactively work with browser engine developers to establish strong security controls and threat monitoring on par with or exceeding their current practices for native-only experiences. This shifts the focus to building a safe environment rather than merely limiting the scope of capabilities.

Apple must guarantee that if and when these security challenges are met, it will progressively expand support for unrestricted use of web standards for third-party browser engines. This creates the long-term perspective the DMA is designed to protect and gives confidence to developers investing in advanced web app solutions.

Without taking action in these key areas, Apple's reliance on this DMA portion won't hold up to regulatory scrutiny. They cannot cite generic security dangers then fall back on "practicality" arguments without robust, evidence-backed reasoning.

people who are these children you are describing SHOULD all stay by Safari and never download a browser app...

other adults may still want to stay by Safari

some people will just use Gecko or Chromium based browsers, as far as I know Chromium and Brave are totally open source :)

I would not recommend chinese or russian developed browsers but heck is America not a free country?

iSpyBestBrowser shall apple users download, I do not think anybody would blame Apple if their iPhones get compromised

hold back your long protective arms and concentrate on: 1. Safari security, providing a secure Apple-Level security choice 2. You may want to prompt users and tell them who owns the company and who develops the browser they are trying to download and what could happen if...

I mean do you really think somebody has to fear Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome?

dma here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

Apple cannot simply invoke DMA (50) as a free pass. For its arguments to align with the intent of the legislation, here's a roadmap of what they need to do to justify their security-based restrictions on iOS:

Apple must be transparent about the exact security issues posed by alternative browser engines with concrete instances (not merely speculative risks). They need to prove that these are unique to iOS, given the successful use of unrestricted browser engines on macOS (and every other OS).

Before opting for the extreme step of removing functionality, Apple needs to offer documentation of all the methods for managing and mitigating specific threats that were considered and subsequently ruled out as infeasible (sandboxing, enhanced APIs, etc.). This emphasizes that their actions are indeed the last resort and not merely a way to suppress competition.

The company needs to demonstrate how they would proactively work with browser engine developers to establish strong security controls and threat monitoring on par with or exceeding their current practices for native-only experiences. This shifts the focus to building a safe environment rather than merely limiting the scope of capabilities.

Apple must guarantee that if and when these security challenges are met, it will progressively expand support for unrestricted use of web standards for third-party browser engines. This creates the long-term perspective the DMA is designed to protect and gives confidence to developers investing in advanced web app solutions.

Without taking action in these key areas, Apple's reliance on this DMA portion won't hold up to regulatory scrutiny. They cannot cite generic security dangers then fall back on "practicality" arguments without robust, evidence-backed reasoning.

in a hypothetical spy browser maybe :) not in any of the modern browser engines like Gecko/Firefox

just be responsible and use Safari if you want the status quo or use a trusted browser engine like from a big company like Firefox/Edge/Chrome

do not be fooled, you people use web capabilities including service workers on websites in all OS, you even did it with Safari on iOS

if iOS had some vulnerability vs. android, windows, linux, mac that made this possible in other browser engines than webkit then Apple has to make the changes

you really think it is an effort if every other OS does this, including macOS?

and if with more information you see Apple tried something fishy here, do not forget like most LLMs most of the prompts in the past... never trust Apple again in this regard!

but you can use other browser engines in macOS (where no app store revenue originates) and Apple never had a problem implementing it and never fear mongered... this should be some kind of implicit proof

but of course Apple will have to prove this and they will fail to do so... they are just pushing the boundaries

your comment is terrible and a big tell you have no idea of web technology :)

there are plenty of web capabilities that have web standards, PWA is not even a thing officially... no such thing as PWA

actually, no such thing explicitly as web app, either... "installing" web apps is also non-existent officially, it is a very misleading buzzword

if you could call something web app it is a website that was switched to a "standalone UX" from a browser tab UX, according to this non-standard draft (!) https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/

last time I checked, zero manifest members were mandatory... the ones you would use are "name" and "icon" which is how your homescreen button etc. would show up

nothing will be installed (but if we use this word, how on earth is "installation" difficult, you press a button and it is "installed": really fast I guess since nothing will be downloaded extra or installed... all that happens is you get some OS integratin in app discovery UI or a homescreen button or it actually depends on the OS and you can launch the website directly in standalone mode as an "app"... it is still browser run, browser sandboxed etc. just browser UI you have not

the real "progressivity" is entangled from standalone... the website may be a beast or a shitty scam site that just wanted homescreen presence and send you notifications (same with native, depends on developers not distribution platform used)

so objectively bullshit calling web apps in general terrible, difficult, something people would not use...

practically every website is a potential web app if they add a manifest file with 2 members and people use websites all the time...

the question is how good a website written, is it responsive, can it do offline etc... there are so many web capabilities now...

whether a website or a standalone website is good, easy, something people would use depends 100% on the quality... no website or web app is inherently something you described

it is not breaking native apps, it is pushing you to update your tech... currently you cannot update some code for your website to work offline on iOS

like there is a competition... few companies have great websites/web apps and if a native app worked, people will not abandon it for a web version of course... the competition you claim web apps lost (even on android) has not yet even started :)

in a very huge article-like top level comment I wrote about how this "install" web apps is misleading and comparing native apps directly to web technology

web technology is not all about apps... I just checked one good example: hover.com has no native app, never had... they made the website work on all screen sizes.

actually I never cared if they have web manifest implemented so that I can switch them to standalone (web app, vow)... now I see I could do this but I will not because this particular domain I choose to use NOT standalone (not as an app) but from the browser... it is a well written website that could be used standalone but since I rarely use it and from linux desktop, I do not care

actually, web manifest is a draft not a web standard yet: https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/

all it does (what some people love to call "install") is initiating standalone usage and you can get a home screen button

each and every web capability practically has its own standard... caching and offline websites are possible via service workers, orthogonal to standalone and "web app"

what I want to say it is not that simple that web app vs. native... hover does not pay Apple or Google because they were capable of responsive design... if you use a service like it every day or standalone is crucial or your choice of using it, use it that way, it is still run in your chosen browser sandbox whether you hide browser UI or not

it is about choice and it is about the future... what I can tell you knowing web capabilities well, 99% of the time it is possible to deliver the same experiences with a browser as native apps deliver

the web is an alternative, even for standalone experiences (apps)... it may be like linux and stay niche or become like chromium

time will tell

if apple did not care, they would not have crippled web capabilities in the last 10+ years and they would just let chromium/gecko based browsers make use of web standards

web apps are the future that may take as much as 90%+ of the 100B app store revenue

web apps will succeed once good programmers and companies make strategic decisions to build good web apps

crippling web apps on one important major platform like iOS stalls these strategic decisions since it is not easy to tell your programmers that now you learn js and web technologies if you still need those native apps

in addition, most companies have already published native apps, web apps will start to gain success after apple is forced to let them work with feature parity on iOS etc. AND 3-5-10 years pass since rather new companies choose web apps

get back to your observation of "popularity" after apple is forced from governments and competition authorities to support web apps on iOS (just like on macOS or every other OS does) plus 5 years!

I agree that the main difference is developer skill, not whether an app is native or website.

One little advantage for web apps: the app (js code) can be downloaded just in time (not that 99,9999% ever make use of this).

If you have a game with 100 levels where a map of one level is 1mb, and 50% of visitors do not like your app and leave at the first level, they may have downloaded some fix code and 1mb, but 99mb stay on server...

Js has modules and dynamic imports for quite some time. Even app logic can be built with dynamic loading in mind.

Again, not that a news site like cnn will not make 300 request and 20mb download on first visit, showing one image and less than 1kb text :) Just checked.

A web app, in theory, is perfect for dynamically loading things but not inherently more lightweight. As always, it depends. On the task, on the programmer.

actually, you can do everything with js

js web api-s have become so powerful (web animation instead of css)

of course you have to know what dom is (and there is cssom as well, modifiable via js)

but it took me some time to realize all you need is js (and understand what js-async really is)... actually I love the js async model for UI

the only problem is that js is a scripting language... some may use typescript for stronger types but what I would love to have and will never come since all web API is for js is a new language...

however, you can use webassembly for critical frontend tasks (like stockfish chess engine on lichess) or actually last time I checked V8 was so optimized that good js code was practically not inferior to webassebly or native...

you should not generalize

cherry picking examples does not mean the web MUST be slow, maybe the web apps were programmed badly... I can write even worse native apps than these web apps and it will not prove anything

did you ever try compile c++ code to webassembly and check out the performance "degradation"?

it still can be true that for this special task, a native app is the better choice and people would buy it from the App Store even if 30% more expensive

I mean nobody will and wants to take away the choice of using native tech. The degradation is on sooo many levels is not a necessity or consequense.

Web apps are not replacements, they are a choice, an addition. I really do not understan these kinds of comments that frame web apps as a compulsory security nightmare or replacing superior native with inferior web...

Safari stays, native stays, you and every developer can choose.

It may move better developers towards the web stack but then faster and better web apps follow. They will make use of web capabilities and technologies (like better js, multi core, web assemly, optimizations etc).

Chill! No self respecting company will publish inferior web apps if native is so much better in their special use case!

I found guidelines not rules: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."

For me, "kill web apps" is misleading since we have to wait and see how the EU reacts. The original title is more of a clickbait.

I am not a power user of hacker news. I found a title to fill in and did my best.

Had I seen there a link to the guidelines or a text like: please use original title if possible, I would have done it. It is actually 1 minute "site engineering" to mention this on the submission page.

but web apps can usually offer the same experiences if programmed well

it may be a current situation that some web apps seem inferior, but it is not a necessity

plenty of web developers cannot even use js as a programming language or companies do not heavily invest in web apps since 1. they already invested in a native app 2. apple crippled the web via webkit and now tries to flat out crash web capabilities on iPhones

I mean who will invest in a country with a dictator? Would you build something if the dictator can demolish it any time? Like Apple actually does this with businesses that had a web app strategy?

once companies see all platforms supporting web app technology, wait 5-10 years and then judge

if 90% of the best app programmers migrate to the web stack and flickering html-sites and css stylests are history, I would be surprised if anybody could say whether an app is native or not...

and again, you do not really see native AND web app from the same company on the same platform

but actually commanding pixels on a screen is just as possible with js as with other languages, in the end you instruct c++ or rust coded browsers with js to perform tasks and there is webassembly too

and of course, backend with supercomputers but actually it is possible from native too

totally agree

in the end, freedom of choice, diversity and innovation would make every service find its optimal incarnation (native or web)

in addition, web security is actually so robust via sandboxing that I feel more secure in a top browser on any web domains than downloading stuff from app stores

native apps have a built in "layer" of bot security, however... a website has to implement security itself because even a smart fridge can make GET requests :)

but I just play the devil's lawyer... I think 999 out of 1000 "standalone UX" better off delivered from the web

apparently my former title was too much for this site: "iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B App Store Tax"

which was relating to the article (and you can read the title of the original article after clicking) but I did not like "kills web apps" because it is not true in my opinion, tries to kill web apps or fights against them or cripples them in the next iOS release...

it sounded too eternal and I think Apple will be forced by DMA to do the opposite

I really am curiouos why and who did my creativity bother?

is it not chromium, because Chromium browser, Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Yandex, Samsung etc... (and Google Chrome) all use the open source chromium engine

only safari and firefox did not implement it according to: https://caniuse.com/?search=web%20bluetooth

which might be great because you have the choice...

and you can use open source chromium or brave (like the jvm to run cross platform java) to run web apps seemlessly that need web bluetooth or such but use safari or firefox for personal use if you find them more secure

I mean using chromium engine as the running environment where chromium only ever runs special trusted web domains and never goes to other "malicious" web domains that may fuck up iOS as Apple claims would be still a secure choice

like you will not download spyware from Apple Store because you are an adult not because Apple can protect you there

I think what was meant is lightweight.

Of course a web app can be heavyweight or lightweight just as a native app. Still in a sense that smaller companies might publish smaller apps as web apps to have only one codebase justifies a web app niche for lightweight apps.

then why did it get so many comments?

you seem to be protecting people from discussing what they want to discuss

in addition, I wrote 2 first comments asking people to focus on a deeper conversation

and my focus was both in my forcefully changed title and in my first article-like comment that what is actually happening is attacking web capabilities

the first 2 comments were mine, an article and an ask towards the community to discuss things on a higher level (tech, legal) and forget these emotional outbursts that I hate pwa and I just dont want you to install another browser and that oh I love my walled garden because peopel just can use Safari with its protections

even if my thread was also flooded with not too deep comments, I think shadow banning was uncalled for!

nobody changed the misleading title here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386569

dma did not kill anything whereas my title true: I am pissed, Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B tax revenue

it must be for all websites since a web app is just a website that may or may not implement web capabilities

actually no such thing as PWA, there are plenty of web standards but no web standard about PWA

the web standard that governs standalone mode and home screen button and such is a draft (web app manifest)

the website does not need to be progressive, not even offline capable to get standalone and home screen button

the "very dangerouos" service workers can run in any website silently without standalone mode or app buttons or any user interaction (maybe because they are not that creepy after all, an open source javascript that tells browsers how to cache)

I really hate this web app distinction and install language because 1. it is not standard 2. it is not true 3. it is contra-productive

I wrote a piece about this somewhere in a top level comment. Apple breaks web capabilities both in websites and standalone websites (web apps).

is this true? I mean they cannot delete Chrome data

which web capabilities will actually not work any more?

I mean service workers will not, and it is a big one... all they do is caching and you can create an offline working website with them

web push another big one (not for me, but many use them)

which other web capabilities does Apple target?

the article I posted was from: https://open-web-advocacy.org/

and I wrote a nice article-ish piece myself, trying to get above "I want my walled garden" and "everybody hates pwa" comments you find under those links above...

but I guess you had your reasons!

and they changed my title

not just the link was new from open web advocacy, I also posted actually a piece to try to have a more focused and deep conversation

so they changed my original title that was actually funny and to the point, marked as duplicate and so the writer of the article from open web advocacy and my article-like comment was shadow banned, thanks!

well if you trusted Apple with Safari you can do so

why is it such a problem foryou if I trust Google with Chrome on an iPhone or Microsoft or Mozilla?

I find this extremely misleading: "the exception is already bad for iPhone security"... not if you stay with Safari

I travel regularly on rails with a private train company instead of the train company that actually built those rails... Apple has nothing to do with iPhones that get compromised because of Google or Microsoft or Mozilla

Apple should concentrate on Safari and stop fearmongering... or just solve these iOS challenges to make every web browser more secure

how come macOS is just fine with fully capable web browsers?

It may have to do something with the fact that if you cannot trust Apple not to break web apps like they are planning to do now, companies will not invest in web apps.

Also, most companies have native apps already so no need to reproduce them.

Web apps are a future competitor, not a present one. They are really suited for smaller cross platform projects but if you follow how the web evolves, nowadays they are just a serious thing to consider for any kinds of software projects.