HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
93% Positive
Analyzed from 1653 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#apple#more#apps#ios#app#pwas#users#dma#something#don
Discussion (40 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Reading this after a day of fighting microcontrollers made me interpret the headline quite differently.
Ignoring DMA requests and contradictory documentation sounded entirely on point.
"When the DMA took effect, it expected gatekeepers like Apple to deliver interoperability by default [...] Instead, Apple created a request-based system where each developer must seek permission for specific features"
and
"the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist"
On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was released Apple talked that "PWA" will be the future, and nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)
Mobile phones are mostly for nontechnical users. There are some accommodations for power users and I’m glad they’re there, but we’re not the primary audience.
It's not like we have a choice. Either allow it or... what? Buy a different computer? With what money? Spend time installing a new OS? With what time? And for most users: with what skills?
So long as businesses make choices about the devices you own, you don't really have a choice about "allowing" it to happen.
Did you mean "allowing"? Or "prohibiting"
And if only mean old Apple is suppressing PWAs, then why are the same companies who make apps for iOS also making apps for Android instead of telling Android users to use the web?
Second point, Apple could care less about random indie developers using a PWA. It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue came from loot boxes and other in app purchases for pay to win games.
Third point, users no more wish they could have shitty PWAs than Electron apps. It’s just what we are stuck with on the desktop
I totally agree that iOS is too closed down and I would say it’s part of an illegally operated duopoly, but macOS is pretty much the same as it has always been.
Apple objectively went out of their way to make sure you can install other operating systems on their silicon platform on Mac which they really didn’t have to do.
Incorrect, see https://pwascore.com/ for a non-religious take. Nobody cares about PWAs, but that's not Apple's fault.
also, I care about PWAs
glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
I think if it were a viable option on an iphone, a nonzero number of people would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
As the creator of pwascore.com, I'm in your elite club of the teensy percentage of people who care about PWAs.
> I think if it were a viable option on an iphone¹, a nonzero number of people² would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
¹They are, and ²they don't. It'd be nice to blame this on HN's favorite boogeyman, but the reality is that (1) PWAs work fine today (pwa.com), (2) the tech industry is anti-PWA, (3) almost no consumers even know what PWAs are, and (4) consumers who do know also prefer "real" apps.
The perjury, contempt and referral for criminal investigation in the US carried no consequence, Japan and Brazil's regulations have been undermined by massive fees, as has the EU but they're afraid to fine them because of Trump. Except for the possibility of a $38 billion fine in India this strategy has been very successful for Apple: it's 5 years since the US ruled developers could use third party payments, 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
Not nothing. In the EU, there are settings now to set default apps for browser, email, navigation, contactless payments, calling and messaging, for example.
And there are alternative app stores now, AFAIK.
> But Apple rejected the request from the developer and said JIT for non-browser apps was not a feature controlled by iOS.
That’s not a wholly unreasonable stance though I can certainly see how the EU might argue that the capability existing for browsers at all implies it should be available for all applications regardless of their purpose. This does make me wonder about the swift playground app. Is that not using JIT to execute the swift code?
I stand with Apple here :)
Apple could initially dismiss this as "doomsayers that talk about unreal future". Now this is proof.
Let's not dismiss this ourselves.
This is "I told you so", not "breaking news: nobody expected this!".
> “The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.”
> …
> “Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:
> Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct?
> A. The decision was made that day.
> Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases?
> A. That is correct.”
> “Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.
> Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”
https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/01/read-the-juiciest-bits-fro...