It is a typical case where a corporation hinders development of technology in favor of business interests. Business interests are different to the interests of users. They say so themselves in their mails.<p>And yet many are praising a locked down environment, even if the implications are obvious. Especially for the craft of software development, where I find such a position especially ironic.
My take on the subject:<p>The web, by its very nature, is the ultimate app store and Apple's largest potential competitor, highlighting the anti-competitive concerns.<p>However, "website install" implies heightened risk and potential device alteration, needlessly creating confusion and suspicion. This erodes the inherent simplicity of web apps and undermines long-established trust in safe web browsing within a controlled tab, ultimately hindering user adoption.<p>Preserving trust in the web means emphasizing that web apps are inherently enhanced websites, thereby leveraging the existing trust users place in the web. Instead of install we should call it "switching to standalone". It also goes with OS integration and launchers like an app button on mobile and users with associate these things with standalone.<p>The browser engine is an execution environment: web apps inherently operate within the secure sandbox of the browser, potentially even enhancing security as they are isolated from deep system elements.<p>Regulations like the DMA are precisely concerned with ensuring users have meaningful choice between platforms and distribution models. Web apps and alternative browsers are integral in that shift.<p>Inflated security fears of the web platform have long been used to undermine user choice and promote closed systems. This needs to change!<p>Apple maintaining WebKit as a security-focused choice while empowering alternative engines allows them to retain control while simultaneously enabling those who desire more open web technologies.<p>Under Steve Jobs, Apple championed superior web technologies with the introduction of Safari and WebKit. This early spirit focused on excellence that naturally attracted users. Recent strategies, sadly, shift towards leveraging monopolistic advantages rather than leading through pure innovation.<p>It's alarming that legal and regulatory pressure is needed to foster a fundamental debate about open software and user choice.
As I said elsewhere: this is an extremely dishonest article.<p>The change: PWAs installed to the home screen will no longer open as individual apps, but as web apps in the browser.<p>Most web apps are already only used in the browser, so almost all web apps will continue to work the same as before.<p>What <i>will</i> break: functionality conditional upon installing to the home screen. The big one is push notifications.<p>What <i>won’t</i> break: almost every web app will continue to work the same as before. Everything that currently works when opened in Safari will continue to work like that.<p>Open Web Advocacy really <i>really</i> want people to equate <i>the functionality specific to PWAs installed to the home screen</i> with <i>all web apps</i>. This is not true.<p>It’s perfectly fine to be angry with Apple for this change. It’s perfectly fine to demand change. What is not fine is telling <i>outright lies</i> like “Apple will break all web apps”. This is not even remotely close to being true and they know this. It’s an intentional lie to get people angry.
competition law will enforce alternative app stores and usage of alternative web engines (gecko, chromium besides webkit)<p>the biggest alternative store is the web<p>the website you use today can be a functional "app" tomorrow if well written, without "install"<p>"install" is not even needed, the thing that happens when "installing a website" is just a switch to standalone mode from tab view (and get a direct launch button etc.)<p>by web apps (standalone websites) the browser stays as the running environment on top of OS, the web security model and trust stays intact<p>competition law will demolish anything with time that hinders web apps since in its core it is about enabling alternative distribution platforms (app stores)...<p>users can always choose to stay by safari and not opt in to other browser engines if they fear them... sometimes apple and others talk about like if a device gets compromised by a web app run by firefox on ios then a virus creeps in to the apple cloud and destroys all apple devices...<p>heck no, it can be even MORE secure, safari can be safe, apple can publish webkit safari for security conscious people and chromium safari for bolder ones, there might be a new netscape navigator that never runs javascript as a security model... free to choose!<p>it is sad we have to fight for this to happen<p>I think under steve jobs apple would have the best web browser beating chrome and they would have converted app store monopoly revenue to other sources of revenue based on excellence, not monopoly