Apple confirms it's breaking iPhone web apps in the EU on purpose

Since the article doesn&#x27;t actually repeat what Apple has said, here&#x27;s what Apple says:<p>== Begin quote ==<p>The iOS system has traditionally provided support for Home Screen web apps by building directly on WebKit and its security architecture. That integration means Home Screen web apps are managed to align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS, including isolation of storage and enforcement of system prompts to access privacy impacting capabilities on a per-site basis.<p>Without this type of isolation and enforcement, malicious web apps could read data from other web apps and recapture their permissions to gain access to a user’s camera, microphone or location without a user’s consent. Browsers also could install web apps on the system without a user’s awareness and consent. Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake given the other demands of the DMA and the very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps. And so, to comply with the DMA’s requirements, we had to remove the Home Screen web apps feature in the EU.<p>EU users will be able to continue accessing websites directly from their Home Screen through a bookmark with minimal impact to their functionality. We expect this change to affect a small number of users. Still, we regret any impact this change — that was made as part of the work to comply with the DMA — may have on developers of Home Screen web apps and our users.<p>== End quote ==<p>Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;support&#x2F;dma-and-apps-in-the-eu&#x2F;#dev-qa" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;support&#x2F;dma-and-apps-in-the-eu&#x2F;#...</a>

Said it before and it seems clearer every day, that we&#x27;re in an era reminiscent of the 1920s with big mobs fighting it out. One of the old games back in town is <i>protection rackets</i> [0], digital forms of ransacking, vandalism, threats and &quot;tax&quot; collecting are all the rage dontchyknow.<p>Everyone&#x27;s got their &quot;security&quot; to give you. But it ain&#x27;t your security, and it ain&#x27;t compatible with noone else&#x27;s.<p>Nice app store you got here. Shame if anything might &#x27;appen to it!<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Protection_racket" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Protection_racket</a>

I don’t think Apple’s pettiness is gonna work in their favor.<p>I am not in the EU but my next iPhone is almost certainly not gonna be an iPhone despite me having used a non iPhone for about 6 months in the last 15 years.<p>Their throwing their customers under the bus just to throw a tantrum in the EU does not bode well for how they would treat their customers in other situations.

In combination with the &#x27;Core Technology Fee&#x27; that financially cripples any developer that tries to release a popular app outside the official app store, this is pathetic behavior. Hopefully the EU smacks them down for this temper tantrum at being forced to adhere to the DMA. They are trying to flex their market power and should be reminded they operate within a system of laws that doesn&#x27;t bend for anyone, regardless of their size.

As a European dev I want apple to fail super hard and implode. They used to be so cool and make slick hardware for their nische but now I&#x27;m happy to use worse hardware as long as they disapear from the face of the earth.

Very questionable argumentation. This can be seen from two different angles:<p>1. PWA is a native wrapper for a web application, not a browser. It is supposed to be limited to the app website. DMA does not tell Apple that every app with embedded WebView should offer users possibility to switch the engine. Why PWA should be treated differently here? I‘d rather clarify this with regulators first, before harming end users.<p>2. There’s no browser engines currently supporting PWA on Apple mobile devices. Apple has enough resources and time to figure out how to sandbox PWAs on other engines together with the first browser vendor that decides to offer such support and commit engineering resources to this project. In the meantime current solution could stay simply because it does not hinder any competition.<p>I’m not a legal expert, so maybe I miss something here. But Apple statement does not look convincing to me.

I’m primed to be upset with Apple these days, but this doesn’t seem like an unreasonable position. The EU is forcing them to do a bunch of work to support alternate browser engines, this in turn creates a bunch of additional work if Apple wants to fully support PWAs, and PWAs aren’t really in Apple’s financial interest to begin with, so f-it. They&#x27;re not going to spend resources to add support for PWAs in the EU. It&#x27;s easier to just disable them and call it a day.<p>It&#x27;s a rational choice. Apple isn’t a charity, so why would they spend resources on extra work that they didn’t want to do in the first place, given that work is not required for legal compliance. The security spin is clearly nonsense, but other than that I can&#x27;t really fault Apple for their position on this, even if I wish it were different.

Bad move from Apple. It&#x27;s time to boycott iOS and move to FOSS alternatives, such as: AOSP, Ubuntu Touch, GNOME Mobile, KDE Plasma, Sailfish OS. Personally I am using both UBports and Sailfish OS and I appreciate the privacy they provide.<p>As a possible workaround to fullscreen PWAs in iOS in the EU, I propose a convention to append some hash to the Web App Manifest start_url, e.g. #__pwa__, then set the default iOS web browser to e.g. Firefox, then add the PWA to the home screen from it with this special hash. When a user clicks on a PWA icon in the home screen, it would open in the default browser (e.g. Firefox), the browser then checks if the newly opened tab is opened from external source and its URL ends with #__pwa__ and if so, then hides the UI providing a fullscreen viewport for the opened PWA.

Sigh. This is a huge headache for me.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lemmy.world&#x2F;post&#x2F;12001569" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lemmy.world&#x2F;post&#x2F;12001569</a><p>(I develop <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;aeharding&#x2F;voyager">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;aeharding&#x2F;voyager</a>)

So, here&#x27;s Apple&#x27;s concern, which is valid: every website (PWA) should have isolated storage (cookies etc), and independent access to system resources (webcam etc) confirmed by the user on a per-site basis. I think we can all agree that&#x27;s how things should be.<p>Previously, Safari handled these requirements because it&#x27;s a modern browser (isolated storage has been a cornerstone of browser security for a long time), and had special privileges in iOS to configure per-site user permissions, whereas normal apps only had app-wide permissions.<p>Luckily, Chrome already has isolated per-site storage because it&#x27;s also a modern browser. If it didn&#x27;t, the world would probably explode.<p>That leaves per-site permissions as the only real problem. I&#x27;m sure the Chrome-on-iOS team would do whatever it takes to make this a good user experience, but let&#x27;s assume for the sake of argument that this would actually be a burden for Apple to support.<p>How does disabling PWA functionality change the security situation whatsoever? Users preferring Chrome would just load the sites in Chrome as a bookmark, which has no meaningful difference from a &quot;security&quot; perspective. Users strictly using Safari obviously have a strictly-worse experience. Who does this help? What is made more secure by disabling this?

This is the courageous Apple we&#x27;ve all been waiting for. One that doesn&#x27;t think twice about antagonizing its users just to throw a tantrum.

That&#x27;s why I almost wouldn&#x27;t buy a new Apple product anymore, with their draconian Chinese model (Apple as the big parent), and instead I crack Apple&#x27;s product to assert my freedom (I do use Hackintosh, by the way).<p>The only exception is an iPad Pro (M1) because there aren&#x27;t good competitions in the market. Over the time I&#x27;m starting to think about replacing it with an Android tablet but I&#x27;m still yet to find one with a decent pen and memory.<p>Alas, to quote Benjamin Franklin, &quot;Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety&quot;. You gave up your liberty to be colonialized by Apple, and now you get neither Liberty nor Safety in the future eventually.

Why can’t Apple continue to provide the normal way progressive web apps function when Safari is selected (that work like they do outside of the EU) and provide this other system for alternative browsers makers?<p>I don’t believe they are trying to abide by the spirit of the EU law and are trying their best to behave extremely poorly towards it in how they are complying, choosing the most user hostile interpretations possible. I hope the EU issue the maximum fine.

When companies and the state collide, and the state is serious about the issue, the companies lose. Always. I know they want to win and the CEOs ego - I can imagine Cook in his office - is hurt, so &quot;Ok, then you don&#x27;t get PWAs!&quot;, and for some time companies get away with it (especially startups operating a grey area until they get enough customers), but in the end, the state wins. Because it can put people in jail and the company can&#x27;t.

It&#x27;s news like this that makes me want to trade my iPhone for the closest Android phone.

So many laypeople that I know don’t even use bookmarks.<p>I’m a Linux geek with macOS and Windows in the house and I’ve never used a PWA.<p>I just can’t get excited over this one.. technical, political.. Apple is doing what I’d expect from a company being told how to build and change their product.<p>And since I don’t want to live in a Dell world running Windows paired to an Android phone of any kind, I personally am inclined to give them a pass on their obstinance. There’s very little in the tech world that runs as cleanly as iOS on an iPhone.<p>(And yes I’d love to run Linux on my mobile desktop but it’s all really terrible and not even close to a whisper of a starter. And I’ve tried them all.)<p>Not an Apple apologizer, just ranking them against the performance and quality of the alternatives.

It’s disappointing to see that Apple’s spin job is apparently working (based on some of the comments here). While it sounds superficially plausible, it’s actually quite deceitful.<p>For example, the argument that one web app could steal the permissions of another web app is predicated on the assumption that a non-Apple browser engine will fail to sandbox the apps. But *the exact same* threat vector will exist for non-Home Screen web apps accessed through third party browsers. That’s because ordinary websites ALSO have the ability to request access to microphones and cameras, and it will be up to the developers of the browser engines to ensure that these permissions are properly sandboxed. Apple won’t be able to eliminate this risk without breaking vast numbers of sites that people use every day.<p>In truth, a PWA is no different from a website. It’s built using the same technologies and APIs. The main difference is that it can run in full-screen mode like an app, and it has its local storage cleared less often. These are nice extras that benefit users who choose to “install” such apps, and they carry no special security risks.

The good news is that DMA contains private right of action. Might as well start drafting the responsive court filings already, March 8th is just around the corner.

I’m a bit of a hobby coder, and I have enjoyed writing small, home cooked apps (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.robinsloan.com&#x2F;notes&#x2F;home-cooked-app&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.robinsloan.com&#x2F;notes&#x2F;home-cooked-app&#x2F;</a>) and publishing them as PWAs that my friends and family can enjoy. I can’t justify an annual 99 USD for an Apple developer licence, and my family have a mix of iPhones and Androids.<p>This step makes it much less possible for me to do this kind of “home cooked” development, and it makes me sad.<p>I think Apple would do well to offer a solution for folks like me, maybe a significant discount (or free?) developer accounts for folks with apps with fewer than 50 users or no App Store access, etc.<p>But I guess they don’t really care, which is sad.

Bummer, so all these recent news about Apple allowing push notifications and PWAs to iPhone was for nothing?

The amusing thing is that on-homescreen PWAs were the only way iOS supported web push notifications. They could 100% do it in the browser, like every other browser does. But they won&#x27;t, because they&#x27;re openly hostile to open web technologies.

Is there anything we can actually do to push back on this? I get we can long term just not buy their products, but it feels like there needs to be more urgent action then that.

I am on Apples side here. I have been a macOS and iPhone user for over a decade now, but have had Android devices and I use Windows for games and work.<p>I think what the EU has done to Apple is unfair. It is unfortunate in my opinion that they can’t just tell them to get stuffed. They have had to build probably 100-million LOCs just so EU have the right to pick their own browser, and yet Safari works just fine. In fact the great thing about Safari (and Apple knew this) is that compatibility was really good precisely because everyone on mobile was using the same browser. Now I’m just waiting to get those stupid “only supported in Chrome” pop ups on my mobile phone too..<p>Their core strategy has always been to keep cost low by supporting one hardware, one browser engine, one App Store. That’s how they kept things lean and integrated. The EU has forced them to take an approach that is fundamentally different to what made them successful. Some might say - who cares? It only affects the EU right? That’s to be seen.. we all might be affected globally from the security bugs caused by the unhardening of the OS required to conform to EU standards. And this huge code base is going to cost something to maintain and I doubt we won’t pay for that either.

Since iPadOS doesn’t get alternative stores and alternative browsers - I wonder whether PWAs will still work on iPads in the EU. That’d be funny.

Honestly this doesn&#x27;t bother me as much as some of the other malicious compliance Apple has been doing. It sounds like Safari had a pretty tight level of integration with the operating system in order to allow PWAs, and creating secure APIs to allow other 3rd party browsers to achieve the same thing would have been expensive. So in order to avoid giving preferential treatment Safari over competing browsers without incurring that cost they had to remove PWA support.<p>Obviously long-term what should happen is that Apple should build out those necessary APIs, then re-introduce PWA support to Safari and 3rd party browsers, but I personally feel like the EU trying to legislate an entirely new platform feature into existence like that would be a step too far.<p>Some of the other concerns with Apple&#x27;s recent moves (like them trying to charge developers for installs that don&#x27;t go through Apple&#x27;s App Store, and that Apple therefore has nothing to do with) are a far bigger issue.

I have to admire Apple&#x27;s pettiness about it. Malicious compliance at its best.

Why is Apple given so much leniency? just give Apple a 5 year ban in Europe, you&#x27;ll see how quickly they decide to start begging and complying.

Perhaps it has already been said but, didn&#x27;t Steve Jobs state that &quot;The SDK is the web&quot;, on the original iPhone launch?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I</a><p>Apple has become the IBM in their famous 1984 ad. &quot;A garden of pure ideology&quot;, indeed.

dma here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;PDF&#x2F;?uri=CELEX:32022R1925&amp;from=EN" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;PDF&#x2F;?uri=CELE...</a><p>Apple cannot simply invoke DMA (50) as a free pass. For its arguments to align with the intent of the legislation, here&#x27;s a roadmap of what they need to do to justify their security-based restrictions on iOS:<p>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).<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Without taking action in these key areas, Apple&#x27;s reliance on this DMA portion won&#x27;t hold up to regulatory scrutiny. They cannot cite generic security dangers then fall back on &quot;practicality&quot; arguments without robust, evidence-backed reasoning.

Wanted to try an android phone for some time again anyways, thanks apple :)

AAPL&#x27;s recent behavior has really degraded the brand for me personally.<p>Like I won&#x27;t be buying the Vision Pro because I&#x27;m not really sure I want to get further locked into their ecosystem if they&#x27;re this hostile towards the will and rights of the people who buy their products.

These kind of news make me feel happy that I&#x27;m Apple, Microsoft and Google* free.<p>Phone is ungoogled Android.

Frankly, Apple&#x27;s position enrages me.<p>It&#x27;s okay that Apple doesn&#x27;t like a European law. As a US-based company, it makes sense that it feels like a foreigner is meddling in their affairs... It&#x27;s okay that they continue to have the hubris that Apple, and Apple alone, knows what&#x27;s best for everyone.<p>However... the democratically-elected institutions of the EU represent a total of 447 million people. Most technologists I know in the EU are pro-DMA.<p>It doesn&#x27;t feel like Apple has ever engaged in any kind of external discussion around this, or any kind of acknowledgment that there may be an issue with their current policies.<p>It&#x27;s like walking it the courtroom with bloody hands and screaming in an obviously fake British accent &quot;MURDER?!? THAT IS RIDICULOUS, Your Honor. I AM WEARING A TUXEDO.&quot;<p>Apple&#x27;s arguments at every single junction have been nothing short of ridiculous. My favorite one:<p>&quot;Apple operates 5 distinct App Stores: the iOS App Store, the macOS App Store, the iPadOS App Store, etc..., and only the iOS one is big enough to be a &quot;gatekeeper&quot;.&quot; [0]<p>COME FUCKING ON. HIRE BETTER LAWYERS.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ec.europa.eu&#x2F;competition&#x2F;digital_markets_act&#x2F;cases&#x2F;202344&#x2F;DMA_100013_215.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ec.europa.eu&#x2F;competition&#x2F;digital_markets_act&#x2F;cases&#x2F;2...</a>

Red rag to a bull<p>The EU is going to absolutely see this as Apple spitting in its face.

I&#x27;m actually thinking of switching back to Android because of this bullshit. There are a lot of niche web apps I use, particularly for local things, that just won&#x27;t be developed into an iOS app because it&#x27;s not viable.

It&#x27;s worth noting that Android solved this problem a long time ago. Home screen shortcuts just open in whatever browser you created the shortcut with. If apple hasn&#x27;t fixed this a year from now, it&#x27;ll be a clear indication that they are taking this as an opportunity to disadvantage the web platform.

Shame these threads keep getting removed from HN. This is one of the most important conversations we are having this year.<p>Flamewars be damned, the conversation needs to take place.<p>Apples pivot kill PWAs shows their true intention. Web apps are ready to disrupt their monopoly and industry wide 30% tax.

So you can build a website that runs on iPhone using some other browser engine that requests permission to use the camera...<p>But if you want to move that website into a PWA that runs on iPhone that uses some other browser engine that requests permission to use the camera then, that browser engine can&#x27;t be trusted?

This only adds to a potential narrative that Apple is posturing in the same way an upset child might to a parent or teacher.<p>It&#x27;s not a position of strength; and I wonder whether this is a sign they&#x27;re now very firmly on the back foot.

More proof Apple is terrible at software and iOS is a broken, stagnant OS.<p>I love Apple&#x27;s hardware, but iOS is such a turd, I&#x27;m stuck on Android even though the rest of my eco-system is Apple (MacBook, AirPods, AppleTV)

I&#x27;m guessing now that the app store had been designated as a gatekeeper and that alternatives app stores are technically allowed, it no longer has to pretend that PWAs are a Viva alternative?

Is this something that other browser suppliers could revert by having their browsers support PWAs or is there something at the OS level that makes that impractical&#x2F;impossible?

Are there any notable PWAs out there? I can&#x27;t think of any that I use.<p>Sadly, it seems like if given the choice, most companies want you to install a Real App, probably for better snooping.

Does this mean all PWAs will no longer work in airplane mode?

Probably easier to leave the EU than get Apple to listen.

Can I as an EU citizen please opt out of this nonsens?

To allow other browser engines on iOS, why do Apple have to do anything except change the policy of the App store to not reject them?

If we were to design a third OS Ecosystem. May be an OS that is based entirely on Web? And let all Apps be PWA?

On the point of trusting (big) Apple to keep us safe.<p>This was linked in a similar discussion today. Either they knowingly provide backdoors for state actors or they are being so incompetent that it is laughable. Zero interaction remote exploit of hardware features designed to circumvent their own security measures? Why ?<p>Seriously, find someone worthy of your trust, because that isn&#x27;t Apple<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kaspersky.com&#x2F;about&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;2023_kaspersky-discloses-iphone-hardware-feature-vital-in-operation-triangulation-case" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kaspersky.com&#x2F;about&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;2023_kaspersk...</a>

Apple are being actively dishonest in their justification here.<p>If you work at Apple and are reading this, it&#x27;s time to start asking serious questions about why your company is happy to lie to the public and lawmakers to try and juice their revenue.

One day everyone will realize, Apple is one of the most toxic companies ever.

web apps are websites with standalone<p>the name &quot;install&quot; is bad and the wording is NOT a web standard, NOTHING is installed<p>the question is web capabilities<p>one core capability is caching and offline via service workers<p>no need for &quot;install&quot; for this<p>&quot;installing&quot; a web app does not even need anything anymore, not even offline or service workers... it is ONLY switch to standalone and get a launch button or be integrated into app launchers on OS<p>behind &quot;install&quot; is a bad and immature web app manifest api, it is a draft... the wording install must go<p>it is one of MANY possible web capabilities for a web domain to be able run standalone and get a button<p>apple cannot ban this since a shortcut to chrome cannot be deemed unsafe, where then CHROME decides to run standalone or not<p>the real problem is NOT that safari kills standalone<p>they try to kill a lot of web capability, like service workers, and NOT JUST FOR SAFARI<p>I mean this will not stand, you CAN stay apple-level-safe (whether it is more or less than other platforms) by CHOOSING safari<p>it is an obvious CHOICE to be granted to trust google, mozilla or microsoft and their web security model to stay safe with THEM on the web<p>no argument why this should not be allowed if other native apps are allowed<p>and come on, even mac os is safe with service workers in chromium

This is a political action to angry consumers so that they complain to local governments... a type of sabotage...

Honestly Apple’s response to the DMA changes is pathetic, they’re acting like a petulant child. I really hope the EU throws the book at them. Will believe it when I see it, fingers crossed.

repost <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39386569">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39386569</a>

What a petulant move

Does this mean Apple has killed PWAs in the EU?

Seems like a very unreliable platform to me.

Come on now, if it was &#x2F;that other company&#x2F; you&#x27;d be saying it without a pause.<p>FUD<p>See? Not hard to say, even when it is Apple and not Microsoft. The concept that browser allow one web site to read the storage of other sites is ludicrous. SuuuuuUUUuuure Apple can&#x27;t &#x2F;guarantee&#x2F; that the browser has no bug... which assumes Apple can somehow prove their own browser is bug-free. Plus, what prevents Apple from launching separate instances with separate data permissions for WPA? That&#x27;s is 99% certainly what they did with their own WebKit-based solution.<p>FUD FUD FUD

Sounds like the web developers who depended only on PWA will have to learn Swift very quickly.

I don&#x27;t want the internet in an iOS device, only in the browser. On purpose.

Apple ducking sucks.

Apple is fearmongering that if the user installs a browser of their choice, the phone would get rooted in seconds and the user would have their data stolen. Yeah, how about they fix that ?

I always knew Apple was an evil company... glad to see them finally admitting it...

Good. Fuck PWAs

If for example the EU instituted rules in the steel industry that harmed US companies, US politicians would fight back and start a trade war.<p>Why is it not the case with apple? They undermine the entire concept of free market capitalism by forcing companies to do unprofitable things instead of letting consumers vote with their wallets by using alternative products of which there are many.<p>There is no anti-competitiveness or harm to consumers. No one is telling car makers to allow standardized engine parts. Ferrari can make every part of the car unique and incompatible with other car makers so long as it meets safety standards, so why is apple special?<p>My theory is the EU has benefited a lot from fining rich US tech companies, they get votes from european techies who don&#x27;t get capitalism and extra revenue. And the US is docile because they need EU support against China.

Regardless of who is the bad guy here, the outcome of this is just devastating for the free web. For me the future trajectory of Apps were PWAs, which worked reasonably well lately. As small company, creating one App that works everywhere and is available without AppStores was just great. Much money spent on PWAs just wasted.<p>This is a terrible outcome, again caused by &quot;well meant&quot; but unpractical EU regulation.

There have been several comments along the lines of: &quot;Why should I trust apple and their security, but not that of a third-party web browser?&quot;<p>I don&#x27;t have an answer for you. But I want to recommend this talk from 7 years ago: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U</a><p>That alone convinced me. Apple knows what it is doing when it comes to device security. Today, I trust them with my most sensitive data and sleep peacefully at night.

Browsers should only display documents, not apps.<p>That&#x27;s what operating systems are for.<p>Just give native apps what made the web popular in the first place:<p>• Ability to instantly launch any app just by typing its &quot;name&quot;<p>• No need to download or install anything<p>• Ability to revisit any part of an app just by copy&#x2F;pasting some text and sharing it with anyone.<p>That&#x27;s what ultimately matters to end users.