There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Apple Walks Back Decision to Disable Home Screen Web Apps in the EU

Following the release of the second beta version of iOS 17.4, it emerged that Apple had restricted the functionality of iOS web apps in the EU. Web apps could no longer launch from the ‌Home Screen‌ in their own top-level window that takes up the entire screen, relegating them to a simple shortcut with an option to open within Safari instead.

The move was heavily criticized by groups like Open Web Advocacy, which started a petition in an effort to persuade Apple to reverse the change, and it even caught the attention of the European Commission. Now, Apple has backtracked and says that ‌Home Screen‌ web apps that use WebKit in the EU will continue to function as expected upon the release of iOS 17.4.

shrugal ,

Oh look, the EU threatens to investigate and potentially fine them, and suddenly there IS a way to preserve “security and privacy” with web apps. It’s almost like the initial reasoning for the change was complete bullshit!

It’s still only halfway there, but at least they are not removing existing functionality anymore. Let’s see how the EU likes this new “only WebKit” restriction.

rottingleaf ,

I think they just stuffed something worse relatively unnoticed, and this thing was intended to divert attention.

I_like_cats ,

Yeah but it’s only for Webkit. Apple Webkit is deliberately neutered so webapps don’t work well with it so that people don’t use them and rather buy “real” apps in the app store

Pantherina ,

And now they sell it as a feature, huh?

shrugal ,

Incredible innovation, so brave!

randomaccount43543 ,

Great news! Web apps represent the democratization of mobile apps, empowering independent developers free from the constraints of the App Stores

smileyhead ,

Ability to add any app repositories would be much better.

bobslaede ,

Not better, but also good.

deweydecibel ,

They wouldn’t be better than web apps in and of themselves, but having two options to reach users instead of one is better for the ecosystem, users, and devs overall.

fatalError ,

It would be good, but not better. Why do people like apps so much? I hate them… Like, there is so much browsers can do these days, there is no point in having to install so much crap on our phones…

Why would I have to download an app that has so many permissions, syphon my data, run in the background and drain my battery, when 90% of the stuff can stay in the browser?

The only few advantages I can think off that an app can bring are the following:

  • they can work offline, some of them at least, half my apps probably won’t
  • better security, that’s mostly for bank apps, not really needed for many other cases
  • marginally faster load times
  • higher complexity, devs have a bit more freedom I guess

Most use cases don’t require either of these.

StenSaksTapir ,

I’m using Voyager browse and interact with Lemmy. It looks more or less exactly like Apollo and it’s a webapp. There’s a few small things that’s not exactly as a native app, like double tapping the top of a scrolling window to scroll to top, but it’s really minor. I bet most people wouldn’t know it was a webapp if they weren’t told.

It even works with the sharing intent so I can share to native apps. Pretty awesome.

smileyhead ,

Requiring an app for contacting services like renting a bike or online shopping I find stupid, this should be done on a web page or via standardized protocol.

I think your perspective might be from looking at the current market, when it feels like everything is starting to require a mobile app. But it does not have to be like that. On my laptop I counted 270 installed programs (5000+ packages) and cannot feel any slowdown or any more battery usage. And whole system takes no more than 30GB. It is full of tools, always available for me and easy to update with single command. (I use Arch BTW).

Web is becoming so complicated it is impossible to create a new browser engine. Even if you someone spend billions to create one, there is a high chance many webapps won’t work because standards are not perfect and can be interpreted by current browsers.

Native software is simple. Take Rust program for example, it is compiled to a binary and distributed via your OS. With webapp, there is hack upon hack upon hack to make it working and fit an app into what basically was created as a document format. There is not even a standard way to keep track of licences of the script a website sends to the browser. Today most webapps are just proprietary WebKit apps, with no access to source code and no clear licence, that can be easly changed remotely by the creator but not the user.

deweydecibel ,

No one is saying you should have to. Any site that forces you to download an app on mobile is shitty.

They’re saying there should be an option for devs and users that want to use it. Web apps shouldn’t be the only way of reaching the smartphone audiences if you don’t want to go through the Apple App Store.

higher complexity, devs have a bit more freedom I guess

That isn’t a minor thing.

fatalError ,

I wasn’t saying it shouldn’t be an option. I do believe in third party app stores, which is why I have an Android and I download many of my apps fron f-droid.

It just feels like every other website I browse to on the phone has at least an annoying popup asking me to download their app… And at the worst it won’t let me browse at all, unless I switch to desktop mode and get full functionality, but UI doesn’t scale well.

What I am saying is, I don’t need an app for facebook, reddit, lemmy, youtube, spotify, uber, carrefour and the list can go on and on… If it doesn’t work offline, I don’t want an app for it. And yes, I know you can download music and videos for offline use, but I don’t, so just let me use the webapp… I undertand the benefits of an app, I just don’t feel like keeping an app for that once a week I open reddit to look up some niche sub.

StenSaksTapir ,

Nah, they should keep that stuff on Android. I like that I only have one app store. I used custom roms, weird alternative app stores and all that stuff for years on Android, but I like that iOS is built on a different philosophy.

Also, I just realized today that if EU forces Apple to open iOS to more stores, shouldn’t they force MS and Sony to do the same for Xbox and Playstation?

deweydecibel ,

What difference does it make to you if other iPhone users are given the option? You don’t have to use anything but the App store, just like how you don’t have to use anything but the Play Store on Android if you don’t want to.

StenSaksTapir ,

I don’t mind that other users have this option. I’m not worried about them. It’s all the expected shenanigans of the companies that’ll remove their apps from the store I don’t much like.

fatalError ,

Why would it be bad to have alternatives? Stick to the built-in store if you want to, but let others have the freedom to choose.

Any company locking people to their own platform should be forced to allow alternatives.

deweydecibel ,

Eh, they’re good in that way, but there’s trade-offs too. Not every app needs to be always online, but web apps do.

It’s also nice to be able to control what version of an app I’m using. I’ve got a couple apps that won’t be updated any time soon because the new version changed or broke something, removed a function, or had a terrible redesign, etc.

hamsterkill ,

PWAs are able to have some offline functionality. …mozilla.org/…/Offline_and_background_operation

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

Not every app needs to be always online, but web apps do.

No, they do not.

narc0tic_bird ,

Last minute change, even the release candidate doesn’t have the functionality restored.

Confused_Emus ,

Is this just for EU? Being in the states, will I be losing my Overseerr and Homarr web apps?

Spotlight7573 ,

It was just for the EU, because they didn’t want to add a whole framework and support for third-party browser engines to act as home screen web apps. Now they’ll continue to offer those based on WebKit everywhere.

DacoTaco , (edited )
@DacoTaco@lemmy.world avatar

And that a week after eu announced they’d investigate apple for excluding the feature in the eu.
Looks like somebody was called out for having bullshit hehe

jim ,

More like “MacRumors walks back falsely reporting something that never was…”

NOT_RICK ,
@NOT_RICK@lemmy.world avatar

Apple had disabled PWAs in iOS betas, it was definitely a thing.

Spotlight7573 ,

Ah yes, MacRumors falsely reporting… Apple’s own statements, right…:

Previously: web.archive.org/web/…/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/

Why don’t users in the EU have access to Home Screen web apps?

To comply with the Digital Markets Act, Apple has done an enormous amount of engineering work to add new functionality and capabilities for developers and users in the European Union — including more than 600 new APIs and a wide range of developer tools.

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.

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.

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.

Now: developer.apple.com/…/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/

Why don’t users in the EU have access to Home Screen web apps?

UPDATE: Previously, Apple announced plans to remove the Home Screen web apps capability in the EU as part of our efforts to comply with the DMA. The need to remove the capability was informed by the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps to support alternative browser engines that would require building a new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS.

We have received requests to continue to offer support for Home Screen web apps in iOS, therefore we will continue to offer the existing Home Screen web apps capability in the EU. This support means Home Screen web apps continue to be built directly on WebKit and its security architecture, and align with the security and privacy model for native apps on iOS.

Developers and users who may have been impacted by the removal of Home Screen web apps in the beta release of iOS in the EU can expect the return of the existing functionality for Home Screen web apps with the availability of iOS 17.4 in early March.

dpkonofa ,

Yes, it is. The only change being made is that WebKit home apps are being allowed. Since Apple couldn’t create the Home app frameworks for third party apps, they disabled all of them to comply with the new rules. This just means that, unless the EU says otherwise, Home Screen WebKit apps are still ok without needing to open to third-party engines. This is a non-story as that is already the currently released functionality and the change was only made because Apple was attempting to be conservative with its compliance.

Lmaydev ,

I bet they could if they wanted to tbh.

Opafi ,

You bet they could place shortcut icons to websites on a grid of icons? Pretty bold statement there.

dpkonofa ,

I don’t think they could, at least not in the timeframe provided by the EU. That’s the entire (and only) reason they’re reverting to the existing implementation. The existing law, as written, doesn’t seem to apply to PWAs.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod ,
@Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social avatar

I'm a little sad that MacRumors survived and As the Apple Turns didn't.

Fake4000 ,

That’s great news. Not that I like Apple anyway with such douchy move.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •