jmbice

dewme said:

The developer’s demands are borderline insanity. What’s next, requiring all framework and library developers to conform to using the same extensibility mechanisms? Programming languages? Runtime engines? Binaries?

Providing cross platform compatibility for an app used to be a feather in the cap for the developers of the app. There’s never been a mandated method that requires all app binaries to run on every platform and operating system. 

Do they think Microsoft would accept the same type of demands being directed at Apple? Hell no. 

This is not correct. First off, Microsoft's app store treats PWA's no differently than native apps. Google's app store allow PWA's to be searched and downloaded as well, but its more complicated. iPhones can run PWA's no problem from the earliest models. Downloading a PWA to an iPhone is on par with loading a website, so it sure doesn't seem like technical challenge Apple couldn't solve. This is a flat out decision to blacklist a technology. Why? The reason Apple gives is woefully unspecific:

 "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."

Says a lot of nothing, doesn't it? What are these concerns and why is "a new integration architecture" needed? The real reason Apple doesn't like PWA's is because they auto-update independent of user actions/the Apple App Store. This means once you download it, it will always stay updated. This poses two problems (1) the developer could in theory revert from https to http and allow your data to be unencrypted, (2) the developer monetizes their apps after a user has downloaded it without Apple collecting the 30% revenue on subscriptions sold on the Apple App Store (if you pay for something like a Spotify subscription in the Spotify app, you pay 30% more than if you bought the same product on on spotify.com).

And listen, (1) occurs exclusively due to developer incompetence and is rare and easy to fix. What is important to know is (a) developers are in no way incentivized to do this as it gains them nothing and risks their business. And (b) the 'security' check Apple is doing is the same thing your browser does when it flags that you are on an insecure website. This could easily be flagged by the operating system and the cost is minimal, because its a very simple check that is already well established.

The real problem is (2), PWA's threaten how Apple makes a lot of money.

And listen, I think Apple has every right to charge whatever they wish for their extremely successful platform. I also think that if they want to block PWA's because the challenge their business model customers they probably have the legal right to do that. What Apple shouldn't be able to do is pretend that showing PWAs is a technical challenge and/or an inherent security risk (both laughable) simply because they don't want to acknowledge and thereby clue their customers into how they are extracting large amounts of money from them. This is, in the end, about inherently lying about the nature and quality of the service you provide when vetting apps on your platform and not being transparent about the costs you impose on developers - who obviously pass it on to Apple consumers.