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.
↫ Hartley Charlton at MacRumors
A welcome move, but they will still be restricted to opening using WebKit instead of any other engine Europeans will be allowed to install. With criticism of Apple’s DMA plans mounting, and pressure on the European Commission to not approve Apple’s plans increasing, all of this might change over the coming months, still.
In this particular case, I can’t blame Apple, it’s reasonable that they don’t want to burden devs with having to test on multiple different browser engines for what is an app meant to run on a particular OS which is guaranteed to have a particular browser installed (and not a webpage that can be accessed with a variety of OSes).
*OSes and browser combos
kurkosdr,
Not for nothing, but this same logic could have been used in defence of microsoft’s IE monopoly too. The point being, regardless of whatever the perceived benefits of the monopoly may be, it doesn’t justify anti-competitive blockages.
Insofar as apple taking responsibility for apps working in other browsers, I think everyone agrees that’s not apple’s responsibility….but they should not be allowed to interfere with a competing implementation that would otherwise work either.
Whaaa? Webpages are meant to be viewed by a variety of OS+browser combos, if some web designer cared only about IE, then they were in the wrong. But it you make an iOS webapp, it’s reasonable that you only want to test against a single target, and you want to use any custom functionality offered by Safari.
kurkosdr,
Again, the exact same logic was actually used by developers targeting windows/IE combo. Apple, much like MS back then, is motivated to keep the software ecosystem dependent on their technology alone. It’s not apple’s responsibility to make sure competing technology works, however if they’re actively blocking the competition, that’s a real antitrust problem.
There is no such thing as a webpage targeting windows/IE, and any web designer pretending so was an idiot. Active X was a thing of course, but those were essentially Windows apps in a webpage, regular webpages not using ActiveX don’t target a particular OS+browser combo.
When you are developing an iOS web app, you are defacto dependent on iOS, and it’s reasonable you want to use custom features provided by iOS (this is one of the reason Apple cites btw: Safari offers custom privacy features for webapps to make them feel and behave like regular apps).
But it would be Apple’s responsibility to make sure competing browser engines work, because users would expect the custom privacy features available to iOS webapps to function under other browser engines and would complain to Apple when a webapp they downloaded from the Apple App Store doesn’t work as expected..
In other words, webapps lower the barrier to entry for developers and ease porting, but they aren’t expected to be 100% standards-compliant HTML5+JS, they can use platform-specific features offered by the platform so they don’t lack features compared to native apps.
kurkosdr,
Idiotic or not, this absolutely did happen.
It still doesn’t justify apple blocking competitors.
Many users may be stupid, but even so… that’s not a justification for allowing dominant companies to block owners from choosing competing technologies. If you think it IS justification in spite of market abuses, then you’re effectively endorsing the monopolization of technology so long as they frame their monopoly control in terms of protecting owners from themselves, which frankly they would all do.
“RCS texting blocked on rooted phone…too bad FU! We’re doing it to protect you.” This has always been the excuse used to restrict owners.
“No you can’t have your device repaired elsewhere…we’re doing it to protect you”
It’s a convenient excuse, but the underlying motives are purely self-serving.
And what you don’t understand is that there is no competing technology for “iOS webapp runtime” because it’s an extension of HTML5+JS, not HTML5+JS. Anyone choosing an alternative browser engine for iOS webapps would instantly see their webapps crash or malfunction because they can’t find the Safari privacy extensions, and no other browser vendor has shown any interest in implementing those extensions. If there was interest and Apple was disallowing it, I’d understand.
And no, this is not a “users are stupid” thing, when I change the browser engine for webpages, I don’t want my iOS webapps to start working.
(not “my” webapps per se as I don’t have an iPhone, but saying it from the perspective of the user)
kurkosdr,
I suspect you meant to say something else. But any time you think a monopoly isn’t a problem because there’s no competing technology for it…you really have to follow it through. A reason that there is no competition may be because the monopoly killed the competition. It’s always going to be ethically problematic to allow the monopoly to use anti-competitive measures and there’s no denying that apple are guilty of that.
They wouldn’t need to be controlled by the same setting. I don’t know if you remember but windows and IE went through the exact same thing.
So basically Apple is sticking to its guns about the real reason being security. So if you create a desktop app, it will use safari and not your browser engine of choice. I think thats a fair outcome. if the EU really wants this to also be used with other browser engines, they’ll need to give them more time to develop a better api for the browser engines to hook into. Apple should have done that from the start, and were wrong for not doing it that way, but I can understand how it happened. Apple discourages non public api access, for a very good reason: they’re pretty messy. its where they sweep all the kludge.
Bill Shooter of Bul,
Companies basically never admit guilty, even when they’re blatantly guilty.
Of the $2B antitrust fine against apple recently, it was the same deal there…
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/tech/apple-europe-antitrust-fine-music-streaming/index.html
None of this is new. I’m generally not a fan of regulation, it kind of sucks. But ultimately dominant companies including apple keep proving why it’s necessary, otherwise they’ll keep being abusive as long as they can get away with it. Much like dictators, they’ll use the “security” playbook to justify why they’re actually helping people when companies stomp on our freedoms.
I am 100% behind this kind of regulation, and aware of some potentially serious security issues around this feature. Are they lying? IDK. But any modification to it should only be done if its safe for consumers. Which it absolutely can be, and should be done.