Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It is important to note, that in Apple's case the problem is made worse by the fact that on iOS there are no ways to install the app bypassing the appstore.

That makes Apple's cooperation with dictators and authocrats so much worse for their users. You know, the people Apple claims to care about and 'protect'.



Rainbow flag once a month bails them out as usual.


They also care so much about the environment that they release almost identical phones each year with no ability to change batteries, plus make it as hard as possible to replace batteries. Any corporation which promises social Justice is a farce exploiting issues as pawns.


Apple itself is pretty much an autocratic company that believes it knows best what its customers should and should not be able to do with their products. So this is not really surprising.


[flagged]



To be pedantic, Apple does allow Progressive Web Apps which can bypass the App Store. (The Xbox cloud gaming app is a big one that goes down this path)

Note that I don’t support at all this decision to cooperate with an autocrat.


>To be pedantic, Apple does allow Progressive Web Apps which can bypass the App Store.

Apple is the company that is actively sabotaging PWAs.


They work just fine on iOS. Stadia does PWA as well.


No they don't work fine.

The option to install a PWA as an app is quite hidden, compared to Chrome.

They refuse to implement push notifications.

In general, Safari is dragging their feet in supporting any web standards that would allow PWAs to compete with apps installed from the App store, while at the same time being the only browser allowed on iOS.


The irony is so thick. Remember iPhone 1.0 was meant to use web apps exclusively.


Apple's "PWA" support is about as good as Microsoft Office's Apple support in the 90s. I strongly suspect for the same anticompetitive reasons.


Yes it's 100% down to wanting to protect the sanctity of the App Store ecosystem - which I do kind of understand, but don't necessarily condone.


To an extent they do but they've refused to implement a lot of important features in iOS safari that are needed for fully capable PWAs.


Which features?

getUserMedia is now supported in WebViews, so one can build, for instance, a FaceTime competitor that runs on Chrome on iOS, where it wasn't possible a few months ago. But the Fullscreen API still isn't supported, a blow to the web-based FT competitor.

What else?


Push notifications are impossible on iOS PWAs. Basically takes out a big chunk of possible apps you could build on this, no one wants e.g. a messenger that can't notify you when you get a message.


That's a good one, here's the feature request:

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182566


> no one wants e.g. a messenger that can't notify you when you get a message.

I deliberately disable push notifications in all messengers to avoids distractions, even though I'm actively using the messengers _when_ I want to sync with people.


It's great that works for you.

Other users have other priorities.


The claim was "no one wants x", the reply "I want x", your counter "others don't want x" as an attempt to dismiss the reply. That is unfair, the original claim that no one wants it was wrong and it was correct to point out that it was wrong.


The fundamental question is: would anyone choose to implement a messenger app as a PWA on a platform that doesn't support reliable notifications.

"Nobody wants...." is probably best interpreted as "No developers want to build..."


The idea of PWAs is that you make them once and they'll work on all platforms. The reality doesn't quite live up to that idea as this thread shows, but to me the idea to have single-platform PWAs still seems so odd that I would not interpret it that way. Still, if that was what was meant, then sure, I think I agree.


Not a feature per se, but being in the process of building a PWA for iOS with access to the camera, the fact that the authorization dialog pops up every time the app is opened (meaning that the permission is not saved even if the PWA has not been modified) looks like a deliberate attempt to make this technology not truly viable, because it really provides terrible UX.


Yeah, I've run into that too.

Seems to affect most/all permissions, e.g. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213468

Looks like persistent permissions might be in the iOS 15 beta though: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228317

Also appears that they're implementing the Permissions API:

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229504

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229590


Same with geolocation permission. A maps app that has to ask permission for your location every time is at a major disadvantage.


Might be fixed in the iOS 15 beta.

Also could be workaround, but looks complicated:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39665367/how-to-prevent-...


That "workaround" is only available for store apps, not PWAs. Apple would love if every web developer had to submit to their app store just to add features like geolocation and camera and notifications. And that's exactly what happens today.


Isn't Chrome on iOS, just like every other browser on iOS, just Safari?


Well, they all use WebViews, as far as I know, but Safari has its own browser UI "chrome".

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/webview

Before iOS 14.3, getUserMedia didn't work in WebViews. See note 3: https://caniuse.com/stream


It is. It's just a skin.


Specifically, could you list features that would be relevant to a PWA that takes your electoral division as input and returns information on who to vote for?

Honestly I'm confused that if a PWA is a viable solution, why this isn't just a website?


Such PWA is easy to block because the government can block a website with it.

A native app can use push notifications (which are encrypted) to receive data and the only way to block such an app would be to block access to Apple's servers completely.


> Such PWA is easy to block because the government can block a website with it.

They can also block whichever server is hosting the API native apps connect to. Doesn't seem much of a win for native on that front, unless the data is stored permanently on device.


The app in question ("Navalny app") has a blog and voting recommendations. You can distribute information with app updates or use push notifications to transmit data (for example, new API server IP address and public key).

For example, when government tried to block Telegram, it used push notifications to send addresses of new (not yet blocked) servers to the app (of course, you can send different addresses to different devices). It helped Telegram to evade blocking and it worked.

As I understand, you cannot do it with PWA, especially if the browser doesn't encrypt DNS requests.

So with native apps the only way to block them is either block App Store completely or push on Apple to remove the app.

If the browser supports encrypted DNS and hiding SNI (which needs TLS >= 1.3) then there are chances to evade blocking with PWA. But as I understand, Safari doesn't use encrypted DNS by default (I wonder why).


The government might have only pretended that it really tried to block Telegram. The app was never removed from stores, and since both G and A did comply with such requests before abd after, I suspect that such request was never sent in the first place.


> Honestly I'm confused that if a PWA is a viable solution, why this isn't just a website?

PWA was touted in the comments as a possible alternative, but PWA on iOS is not a very viable alternative to a native app in my view.

Just because a native app could be a PWA which in turn could be a website doesn't really say much about which of these it actually should be. Most apps I use on a daily basis could technically be websites, but that misses the point of why we like using platform-native apps in the first place.

EDIT: It seems it is also a website. And that's blocked too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28562772


> Just because a native app could be a PWA which in turn could be a website doesn't really say much about which of these it actually should be.

It's worth mentioning that Navalny's team is funded via donations, and they could poll whether PWA is a viable option for communicating with their audience.


> Just because a native app could be a PWA which in turn could be a website doesn't really say much about which of these it actually should be

Conversely, just because something could be a native app, doesn't mean that it should be.

I use as few native apps as possible, as I much prefer the stronger sandboxing provided by the browser.

Why do you think that Twitter and Reddit nag you to install their shoddy native apps every time you visit their shoddy websites?


> Apple does allow Progressive Web Apps

In my view the PWA route is pretty crippled on iOS compared to what's available on Android - so its usefulness as an alternative is extremely limited.


As I understand, PWAs are easy to block - you just need to block access to a web server. And native apps have more possibilities to evade blocking: they can use non-standard protocols, P2P protocols, receive data via pushes. So to block a native app one would have to block access to App Store.


unfortunately, the website from which such PWA might be loaded is also blocked in Russia.


PWAs are a market failure [1], and the deployment/utilization of them approximates 0%, including on Android where, the many comments tell us, it's a high power panacea.

[1] - Though it is astonishing how well the cloud gaming options work as PWAs. The one place where they've made any headway.


Not sure why you're being downvoted so heavily. Nothing you said was wrong.

As per my other comment, I don't tend to agree that PWA is a decent alternative but that's a different point altogether.

PWAs do exist on iOS, as you correctly point out.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: