The argument Apple is making from my understanding is that to comply with the law the system must allow other browsers and have a system setting of the default browser.
Currently PWA's open in an app that wraps Safari's engine to display the content and provide features but is not normal Safari. They interpret this to violate the browser choice law.
Their solution is to turn that feature off and go back to the icon just spawning the system default browser just like any link since that feature already existed.
To support true PWA's they probably have two choices:
1. Implement a standard WebView API that any engine can support then use that web view api for the PWA shell.
2. Do what Android seems to do and have a api that allows an app to create new launcher icons separate from the main app that starts the main app with parameters like url=https://pwa.com mode=pwa. Then if you create a PWA from Chrome it spawns Chrome if created from Safari it spawns Safari with whatever PWA UI they want. On Android it seems to make a little icon bottom right letting you know the parent app.
#1 is arguably more complex than #2, both are new api's for iOS that don't exist. #2 is on most desktop OS's like MacOS but not on iOS as far as I know.
Apples position is they don't want to put any resources in to creating a new api that could introduce new security surface area unless mandated to. Obviously their motives are not pure but it is a defensible position.
I think #2 would be a good feature adding flexibility to many apps, but the various shenanigans that apps could cause with that would need to be considered.
I think it's less a preference question and more whether Apple thinks saving PWAs with a third party browser and then launching them with Safari is compliant with the DMA.
Handwriting a 30 page assessment questionaire, fumbling a camera take relevant photos, and then manually correlating the photos to the assessment questions as it's written up properly... Is somehow better than a PWA?I
PWAs aren't a golden hammer, but they're not as useless as your opinions.
How would suddenly disallowing users to run a PWA that worked for years improve platform security? How would having Spotify be able to use their own subscription system compromise platform security?
Being able to install software without needing an OK from the hardware manufacturer has been standard for over 40 years now. People do it on Windows PCs, on Linux PCs, on MacBooks and on Android phones, and that very clearly has not caused the extinction of the dinosaurs yet :)
The document Apple has published to me reads like it's written by a 5 year old that just was served too many sweets shortly before bed time.
IMHO this is about revenge, not about platform security.
They are not allowed to give their browser an advantage under the DMA. If you take a look at BrowserEngineKit and BrowserKit there is a significant API surface area they offer for third-party browser engines. They must have been building this for some time. It's really detailed, down to allowing developers to implement their own JIT! [1] they have custom UI components replacing their standard scroll views with ones that better support nested scrollable DOM elements. It's a staggering amount of engineering effort
I can totally believe that there is not enough time to re-think and re-architect how to implement push notifications, local storage and whatever other perks PWAs get for non-Safari third-party browser engines running as "apps." They may have lots of money and engineers, but throwing more of them at this problem is not going to build a well designed, thoroughly tested, and secure implementation any faster
I am not even sure that the EU has mandated that PWAs must be able to run in other browsers. Did you see any such regulation?
From what I understand, the regulation is about allowing users to install third-party apps including browser and of course PWAs. I doubt they mandate what browser engine the app uses, that's the apps business only.
I think the DMA mandates that Apple not give Safari advantages over other browsers. Being able to run PWAs seems like it could be considered an advantage? Not sure though
It's pretty obvious. They're not disallowing it. They are removing the integration with the home screen so that it will run in third party browsers. That limits it to the smallest common API surface which is "open link". Everything else was a luxury.
I don't think you work in IT if you haven't had an infested windows, android or macOS box before. Hell I just spent the other day cleaning my father's Mac out of two VPN turds fighting with each other he installed after watching crap on YouTube. My daughter's windows machine got destroyed by unsigned crap from a Sims mod. You just don't get that on iOS apart from the odd calendar subscription turd.
As for spotify, they use their own subscription system, not the app store.
Not my intention to brag about it, but I run an R&D company and have invented and patents on quite a lot of network technologies :)
The only time in my life where I had an infected devices was in the year 1993 - a boot sector virus on a floppy disk I got from someone.
Luckily my wife is a nerd, too, by sister is trained and has not yet fallen for any of the social engineering tricks before. So no, I do not have to deal with other people's infected boxes either.
Well, on the other hand it implies that most of my family is dead and buried already, and therefore would have a hard time annoying me with their IT problems.
If that's a good deal is a matter of perspective ;)
No. A PWA has exactly the same storage access, code etc as a normal web page. A PWA is set apart by having a manifest, which defines how it should act as an app. It has certain extra capabilities like accepting shares and so on, but it is not radically different from a web page.
That is saying it uses a different storage area for the same thing and you presumably end up with different service workers between web and the app. Is that a good thing? My guess is they had no other choice.
Every browser other then Safari has the same storage for both PWA and website. Apple claims separate storage is "great for privacy" -- forcing you to use the cloud to sync between the PWA and the website.
>> Microsoft does it all the time with Edge on Windows.
Edge on windows, the same edge on windows that got caught slurping up chrome tabs recently?
Browsers are now the same size code base wise, as operating systems. They are in fact tiny OS's with permissions models and execution environments.
I think the author makes the point that safari made a lot of progress, they paid for a lot of work, that they are throwing away. Spite is a reason, but security is also a reason... We have seen how bad things can be when browsers cohabitate on desktops, putting up hard walls now solves the problem before it starts. Phone users aren't loosing (much) of anything, taking away something that they didn't have and didn't exist MIGHT be for security reasons...
Aren't apps already sandboxed from eachother on both major Phone OS', unlike on Windows? So on that end something like Edges snooping around other browsers isn't even possible.
If the video leaks due to shitty (pun not intended) sandboxing that is rightlfully on Apple (when on iOS), if it leaks due to the browser being broken then it is on Google and if it's due to an explicit modification of Samsung (when talking about Android) it's on Samsung.
When Facebook has a bug/exploit in their app that results in X hacker being able to gain access to files stored within the sandbox of Facebook noone is blaming Apple for Facebooks bug.
I feel like the reason most users don't care if they lose access to PWAs is because they haven't had much expose to them. Apple would prefer people continue to use stuff from their app store instead of PWAs and so they're squashing our opportunity to get to know and like them. It's yet another attempt to lock us into their app store
A lot of this article appears to be based on the belief that the security architecture of iOS and MacOS are identical. This seems ... an unlikely assumption
I suspect that there are too many differences for me to really list., but for starters MacOS supports multiple user accounts and has beeen built from its inception to allow people to install software from anywhere.
For several years now, MacOS has blocked unsigned apps from running. You have to manually enable every single app installed this way inside System Preferences > Security.
No the article is under the belief that because something has not been a security problem for Mac it will not be a security problem for iOS, this does not necessarily have to be because the security architectures of both are the same.
I think a more problematic assumption is that iOS and MacOS users are equally aware and knowledgeable about potential security threats. It’s true that the sky hasn’t fallen because MacOS users are exposed to these risks. But they are not new risks on MacOS. They will be on iOS.
It hasn't protected Average Joe anyways. There is malware being actively distributed, today, that uses nothing other than first-party Apple services to attain persistence.
Average Joe has to grow up. Scam websites and scam callers aren't going away, and even scam apps are being approved and distributed on Apple's App Store. On iOS, you have to do your due diligence to avoid being exploited (and even that might not help against some threats).
They don’t need to use a different browser engine.
You’re talking about a user who has gone out of their way through multiple scary Apple warnings to change their browser engine.
And even once they do that, they’re likely to be installing one of Firefox, Chrome, or Edge, all of which have as good if not better security histories than Safari.
If the argument is that in reality the security architecture of iOS is much much worse than MacOS, I'd be interested to hear the details of that rationale...
Parent's point is that Apple successfuly maintains two different security levels for mac and iOS, and claiming that it absolutely can't lower iOS at any cost is just Apple's opinion.
For sure Apple doesn't like the macos security model and would want way tighter control on what's allowed to run, if it could get away with it. But it's not about what Apple wants, it's about what they're asked to do.
Sure this situation already exists on Mac OS but that is a much smaller user base and there are plenty of alternatives where you can go and install arbitrary software.
I deal with weird stuff my parents have installed on their Macs every time I visit… so far I haven’t had to do that with their phones. If I wanted them to use a Firefox browser engine on their phone I’d get them an Android.
It's so funny that every HN post on this topic produces more and more contrived reasons for why having less choice is better, actually. Today: my parents need to be coddled like children, so you don't get to install a new browser.
It's only because Apple's legal wrangling failed that Android even exists today.
This site stopped being for actual hackers at least 5 years ago, maybe more. These people are the opposite of hackers, literally begging for and defending walled gardens and closed systems. What a joke this community has become over the years.
Or could it be that the parents of most people who were live on this website 15, or even 10 years ago were not using computers, and the parents of the younger generation on this website are using computers?
So maybe people want their parents to avoid getting scammed or having their money stolen from their accounts.
You're also welcome not to buy a phone for your parents. It would be disingenuous for me to suggest you actually do so, because we all make choices under duress or with limited options.
If this bad law were to cross the Atlantic I would still buy my parents their phones and deal with the situation.
I’m glad I don’t have to while it remains outside the US. And I’m glad I don’t have to deal with it on my own phone, even if I’m better equipped to deal with it. And I’m glad people are still free to change to different browser engines inside the US without the law.
I'm really sorry that your emotional wellbeing is predicated on the exploitative practice of a multinational company. You should have seen this coming. Bell Telephone didn't get away from litigation for "securing" telecommunications infrastructure under one body. Microsoft didn't foil antitrust litigation for "protecting" users from third-party browsers.
Expecting Apple to escape broader antitrust scrutiny is a pipe dream. You should probably plan accordingly.
Oh, well then good! Too many people on this site get far too upset over changes like this. Methinks a lot of them own too much stock and are a bit grumpy about the consequences.
Yeah, I thought the Mac comparison was easy to digest, but ultimately left me feeling still a little hungry. I'm thinking those that would install malware are obviously going to target the platform that is always online and that sells millions of units.
I remember how few Mac viruses there were back in the 90's vs. the PC platform. I don't think it had anything to do with System 7 security. ;-)
I'm not sure though if it wouldn't in fact hurt Apple's brand to give up the fight and instead install a big lever you can throw when you set up your iOS device that says, "Turn off security". Apple seems to be saying instead, you have choice — buy an Android.
I've never owned an Android though so I can say, is it rife with malware and other security compromises? Is the platform as hardened as iOS? Or it another case where the market is not as appealing as the iOS market to malware developers?
Yeah but then they just won't chage the browser enginr and nothing will change. I don't think your parents would go out of their way to change the browser engine or am I missing something?
You aren't required to install PWAs and can generally keep using the site that created the PWA just fine. PWAs are most often a courtesy for mobile users, not a requirement. Don't need or want that courtesy, don't take it. That you spent time to post here without understanding that is some kind of indictment.
What is really fun about working with Apple is their Appstore connect platform is buggy & slow as hell.
Few times I couldn't submit an app because of it.
Every time I submit a bug, there first reaction is try it on safari; most of time it was server issues so it didn't resolve it. But sometimes it actually did where I didnt expect it.
Well there is enough reasons: giving back to developers, because it's the right thing to do, saving support costs, etc. Just in their DNA not to care about developers. However even from such a monopoly position it would benefit them in the long run.
I wonder how the EU will respond when high-ranking politicians fall victim to third-party app store scams or experience significant data leaks exploited through other browsers. Given that they're not particularly tech-savvy, it raises questions about their preparedness for such situations, and who they will blame for it.
(1) Why assume Apple's browser is more secure than the likely alternatives, Chrome and Firefox?
(2) Those high-ranking politicians almost certainly already make heavy use platforms that allow "side-loading" and alternative browsers. That means the attack surface doesn't change much from where it is right now.
Well, admittedly that's pretty good evidence for your position that high-ranking politicians are stupid. But it also shows that high-ranking politicians won't stray outside Apple's little world even if given the opportunity, so there's no problem to begin with.
I wonder how Apple will respond when high-ranking politicians acknowledge that security is a personal responsibility that Apple was unfit to provide in the first place. That will be a fun discussion, albeit further down the proverbial line.
So Apple needs total control over the entire world, because high-ranking politicians are too stupid to take care of themselves?
I mean, if they had the choice not to buy Apple, they might buy something that they're unprepared to handle, so what you're saying necessarily implies that they have no non-Apple choices at all, or at least no choices that aren't just as locked down as Apple and run in just as hidebound a way.
With all sincerity, fuck you and fuck everybody who thinks like you.
I don’t understands why this would be such a security issue other browsers are sandboxed. PWA would just dispatch to the chosen browser with whatever parameters are passed along and it would be up to that browser to do the right thing. How would this be a security risk worse than the current existing setup with deep links?
Crucially, that's not because Microsoft are more ethical - it's because they didn't figure it out first. The solution to this is not a better company, it's better adherence to and implementation of the existing laws.
I love apple for the hardware, but they would be a better company if they released their iron grip over the software. One day I dream I can install Linux on iOS devices.
I'm an Android user (I like having freedom on my phone), but iPhone definitely have higher build quality (the materials are just better). Re-Saleability, you can sell them at decent prices.
And in terms of new hardware, often Apple brings forth new features and the rest follows.
And don't get me started on macbooks, I keep going back to them as basically everything is better there (except repairability and upgradeability, which I hope EU forces them to improve as well.)
> iPhone definitely have higher build quality (the materials are just better)
With a glass panel on the back ?
I'm perplexed on where Apple's materials are better than the Galaxy S Ultra series for instance. If anything Samsung's hardware is usually more advanced than Apple's, while their software is what kills the deal.
Macbooks build quality is also IMO overrated, they are shiny and clean looking, quality control is top notch, but they're pretty fragile. The screen getting imprinted by the keyboard is a pretty frequent issue for instance (mine had clear imprinted lines after less than a year). Same for the camera right behind the opening notch, the coating gets noticeably off as the machine is open/closed.
I'm comparing that to a Lenovo foldable that's still in a pretty good shape after roughly the same time, used by a teenager.
Competition is good. This isn’t a new thing for Apple, however - even when Jobs was alive, he personally conspired with Google, Adobe, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay to price-fix wages lower than a normal competitive market would allow.
When the companies reached a settlement over it, the judge threw it out because it was so hilariously low compared to the three billion dollars that these companies stole from their employees.
I have an ipad through which I subscribed for Apple arcade. I don't use it / play at all on it and there was recently an email that price is going up. Sure, I'll just cancel subscription I said. I don't have my ipad on me, nor any other apple device (I don't use them anymore), nor windows. I have linux machines and android phone. Ok, so how do I cancel subscription? icloud login? no. subscription place of sorts? it wants me to install itunes, which I can't.. ok, no. After googling around, turns out there's actually no way except to call Apple in USA or wherever. I'll just wait a week untill I get a hold of my iPad and Apple won't be seeing my money for a long time. Disgraceful to say the least.
Apple always assume that you use their devices as primaries. It can be very annoying. When I wanted to get my wife a replacement MB, I ended up checking out as a guest as they insisted on sending my 2FA code to my iPad (which mostly just annoyed my toddler).
> Apple always assume that you use their devices as primaries
Assumes or tries very hard to make the alternative as difficult as possible? From a company that prides itself in improving and simplifying UX the dark patterns aren't mistakes.
I think with organizations of this size it‘s usually just stupidity, lack of focus, or bad product management. Apple UX is sometimes really bad and buggy and the question „cui bono“ often has the simple answer: no one. It‘s just a bug that happened somewhere in the dev cycle or some immature idiosyncrasy that was rushed into the product because someone just liked the idea.
Maybe the UX is so good because they don't care to have a development team supporting your 0.001% edge case of you wanting to run iMovie on your Sun Workstation running Solaris.
The simple reality is this: if you are refusing to follow the established processes and procedures of an ecosystem that you've voluntarily decided to be a part of, for some technical reason you've conjured up or gotten yourself in, for which seems to otherwise work fine for billions of people, then you are a particular edge case
Now, with your final word, don't say something online you wouldn't in a professional setting, especially around here. It is disrespectful and unprofessional, and you should probably know better.
The "established procedures" of the worldwide, multi-company, multi-country "ecosystem" in which Apple is embedded are that everything, or at least everything administrative, can be done first and foremost from a Web page. Once you get that basic functionality in place, you can start screwing around with apps or whatever. Your platform is an "edge case", and, yes, Apple, this means you.
As for professionalism, you appear to be under the unfortunate misapprehension that anybody gets paid to engage in bull sessions on here.
you appear to be under the unfortunate misapprehension that anybody gets paid to engage in bull sessions on here.
Fortunately, I'm not mistaken in the fact that this world is small, and the grandparent poster is living in it. I've had the distinct honor to witness many a person sitting across from me have the unfortunate distinction of being known by me in circumstances that were less than fortunate for them. And at the end of the day that can really affect how someone "gets paid."
You sound like a terrible colleague, on a very high horse, with very little self-awareness. You enter this thread with a straw-man, and when called out start threatening with cancel culture bullshit. What are you even trying to prove here and to who?
You're a parody of an Apple user. I guess that's what decades of being patronized and gaslit by a company does to someone.
You're a parody of an Apple user. I guess that's what decades of being patronized and gaslit by a company does to someone.
How on earth did you draw these two conclusions? I'm simply asking people to not call me an "ass" and a "dickface" in a professional setting and all the sudden I'm some cheerleading Apple user who was gaslit and patronized by a company?
Some of you are some angry misguided people. You should really look inward to how you interact with your fellow peers. This is frankly, disgusting.
First of all, this is not a professional setting, it's a comment section to an article.
Second, you reduce someones completely valid need of being able to cancel a subscription to a condescending straw-man:
> supporting your 0.001% edge case of you wanting to run iMovie on your Sun Workstation running Solaris
Since you see this place as a professional setting, is that how you handle colleagues? With unnecessary and patronizing sarcasm? Anyway, when you get called out for it you double down with "careful, we might meet each other professionally":
> I've had the distinct honor to witness many a person sitting across from me have the unfortunate distinction of being known by me in circumstances that were less than fortunate for them. And at the end of the day that can really affect how someone "gets paid."
Ridiculous. Don't take yourself or this place too seriously. Nobody is angry, we just don't have patience for your bullshit. Where do I apply if I want the opportunity to tell you to go fuck yourself to your face?
Where do I apply if I want the opportunity to tell you to go fuck yourself to your face?
You can contact me through my profile. You won't though, because even though Sweden is a large country, you wouldn't dare say that to my face regardless. I know you wouldn't.
How come? Are you a tough guy who resorts to your fists when your fragile ego gets questioned?
Imagine sitting there doxxing people over this bullshit. This needs an XKCD, "call the FBI, someone on the internet called me an ass".
I'm sure you have 15 e-mails drafted already "Hey, are you aware that your employee has opinions online? It's not a good look for your company and you should do something about that."
I will be very amused to see him contact my employer. ;) I guess he couldn't penetrate my cloak of plain real name, middle initial and all. The guy lampoons himself.
Good lord. I was just hoping you’d contact me so we could continue this discussion offline HN. I don’t think I’ve ever swung a fist at everyone, but that’s what I thought. You won’t contact me. Stay salty, and have a good day bro…
edit: you’ve crossed the line from having an opinion to being an unprofessional jerk. I’m not anonymous, you are. I triple dog dare you to personally back up your comments, otherwise you are a coward and afraid of your own shadow, much less confident in your opinions. Like I said before, you would never make these comments to me face to face where I knew who you were and there were consequences for your actions lurking around the corner. But I’m willing to be surprised.
----
edit2 per the below:
What would that even achieve? I don't feel the need to prove anything to someone on the internet.
LOL. Ok dude. That's why you're 8 deep into the comments. Stay anonymous and salty my friend.
Discussions don't scare me. What would these consequences even be?
Reach out to me. See, you can't. You won't. You can huff and puff and beat on your chest proclaiming that you're "knocking down to earth" and all this sanctimonious bullshit but deep down inside you know that you would never act like this in public if people knew who you were. your bluff has been called, you've been given the opportunity to be a real person, but you simply can't do it. The reason is because you are a coward, and you know there will be consequences for acting like a tool in public. Otherwise you'd "own it" like you did when you were a big boy and you walked down to HR to show them what's up.
You can look at my profile, you know exactly who I am. Who are you? You're a cute little freelancer who hides behind the keyboard knowing that regardless of what you do, there are consequences for the way that you address people in public unprofessionally. I stand by all my comments, because my name is right on them. You can't stand by your comments because you are - nobody.
----
Addendum: One thing that's really cool here is you can see @worksonmine agree with me that there are consequences for popping your mouth off in public, as he progresses through his arguments. It is a good sign of progress, he'll watch himself a little closer on a professional forum and he definitely won't reveal who he is professionally when he decides to stray off into not acting like a professional. Who would have thought being unprofessional would be a hinderance to someone? he knows it. I know it. everyone knows it.
Click my timestamp, and hit reply instead of editing.
I'm keeping this up because it's fairly entertaining and I've got nothing better to do. Do I seem even the slightest offended? I'm just curious to see how far you'll take it, now we're at "let's go outside, let's go outside", I'm just grinning and getting a kick from your reaction.
Me keeping my online and real-life presences separate has more to do with integrity than the opinions you see here. Even if I'm anonymous I'm never insulting or unnecessarily rude, you'll see me calling out people for being so though.
I'm the same IRL, since you've read my comments you know it's the controversies that get me going. That's where the interesting discussions are and what stimulates me. I'm used to the entire table loosing their shit and me calmly asking leading questions until they realize we're in agreement.
Me keeping my online and real-life presences separate has more to do with integrity than the opinions you see here.
Nah, you're just being a coward and literally hiding behind the keyboard. You're afraid of the professional repercussions and consequences. You've been able to read the room just enough to know that being obtuse and unnecessarily confrontational (I think you call it "calling people out on their bullshit") and then sitting back and giggling at the aftermath isn't necessarily an approach you'd want to tie your actual name to. A quick look at your past history shows this is your modus operandi. This is, after all, a group of professionals. And before you lecture ME on what this place is, remember you've been around here for 2 years, I've been around here for 14.
Even if I'm anonymous I'm never insulting or unnecessarily rude
Right. Ok.
It's adorable to watch you soften your tone as we get deeper into this. You've gone from "where do I sign up to tell you to go fuck yourself" to "I'm having fun and I like to watch the people get all riled up"
> It's adorable to watch you soften your tone as we get deeper into this. You've gone from "where do I sign up to tell you to go fuck yourself" to "I'm having fun and I like to watch the people get all riled up"
I don't think my tone is any softer, could it be you reading me with a different energy? I've been very calm throughout. It was a rhetorical question as a response to this:
>> I've had the distinct honor to witness many a person sitting across from me have the unfortunate distinction of being known by me in circumstances that were less than fortunate for them. And at the end of the day that can really affect how someone "gets paid."
And seeing you doxx and threaten people with "consequences". I see you've edited your other comment to address others who may be reading, and I'm the one getting cold feet? Why do you think people care? Who are you even? Are you important in Silicon Valley? This was also rhetorical, don't answer that I don't care.
Imagine measuring dicks over the age of our accounts. Does it give you the same warm fuzzy feelings as "owning" your iphone?
I own an iPhone and an Android phone. I think there is an old windows phone in the back desk somewhere as well. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
MY point is, and I think I've been crystal clear, is that this is a small world and professionalism is key to human and business interaction. I know this, and you definitely know this, otherwise you wouldn't behave like you have in public.
Am I important? Absolutely not. Do I think people care? Yes, believe it or not, important people in our industry participate here in these discussions. I've done significant business with private equity, investors and others via contacts and discussions here. This isn't reddit or discord, fox news article discussions, or facebook. You know how I know you don't know this? Because your account is 2 years old and your demonstrated behavior around here over those 2 years tells us this. Sorry. A spade is a spade. Look up the history of HN.
My point all along has been that I can assure you, if we were doing business together or I was considering you for a technical contract, role, job, partnership, anything, you'd be in a world of hurt. Your obtuse and abrasive approach might cost you an investment. Maybe a contract. Maybe a billion dollars. Who knows?
You may not like to hear this, but here's the thing. I've managed hundreds of people just like you, who think they are the "big boy" because they did x, y, and z technically or they marched down to HR to show the people in charge what's up, or their MO is to stir the pot, be obtuse and cause trouble and be disrespectful all the while skirting the line. That is your schtick, and it's probably why you're working as a freelancer. Good for you if you're doing well, but we'll have to take your word for it. Like I said, me: I'm really not important, but you can very easily look at who I am, my CV, what I've done in life, my family, technically, managerly, whatever and you'll find that when we're dropping our zippers, I'm going to have a more warm and fuzzy feeling than you are right now. And that's just the way it is, because you've got nothing else to stand on except your obtuseness and anonymity.
For someone who values professionalism you're strangely entitled. Do you think people would enjoy working with someone who threatens consequences as soon you're called out for being an ass?
Are you being professional when you try to bait me into doxxing myself for what, getting revenge over a comment on the web? "I dare you! I triple dare you! Coward! Let's continue outside HN".
Then you belittle me calling me a "cute little freelancer" (I'm not) and so on. Maybe you wouldn't want to work with me, but don't flatter yourself, I doubt I'd ever need your entitled elitist attitude close to me. I didn't even reply to your first comment that got down-voted because it didn't warrant an answer. But when you started bitching to people calling you out I got interested, and here we are.
Spare me your psychoanalysis Freud. Instead of doubling down just leave, or delete your comments if you care so much what people think. You're not winning any points, there are no prizes or diplomas.
For someone who values professionalism I'm uniquely qualified to tell you to sit your ass down and shut it. Let's back up here: the whole crux of you deciding to pick a fight with me was over me commenting about some people thinking their edge cases with Apple deserves special treatment. Guess what, no they don't, they're not special. The customer isn't always right. Neither is Apple in many cases, but they are the largest company in the world, so I think they've figured out customer service, UX, all those things, and if you go to the original post in this message, it was about some dude's edge case on canceling a subscription. Boo fuckin hoo.
Let me recap for you: you directly picked a fight with me after I defended myself from being directly called an "ass," a "terrible colleague," "a dick-face" and "I want the opportunity to tell you to go fuck yourself to your face" My defense solely focuses on professionalism, and you decide to wallow in the mud with the rest in some anonymous sanctimonious self-sucking bullshit circle. So don't engage in whataboutisms at this point with me. Only an obtuse anonymous troll can race to the bottom with a named person at THIS point... So yup, slap that tag on your forehead bud and own it.
The difference between me and you is that in the professional world, I have a track record of having hundreds of people who enjoy working with me, millions of customers who enjoy my products, and many many partners who have become millionaires. You've marched down to HR and won a fight. Congratulations.
I'll be here all night, and I ain't deleting shit. My comments stand, with my name attached right here on each of them. blantonl: Lindsay Blanton. You can't do that: you're too scared, too cowardly, and too afraid of what might come your way by writing checks with your name on them your ass can't cash. So, I guess in a sense, I am "strangely entitled" because I have the track record that you don't, and that allows me enough capital to let my comments stand. I can write those checks all day with my name on them. You? you're going to have to earn some capital. You might try by attaching your name to some worthwhile works for a start.
You'll also find that anyone that works with me knows I don't suffer fools. I will bend over backwards, but I won't bend over forwards. I can assure you that you are uniquely lucky in that you are anonymous, because I've figuratively punched more than one person in the mouth because they decided to get sanctimonious and preachy on how I should be expressing an opinion in a professional setting. I didn't start the attacks, others did, and you felt it was your duty to preach to me how I should conduct myself in response. Mike Tyson said it best, "everyone has a plan until they've been punched in the mouth."
The saddest part about this is how little you understand about the situation. So brainwashed that wanting to cancel a subscription is an edge case. Is that why Apple fanboys keep throwing money at them? Canceling is not an option.
I didn't read most of your post but I get the gist, you're really cool and I wish I could lick the ground you walk on.
> you’ve crossed the line from having an opinion to being an unprofessional jerk
Nothing unprofessional about what I've said here in this thread, this is not my place of work, and I'm only calling you out on your bullshit. I'm not ashamed of bringing people back down to earth. Even if you were my employee I would speak to you exactly like this if this was how you acted towards colleagues, doxxing and threatening with consequences. Probably even harsher since I'm bound by law to provide a healthy environment.
> I’m not anonymous, you are
Should've thought about that before you embarrassed yourself bragging how you've fucked potential colleagues over with your power trip. That's where I got involved.
> I triple dog dare you to personally back up your comments, otherwise you are a coward and afraid of your own shadow,
Baiting me into doxxing myself isn't going to work, I'm not 12 years old. What would that even achieve? I don't feel the need to prove anything to someone on the internet. Even if you were to contact my employer the only one you would reach would be me, there is nobody else. Am I going to fire myself? Oh-oh, I hurt someones feelings, maybe I should liquidate my company.
> Like I said before, you would never make these comments to me face to face where I knew who you were and there were consequences for your actions lurking around the corner.
I absolutely would, especially because of your entitlement. And I would enjoy it. I've been called to HR in the past over showing statistics that women earn more in tech than men to a female claiming they don't get hired. The meeting concluded with them realizing they asked me to be sexist and treat women differently and chose my truths based on the gender I'm speaking to. Because feelings, not even being rude, simple facts are apparently offensive today and I'm not playing that game.
Discussions don't scare me. What would these consequences you keep threatening with even be? Outside of your bubble nobody cares. Since you're not anonymous and your environment seems to care about these things maybe stop digging further into it.
No. The user base for Apple Music on Windows is huge. Apple devices are secondary. Using the AM app is primary, once you've been successfully sucked into the Apple ecosystem, Borg-like.
A feature of the Apple platform is aggregation of control, but they put the control within iOS.
This is awesome. I don't have to chase down fifty-eleven other sites to manage the things I subscribed to on my phone or iPad, including the services I buy from Apple itself. It's an extremely consumer-friendly aspect of the platform, and one I would miss very much if I switched to something else.
But yes, to use this feature of the platform, you need to have access to the platform. As you have discovered, though, Apple DOES have a phone option as well, though I'm sure it's less convenient to use.
Honestly, it just seems like you were primed to be annoyed about Apple, and have failed to realize your complaints look pretty thin.
I'm not sure if Apple pays your sandwiches or what, but it's not hard to imagine a reasonable expectation one could login to an apple-owned web platform to manage their subscription. Not third-party. Apple one. Especially after considering two facts; One - they have that platform via iCloud where you can manage billing and subscription, but apparently not for everything and second which is more important - I got alerted to this after receiving an email from Apple titled "Your Subscription Price Increase" and within that email there was this: "To learn more or cancel, review your subscription." of which latter part is a link which when clicked opens up a page saying you need itunes. itunes which I cannot install on my phone nor computer. No other info. I had to dig and dig through google to find that I could probably call someone at Apple to cancel. If that's not shady, it's at least sloppy.
Yes, of course, any defense of Apple must be due to remuneration. LOL.
It's an oversight, I suppose, but a defensible one. Putting management for subscriptions in the AppleID management area of Settings on Apple devices is an entirely reasonable thing to do. For one thing, it means you don't have to futz with a login to get to it.
I'd never use a web login for this. I'm sure most Apple users feel the same. And you have to have an Apple device to consume the subscription the OP is talking about, so ... yeah, seems like a chintzy thing to whine about.
Which was my original point: it's HN, so there must be Apple-bashing. QED.
It's HN so there must be closed source and walled garden simping to no end because no actual hacker has been in these parts for half a decade, all having left after the great walled garden simpfest of 2018.
So when you sign up for Apple Arcade, which strangely you dont use? Why sign up for it? But then it's okay that you need to have your iPad to signup, but when you want to cancel it is strange that you need your iPad.
I understand it would be nice if you can login to a website and cancel, but reads as if you make your mistake of not taken your iPad, or cancelling in time a fault of others.
Because, when you buy an Apple device, they shove free trials for subscription services down your throat in the hopes that you'll do exactly this. And it's not strange that they don't use it: the first thing you discover after starting the free trials is that they're useless and full of shovelware.
> but when you want to cancel it is strange that you need your iPad
Come on, of course that's ridiculous.
Of course a reasonable person would expect to be able to cancel a subscription without needing the device it was created on when they used an account that you can log into from basically anywhere.
If I bought an iPad and subscribed to something, and then accidentality dropped it off a cliff, or out of a plane, or lost it in the sea, and I decided you know what, I don't want any more Apple stuff, you can be damn sure I'd expect to be able to cancel any subscriptions I had on that account (you know, the account you can log into from any computer or device), from somewhere other than on the device itself.
Suggesting anyone should expect otherwise is insanity.
Just pickup the phone and cancel your subscription. Yes, I get that you can't spin up a virtual machine of OS/2 and and use Netscape navigator to cancel your subscription because you dropped your iPad off the balcony of your cruise ship. OK, call them up and cancel.
I'll hate on apple all day, but damn if this thread isn't pedantic as hell. Jeeze.
oh my toddler is annoyed about a 2FA prompt
Give me a break. "Hey son, read to me the 6 digit code you just got on MY IPAD, Thanks son! Good reading my boy!"
Sure, who do I call? I'm not in USA and there's an 0800 number listed deep in some faq. My carrier won't connect me to the number. There's no local Apple in Croatia where I'm at. I will get to my ipad soon and cancel it, but it's absurd to say the least since you can log into icloud and there are billing options for it, so why not other things?
Actually, I signed up for it when my daughter and I wanted to play some puzzle games on my iPad. Turns out A TON of games we browsed through / tried out via AppStore on it are pure scam / and really shady-looking. I thought maybe if I just click official Apple subscription and played games they went through all that sewer can be avoided. We played maybe once or twice and I kind of forgot about it; We played fruit ninja anyways. Insisting on having an iPad or any other apple device again to unsubscribe is absurd. What if iPad was my only apple device (which it was/is) and it fell down the black hole? I'm then supposed to pay until end of universe or call Tim Apple across ocean and ask for favors? It's unacceptable, no matter which company it is. ESPECIALLY since they do have web interface you can log into and do stuff regarding billing (see iCloud).
tl;dr; I paid to get away from scam, turns out I fell into one.
I agree, at the core it was obviously his fault because he signed up for an online subscription-service and now expects it to be somehow maintained online /s
I think their idea of the future is very much centered around selling the attention and purchasing power of their customers.
That's not meant to be rude "Anti-Apple", that's what their business strategy is obviously based on, including implementing lots of features to prevent their users from voluntarily providing attention or sharing valuable information for free to anyone without Apple's involvement.
If that's your strategy, someone forcing you to allow your customers to roam free is quite a big threat. Something you might be willing to spend one of your trillion dollars to fight against.
So I believe we haven't seen the peak of this yet...
It's particularly silly given their cash horde that they are not investing. Speaks to a highly conservative corporate culture almost to the level of stockpiling canned food and shotguns.
With a soon to be nonexistent middle class in the USA (as well as big growth in comparatively poor countries) getting Apple-style huge profits in the next 2-3 decades is going to be much more about getting $20-50/mo/user in perpetuity and less about selling premium price $1k-3k devices. The AVP (at like version 3 or 4) is the endgame for “Apple should make a TV”. It’s the ultimate passive content consumption device.
Apple is now existentially committed to recurring revenue like a crackhead loves crack.
It was obvious to me when I bought a $1600 iPhone and within 5 minutes of setting it up it began nagging me for $5 for iCloud storage. When even Google has figured out how to not nickel and dime your most profitable customer segment and Apple hasn’t, you know something’s wrong.
Expect one of the most clever companies in the world to put a majority of their mental energy into rentseeking of all kinds, from cloud storage to content rentals (music and tv and movie subscriptions) to AppleCare and every other possible thing (Fitness, Arcade, the perpetual iPhone upgrade thing, etc). It’s going to be subscriptions forever.
I expect them to be wildly successful from a revenue standpoint with this plan. Their products (that ugly-ass Ultra watch and tiny bass-free Homepod mini, for example) and nag-filled no-privacy UX have taken a hit and will continue to do so. They’re just consumption devices for Apple Music and iMessage (your attachment history for which drives iCloud storage upgrades). I’m surprised they haven’t figured out a way to charge something for FaceTime yet.
This is why they are fighting the DMA - their position as rentseeker is directly responsible for a double digit percentage of the profits of the most valuable company in the world for the next two dozen years. We are talking about literally trillions of dollars hanging in the balance here. How much fight do you think they will bring to bear on this for that much revenue?
There is zero product UX that is insanely great coming out of Apple these days. The actual engineering behind things like Homepods, AVP, the watch, AirPods, and the Mx silicon is absolutely insane, but it doesn’t inspire users in the UX anymore - it’s all in the background. The AVP is literally the cutting edge of hardware at that price point and all people say about it is that it’s too heavy. The products can’t exist without the engineering, but the users don’t know or care and don’t get the elation and delight that Apple used to be explicitly known for. It’s just “GPU performance and battery life go up and to the right again this year (and sometimes new colors)”.
It’s all just scaffolding to play back consumer media (the marginal cost of which asymptotically approaches zero) so they can extract the recurring rents.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they ever do make a car that they offer it as lease-only.
Sure, but historically Apple made that recurring revenue by simply selling expensive hardware devices at intervals, one sale at a time. The growth period of those is now over. There aren’t ever going to be 5x as many smartphone or tablet or laptop users in the future as there are today. To support continued y/y increases they need to increase revenue somewhere and it’s not going to be from new product categories, at least for a few years, such as when the AV(non-P) is much lighter and an order of magnitude cheaper.
The problem is that they can’t simply continue to earn four hundred billion a year - that’s not enough. Each year it must increase. No revenue figure is ever sufficient.
Apple’s eras are:
- the growth of the pre-graphical personal computer market
- the growth of the graphical computer market (Mac) (worth noting that they mostly failed to capture this)
- the growth of the portable/internet graphical computer market (ie affordable personal laptops)
- the growth of the smartphone market
- rentseeking (and maybe the growth of the VR hardware market if they and Zucc have guessed correctly)
There isn’t another growing hardware market for them to surf at this point. They’re doing their best with smart speakers, earbuds, headphones, watches, and tablets but in the grand scheme of revenue nobody really cares about those and they won’t grow substantially in the future.
Yes, and they are not complying but believe they can get away with abusing tiny loopholes. The are sabotaging the whole idea.
For example them demanding that app developers have to pay APPLE if they are distributing their apps through a different App store is the exact opposite of the intention of the EU regulations, and plain evil.
I think the main issue is attribution. Especially when a lot of stuff breaks even on web, when you change the browser.
Imagine I have some PWA at home screen now, working with Safari engine. I changed my browser to Chrome, let's say it stopped working. 90% of the users will blame Apple software update instead of the Chrome choice.
Nah. Those kind of incompatibilities are rare and users will generally place the blame on their last change, more likely the Chrome install than a check for updates.
The best thing everyone can do is to keep making noise and Streisand Effect the hell out of this. Make Apple’s arrogance cost them something. Don’t just sit by quietly while they dismantle the future of computing to protect their revenue streams.
> You can read Apple’s announcement on being forced to comply but as you do you so, I’d like you to remember one thing: every nightmare scenario they describe for the security of users in the EU is exactly what currently happens on Macs everywhere in the world.
There's 1.5 billion iPhone users vs 100 million Mac users, Apple believes that at least part of the reason for that difference is the security model of iOS. E.g., arguably the largest changes Apple has made to the Mac since introducing the iPhone is implementing security measures based on iOS.
> There's 1.5 billion iPhone users vs 100 million Mac users
It’s beyond hilarious, after years of seeing Apple users fight back against the idea that the Mac’s better security relative to windows Windows has anything to do with its smaller user base, to see Apple users insist that the Mac’s smaller user base relative to the iPhone is what makes it more secure.
I don't really understand your argument, e.g., "seeing Apple users fight back against the idea that the Mac’s better security relative to windows Windows has anything to do with its smaller user base".
Are you saying there was some dispute between where folks were saying Mac's tigher security someone made the platform less popular? I've never heard this. (Also for the record, I personally wouldn't make any case about Mac's security being better than Windows.)
Also side point, I said this is what Apple believes, not "Apple users". I.e., I don't think anyone cares what I think, but Apple behavior on a number of fronts points to Apple believing this (e.g., sandboxing in Mac App Store, reading between the lines of the App Store restrictions, notarization).
Those are probably different groups of people. I'll definitely agree that the Mac would see more security issues if it had the install base of Windows or iOS.
John Gruber for example used to rail against the Security by Obscurity argument (correctly, IMO), but makes the same security by obscurity argument today.
I don't think that's some big secret, but also irrelevant to the point I'm making. I said Apple believes that they're security model on the iPhone is important to it's popularity. Apple making a bunch of money on the App Store does not contribute to the iPhone's popularity, therefore it's not relevant to my original statement.
What you are really trying to say is that Apple doesn't actually believe the security model is important, instead it's just about collecting money from the App Store, that's a valid interpretation, I just believe that Apple values the iPhone's long-term popularity higher than it values the short-term profits from the App Store. The fact that they can have both is mighty convenient for Apple.
Not only do I think it's relevant, I think it's the whole point. The security argument is the outcome of finding the most useful, contentious point that would support them continuing to make the gobs of money. It's the same way 'think of the children' is used for arguing in favour of various types of censorship - everyone in the know is aware it's not the real reason but we live in a society where calling someone out for BSing is considered rude, or bad politics. So the rest of us have to nod along while being treated as fools.
The TAM is saturated. Taking share from Android is difficult. Making more humans use smartphones is difficult. Making more humans is difficult. Extracting more rent is not. So the idea that the security is more important for future revenues than the ability to exploit the userbase doesn't hold up, particularly when there isn't and can't be an alternative with a different security model.
The growth potential comes from future devices that are facilitated by this security model. E.g., you can't have Adobe Creative Cloud's updater process, Zoom, Dropbox, etc... all running their background processes on a resource constrained device like say, AR glasses. This is why Apple is betting the farm in this security model despite its ongoing issues. Apple's future of computing is easily, verifiably, incompatible with a Mac-like security model. This isn't up for debate.
If your argument is a more open model than Apple currently has for the iPhone that might be good argument. But I was replying specifically to the authors comparison to the Mac. My point is that Apple believes having a Mac-like security model for the iPhone would make it less successful, as evidence by there aggressive push to make Mac security more iPhone-like, without enforcing iPhone-style revenue sharing (e.g., you can buy and download software from anywhere without giving Apple a cent).
For the sake of argument lets take as given that the Mac was unacceptably insecure (John Hodgman smirks at Justin Long “I knew it!”) until the iOS security model was applied.
It’s also not clear that the EU requires the PWA engine to also be replaceable but I’m personally in favor of that so we’ll stipulate that’s the case as well.
The term “security model” is doing all the work here.
The EU has no requirement for the “security model” to be changed. They require the browser engine to be replaceable.
The argument that Apple’s security model is the only one that can provide security is not sufficient. Those making this argument need to also prove that the browser engine can only be secure when made by Apple.
And yet the entire history of computing, and especially the history of browsers, browser engines, and app engines in general, have consistently shown that no one company has a monopoly in being able to make secure browser engines, competitive pressure has helped security across the board, and non first party browser engine makers have often made far more secure browser engines than the first party makers.
Apple fans are obscuring the issue by shouting “security model”. The real question is why this security model is irrecoverably damaged by replacing a first party browser engine by a third party one.
And why Apple, at a time of much greater computing power, much more advanced computer science, and far more advanced in browser engine theory and technology, is unable to do what Microsoft was forced to do 2 decades ago.
> The argument that Apple’s security model is the only one that can provide security is not sufficient. Those making this argument need to also prove that the browser engine can only be secure when made by Apple.
I don't think they're making the argument that this is the only one that would work, but that's a silly statement to even debate. Just coming up with a hypothetically security model that might work, is a huge difference from forcing a company to implement it. They're arguing against the second one, the idea that they should be forced to do this, by way of stating the current system works. That doesn't require address hypothetical other systems. I also don't think such verification of hypothetical systems is even possible. We have trouble enough understanding the security of existing systems.
"The MacOS security model has not suffered as Apple asserts." What does this mean? macOS security has radically changed on a number of fronts since the introduction of the iPhone. E.g., sandboxing, notarization, script execution/Apple Events, file-system access, microphone access, video access. I have no idea what your statement means.
Also, will all the people worldwide that changed their country setting to "France" because it prevents their iPhone from slowing down[1] now also experience broken PWA's?
> risks from installing software that compromises system integrity with malware or other malicious code
Sorry, what? Are they implying that iPhone's security isn't built inside the OS itself, but somehow depends on having every app pass their 30 second review on the store? That doesn't seem right.
> exposure to illicit, objectionable, and harmful content due to lower content and moderation standards, and increased risks of scams, fraud, and abuse
Like the deepfake video ads of politicians trying to sell me crypto that I constantly see on YouTube or Meta's apps, all coming from the official store?
Perhaps we have reached peak Apple. I was a fanboy for a long time but when USB-C came to the iPhone something clicked for me. There was no good reason except money making why they didn't do it sooner. Perhaps the magic spell is broken. Yes, their computers may be good, but maybe the company that makes them, isn't.
Why is it a bad response from Apple to disable a feature that they deem as a security risk if you allow for alternative browser engines?
Browsers represent a significant attack surface since they can run code and also transmit data across the network. So when they are allowed to exist now Apple has either two options. One is to do the simple way and remove progressive web apps or extensively test and perform security analysis on all of the new browser engines.
A better compromise would be to make new browser engines have extensive testing by the developer themselves. So, what's the point ? It feels similar to the GDPR where I get a popup and I click disallow all cookies except for essential ones.
This seems the best way to actually implement the directive because it is not only low effort but most secure. We would have a better compromise for testing to be done by the browser engine developer or Apple but its more likely security holes would fall through.
Apple has been abusing their dominant market position for more than a decade, blocking browser competition with security being one of their excuses. They can't be trusted to be honest about what's a legitimate security issue, and what's just them using security as a smokescreen for anti-competitive behavior.
And in fact, they are not being honest in this very case. Their entire spiel is based on the idea that the 3rd party browsers will be malicious, and permit data sharing between different PWAs. It's a risk they've just made up, because they're already making all kinds of other security requirements on 3rd party browsers before allowing them on the platform. They could just have made this one of those requirements.
As said elsewhere, the PWA apps could open in Safari.
But would this have legal implications? Could the browser vendors argue they are discriminated against if PWA apps do not open in their browser?
I think this whole thing puts the finger on how fluid the borders have become. What is an app, what is an API, what is a service? Is Safari an Apple API for PWA apps? Or is a PWA app running by mandate on Safari when the user has selected another browser as default somehow wrong legally or ethically?
Ah yes, the poor end users suffering and the security being bullshit.
I really can't wait to clean the first malicious browser out of a relative's iPhone and try and unsubscribe from Tim Sweeny's app store with his own 30% margin to spend on blackjack and hookers.
The new status quo will be worse than the old one.
Somehow this is not a problem on Android even though they have sideloading and alternative app stores even beyond what Apple is going to allow. (Apple still requires apps to go though a review process, even if distributed outside of the App Store, and will enforce this using digital signatures.)
This is actually a big problem on Android. My ex father-in-law literally had his bank account ripped off (£18000) from rogue app installed from outside the app store. And Google's stewardship of the play store is terrible.
ALL problems are human problems. Don't try and write this off with that one.
I can go all day on these. Second one ... corp Android phone. App update ships own browser engine to display about box. Flaw in about box implementation allows user to hit Google. End user uses about box to exfiltrate data from device.
Not possible on iOS. Same browser engine and controls.
As mentioned I'm an Android user, just a better human than most when it comes to using the devices.
Uh, no it isn't. Otherwise screentime would work in browsers other than Safari. Maybe corporate limits use a different system and checks, but that would be silly.
Ignoring this kind of absurd distinction is what made Apple the most valuable company on earth. (That doesn't justify their behaviour in this case, as PWAs are a secure alternative to sideloading.)
That story sounds rather fishy. So your father has found the hidden option to enable developer mode which allows APKs to be sideloaded, and then went to some website to download and install an APK?
By the way: According to Kasparsky [1] last year there have been 600 Million downloads of malware that was installed from Google play store, without any sideloading or alternative App stores involved.
And of course the Apple App store also is full of malware and shady stuff, think of all the chinese IoT apps that are phoning home etc.
Yeah he was persuaded to do it, ironically considering YT is Google, using a video on YT which was trying to sell him VPN software. I blame the paranoia from the constant VPN industry adds being forced down your throat really but the point is that it still does happen.
I will add that I have a lot of unsigned APKs on my device as well, but not from those sources!
Ok, but then we are talking about social engineering, and not a technical matter. Social engineering works no matter what the platform is. The caller could have convinced him to give him banking TAN numbers, or send them money etc.
And when it comes to malware it's easier for those attackers to have the malware App on the Google Play store, as this way it's much easier to convince the user to install it...
A friend of mine recently suddenly had someone drawing money from her account using an ATM that was 200 km away while she was shopping with her card. I had a look at her Android phone - nothing Sideloaded on it, they simply appear to have used a fake banking website to make her create a new card without her seeing it.
Long story short: I believe that people need to be taught on how to detect social engineering attempts. And kids should be trained on this in school already.
It is somewhat of a problem for android when it comes to sideloading, and this is an additional advantages of PWAs. PWAs are the freedom of sideloading, without the security risk.
Good for you. All I’m saying is the original statement is given as a fact when it is actually highly debatable whether it actually _is_ best for the user. I don’t think it is and I’m not alone.
There is no native app for The Session, but you can install it on your phone nonetheless. Lots of people have done that. After a while they forget that they didn’t install it from an app store: it behaves just like any other app on their homescreen.
Maybe you don't believe this but it was addressed.
Apple has made some significant improvements in their handling of PWAs recently, most notably supporting push notifications. Which makes their recent moves even more discouraging.
For random web pages which have a PWA mode, sure. But there are bona-fide industry specific PWA "apps". The confusion will be real. Probably minor enough for Apple to barely register, but tell that to the users.
It's a single data point but the Xbox Cloud Play (game streaming service) works on iOS through a PWA since Apple required that any service like that submit a seperate app for each game that it permitted to be streamed.
"If you’ve ever built a web app, then your users will suffer. Remember, it’s a world wide web, including the European Union."
"Create a PDF with the following information:"
(me, reading that paragraph: '...what? why?')
--
[Edit]: I concluded from the bullet-list on why that is requested, but it would help to introduce that intention before instructing me to do something