> Again, the iOS 17.4 situation. Apple claimed building PWA support for alternative browser engines wasn't "practical to undertake" due to security architecture requirements. They removed the feature. Two weeks later they brought it back. I'm asking one more time, what changed in those 14 days? If the architecture work was genuinely impractical, how was it completed so quickly?
The target changed. The EU rules implied that there was a requirement for parity between Safari and the other browsers. Implementing that parity by adding a tonne of new APIs for other browsers is understandably infeasible to achieve in a short timeframe. Can we agree on that?
So the other option to achieve parity is by removing the functionality from Safari. Which is what they did – in a beta not a release version if I remember correctly. That got a big reaction, and the EU backed off. So Apple no longer had to achieve this parity in a short timeframe, so they could just keep the status quo. And I think we can agree that keeping the status quo is easy to implement, right?
So what we’re really saying here is that adding a load of new APIs is hard, and not adding them is easy. In that light, Apple saying “hey this is hard” and then a few weeks later going “never mind” makes total sense. And since that time, they have been adding a load of new APIs for other browsers to achieve parity – just not on the super short timescale.
> Push notifications on iOS versus macOS. 2013 on Mac, 2023 on iPhone, same WebKit engine, same APNs backend. Apple controls the browser and the notification system on both platforms. Why the 10 year gap for what should be the same technical implementation?
I don’t believe Apple have ever claimed it was a technical limitation have they? If you ask real users – even here on Hacker News – a bunch of them will say they don’t want websites to send them notifications on their phone. The user demand isn’t as high as you think it is.
> even after iOS finally got push notifications, they only work for PWAs installed to home screen, not in Safari itself.
You will see this in a lot of Apple decisions around web standards. They see visiting a website and installing a PWA as expressions of different levels of trust and they are trying to avoid permission prompt fatigue. Do you want any random website to send you notifications? No. Do you want websites to constantly prompt you for permission? No. If they do that, will lots of users accidentally say yes? Yes. Are the answers to these questions different for something a user explicitly installs? Yes. If you read through the discussions on the web specification proposals, you’ll see this kind of thing come up several times, from Mozilla as well.
> You can argue Google is problematic (I'd also agree on that!) and also admit that Apple's decisions around PWAs are clearly driven by their conflict of interest to protect their $20+ billion dollar App Store business model.
I definitely think that Apple makes choices that deprioritise the web. But I also think that 90% of the things people here actually complain about are actually reasonable, and it’s only a small minority that are less justifiable. I also think it’s less a case of moustache-twirling “let’s hold the web back to boost native apps” and more “why should we?”
End-users strongly prefer native to web. End-users are not asking for PWAs in meaningful numbers. At this point people often blame Apple for holding PWAs back, but this isn’t the case.
Apple are not holding PWAs back on Android. Google implement all the APIs they feel like on Chrome for Android. PWAs on Android are not held back. PWAS on Android are a best-case scenario for PWAs. But end users still overwhelmingly choose native apps over PWAs on Android.
If PWAs were preferred by users and artificially limited by Apple, then we would see end-users pick PWAs on Android. Developers wouldn’t build native apps on Android so much, they would just build PWA+iOS and skip the native Android implementation. They don’t do that.
The causality is the opposite direction to what you think. Apple aren’t causing PWAs to fail; PWAs failing causes Apple to not care about them.
> I need to address several evasions and fabrications of yours here with actual evidence.
> Source this immediately.
> That's pure gaslighting
> You are now dictating how I have to adjust the style of my writing so you can be bothered to finally answer my questions after you've repeatedly evaded answering question? You never had any intention of answering them. Apple's conflict of interest which you're hellbent on denying is indicative of your own conflict of interest. Shareholders tend to be defensive of their own investments.
> You evaded and dodged questions by Gish galloping and didn't expect that I would relentlessly press you on answering them. After you've realized that I will not give up on demanding substantiated answers to those inconvenient questions, you pivoted to arguing about tone. Your strategy is obvious.
> @dang can you please review these coordinated false flags?
You are being flagged because you are dragging this thread down into the mud. Note that your earlier comments where you were behaving more reasonably are not flagged, but as you descend into baseless accusations and conspiracies, your comments are getting flagged.
If you make more of an effort to follow them, you might not get your comments flagged so much. But more importantly, you would stop making this thread an unpleasant distraction from the main topic.
>You are being flagged because you are dragging this thread down into the mud.
You're projecting and the quotes of mine you've listed are an adequate description of your debate strategy. Then you condescendingly link to the guidelines as if you weren't the one who broke them in the first place by consistently arguing in bad faith.
You're ignoring something important. Apple recently threatened stopping EU shipments rather than DMA compliance (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/25/apple-cal...). They want the DMA repealed, have delayed features, and stated "EU users' experience on Apple products will fall further behind." So it's clear that Apple never had any genuine intention of proper compliance from the start, that's why they kept violating it until they couldn't any longer and then Apple switched to demanding the DMA be repealed completely.
Can you also please cite your "EU backed off" claim? Apple reversed following developer/user backlash. If the EU changed position, kindly link to their statement.
Where's your source for the iOS 17.4 "parity" claim? Apple stated "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." That's about security architecture and engineering, not browser parity.
Notice what's happening? iOS 17.4 brought PWA removal, security citations, pressure reversal. Currently we're seeing product withdrawal threats, security citations, DMA court fights, market hostage situations. You claim this company lacks conflict of interest and makes neutral web standards technical decisions?
I need a straight answer. Does Apple have a conflict of interest? They run a $20+ billion App Store taking 15-30% of transactions. PWAs let developers bypass it. Do you acknowledge this financial incentive structure exists, or are you still seriously claiming that Apple has no motivation to limit PWA capabilities?
Your argument needs us to believe Apple's PWA underinvestment decade, iOS 17.4 reversal, EU threats, DMA battles, and Android gaps are coincidental technical decisions unrelated to App Store revenue. That's not plausible.
The push notification logic contradicts itself. You claim users don't want them, Apple didn't implement for a decade, then implemented in 2023. Why would they do that? No demand doesn't justify engineering resources. macOS Safari got them in 2013. Low demand doesn't explain that. You haven't explained the 10-year gap between identical technology stacks.
The Android argument supports our point. PWAs need iOS support for developer economics. Without iPhone access, cross-platform value collapses. Developers can't justify PWA investment without iOS access. Saying "PWAs fail on Android" while iOS is hobbled shows exactly what we're arguing about Apple gatekeeping shaping ecosystems.
You claimed "PWAs failing causes Apple not to care." That reverses causality in a deceptive manner. Apple's underinvestment, iOS 17.4 obstruction, decade of gaps cause PWA struggles. You point to that struggle justifying the behavior. That's circular reasoning absolving Apple of responsibility for a situation they created.
You've shifted explanations three times. Google embrace-and-extend, then "parity requirements," then "user preferences" (for which you provided no data), now Android dynamics proving our gatekeeper point. Each time evidence contradicts, new apologia emerges. That's motivated reasoning protecting predetermined conclusions, not reasoned argument.
I'm asking directly. Does Apple's App Store create a PWA development financial conflict of interest? Yes or no? Your writing requires ignoring incentive structures, believing Apple makes innocuous technical choices while fighting regulations, threatening exits, and maintaining decade-long feature gaps that 'coincidentally' always happen to protect their most profitable business.
> You are now dictating how I have to adjust the style of my writing so you can be bothered to finally answer my questions after you've repeatedly evaded answering question? You never had any intention of answering them. Apple's conflict of interest which you're hellbent on denying is indicative of your own conflict of interest. Shareholders tend to be defensive of their own investments.
I have given you plenty of time and written lengthy responses to you.
You have responded like this, so I am quite obviously not going to waste any more time on you.
The target changed. The EU rules implied that there was a requirement for parity between Safari and the other browsers. Implementing that parity by adding a tonne of new APIs for other browsers is understandably infeasible to achieve in a short timeframe. Can we agree on that?
So the other option to achieve parity is by removing the functionality from Safari. Which is what they did – in a beta not a release version if I remember correctly. That got a big reaction, and the EU backed off. So Apple no longer had to achieve this parity in a short timeframe, so they could just keep the status quo. And I think we can agree that keeping the status quo is easy to implement, right?
So what we’re really saying here is that adding a load of new APIs is hard, and not adding them is easy. In that light, Apple saying “hey this is hard” and then a few weeks later going “never mind” makes total sense. And since that time, they have been adding a load of new APIs for other browsers to achieve parity – just not on the super short timescale.
> Push notifications on iOS versus macOS. 2013 on Mac, 2023 on iPhone, same WebKit engine, same APNs backend. Apple controls the browser and the notification system on both platforms. Why the 10 year gap for what should be the same technical implementation?
I don’t believe Apple have ever claimed it was a technical limitation have they? If you ask real users – even here on Hacker News – a bunch of them will say they don’t want websites to send them notifications on their phone. The user demand isn’t as high as you think it is.
> even after iOS finally got push notifications, they only work for PWAs installed to home screen, not in Safari itself.
You will see this in a lot of Apple decisions around web standards. They see visiting a website and installing a PWA as expressions of different levels of trust and they are trying to avoid permission prompt fatigue. Do you want any random website to send you notifications? No. Do you want websites to constantly prompt you for permission? No. If they do that, will lots of users accidentally say yes? Yes. Are the answers to these questions different for something a user explicitly installs? Yes. If you read through the discussions on the web specification proposals, you’ll see this kind of thing come up several times, from Mozilla as well.
> You can argue Google is problematic (I'd also agree on that!) and also admit that Apple's decisions around PWAs are clearly driven by their conflict of interest to protect their $20+ billion dollar App Store business model.
I definitely think that Apple makes choices that deprioritise the web. But I also think that 90% of the things people here actually complain about are actually reasonable, and it’s only a small minority that are less justifiable. I also think it’s less a case of moustache-twirling “let’s hold the web back to boost native apps” and more “why should we?”
End-users strongly prefer native to web. End-users are not asking for PWAs in meaningful numbers. At this point people often blame Apple for holding PWAs back, but this isn’t the case.
Apple are not holding PWAs back on Android. Google implement all the APIs they feel like on Chrome for Android. PWAs on Android are not held back. PWAS on Android are a best-case scenario for PWAs. But end users still overwhelmingly choose native apps over PWAs on Android.
If PWAs were preferred by users and artificially limited by Apple, then we would see end-users pick PWAs on Android. Developers wouldn’t build native apps on Android so much, they would just build PWA+iOS and skip the native Android implementation. They don’t do that.
The causality is the opposite direction to what you think. Apple aren’t causing PWAs to fail; PWAs failing causes Apple to not care about them.