I really wish this too. Unfortunately, I am not sure the anticompetitiveness of Apple's behaviour regarding web browser engines — and its implication on the entire app industry — has been brought to the attention of EU lawmakers...
For those not familiar with this issue, Apple is totally blocking browsers (like Firefox and Chrome) to use their own engine on iOS, preventing them to give web application access to native features, like push notification. Because of course, Apple won't add these features to their own engine (WebKit).
That way, they are forcing app developers to develop native iOS apps, which have to go through their App Store to be installed on iOS. By doing so, they can take the 30% commission fee on in-app purchases, and lock developers/companies in, because apps developed for iOS are not usable outside of Apple devices, of course.
Web (Chrome) developers often go on and on about this, but I have yet to hear a single layman user complain about their iOS version of Chrome missing the ability to have the random news websites they’ve followed from Facebook send them native notifications, take up the entire viewport, or be “installed” to their home screen.
Sure. Users don't even know it would be possible, and don't care about the tech anyway. What they care about however is how much they pay for apps, how much they pay for in-app purchases, and being able to switch freely from one platform to another.
Well, Apple's behaviour is impacting all this by forcing companies to develop native apps instead of web apps. Web apps (could) work anywhere, and cost a fraction of the cost of native apps.
This is clear, but only replaces the web developer’s perspective with the company’s, not the layman user’s.
In-app purchases and App Store purchases in general are already scraping the bottom of the barrel, we’re talking about the difference between $9.99 & <$7 at the higher end assuming everything works out. That absolutely matters, but much more to the sellers than the users.
We can imagine the thousands of needlessly native apps with a platform mandated 30% surcharge being transported onto the open web and into user devices free of interference. Hardware accelerated IG like filters writing to local disk in the background at 60fps, DRM protected 4k streaming with cheaper monthly subs, hobbyist forum sites on the home screen with PMs and replies pushing notifications alongside FB, the dream.
But Abuelita is going to experience the millions of individual pages relying exclusively on advertising revenue already twisted and contorted into profitable positions being given the green light for Notifications, Geolocation, Bluetooth, NFC, Network Info, Ambient Light, Idleness, Proximity APIs etc while she’s just trying to read about how Joe Biden is destroying the fabric of America.
To users it doesn't matter whether an app uses JS or Swift, only that it works smoothly and has all the features. It is in Apple's interest to keep web apps clunky, and forever less capable than their native platform.
If "Add to Homescreen" wasn't added in the pre-AppStore era, I don't think it'd happen. This feature has clearly been mothballed. Homescreen web apps were given a second-rate build of WebKit that has been been consistently slower and buggier than standalone Safari (I don't know if they've fixed it recently. Homescreen webapps that I worked on all gave in to the AppStore eventually).
Apple has the same fear as Microsoft had that powerful Web apps will make their native platform unnecessary. Microsoft made a mistake of abandoning Internet Explorer 6 entirely. Apple is smart enough to keep user-facing parts of their browser high quality, and only drag their feet on more advanced platform features. They forbid other browser engines, which magically makes Safari appear as technically capable as every other iOS browser.
> The fact that Apple refuses to implement basic features in mobile Safari that Firefox and Chrome have had for years now, and the fact that they refuse to allow other browser engines on iOS is the reason why we can't have nice things like progressive web apps.
> I recently worked on a health app related to the COVID pandemic. The most common use case would be served really well by a PWA, and as such, there's no reason users would need to install an app on their phones to access the web app's full set of features.
> Despite the web app working perfectly on Android and across Windows, Linux and macOS without native integration, we now must dedicate time and resources to develop an additional iOS app just so iOS users, which over half of Americans are, aren't left out.
> This is an expensive endeavor time-wise and money-wise, during a pandemic where time is of the essence and resources are stretched thin. It shouldn't be this way, but it is.
I do. We have a device that creates its own Wi-Fi and serves a web app to interact with it. We have a lot of clients that would like to be notified when a new firmware is released for the device.
Another recent one, a customer on iOS 12 did not understand why he couldn't save a file generated on the device to his phone. I told him it's not possible, but he can save it to iCloud (without a correct name though). I got told off about how bad we must be not to support such a basic feature. Don't ask me mate.
I have also never known a single layman who complained about memory leaks. People don't complain about stuff they don't understand, but that doesn't mean the problems are not affecting them.
Another problem is that small problems affecting a large number of people do not have much vocal support, while their costs are still enormous. (As compared to problems that affect a minority a lot.)
There are exactly three browser engines of any note: Safari's, Chrome's and Firefox's.
iOS allows other browsers and doesn't allow other engines. And considering things like this: https://webapicontroversy.com/ I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone.
>I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone
There are more browsers that use Chromium engine and nobody forces you to install Google version. I understand the potential issue of a Chrome dominance but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features then you will no longer be forced to use an inferior browser.
> but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features
Did you even visit the link? Developers may want the moon. And yet both Mozilla and Apple consider those (and not only those) harmful for a bunch of reasons, the primary of which is privacy.
Apple could be smart and implement what real developers need and not what advertisers want. But good performance, and better APIs would mean you could avoid using native apps.
Once again: real developers may want a lot of things. I've seen developers want bluetooth and location APIs in the browser. And yet, both Apple and Mozilla (note: not just Apple) consider these APIs harmful as currently presented and specified and haven't found/can't find a way to implement them in a non-harmful way.
And these APIs are the most visible. There are many other APIs and features that don't make their way into WebKit not because Apple "doesn't listen to real developers", but because the specs are extremely poorly written, or contain known bugs, or can't be implemented efficiently, or...
The scary thing is, these days Firefox devs are increasingly often on WebKit's side (because whatever your opinion of Apple is, WebKit devs want the same thing that Firefox devs want: a safer web web for people with properly implemented features). Whereas Chrome just plows through (because Google's raison d'etre is the Web, and Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all things Google).
You will also find (if you only cared about this) that standards that Mozilla considers harmful (or at least thinks they have to be deferred) are mostly aligned with Apple's: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
>Just as camera and mic location access is hidden behind a specific permission dialog in case you didn't notice.
Of course I know, the hypocrisy is that you trust your grandma with the camera permissions but not with a permission for a music player to run when the screen is turned off or with a map/fitness tracking page to get access to your location. If Apple devs would be competent they could implement it in a secure way like the camera API (or maybe the devs are competent and the reasons not to do it are financial)
Dude, Safari is worse then Firefox, stop showing the USB example. Anyway screw this, Microsoft was foprced to show a browser choice screen and Apple will be forced to show the same, it will take a few years but tit will happen. If you are not in EU you will not be affected at all. Since US will still use the inferior browser still all websites will have to code for it and native apps will have to be made to workaround the limitations.
> the hypocrisy is that you trust your grandma with the camera permissions but not with a permission for a music player to run when the screen is turned off or with a map/fitness tracking page to get access to your location.
Ah, the tired old "your grandma" "argument".
> Dude, Safari is worse then Firefox, stop showing the USB example.
Yes, I know. "Apple bad, Safari bad" and no amount of evidence that both Safari and Firefox resist multiple standards forced by Google will convince you otherwise.
You're so blind to your own bias that you didn't even see that I never mentioned USB even once (even though it is one of "considered harmful by both Firefox and Safari").
Think of the grandma is the Apple fanboys defense of why shit should be locked and approved by Apple.
You are mentioning location APIs and I shown you that is not different then camera APIs and then you still show me the bluttoh/usb stuff. https://www.safari-is-the-new-ie.com
You are trying to defend something I did not ask you about, I don't care is f Safari will never implement JavaScript at all, or if they decide grandma can't be trusted with camera permissions, as long you can install a better browser that gives you access to better APIs.
I also mention for APIs that could let you make a competitive streaming app based in the browser, this is not about USB,bluetooth, VR or other APIs, so try fucking focusing on why you can't have a good music playuer in the browser? Is it impossible by the laws of nature to create such an API? or are the Apple devs incapable of implementing such an API in a safe way? or Apple users too stupid to give permissions , or maybe Apple wants money and a streaming service that is browser based means no tax ?
Yeah, Apple is perfect , Google Siri search for all the times Apple lost in justice class lawsuits and practice on those cases how Apple was not screwing those guys and the justice was wrong and "Apple goog, Apple good ..."
btw are you a Trump fanboy, you are talking a lot in his style.
