Apple has argued for years that developers who don’t want to abide by its rules for native iOS apps can always write web apps.

It has done so in its platform guidelines, in congressional testimony, and in court. Web developers, for their part, maintain that Safari and its underlying WebKit engine still lack the technical capabilities to allow web apps to compete with native apps on iOS hardware. To this day, it’s argued, the fruit cart’s laggardly implementation of Push Notifications remains subpar.

The enforcement of Europe’s Digital Markets Act was expected to change that – to promote competition held back by gatekeepers. But Apple, in a policy change critics have called “malicious compliance,” appears to be putting web apps at an even greater disadvantage under the guise of compliance with European law.

In the second beta release of iOS 17.4, which incorporates code to accommodate Europe’s Digital Markets Act, Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) have been demoted from standalone apps that use the whole screen to shortcuts that open within the default browser.

This appears to solely affect users in the European Union, though your mileage may vary.

Concerns about this demotion of PWAs surfaced earlier this month, with the release of the initial iOS 17.4 beta. As noted by Open Web Advocacy – a group that has lobbied to make the web platform more capable – “sites installed to the home screen failed to launch in their own top-level activities, opening in Safari instead.”

PWAs are supposed to make web apps (sites) function more like native apps on mobile devices. They’re supposed to be capable (through access to APIs for file system access, media controls, app badging, and full clipboard support), reliable (by functioning in the absence of a network connection), and installable (launchable from a home screen icon in their own standalone window instead of within a browser tab).

But the debut of iOS 17.4 beta 2 on Tuesday suggests the breakage of PWAs is deliberate. The Register understands Apple’s change will cause users to lose local data in existing web apps, because web apps and Safari have different storage locations, and it will also break notifications, because there’s no way to enable notifications without app installation.

Mysk, an iOS development business and occasional security research firm run by Talal Haj Bakry and Tommy Mysk, claims that Apple, rather than repairing PWAs, has doubled down by adding a pop-up menu as part of the interaction.

“Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) are still disabled for EU users in iOS 17.4 beta 2,” lamented Mysk. “But now there’s a new pop-up. The pop-up somehow indicates that PWAs are disabled intentionally, rather than being a bug.”

Mysk also posted a video illustrating the change.

The Register asked Apple public relations – which tends not to respond to the public – whether the situation is really as bad as it looks. We’ve received no response.

Apple Vision Pro has densest display iFixit’s ever seen, and almost-OK repairability

Still no love for JPEG XL: Browser maker love-in snubs next-gen image format

Mozilla slams Microsoft for using dark patterns to drive Windows users toward Edge

Web devs fear Apple’s iOS shakeup for Europe will be a nightmare for support

“We considered that Apple might try something like this, but dismissed it as too blatantly anti-competitive even for them,” noted Alex Moore, executive director of Open Web Advocacy. “Apple could come out and say this is unfinished or it’s a bug, but if this functionality ever makes it onto users’ devices, it will show that Apple is actively seeking to block the web from ever competing fairly with their App Store.”

A veteran web technology developer at a Fortune 100 corporation, who asked not to be identified for lack of clearance to speak to the press, expressed disbelief to The Register and hoped that Apple will clarify the situation.

“First take: this is shocking and brazen, but it makes a certain sort of sense as a last-ditch effort to comply based on extremely negative feedback from announced plans,” the developer told us.

“Second take: this can’t possibly be right; it must be a placeholder for some unannounced API that they feel backed into. Doing what this looks like would be a nuclear bomb.

This is shocking and brazen, but it makes a certain sort of sense as a last-ditch effort to comply

“Third take: I’m not sure that reading the tea leaves matters much; this is entirely self-inflicted … they gave [those porting code] no time, no support, and no clarity.

“If it’s what it looks like, it’s
Read More