[HN Gopher] PWAs wont replace native iOS apps
___________________________________________________________________
PWAs wont replace native iOS apps
Author : monkey_slap
Score : 147 points
Date : 2024-02-15 19:28 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (app.campsite.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (app.campsite.co)
| twism wrote:
| seems like minor annoyances rather than the deal breaker the
| headline insinuates
| Alifatisk wrote:
| "There are no silent pushes, so we can only update the app icon
| badge with a displayed push. Ideally, if you clear your
| notifications elsewhere, we automatically remove the badge on
| your phone. This isn't possible with PWAs via push."
|
| Damn, is Apple doing these slight annoyances on purpose to
| degrade the user experience?
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Yes. Obviously.
| mass_and_energy wrote:
| Does the Tin Man have a sheet-metal willy? Of course they are,
| it's typical Apple behavior to make it seem that anything non-
| apple is flawed in one way or another. It's to foster negative
| opinions towards PWAs so they can peddle iOS apps instead.
| blantonl wrote:
| _is Apple doing these slight annoyances on purpose to degrade
| the user experience?_
|
| It's to degrade the developer experience to force you to native
| apps and the app stores for distribution
| hnav wrote:
| I'm sure Apple doesn't have a vested interest in making PWAs
| good, I am actually surprised they added webpush.
| prophesi wrote:
| Found the article they linked[0] much more interesting /
| problematic:
|
| > Now, when a user in Europe taps a web app icon, they will see a
| system message asking if they wish to open it in Safari or
| cancel. The message adds that the web app "will open in your
| default browser from now on." When opened in Safari, the web app
| opens like a bookmark, with no dedicated windowing,
| notifications, or long-term local storage. Users have seen issues
| with existing web apps such as data loss, since the Safari
| version can no longer access local data, as well as broken
| notifications.
|
| [0] https://www.macrumors.com/2024/02/08/ios-17-4-nerfs-web-
| apps...
| hmottestad wrote:
| That sucks. I use PWAs a lot for my own dev stuff. Let's hope
| Apple roles back this change.
| deergomoo wrote:
| I expect this is because they have to provide equal standing to
| other browsers in both user choice and rendering engine, but
| they don't have to and have not provided a way to use an
| alternative browser in the full-screen PWA mode.
|
| Of course, there are numerous ways this could be addressed,
| such as not changing anything at all if the user chose Safari
| as their default browser anyway. But it seems quite clear Apple
| is willing to drag everyone down with them in their malicious
| compliance of the DMA.
| freedomben wrote:
| I'm guessing they were only doing the little they did for PWAs
| to stave off anti-trust attention by being able to say "we're
| not gatekeepers. You can use the web," but now that the EU
| forced them allow alternative app stores, they don't want
| anybody using PWAs and they have no need for them anymore, so
| they're killing them.
| shuckles wrote:
| Apple announced web apps on macOS as keynote feature last
| year where they have no anti-trust scrutiny. This theory has
| holes.
| freedomben wrote:
| macOS seems like a very different beast than iOS. I don't
| think you can draw conclusions from that any more than you
| could conclude that on iOS you can sideload because Apple
| allows that on macOS.
| andix wrote:
| I think this is going to be just a temporary issue. They ran
| out of time and had to comply ASAP, as the DMA is going to take
| effect in a few weeks.
|
| The DMA didn't come by surprise, but I guess they tried to play
| all their cards to get around it, or even get it pushed last
| minute. Maybe they were close to achieving that and in the end
| it didn't work out.
|
| Like mentioned in another post there might be some alternative
| solutions via third party app stores, but my knowledge doesn't
| go deep enough into the iOS API and what options third party
| browsers are going to have.
|
| I could imagine a "PWA Shell" app that can host multiple PWAs
| inside. The only limitation I see for now is that there will be
| only one app icon and it can only show up once in the task
| switcher on the iPhone. For the iPad multi-windows apps are
| possible.
| BandButcher wrote:
| Understandable... PWAs are ultimately an alternative path from
| traditional mobile apps which will take away money from
| apple/google.
|
| But as a web dev community we need to stand firm and build PWAs
| regardless. If we treat pwas on iOS like we did Internet explorer
| (i.e. giving it special attention and hack solutions as opposed
| to just not developing for it) we will lose the fight.
|
| I suggest you call out the issues with ios and put disclaimers on
| your app page saying what's not supported, or add taglines like
| "for the best experience, use <other broswer>".
|
| Apple can afford the dev work to update Safari or work with the
| standards committee, but im sure with their new vr goggles they
| will take the proprietary route
| deergomoo wrote:
| > for the best experience, use <other broswer>
|
| In this case you'd need "use <other operating system>". There's
| no alternatives to Safari for PWAs on iOS.
| blantonl wrote:
| This is unfortunately correct. Chrome on iOS uses Safari's
| Webkit, which is horribly broken on <insert here> things.
| mulmen wrote:
| "Am I wrong? No, it is the users who are wrong."
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Can't we just give up on the "Progressive" branding and just
| say we are making Web Apps? There are just so many things that
| make "PWA" a bad smell. I mean, have you ever asked a user if
| they need more spam spamifications in their life? (Yeah, your
| app does and 95% say "hell no") Personally I find it _much_
| easier to find web sites with Safari (until last week I would
| hit "1" and Safari would automatically show me my RSS reader,
| now I have a choice of that or my Fraxinus bookmark manager)
| than it is to find icons on my iPad (there are so many signs of
| carelessness on both the part of Apple and app makers; the
| other day I realized part of it is that iOS doesn't draw
| boundaries around icons so if the colors of an icon are similar
| to the colors on the background the edges of the icon become
| invisible which means the _icon becomes invisible_ ) I can type
| "n" in Safari and it fills in Hacker News, if there was a
| (cr)app to use HN it might have an H for an icon, or maybe a N
| or another Y and it would be orange: orange icons tend to
| disappear into the background on my iPad and for any given
| letter there is some app that uses it for an icon.
|
| We should just have the story that we are making better and
| better web apps and Apple isn't keeping up with others.
| bbor wrote:
| Yeah, your app does and 95% say "hell no"
|
| For some types of apps, particularly social media ones, the
| only path forward is those 5% of users that like your app
| enough to "commit". And I think that's what PWAs offer on a
| practical level -- a way to commit to a website and keep it
| remindable. To say the least your typing-over-tapping
| preference is not universal, but even so I think both mobile
| OSs have type-to-search integrated natively now. So I think
| you can see why it's a nice reminder, for those people.
|
| Plus, "progressive web app" tells a (well informed) user
| "this website can use your camera and gyroscope and GPS and
| such".
|
| Plus plus, and I think this is the most important: it's a fun
| community and a great resume term. It's no fun to just be a
| "web developer", you've gotta be a progressive, web3, 3D,
| local-first, no-js, all-js web developer ;)
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I make apps with A-Frame that use the gyroscope and all
| that and I wouldn't call them "progressive". My goal is to
| give a "it just works" experience and labels don't help
| with that.
| hot_gril wrote:
| I'm also not fond of the PWA branding or the confusion around
| implementing one.
| gwill wrote:
| fyi if you pull down in the middle of any home screen a
| global search shows up. i just keep one screen of my most
| used apps then search for all the others
| andix wrote:
| This business model can only be broken via regulations from
| another country. The European Union is on it right now, and
| their plans give a little bit of hope.
|
| Apple/Google will never voluntarily give up their stores. And
| it's also not reasonable to think that the US will regulate it.
| Those stores bring a lot of money from all around the world
| into the US. It would be crazy from an US perspective to stop
| them doing this. Those profits can be taxed without taking away
| any money from their citizens. So basically free tax money.
| brailsafe wrote:
| I agree with the sentiment, but building for IE was not just an
| interesting and hacky technical challenge, IE _was_ basically
| the platform.
| jwells89 wrote:
| If I see a "best viewed in" badge I'm very likely to go find an
| alternative, regardless of the platform or browser I'm using.
| Those badges would best remain a vestige of the IE-Netscape
| era.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| I for one would much rather have native mobile apps that use
| platform-appropriate controls rather than web apps that use
| whatever some designer came up with. We've already lost this
| battle on computers because of electron, but iOS is nice
| precisely because there isn't an easy way to just ship web
| technology "apps".
| moooo99 wrote:
| Is it though?
|
| A large portion of apps on the mobile app stores are already
| built using cross-platform technologies like React Native,
| Ionic or Flutter. In some instances it is very easy to tell,
| in other it's not. You can create quality experiences using
| cross-platform, you can create awful experiences using native
| tooling.
|
| In many instances, I'd rather have the not totally native app
| that exists than the absolutely perfectly native app that
| does not exist.
|
| As for PWAs, I am personally all for it. I have so many apps
| on my phone that don't need to be an app in the first place.
| Why not make a great PWA experience rather than a mediocre
| mobile app? In terms of capabilities, PWA are perfectly
| suitable for the majority of usecases.
| szundi wrote:
| Exactly. Pwa is cheap
| wkat4242 wrote:
| One good thing about PWAs is that they run inside a
| browser. So if that's a good browser like firefox, you can
| use addons to limit tracking. Or force dark mode even for
| apps that don't bother implementing it (eg the Amazon
| shopping app) with dark reader.
| chrisandchris wrote:
| I understand your point, but it somewhat says that making
| awesome native apps is not even an option anymore.
|
| I use Things (a todo app) daily. It was #1 of Design in the
| AppStore maybe already 5 years ago. I think it's a perfect
| example for a beautifully made native app. I really feel
| how the native behaviour workes so much smoother.
|
| I would love for creators to somehow strive more for
| beautifully made apps instead of the fast profit.
| mzronek wrote:
| Things is a great example for PWAs, because it does not
| exist on Android, Linux or Windows. It could be though,
| if it would be a PWA.
|
| It is not and it seems like the developer focused its
| resources on native software for Apple products.
| chrisandchris wrote:
| It could, yes. But the user experience and the amazing
| level of usability will degrade, and I would move to
| another product.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| And we've come full circle!
|
| > But as a web dev community we need to stand firm and
| build PWAs regardless. If we treat pwas on iOS like we
| did Internet explorer (i.e. giving it special attention
| and hack solutions as opposed to just not developing for
| it) we will lose the fight.
| alerighi wrote:
| The fact that an app is in the store doesn't mean that uses
| platform appropriate controls. In fact a lot of applications
| nowadays are just web app packaged with tools like Ionic, or
| cross platform applications built with React Native or
| Flutter that doesn't use "platform-appropriate controls".
|
| If most applications are embedding a web browser, or at least
| part of a web browser (in case of RN), why not just have
| applications that... run in a browser? No need to install
| them, no need to update them, I can just open an URL and they
| work.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Depends on what outcome you want. If you're developing in a
| commercial outlet to make money you should do it iOS and MacOS
| first, because those users are more willing to pay for software
| and services.
|
| > "for the best experience, use <other browser>"
|
| You just lost a customer.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Google alongside Microsoft, are the two main companies behind
| PWAs.
| jaegerpicker wrote:
| I'm a web developer and native app developer but I'm also a
| user. If I want to use a service and they have a message saying
| "for the best experience, use <other os>" I will never use that
| service again. There are no apps or services that would cause
| me to switch. So you can take that stance but you are just
| hurting your app because you as a developer don't want to learn
| native apps.
| hmottestad wrote:
| I love developing PWAs because I can quickly and easily make an
| app for myself and my family that works without having to
| provision their devices or pay a dev license to Apple. I also use
| it at work for internal apps. It's great for all those things.
|
| It's very obvious to me that I'm a second priority for Apple.
| Dark mode breaking in iOS 17 and still broken 5 months later.
| Updating the app is tricky, and making users update is even
| trickier. Haven't even bothered to try push notifications.
|
| One pro though is that when my brother wanted to use a PWA I had
| developed it worked flawlessly on his Android phone. Cross
| platform support is a big pro in my opinion.
|
| Maybe Apple will fix dark mode with iOS 18, let's hope they also
| fix it when using guided access (which was buggy in iOS 16).
| hmottestad wrote:
| Looks like Apple is going to fix dark mode in iOS 18 by
| dropping support for PWAs altogether in my part of the world.
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2024/02/08/ios-17-4-nerfs-web-apps...
| hmottestad wrote:
| Looks like Apple is just going to blame the EU. They are
| officially pulling PWA support on iOS in Europe.
|
| So fuck me I guess :(
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/15/ios-17-4-web-apps-european-
| un...
| CharlesW wrote:
| You seem to be conflating "PWA" with the _Safari + Home
| Screen_ integration that allowed users to add a
| web[site|app] (PWA or not) to the iOS Home Screen. Apple
| had to remove this to comply with the DMA.
|
| It's now the responsibility of alternative browser engine
| vendors to integrate with Shortcuts so that you can add
| PWAs and other web[sites|apps] to the Home Screen using
| your browser engine of choice. The additional benefit of
| this is that different PWAs can use different browser
| engines.
| DANmode wrote:
| > Apple had to remove this to comply with the DMA.
|
| This has yet to be made clear to me.
|
| Could you attempt to convince us?
| CharlesW wrote:
| The DMA requires that Apple _not_ favor Safari. A direct
| integration between Safari and Home Screen favors Safari,
| and so is not allowed under the DMA.
| SirMaster wrote:
| What are you talking about?
|
| With iOS 17.4 in the EU, you can no longer make a web app
| (PWA) that uses a full screen window with no browser ui
| controls. No longer use local storage for the web app's
| data, and no longer send push notifications and show
| badges on the home screen icon for web apps.
|
| Third party browsers can't add this functionality back.
| How do you expect them to make push notifications work
| with PWAs?
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _With iOS 17.4 in the EU, you can no longer make a web
| app (PWA) that uses a full screen window with no browser
| ui controls._
|
| Are you sure? Go to https://sindresorhus.com/screenfull/
| and tap "Request", and you should see a full-screen
| website. Any [website|webapp|PWA] can do this with
| Safari. (Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/CTWFPol)
|
| third-party browsers using their own browser engines can
| do whatever they like.
|
| > _How do you expect them to make push notifications work
| with PWAs?_
|
| Third-party browsers using their own browser engine will
| have to create their own support for web notifications,
| just as Apple does for Safari. Presumably, they'll
| leverage the same infrastructure they use on non-iOS
| platforms.
| osrec wrote:
| That is really terrible. I don't like the closed nature of
| Apple's practices anyway, but the way in which they are
| stifling PWAs is truly abhorrent.
|
| I do feel they'll lose this battle eventually, even if it
| takes a few years. Cross platform apps without a required
| compile step or walled garden are almost certainly the end
| state I expect we'll reach within the next decade (probably
| sooner).
| DANmode wrote:
| Keep speaking up, and making this issue clear for others.
| jmull wrote:
| It's just a beta, though, right now... We don't know if this
| is getting released or not yet.
| sccxy wrote:
| Apple confirmed that there are no more full screen web
| apps. Just bookmarks.
|
| > EU users will be able to continue accessing websites
| directly from their Home Screen through a bookmark with
| minimal impact to their functionality.
| jmull wrote:
| Well that just sucks.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _I can quickly and easily make an app for myself and my
| family that works without having to provision their devices or
| pay a dev license to Apple. I also use it at work for internal
| apps._
|
| This is exactly why they don't want it. Some will say it's
| because those are Apple's users and Apple wants to ensure a
| great user experience and doesn't want unapproved things
| running on their devices, and others will say it's because it
| skips Apple's 30% take and their gatekeeping process. My
| opinion is that both are true, and conveniently both are
| achieved the same way: by making PWAs enough of an annoyance to
| both developers and users that they will voluntarily steer away
| from them. Classic game theory
| MilaM wrote:
| They would probably ban browsers altogether from iOS, if they
| could get away with it. Fortunately we are not there yet.
| DANmode wrote:
| > doesn't want unapproved things running on their devices
|
| > ban web browsers
|
| and this is the point.
|
| Stop playing games.
|
| Allow users to access and easily use the open web with the
| internet device they bought from you.
|
| Full stop.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| I often say that the only reason email is in the form it is
| today is because it happened before corporate interests
| took over communication.
|
| If it had been invented today you could only iMessage other
| iDevice holders. Maybe you would also have had another for-
| profit middleware company just to deliver messages between
| Apple and Android devices. Something like a telephone
| exchange.
| psnehanshu wrote:
| And what is the state of PWAs on Android? Is it any better?
| rpdillon wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Google Chrome has support and documentation on Android:
| https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/9658361?hl=en&co=GE...
|
| Mozilla has documentation about PWAs across many platforms,
| including Android: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...
|
| Mozilla's docs are very clear in defining what makes a PWA
| special:
|
| > One of the defining aspects of a PWA is that it can be
| promoted by the browser for installation on the device. Once
| installed, a PWA appears to users as a platform-specific app, a
| permanent feature of their device which they can launch
| directly from the operating system like any other app.
|
| This is precisely what Apple is breaking for iPhone users in
| the EU.
| robertoandred wrote:
| Mozilla's docs are also out of date. Safari on desktop can
| install PWAs.
| monkey_slap wrote:
| It's much better, but most of our users are on iPhones. The one
| (yes, one) Android PWA user is really happy.
|
| Probably the best part about PWAs on Android is that you
| install it more like an actual app. iOS still makes you "Add to
| Home Screen" which is very unintuitive.
| hardcopy wrote:
| It's night and day. For example:
|
| - Installing a PWA from Firefox browser adds to home screen
| with Firefox engine
|
| - beforeinstallprompt event https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/API/Window/befo...
| BadHumans wrote:
| Despite my best efforts and I still have no idea what a
| Progressive Web App is and why I need to use one. Seems like it's
| just a website that fits a certain accessibility criteria. It
| also seems like a hassle to get working correctly offline based
| on what I have read.
| xd1936 wrote:
| You can think of it like a web app that's been coded to have
| extra features when "added to the homescreen".
|
| When added, the app can work offline, doesn't have an address
| bar/back button/etc, gets the ability to access device sensors,
| can send push notifications, etc. A well-made PWA usually looks
| and feels just like a native app.
| BadHumans wrote:
| What if I only want an app that works offline? Is there a
| reason to use a PWA? For example, I want to make a simple
| notes app that has no reason to need connectivity.
| usrusr wrote:
| If you don't have a complete Apple development environment,
| PWA is the best shot you have getting that little offline
| note taking to run on an iPhone.
| BadHumans wrote:
| That's not what I'm asking about. Whether it's Apple,
| Android, or desktop, if I just want to make an offline
| app why would I use a PWA?
| usrusr wrote:
| If you only want to target one platform, and if you are
| already completely set up for native development for that
| platform, then yes, there's nothing to gain from going
| PWA instead of native.
|
| Other than the learning experience of course, which you
| might consider valuable unless know for sure that all
| your future projects will remain on that one single
| platform.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| the argument isn't why use a PWA, it's why use a native
| app?
|
| in most cases, a team wants their product to be easily
| installable, live on the home screen, and have access to
| all native APIs. right now, the best way to do that is a
| native app
|
| the cost to that is going through the app store, meaning
| paying apple for the dev license, paying apple a
| percentage of sales, adhering to the app store rules,
| allowing extra time before release to get apple approval,
| difficulty updating because you need apple's approval and
| the user to update it, needing apple hardware, separate
| codebase/dev skills for android/ios, etc.
|
| if you don't need those pros above, you could maybe get
| away with a PWA, and avoid all of that hassle. in most
| cases, you can't, but avoiding all of that stuff is the
| value prop for a pwa
| sccxy wrote:
| Apple has confirmed that PWAs will be just a browser bookmarks
| from now on.
|
| Other browsers won't also have access to add (actual, not
| bookmark) PWAs. That is the main reason to not allow them.
|
| If other browsers can add powerful PWAs then it competes with App
| Store.
| MilaM wrote:
| > If other browsers can add powerful PWAs then it competes with
| App Store.
|
| This is exactly it. If they can't have full control over how
| PWAs work, they prefer to cut the feature out of iOS.
| AshleysBrain wrote:
| I think this is more an illustration of how Apple are
| intentionally trying to hobble web apps so they can continue to
| tax all transactions on the app store, than any kind of issue
| with web technology itself. If Apple implemented the necessary
| features and fixed the bugs, it could well be a strong
| alternative to a native app. But they make money from preventing
| that and are doing everything they can to prevent other browsers
| from implementing quality PWA support.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| The solution is simple beyond belief. Stop supporting Apple
| devices.
| deergomoo wrote:
| Simple != feasible. Apple devices are where the majority of
| money is spent on mobile. People are not going to switch to
| Android if your software isn't available on iOS, they're going
| to move to a competitor that is.
| andix wrote:
| Last time I looked into alternatives (it's been a while) there
| was no manufacturer that provided updates to latest Android
| without any delays for longer than 2 years. And manufacturers
| constantly broke their promise to keep delivering updates as
| long as possible.
|
| I usually buy 2 year old high end iPhones. So this is very
| relevant for me. Also from an ecological perspective,
| smartphones should last at least 5 years.
| layer8 wrote:
| Smartphones are now required by the EU to provide updates for
| five years. Samsung even promises seven years now.
| smallerfish wrote:
| Google Pixels are now shipping 7 years of updates.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Lol. My Pixel is newer than that, and I haven't gotten a
| single update in 2.5 years.
| smallerfish wrote:
| They started this on a recent gen, maybe 7. Certainly 8.
| paulddraper wrote:
| It hasn't been 7 years yet for either the Pixel 7 or the
| 8, but I suppose Google never cancels things.
| meindnoch wrote:
| As an iOS user, I'm glad.
| sccxy wrote:
| As an iOS user you would also prefer only Apple accepted
| websites in browser?
| mulmen wrote:
| If I squint Apple didn't allow sites with Flash. I was and
| still am happy with the outcome in that case.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Like not allowing Flash or Java applets or Silverlight (lol)?
|
| Yes, I'm happy with that. But if at any point I become
| unhappy, I'll buy a different phone.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| PWAs will never be as good as native, definitionally. There is
| always API drift. There is always runtime cost. Nothing inside a
| system can ever have parity with its parent container. If it
| could, it would be the system itself.
|
| People's experience with hardware and physical objects matters.
| If you accept that, you should always want to be closer to the
| metal at the cost of convenience or portability.
| palata wrote:
| I don't understand why you got downvoted for this. Cross-
| platform is never as good as native, but in some situations it
| is cheaper. And there is a need for "cheaper but not as good"
| (we don't all drive a Porsche, do we?).
| matwood wrote:
| There are constant complaints about electron apps being bad
| and people wanting native apps, except in the case of PWAs. I
| can't keep all the complaining straight lol
| addicted wrote:
| Electron apps are getting much better.
|
| VS Code is considered the best app in its class by a
| distant margin and it's an electron app.
|
| The first round of Electron apps were created by people who
| were simply trying to get some cross platform native
| version of their apps out.
|
| It's only been recently that companies are now creating
| electron apps as first class products and now those apps
| are doing very well.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| The popularity of VSCode is mystifying to me: IntelliJ is
| a much nicer application and VSCode always ends up
| lagging randomly for me.
| palata wrote:
| Same here, I love the JetBrains IDEs.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| IntelliJ is very expensive and VS Code is free. That's a
| big driver for popularity.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| i've found the opposite, once the codebase is large
| enough jetbrains ides get slower and slower. i've been on
| teams which had to split their monorepo because it was so
| bad
| robertoandred wrote:
| Except VS Code is missing tons of native functionality
| that makes it still feel out of place.
| troupo wrote:
| > VS Code is considered the best app in its class by a
| distant margin and it's an electron app.
|
| Yes, and by now they have spent spent hundreds of
| millions of dollars and hundreds of man-years of dev time
| on it. And it's still the only poster child for "good
| Electron app"
| bowsamic wrote:
| > Nothing inside a system can ever have parity with its parent
| container. If it could, it would be the system itself.
|
| I have no idea what you mean by this, can you give some
| justification? It sounds kind of nonsensical
|
| > you should always want to be closer to the metal at the cost
| of convenience or portability.
|
| Right but that isn't really a thing anymore. Even machine code
| is very abstract compared to the actual physical processes
| going on inside. Bare metal programming is an illusion for
| pipelined CPUs with speculative execution
| palata wrote:
| > Right but that isn't really a thing anymore.
|
| "Wanting to be closer" does not mean "needing to be at the
| lowest theoretical level". In this case it just means that
| native mobile frameworks are one layer of abstraction lower
| than web frameworks, and it is better (not cheaper, not
| easier, but better).
| bowsamic wrote:
| Native libraries are already an huge abstraction. Anyone
| can write a GUI framework, even on iPhone. I don't
| understand where the line is being drawn here
| palata wrote:
| I am not the OP, but my line here is between the APIs
| provided by Apple and the third-party abstractions. As an
| iOS developer, the "lowest" you can get is the Apple
| framework. PWAs are a third-party abstraction on top of
| that, which come with all the risks/limitations of both
| third-party dependencies and abstractions.
| kmbfjr wrote:
| Lets start with a browser based application that
| struggles with basic IOS capabilities. Not entirely a web
| app's fault, but dealing with badges and push
| notifications will most certainly be a better experience
| in a native app.
|
| I admit that I am not saddened by this hurdle. The moment
| that becomes a thing, further enshitification will ensue
| with every web site trying to drop and icon and start
| pushing messages.
|
| "Closer to metal"? Not sure you are wrong to ask if there
| is a line given SwiftUI. That is some very high
| abstraction.
| addicted wrote:
| Strong disagree.
|
| Sure, theoretically, any PWA could possibly be developed as a
| better native app.
|
| But in the real world people develop apps. If the iOS app
| developer and designer market declines, then even if
| theoretically a native app would be better, the best developers
| and designers will have little to no experience with native and
| so the best apps will likely be PWAs where the best developers
| and designers are.
|
| Native only always win if you're looking at the capability of
| the platform as the only constraint. In reality, the
| developer/designer market, money available to develop apps,
| money and resources available to maintain apps, etc are all
| additional constraints for real apps, and native apps have
| significant disadvantages in those other constraints.
| palata wrote:
| > If the iOS app developer and designer market declines
|
| That's a pretty huge "if". If the web developer market
| declines, then native will be better, too.
|
| > In reality, the developer/designer market, money available
| to develop apps, money and resources available to maintain
| apps, etc are all additional constraints for real apps, and
| native apps have significant disadvantages in those other
| constraints.
|
| In my experience, the reality is much more nuanced than that.
| There are plenty of mobile devs, and many will tell you that
| they are not slower writing two apps (iOS/Android) than
| writing one cross-platform one. I don't know a single mobile
| dev who likes a cross-platform framework better than the
| native experience, too.
|
| No really, I think cross-platform _seems_ cheaper if you are
| a manager (and don 't really have experience with any of
| those frameworks) or if you are a web dev (and don't really
| have experience with mobile frameworks).
| breadchris wrote:
| "you must show the notification when you receive it", is it not
| possible to filter the notifications on the server before sending
| them down?
| franky47 wrote:
| That's what they did. 10 second delay before sending out a "new
| message" notification to give it time to be marked as read.
| asmor wrote:
| Apple just confirmed PWA functionality is being cut in the EU,
| because they would otherwise "favor Safari". This is so clearly
| bullshit malicious pettyness at the cost of their users to get
| back at EU regulators, I'd like to return my iPhone now, please.
| This is like being out with your friends while they're having the
| beginnings of a breakup.
| andix wrote:
| PWAs will only replace native apps when the operating systems
| support them properly. Let's see how the European Union moves
| forward with the Digital Markets Act.
|
| Let's see if a regulation like that can tame Apple, or if Apple
| keeps finding loop holes to not fully comply in the intended way
| (to liberate the European market from oligopolist gate keeping
| companies). If it works there might be a further revision that
| forces Apple to support PWAs. And on the long run I don't think
| they will limit those features just to the European market.
|
| Once alternative browser engines and alternative app stores
| arrive, it might be possible to provide an app store that just
| wraps any known PWA into a native iOS app and runs them inside a
| Chromium browser. With full PWA support. Like the Microsoft store
| does. You can just register your PWA there and it will show up in
| the store, they even had the plan to scan the web for PWAs and
| put them in the store even if the author didn't register it. I
| don't know if they ever followed though with that plan.
|
| One positive mention: I recently switched my PWAs on Windows to
| Edge, and it's the best PWA experience I've ever had on any
| platform. A good PWA feels 98% like a native application.
| sccxy wrote:
| If your free app will get popular with new rules then your free
| app will cost a lot for a developer.
|
| For example 2.5M installs/updates a year will cost you Total
| monthly fees $ 67,935
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-...
| andix wrote:
| It looks like Apple found a loop hole. I don't think this
| loop hole will stay open for long.
|
| Edit: I really think that we will soon get an addendum to
| this law that will limit those fees. In a similar way mobile
| phone roaming fees got regulated.
| threeseed wrote:
| There is no loop hole.
|
| Apple is able to charge a per-sale license fee for using
| their SDKs same as Epic, Microsoft etc.
|
| There isn't a single court or government in the world who
| has disagreed with this.
| stale2002 wrote:
| No thats not the intent of the newly passed digital
| markets act which will come into effect soon.
|
| But I am happy to come back to you when the EU takes
| action though!
|
| Anti-trust laws are perfectly legal. We can make and
| enforce laws that force Apple to change, just like laws
| exist in all parts of the world.
| threeseed wrote:
| You have invented that intent.
|
| Because it is not in the act nor have there been any
| public statements about it.
| andix wrote:
| I think you're completely missing the point.
|
| The problem is not access to the SDK, the problem is that
| Apple is locking down their platform to competitors. They
| can't sell apps or content without giving a commission to
| the "gate keeper" Apple.
|
| Epic is not one of the biggest device manufacturers. And
| Microsoft is definitively not locking out third party
| developers from Windows. Everyone can just sell Windows
| applications without paying Microsoft a dime. Windows is
| even fully open to PWAs, with the Edge browser from
| Microsoft or any other third party browser.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| In response to your edit: I doubt it.
|
| 1. Remember, the EC feels that American tech companies are
| unfairly stifling competition from European tech companies.
| They're not going to just wholesale ban monetization of
| intellectual property, which is what banning the core
| technology fee would do--that's not a useful precedent if
| you're trying to boost the euro tech scene.
|
| 2. It really feels like most of the arguments against
| Apple's DMA compliance plan come from a place of "I hate
| Apple, what alternative reality can I imagine in which they
| make no money?" If Apple's profits are regulated out of
| existence in Europe, they're simply going to stop offering
| products for the European market. Problem solved, I guess?
|
| But like another commenter wrote, be careful what you wish
| for. I don't think that's actually what devs want, mainly
| because today iOS is the self-selected, lucrative market
| for independent software. That's where the customers are
| who will pay you for Apps. That's _why_ nobody cares that
| Google charges just as much as Apple.
| andix wrote:
| What the EC wants is more or less what you get with
| Windows, macOS or Android. Being able to install apps
| from any source and being able to buy apps from any app
| store/vendor without them being forced to pay
| commission/fees to Apple.
|
| It doesn't have any connection to "monetization of
| intellectual property", just look at Windows, Android,
| macOS, and all other operating systems.
|
| iOS can stay closed source, Apple can keep selling it to
| customers (on their iPhones), Apple might even stop
| providing SDKs at all and stop allowing third party apps
| on their phones. But they shouldn't be able to be a "gate
| keeper" and charge commission to third parties releasing
| apps/content on their platform. Because this is killing
| competition and free markets.
|
| I understand there are implications for opening iOS to
| other app stores.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| Ok, so charge each user $1? Problem solved.
| sccxy wrote:
| Ok, you can give me $1 for replying to my comment.
|
| Thanks
| PenguinCoder wrote:
| Abs then your 2.4M install base turns into 50k installs,
| instead.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| Well, gee, if users think the app isn't worth even $1
| (what can you even buy for a dollar these days?), it
| sounds like not much was lost by limiting its
| distribution.
| troupo wrote:
| > PWAs will only replace native apps when the operating systems
| support them properly.
|
| There's a whole operating system dominating the mobile market
| that "supports PWAs properly". We've yet to se any significant
| number of these great beautiful useful usable PWAs
| LorenDB wrote:
| Maybe we should be pushing for fewer PWAs overall. I personally
| will not use any web-based app when I can use a native app (with
| a few exceptions). PWAs just add unnecessary bloat, and the
| current HTML/CSS/JS stack that the web uses was designed for
| delivering text documents, not apps, so that inherently limits
| the experience.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I personally will not use any native app when I can use a web
| app
| theshackleford wrote:
| I personally will not use any web app when I can use a native
| app.
| deergomoo wrote:
| I'm 50/50 on this: if I care about something enough to install
| it rather than going to a website, I'll take a half decent
| native app over a PWA any day, even without the gimping on
| Apple's part. Truly native anyway; I have a strong dislike for
| stuff like Flutter both conceptually and in practice.
|
| But I also consider Apple's iron grip on the platform to be
| against the spirit of computing, and I think having a viable
| alternative is important. I think there is a segment of
| software that would benefit from a nice PWA, but where two
| native apps would not really be worth anyone's time.
| palata wrote:
| > But I also consider Apple's iron grip on the platform to be
| against the spirit of computing
|
| But the problem here is the App Store, right? Both native iOS
| apps and PWAs need access to the hardware, which is provided
| by Apple.
|
| Really my understanding is that people push hard for PWAs
| either because they want to work around the App Store, or
| because they are web dev (and every dev tends to be
| imperialist with their favourite language, that's not only a
| web thing).
| sccxy wrote:
| People just like the open web. PWAs are part of the open
| web.
|
| It's not so fun when Apple decides to change the app store
| rules and now your app is banned forever.
|
| There is no guarantee that your app won't disappear from
| the App Store tomorrow.
| andix wrote:
| Let me tell you a secret: a LOT of native apps are built on web
| technologies. Those apps are just shells with some web views.
| msie wrote:
| Im always refreshing my pwa because not all resources get
| loaded or some js fails to run.
| palata wrote:
| In my opinion, it is always the same "cross-platform" discussion.
| If you hire an iOS/Android mobile dev to write a native
| iOS/Android app, it means that you hire someone specialized in
| _apps for mobiles_. The whole point of a cross-platform framework
| is the hope that it won 't need the specialization: "any web dev
| can now write a mobile app".
|
| But every cross-platform framework has the same problem:
| platforms are different, and require work specific to them. As a
| result, cross-platform is "write once, debug everywhere".
|
| If you don't know better, cross-platform frameworks
| _systematically_ seem to "get to the same result faster". So
| many companies go for cross-platform frameworks. But in reality,
| the different platforms are so different that the only way to
| make a truly great app is to go native everywhere.
|
| Not that there is not a place for PWAs: "cheaper but not as good"
| is clearly the trend everywhere. But I don't see PWAs replace
| "great native apps" anytime soon. If PWAs win, it will just mean
| that the users got worse apps because the companies spent less
| money on them.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > If PWAs win, it will just mean that the users got worse apps
|
| If PWAs win, it will be because native apps failed. Android and
| MacOS both have an _enormous_ community of open source native
| apps that are more private, functional and accountable than
| their commercial alternatives. So far, Apple hasn 't opened the
| floodgate for that on iOS. As a result, the interest in
| sideloading things has been relegated to the most-open part of
| the OS; the browser. It's not surprising at all.
|
| Apple _could_ be enabling a Cambrian explosion of open iPhone
| apps and killing the case for dinky webapps overnight. Their
| motivation not to is rooted in a company-wide strategy to make
| more service revenue.
| palata wrote:
| > If PWAs win, it will be because native apps failed.
|
| Or because the vast majority of people who "write code that
| runs on mobile phones" know web technologies and not the
| mobile ones. Web programming is simply more accessible.
|
| The thing is, "more" is not always "better".
| smoldesu wrote:
| None of that really disagrees with what I said. Apple
| failed to lower the on-ramp for native development to the
| people that wanted it. Now we're seeing desperate porting
| attempts to the browser, and Apple's desperate attempt at
| plugging the gap.
|
| > The thing is, "more" is not always "better".
|
| In the free market, competition is king. "Better" is
| decided by pitting it against "more".
| palata wrote:
| I wasn't saying I disagree :-).
|
| > Apple failed to lower the on-ramp for native
| development to the people that wanted it.
|
| And they don't have to, IMHO. It's not that hard to learn
| how to do native iOS dev, and Apple is making a ton of
| money from those who do. Apple not wanting to go out of
| their way to lower the bar to a point that they don't
| find profitable is their choice.
|
| > In the free market, competition is king.
|
| I am not sure I am seeing "free market" and "competition"
| with PWAs, where people lobby to get laws to help them
| pass their ideas. The free market alternative would be
| for PWAs to get so good on Android that Apple decides to
| embrace them.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > It's not that hard to learn how to do native iOS dev
|
| Brb gotta go get a whole new computer
| palata wrote:
| Well if you develop an Android PWA without having a
| single Android device to test it on, then maybe you
| should not develop an Android app at all. Same applies
| for iOS.
| sccxy wrote:
| You can use free Android Studio with free emulators with
| macOS or Windows (maybe even Linux?)
|
| Cannot say the same about iOS emulators.
| DANmode wrote:
| Android emulators for development are:
|
| 1) mostly free
|
| 2) ...even somewhat available on iPads!
|
| Is it even _necessary_? Safari seems to be the only odd
| one out that can 't even properly implement CSS, out of
| the top 5 modern browsers.
|
| I'm super glad all of these ridiculous "arguments" are
| being put on display.
| paulddraper wrote:
| 1. Android emulators exist.
|
| 2. It's not crazy to require a ___ device to develop ___
| apps. But are you honestly claiming you can develop
| iPhone apps with an iPhone?
| jwells89 wrote:
| I believe PWAs have a place in highly "templatable" things like
| restaurant pages and online shops. Those I can see adding to my
| home screen. Anything more complex than those is questionable.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Why do you need to 'install' a restaurant app/website?
|
| That's the perfect usecase for like... a website.
| jwells89 wrote:
| For quick access without cluttering browser tabs and
| bookmarks.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| You value real-estate on your home screen less than in
| your bookmarks?
| jwells89 wrote:
| It's more that the number of sites I'd add to my home
| screen has a hard upper bound that's not high, management
| is easy, and if I want one without it being on the home
| screen I can send it to the app library instead, where
| it'll surface with a search.
|
| Bookmarks on the other hand are unbounded and suck to
| manage (no browser has improved meaningfully in this
| realm in ~20 years for some reason) so the threshold for
| what gets bookmarked is higher.
| paulddraper wrote:
| It's a spectrum.
|
| Some things are important enough for a bookmark, others
| are important enough for home screen.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| It just feels a bit of an edgecase to imagine that a menu
| of a specific restaurant is important enough to occupy a
| spot in the top 20-25 of your digital real estate.
| paulddraper wrote:
| What about a movie theater?
| troupo wrote:
| I search for installed apps on my phone quite regularly.
| It's often faster than remembering where the hell it is
| in my folders on screen.
| julianlam wrote:
| You're able to add websites to your home screen without
| it being a PWA, but this is on Android. Assuming this is
| not the case on iOS
| jwells89 wrote:
| You can on iOS too, but it opens a browser tab which is
| undesirable. Sites have to be marked as PWAs to open in
| their own process.
| threeseed wrote:
| > If PWAs win
|
| That's like saying if Linux on the desktop wins in 2024.
|
| PWAs have been around for about a decade now. The excuses have
| run out.
| etchalon wrote:
| I think Apple's failure to provide sufficient capabilities
| for PWAs is a valid excuse here.
|
| If PWAs are limited competitively on the platform with the
| highest ROI for developers ... that's a problem.
| palata wrote:
| I think it is debatable. Can I make an iOS app in pure
| Python, and should Apple make it possible? I think Apple
| has the right to decide what kind of API they provide to
| their users. Just like nobody is forcing Tesla to allow
| running Windows "because some developers would like to run
| Windows apps in their Tesla".
|
| I can see a problem with the monopoly on the App Store
| given the dominant position of Apple. But if Apple decided
| tomorrow to remove the screen from all their phones and
| have audio control only, I think it would be their choice.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Can I make an iOS app in pure Python, and should Apple
| make it possible?
|
| Given that neither the browser or iOS runtime can
| interpret it, no? I think it's reasonable to expect
| people to write an iOS Python interpreter and expect to
| get _that_ distributed though. And if the users
| deliberately install it, what 's the problem?
|
| > Just like nobody is forcing Tesla
|
| Tesla has to certify vehicles as road-safe. Besides FCC
| compliance (which Android handles just fine), Apple
| doesn't really have many legal safety obligations to use
| as a defense. Unlike a Tesla, Apple can let users
| sideload iOS apps without threatening other users around
| them.
| palata wrote:
| Maybe I did not express myself well. My point was that
| Apple not embracing PWAs is their choice, I don't see the
| problem there.
|
| I see a problem with the idea that "we did not convince
| Apple with our PWAs, that's probably because they are
| evil, so now we'll try to force them with the law".
| smoldesu wrote:
| Why do you see that as a problem? Apple is welcome to
| leave if they disagree with Europe's market terms. They
| didn't leave Russia when they made _their_ demands
| though, and Lord knows they 're deep enough in bed with
| China. Whipping up a fuss over sideloading and PWA
| guidelines is a red herring; Apple is just butthurt that
| regulators found their infinite service revenue loophole.
|
| Apple has every right to self-determination, but
| sometimes that means deciding whether they agree with the
| law.
| palata wrote:
| > Why do you see that as a problem? Apple is welcome to
| leave if they disagree with Europe's market terms.
|
| The problem I see is that IMHO, the law should not force
| Apple to accept a new technology just because web devs
| don't want to learn Apple's technology (that provide at
| least the same features as PWAs).
|
| > Whipping up a fuss over sideloading and PWA guidelines
| is a red herring; Apple is just butthurt that regulators
| found their infinite service revenue loophole.
|
| That's the thing: you conflate the App Store with the
| PWAs, and that's where I disagree. Enabling side-loading
| of native iOS apps is completely orthogonal to enabling
| PWAs. For some reasons pro-PWAs hijacked the side-loading
| lobbying effort and are trying to leverage it for their
| own agenda.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Well, you're welcome to take issue with that I suppose.
| The way I see it, Apple has invited this for years; the
| only way in their ecosystem is through the App Store or
| the browser. If they make unreasonable demands out of
| their App Store, the exploitation of the browser will be
| next. It's been this way since Cydia, really.
|
| Much as we'd rather deny it, the App Store and Safari are
| inextricably linked on iOS. There aren't alternatives
| allowed to either, and the purpose leads back to the same
| reason; control. It's really not hard to see how Apple's
| desire for stable service revenue is at-odds with the
| capabilities of their platform. The DMA and the DSA both
| give Apple the ultimatum; loosen up or ship out.
| threeseed wrote:
| There is always some API that is missing for PWAs to
| explode in popularity.
|
| And then when you pin someone down it's never actually
| about APIs or capabilities.
|
| It's about the ability to deploy apps to your phone
| whenever they like with full access to everything and
| nothing in their way.
| usrusr wrote:
| I expect PWA to remain noticeably limited relative to native, and
| probably with a noticeable gradient between Google and Apple. But
| I also expect PWA to steamroll all conventional app development
| nonetheless: PWA optionally bundled with some native components
| for filing the gaps, as in Tauri. Progressive will just grow
| another stage beyond manifest and serviceworker: manifest and
| serviceworker running in a customized variant of the browser
| installed through the app store.
| layer8 wrote:
| > a customized variant of the browser installed through the app
| store
|
| On iOS, apps can only run a single app instance. Which means
| that, if you want to run multiple PWAs in parallel, you'd need
| a separate browser app per PWA.
| usrusr wrote:
| A separate app per PWA that is little more than a tiny shim
| for whatever API Apple refuses to provide in the browser
| (many of them for very good reasons) and a script for
| spinning up another instance of the system browser with the
| API shims available. That's the Tauri model: you wouldn't
| install tens of browsers, but tens of configurations for the
| browser that is already there.
| layer8 wrote:
| It means that the PWAs wouldn't appear as separate apps,
| but as tabs within the same browser app.
|
| Also, unlike native PWAs, you couldn't have per-PWA
| notification badges on the app icons (because there's only
| one). A browser app could maybe emulate this by providing
| different widgets per PWA, but still it would be a less
| straightforward experience.
| hardcopy wrote:
| > PWA optionally bundled with some native components for filing
| the gaps, as in Tauri.
|
| Isn't that essentially Capacitor?
|
| https://capacitorjs.com
| NorwegianDude wrote:
| I think developers need to clearly put blame on Apple for PWA not
| working. In apps you're not allowed to mention apple's shady
| behaviour when it comes to fees, but on the web you can.
|
| Since 2016 I've had the option for users to enable push
| notifications, with a big red disclaimer if the user is using iOS
| that it does not work on an iPhone. Still, I got so so many
| requests from user saying they had tried with Chrome(or whatever
| other browser) instead, and it's still not working, not
| understanding that all browsers on iOS is limited in the same way
| because of apple.
|
| If there are any more problems with web push on iOS I'll clearly
| tell the user that Apple doesn't allow the user to use it, and
| that they will have to ask apple to enable it, and give them
| contact information. If the user bought the phone expecting web
| push to work then they can probably return it and buy an Android
| phone instead if the seller can't fix web push.
| palata wrote:
| > I think developers need to clearly put blame on Apple for PWA
| not working.
|
| I think that developers need to choose technologies that work
| on the platform they want to support, instead of blaming the
| platform. It is totally valid for Apple to say "if you want to
| develop an iOS app, use the iOS native framework".
|
| > If the user bought the phone expecting web push to work then
| they can probably return it and buy an Android phone instead if
| the seller can't fix web push.
|
| Who sells an iPhone saying explicitly that web push works? I
| guess nobody (it would make no sense). If a user bought a phone
| expecting to be able to use it as a surfboard, they probably
| can NOT return it for that reason.
| pomian wrote:
| For those of us who want to know, From Wikipedia:
|
| A progressive web application (PWA), or progressive web app, is a
| type of application software delivered through the web, built
| using common web technologies including HTML, CSS, JavaScript,
| and WebAssembly. It is intended to work on any platform with a
| standards-compliant browser, including desktop and mobile
| devices.
| tadeegan wrote:
| How do you get ordinary people to install pwa. That's my
| question...
| sccxy wrote:
| On Android/Desktop, you can add the "install" button inside
| your app to start the installation flow.
| yesimahuman wrote:
| You know it's not PWA or pure native app, right? There are many
| other options, including Capacitor which will let you use most of
| your web code but get native platform access.
| cma wrote:
| > That means that if you're viewing a chat thread on your PWA and
| you get a new message, you can't suppress the new-message push.
| This is incredibly annoying for users.
|
| Am I confused, or can't you just have the client tell the server
| you are viewing the thread, and suppress the push at the server
| side? If everything is encrypted maybe it reveals a bit of extra
| metadata about what you are looking at at the time though.
|
| They went with a 10 second delay or something, but just keeping
| track of the user's state could be easier (you might have
| connectivity gaps, requiring some keepalive logic too and then
| something like the delay to avoid spamming them with
| notifications they didn't need).
| willsmith72 wrote:
| A better title would've been, "PWAs aren't a replacement for
| native iOS apps _right now_ "
|
| The drawbacks in the article are good to know, but in my circles
| it's common knowledge that Apple is putting less than 0 effort
| into supporting them. Right now, they are absolutely not a drop-
| in replacement for a native app
|
| But that says nothing about the future. In 10 years, why should
| we still be building separate apps per platform when we have an
| amazing and open web? The losers are the app stores, because it
| gets harder to take their cut. As PWAs get closer to feature
| parity, and once apple gives up their horrendous pushback, it
| will only make more and more sense to ditch the native app
| imachine1980_ wrote:
| They won't that's the point,why they do, even if we allow third
| party stores, apple will be still the defaut
| shams93 wrote:
| In the EU they are getting full chrome on ios, thus I imagine
| this means that Apple is allowing a chrome browser to handle
| PWAs.
| sccxy wrote:
| No, this is exactly the reason to disable web apps.
|
| They do not allow Chrome to build too powerful apps outside of
| App Store.
| mulmen wrote:
| I understand the benefits of PWAs for developers. Can someone
| explain to me the benefits for _users_? From a UX perspective how
| is a PWA superior to a native app?
| dot5xdev wrote:
| For users, one of the ways PWAs are superior to native apps is
| that the user gets to use an app at all. It's hard to maintain
| 2 or 3 different codebases of an app, which means it might not
| get built at all. As a user, I'd rather use a decent app that
| exists, than not get to use an app at all.
| SirMaster wrote:
| The benefit is my app exists.
|
| I'm not buying a mac or paying for an apple developer license,
| sorry.
| sccxy wrote:
| No need to open App Store to download 100MB update every month.
| Molomby wrote:
| Side note but, man, I hate it when write ups like this refer to
| events in relative terms without including a published date...
|
| > Last month [...]
|
| > At the same time [...]
|
| > That was over 6 months ago [...]
|
| From when?!? What good is a relative timeline of events and your
| "current" thinking without a timestamp?
|
| Digging though the source, it looks like this is from a few days
| ago.. "created_at":"2024-02-14T01:45:45.254Z"
|
| /rant
| deepfriedrice wrote:
| Anyone have experience with/opinions on Apache Cordova? [1]
|
| It seems like it would solve most of the PWA issues. Although I
| vaguely recall reading that Apple is not too fond of apps that
| are basically just wrapped web views.
|
| [1] https://cordova.apache.org/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-15 23:01 UTC)