Most active commenters
  • Abishek_Muthian(3)

←back to thread

Apple declined to implement 16 Web APIs in Safari due to privacy concerns

(www.zdnet.com)
428 points coronadisaster | 13 comments | 29 Jun 20 10:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.721s | source | bottom
Show context
msoad ◴[29 Jun 20 17:15 UTC] No.23679601[source]▶
Google's developer relations team have done a good job convincing web devs that those APIs are pushed by Google to enable "Amazing PWAs", yet we haven't seen them used by any major app. People are choosing to download native apps for more sophisticated applications.

However Google is pushing those APIs because they know tracking people without cookies in future is a big challenge for them and they need new ways of tracking people.

So sad that Google has taken over the web. From the most used browser (Chrome) to the content hijacking (AMP) to the standards (PWA). All to sell you to advertisers.

replies(6): >>23679828 #>>23679848 #>>23680171 #>>23680533 #>>23681627 #>>23684654 #
Abishek_Muthian ◴[29 Jun 20 17:54 UTC] No.23680171[source]▶
If PWAs die, we will be struck with this duopoly in smartphone OS for foreseeable future as native apps are the ones which help them retain their position.

If we want upcoming pure Linux smartphone OS, Sailfish or any other platform which protect the mobile computing from becoming proprietary; we need web apps & PWAs to grow and capture significant market.

Apple's treatment towards PWAs has been well known as PWAs are the only threat for its Appstore monopoly in iOS.

replies(4): >>23680351 #>>23680700 #>>23681129 #>>23687251 #
1. EastSmith ◴[29 Jun 20 18:07 UTC] No.23680351[source]▶
Name three PWA apps please. I know I've built two PWA POC some time ago (using service workers and Notification API), but I've never use any PWA in the wild.
replies(5): >>23680486 #>>23680502 #>>23680584 #>>23680771 #>>23681344 #
2. strbean ◴[29 Jun 20 18:17 UTC] No.23680486[source]▶
Are you talking specifically about add-to-home-screen / offline capabilities? Because PWA is a very broad term, and most descriptions I've seen consider those features necessary to be a PWA.

Ignoring those two, you get damn near every major web app. All of Google's applications, Facebook, Twitter, etc. etc.

replies(1): >>23680895 #
3. impassionedrule ◴[29 Jun 20 18:17 UTC] No.23680502[source]▶
Twitter

Firefox Send

Spotify

replies(1): >>23680689 #
4. bad_user ◴[29 Jun 20 18:23 UTC] No.23680584[source]▶
> Name three PWA apps please

Fastmail, Facebook, Twitter.

None of them work on iOS due to lacking web push notifications. All of them can work on Android as PWAs and as PWAs they are more secure and privacy friendly (not only due to less permissions granted, but also because you can protect yourself with uBlock Origin et all).

Keep in mind that your personal experience is an anecdote.

replies(2): >>23681674 #>>23685744 #
5. fzzzy ◴[29 Jun 20 18:30 UTC] No.23680689[source]▶
I love that firefox send is on this list. Thank you.
6. Abishek_Muthian ◴[29 Jun 20 18:36 UTC] No.23680771[source]▶
Not sure which region you're from, so I've included the filter for you[1]. These are from famous companies, every major apps uses PWA in some part of their app.

[1]https://developers.google.com/web/showcase/region

7. Abishek_Muthian ◴[29 Jun 20 18:43 UTC] No.23680895[source]▶
This is a good question.

You can enable add-to-home-screen for websites with a single meta tag,

   <meta name="mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes">
e.g. Here's one of my website with that tag[1], Ironically this feature was introduced by Apple and is considered part of PWA specs.

But for the sake of this discussion, let's consider PWAs to be one which uses app manifest[2] and uses some high level device features.

[1]https://needgap.com

[2]https://web.dev/what-are-pwas/

replies(1): >>23683257 #
8. zdragnar ◴[29 Jun 20 19:16 UTC] No.23681344[source]▶
My last employer (a business to business company) exclusively went down the web app route, with some minimal PWA features, because their clients genuinely preferred not having to go through the app store to install it on their (often personal) phones. Whether they bookmarked the website or "installed" it to their home screen or only used it from their laptop / desktop was entirely up to them, and they never had to deal with the app upgrade hassle.

Tastes vary, I suppose.

9. NovemberWhiskey ◴[29 Jun 20 19:40 UTC] No.23681674[source]▶
>Fastmail, Facebook, Twitter.

I don't Android, so I really don't know - but are those PWAs the only or primary options for most users on the Android platform?

If not, they're really just "native apps which are also available as PWAs", and without data on relative adoption rates it's not really very useful information.

replies(2): >>23682570 #>>23684734 #
10. asjw ◴[29 Jun 20 20:35 UTC] No.23682570{3}[source]▶
But a billion+ users do Android on a 99$ phone
11. strbean ◴[29 Jun 20 21:22 UTC] No.23683257{3}[source]▶
Woops! I left off the word "don't" in regards to those features being necessary to be considered PWAs!
12. bad_user ◴[29 Jun 20 23:33 UTC] No.23684734{3}[source]▶
So you're invoking popularity, but I don't understand what that has to do with it.

I use web apps all the time, even on mobile. And I'm sure I'm not alone.

Speaking of which Fastmail's Android and iOS apps are just the web app packaged in a native shell ;-) and they are not alone. For them clearly it was cost efective to work on that web app.

As for why they bothered to package their web app in a native shell? Maybe that's were the problem is.

13. ◴[30 Jun 20 02:04 UTC] No.23685744[source]▶