this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
121 points (100.0% liked)
Apple
19016 readers
6 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How was it shortsighted? The only reason they made the decision in the first place was because they felt they were legally obligated to do so? It’s only staying as is because it turns out they’re not.
Edit: I don’t know why people are downvoting. The parent comment and reply to my comment are objectively incorrect.
They were not legally obligated to disable PWAs. They did that as retaliation for having to allow third party browser engines in the EU.
That’s not true, though. The way that PWAs render and run is different from the way they run inside of an app like a browser. Because they were required to allow different browser engines, it seems Apple initially thought that meant they needed to allow PWAs to run via different engines too, hence the initial stance. Based on the law, as written, It’s completely reasonable for them to interpret it that way. Since that’s not the case, they’re not changing the current PWA implementation.