Apple confirms it's breaking iPhone web apps in the EU on purpose

Apple’s stated rationale

• Apple says Home Screen web apps (PWAs) on iOS have deep, WebKit‑specific integration with OS‑level security: per‑site storage, permissions, and isolation like native apps.
• Allowing alternative browser engines under the EU DMA would require a “new integration architecture” to preserve those guarantees.
• Claims:
  • Without that, a malicious web app could access other web apps’ data or permissions (camera, mic, location).
  • Non‑Safari browsers could silently install web apps.
  • Rebuilding this for all engines wasn’t “practical” given DMA work and “very low” PWA usage, so they removed Home Screen PWAs in the EU.
  • EU users can still add bookmarks to the Home Screen, but these open as normal browser tabs.

Critiques and accusations of bad faith

• Many see this as “malicious compliance” and a tantrum to undermine the DMA and punish EU users:
  • Deliberately degrading iOS to avoid giving competitors (and PWAs) equal capabilities.
  • Conflicts with Apple’s long‑standing use of PWAs as a legal talking point (“use the web instead of the App Store”).
• Technical pushback:
  • PWAs use the same web APIs as sites; the main extras are full‑screen display and more persistent storage.
  • Browsers already must isolate sites and manage permissions; Android and desktop OSes allow multi‑engine PWAs without catastrophe.
  • If third‑party browser PWAs were risky, Apple could warn users, restrict capabilities, or only enable PWAs for engines that pass security criteria.
• Several call Apple’s security story “FUD” and financially motivated: PWAs can route around the App Store and its 30% cut/Core Technology Fee.

Support for Apple’s stance

• Some argue the concern is legitimate:
  • iOS security is designed around Apple‑controlled components; letting arbitrary engines host quasi‑apps expands the attack surface.
  • Apple bears brand risk when anything bad happens on iOS, even in third‑party code.
  • Browsers are huge, bug‑prone codebases; adding per‑PWA isolation across arbitrary engines is non‑trivial.
• Others prioritize iOS’s “Just Works” security/UX and don’t want more openness; they say PWA users are a small minority.

Impact on developers and users

• PWA‑heavy developers (internal tools, line‑of‑business apps, small SaaS, “home‑cooked” apps) say this is a major blow:
  • They rely on PWAs to avoid App Store review, fees, and distribution overhead, and to support mixed iOS/Android fleets.
  • Losing full‑screen, notifications, and durable storage in the EU breaks real deployed apps (including some in healthcare).
• Some EU users and devs say this pushes them toward Android/Pixel or FOSS phones; others stay with Apple reluctantly.

DMA, competition, and regulation debates

• Ongoing argument whether this complies with the spirit of the DMA:
  • One view: treating all engines equally by deleting a feature is formally compliant but clearly undermines interoperability goals.
  • Counter‑view: DMA cannot force Apple to add or keep features, only to avoid discriminating between engines; removing PWAs is within their rights.
• Broader political split:
  • Pro‑DMA commenters see Apple/Google as gatekeepers with lock‑in and network effects; regulation is needed to make switching and interoperability real.
  • Critics say the EU “only legislates, doesn’t innovate,” and heavy rules (DMA, GDPR) stifle startups and tech progress.
• Some predict EU investigations and fines; others doubt the EU’s appetite or ability to “break up” or ban Apple.

Bigger themes

• Strong resentment toward Apple’s growing control, lock‑in, and perceived hostility to open standards and user/device ownership.
• Defenders emphasize that many mainstream users don’t know or care about PWAs, and will accept Apple’s trade‑offs for security, polish, and ecosystem integration.