It’s Official, Apple Kills Web Apps in the EU

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s decision to remove full-featured Home Screen web apps (PWAs) for EU iOS users in response to the Digital Markets Act has reignited long-running tensions over its control of the mobile software ecosystem. Critics argue Apple is using “security” as a pretext to cripple the open web and protect lucrative App Store fees, while defenders point to genuine platform-architecture and sandboxing concerns. Much of the debate centers on whether modern web apps could realistically rival native apps — and, if so, whether regulators can or should force Apple to support them on equal footing.

Apple’s change and claimed rationale

  • iOS 17.4 in the EU removes true Home Screen web apps: icons now behave like bookmarks opening in the browser; existing PWA data can be deleted.
  • Apple’s DMA FAQ says full PWAs were tightly integrated with WebKit and iOS’s app-style security model; supporting them with alternative engines would require a “new integration architecture” that wasn’t practical given DMA timing and “very low” adoption.
  • They warn of risks like cross‑site data access, silent reuse of permissions (camera/mic/location), or browsers installing apps without user consent.

Motives and DMA / antitrust context

  • Many commenters see “security” as a pretext to protect App Store revenue and control, calling the web a rival app store and payment channel.
  • Apple is accused of long‑term strategy: forcing WebKit on iOS, under‑implementing web standards, then now using iOS itself to limit capabilities of competing engines.
  • Several quote DMA language about browser engines and web apps to argue Apple must not dictate web functionality on iOS; others note only enforcement and court cases will clarify, and Apple will likely delay.

Security debate

  • One side outlines iOS’s strict W^X model and how JIT’d JavaScript in Safari is a known weak point exploited via multiple CVEs; alternative engines would expand this risk and could hurt battery/performance.
  • Opponents argue other OSes (including macOS) safely run multiple engines with modern web APIs; if Safari is allowed, vetted engines like Chromium/Gecko/Firefox should be too.
  • Some suggest Apple could warn users, restrict untrusted engines, or improve sandboxing instead of removing features.

PWAs vs native apps

  • Strong split:
    • Critics: most web apps/PWAs are slow, bloated, JS‑heavy, break platform conventions, and rarely match native games or high‑end tools; point to Electron bloat and large JS payloads for trivial UIs.
    • Supporters: web tech can deliver fluid, offline‑capable, near‑native experiences; actual problem is common dev practice, not inherent limits. Examples include internal tools, messaging clients, VS Code/Figma‑style apps, and “temporary”/lightweight apps where install friction and app review don’t make sense.
  • Skeptics repeatedly ask why PWAs haven’t boomed on Android if they’re so compelling; defenders reply that (a) many big firms already sunk cost into native, (b) Apple’s hostility makes web‑first strategy risky, and (c) real disruption would play out over 5–10 years.

Impact on users and developers

  • Developers relying on iOS PWAs for internal tools, small audiences, or avoiding the $99 fee feel particularly harmed.
  • Users lose offline storage persistence and web push for Home Screen apps in the EU; some see this as Apple “breaking the web platform” on iOS.
  • A minority downplays the change as affecting few people; others argue even low‑usage, open alternatives are strategically important to constrain gatekeeper power.