Apple broke iPhone web apps in the EU for anticompetitive reasons – Tim Sweeney
Apple’s decision to cripple progressive web apps (PWAs) on iPhones in the EU—reducing them to simple home screen bookmarks without local storage, notifications or full-screen modes—has reignited criticism of its control over the iOS ecosystem. Many see the move as “malicious compliance” with the EU’s Digital Markets Act and an attempt to protect App Store revenues from more open, cross‑platform web apps, while Apple frames it as a necessary security and privacy trade‑off. The debate touches on wider issues of gatekeeper power, user safety, developer freedom, and whether regulation can meaningfully curb anti‑competitive behavior by dominant platform owners.
Scope of Apple’s Change
- In the EU, iOS “Home Screen web apps” are being reduced to simple bookmarks.
- Lost capabilities (per thread): no standalone full‑screen window, no notifications, no app‑like windowing, no dedicated local storage; unclear how far this extends to service workers/offline use.
- Existing EU PWAs may break or lose data; examples given include internal dashboards and healthcare PWAs.
Motives and Anticompetitive Concerns
- Many see this as deliberate sabotage of the web to protect the App Store’s 30% cut and upcoming alternative app stores.
- It’s characterized as “malicious compliance” with the DMA: Apple admits there is a technical solution but chose not to implement it due to effort vs. low measured usage.
- Others argue Apple has invested in web features in recent years, so “strangling the web” isn’t a simple, consistent strategy.
DMA, Interoperability, and Legal Debate
- One side claims the DMA requires “free interoperability” and Apple’s new fees and restrictions are non‑compliant.
- Another side reads the text as allowing fees so long as they’re “fair, reasonable and non‑discriminatory,” and doubts regulators intended zero-cost.
- Article 6.7’s “effective interoperability” is debated: does it imply free access to the same APIs Apple uses (including install/updates), or just documentation and basic access?
Developer and User Impact
- PWAs considered ideal for internal, private, or niche apps that can’t or won’t go through the App Store; these now lose key functionality in the EU.
- Some suggest workarounds (Shortcuts, small private App Store listings, alternative marketplaces), but these add friction and/or cost.
- Several commenters note average users barely know or care about web apps; others counter that low usage is a product of Apple’s long‑term de‑emphasis and friction.
PWAs vs Native Apps
- Web‑app advocates argue WebAssembly/WebGPU and better tooling make web apps nearly as capable for most use cases, cheaper, and cross‑platform.
- Native‑app defenders value tight OS integration, performance, and curated safety; they dislike “webview apps” posing as native.
- Some foresee that, if regulatory pressure forces real browser and PWA parity, many developers would prefer the web; Apple’s move is seen as preempting that.
Security, Safety, and Lock‑In
- Apple’s stated rationale: supporting PWA‑like capabilities for multiple browser engines would require new architecture and poses security/privacy risks.
- Critics say Apple routinely conflates safety with lock‑in, presenting false binaries (App Store vs. scams, first‑party payments vs. fraud, App Store vs. PWAs).
- Others welcome Apple’s locked‑down model for non‑technical users and argue those wanting openness should choose other platforms.
Alternatives and Structural Limits
- Some propose that developers and companies simply stop supporting iOS to force change; others reply that iOS holds a monopoly on high‑income users, making that unrealistic.
- Android is mentioned as more PWA‑friendly (install prompts, Play Store PWAs), but it’s not seen as a pure control group because the mobile market is effectively a duopoly.
- A minority argues this is a niche feature in one region and not worth the outrage; others see it as a symbolic and practical blow against web decentralization on mobile.