Rotten Apple

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s response to new EU digital market rules—allowing third‑party browser engines and app distribution while disabling Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) on iOS in Europe—has triggered sharp debate over whether it’s protecting users or its App Store profits. Commenters argue over the real security differences between iOS and macOS, the prevalence and impact of malware on more open platforms like Android, and whether Apple is using “security” as a pretext to preserve a lucrative gatekeeper role. Many see the move as part of a broader shift toward rent‑seeking and tighter ecosystem lock‑in, with potential long‑term consequences for web innovation and user choice.

Apple’s DMA Response & PWA Changes

  • Apple is disabling home-screen PWAs in the EU and framing it as necessary for security when third‑party browser engines are allowed.
  • Some argue this is a minimal‑effort, self‑serving compliance strategy that preserves Apple’s control and App Store revenues rather than genuinely addressing risk.
  • Others suggest it may simply be “all they could do by the deadline” given the complexity of re‑architecting PWA support for multiple engines.
  • There is debate whether PWAs could just keep using WebKit/Safari under the hood even when another default browser is chosen; legal implications under the DMA are unclear.

Security Model & Risk Trade‑offs

  • One side: iOS’s stricter, more closed model is key to its security and mass‑market success; exposing billions of users to macOS‑style freedoms would increase malware and scams.
  • Counterpoint: Macs, Windows, Linux, and Android all allow arbitrary software and alternative stores without “sky falling” outcomes; current iOS risks (malicious apps, scams, Pegasus) already exist.
  • Some insist Apple overplays security as a pretext; others cite real-world anecdotes of malware and bank fraud on Android and macOS as justification for tight control.
  • PWAs are seen by some as a safer “sideloading” alternative, since they run in a browser sandbox.

Competition, Monopoly & Rent‑Seeking

  • Many commenters view Apple as defending an App Store monopoly and a high‑margin, recurring‑revenue “rent‑seeking” model (30% cut, subscriptions, storage upsells).
  • Apple’s tactics in the EU (fees on external app distribution, minimal PWA support) are seen by critics as contrary to the spirit of regulation.
  • Others argue any large firm will pursue recurring revenue and that security plus curated distribution are legitimate product choices.

User Experience & Practical Impacts

  • Some say hardly anyone uses PWAs, so breakage will be minor; others note industry‑specific PWAs (e.g., internal tools, game streaming) where confusion will be real.
  • Several stories highlight friction and dark‑pattern‑like behavior: poor App Store Connect tooling, difficulty cancelling subscriptions without Apple devices, aggressive free‑trial upsells.
  • Corporate/parental control concerns: some welcome Apple’s tight model to protect non‑technical users; others see this as infantilizing and an excuse to limit everyone’s choices.

Broader Sentiment Toward Apple

  • Opinions range from admiration of Apple’s hardware and engineering to strong criticism of its closed ecosystem, UX regressions, and perceived loss of “insanely great” product focus.
  • Some predict “peak Apple” and brand damage; others think the strategy will remain highly profitable despite developer and power‑user frustration.