710
Open Letter to Tim Cook: Sabotaging Web Apps Is Indefensible (letter.open-web-advocacy.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
146 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We need to exert more pressure on apple and eu to not remove PWAs. Every signature counts, please sign and share EU has already started a preliminary investigation on this http://archive.today/2024.02.26-223134/https://www.ft.com/content/d2f7328c-5851-4f16-8f8d-93f0098b6adc

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The fine will have to be pretty hefty to cancel out the risk to Apple of PWAs taking off.

A free and open app platform sitting above the OS is surely a terrible threat to both Google and Apple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Google and apple both allow pwas right now though, don't they? I don't think it's a threat. It's just apple trying to say fu to the eu. The eu will slp a billion dollar fine on them. They'll pay it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    A PWA running in a browser engine that they can’t control can have access to features that they can’t vet and restrict. If PWAs aren’t restricted to 50MB of storage and have near feature-parity with native apps then they’ll eventually lose the ability to enforce their revenue cut on In-App Purchases.

    Not sure how it works on android, but on iOS I’m pretty sure this means that mobile game devs will start shipping games as WebGL/WASM with asset streaming and implement their own payment channels for micro-transactions.

    Apple can’t risk it and I believe they will fight it tooth and nail to the bitter end.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Up to 10% of global revenue, 20% if they keep repeating the same offense, so nothing to sneeze at.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Is that revenue from all sources, the mobile division, or just the revenue from this particular mechanism (essentially zero)?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Pretty much all sources as far as I understand it. The exact definition is here if you're interested (Article 5).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    not exceeding 10 % of the aggregate turnover of the undertaking concerned within the meaning of Article 5

    So I'm not sure what "the undertaking concerned" means exactly, but it's probably the mobile portion of the business (and maybe just app store sales). But I guess that's yet to be determined.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    The article even explicitly lists subsidiaries and holdings with >50% of the ownership or voting rights, so I don't think it's limited to just one department or devision of a company. But yea, we'll have to wait and see how this is applied in a real case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent