I won't say it is malicious. But I won't give Apple a pass either.
Ultimately, the truth is that a company like Apple doesn't want to deal with DMA. Their whole services business model (whether it be the App Store monopoly or the iMessage monopoly) relies on behavior that is counter to DMA.
It's also clear from their seething press releases about the DMA that they don't want to mince words about how much they don't like it or don't want to do it.
It's always easy for them to give a vague privacy / security argument to justify whatever benefits their monopolistic control. It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want.
I think it's important for users to keep calling them out at every opportunity so they don't get away with it.
You’re the one who’s ascribing maliciousness to their actions. But you don’t have that backed up by anything concrete other than your subjective perception.
From what they’ve written they removed it initially to keep all browsers equal, which is what the DMA implies is necessary.
They now brought it back with only WebKit support.
It’s completely logical that their lawyers worked with the EU to clear this exception.
People here ascribe too much in the way of human emotion to corporations.
If they were really trying to kill PWAs they’d have done it everywhere. If they were really trying to stick it to the DMA, PWAs are such an insignificant feature to do it with.
What are the percentage of people who’d be so inconvenienced that the PWA would open in a browser tab instead of a pseudo browser instance?
> It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want.
It is very different. The outcome from “think of the children” is loss of privacy, while Apple’s actions means loss of software functionality. The former is more dangerous for society and freedom of thought.
How can we be certain that Apple's actions don't mean a loss of privacy too? Whenever they're asked about seriously decentralizing their own trust model Apple tends to fall back on the "legal compliance" note, if not directly on think-of-the-children. Their lack of transparency (even the base level that Google provides with the AOSP) isn't very reassuring, at least to me.
Now, one could argue that Apple's decisions are less impactful than politicians. Circumstantially, they may be right, but I think it's appropriate to compare the line of reasoning. After all, Apple employs both.
Ultimately, the truth is that a company like Apple doesn't want to deal with DMA. Their whole services business model (whether it be the App Store monopoly or the iMessage monopoly) relies on behavior that is counter to DMA.
It's also clear from their seething press releases about the DMA that they don't want to mince words about how much they don't like it or don't want to do it.
It's always easy for them to give a vague privacy / security argument to justify whatever benefits their monopolistic control. It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want.
I think it's important for users to keep calling them out at every opportunity so they don't get away with it.