Apple has been (I suspect purposefully!) dragging their feet on progressive web app support. There list of limitations is long, but most critically for this app (I would imagine), they can't send notifications and they can't work offline.

There are a number of interesting use cases for PWAs, but part of Apple's fear is (potentially) many of their clients will migrate to PWA only, reducing App Store revenue severely.

Apple also loses all code auditing and screening, meaning they can't ban GPL licensed PWAs like they ban alternative Linphone builds (as they are GPLv2), Signal Private Messenger builds (GPLv3) and only the official developer can build and submit these apps to the app store.

Apple's GPL ban also effiectively mandates these apps having broad CLAs to ensure they can relicense the code for use in the Apple App Store.

Edit: removed bonus apostrophe

> many of their clients will migrate to PWA only, reducing App Store revenue severely

This was also the music industy's fear of digital data about 20-30 years ago.

The business model is outdated, Safari purposefully being a laggard with no alternatives on iOS will eventually bite Apple in the butt, it is just a question of when.

Both the Music industry and Apple seek to maintain their control and thus their cash cows, but whether that will continue to work out for Apple remains to be seen...

> The business model is outdated

And what is it's replacement? It seems in app purchases are what keeps up a large part of mobile apps.

iTunes changed the music business, but I have not noticed a similar change for mobile apps, web or not.

SaaS and Entertainment as a service are the replacements, hence Apple Music and their new streaming service. This is also why AT&T, Verizon, Sinclair and Comcast have spent the last half decade buying media companies.

Why does there need to be a replacement? Apple already sells the hardware and their software (iOS and the preinstalled apps) and makes money off of that.

If I make my app available via my website as a PWA, and all the hosting costs are my own, and don't use any of the app store's services, why does Apple deserve a share of the in app (in PWA?) purchases?

Apple hasn't banned GPL apps. It would be more accurate to say GPL bans Apple.

What interest would Apple have in banning GPL-licensed web apps?

More details here:

http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/

[…]

Anyway, the message is pretty obvious: Apple won’t ship anything that’s licensed under GPL v3 on OS X. Now, why is that?

There are two big changes in GPL v3. The first is that it explicitly prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed software you ship. The second is that it carefully prevents TiVoization, locking down hardware so that people can’t actually run the software they want.

So, which of those things are they planning for OS X, eh?

I’m also intrigued to see how far they are prepared to go with this. They already annoyed and inconvenienced a lot of people with the Samba and GCC removal. Having wooed so many developers to the Mac in the last decade, are they really prepared to throw away all that goodwill by shipping obsolete tools and making it a pain in the ass to upgrade them?

The GPL v3 prevents things like the Novell/Microsoft deal to "patent license" Linux.

The consequence is that Apple can't merely settle to solve patent disputes for any included GPLv3 component, but has to find a way to have the upstream component (and all deviations) have free use of the patent.

This for stuff that ships with their OS, mostly.

Of that I am not certain, but Apple has banned VLC and many other apps, and continues to ban any GPL code from the app store: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

VLC was removed because a VLC developer (copyrightholder) asked them to. Specifically, they alleged apple did not have the rights to distribute VLC unless they also allowed users to modify / recompile the software.

There is a way for end users to modify their software now, but I don’t know if it would satisfy that developer. VLC relicensed to make clear they don’t require distributors to do this.

I've used VLC on Apple products (phone, tablet, laptop) for years. I can't remember a time it wasn't available. Do you mean some VLC other than the video/media playing application?

VLC had to relicense to LGPL to make that happen: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player#History

They do that to "protect" their DRM and application support libraries from GPL virality which wouldn't be a problem with PWAs

GPL virality does not apply backward from app to platform. There are loads of GPL apps on Windows and on Mac outside the app store.

More details from FSF the next day:

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...

I’ve been looking at the App Store Guidelines recently and I don’t see much in them that seems to block GPL specifically. Maybe it’s OK now?

If you have citations of GPLv2 or GPLv3 apps that are in the App Store, I would be highly interested.

As far as I can discern, Linphone is provided in the App Store under a proprietary license, VLC had to relicense as LGPL, and GNU Go is still not on the App Store.

VLC-iOS is licensed GPLv2. https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc-ios/#license

The App store version is almost certainly using MPLv2, which is a file based copyleft license. Much weaker than GPLv2.

My understanding is that Apple doesn't ban GPLvX code - that doesn't mean other people won't write Apple and ask the app to be removed, claiming the app developer did not have proper copyright license.

I don’t think anyone’s tried it, because it was certainly not allowed a couple of years ago. But the language that the FSF used to point to is no longer there, so I’d like to hope that it might be possible today.

It’s not so much that it’s banned; it’s that because the GPLv3 allows users to modify their software and Apple doesn’t without their developer licenses, you can’t give the user all the freedoms the license provides.

You don’t need progressive web apps to display markers on a map.

And anyway, a PWA should be actually progressive. If it requires all the features it’s the opposite of progressive.

You’re referring to Progressive Enhancement, where you make sure it works on old devices but only new devices get the enhancements.

It's pitiful there hasn't been a widely adopted open source notification framework like linux is to OS. Apple and Google both implement their own and it gave them overwhelming power over the app developers. Ironically, this framework may start in China as while majority of the people use Android they have no access to G-suite, apps develop their own notifications and eats up tonnes of RAM, this will neatly solve that problem.

Apple is the one holding up Web Push on iOS at this point, Chrome, Firefox, Edge and a number of other browsers support it: https://caniuse.com/#search=push

> Apple has been (I suspect purposefully!) dragging their feet on progressive web app support.

The original point was that apparently there are no "work arounds" not mentioning that it could be done via WebApp seems a little disingenous.

The statement is referring to the user, there is no practical "work around" for getting their previously functioning, natively executing application operational again, on a computer they supposedly own.

Pointing out a "work around" for the developer is meaningless, in terms of "hey! they can reimplement it as a web app to bypass Apple's shitty walled garden!" is completely useless to these folks in HongKong right now.

I meant, there's no workaround for getting native software that has the capabilities of native software. If web apps were similarly capable I'd agree with you, but as it stands they aren't anywhere near equivalent.

Or just switch to Android and you can install the APK, and likely unlock your bootloader and install a custom ROM.

I don't know why are people against your comment. What happened to "vote with your wallet?" it used to be the way Americans punished companies. What gives power to these companies to be evil is that we as a society keep giving them money. Just stop giving them money and they will change.

It's not as easy due to network effects.

Part of these are social network effects (all my friends use it, plus the apps they use need you to use the same apps, meaning you have to use the same OS or one of the big ones, etc).

Part of them are actual network effects (you've already used the same g-suite or whatever apple provides, and moving to something else - if it exists at all - is either very difficult or impossible).

I'm sure there's others I am not thinking of right now.

But both leave only the "hardcore" privacy and open source activists as your only market - and that's so small that only others of similar persuasion even both to create and host those alternatives, if they exist at all. Since the market is small, and developers/time is lacking, UI and other parts of such apps/operating systems/ecospaces tend to be non-existant or suffer other oddities that keep them out of being adopted by the masses, unless those people get fed up enough with the existing products to be willing to put up with all the downsides of a more free and open system.

Which is kinda where Linux is today - a combination of becoming "good enough" - but also coupled with more than a bit of "corporate America" (and/or "corporate west") helping to make it just a tad better (for business use, for gaming, etc) - and the masses who are getting fed up with Apple and/or Microsoft - a few of them peel off to see what it's all about. Dual boot, or virtualization (and Microsoft has made that easier, too), they get a taste, and some think "hey this isn't really that bad - I can do almost everything" and some migrate over (with the big exception - games - but Valve and Steam are helping in that regard, too).

That's what is needed in the mobile realm, and nothing exists yet. Yes, there are alternatives, but the real bugger has been the hardware - which is very locked down, and only (again) the hardcore and activists are willing to go the extra mile to break open (root, jailbreak) consumer-available hardware, or purchase already "open" hardware, or go so far as to build their own hardware (I am contemplating this option, personally).

Until it gets easier for the "masses" to get a more open hardware mobile platform, the next step of an open ecosystem, operating systems, and apps is much for difficult to make happen. With Apple and Samsung being the main two hardware providers (for iOS and Android respectively), with the way both lock down their hardware, it will stay this way.

But really - for Android at least - Samsung does this mainly for the providers themselves. For instance (in my case), I have a G7 - but it's a T-Mobile version. I paid for it in full (I don't have a contract with T-Mobile, but they are my provider) - but Samsung provides a different version of the G7 (with a different processor and such) than they do outside the USA. That hardware is much easier to root, while the USA version is seemingly made to be as airtight as possible to root (with a constant back-and-forth game being played behind the scenes). It is strange - it's partly Samsung, partly the providers.

Ultimately, I'm just going to opt-out of this hardware game and build my own platform; I already have the 4G module to support phone and data (and I am planning on using it for data only, as I virtually never use my phone for voice calls). If I am lucky, it will be my winter project.

> It's not as easy due to network effects.

So true, which is why we need antitrust enforcement. If you run a platform or a service, you have to provide access to that platform or service to your competitors under the exact same terms as your customers. Anything less is the definition of anti-competitive.

Terrifically unhelpful suggestion for the actual users of hkmap

Android phones can be incredibly cheap (circa $100).

In addition there is nothing stopping them for trading their iPhone for a more expensive Android.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a likely outcome.

Yeah, because you can just install Android on the iPhone you already possess.

No, but a comparable unlocked phone is $300.

Not all that relevant, but with the new BootROM exploit you may be able to do this at some point.

I expect that won't happen. Maybe as a proof of concept, but not as something anyone would ever want to use daily.

Documentation on iPhone hardware is basically nonexistent. Someone would need to reverse engineer it all and write drivers from scratch.

It’s happened before, though of course it’d be much harder today. Interestingly, it seems like Apple keeps around a Linux devicetree for their processors, so it’s certainly not impossible…

It never got past the proof of concept stage last time. And that was when there was more interest in Jailbreaking than there is today.

I wonder whether Hong Kong is behind the great firewall or not. Specifically, whether HK is behind it but the firewall is transparent for HK requests.

China has state run Telecom companies providing all the eyeball access, so it's relatively straightforward to ensure outside connectivity goes through the great firewall.

Hong Kong has multiple private companies providing eyeball access. It would be far more difficult for the Chinese government to get all of their compliance. If they just wanted to get traffic information, it would be far easier to just collect a statistical sampling collected from flows data on core routers for general info or to monitor specific IP's using rulesets without the massive undertaking needed for always on firewall capabilities on every single packet.

Back in October the HK ISP association put this out [1] about how bad it would be for them to be moved towards a GFW model, so I guess they're somewhere closer to Western style access requests still: https://www.hkispa.org.hk/139-urgent-statement-of-hkispa-on-...

It is definitely not, However, a surprising (to me) number of people in HK use WeChat for nearly everything, so...

It isn't behind the Great Firewall, but it is behind an increasing number of government controlled boxes that could be turned into the Little Firewall. There are many direct fiber paths into HK that go directly to big companies and it would take time to bring them under control, but it would take only be a matter of time.

The other aspect of the Great Firewall is the alternative ecosystem inside it, and the censorship system embedded in weibo etc. It will be interesting to see if surveillance capitalism apps like Wepay and Alipay suffer a setback in HK in the wake of the protests. Cf https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/alipay-s-...

If China asked forcefully enough, think they'd start blacklisting sites in Safari?

That could potentially be the next step in forced censorship.

Well, I'm sure they just extend parts of the great firewall. Not need to get apple in on it.

Web pages are trivially censorable directly by the Chinese government though. I don't see how that's responsive solution to the problem here.

Trivially? In Hong Kong?

I don't think this is accurate, though it may come to be in the future. Which is sort of the point, why allow the techno dystopia to come?

They’re less censorable than a platform owned by a single company with a standardized process for taking down content.

OR go to android that allows you to sideload apps from other sources. Of course, you run the risk of malware, then but at least if Google were to pull something like this you could just sideload it.

Converting an iOS app to "a web app" isn't exactly a trivial undertaking. Remember you're likely saying "Reimplement the app atop an entirely different family of libraries and APIs."

Additionally, a part of the device's API is not going to be available to the webapp.

> Make the app a Web App and visit it in Safari.

Is the web censored in HK?

To the best of my knowledge, no. It's certainly not behind the Great Firewall of China.

What's to stop safari from blocking it since every browser on iPhone is basically a safari skin and actual alternative browser engines are banned