[Elidrake42]

This is why I purchase iOS devices - ultimately their closed garden provides a smaller attack surface, clearly evidenced by the comparative (to Android) cost of exploits on the black market.

I cannot see this as anticompetitive. If you want open, you have that choice in Android.

[louthy]

> I cannot see this as anticompetitive. If you want open, you have that choice in Android

If Apple doesn’t support PWAs then PWAs stop being a viable method of app deployment - killing the platform outright. That’s anticompetitive.

[spacedcowboy]

Only if you give a damn about PWA's. Evidenced by the fact I have none on my phone, and don't feel the need for any either, I'm fine with them being out.

"Hey PWA, don't let the door hit you on the backside, on your way out".

The browser is just about the most vulnerable attack surface on any computer. Using it as a general-purpose application host is nuts, IMHO.

[rimunroe]

This is exactly my feeling too. I don't want the platform to open up more. I left Android because I wanted to make fewer decisions about my device, and to just think about it less in general.

Also, Safari is a non-Chromium-based (though still related) browser which developers are forced to support because it's the only thing allowed on iPhones. Most users aren't going to install Firefox on their iPhone, they're going to install Chrome, which is just going to make Chromium's market dominance worse.

[veeti]

I'm sorry to say the EU regulators disagree with you on that.

[rimunroe]

We noticed! I’m not thrilled about the decision.