[brookst]

Wait so are all non-standard CSS attributes "anticompetitive"? This seems like wild hyperbole.

Is Google's "-webkit-tap-highlight-color" also anticompetitive? Should we ban the current practice of shipping proprietary CSS attributes while sometimes also proposing them for standardization?

It's just really hard for me to read that as a legit complaint.

[elaus]

You can use `-webkit-tap-highlight-color` on your website or PWA and distribute it any way you want. It will just not work in non-webkit browsers like Firefox.

What apple does and what the article talks about: They have a CSS property that ONLY they can use, you can't put that in your PWA, it won't work (no matter the browser).

[dmix]

They just released this feature internally. We have no idea what their plans are for this. The web doesn't broadly and suddenly adopt features like this anyway. It's very likely Apple is working on something to allow 3rd party devs to start using it via safari.

This is much ado about nothing.

[kuschku]

If you use this CSS liquid glass effect in your app, Apple will reject it from the App Store.

If Apple uses this CSS liquid glass effect in their apps, it'll pass App Store review just fine.

Do you see the issue now?

[charcircuit]

>it'll pass App Store review just fine.

Do you have any evidence of this claim? It's possible that neither Apple or third party developers are able to ship apps through the app store with it.

[jakelazaroff]

Why would Apple go through the App Store review process for their first-party apps?

[charcircuit]

Because it's cheaper to maintain 1 ingestion pipeline than 2.

[Draiken]

And it's basically free to create a rule "if it's from apple, auto-approve" even if it's a manual process.

[charcircuit]

Well the automated parts of the process may still be useful to have the app package run through. Checks like "Does not use private APIs" are important to avoid accidental anticompetitive behavior. When working in large organizations communication is difficult and automatic checks that protect against mistakes are important.

[ezfe]

iOS has many private APIs, this one is no different. The fact it's implemented in WebKit is a red herring.

[bigyabai]

So when Google creates self-serving APIs in a web browser engine, it's anti-consumer and is killing the free web.

But when Apple creates self-serving APIs in a web browser engine, it's just another private entitlement, a red herring and their right as the proprietor of Safari.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[ezfe]

It's literally not part of the web because it's not available in Safari or WebKit views in applications.

[cosmic_cheese]

The difference is that Google is by far in a much more dominant position and every dev who leverages Chrome-specific APIs further entrenches that dominance. In the browser space, Apple is the long-trailing runner-up and has far less impact.

It appears that this particular API is restricted to embedded webviews, too (doesn’t work in Safari), so it has no bearing on the open web, unlike APIs such as WebUSB in Chrome.

[reaperducer]

If you use this CSS liquid glass effect in your app, Apple will reject it from the App Store.

Citation needed.

The blog article speculates this, but there is no proof.

[pupatlas]

Here you go:

> Apple App Review Guidelines: 2.5.1 Apps may only use public APIs and must run on the currently shipping OS.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

And here's the (private) field that needs to be enabled on your webview to enable the CSS property. Otherwise (according to the author) it's just ignored: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/613c42873c56e2b2073f91...

[wahnfrieden]

If you are ignorant to Apple rules and practices, please don't be obnoxious about it. Apple has developer guidelines for the App Store, and they say you cannot use private APIs!

They do not publish any "proof" to cite beyond what they write there. And they interpret and enforce the rules at their own whim.

The private API is here: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/613c42873c56e2b2073f91... it's on WKWebView and resembles other private APIs they forbid access to

Apple absolutely does reject apps for using private APIs. Here is a famous case where they started rejecting Electron apps for private API use: https://9to5mac.com/2019/11/04/electron-app-rejections/ You are welcome to sit and wait for Apple to publish proof that this new private API is just like the others but you shouldn't bother others demanding they cite it for you when clarification will not come for this particular API and there is already precedence on how they handle it categorically. You also shouldn't spread false confidence that it's OK to use these APIs due to lack of "proof" which meets your own standards when it can and has resulted not only in apps being removed but also threat of developer accounts being terminated. (Even if this is rare.)

I understand it can be confusing: they don't do it consistently and they change their enforcement of it over time as they please. Even when it's not done automatically, they can and have inspected closely "by hand" if they are looking for a reason to punish. It is a liability.

[brookst]

Are you really asserting that a CSS selector is a private API? This is either a really wild misunderstanding about the difference between CSS and API, or somehow I totally misread your post. But I did re-read a few times and that seems to be the claim?

[c-hendricks]

The CSS isn't the issue, it's that the CSS can only be enabled using private platform code, which no app will get approval for.

[wahnfrieden]

Did you click my link or read the article? The private API is the WKWebView property.

[phillipseamore]

Bad example since "-webkit-tap-highlight-color" is initially from Apple, not Google

[rs186]

I can install chrome on Windows, Linux and Mac, so I give them a pass. Not to mention that was ancient history.

[leptons]

But you can't install the Chrome browser engine on iOS, because Apple forces Google to use the Safari web browser engine, as well as any other web browser for iOS that isn't Safari - they all are forced to use Safari under the hood.

[rs186]

Looks like logic is lost here. My point is that the fact that Google used nonstandard feature so many years ago does not end up forcing users to choose a specific platform, which is the complaint there. And every browser has always done something special for itself. Whether "real" Chrome is available on iOS and how Apple comes into the question is completely irrelevant.