Telegram criticizes Apple for 'intentionally crippling' web app features on iOS A week after confirming plans for Telegram Premium, the messaging platform's CEO, Pavel Durov, is again criticizing Apple's approach to its Safari browser for stifling the efforts of web developers. Durov would very much like his web-based messaging platform, Telegram Web, to be delivered as a web app rather than native, but …
Web on mobiles is pathetic no matter the browser.
I agree that most web sites & SPAs are currently difficult to use on a mobile or even a tablet.
But this is because the developers don't use (sorry for the marketing speak) responsive design to adapt the content to smaller screen sizes and touch-only input in an intelligent way.
Partly this is because they know they'll have to write an app for iOS and possibly for Android anyway so don't waste the effort.
If Apple allowed Gecko or Chromium or kept WebKit up to date and provided a decent set of web APIs into device services then this might not be the case.
This is rather the point that Durov is making. There was a comment piece in El Reg to the same effect quite recently.
Web apps can then be made to appear on the GUI the same as native ones - the facilities for this are already there on other platforms.
No, there are many reasons to use a web app instead of a native one. Take this site. Anyone want to download and install a program to read these articles and post on the forums? No, because it's just a website. There's no need for special OS-specific code to display some text and images. I've seen people create such things before. The Windows application for a forum whose administrators thought they were very clever to do this unorthodox approach comes to mind, though when some users wanted to use something other than Windows, they had to hastily add a website version which did the same things.
Similarly for many relatively simple applications that exist just to provide an interface to some remote server. A native app is useful when lots of performance is needed or when working offline, but a lot of apps are basic clients for interacting with something else and make little use of OS functionality. A web version means it's likely compatible with more things, from phones with unusual operating systems to devices that don't have access to app stores (that's mostly an Android problem). I don't like the technologies often used to make them and would much prefer to write native apps myself, but I also can't deny that there are lots of good arguments for using them.
@doublelayer “No, there are many reasons to use a web app instead of a native one. Take this site. Anyone want to download and install a program to read these articles and post on the forums?”
Well just to play devil’s advocate here, is that not exactly what we have done? We have a native app to do just that, it is the web browser. ;)
I think you know what I meant, since the web browser was the comparison being made. I mean a separate application, requiring El Reg to hire developers for each platform, without which you can't use the site. Yes, we do use browsers, but I can use whatever browser I like on whatever platform I like and they don't have to do extra work. If I want to use Firefox on Mac OS or if I want to use Lynx on a 1995-era OS I've painstakingly compiled to run and display on an ereader, their site will work just the same and I will have the same access to it. There are many services that can benefit from that simplicity and don't require that much from the OS to make it possible.
@bigtimehustler “I've never felt the need or want for a desktop Facebook or Instagram installed on my laptop. Any app can provide a very decent service on a browser if it's written correctly.”
Neither is there a need for a web app for Facebook or Instagram on a desktop. But on a phone, there is a Facebook and Instagram native app. Both iPhone and Android which is not restricted in browser choice.
Why write a native app for Android if “Any app can provide a very decent service on a browser if it's written correctly”?
"Why write a native app for Android if “Any app can provide a very decent service on a browser if it's written correctly”?"
In Facebook's case, because it gives you extra ways to completely destroy the user's privacy, and who could pass up that opportunity. A lot of other apps use native versions on Android for a few reasons that don't necessarily apply to a newcomer. For example, when phones were less consistently online, apps could provide an offline experience they no longer bother with. When storage was more limited, an installed app was less likely to be automatically purged than stuff in a web cache. There will always be some services that either find a benefit in writing a native app or choose to do so anyway. That's fine. Some others don't need to do it and could easily avoid having to if mobile browsers weren't as bad.
If you're using their services on Android, they're already doing that. I would like as few people to do so as possible. And if you're talking about Chrome, you're aware there are other choices, right? You may not like Firefox (I don't object that much, but I know some do), but it does work and avoid Google's dangerous Chromium code. There are other things based off of Firefox or using some of Chromium with at least some of Google's hooks removed. Make up your mind where your preferences regarding privacy and features are, then go with that. That doesn't argue against allowing browsers to function as they do on other OSes.
There seem to be three separate significant issues.
The first is that the web experience is degraded (for whatever reason) and you can't replace it.
The second is that you can't build any other app that dynamically loads its executable content, so you couldn't, for example, create a portable app format other than HTML/Javascript to get around the ban on web engines.
These seem to be a necessary precursor to the third: the app store and its price-gouging ways. It's not by accident that native apps are "preferred".
That's Apple for 'ya. I think the M1 is a lovely chip, but I won't give Apple a penny of my money based on their insistence on restricting how I use my own devices, insistence on proprietary connectors, and quite simply excessive cost.
To be honest, I don't think Apple is intentionally crippling Safari (to force people to use native apps.) They quite simply have fallen behind on developing their browser -- Firefox and Chrome have had millions of hours of development done on them, webkit quite simply has not had as many man-hours devoted to it and is starting to fall behind due to this. I don't know if this is Apple not making Safari a priority, or if it's them doing what they can and just not getting things caught up; whichever, the result is the same.
That said, I STILL put this problem squarely on Apple -- screw them for not allowing Firefox or Chrome on their devices, if someone wishes to install it. (I know they have "Firefox" at least, but as it says in the article, it's not really firefox, it's really just a skin running over webkit, since Apple ridiculously disallows other browser engines.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
