zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. tehlik+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-01-24 14:41:26
What's the correct version?
replies(1): >>DaiPlu+4e1
2. DaiPlu+4e1[view] [source] 2023-01-24 19:28:44
>>tehlik+(OP)
The parent has since updated their post with updated details that I wasn't previously aware-of - I thought they were referring to a news story from 2012 when Apple first introduced clearing of client-side-cookies (i.e. cookies set by JavaScript, not cookies in general) after inactivity but was commonly misinterpreted as Apple saying they'd just delete all cookies after a week willy-nilly.

However I note that contrary the parent-poster's implication that Apple is using tricks like these to steer users towards native apps, the same linked article talks about how pinned web-apps (i.e. PWAs) _don't_ have their local content deleted after inactivity, which contradicts the claim that Apple is using this in particular to sabotage PWAs:

> That is the case in Safari. Web applications added to the home screen are not part of Safari and thus have their own counter of days of use. Their days of use will match actual use of the web application which resets the timer. We do not expect the first-party in such a web application to have its website data deleted. > > If your web application does experience website data deletion, please let us know since we would consider it a serious bug. It is not the intention of Intelligent Tracking Prevention to delete website data for first parties in web applications.

But I do agree that Apple very likely has internal orders from the top-down to de-prioritise PWAs because Apple definitely wants to see users (and devs) go native (or least via the App Store) instead of being PWAs - but I don't believe it goes as far as _actively_ sabotaging PWAs (i.e. just merely "passively-sabotaging", I guess?).

[go to top]