You're ignoring something important. Apple recently threatened stopping EU shipments rather than DMA compliance (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/25/apple-cal...). They want the DMA repealed, have delayed features, and stated "EU users' experience on Apple products will fall further behind." So it's clear that Apple never had any genuine intention of proper compliance from the start, that's why they kept violating it until they couldn't any longer and then Apple switched to demanding the DMA be repealed completely.

Can you also please cite your "EU backed off" claim? Apple reversed following developer/user backlash. If the EU changed position, kindly link to their statement.

Where's your source for the iOS 17.4 "parity" claim? Apple stated "complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake." That's about security architecture and engineering, not browser parity.

Notice what's happening? iOS 17.4 brought PWA removal, security citations, pressure reversal. Currently we're seeing product withdrawal threats, security citations, DMA court fights, market hostage situations. You claim this company lacks conflict of interest and makes neutral web standards technical decisions?

I need a straight answer. Does Apple have a conflict of interest? They run a $20+ billion App Store taking 15-30% of transactions. PWAs let developers bypass it. Do you acknowledge this financial incentive structure exists, or are you still seriously claiming that Apple has no motivation to limit PWA capabilities?

Your argument needs us to believe Apple's PWA underinvestment decade, iOS 17.4 reversal, EU threats, DMA battles, and Android gaps are coincidental technical decisions unrelated to App Store revenue. That's not plausible.

The push notification logic contradicts itself. You claim users don't want them, Apple didn't implement for a decade, then implemented in 2023. Why would they do that? No demand doesn't justify engineering resources. macOS Safari got them in 2013. Low demand doesn't explain that. You haven't explained the 10-year gap between identical technology stacks.

The Android argument supports our point. PWAs need iOS support for developer economics. Without iPhone access, cross-platform value collapses. Developers can't justify PWA investment without iOS access. Saying "PWAs fail on Android" while iOS is hobbled shows exactly what we're arguing about Apple gatekeeping shaping ecosystems.

You claimed "PWAs failing causes Apple not to care." That reverses causality in a deceptive manner. Apple's underinvestment, iOS 17.4 obstruction, decade of gaps cause PWA struggles. You point to that struggle justifying the behavior. That's circular reasoning absolving Apple of responsibility for a situation they created.

You've shifted explanations three times. Google embrace-and-extend, then "parity requirements," then "user preferences" (for which you provided no data), now Android dynamics proving our gatekeeper point. Each time evidence contradicts, new apologia emerges. That's motivated reasoning protecting predetermined conclusions, not reasoned argument.

I'm asking directly. Does Apple's App Store create a PWA development financial conflict of interest? Yes or no? Your writing requires ignoring incentive structures, believing Apple makes innocuous technical choices while fighting regulations, threatening exits, and maintaining decade-long feature gaps that 'coincidentally' always happen to protect their most profitable business.