Maybe it's the other direction, and Apple is trying to get website builders to realize that you can just serve an HTML page with a simple stylesheet, some images, and some forms, and it can be a great User Experience (UX).
The New York times consistently creates amazing online experiences using current tech, and the result requires fewer resources, is more accessible, and works significantly faster than any project of any people that whine about Safari on Reddit and HN.
A bit off topic, but I felt compelled to comment, because I have strong feelings about these "news experiences" on NYT and other websites (I think Wired has a few).
I think they are beautiful to look at, and perhaps they are smartly built. But personally they make it so much harder for me to absorb the actual content. In the climate change example, the text is large and framed in isolation from the other elements, to the point that it's difficult for me to parse the overall context of the article. The Joni Mitchell article is a bit better, but the text on the right is squished to the point that it feels stressful to read. I understand the goal is to frame the image on the left, but it feels like overkill.
When it comes to news I prefer the content to malleable and customizable (accessibility, content size, color pallet). I don't mind that these experiments exist, just pointing out that they are a bit anti-web in my opinion.
Yeah, their news are just text and images. But then they have these larger features that live at `/interactive/`. But I can agree with you that the interactivity can interfere with you trying to understand what's being presented.
You can't deploy Unreal Engine, Netflix, or Spotify as a nice experience with plain HTML. (Maybe if the web had evolved differently, but that's an alternate history without Steve Jobs purposely crippling the web.)
Apple are a bunch of crooks that want everything to be in the App Store so that they can control it and twist these other companies' arms. (Yours too, if you're an indie developer or startup.)
Apple gaslighted us into thinking this is okay, meanwhile we bleed money sitting in their stupid walled garden jail. (I'm sick and tired of people caring about what's good for Apple. They have more money than God, and they don't need our welfare. Especially not while they're breaking our backs.)
A nice step towards a better web would be to require that Apple allow non-Safari browsers on iPhone.
Why in the world would you want to run Unreal Engine, Netflix, or Spotify in a browser on your phone, a platform which is notable for being constrained in memory, processing power, and battery life? My original comment was a little glib, but if Apple's evil plan /really is/ to twist peoples' arms into not making software engineering decisions that are prima facie ridiculous, then more power to them tbh.
Apple are totalitarian assholes taking advantage of their market position. They've redefined computing as a "protected" function. (Read: protection = regulated and taxed)
I really wish it had been Microsoft that won instead. You'd all be complaining just like me.
