Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

consilium.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#331

Post by intrasight »

Gareth321 wrote: post #2

This is easily one of the most expansive Acts regarding computing devices passed in my lifetime. The summary is in the link. As an iPhone user, this will enable me to: * Install any software * Install any App Store and choose to make it default * Use third party payment providers and choose to make them default * Use any voice assistant and choose to make it default * User any browser and browser engine and choose to…

>Install any App Store

That wasn't one of the bullets in the posted article. Do you have a reference to the language of the law that says this?

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#332

Post by runako »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #288
runako wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Make core messaging functionality interoperable. They lay out concrete examples like file transfer It's entirely possible that to enable compliance with this will require explicit compromises to the security of iMessage, for example by requiring key exchange with startup messaging providers. The other rules seem to prohibit Apple from describing the risks involved in such a compromise. > * Use existing hardware a…

> It's entirely possible that to enable compliance with this will require explicit compromises to the security of iMessage, for example by requiring key exchange with startup messaging providers. Is that really much worse than the status quo, where all iMessage plaintexts are shared with Apple by default, unless every participant in the thread has disabled iCloud Backup? > So Apple just needs to explain security & en…

Yes, it is. All of the participants in an iMessage chat have consented to have their data stored by Apple. We can all do rough evaluations on how well we think Apple can protect our data.

The wording in the Act appears to not place constraints on exactly what services must be able to interop with iMessage, and it says Apple can't preference iMessage. So presumably the blue bubbles have to go. This means that when chatting in Messages now, one will not be able to know whether it's Apple alone protecting the privacy of the conversation, or whether the weakest link is a company of a single person that started this week using an OSS package to spin up a new messaging app on a Linode VM and was able to achieve parity in iOS messaging simply by virtue of this Act.

That's a very different situation than the status quo.

Similar logic applies to the App Store and payment details, but messaging is egregious because other participants in the chat can make (and potentially change) the security posture of the chat without your knowledge.

(Edit, adding reply to this part.)

> Are you arguing that it's impossible for Discord or ICQ to implement the same feature set as the native iMessage client?

No, I am saying that it's going to be trivial to implement the feature set. I fully expect there to be OSS libraries to implement the iMessage client.

The issue is that when people use iMessage and see a blue bubble, they also know something about how the encryption keys are handled & who does the handling, etc. This Act as written appears to allow any person to install an OSS iMessage server on a VM and achieve OS parity with iMessage, and Apple is prevented from indicating that others in the chat may be compromising the security of the chat. I used ICQ and Discord as examples because Apple exchanging my encryption keys with ICQ is definitely compromising a core feature of iMessage.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#333

Post by throw10920 »

gostsamo wrote: post #207
brtkdotse wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a popular opinion around here, but the reason I like my iPhone is _because_ it’s a walled garden. It just works, reliably, without surprises, for years on end.

Nothing stops you of staying in the garden though. Just don't install anything Apple and you'd be golden.

Now that there's a way out, however, you can be forced out if e.g. you have to install an app that isn't available in the App Store because its developer saw an opportunity to roll their own.

Not saying that the trade isn't worth it, just that, well, now that Pandora's box is open, it's coming to get you, even if you don't want it to.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#334

Post by bun_at_work »

JohnGB wrote: post #266
plandis wrote: post #251

One would think that if there is truly a Europe wide market for such an unlocked device a competitor should be able to challenge Apple and Google dominance. Europe could even subsidize it. But instead, it’s more engineering by bureaucrats. Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market?

That's an ironic take given that these rules are there to take away monopoly power and have an actual open market.

How does Apple have a monopoly? The only thing that comes close is the App Store, which requires you buy an iPhone, which is not the most common mobile device.

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe

Further, other phone companies start from nothing and become quite successful in market place, and some fail, but consider OnePlus - they decided to make a "Flagship Killer" and are still delivering high quality devices.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#335

Post by cronix »

brtkdotse wrote: post #185
yoavm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, an iPhone that complies with these demands is actually the first iPhone I'd ever consider paying for. I wonder if this might actually increase adoption.

It’s not a popular opinion around here, but the reason I like my iPhone is _because_ it’s a walled garden. It just works, reliably, without surprises, for years on end.

And what in the new law would prevent them from continuing to make the same "reliable without surprises" iPhone experience you seemingly enjoy? I don't see anything that prevents them from saying "We can only guarantee an Apple-level experience by using apps vetted by Apple and download directly from the official Apple App Store." Most companies that I'm aware of don't have to warranty issues arising from after market/3rd party accessories. I mean, is Apple responsible if I download software from x company on my mac from x company's website? Why isn't the laptop ecosystem "all messed up" if you can install anything from anywhere on your macbook and use any payment processor? The only thing this really would do to upset Apple is taking away some of their walled-garden revenue, like processing fees. I'm not sure why a watch or phone or tablet needs to be treated opposite of other traditional computing devices. Just because it's a different form factor?

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#336

Post by pjerem »

blibble wrote: post #150
Gareth321 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, extremely low. The DMA has passed final debate and review, so it's not changing now. The last step is basically a formality. The beauty of the EU is that corporate financial influence is far less pervasive than even in the governments of member nations. The level of abstraction is just too large. Apple, Google, Amazon, et al., can wage a PR campaign, but it's highly unlikely to succeed.

> The beauty of the EU is that corporate financial influence is far less pervasive than even in the governments of member nations. the tradeoff is now there's only one entity to bribe instead of 27 there's almost 50,000 registered EU lobbyists https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/...

No. EU is governed by seven distinct institutions with distinct roles and interests. You can read more about them here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_U...

The high number of institutions taking part in governance is in part responsive for the reputation of EU to be "slow" to act but it also means that it's incredibly hard to bribe because you have to bribe different institutions that don't even share the same mindsets.

Not arguing there that EU is perfect (it's far from it), but it's really better that what most people think about it, which is because local governments always use the "it's the EU rules, we can't do anything". The thing is, they also omit to remind that ministers and head of states are part of two institutions and that they choose the council of the European Commission. So they are the ones making the rules and those rules have to be accepted by the democratically elected European Parliament.

So when a politician in europe blame the EU for anything, they blame rules that they wrote themselves and that have been approved by a democratically elected parliament.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#337

Post by nonameiguess »

baobob wrote: post #74

Does anyone know if the definition of "gatekeeper" extends to infrastructure services like AWS or Cloudflare? > A small number of large undertakings providing core platform services have emerged with considerable economic power that could qualify them to be designated as gatekeepers pursuant to this Regulation. Typically, they feature an ability to connect many business users with many end users through their service…

I'm not sure how this would mean anything for a service provider like AWS. You can already install and run whatever version of your own services you want on bare EC2s, and if you don't want to use the xen hypervisor for some reason, you can buy bare metal instances and do whatever you want with them. It's already possible to run OpenStack on AWS if you really want to do that.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#338

Post by webmobdev »

capableweb wrote: post #110
yoavm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, an iPhone that complies with these demands is actually the first iPhone I'd ever consider paying for. I wonder if this might actually increase adoption.

If "Install any software" becomes real and I can start writing software on Linux for iPhone, without requiring me to have a Mac, I'll become an instant iPhone fanboy as the hardware is second to none. It's the software that is stopping the phone from becoming the best one around.

I am not sure about this - does install any software also mean system software or is it only meant to allow installation from sources other than their own app store? To allow system software installations, Apple (and other mobile device manufacturers) will have to allow unlocking the bootloader. (But that alone is limited as without the hardware information of the individual parts, developing an alternate OS for such devices is painful work as you have to essentially reverse engineer everything to create the device drivers - as evident with the snail's pace that Asahi Linux are progressing at to port Linux to Apple M1 and M2 ARM processors. Unless ofcourse, the DMA also forces them to publish the hardware literature so that other system developers can use it, which would be a real game changer ... ).

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#339

Post by onion2k »

microtonal wrote: post #213
turbinerneiter wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, just stay on the default settings then. This however isn't a reason for the rest of the world to accept this. And since the power in the market is highly concentrated and all of it is moving more and more in this direction, regulation enforces these alternative options now. All this does is regulate the power the provider of a product has over their customer. This does not ruin the walled garden for the…

That's fine, just stay on the default settings then. I agree in principle, but I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. (Something gross like Facebook starting an app store.) Or course, this is mostly a result of Apple being greedy. If they had acted like a good steward of the platform rather than trying to ex…

if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust

This will be a problem but the solution is not to transfer your freedom to choose to Apple and just let them decide which third party apps you are allowed to use.

In some cases that will mean making a hard choice between accepting the risk of using the third party app store, or accepting that you won't be able to use certain apps. The benefits are significant though - your device will actually be under your control. You will be able to do all the things Apple prevent now.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#340

Post by tmpz22 »

ahtihn wrote: post #327
tgv wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> User any browser and browser engine and choose to make it default Hello, Alphabet world domination. They finally get the chance to get rid of that pesky Safari. Next stop: obligatory sign-in for using a service.

Safari is a garbage browser. Why is it good that people are forced to use a bad browser?

What makes Safari a bad browser? Sometimes it feels like dev forums rate a browser entirely based on the dev tools.

For the average user Safari behaves identically or slightly better (battery life, privacy defaults, integration with the OS for login and payments) then chrome and Firefox.

Post reply on HN