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

European DSA Recipients of Services Report

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 177 posts

Re: European DSA Recipients of Services Report

#51

Post by fsckboy »

threeseed wrote: post #36
fsckboy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iPad App Store is distinct from the iOS App Store the whole idea that applications written in software shouldn't handle screensize differences (and dynamic changes) intelligently is just so broken. I get that feeling in the pit of my stomach like "who let these people in? is the door wide open out there?" i mean, to each their own, that's just me, but that's how I feel software should be written, and while we're at…

iOS/iPadOS does allow you to have one code base that dynamically responds to screen sizes. But almost always the experience for iPad users is terrible. Which is why Apple's initial approach of forcing developers to build distinct iPad apps was the right one and a large reason why its tablets dominated the market versus Android competitors.

> iOS/iPadOS does allow you to have one code base that dynamically responds to screen sizes. But almost always the experience for iPad users is terrible.

are you saying the tools aren't there for developers to create equally pleasing (mutatis mutandis) apps, or simply that the developers aren't able to create equally pleasing (mutatis mutandis) apps? Or that designers can't grok the mapping between their equally pleasing ideas and the tools available?

Re: European DSA Recipients of Services Report

#52

Post by nottorp »

apetresc wrote: post #40
nottorp wrote: post #34

> Without prejudice to further consideration of the legal characterisation, Apple views each version of the App Store as a distinct online platform under the DSA, and only the iOS App Store may qualify as a VLOP. LOL LMAO ROFL. I really hope there is some EU directive that this is breaking so they can be fined just for being asses.

Given that the definition of a VLOP is >45M MAU, and the iOS store is the only one that's even remotely close to being over that, what do you object with in this characterization? Also you left out the very next sentence , which completely reverses the interpretation you're trying to imply: > Nonetheless, Apple intends, on an entirely voluntary basis, to align each of the existing versions of the App Store (including…

> the iOS store is the only one that's even remotely close to being over that

What iOS store? They're all one and the same. You can install iOS apps on iPadOS right?

It doesn't matter that they "voluntarily comply". They just shouldn't have the nerve to split them.

Re: European DSA Recipients of Services Report

#53

Post by cube2222 »

jsnell wrote: post #10

> iOS App Store: 101 million > iPadOS App Store: 23 million Asserting that the iPad App Store is distinct from the iOS App Store - and totally isn't in scope for the regulations - is certainly a bold strategy. I wonder why iTunes and Apple TV+ aren't included, and why Podcasts is only counting paid subscribers. Is there some obvious reason why these kinds of services would be out of scope?

It's worth noting that they assert still wanting to comply on the other platforms:

> Nonetheless, Apple intends, on an entirely voluntary basis, to align each of the existing versions of the App Store (including those that do not currently meet the VLOP designation threshold) with the existing DSA requirements for VLOPs because the goals of the DSA align with Apple’s goals to protect consumers from illegal content.

Re: European DSA Recipients of Services Report

#54

Post by zamnos »

fsckboy wrote: post #32
jsnell wrote: post #10

> iOS App Store: 101 million > iPadOS App Store: 23 million Asserting that the iPad App Store is distinct from the iOS App Store - and totally isn't in scope for the regulations - is certainly a bold strategy. I wonder why iTunes and Apple TV+ aren't included, and why Podcasts is only counting paid subscribers. Is there some obvious reason why these kinds of services would be out of scope?

> iPad App Store is distinct from the iOS App Store the whole idea that applications written in software shouldn't handle screensize differences (and dynamic changes) intelligently is just so broken. I get that feeling in the pit of my stomach like "who let these people in? is the door wide open out there?" i mean, to each their own, that's just me, but that's how I feel software should be written, and while we're at…

The iPad store didn't break away from the iOS store until 2019. The original app store came out in 2008, eleven years earlier. While you have as certain point, the division is meant to highlight apps which treat the iPad as a mini laptop, with a keyboard and pencil, vs just a bigger phone. If you've ever coded a website to resize, that's child's play. to actually get an app working properly across both sizes, you've got to put in significant work for each. For developers that don't want to put in that work *, listing in one or the other is fine, and possible Uber the current regieme.

* the developer for papers please's blog about the mobile port is indicative of the work that goes into supporting other screen sizes. Asking developers to have infinite time and motivation is just not realistic. also note that it took a few years for the mobile port to be released.

https://dukope.com/devlogs/papers-please/mobile/

Re: European DSA Recipients of Services Report

#55

Post by shaky-carrousel »

jsnell wrote: post #10

> iOS App Store: 101 million > iPadOS App Store: 23 million Asserting that the iPad App Store is distinct from the iOS App Store - and totally isn't in scope for the regulations - is certainly a bold strategy. I wonder why iTunes and Apple TV+ aren't included, and why Podcasts is only counting paid subscribers. Is there some obvious reason why these kinds of services would be out of scope?

Yeah, in the EU bold strategies are pretty expensive. But sadly Apple is a slow learner.

Re: European DSA Recipients of Services Report

#56

Post by rootusrootus »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #9
DRW_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm surprised there are more Apple TV users than Apple watch users. I don't think these stats suggest that there are more Apple TV users than Apple watch users. They say more people use the App Store on tvOS than use the App Store on Apple Watch. As an Apple Watch user, I'm not surprised by that all. Why would I want to browse the app store directly on my watch? That's annoying and cumbersome. I do it on my phone, i…

Spot on, nobody uses the App Store on the Apple Watch, most people either never use third-party apps on the watch or only use companion apps which are installed alongside iOS apps

Family setup Apple watches are the most likely situation where people are browsing the app store from their watch. No companion iPhone.

Re: European DSA Recipients of Services Report

#58

Post by rootusrootus »

smoldesu wrote: post #14

> because the goals of the DSA align with Apple’s goals to protect consumers from illegal content. An interesting gambit. It sounds like they want to concede to the regulators while using "illegal content" as the new boogeyman stopping people from freely using their device. The freedom-loving part of me wants the EU to push the DSA/DMA further, damning all the "content" boogeymen that exist. The realistic part of me…

> The freedom-loving part of me wants the EU to push

I'd expect that writing this phrase caused actual physical pain from the cognitive dissonance.

Re: European DSA Recipients of Services Report

#59

Post by scarface74 »

zamnos wrote: post #54
fsckboy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iPad App Store is distinct from the iOS App Store the whole idea that applications written in software shouldn't handle screensize differences (and dynamic changes) intelligently is just so broken. I get that feeling in the pit of my stomach like "who let these people in? is the door wide open out there?" i mean, to each their own, that's just me, but that's how I feel software should be written, and while we're at…

The iPad store didn't break away from the iOS store until 2019. The original app store came out in 2008, eleven years earlier. While you have as certain point, the division is meant to highlight apps which treat the iPad as a mini laptop, with a keyboard and pencil, vs just a bigger phone. If you've ever coded a website to resize, that's child's play. to actually get an app working properly across both sizes, you've…

This is not true. From the day that the iPad was introduced, you have always been able to sell separate iPad versions of an app then iPhone versions.

Re: European DSA Recipients of Services Report

#60

Post by heisenzombie »

fsckboy wrote: post #51
threeseed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS/iPadOS does allow you to have one code base that dynamically responds to screen sizes. But almost always the experience for iPad users is terrible. Which is why Apple's initial approach of forcing developers to build distinct iPad apps was the right one and a large reason why its tablets dominated the market versus Android competitors.

> iOS/iPadOS does allow you to have one code base that dynamically responds to screen sizes. But almost always the experience for iPad users is terrible. are you saying the tools aren't there for developers to create equally pleasing (mutatis mutandis) apps, or simply that the developers aren't able to create equally pleasing (mutatis mutandis) apps? Or that designers can't grok the mapping between their equally plea…

A phone and a tablet are just wildly different devices. Screen size —sure— but also usage patterns, input methods, workflow conventions, etc.

The “mutationes” that must be made reach deep into the functionality of an app, not just UI-level stuff. The whole purpose of the app should probably change. It’s therefore a big and challenging job to make an app scale seamlessly from one device to another. That’s irreducible complexity. The tools available will always be at best “necessary but not sufficient”.

Post reply on HN