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

Apple vs the Law

formularsumo.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 450 posts

Re: Apple vs the Law

#31

Post by charlesrobertd »

pyman wrote: post #9

Note: I know some folks working in big tech won't like this comment, but it's time we talk about the elephant in the room. Tim Sweeney is the only billionaire and computer scientist who's actually fighting against inequality. The big difference between him and folks like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Marc Benioff, is that while those billionaires talk about universal basic income to make up for the mass layo…

Bill Gates said that as countries get wealthier and automation replaces workers, UBI might become a viable option.

This is the same person who told OpenAI he'd invest between 1 and 10 billion of his company's money if they focused on ChatGPT and speeding up the development of autonomous AI workers.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#32

Post by ankit219 »

> Unintentionally installing something from the app store is all good though, because App Store review absolutely ensures that nothing could go wrong, that there's no scam apps, and more than makes up for the web's "orders of magnitude" stronger sandboxing, more stringent permissions model, and better phishing prevention. And so, web apps logically require a convoluted 4-step process including "share" and "add to homescreen" to locate the install button, meaning that all but the most technical users can't find it.

Written with sarcasm.

I am sorry but the argument that an app store and browser are comparable in terms of amount of spam is a deluded take. The core argument seems to be that since app store allows installing anything, so should browsers. The kind of changes that would benefit a smaller % of smart population, to the detriment of anyone else who can be convinced by a text to download any kind of content on their phone. The ones who push it would want it, but these are the kind of "features" on android that prevents me from giving my parents an android phone.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#33

Post by grishka »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #16
interpol_p wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s extremely complex. I’m not debating whether they should comply - they should. But it’s gonna cost them years of engineering effort, and maintenance far into the future. See, for example, BrowserEngineKit https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit They needed to engineer, maintain, document and support a whole class of APIs so that third parties can create their own competitive browser engines (th…

Somehow, Android manages to do it. Not only for browsers; all apps have JIT access without any entitlement/review needed. It doesn't seem like the average Android user is worse-off because of that, security-wise.

And Android apps can be installed from apk files without any Google involvement whatsoever. All apks are self-signed anyway and signing identity only comes into play for updates, not initial installation. As in, when you first install an app, it doesn't matter who signed it, but installing an update over an existing app requires the new apk to be signed with the same certificate as the initial one. This is to protect the potentially sensitive data in app's private storage (under /data/data).

But iOS requires that everything be signed by Apple in one form or another. Even debug builds of your own apps you run on your own device from Xcode. IMO, it is absolutely unacceptable to market your devices as general-purpose ones, make the SDK public, but still be an intermediary in app distribution for no good reason whatsoever. I'm surprised the EU is so seemingly patient with Apple's clearly contemptuous conduct.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#34

Post by [deleted] »

pyman wrote: post #20
leosanchez wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> billionaires keep getting richer and computer scientists are out of work Not just computer scientists right ?

Yeah, this affects everyone who isn't rich. Some billionaires are even running UBI trials, fully aware that the tech they're building or funding is going to cause social chaos: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study...

[deleted]

Re: Apple vs the Law

#35

Post by charlesrobertd »

pyman wrote: post #20
leosanchez wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> billionaires keep getting richer and computer scientists are out of work Not just computer scientists right ?

Yeah, this affects everyone who isn't rich. Some billionaires are even running UBI trials, fully aware that the tech they're building or funding is going to cause social chaos: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study...

Why are billionaires doing this instead of governments? It doesn't make sense.

Governments are supposed to protect workers, regulate industries, and make sure technology benefits everyone. Looks like billionaires and VCs who love monopolies are building the future on their terms.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#36

Post by LoganDark »

jb1991 wrote: post #23
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #19

The greatest gem is found in the footnote, IMO > "They managed to convince the courts that iPadOS is a separate operating system to iOS (it's not), which delayed iPadOS being designated as a gatekeeper for almost a year. They are currently challenging all of the rest: the iOS, Safari, and App Store designations, and successfully managed to avoid iMessage being designated at all. They have taken the DMA law to court f…

I am certainly not surprised that Apple is employing a lot of legal tricky to work around judgments. But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common attitude in forums that somehow Apple is the only company doing this, or they’re doing it worse than any other company.

> But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common attitude in forums that somehow Apple is the only company doing this, or they’re doing it worse than any other company.

Apple creates vertically integrated devices. For many people, Apple dictates their entire digital life - far more so than any megacorporation on the mere level of, say Google, could ever hope to, considering Apple owns the hardware, software, and everything in between. So they are in a position shared by no other company - they are entirely unique in this. You cannot buy a device with entirely Google-designed hardware and software - Pixels with Android come close, Chromebooks come close, but nothing reaches Apple, even without custom silicon. I would say the closest company that exists in terms of vertical integration is Oxide Computer, but those aren't consumer devices.

So it's not that Apple is the only company doing this. It's also not that they're "doing it worse than any other company". It's that when they do this it affects people on a level not shared by any other company. It has a much larger impact than anybody else ever could.

For the record, I don't mind Apple's vertical integration, in fact that's one of their main selling points for me. It just gives them the greatest possible leverage to implement these sorts of practices.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#37

Post by EMIRELADERO »

All arguments invoking privacy and security coming from Apple when faced with loss of control over the iDevice software aftermarket should be discarded as nothing more than bad faith excuses.

Why am I being so absolutist? Well, because we know this to be the case thanks to the Epic injunction compliance brouhaha. Employee slack chats show quite clearly that the "scare screens" were deliberately worded in a way that would deter any users from pursuing the linkout payment option, while we now know that it was all a ruse to prevent that option from ever being competitive with Apple's 30% IAP, only for economic (monopolistic) reasons.

We now have court-affirmed precedent of Apple intentionally using privacy and security as a veneer for darker, anticompetitive motives. After that, there's not much more to honestly debate.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#38

Post by rickdeckard »

nolok wrote: post #2

Ah, the title point at something I said in an earlier thread that was misunderstood or I probably explained it wrong : the way apple played it, it was not about the actual regulation anymore, and anyone who kept arguing "but it's a bad regulation bla bla" where missing the point. By playing it the way they did, with their public statement against the regulator, and half implementation clearly done to be non cooperati…

> I'm not sure why Apple leadership played it that way, maybe they have a stronger belief in the US administration ability to strongarm the EU into accepting a loss there

Apple is playing it that way because they are rallying their USERS against the EU. They want to create pressure from EU citizens against these EU regulations, and amplify their narrative also to US Apple users in political positions.

Unfortunately this strategy seems to work, there are already a few voices on how the EU taking offense with Apple's sole purpose of doing the best for its users, and that lawmakers try to force Apple away from this path...

Re: Apple vs the Law

#39

Post by ankit219 »

saubeidl wrote: post #30
ankit219 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a rule is vaguely defined, deliberately so that a regulator can take different interpretations depending on whether they are having any effect and who is doing it, even trivial things become complex. Eg: Meta is asked to withdraw monthly subscription for no ads offer when EU GDPR courts approved it, all EU publishers offer the same service, but the DMA interpretation of regulators for Meta keep saying No. On the…

That is exactly why the EU offers consultation workshops like the one mentioned in the article - so that companies can discuss this sort of thing and figure out a way that is workable for both them and the legislator. It's unfortunate that Apple thinks of these as opportunities to lecture them on their own laws instead and unsurprising that approach doesn't work.

Consultation workshops should not be needed. The rule should be clear enough that there is a clear interpretation for everyone. If you need these kind of consultations, you already signal it will be a moving target. Why not just publish clearly what they want Apple to do. In any case, if this was about reaching what works for both regulator and Apple, don't you think these would have happened before DMA went into effect. The timelines are that DMA went into effect in 2023, the first changes in March 2024, and then first set of workshops last year, and second set this year. Is this a novel way to first do the changes and only then discuss them?

I understand a situation where what they want is literally impossible via tech, but then if EU is already talking to others in the space, they would have the same understanding. Otherwise, why keep the regulations vague?

Based on various accounts it does not seem these workshops are looking at arriving at a consensus either. Morever, it seems Apple did consult with EU regulators while rolling out their changes.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#40

Post by Cthulhu_ »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #19

The greatest gem is found in the footnote, IMO > "They managed to convince the courts that iPadOS is a separate operating system to iOS (it's not), which delayed iPadOS being designated as a gatekeeper for almost a year. They are currently challenging all of the rest: the iOS, Safari, and App Store designations, and successfully managed to avoid iMessage being designated at all. They have taken the DMA law to court f…

Big companies like that have a vested interest in paying their legal team A Lot Of Money to find stupid details like this and to argue the toss over them because a ruling can cost them billions. If arguing over a comma means they don't have to, or that it pushes the point where they have to pay forwards, it's worth the expense to them.
Post reply on HN