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

41–50 of 450 posts

Re: Apple vs the Law

#41

Post by vladms »

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.

For me personally they seem to be more expensive than competitors and have a more aggressive stance on openness (ex: compare PWA support on Android vs iOS, not to mention the multiple other things like no multiple stores, the browser engine discussion, etc). So, I am not amazed that people think "on top of all the other things that you annoy us with you also try to avoid the law?!".

Re: Apple vs the Law

#42

Post by scotty79 »

charlesrobertd wrote: post #35
pyman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They don't want to get eaten. We already had symbolic real assassinations of CEOs. It's only a matter of time. You can call it savagery, but you also can call it economics.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#43

Post by scheeseman486 »

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…

Tim doesn't want open platforms, all he wants is EGS to be able to exist within a walled garden. As long as he gets that, he's golden. If he wanted to support truly open platforms he'd be putting more money and time into helping develop Linux into a stronger contender for desktop and mobile and fighting against things like Play Integrity API, which are just another form of vendor lock-in.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#44

Post by scotty79 »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #18
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…

>those billionaires talk about universal basic income Because they don't expect that UBI money to come from their profits, but from the taxes paid by the working class. They're just cosplaying socialists to score brownie points like they did with rainbow flags in the past, knowing it will be on other people's money, and it's all performative. Edit: @pyman >My biggest fear is that UBI can turn into a tool for control,…

> The same way state pensions in Europe are used by the government for control of the population.

It seems the other way around that governments need to bend backwards to the will of pensioners to get elected.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#45

Post by ankit219 »

LelouBil wrote: post #28
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…

I didn't follow the case with Meta, but isn't it different ? Because you talk about both the GDPR and DMA, which are different regulations. I agree that a lot of websites (mostly news websites) have the "ad tracking or subscription" model, and I'm not sure if there has been a clear ruling in it yet, but maybe the DMA makes this stricter for Meta since it is a Gatekeeper

Meta offered Pay-or-consent model (nov 23) at 10 euros or so to placate the then GDPR regulators, as the court found contractual necessity as an invalid argument. CJEU stance seems like its valid for meta and they had a long opinion on that.

But DMA regulators dont agree calling it a false choice and asking meta to monetize by non personalized ads. The thing as you mentioned is how other publishers have the same model, which was never objected by any authority under GDPR either (so they clearly seem to think the model is valid). Its obviously a sticky situation where rules are different for different companies in the same jurisdiction when they are offering the same thing.

A counter could be whether if Meta isn't allowed, would no one else be allowed, but you already know the answer to that question.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#46

Post by simonask »

As a European, I have to say I am generally impressed with the EU in these cases. I'm from a country that's rich and capable, but with a GDP a fraction of Apple's market cap. There is no chance that national laws and entities would be sufficient to protect my consumer rights from corporations this size.

The EU is fundamentally a centre-right, liberalist, pro-business coalition, but what that means is that it is pro-competition. What's really impressive is that it seems to mostly refrain from devolving into protectionist policies, giving no preferential treatment to European businesses against international (intercontinental?) competitors, despite strong populist tendencies in certain member states.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#48

Post by LoganDark »

pyman wrote: post #24
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>those billionaires talk about universal basic income Because they don't expect that UBI money to come from their profits, but from the taxes paid by the working class. They're just cosplaying socialists to score brownie points like they did with rainbow flags in the past, knowing it will be on other people's money, and it's all performative. Edit: @pyman >My biggest fear is that UBI can turn into a tool for control,…

My biggest fear is that UBI can turn into a tool for control, give people just enough to survive, to eat, keep the lights on, and afford some AI tokens to stay productive in the system.

This sounds similar to the welfare trap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap

Re: Apple vs the Law

#49

Post by jeroenhd »

vladms wrote: post #41
jb1991 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For me personally they seem to be more expensive than competitors and have a more aggressive stance on openness (ex: compare PWA support on Android vs iOS, not to mention the multiple other things like no multiple stores, the browser engine discussion, etc). So, I am not amazed that people think "on top of all the other things that you annoy us with you also try to avoid the law?!".

While I hate Apple's anti-consumer practices as much as anyone, the PWA platform is a system set up by Google first and foremost. Take-up has been limited outside of Google Chrome. I wouldn't say Apple's PWA approach is necessarily an example of Apple's fuckery.

This wouldn't be much of an issue, of course, if Chrome would just run on iOS like it does on any other OS, so Google can implement PWAs themselves.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#50

Post by pyrale »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #15
saubeidl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a bad-faith argument and a false equivalency I will not engage in, lest I be warned by the mods for falling for obvious bait again.

It is an argument made in good faith. Companies and individuals should fight against bad laws. And a press campaign is a legitimate, and sometimes effective, tactic for doing so. Different people may disagree about which laws are good or bad; I fully expect, for instance, that more people support the DMA than would support crypto backdoors. But it seems shortsighted to suggest that those who think a law is wrong shou…

> It is an argument made in good faith.

Then I suggest you rework your "good-faith" discussion methods.

You're answering a poster who explained how companies are onboarded to new regulation with a gotcha question about a law that isn't voted yet.

Post reply on HN