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

51–60 of 450 posts

Re: Apple vs the Law

#51

Post by lmm »

jeroenhd wrote: post #49
vladms wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

You do understand that the reason it doesn't is because Apple won't let it, not that Google don't want to?

Re: Apple vs the Law

#52

Post by JoshTriplett »

pyrale wrote: post #50
JoshTriplett wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm answering someone who said that the response to being "onboarded to new regulation" should be to "face reality", rather than fight it and try to stop it. Whatever level of tooth-and-nail fighting you'd expect someone to do in response to a law you do think is wrong, it's reasonable think someone would wish to do in response to a law they think is wrong.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#53

Post by isodev »

As a developer for apple platforms, it's extremely difficult to keep a positive mindset to all this. Year after year, Apple finds ways to continue unbounded fuckery. Making apps for iPhones is not that profitable anymore either, at this point is more about addressing a painful necessity - Apple is the phone company and you have to make it work if you want access to that "unmovable" infrastructure.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#54

Post by camillomiller »

grishka wrote: post #3

> "...unfortunately, it's impossible to do all the complex engineering to comply with the Commission's current interpretation of the DMA..." There's nothing complex and impossible about removing some "if" statements responsible for code signature enforcement.

I am generally positive towards Apple, but this is the most outrageous point to maintain. You made the iPhone, the Apple Watch, and the VisionPro. You create chipsets that smoke any other competitor. But sure, you can't fix some software processes because the engineering of that is too hard!

Re: Apple vs the Law

#55

Post by celeryventure »

Aeolun wrote: post #17
Fizzadar wrote: post #4

I really hope the EU keeps up the pressure. The level of control the gatekeepers have is beyond ridiculous. Sure there’s the “take your money elsewhere” option but we’re at a point where that’s just not realistic to be a normal person. (My sons nursery for example requires an app that only exists on iOS/Android). EU looks set to be the only big enough institution with any spine or willingness to take this on. Will pr…

Starting to feel like it'd be more sensible to just have the EU fund an independent phone OS/Hardware. Export the hardware specs so everyone can build the hardware for it, then come preinstalled just like Android is doing now.

You're right the way that they should force Apple and all the other phone manufacturers to open their bootloader and provide a common interface so that we can finally have some real freedom and competition on the mobile OS market. We should not settle for anything else than the freedom we already have on PCs.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#56

Post by pyman »

scheeseman486 wrote: post #43
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.

That's your opinion, and I respect it. But let's look at the facts:

- He sued Apple and Google for monopolistic behaviour. He's been fighting for fair access and better deals for all developers, not just Epic Games Store.

- His fight's not about open source or open platforms, it's about fair access, lower fees, and giving developers more control.

- He speaks for millions of independent computer scientists who build games.

- He purchased 7,000-acre Box Creek Wilderness (about US$15 million), fought off a power company's attempt to run lines through it, and donated a conservation easement in 2016 so the land stays wild.

- He's actually walking the talk. While other billionaires post about saving the planet, he's out there buying forests to protect them.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#57

Post by jjcob »

I think at this point we should change the law so that Gatekeepers aren't just required to enable competition, but are somehow forced to actually support competition.

I'm not sure how we could enforce that, but maybe the law could stipulate that a certain minimum percentage of users must use 3rd party app stores, or use web apps. They should pay a fine if less than say 5% of apps are distributed outside the app store, or if less than 5% of people use a 3rd party browser engine.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#58

Post by grishka »

camillomiller wrote: post #54
grishka wrote: post #3

> "...unfortunately, it's impossible to do all the complex engineering to comply with the Commission's current interpretation of the DMA..." There's nothing complex and impossible about removing some "if" statements responsible for code signature enforcement.

I am generally positive towards Apple, but this is the most outrageous point to maintain. You made the iPhone, the Apple Watch, and the VisionPro. You create chipsets that smoke any other competitor. But sure, you can't fix some software processes because the engineering of that is too hard!

It turns out it's very easy to not know things when your salary depends on you not knowing them.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#59

Post by shuckles »

lmm wrote: post #51
jeroenhd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. You do understand that the reason it doesn't is because Apple won't let it, not that Google don't want to?

This is a fantasy. No customer wants PWAs. They exist to make developers' lives easier, not consumers' lives.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#60

Post by culturestate »

LoganDark wrote: post #36
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.

> 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,…

> You cannot buy a device with entirely Google-designed hardware and software - Pixels with Android come close

I don’t really understand this distinction. How is eg a Pixel 9 Pro running Android with GMS on a Tensor any less entirely Google-designed than an iPhone 16 is entirely Apple-designed?

Post reply on HN