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

71–80 of 450 posts

Re: Apple vs the Law

#71

Post by innocentoldguy »

jjcob wrote: post #65

The saddest part of this whole fiasco is that Apple itself is suffering from the lack of competition. Apple Watch for example gets a huge boost from being the only wearable that integrates with iOS. But it has a lot of quality issues, and is by far the worst Apple product in my opinion. Apple would have a lot more incentive to improve it if they had to compete with other smart watches on a level playing field.

What quality issues have you experienced? I've owned almost every Apple Watch since their debut and have never had an issue with any of them.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#72

Post by scheeseman486 »

pyman wrote: post #56
scheeseman486 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

> He sued Apple and Google for monopolistic behaviour.

Meanwhile he doesn't substantially support the one option for computing that doesn't result in vertical control. He uses the tools that enable that control, rather than criticize their existence.

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

Epic's apparent support for indie developers is marketing to grow his business. This isn't intrinsically a bad thing, but he isn't some golden saint. It also comes at the cost of catering to consumers, which is in large part why EGS has failed to gain traction beyond throwing free games at people in order to try to entice customers to their store. Key word: try. It hasn't worked.

> 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.

Whatever. This is just billionaire philanthropy and $15m is a drop in the bucket to these people.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#73

Post by threatofrain »

shuckles wrote: post #59
lmm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Developer efficiencies can be translated to customer wins.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#74

Post by aerzen »

FinnLobsien wrote: post #68
simonask wrote: post #46

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-c…

I would argue the opposite: It actually makes European businesses worth off by continuing to make its regulatory environment so complex only massive companies like big tech or Europe's legacy players have the resources to comply. Add to that feel-good green initiatives like a packaging initiative that might lower packaging waste from European companies, but more likely will just make European goods more expensive and…

DMA is applicable only to "gatekeepers" who markets with X amount of users. This is designed not to burden smaller businesses, but to limit monopoly of the large few corporations.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#75

Post by anupj »

Apple’s DMA “compliance” feels less like opening the walled garden and more like planting hedges around the new gate. The irony is, for a company obsessed with seamless user experience, they’re making interoperability as convoluted as possible, unless, of course, you’re using Safari.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#76

Post by zarzavat »

FinnLobsien wrote: post #68
simonask wrote: post #46

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-c…

I would argue the opposite: It actually makes European businesses worth off by continuing to make its regulatory environment so complex only massive companies like big tech or Europe's legacy players have the resources to comply. Add to that feel-good green initiatives like a packaging initiative that might lower packaging waste from European companies, but more likely will just make European goods more expensive and…

That is the western European way though. It's supposed to be a nice place to live, not a nice place to do business. If that leads to Chaebolification of the economy then so be it. There are other parts of the world that specialise in deregulation at the expense of living standards.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#77

Post by zelphirkalt »

bitpush wrote: post #5
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…

Apple is very cunning when it comes to push back. In China they go along with no whining. In US and EU, they make a big deal citing "privacy" and the likes. The only animating objective for Apple is money. Everything else is opportunistic

It would be a day of irony, if the CCP decides, that Apple in China should rather be owned by them, than a figure at Apple itself. A state owned company from now on. Imagine the outcry at Apple, when realizing they danced at too many parties at the same time.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#78

Post by amelius »

isodev wrote: post #53

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.

I'm seriously at a loss about why people would support this increasingly developer-hostile ecosystem and essentially work towards their own demise and perhaps even the rest of their profession. I'd suggest switching to a different source of income while you still can, even if only out of self-respect.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#79

Post by planb »

simonask wrote: post #46

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-c…

As a former European, I agree with your first statement. I love that the EU is taking this seriously, and I like how they introduced the "gatekeeper" term to apply regulations only to the "big ones" and not small businesses (even though I don't agree with many of the individual laws in the DMA).

That said, you can't argue that this isn't protectionist - we simply don't have any gatekeepers here, so if we're fair the DMA is only hitting international competitors (except Spotify maybe?)

Re: Apple vs the Law

#80

Post by zelphirkalt »

rickdeckard wrote: post #38
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 t…

There should be a case against Apple intentionally misinforming people in the EU coming up next then. They must be taught a lesson that every step against the law costs them dearly.
Post reply on HN