Apple vs the Law • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple vs the Law

#361

Post by itopaloglu83 » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 2:32 AM UTC

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #319

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Original iPhone didn’t have any apps and Apple later created their own ecosystem with an end user agreement which supersedes the ads. The digital market should be regulated for sure but what’s happening is a bunch of companies who are in the digital market (and not regulated themselves) exploiting the public sentiment and the regulatory processes. Spotify and others fail to mention that they were able to access b…

> The Original iPhone didn’t have any apps and Apple later created their own ecosystem with an end user agreement which supersedes the ads. The whole "user agreement" thing is one of the biggest problems, because it means Apple thinks you buying an iPhone doesn't inherently entitle you to the advertised functionality of it. Which is, to out it mildly, highly misleading and potentially illegal. The "small print" shoul…

It's called EULA Roofie. I think Apple will eventually fade away and be replaced by another company that has a more free and open platform. My main concern throughout this discussion is how we're drifting from regulating the digital market place itself. Preventing things like EULA Roofies etc. where somebody can track your personal life and sell it to others to manipulate you.

According to the App Store policies, if I remember correctly, technically all the customers belong to Apple. Although, the developers are also correct to see it the other way around as well.

The ecosystem was built on the assumption that hardware would be sold with its own profit margin and software would have its own separate profit margin to sustain its own operations, tools, and libraries.

The DMA made the entire software branch unsustainable and everybody thinks that Apple earned enough and they should give the software for free. Well, it's their platform and they're entitled to profit from it as they're pleased. Even the European Commission admitted that as well, because saying otherwise is akin to confiscating their intellectual property. I wouldn't bet the house on it but I think Apple would give up the European market before the core technology fee.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#362

Post by itopaloglu83 » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 3:38 AM UTC

grishka wrote: post #317

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Original iPhone didn’t have any apps and Apple later created their own ecosystem with an end user agreement which supersedes the ads. The digital market should be regulated for sure but what’s happening is a bunch of companies who are in the digital market (and not regulated themselves) exploiting the public sentiment and the regulatory processes. Spotify and others fail to mention that they were able to access b…

I keep seeing that argument made but it doesn't make any sense. Yes, Apple may deserve a cut when a user was acquired thanks to the app store alone . Like in that case when you're an indie developer and the app store putting your app listing in front of potential new users is genuinely helpful. However, to many developers, and especially large ones like Spotify that do their own marketing, the app store is a hindranc…

I would like to explain it, if you're genuinely interested.

Apple designs and manufactures incredible hardware and software. The ecosystem they created is beautiful, secure, and intuitive to use. When it was first announced, many people started using it even before they allowed apps on it. Apple later launched the App Store and allowed 3rd party developers access to their platform in exchange for a percentage of the sale price.

And this is where most people trip, it's their platform, not an open ecosystem. Apple is granting Spotify access to billions of Apple's users in exchange for a cut of the sale price. It doesn't matter if one person bought a subscription or one million, the platform still belongs to Apple. And in exchange billions of Apple customers are likely to purchase a subscription from Spotify.

If a company builds a 50,000 people capacity football stadium, and I open a concession stand in there in exchange for a percentage of the sales, can I say I want to sell to all these people without paying my contractual obligations? Spotify is free to sell their subscriptions and install their applications wherever they like but that's not the contractual agreement they had with Apple.

Private ownership is essential to our economy, Apple created this platform and their own it. Forcibly taking it from them would give all the wrong signals to everyone else about what could happen to them next. Who knows, maybe someone says you voted for the wrong party.

---

Digital marketplace, not just Apple or gatekeepers or whatever, must be regulated from the first principles. A couple of rich software companies cozying up to regulators and trying to force changes that will increase only their profit margins is not the way to do it in my humble opinion.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#363

Post by birksherty » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 3:39 AM UTC

FinnLobsien wrote: post #106

Y-bar wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU has basically said that it's better to have a handful medium-sized companies in competition for customers than one or two mega-corps owning and dictating the market. And to resolve that they employ two things, one is the DMA/DSA and similar laws which mostly takes effect when your company reaches a certain large market penetration, the other is standardisations such as the Radio Equipment Directive (think "USB…

> The EU has basically said that it's better to have a handful medium-sized companies in competition for customers than one or two mega-corps owning and dictating the market. And to resolve that they employ two things, one is the DMA/DSA and similar laws which mostly takes effect when your company reaches a certain large market penetration, the other is standardisations such as the Radio Equipment Directive (think "U…

If a company is so small and weak that they can't support GDPR etc., then that company should not exist.

I don't care about any companies like Americans do with American business centric laws that hurts normal people. Life isn't about lowest price at any cost model. Buy from china (as everyone is doing but try to hide it) if you want low cost. I don't give a damn if all those companies die for not complying GDPR, fuck them.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#364

Post by itopaloglu83 » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 3:43 AM UTC

msgodel wrote: post #345

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An iPhone isn’t a pocket computer. It needs to be really secure because someone gaining full access to it through a badly written browser would cost you your life savings if not your life for some.

This is the case with any kind of computer and the iPhone is not particularly secure, you're just locked out of yours.

Well, if I have a state actor after me then I have bigger problems already.

Security is relative concept. For most people being able to browse internet, add/remove apps, and be sure that they will not break things goes a long way.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#365

Post by interpol_p » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 3:43 AM UTC

msgodel wrote: post #300

interpol_p wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I'd be into that. But that would not comply with the DMA I think? As in, Apple still has a ton of work to do, engineering wise, if they are to make their platform available to all in the way specified by the DMA For example, I don't think it would fly that they could say to the EU: users who want a third-party browser just have to enable root access and lose access to all Apple services and authentication

Ah I forgot Apple advertises managing SSO as a feature of iOS and not an external service like sane people would. Well. I guess they'll have to choose between opening it up like every other company does or acknowledge that it's a separate pay for service then. They do a lot of that kind of thing and my answer for all of it is the same: Open it up to everyone or acknowledge it's a pay-for cloud service that has nothin…

Yeah, who knows if the EU would see it that way. They may require Apple to provide first-party APIs that are equivalent in power to what they offer developers who submit via the App Store. Either way, my post was pointing out that it is non-trivial engineering effort to do this, and I think that's still the case.

Hell, just releasing my own personal code as open source — auditing it, decoupling libraries, removing internal stuff, it's a huge multi-week effort for me to do. For any company with as much code as Apple, it's pretty daunting

Re: Apple vs the Law

#366

Post by cageface » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 3:56 AM UTC

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 finally gave up and pulled all my iOS apps from the store after receiving yet another app update rejection from a reviewer that clearly hadn't spent 5 minutes trying to understand what the app is for. I'm tired of begging for having access to my users restored every time something like this happens and I'm through feeling that powerless.

From now on I'm an Android user and only building PWAs.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#367

Post by stale2002 » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 4:16 AM UTC

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #362

grishka wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing that argument made but it doesn't make any sense. Yes, Apple may deserve a cut when a user was acquired thanks to the app store alone . Like in that case when you're an indie developer and the app store putting your app listing in front of potential new users is genuinely helpful. However, to many developers, and especially large ones like Spotify that do their own marketing, the app store is a hindranc…

I would like to explain it, if you're genuinely interested. Apple designs and manufactures incredible hardware and software. The ecosystem they created is beautiful, secure, and intuitive to use. When it was first announced, many people started using it even before they allowed apps on it. Apple later launched the App Store and allowed 3rd party developers access to their platform in exchange for a percentage of the…

> . Apple is granting Spotify access

No. Those users control themselves. They are not Apples users. They own their own device and they are free to do whatever they want with the hardware that they own.

> the platform still belongs to Apple

No actually. The device is owned by the user.

> billions of Apple customers

They aren't Apples. They own their own device.

> e but that's not the contractual agreement they had with Apple.

Or instead of that, they can completely ignore apple's copntract, and force Apple by law to allow them access to this market. If apple doesn't like it, then they can leave the EU entirely, or accept 10s of billions of dollars in fines.

> Forcibly taking it

Its not Apples. The device belongs to the user.

> must be regulated from the first principles.

Ok, and what about the first principle of "A user owns there own device and should be free to pay Apple exactly 0 dollars for the ability to install spotify on the device that they own".

Re: Apple vs the Law

#368

Post by Rover222 » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 4:19 AM UTC

rebolek wrote: post #251

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BYD Q4 sales (only NEV): https://tridenstechnology.com/byd-sales-statistics/ approx 600k. Tesla Q4 sales: https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-fourth-quarter-2024... approx 500k. So Tesla are not the biggest anymore (which honestly surprised me).

It doesn't surprise me at all. BYD invests heavily into R&D. I don't know how much Tesla invests into R&D but if their latest product is an ugly Homercar for incels, then they should probably think a bit about their strategy.

The incel car as you call it is extremely ambitious from an R&D perspective. 48v architecture, steer by wire, etc.

Anyway, I’m not celibate. It’s just an excellent vehicle, if you don’t care about hivemind strangers glaring at you.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#369

Post by 827a » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 5:08 AM UTC

alt227 wrote: post #100

Zopieux wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens in the confines of legal (EU, California, ...) institutions and courts with the occasional boring news reporting the average consumer doesn't read, like this article. It's clearly a win for Apple.

More people are getting annoyed with Apple over these issues, and they are bleeding into the mainstream media more frequently. I have a few die hard Apple friends (Non-professionals) that have recently got so frustrated with being pushed into corners that they have given up the fruity ecosystem altogether. In no way am I suggesting that Apple are on the way out, but they have definitely started to turn the same corne…

I know two extremely rural, middle of nowhere, normie people who switched from the iPhone to Android after Joe Rogan's interview with Zuckerberg. And, more in my tech circles, I've seen someone switch over to Android about once a year now for two or three years. In the other direction, my brother keeps saying "yeah maybe I'll switch the family over to iPhones [from Samsung]. I guess they're more secure". He's been saying that for three years now.

Siri being bad is a huge flashpoint on this issue, and I think its causing far more negative sentiment than Apple will admit or even knows about. If they had any intelligence left in their leadership, they would have just paid ChatGPT $10B/year, wrote a nice system prompt, and that's Siri v3. They could have done that in literally 2023, keep investing in their own models, maybe come 2027 or 2028 flip the switch. Instead they went so far down the rabbithole of personal context that they built nothing, meanwhile there's intermittent reports on reddit and elsewhere that Siri has begun to lose the ability to even set timers for some people [1] (I have not ran into this issue).

My take is that we're going to see this sentiment get worse in Q3/Q4 this year when iOS 26 drops. Liquid glass is actually wildly divisive among the people I've shown it to and who are using the betas. Some people like it, but some people really dislike it. When you add that on to their other issues; I think overall the next two years are going to be pretty good for Samsung and Google.

[1] https://ethanbholland.com/2025/07/11/apple-has-lost-its-mind...

Re: Apple vs the Law

#370

Post by davidw » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 5:18 AM UTC

Disposal8433 wrote: post #141

cm2012 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. As someone who has worked with 100+ funded start-ups, roughly 85 in USA and 15 in EU - the EU ones have such a harder, trudging climb due to regulations.

Good. I would hate for my country to become like the USA.

Things are pretty dire right now in the US, but to understand that... it's complicated and I don't think you can blindly reject everything from how things are done in the US. They all have to be reasoned about individually and as part of a bigger system.