Live data from Hacker News

Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

fsfe.org

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#11

Is anyone surprised? I suppose Apple will care when a lot of money is extracted from their bank account.

It's not about being surprised, is about finally having proof and being able to go to the lawmakers with something concrete.

Apple could initially dismiss this as "doomsayers that talk about unreal future". Now this is proof.

Let's not dismiss this ourselves.

This is "I told you so", not "breaking news: nobody expected this!".

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#12
post #6

I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are. On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was…

> I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it

It's not like we have a choice. Either allow it or... what? Buy a different computer? With what money? Spend time installing a new OS? With what time? And for most users: with what skills?

So long as businesses make choices about the devices you own, you don't really have a choice about "allowing" it to happen.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#13
post #9

TLA overload strikes again. Reading this after a day of fighting microcontrollers made me interpret the headline quite differently. Ignoring DMA requests and contradictory documentation sounded entirely on point.

I too honestly thought that this was going to be a deep dive on the M-series PCIe controller or something similar.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#14
post #6

I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are. On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was…

> nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)

Incorrect, see https://pwascore.com/ for a non-religious take. Nobody cares about PWAs, but that's not Apple's fault.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#16
post #9

TLA overload strikes again. Reading this after a day of fighting microcontrollers made me interpret the headline quite differently. Ignoring DMA requests and contradictory documentation sounded entirely on point.

Same here lol.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#17
post #8

I think it is a valid article but it tries very hard to ignore that it seems like at least 12 (21%) of the requests are currently in development at Apple. If all of them are medium/complex requests then they are all still within the advertised timeline. So yes, technically nothing was released yet but I read at least an implied suggestion that nothing will be, which does not look like a conclusion that can be drawn a…

On the other hand, the article does say that

"When the DMA took effect, it expected gatekeepers like Apple to deliver interoperability by default [...] Instead, Apple created a request-based system where each developer must seek permission for specific features"

and

"the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist"

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#18
post #6

I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are. On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was…

> allow it when iOS started allowing third-party

Did you mean "allowing"? Or "prohibiting"

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#19
post #6

I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are. On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was…

Is macOS more of a closed platform? What is more closed about it?

I totally agree that iOS is too closed down and I would say it’s part of an illegally operated duopoly, but macOS is pretty much the same as it has always been.

Apple objectively went out of their way to make sure you can install other operating systems on their silicon platform on Mac which they really didn’t have to do.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#20

I wonder how much this will change now that Tim Apple, is out and John Apple is in. (probably none)

The status quo is insanely profitable for Apple and Cook is still going to be "engaging with policymakers around the world" so I don't think they'll deviate from malicious compliance and stalling tactics any time soon.

The perjury, contempt and referral for criminal investigation in the US carried no consequence, Japan and Brazil's regulations have been undermined by massive fees, as has the EU but they're afraid to fine them because of Trump. Except for the possibility of a $38 billion fine in India this strategy has been very successful for Apple: it's 5 years since the US ruled developers could use third party payments, 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.

Post reply on HN