Apple will listen only when executives are physically put in jail.. Europe can't do this, and I don't see this happening in the US soon either.
Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
21–30 of 62 posts
Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
#22I 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 alre…
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
#23Apple will listen only when executives are physically put in jail.. Europe can't do this, and I don't see this happening in the US soon either.
Or they start limiting sales of Apple Hardware. Not something I expect to happen either.
Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
#24I 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.
"nobody cares about PWAs" says commenter in reply to post that seems to care about PWAs
also, I care about PWAs
glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
I think if it were a viable option on an iphone, a nonzero number of people would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
#25Not surprised, I can't still install any app I want on an iPhone despite the DMA/DSA Acts pushing clearly in that direction
DMA/DSA are all about fair competition, not necessarily about user freedom. They tackle the inability to compete with the App Store, not the inability to manage your own apps.
Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
#26I 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…
Security is not a fixed state, a closed system is not fundamentally more secure as the most vulnerable component is still within the system. The user.
Closed systems are fundamentally more secure. Principle of least privilege demonstrates this
Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
"nobody cares about PWAs" says commenter in reply to post that seems to care about PWAs also, I care about PWAs glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new I think if it were a viable option on an iphone, a nonzero number of people would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
> also, I care about PWAs / glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
As the creator of pwascore.com, I'm in your elite club of the teensy percentage of people who care about PWAs.
> I think if it were a viable option on an iphone¹, a nonzero number of people² would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
¹They are, and ²they don't. It'd be nice to blame this on HN's favorite boogeyman, but the reality is that (1) PWAs work fine today (pwa.com), (2) the tech industry is anti-PWA, (3) almost no consumers even know what PWAs are, and (4) consumers who do know also prefer "real" apps.
Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
#28Break it up
Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
#29Apple will listen only when executives are physically put in jail.. Europe can't do this, and I don't see this happening in the US soon either.
If blatant perjury didn't get anyone in jail nothing will...
> “The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.”
> …
> “Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:
> Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct?
> A. The decision was made that day.
> Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases?
> A. That is correct.”
> “Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.
> Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”
https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/01/read-the-juiciest-bits-fro...
Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
#30Oh the hoops I had to jump through to get UTM with JIT enabled on my 17 Pro Max with iOS 26…