Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

fsfe.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#51

Post by musicale »

nazgu1 wrote: 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…

Steve Jobs' "sweet solution" (web apps) for iOS was derided by developers when he announced it at WWDC 2007. But Apple had included a bunch of useful features (touch controls, native-like widgets, javascript canvas, etc.) in mobile Safari so that web apps could be usable and useful. Apple preferred javascript web apps to flash or java apps, which were seen as power-hungry and sources of security flaws. Fast forward to today and you can have a cloud game streaming client (such as Xbox Cloud Gaming, GeForce Now, or Amazon Luna) running as a web app in Safari.

One reason Apple was cautious about third party apps was the concern (from both Apple and carriers) that iPhone features would be misused or the iPhone itself might become unreliable or unusable. So when the App Store was rolled out the next year, apps required approval from Apple and were restricted to running in a sandboxed environment. (Background execution was also forbidden at first due to concerns relating to responsiveness, memory usage and battery drain, as well as security and privacy.)

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#52

Post by Danox »

nothinkjustai wrote: post #33
inetknght wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What? Obviously we can purchase a different computer, install Linux, etc. Apple doesn’t have anything close to a monopoly market position. I buy Apple because I don’t care about customizing my device, I just want something reliable that works and has a good design. Don’t paternalise me by implying I don’t have a choice here.

In today’s market, you basically have three realistic, working choices I wish they were more, but no one seems to want to do the work, at one time there were many choices in the 1980s thru 1995? most of those vertical companies (OS/Hardware) are gone. Apple is basically the last.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#53

Post by Danox »

skybrian wrote: post #40
nazgu1 wrote: 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…

Educating billions of nontechnical users is far harder than technical fixes. It’s not going to happen at scale, so that’s basically an excuse to do nothing. Mobile phones are mostly for nontechnical users. There are some accommodations for power users and I’m glad they’re there, but we’re not the primary audience.

As a refugee from the 1980s I remember all of the vertical computer companies that were out there all competing against each other but Wintel won, it is not too late for a new operating system or new hardware and in light of all this money being spent on AI currently it could still be done, but there seems to be no will to do so.

You don’t need Apple, Microsoft or Linux approval if you have the talent and the money you can create your own ecosystem. I would’ve loved to have bought a Next computer or a SGI computer back in the day, but I couldn’t afford it at that time.

Someone talented or a group of someone’s who don’t know any better will get the ball rolling again.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#54

Post by Danox »

podgietaru wrote: post #23
zb3 wrote: post #21

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.

Or they start limiting sales of Apple Hardware. Not something I expect to happen either.

They better hurry up the Mac Neo means more regular users coming on board in the EU….

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#55

Post by skybrian »

Danox wrote: post #53
skybrian wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Educating billions of nontechnical users is far harder than technical fixes. It’s not going to happen at scale, so that’s basically an excuse to do nothing. Mobile phones are mostly for nontechnical users. There are some accommodations for power users and I’m glad they’re there, but we’re not the primary audience.

As a refugee from the 1980s I remember all of the vertical computer companies that were out there all competing against each other but Wintel won, it is not too late for a new operating system or new hardware and in light of all this money being spent on AI currently it could still be done, but there seems to be no will to do so. You don’t need Apple, Microsoft or Linux approval if you have the talent and the money y…

There are plenty of people running Linux. The Framework laptop looks pretty sweet. Raspberry Pis are popular and cheap.

It's not mainstream but it doesn't have to be. You could use an iPhone and another computer for hacking.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#56

Post by musicale »

musicale wrote: post #51
nazgu1 wrote: 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…

Steve Jobs' "sweet solution" (web apps) for iOS was derided by developers when he announced it at WWDC 2007. But Apple had included a bunch of useful features (touch controls, native-like widgets, javascript canvas, etc.) in mobile Safari so that web apps could be usable and useful. Apple preferred javascript web apps to flash or java apps, which were seen as power-hungry and sources of security flaws. Fast forward t…

I think I misstated efficiency concerns for flash/java/etc. influencing web apps; efficiency was more likely a driver toward statically compiled, native apps in objective-C (at the time) such as Apple's own native apps on the iPhone.

Ironically in 2026 many "native" apps on desktop and mobile are basically wrappers for web apps.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#57

Post by Nevermark »

x0x0 wrote: post #45
traspler wrote: 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…

Yeah, this article is written by liars. First paragraph > 56 interoperability requests under the Digital Markets Act have produced no concrete solutions by Apple, The chart, stupidly created as a pie chart and with percentages rather than numbers: 21% of requests are in Phase III, ie implementation by Apple. When liars make clear their intent is to deceive, the correct reaction is to ignore them entirely. You can fai…

Are you implying in-implementation means shipped?

Maybe you are saying something that makes sense. But your comment doesn’t read that way.

A “concrete solution by Apple” would be a solution that shipped.

Cook got accused of acting illegally by a judge. Which is very unusual. It is pretty clear that Apple is dragging their feet as hard as they can get away with.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#58

Post by x0x0 »

Nevermark wrote: post #57
x0x0 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this article is written by liars. First paragraph > 56 interoperability requests under the Digital Markets Act have produced no concrete solutions by Apple, The chart, stupidly created as a pie chart and with percentages rather than numbers: 21% of requests are in Phase III, ie implementation by Apple. When liars make clear their intent is to deceive, the correct reaction is to ignore them entirely. You can fai…

Are you implying in-implementation means shipped? Maybe you are saying something that makes sense. But your comment doesn’t read that way. A “concrete solution by Apple” would be a solution that shipped. Cook got accused of acting illegally by a judge. Which is very unusual. It is pretty clear that Apple is dragging their feet as hard as they can get away with.

"A thing is being implemented."

Liars only: Apple is doing nothing.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#59

Post by nozzlegear »

Rohansi wrote: post #42
CharlesW wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Lets say you were making an app and had to decide between native or PWA. You don't need much more than push notifications so there shouldn't be a big difference between the two. You do your research and find that you can either have: a) Native app: publish to App Store, make links on your website directly open the App Store page where the user can install your app b) PWA: your app is usable directly on your website,…

Native apps can't send push notifications without asking for permission on iOS either. If all you need is push notifications, that shouldn't be your deciding factor.

Re: Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation

#60

Post by traspler »

ptx wrote: post #17
traspler wrote: 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 alre…

I tried keeping my comment very focused on one point that jumped out to me in the article instead of commenting on the whole situation. Their process, delays and circumvention of the intent of the law are indeed very problematic. They have been fighting the same fight with the same techniques on all fronts where they have to open their platform up. Disappointing but something that can be fought by governments and organisations at least. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the style of this article but at least to me the way how it presents it's critique, arguments as well as details of rejections feels a bit deceptive and overly broad while the reality is a bit more nuanced, even if the core of the critique is valid.
Post reply on HN