Live data from Hacker News

iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

macrumors.com

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

#11

This smells like malicious compliance. It’s also possible that given the timeline, this was the only way to comply with the law and allow a different default browser and it’ll be fixed in the future?

It's not even like Apple is hiding that they hate their DMA when they're announcing their compliances with it. Looking forward to the EU Commission taking Apple to the ECJ over this, I strongly suspect the EU Commission will win, because even if it doesn't, it will just propose legislation changes to outlaw Apple's behaviour anyway.

So much for „free market”.

> You can do it your own way

> If it’s done just how I say

Re: iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

#12
Some dupes /w comments: [0](48 points, 7 days ago, 19 comments) [1](93 points, 2 days ago, 79 comments) [2](7 points, 10 hours ago, 2 comments, same URL)

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236862 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39299007 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39314074

Re: iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even like Apple is hiding that they hate their DMA when they're announcing their compliances with it. Looking forward to the EU Commission taking Apple to the ECJ over this, I strongly suspect the EU Commission will win, because even if it doesn't, it will just propose legislation changes to outlaw Apple's behaviour anyway.

So much for „free market”. > You can do it your own way > If it’s done just how I say

Indeed, you can do it in your own way that complies with the intention of the law. We don't do this malicious compliance weasel wording game in the EU.

Re: iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

#14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even like Apple is hiding that they hate their DMA when they're announcing their compliances with it. Looking forward to the EU Commission taking Apple to the ECJ over this, I strongly suspect the EU Commission will win, because even if it doesn't, it will just propose legislation changes to outlaw Apple's behaviour anyway.

So much for „free market”. > You can do it your own way > If it’s done just how I say

They EU had never a free market, at least not in the US sense.

Re: iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

#15
post #5
post #2

Can someone help me understand what the strategy is here? As an outsider, it seems like Apple is just defying the EU for spite. How does this change contribute to Apple’s bottom line?

This is a beta release—it seems very plausible that it's just a mistake, rather than some sort of elaborate-but-subtle act of defiance.

Or they're testing the waters.

Re: iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

#16
post #2

Can someone help me understand what the strategy is here? As an outsider, it seems like Apple is just defying the EU for spite. How does this change contribute to Apple’s bottom line?

It's probably to prevent alternate app stores from offering PWAs that might bypass Apple's controls and fees.

Re: iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even like Apple is hiding that they hate their DMA when they're announcing their compliances with it. Looking forward to the EU Commission taking Apple to the ECJ over this, I strongly suspect the EU Commission will win, because even if it doesn't, it will just propose legislation changes to outlaw Apple's behaviour anyway.

So much for „free market”. > You can do it your own way > If it’s done just how I say

I’ll take a fair market over a free market any day.

Re: iOS 17.4 Nerfs Web Apps in the EU

#18
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much for „free market”. > You can do it your own way > If it’s done just how I say

Indeed, you can do it in your own way that complies with the intention of the law. We don't do this malicious compliance weasel wording game in the EU.

Intention leaves room for interpretation.

Despite common belief in Europe, there is plenty of strongly binding consumer and labor protection legislation in the US (especially at the state level). It just happens to be much more verbose and specific to take "interpretation" out of the equation. And when companies slither around some loophole, it gets amended, ideally; if some corporate lobbyist doesn't get their way (something that also, definitely occurs in the EU).

That being said, I'm rooting for the ECJ to win here. Maybe it would kickstart a change that's also sorely needed in the US.

Post reply on HN