EU sends Apple first DMA interoperability instructions for apps and devices

Macron is definitely centre-right...

He's literally a former investment banker who's been trying to dismantle the welfare state, lower taxes, increase business friendliness, etc... He's also been tough on immigration lately. Not sure in what world any of this would be considered leftist policies...

> And the point of asking what I did was to point out maybe you wouldn't be able to get as far as you did without linux; certainly macos wasn't an option, right? Not a modern version at least. Why criticize an area linux is falling short when you're preferred OS isn't even an option? It just doesn't make sense in this context.

That’s an awful lot of assumptions about both what I’m doing and what my preferences are based on the fact that I’m defending Apple having private APIs. To answer those assumptions:

1) my preferred OS for projects is actually Linux, because as I said I don’t hate open standards. Where I can get a better experience, or where I feel the trade offs are worth it, I prefer to start with an open resource

2) both macOS and windows would have been viable options for the project

3) in the project space, windows is actually the preferred os (or the one with the most general support anyway), but it’s not my preference (again see 1)

4) I’m criticizing an area where Linux is falling short because I’m using it as an example of open systems and standards not being some panacea or guarantee of a better experience. If open automatically meant better, one should be able to have a superior experience on Linux for this project. And yet…

> Are you the same type of person who would argue never had a monopoly because Apple and Netscape were available?

I assume you’re talking about Microsoft here, and no I’m would not argue they didn’t have a monopoly. But surely you can see the difference between a software vendor having 95% of the market for operating systems across multiple competing hardware vendors ( and that same software vendor forcing hardware vendors to buy licenses even for hardware that doesn’t include the OS) and a single vendor of both a piece of phone hardware that only runs one os and that same os which only runs on that hardware (both from the same vendor) who has less than half of the market for phones in general and does nothing to discourage retailers and sellers of their phones from selling competing products.

> Apple is already in trouble for requiring prompts for 3rd party vendors

Well yeah, they're specifically in trouble for requiring prompts *only for 3rd party vendors*. The problem is that Apple treats their own platform differently. There would be _no issue_ with a prompt if the apple watch required it too. Case in point: Apple Maps has the same localisation prompt as Google Maps, and as such, there is no regulatory problems here.

Entitlements are a lot more complicated, and here the DMA isn't very clear about whether or not it's acceptable or not - it's really up to the regulator.

> How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone?

It's not and I never said it was. I was replying to your "do unto others" quote which I find is not applicable in this case: I think in regulatory cases you shouldn't assume you know what's best for others (let them vote instead). So, if you say "we're a group of experts, we know you don't need product X, so we're pushing for additional taxation of it" it's a threat. Sorry if I was not clear enough the first time.

But on another note, if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point? If people have a choice to buy something else, who am I hurting here and how?

> "I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony.

I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher either publish on every platform or on none in order not to discriminate users is needed or positive.

> Word of the day: duopoly.

First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly. Tell me, when there are 3 dominating companies, will there be a "triopoly"?

> This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc.

This makes sense in a lot of cases, but less so when people have choices.

Even if you think that the EU is an over-regulating bureaucratic monster (which I do), Apple is proving exactly why we need regulations in the first place.

They wouldn't be in this mess if their behavior wasn't so unfair and anti-competition. The worst is that Apple could very well compete on their own merits (I think their solutions have a lot of benefits, the problem is their ability to dictate pricing because of said behavior).

It is completely insane that Apple has the right to dictate how I want to use my device and restrict its capabilities/access under the pretense that they know better than me what's good for me. People who want to do everything the Apple way are free to do so but people who would like freedom to use their devices as they see fit (and potentially give access to Apple designated bad actors) should be free to do so.

The same thing happened to car companies and now everybody agrees it was for the better, making big tech comply with the same rules is past due.

The hilarious part is that Apple complained about the same things when Microsoft was the dominant player, displaying their hypocrisy in play sight.