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

Apple vs the Law

formularsumo.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 450 posts

Re: Apple vs the Law

#291

Post by scarface_74 »

pjmlp wrote: post #120
FinnLobsien wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU has basically said that it's better to have a handful medium-sized companies in competition for customers than one or two mega-corps owning and dictating the market. And to resolve that they employ two things, one is the DMA/DSA and similar laws which mostly takes effect when your company reaches a certain large market penetration, the other is standardisations such as the Radio Equipment Directive (think "U…

SAP, Spotify, Sitecore, Roche, Airbus, CERN (the ecosystem powers its research), CodePlay, SN Systems, BAYER, Roche,....

Spotify has never been consistently profitable and had Net income last year of a little over a billion. They are a nothingburger

Re: Apple vs the Law

#292

Post by shuckles »

alt227 wrote: post #132
shuckles wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fantasy. No customer wants PWAs. They exist to make developers' lives easier, not consumers' lives.

PWAs are the primary way for small busineses to have internal private apps for running staff services on local devices. Apples App Store has way too many hoops to jump through and has far too high a wait time to publish for businesses to move fast and update internal apps with bugfixes and new services etc. Android accomplishes this by allowing devices to connect to private app stores and repos, which enable companie…

Custom apps published for internal use by companies with fewer than 100 employees who aren't eligible for enterprise app distribution sounds like a niche of a niche use case, so it's pretty consistent with my view that they're more developer catnip and not a serious technology.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#293

Post by shuckles »

nicoburns wrote: post #92
bzzzt wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then allowing Apple the efficiency of not implementing yet another way to build a GUI also is a customer win.

Apple already implement everything needed. They just decided that they can clear client-side storage for PWAs whenever they like (deleting user data), making them useless for anything that needs to store data and isn't synced to the cloud.

The goalposts move every time Apple resolves some bug that PWA advocates promise is the one issue holding them back from taking over the world with crappy web apps.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#294

Post by shuckles »

rickdeckard wrote: post #109
shuckles wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fantasy. No customer wants PWAs. They exist to make developers' lives easier, not consumers' lives.

The consumer doesn't care which method is used to serve an application. PWAs could easily be presented to the end user like a native App. The problem is rather that PWAs would prove a viable path for universal cross-platform applications, taking away the gatekeeper role the OS-vendors have. Paradoxically PWA-support is also part of the "we're no gatekeeper" narrative, so it's in the OS-vendor interest to keep it main…

> The consumer doesn't care which method is used to serve an application. PWAs could easily be presented to the end user like a native App.

No it can't. The web will never support what's necessary for parity with native apps. Imagine trying to implement Liquid Glass in CSS.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#295

Post by scarface_74 »

hnlmorg wrote: post #212
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is Airbus a small company and not part of the large state supported corp monopoly gang? Same with SAP, Roche and Bayer. These are all masive corporations that swallowed entire sectors. Same with Spotify having used its monopoly status to screw over smaller artists. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read such comments. Let me ask you guys something else, if EU hates large monopolist companies so muc…

How is Tesla an example of your point? It’s the biggest EV manufacturer owned by one of the world’s richest men. Perhaps the problem here isn’t that smaller brands don’t exist, it’s that if we give examples of smaller brands then you’ll argue “Never heard of them. Thus proof that the EU is holding them back” And if we mention household names then you’d argue “Those aren’t small companies” You’ve basically crafted an…

Tesla is not one of the largest EV manufacturers and sales are rapidly declining.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#296

Post by tempodox »

fsflover wrote: post #274
tempodox wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux on the phone is not Linux on the desktop.

Here's a working Bluetooth on a Linux laptop: https://forums.puri.sm/t/bluetooth-stopped-working-on-l14-wi...

Proving my point. “Linux on the desktop” implied that you don't need to be a DIY hacker to get it working. Probably the reason why the poster you originally replied to called it “still not ready”.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#297

Post by interpol_p »

msgodel wrote: post #289
interpol_p wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an oversimplification of what I stated. Apple has a significant engineering challenge to turn their current operating system into something that allows side-loading similar to what Google offers. It's not a matter of "commenting out an if statement" The current developer SDKs Apple offers are strongly tied to their services, which cost them money to run. So first thing is, they have to decouple that so develo…

If Apple gave the users root and let them run arbitrary software and just didn't sign certificates for their infrastructure (for push for example) this wouldn't be a problem. Supposedly they've already even developed a VTE for iOS. All they need to do is have a toggle under settings to disable signature checking and ship the VTE so people have an escape hatch and everyone would probably calm way down.

Sure, I'd be into that. But that would not comply with the DMA I think? As in, Apple still has a ton of work to do, engineering wise, if they are to make their platform available to all in the way specified by the DMA

For example, I don't think it would fly that they could say to the EU: users who want a third-party browser just have to enable root access and lose access to all Apple services and authentication

Re: Apple vs the Law

#298

Post by saubeidl »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #254
pjmlp wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy, on the car companies that already exist with much better build quality. We don't need cars from fascists.

>We don't need cars from fascists. Really? Because look up on the history of VW, BMW, Porsche, Fiat, etc and their founding families, some of who still own a large part of the shares of those companies today. Most of them worked with fascists no problem, some by force of the era some by opportunity but none of them opposed them. You see this is the typical European hypocrisy that I dislike. Pointing fingers that Elon…

The fact that Elon openly supports and speaks at events of a German party that has been officially labeled far right extremist by the domestic intelligence agency is a stronger signal than even the Hitlerite hand gestures.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#299

Post by agust »

jeroenhd wrote: post #266
agust wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mobile web apps that can be installed on device were invented by Apple. This was the way developers were supposed to develop apps for the iPhone when it was released, before Apple introduced the App Store.

Mobile web apps were what Apple wanted developers to use, but they weren't new, let alone invented by Apple.

I didn't say Apple invented mobile web apps. I said Apple invented the ability to install mobile web apps on device.

I'm not 100% sure no other mobile OS allowed this before to be honest, but I'm pretty iOS is the one that popularized it.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#300

Post by msgodel »

interpol_p wrote: post #297
msgodel wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple gave the users root and let them run arbitrary software and just didn't sign certificates for their infrastructure (for push for example) this wouldn't be a problem. Supposedly they've already even developed a VTE for iOS. All they need to do is have a toggle under settings to disable signature checking and ship the VTE so people have an escape hatch and everyone would probably calm way down.

Sure, I'd be into that. But that would not comply with the DMA I think? As in, Apple still has a ton of work to do, engineering wise, if they are to make their platform available to all in the way specified by the DMA For example, I don't think it would fly that they could say to the EU: users who want a third-party browser just have to enable root access and lose access to all Apple services and authentication

Ah I forgot Apple advertises managing SSO as a feature of iOS and not an external service like sane people would.

Well. I guess they'll have to choose between opening it up like every other company does or acknowledge that it's a separate pay for service then.

They do a lot of that kind of thing and my answer for all of it is the same: Open it up to everyone or acknowledge it's a pay-for cloud service that has nothing to do with the actual phone OS. If people have root they can (and will) develop their own services that won't need that which would comply with the DMA.

Post reply on HN