31–40 of 373 posts
[flagged]
Can you explain how your risk profile will change if you don’t use the feature?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would IpadOS not be held to the same DSA rules as IOS? Apple has applied the same model of gatekeeping (walled garden) to both the iPhone and the iPad. DSA attaches requirements to the gatekeepers if they are big enough. Software similarity and market positioning don't really come into consideration once the role of gatekeeper has been established.
Doesn't this mean that game consoles should be gatekeepers too like from sony/nintendo/microsoft?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would IpadOS not be held to the same DSA rules as IOS? Apple has applied the same model of gatekeeping (walled garden) to both the iPhone and the iPad. DSA attaches requirements to the gatekeepers if they are big enough. Software similarity and market positioning don't really come into consideration once the role of gatekeeper has been established.
Doesn't this mean that game consoles should be gatekeepers too like from sony/nintendo/microsoft?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would IpadOS not be held to the same DSA rules as IOS? Apple has applied the same model of gatekeeping (walled garden) to both the iPhone and the iPad. DSA attaches requirements to the gatekeepers if they are big enough. Software similarity and market positioning don't really come into consideration once the role of gatekeeper has been established.
[flagged]
Edit: looks like the EU didn't even bother challenging the arbitrary distinction between both OS, since the iPad crosses the threshold for business users by itself, it's submitted to DMA on its own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a difference between “here’s how to avoid the problem” and “the problem is caused by you”.
They sent out bumpers because it was a design flaw.
They told people how to avoid the problem. “Here’s a workaround” doesn’t assign blame to the user. “You are holding it wrong” does. The sentiment is different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EC decides what the rules for defining a gatekeeper are, they invented the designation. You can call that arbitrary if you want, but they set their rules and are sticking to them. Deciding that iPads and iPhones are the same platform seems pretty common-sense to me.
a) EC isn't following the pre-defined rules for what is a gatekeeper. They just made up new ones. Hence my point. b) EC never said that iPads and iPhones are the same platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain how your risk profile will change if you don’t use the feature?
It’s bad news for regular folks who will be clicking those install links with no protection from the App Store. The majority of people have been kept safe up until now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m guessing the EU is just holding it wrong.
[flagged]
Which is arguably worse, since all of Apples official statements on that case contained that bit of intentional gaslighting at the beginning. The iPhone 4 did not just have "sensitive areas", it completely exposed the antenna, causing it to short circuit from normal use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would IpadOS not be held to the same DSA rules as IOS? Apple has applied the same model of gatekeeping (walled garden) to both the iPhone and the iPad. DSA attaches requirements to the gatekeepers if they are big enough. Software similarity and market positioning don't really come into consideration once the role of gatekeeper has been established.
Doesn't this mean that game consoles should be gatekeepers too like from sony/nintendo/microsoft?