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

EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 930 posts

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#451

Post by dwaite »

GlitchMr wrote: post #299
reaperducer wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple locks out so many useful kinds of software For someone who doesn't have a personal Android phone, what useful software is out there that I can get on an iPhone? Related: What mass-market software is out there that isn't available on the iPhone? I don't mean *nix tools and niche game emulators. Things that would make many people actually care about alt stores?

- Web browsers with ad-blocking and plug-ins (Apple currently requires all web browsers to use system Webkit with very limited APIs). - Game cloud streaming services (xCloud, Stadia, GeForce Now). - Unofficial clients for websites such as YouTube that add features that official client doesn't have. - Tools to disable advertisements in applications. - Programs licensed under GPL as Apple App Store bans those.

> Unofficial clients for websites such as YouTube that add features that official client doesn't have.

I'm sure Google can send a cease-and-desist to all sorts of other stores instead of just Apple.

> Tools to disable advertisements in applications.

This would be breaking the sandbox model of the system, I don't think the regulation requires dismantling system security

> Programs licensed under GPL as Apple App Store bans those.

No such rule. VLC on App Store is the first example that comes to mind. There are also GPLv2 components (such as WebKit) shipping in iOS itself.

The FSF has said there are (IMHO bureaucratic) issues with GPL on an App Store, specifically that e.g. Apple takes on certain responsibilities, rather than the developer.

For that reason, it's possible a contributor may shoot down publication, which IIRC caused VLC to have to rewrite certain components before launch.

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#452

Post by ThatPlayer »

the_duke wrote: post #271
chacham15 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US already has one which is supposed to be voted upon soon: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...

This is just for payment providers though, not alternative app stores.

Are you just reading the summary? It does force them to allow 3rd party apps and app stores too:

>A covered company that controls the operating system or operating system configuration on which its app store operates shall allow and provide readily accessible means for users of that operating system to choose third-party apps or app stores as defaults for categories appropriate to the app or app store

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#453

Post by ATsch »

layer8 wrote: post #370
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will play as usual, with huge fines.

Not sure Apple is willing to give up 20% of their total revenue (which is the maximum penalty after repeat offense).

There's still plenty of money to be made until the law comes into effect, the regulatory bodies become active, the cases are prepared, rulings are made, all of the layers of appeals have gone through, the regulators have decided whether the new measures are in compliance, it becomes a repeat offense, etc.

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#454

Post by shaky-carrousel »

layer8 wrote: post #370
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will play as usual, with huge fines.

Not sure Apple is willing to give up 20% of their total revenue (which is the maximum penalty after repeat offense).

Nobody is, but they all do. If they don't comply then they will have their assets confiscated.

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#455

Post by Apocryphon »

caramelcustard wrote: post #434
hamandcheese wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because there is someone with more market share than you does not mean that your actions can't squeeze smaller players than you (or, more commonly for apple, squeeze players in adjacent markets. See: Spotify vs Apple Music).

True that. "See: Spotify vs Apple Music". Considering that Google has their own streaming services and takes same 30% cut, i truly wonder why Spotify didn't address their "anticompetitive practices".

Looks like Google has been offering concessions:

https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/spotify-google-billing...

And previously Spotify and Netflix had a loophole on the Play Store:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#456

Post by yulaow »

cmdli wrote: post #385
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I go to a clinic, they ask me to side load an app while I’m sick, and that app has no real privacy protections… That behavior should also be regulated, because the app is collecting medical information. I'd much rather the government regulate this than some self-interested tech company which promotes privacy if and when it's financially expedient for them.

Will that be regulated, though? It looks to me like the EU is just taking steps to give companies freedom (by allowing sideloading) but no steps to regulate that freedom (by enshrining app privacy into law).

PII is already heavily regulated in eu and harmonized since years, most eu nations have even more stringent laws on medical and sexual pii data

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#457

Post by kmeisthax »

idle_zealot wrote: post #436
devStorms wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm worried that apps that does not honor user's privacy would just leave App Store and have users sideload their app. Sometimes users have very little choice about whether or not to use certain phenomenal IM/social apps since everyone is using them and it would be a problem if they can now force user to sideload their unrestricted/unaudited version.

Some might try this move, but my guess is that sideloading will involve enough friction that user retention will drop and developers will be heavily disincentivized from relying on it for distribution. In particular I expect that every update will require user action to re-install the new version of every sideloaded app, which is the reason most developers don't go that route on Android today.

Funnily enough that's exactly the reason why Epic sued Google - having to confirm every update and install through a scary dialog box was too anti-competitive for them.

Google responded by... actually, adding entirely new APIs in Android for sideloaded app stores to be able to update already-approved applications without extra permissions or approval. In fact, they even distinguish between "sideloaded app" and "installed app from a sideloaded app store" for security-sensitive things like custom accessibility handlers.

This still doesn't moot all of Epic's case, though. They want you to be able to download Epic Games Store from Google Play - i.e. no scary warnings or anything, just Google giving Epic a blanket sign-off on everything they sign off on. I'm not sure how I feel about this - it reminds me of the total and utter mess that was and is selling SSL certs to competing certificate authorities.

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#458

Post by ko27 »

n8cpdx wrote: post #417
vivegi wrote: post #365

I love this just for these three rules: > Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and sideload directly from the internet. > Allow developers to offer third-party payment systems in apps and promote offers outside the gatekeeper's platforms. > Ensure that all apps are uninstallable and give users the ability to unsubscribe from core platform services under similar conditions to subscription. and restr…

People don’t choose iPhone because they want those things, they choose iPhone because they want to be protected from them. Look at the Lumenate app that was just on hacker news yesterday: - Android users are complaining about having to create an account to use it - iOS users just pushed a button and didn’t even have to share their email or make a password - iOS users who subscribe have one place to manage their subsc…

> People don’t choose iPhone because they want those things

Your argument is ridiculous. People didn't choose iPhone because they wanted to deprive themself of an option to switch browsers engines or payment vendors either.

People actually chose iPhones for a thousand other reasons.

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#459

Post by 6510 »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #353
Retric wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple makes peanuts from the App Store relative to phone sales. After they upped the cut for developers to between 70% and 85% and CC companies still get their cut, add customer service and app reviews and it simply isn’t that profitable. What they benefit from is selling 1,000$ phones at a 30+% profit margin, because for the average consumer they simply work better. Which actually aligns incentives between customers…

A quick Google suggests Apple made 64 billion from the App Store in 2021 of the 378 billion in total revenue. Some fairly large peanuts! And that revenue is basically pure profit as it doesn’t require the creation of any actual physical hardware either.

If not stopped it might eventually get tempting or even logical to phase out making things and focus on rent seeking alone.

Re: EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

#460

Post by kmeisthax »

nradov wrote: post #169
makeitdouble wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They backed out from these tricks in the Netherland standoff. As you guessed, it started with horrible wording, and has now became something way saner (albeit they kept their fees requirements)

Denying warranty claims for that reason would already be illegal under existing laws in most developed countries.

Yes, but there's few entities out there actually enforcing these kinds of laws. For example, if you ever use the manufacturer-sanctioned bootloader unlock on a Samsung phone, that blows a fuse in the phone that says "my warranty is void". Samsung refuses to service phones that have ever had their bootloaders unlocked, regardless of what was actually done to them. As far as I'm aware nobody has bothered to sue Samsung over this feature.
Post reply on HN