581–590 of 653 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is Apple's propaganda to try and save face. What happened is the EU stepped in and explained to them what the consequences of breaking the DMA would be. Apple backed down, like they did a week ago with PWAs.
Correct me if I’m wrong but PWAs were only ever “broken” in beta versions of iOS, never in a release.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When reason fails to explain people's actions, it gives you a measure of the strength of their ideology on something. In this case, you can see how deeply they believe in the concept of complete authoritarian control of their ecosystem. Enough that logic and practical outcomes barely matter in comparison.
That ideology hasn't stopped them from becoming the most valuable company in the world, so I wouldn't disregard it from the point of view of practical outcomes.
An ideology that helps you build and grow a new platform may not be equally suitable for running a dominant platform on which significant parts of the world economy depend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple should offer 2 versions of the phone. One version for the consumers who appreciate the extra level of security and another for the rest.
Apple should follow eu laws if it wants to do business withe eu. I know, sounds crazy right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is Apple's propaganda to try and save face. What happened is the EU stepped in and explained to them what the consequences of breaking the DMA would be. Apple backed down, like they did a week ago with PWAs.
Correct me if I’m wrong but PWAs were only ever “broken” in beta versions of iOS, never in a release.
They then backed down after Open Web Advocacy ran surveys, an open letter and the EU started a investigation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had entirely removed support for PWAs. Putting them back was backing down. They will have to open them to other engines eventually.
It’s not clear that’s the case. Speculation on the HN thread when it happened was that there had been back channel talk with the EU to clarify that this wouldn’t be the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When reason fails to explain people's actions, it gives you a measure of the strength of their ideology on something. In this case, you can see how deeply they believe in the concept of complete authoritarian control of their ecosystem. Enough that logic and practical outcomes barely matter in comparison.
Well... all corporations [0] are modelled after authoritarian states. The only model that seems to work is a single person with dictatorial power and a tree shaped hierarchy. Pretty much everyone does that, and the exceptions prove the rule. It isn't weird that they have authoritarian views of how their assets should be managed. Hold in mind that everything involves trade offs. Authoritarianism is really good at mono…
If you talk to the CEOs of large companies or miltary leaders, you find that they are unable to exert effective control of their organisations. The organisation will do whatever it wants to do. The leader can make their command but at every level through the organisation that command will be slightly subverted. The more layers, the less of that command will get through.
Since it's in the news, take for example Putin and Russia, Putin thought he had tank battalions that his lower downs had sold for parts decades ago. Based on the information in front of him, he should have taken Ukraine in several days regardless of resistance by the locals.
And whilst you might think it's impressive that he cut the budget in US congress to Ukraine, back-handed deals to send old Soviet equipment from 3rd party countries to Ukraine were made and now they are exhausted London is loaning Ukraine, Russia's money.
Putin's authoritarian Russia might be able to cut off the head of democracy but he's up against a five headed hydra. Democracy is a lot more scary than Authoritarism from a military perspective.
"You do not want your food supply being run according to democratic principles, you want it to work."
This is something that people don't really get, what's important is that the people delivering the food get the sack if they failed to do it. As long as that happens it's okay.
That's the reason why socialist and overly authoritarian countries have supply problems, they don't have an effective mechanism to replace failing organisations. Venezuela isn't able to extract Oil because the Oil dereks are run by the local dictator's family members.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is incredibly naive to suggest that someone with that power "sending a letter asking questions" would be remotely similar to you or I doing the same. The EU has an long tradition of "conversations" and "questions" with an unstated "give the right answer and you can avoid an unpleasant official action". You're right there is no official casework. That is also entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Apple…
> "give the right answer and you can avoid an unpleasant official action" You are thinking of the mob. Thankfully here in the US official actions are generally done in view of the public.
Amazing how fast this decision was reversed. It's truly awesome to see regulators standing up to walled gardens. This will greatly benefit both developers and consumers.
I think this was all a distraction to give regulators some way to pretend they are doing something while retaining their ridiculous pricing structure and avoiding discussion on that.
I think their strategy is to move the point of reference for future negotiations to an extreme end of the spectrum of what could still be considered to comply with the letter of the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of those things where there is only upside for everyone involved. Apple (and Google) need to be saved from themselves sometimes. Meanwhile the repeated reversals are making Apple look guilty and nefarious.
Yeah we get to choose between google and apple. Lucky us...