Live data from Hacker News

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

macrumors.com

611–620 of 930 posts

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

#611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with the second paragraph at all. Apple sets a restrictive and privacy-centric set of rules for advertisers, which it then follows. The fact that this is a problem for other advertising companies is an indictment of those companies and their bleak surveillance-enabling business model. Contrast this with the "use WebKit or go home" rule, which, like it or not, is favoring Apple's product over others. It'…

Exactly. This is the popup for app store personalized ads[0], which is a full-screen popup that forces you to choose one or the other before you can access the app. It's super transparent and easy to decline the personalization. 0: https://videoweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Apple-permi...

What's the one for third-party apps? How different is the wording?

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

#613
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I'm sure Apple can drag this out for years and year in the courts lobbing health and safty arguments etc.

First time they're out of compliance, the fine is 10% of their global annual revenue. Then 5% of their daily average revenue until they comply. Second time they're out of compliance, the fine doubles. If they still breach compliance, they get investigated for systematic non-compliance. The Commission can then impose structural and behavioral changes. Or Apple can stop providing service in the EU. But they're not goin…

Well. After the first 2 instances of being out of compliance, that's exactly where they'd be anyway.

I agree it seems unlikely but the math checks out.

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

#614
post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's similar to what Apple is already proposing; they want 25% from any payment that goes thought a third-party payment processor.

No, it's quite different. With the consoles, publishers are paying for the right to use the console maker's commercial IP (i.e., the Playstation or Xbox logo on their marketing materials) and technical IP (access to software APIs for using the hardware functionality). They do not pay royalties to the console makers for each sale. (Source: I work for a video game company and deal with these contracts...) Quite importa…

> Quite importantly, publishers don't have to pay the console makers if they want to (a) reverse engineer the console firmware so they can make use of the hardware (b) don't use the console maker's IP in their marketing materials (see Sega v. Accord, still good law), and (c) sell through retailers other than the console storefront.

Don't modern consoles all have signature verification? You would still need the company's blessing to even allow your game to be executed on any end user's system no matter how that executable was produced, right?

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

#615
post #606
post #593

Quite a few are commenting from their own perspective, as a consumer/user of an Apple device, and whether you're happy with it or not. That's not really the point. The emphasis of this legislation first and foremost is on developers. Whom need/deserve a level playing field, instead of having the odds stacked up against them. A return to more open computing should be celebrated, even if it remains to be seen what will…

What do you think the ratio of developers to users is? Coexisting with closed computing is buying an Android, not forcing open the gates with a battering ram. It’s incredibly naive to think opening the ecosystem won’t lead to abuse and a worse experience for everyone that doesn’t have a niche appreciation for browser engines.

It's like a two-party system, when both parties are messed up, each in their own unique manner. One might be subjectively much better than another (subjectively = for a specific individual and their beliefs), but they still suck and you wish there would be someone else who'd not just have the good bits but also not have that stupid stance on the bad ones - again, for subjective "good" and "bad" of a particular individual.

This is how it is with Android and iOS. They both suck, just differently. And there are people who are much more happy with iOS overall - it sucks less for them - they're not going to be happy with Android, even though openness is something they see as a good thing. So your solution is simply not working for them.

I don't know how big this group is. If they're large enough to influence and impose a political will to pass this legislation - I'd guess, quite a lot of people. So I don't think it would be "worse experience for everyone". Especially because everyone who're happy right now won't suddenly get a bunch of scummy apps sideloaded and Apple Pay and browser replaced.

Also, I don't think they're all developers. One sure doesn't have to be a developer to wish for something their phone cannot do for purely non-technical reasons.

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

#616
post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing bad will happen. You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist. This is the important point. Just like with decentralized VS centralized debate, starting out with one of them, decides if you can even have the other one. If you have a decentralized foundation (like HTTP), you can always add centralized entities…

This is naive and assumes that there aren’t bigger, badder actors to deal with - Facebook, Google, and others can and will abuse their position. This will make the iPhone worse for everyone, especially if chrome manages a dominant position and developers can stop supporting safari. It will probably make my Mac worse, too. I still haven’t heard a single good reason why people who want sideloading can’t just use Androi…

> This is naive and assumes that there aren’t bigger, badder actors to deal with - Facebook, Google, and others can and will abuse their position. This will make the iPhone worse for everyone, especially if chrome manages a dominant position and developers can stop supporting safari. It will probably make my Mac worse, too.

That's why we have regulation, which is quickly ("quick" in terms of legislation at least) coming now.

If the only reason people use Safari today instead of another browser, is because they are forced to use Safari, even if there is a better one, isn't that kind of messed up in the first place?

How would the openness make your Mac worse?! You think your Mac is worse today because you can install any applications you want? You think your Mac would become better if Apple disabled application installation outside of the App Store?

> I still haven’t heard a single good reason why people who want sideloading can’t just use Android. iPhone isn’t even close to dominant in Europe.

I have a iPhone, and I'd like to be able to use whatever application I want on it. I'd also like to be able to develop applications on it, but my desktop is Windows and Arch Linux, so today I can't. I love the Apple hardware, but I hate the UI and that I'm not able to even open it up like a normal USB device to transfer files. The UX of Apple stuff is really horrible (even if you buy into the whole ecosystem), but the hardware is very nice.

So I'd like to be able to finally own the device I buy from Apple.

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

#617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never underestimate the creative genius of Apple. They will come up with new solutions to keep their walled garden. "Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and sideload directly from the internet" I bet this is going to be a horrible user experience. "Are you really sure?", "Apple takes no responsibility not warranty" whatsoever. What sound usually easy on paper...

> "Are you really sure?", "Apple takes no responsibility not warranty" Sounds good to me. As a techie who maintains several phones for several family members at a variety of tech-literate levels, I certainly hope this experience sucks and is difficult to figure out.

It won't matter much, the external app stores can make it worth their while. They'll give away valuable apps (e.g. Epic Store) and charge 20% less.

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

#618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we stop pretending that Apple has the users best interest in mind? They just want to be the gatekeeper for lucrative applications/functions so they can charge for it. That they somehow convinced apple users that it's somehow in their interest just shows how good their marketing is.

Apple is a company, and it’s interested in making profits. Right now, its methods of making profits are slightly more aligned with what privacy conscious users desire than some other companies’, and that’s good. Apple absolutely needs to be checked in other ways—-the fact that it’s selling advertising while setting policies that hurt other advertisers stinks to high heaven. Let antitrust rake them over the coals for…

No post body was provided.

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

#619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are easy to manipulate at scale. The idea that people are rational agents who can make educated decisions as consumers is deeply flawed. Yes, people _can_ make educated decisions, but more often than not, they don't have the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision. Letting those consumers get scammed because they aren't technical enough isn't a good solution to complicated problems.

Quoted post unavailable.

There are middle points in there, before your extreme.

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

#620
post #593

Quite a few are commenting from their own perspective, as a consumer/user of an Apple device, and whether you're happy with it or not. That's not really the point. The emphasis of this legislation first and foremost is on developers. Whom need/deserve a level playing field, instead of having the odds stacked up against them. A return to more open computing should be celebrated, even if it remains to be seen what will…

>You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist.

This isn't even slightly realistic.

It's a mistake to believe that these changes won't have run on consequences for developers. This isn't an outcome where you can have your cake and eat it too. It's not like everything will stay the same, except now developers have a bunch of extra freedoms. That exhibits no ability to think even one-step ahead of what these changes will bring about.

We already know two dominating outcomes of these changes: 1. the path of least resistance for companies/developers (driven by cost), 2. Evasion of unpopular app store rules that solely exist to protect consumers from nefarious predatory apps (driven by profit).

For example (1) your idea of a user being able to have control over their device is naive. Users won't have a reasonable choice to not side-load/use a 3rd party app store when the app is required by their employer, or insurance company, or bank, or medical/insurance provider, or state services. These will come about naturally because it's the easy way of getting around app store procedures, quality control, limitations. I.E. It'll cost less to produce these apps, so they will come out naturally from economic factors even before simplicity/laziness/frustration with app store operators are considered.

For example (2), We already see how technology is being abused to closely monitor employees, customers and students to the point of unreasonableness. These will now extend into ones phone, when previously such apps weren't possible due to being forbidden by the various app stores. Imagine insurance companies requiring the user to have an app installed so they can negate your insurance on an AI-driven whim: if it detects a medical condition (such as visiting an abortion or sexual health clinic, or the detection of AF through the accelerometers), or if the user drives too fast, or visits dangerous areas/countries, or conducts any kind of risky activity that AI can accumulate from text messages, location history and on device sensors. The sky is the limit, and the idea that you'd just change insurance company is naive: they'll all do it, and they'll price their products so you don't actually have a choice.

However we don't even need to peer into the future to see what happens if the reins are taken off, we saw how app testing certificates were abused to trick users into installing privacy evading/tracking apps. It's so naive to pretend that this isn't going to happen now, especially if all it takes is a click on a website.

Side note: We have these new changes, but we don't have the corresponding consumer protections, nor any realistic way of enforcing them even if we did. There is no equivalent authority to regulate apps. It's like the bad old days where anyone can make and sell a medication, we'll need the app-store equivalent to the European Medicines Agency.

And to think, people were worried about AirTags. Keep your phone close and trust no ones app suggestions, as now the phone can be effortlessly turned into a keylogger, an audio + visual listening bug, a live location tracker and any app can trivially scrape the phones contents: photos, contacts, credit cards the list of possibilities are endless, because by design smart phones were made to be carried around, contain more sensors and personal information and rely on protection bits provided by the various app store so apps wouldn't have trivial click-through access to protected silos of information. (Why do we know this will be a problem? Because it was already a problem.)

So now we get to see this all unfold, as if it wasn't completely predictable.

Post reply on HN