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

761–770 of 930 posts

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

#761

Post by kmeisthax »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #210
kmeisthax wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far everyone complaining about app lockouts have been laser-focused on phones, because they're general-purpose and thus easier to legally justify sideloading on. Nobody wants to talk about game consoles - to open them up would almost certainly require revisiting DMCA 1201[0] and removing the prohibition on circumvention tools. The US Copyright Office wouldn't entertain extending the current "mobile devices"[1] jai…

> to open them up would almost certainly require revisiting DMCA 1201[0] and removing the prohibition on circumvention tools. That law only forbids bypassing protection measures exclusively related to protecting access to a specific copyrighted work. Getting root on consoles isn't that.

That's section A of DMCA 1201 that you're thinking of. There's also section B that forbids circumvention tools and that's way broader than the first part. The law distinguishes between breaking DRM, which can be OK in certain circumstances, and telling people how to break DRM, which is always illegal if you can allege some path from your tool to piracy.

And, believe me, it is actually pretty difficult to give someone a homebrew installation vector that does not also give you the ability to just pirate games at all. While there have been some homebrew scenes that deliberately added barriers to piracy[0], there's also been cases where piracy was the only hack you could even pull off[1]. Remember: if you have the ability to install your own code, then you can also install someone else's. Whether or not a jailbreak or homebrew installer would be considered a DMCA 1201 circumvention tool is something a judge would have to decide, but it's close enough to the line that I wouldn't personally touch exploit development.

[0] Off the top of my head: before A9LH/B9S, 3DS homebrew launchers could only run a custom executable format... though this was moreso for compatibility with the GPU DMA exploit they were using first and antipiracy was just a bonus.

The Wii scene was also extremely opposed to piracy thanks to Team Twiizers pushing hard against it.

[1] Also off the top of my head: the whole mess with 360 drivechip hacks that sucked all the talent away from actual homebrew enablement.

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

#762

Post by theshrike79 »

FredPret wrote: post #586
sircastor wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concern is not a voided warranty. The concern is tech-illiterate users being able to install some random app they found on the web. They find a special version of Facebook and install it, and now their phone is compromised.

We techies vastly overestimate the technical nous of people who don’t care about it. For example, my dad, who has had decades of internet usage, tried to buy a USB drive that promised to speed up his computer for only $99. These folks need an app store.

People also buy "mileage improvers" for their cars that are just a set of blinking lights that attach to to the OBD bus.

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

#763

Post by kmeisthax »

threeseed wrote: post #511
kmeisthax wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "insta…

Epic is such a slimy company. They have no interest in users or making the ecosystem better. They just want to be the gatekeeper so they can endlessly profit from their ridiculous Fornite metaverse concept.

I absolutely agree, and I don't even fault Apple for trying to stop their shenanigans. I just want Apple to lose for entirely unrelated reasons from Epic's own nonsense.

Related note: Facebook's platform fees in their little VR chat thing[0] are actually way worse than Apple's.

As far as I can tell or care, most tech companies that have anything resembling a platform inevitably try to suck the life out of it and kill it. Apple is unique in that they've carefully calculated and balanced how much money they can extract out of developers, but they're still playing the same digital warlord game that I would much rather do without.

[0] Horizon Worlds, I think? IDK it sounds like the sequel to Horizon Zero Dawn

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

#764

Post by lenkite »

Bud wrote: post #520
smoldesu wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple only made that change after incredible pushback from their community, and it still doesn't address the real problem: Apple could be charging 2% and they would still have a monopoly on app distribution that deserves to be broken up. Steam isn't comparable, since it charges that 30% fee and competes against other distributors. Despite that, developers continue to choose Steam over alternative platforms like Itch.…

Someone needs a tutorial on what "monopoly" means. Controlling app distribution solely within your own platform is not a monopoly. You might wish it were. You might not like it; you might want it changed. But that doesn't magically mean you can call it a monopoly. It's not a monopoly.

If you open a market in the city, prevent any others from opening a market in the city, force all sellers to pay 10-30% to you, force all product makers to comply to your dictates about what can be sold or get kicked out then it's an effective and abusive monopoly.

Thankfully the EU in their wisdom has decided that Apple has abused their dominant position and we don't need to agree with your definition.

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

#765

Post by nuker »

fleddr wrote: 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…

> And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing bad will happen.

Just a concerned user. Wrong. All websites will work in Chrome only, with whatever features Chrome has added. One Browser for all. All apps that feed on user data will move from under App Store to sideload/alt stores, to escape Apple privacy restrictions. To start with.

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

#766

Post by EMIRELADERO »

kmeisthax wrote: post #761
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to open them up would almost certainly require revisiting DMCA 1201[0] and removing the prohibition on circumvention tools. That law only forbids bypassing protection measures exclusively related to protecting access to a specific copyrighted work. Getting root on consoles isn't that.

That's section A of DMCA 1201 that you're thinking of. There's also section B that forbids circumvention tools and that's way broader than the first part. The law distinguishes between breaking DRM, which can be OK in certain circumstances, and telling people how to break DRM, which is always illegal if you can allege some path from your tool to piracy. And, believe me, it is actually pretty difficult to give someone…

My reasoning goes something like this:

Both sections of the DMCA don't protect against tools (and trafficking of tools) that can make piracy easier in an indirect way or somehow pave the way for ease of access to pirate conduct. What they only forbid is circumventing copyright protection systems that protect a specific work. Same goes for the anti-trafficking provisions.

The statue reads "without the authority of the copyright owner" in the end. That sentence implies that the bypassed protections must protect a specific copyrighted work, not copyright in general. Otherwise there would be no "copyright owner" to authorise the bypassing as the law is currently written.

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

#767

Post by Hamuko »

ksec wrote: post #237
izacus wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All new consoles are sold with profit or breaking even so I don't know where this assertion even comes from. Not to mention that they happily double dip by taxing for games, charging online service subscriptions and getting extra revenue via online stores.

> Double Dip . So now earning profits on hardware and charging for software or services are double dipping? I really hate the Apple used this term and it is now spreading everywhere.

I wonder how many dips we can count Apple on.

First they make money from the hardware.

Then they charge money for iCloud storage beyond 5 GB so you can actually get your hardware backed up (I presume this counts as a dip if console "charging online service subscriptions" counts).

Then they charge developers a hundred bucks per year to get application on the App Store.

Then they take 15/30% off of all digital sales.

And finally they charge the developers for keyword search ads on the App Store (so that when I search for "Minecraft", my first hit is an ad for "The Ants: Underground Kingdom").

Am I forgetting something?

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

#768

Post by arlort »

hrdwdmrbl wrote: post #432

Does anyone know if Shopify will be considered a gatekeeper? What are the qualifications for being deemed a "gatekeeper"?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_...

If you search for "three main cumulative criteria" you find the three criteria (tldr: turnover in EEA >7.5B€ or capitalisation >75B€; 45M end users (monthly active) in EU and 10k business users (yearly active); satisfy those criteria for three consecutive years)

This only applies to companies operating in the following areas:

    online intermediation services;
    online search engines;
    online social networking services;
    video-sharing platform services;
    number-independent interpersonal communication services;
    operating systems;
    cloud computing services;
    advertising services;
    web browsers;
    virtual assistants.

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

#769

Post by rekoil »

layer8 wrote: post #307
rekoil wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read the DMA/DSA, so if this is actually written out in them then I'll happily be corrected here. The way I see it, the EU probably doesn't really care if Apple keep ALL the restrictions they currently have on their App Store in actuality, as long as options exist on the platform. So the solution to allowing access to NFC hardware will probably just be Apple opening up sideloading. I personally hope that Ap…

Maybe Apple will lift some of the App Store restrictions for Europe in order to reduce the need for sideloading. They certainly don’t want their customers to become used to sideloading all the time and stop primarily using the App Store.

Yeah this seems likely to me as well, I was more or less just making a point that there are more than one ways to be compliant with certain parts of the DMA.
Post reply on HN