←back to thread

Apple must open iPadOS to sideloading within 6 months, EU says

(arstechnica.com)
380 points rezonant | 2 comments | 30 Apr 24 04:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.527s | source
Show context
kevingadd ◴[30 Apr 24 05:35 UTC] No.40207559[source]▶
I'm genuinely surprised by this. I figured the differences between tablets and phones, combined with Apple's efforts to distinguish between 'iPadOS' and 'iOS', would be enough to get them a win on this point. If the shared app store is part of the problem I wonder if that makes it a liability for any new apple ecosystem to tie into the App Store, like Vision OS for example.
replies(5): >>40207618 #>>40207698 #>>40208317 #>>40208677 #>>40208796 #
kvdveer ◴[30 Apr 24 05:49 UTC] No.40207618[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>40207638 #>>40207733 #>>40209124 #
threeseed[dead post] ◴[30 Apr 24 05:53 UTC] No.40207638[source]▶
[flagged]
codetrotter ◴[30 Apr 24 06:05 UTC] No.40207690[source]▶
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...

They had valid reasons for it.

replies(1): >>40207709 #
threeseed ◴[30 Apr 24 06:08 UTC] No.40207709[source]▶
It doesn't change the fact that it's arbitrary at this point.

There are no rules that are governing what is or isn't a gatekeeper. It's just whatever EC decides that day.

replies(4): >>40207751 #>>40207765 #>>40209037 #>>40209085 #
idle_zealot ◴[30 Apr 24 06:18 UTC] No.40207765{5}[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>40207823 #>>40209379 #
threeseed ◴[30 Apr 24 06:25 UTC] No.40207823[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>40207888 #
littlestymaar ◴[30 Apr 24 06:36 UTC] No.40207888[source]▶
No they don't and if they did Apple could bring the case in front of CJEU.
replies(1): >>40209329 #
1. shuckles ◴[30 Apr 24 10:28 UTC] No.40209329[source]▶
If the unqualified existence of judicial remedy justified any arbitrary bureaucratic action, the world would be a much worse place (and indeed countries where bureaucrats make up rules to suit their whims and your only recourse is the judiciary tend to be dysfunctional).
replies(1): >>40209444 #
2. littlestymaar ◴[30 Apr 24 10:39 UTC] No.40209444[source]▶
You are making things up: there is no arbitrary action at all here. The EC must abide to the DMA and have no power to overcome it. If they did it would basically be a coup from the Commission against the Parliament and the Council, and you can be sure that member states would not stay silent against it (but don't worry it's not going to happen, as the balance of power is clearly not in favor of the Commission).

I'm just using the CJEU as an illustration that Apple themselves doesn't believe in the “arbitrary rules” narrative as they aren't even fighting in court.

Also, you're trying to use the “bureaucrates” card here, but Apple executives are bureaucrates too, and Apple's management of sanctions and their habits of shutting down user accounts without recourse shows that their own bureaucracy is closer to the one from authoritarian regimes than anything else.