←back to thread

Apple vs the Law

(formularsumo.co.uk)
377 points tempodox | 1 comments | 11 Jul 25 06:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.36s | source
Show context
grishka ◴[11 Jul 25 07:28 UTC] No.44529279[source]▶
> "...unfortunately, it's impossible to do all the complex engineering to comply with the Commission's current interpretation of the DMA..."

There's nothing complex and impossible about removing some "if" statements responsible for code signature enforcement.

replies(9): >>44529310 #>>44529322 #>>44529363 #>>44529431 #>>44529446 #>>44529695 #>>44530078 #>>44531016 #>>44531269 #
interpol_p ◴[11 Jul 25 07:40 UTC] No.44529363[source]▶
It’s extremely complex. I’m not debating whether they should comply - they should. But it’s gonna cost them years of engineering effort, and maintenance far into the future. See, for example, BrowserEngineKit

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit

They needed to engineer, maintain, document and support a whole class of APIs so that third parties can create their own competitive browser engines (that offer JIT, etc) while still maintaining iOS sandbox security. There are going to be hundreds of frameworks, thousands of APIs, that will need to come to ensure compliance with the DMA

replies(2): >>44529396 #>>44529401 #
idle_zealot ◴[11 Jul 25 07:47 UTC] No.44529396[source]▶
Or, they could just let their pocket computers run the software users download and install, like every single other computer ever made and sold, rather than special-case engineer padded cells for every use-case, application class, or bit of interoperability.
replies(3): >>44530059 #>>44530285 #>>44533417 #
itopaloglu83 ◴[11 Jul 25 09:53 UTC] No.44530285[source]▶
An iPhone isn’t a pocket computer. It needs to be really secure because someone gaining full access to it through a badly written browser would cost you your life savings if not your life for some.
replies(2): >>44530328 #>>44537911 #
grishka ◴[11 Jul 25 09:57 UTC] No.44530328[source]▶
How and why is that somehow fundamentally different from someone gaining complete access to your computer, which allows you to run anything freely? Both are your personal devices that store your sensitive personal information.
replies(1): >>44530550 #
itopaloglu83 ◴[11 Jul 25 10:31 UTC] No.44530550[source]▶
That’s a very good and valid question but did they sell the device with the premise that anyone can run any app they want or only the apps Apple approved can run?

We believe in the same thing, our devices should be free like speech. But the whole thing turned into a show because some rich software companies don’t want to pay Apple 30% while they have no problem with other platforms like gaming consoles.

replies(2): >>44530633 #>>44532952 #
lxgr ◴[11 Jul 25 15:04 UTC] No.44532952[source]▶
> some rich software companies don’t want to pay Apple 30% while they have no problem with other platforms like gaming consoles

Why would you think they don't have a problem with the cut game console manufacturers take?

It's also different kinds of companies: Epic and Spotify have quite different concerns, for example.

replies(2): >>44533978 #>>44537424 #
burnerthrow008 ◴[11 Jul 25 22:30 UTC] No.44537424[source]▶
> Why would you think they don't have a problem with the cut game console manufacturers take?

Because they haven't sued them in the US nor lobbied the EC to label game console manufacturers as "gatekeepers".

replies(1): >>44538671 #
1. itopaloglu83 ◴[12 Jul 25 02:01 UTC] No.44538671[source]▶
Japan is also a very big player in the console market by the way. Anyway, I got sidetracked, nobody has to put their apps on Apple products. The premise Apple is making is that they're allowing access to billions of possible users in exchange for a certain percentage of the sale price.

The record labels are charging artists up to 50% for an album and nobody is even betting an eye about it or talking about regulation. That's why I find all this noise so artificial.