5 ms·

UK opens antitrust probe into Apple’s App Store policies

18 points by quyleanh 6y ago

varispeed 6y ago
I am hoping that they will also explore another angle. I read about the ruling in Italy where Lenovo was forced to refund money for pre-installed Windows that customers didn't want but they had no option to buy a laptop without it. Now, it is not possible to buy an iPhone without iOS or MacBook without the macOS. I think regulators should look into that as it should be possible to buy M1 laptop without macOS installed and it should be open for installing other operating systems like Linux. Apple should also be forced to release any documentation necessary to enable full compatibility with Linux and other operating systems.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  I think if you don’t want macOS, you should not buy a Mac. There’s literally hundreds of other options.
  - selfhoster11 6y ago
    The obvious problem with this statement is that there is no reason why anything billed as a general purpose computing device (which a laptop is) shouldn't be able to run an arbitrary set of software (including an arbitarary OS), and no reason why they shouldn't be available for purchase without such software pre-installed. Restrictions on that are strictly artificial and profit-driven.
    - meepmorp 6y ago
      The obvious problem with this statement is that the Mac is billed as a Mac, not as a generic laptop. MacOS is a selling point, even if it doesn't appeal to you.
      - bubblethink 6y ago
        The legislative solution to that would be to force all devices sold in the mass market to have the ability to use any operating system.
        _fat_santa 6y ago
        That just won't work. I see your point regarding laptops and mobile phones, but what about embedded devices and things like smart speakers? What's next? Amazon gets sued because a customer can't run Windows Vista on their Alexa. I'm being hyperbolic here but you get my point.
        thereddaikon 6y ago
        Those aren't general purpose compute devices. But the legislation shouldn't compel Apple to support arbitrary software. Simply to not prevent its use on the hardware they sell. So T2 has to go. Just like how the upcoming right to repair in the UK is getting it wrong. Compelling hardware makers to sell replacement parts for a set time frame is an unfair burden on them. The law should simply create the framework to allow the aftermarket to support the devices like it already does with cars. For example Ford will eventually stop selling parts for its cars but I can still go to Autozone and get parts for an old Ford that aftermarket companies have made. And Ford doesn't sue them into oblivion for doing so.
        varispeed 6y ago
        If I recall correctly they don't prevent Apple from telling their suppliers to stop selling parts to 3rd parties and I think that's the key. Parts need to be available with documentation and it should be up to repair businesses or individual users if they want to stock it on their own. If I recall correctly it is enough if e.g. stores a stack of complete motherboards and makes it available to purchase at a price similar to a new laptop, rendering this legislation akin to virtue signalling.
        bubblethink 6y ago
    - hctaw 6y ago
      This is just absurd to me - there are obvious limitations on the software that can run on a device up and down the stack. An "arbitrary set of software" is not possible - do you include different instruction sets? What about drivers? APIs? ABIs? Governments shouldn't tell companies what features their products must or must not support. People are free not to buy them. Bundling is a separate issue. > Restrictions on that are strictly artificial and profit-driven. It costs real money to guarantee a piece of software runs on a piece of hardware. The restrictions are not "artificial" - a company has just chosen not to spend time and money on a feature they have figured won't make more money than it costs to support. Call it "profit driven" if you want, everything a company does is profit driven.
      - varispeed 6y ago
        The manufacturer should release any documentation necessary for 3rd party developers to adapt their operating systems or other software. This is to enable e.g. Linux developers to create all necessary drivers by themselves. Nobody asks manufacturers to build any special features. They should not be allowed to prevent 3rd party developers from adapting their software to a new platform. If a platform is not capable of running e.g. Linux and there is no malice, then manufacturer should not be required to add anything to accommodate other operating systems. For example if someone releases an ARM laptop, they should not be required to create a translation API for SPARC just so that an ancient OS could be run, but they should give enough documentation so that someone could adapt an operating system capable of running on that platform by themselves if they wish so.
        hctaw 6y ago
        You are asking manufacturers to build special features - documentation! It costs time and money to put that together and keep it up to date, and documented hardware or software is a commitment to its design that the designer may not want to uphold.
      - selfhoster11 6y ago
        Linux, BSDs, and some other OSes are OK with running on a myriad of disparate architectures and ABIs. The only reason for an open source OS not to run on something is either lack of sufficiently detailed documentation, or code signing that rejects third party code a la trusted boot. Manufacturers should be releasing such documentation, and offering ways to disable trusted boot, change signing keys, or otherwise allow code to boot. Nothing more is required, and nobody is asking for support or assistance in porting anything. > It costs real money to guarantee a piece of software runs on a piece of hardware. The restrictions are not "artificial" - a company has just chosen not to spend time and money on a feature they have figured won't make more money than it costs to support. It also costs money not to include toxic ingredients in our paint and foods, it costs money to dispose of special kinds of waste safely, it costs money to run a warranty service, and it costs money to ensure hardware doesn't electrocute the user. People fought hard to impose those costs, for a reason: they result in a safer end product and benefit the consumer. Hackable hardware costs a tiny bit extra to produce, but the consumer and environmental benefits are significant, just like with those other safety and after-sales measures.

18 points by quyleanh 6y ago

I am hoping that they will also explore another angle. I read about the ruling in Italy where Lenovo was forced to refund money for pre-installed Windows that customers didn't want but they had no option to buy a laptop without it. Now, it is not possible to buy an iPhone without iOS or MacBook without the macOS. I think regulators should look into that as it should be possible to buy M1 laptop without macOS installed and it should be open for installing other operating systems like Linux. Apple should also be forced to release any documentation necessary to enable full compatibility with Linux and other operating systems.

meepmorp 6y ago
I think if you don’t want macOS, you should not buy a Mac. There’s literally hundreds of other options.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  The obvious problem with this statement is that there is no reason why anything billed as a general purpose computing device (which a laptop is) shouldn't be able to run an arbitrary set of software (including an arbitarary OS), and no reason why they shouldn't be available for purchase without such software pre-installed. Restrictions on that are strictly artificial and profit-driven.
  - meepmorp 6y ago
    The obvious problem with this statement is that the Mac is billed as a Mac, not as a generic laptop. MacOS is a selling point, even if it doesn't appeal to you.
    - bubblethink 6y ago
      The legislative solution to that would be to force all devices sold in the mass market to have the ability to use any operating system.
      - _fat_santa 6y ago
        That just won't work. I see your point regarding laptops and mobile phones, but what about embedded devices and things like smart speakers? What's next? Amazon gets sued because a customer can't run Windows Vista on their Alexa. I'm being hyperbolic here but you get my point.
        thereddaikon 6y ago
        Those aren't general purpose compute devices. But the legislation shouldn't compel Apple to support arbitrary software. Simply to not prevent its use on the hardware they sell. So T2 has to go. Just like how the upcoming right to repair in the UK is getting it wrong. Compelling hardware makers to sell replacement parts for a set time frame is an unfair burden on them. The law should simply create the framework to allow the aftermarket to support the devices like it already does with cars. For example Ford will eventually stop selling parts for its cars but I can still go to Autozone and get parts for an old Ford that aftermarket companies have made. And Ford doesn't sue them into oblivion for doing so.
        varispeed 6y ago
        If I recall correctly they don't prevent Apple from telling their suppliers to stop selling parts to 3rd parties and I think that's the key. Parts need to be available with documentation and it should be up to repair businesses or individual users if they want to stock it on their own. If I recall correctly it is enough if e.g. stores a stack of complete motherboards and makes it available to purchase at a price similar to a new laptop, rendering this legislation akin to virtue signalling.
        bubblethink 6y ago
  - hctaw 6y ago
    This is just absurd to me - there are obvious limitations on the software that can run on a device up and down the stack. An "arbitrary set of software" is not possible - do you include different instruction sets? What about drivers? APIs? ABIs? Governments shouldn't tell companies what features their products must or must not support. People are free not to buy them. Bundling is a separate issue. > Restrictions on that are strictly artificial and profit-driven. It costs real money to guarantee a piece of software runs on a piece of hardware. The restrictions are not "artificial" - a company has just chosen not to spend time and money on a feature they have figured won't make more money than it costs to support. Call it "profit driven" if you want, everything a company does is profit driven.
    - varispeed 6y ago
      The manufacturer should release any documentation necessary for 3rd party developers to adapt their operating systems or other software. This is to enable e.g. Linux developers to create all necessary drivers by themselves. Nobody asks manufacturers to build any special features. They should not be allowed to prevent 3rd party developers from adapting their software to a new platform. If a platform is not capable of running e.g. Linux and there is no malice, then manufacturer should not be required to add anything to accommodate other operating systems. For example if someone releases an ARM laptop, they should not be required to create a translation API for SPARC just so that an ancient OS could be run, but they should give enough documentation so that someone could adapt an operating system capable of running on that platform by themselves if they wish so.
      - hctaw 6y ago
        You are asking manufacturers to build special features - documentation! It costs time and money to put that together and keep it up to date, and documented hardware or software is a commitment to its design that the designer may not want to uphold.
    - selfhoster11 6y ago
      Linux, BSDs, and some other OSes are OK with running on a myriad of disparate architectures and ABIs. The only reason for an open source OS not to run on something is either lack of sufficiently detailed documentation, or code signing that rejects third party code a la trusted boot. Manufacturers should be releasing such documentation, and offering ways to disable trusted boot, change signing keys, or otherwise allow code to boot. Nothing more is required, and nobody is asking for support or assistance in porting anything. > It costs real money to guarantee a piece of software runs on a piece of hardware. The restrictions are not "artificial" - a company has just chosen not to spend time and money on a feature they have figured won't make more money than it costs to support. It also costs money not to include toxic ingredients in our paint and foods, it costs money to dispose of special kinds of waste safely, it costs money to run a warranty service, and it costs money to ensure hardware doesn't electrocute the user. People fought hard to impose those costs, for a reason: they result in a safer end product and benefit the consumer. Hackable hardware costs a tiny bit extra to produce, but the consumer and environmental benefits are significant, just like with those other safety and after-sales measures.