6 ms·

Yes it would. "Access to operating system interfaces, development information, and hardware and software features shall be provided to developers on a timely ba

Yes it would. "Access to operating system interfaces, development information, and hardware and software features shall be provided to developers on a timely basis and on terms that are equivalent or functionally-equivalent to the terms for access by similar Apps or functions provided by the Covered Company or to its business partners."[0] means that anything a native app can do should be possible to do from a third party app. [0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2710/text?r=23&s=1#idb7e6b97c9b624477b6e61301194c4afa https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...

dane-pgp 5y ago
Presumably "similar Apps or functions" would mean that third-party Apps could once again[0] deactivate the cellular radio, to prevent tracking by the mobile network at certain times (or locations/speeds). [0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25674655/how-to-turn-on-off-airplane-mode-even-on-new-android-versions-and-even-with-ro https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25674655/how-to-turn-on-...
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Not so. Those functions are OS-exclusive. It's doubtful that legislators intend the Settings app to be one of those similar apps that third parties can duplicate, and Apple would easily win any case that argued otherwise.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    > Apple would easily win any case that argued otherwise. Why?
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      Perhaps I overstepped my IANAL boundaries there. But I think it shouldn’t be too difficult for Apple’s lawyers to argue that functionality built into the OS to protect location data or control the cellular radio are distinct from say, Apple’s first party Podcasts or Music apps.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        A judge should be unimpressed if Apple simultaneously argued that they need to protect users from apps which track your location data, and that they need to deny those users the ability to install apps which stop mobile networks from tracking your every move.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Is the ability to have unrestricted access to user location data a component of this lawsuit?
        dane-pgp 5y ago
        If Apple started arguing that the OS settings page is not a "function[] provided by the Covered Company" because "location data" is a special kind of thing that means the law shouldn't apply to that page, then the specialness of that thing would suddenly become a component of the lawsuit, yes.

dane-pgp 5y ago

Presumably "similar Apps or functions" would mean that third-party Apps could once again[0] deactivate the cellular radio, to prevent tracking by the mobile network at certain times (or locations/speeds). [0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25674655/how-to-turn-on-off-airplane-mode-even-on-new-android-versions-and-even-with-ro https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25674655/how-to-turn-on-...

Apocryphon 5y ago
Not so. Those functions are OS-exclusive. It's doubtful that legislators intend the Settings app to be one of those similar apps that third parties can duplicate, and Apple would easily win any case that argued otherwise.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > Apple would easily win any case that argued otherwise. Why?
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Perhaps I overstepped my IANAL boundaries there. But I think it shouldn’t be too difficult for Apple’s lawyers to argue that functionality built into the OS to protect location data or control the cellular radio are distinct from say, Apple’s first party Podcasts or Music apps.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      A judge should be unimpressed if Apple simultaneously argued that they need to protect users from apps which track your location data, and that they need to deny those users the ability to install apps which stop mobile networks from tracking your every move.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        Is the ability to have unrestricted access to user location data a component of this lawsuit?
        dane-pgp 5y ago
        If Apple started arguing that the OS settings page is not a "function[] provided by the Covered Company" because "location data" is a special kind of thing that means the law shouldn't apply to that page, then the specialness of that thing would suddenly become a component of the lawsuit, yes.