5 ms·

Is this potentially breaking apple's walled garden? I wonder wether they will comply at all. Besides, I'm glad to see interoperability mentioned there, perhaps

by mehdix 4y ago

Is this potentially breaking apple's walled garden? I wonder wether they will comply at all. Besides, I'm glad to see interoperability mentioned there, perhaps one day we could text from one messenger to another one without being held back by the owner.

Gareth321 4y ago
It depends what you mean by walled garden. If you're referring to their ability to secure iOS, then no. The legislation includes many exceptions for security purposes; but they must be demonstrable and genuine. The current iOS implementation already sandboxes applications and only provides limited permissions ad hoc, according to user approval. So even under the current architecture, allowing users to install applications doesn't undermine security.
ls15 4y ago
> Is this potentially breaking apple's walled garden? I wonder wether they will comply at all. They will or there will be a repetition of Microsoft Corp. v. Commission, but with much higher fines.
dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
> I wonder wether they will comply at all. Of course they will try not to. They will do everything to prolong the appeal process and so on - it's unthinkable they would allow any other app store on their devices, that's the very core of their identity - to be as closed and unified as possible. I don't believe the EU has enough power to fight Apple. I'll believe it when I see the first iPhone with an USB-C charger.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The other side of the coin is "Does Apple have enough brand goodwill to spend it on X years of 'Apple fights EU to keep monopoly' news articles?" Kind of hard to claim you're all unicorns and rainbows, when you're actively involved in a court case to defend anti-user practices...
  - dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
    I think you underestimate them. Off the top of my head: 1. EU bureaucrats are threatening one of the most successful business models ever. 2. Jealous EU tries to punish successful American tech companies as they can't compete with them in the market. 3. The EU attempts to lower the value of tech stock, threatening pensions of millions of Americans. 4. Apple will need to fire thousands if the malicious plan of EU bureaucrats succeeds. Etc. etc.
    - toyg 4y ago
      1. Who cares, it's an American company contributing very little to the EU market - in fact, siphoning billions of euros to tax havens 2. see point 1 3. see point 1 4. see point 1
      - dodobirdlord 4y ago
        The EU has a bunch of reciprocal trade agreements with the USA to not engage in punitive harassment of each other’s companies. Of course they still can, but that’s what’s called a “trade war” and it’s generally not a good thing for all involved. Public perception of these changes in the US is also very important, since if the US government chooses to view these actions as punitive harassment calculatedly targeted only at US companies, it will respond with tariffs etc on EU goods.
        unity1001 4y ago
        > but that’s what’s called a “trade war” Yeah. That has been going on since 2005, and the US started it. It even adopted the whitepapers of think-thanks that advocated that exact trade war, elaborating how to sink the Eu's economy. This has been escalating since then. This law basically says that the Eu is going full-out.
    - frostburg 4y ago
      They have to convince the EU power structure, which truly doesn't care about any of that on any level.
- ko27 4y ago
  > I don't believe the EU has enough power to fight Apple Of course they do. EU Commission, with parlament and member state approval (which they have), has supreme sovereign power over these matters. Market regulation is basically the main point of EU. Because it's a new targeted law, Apple has zero chance of appealing this to a higher court. Thank god that companies don't have "power" over countries and sovereign bodies. I don't want to live in a cyberpunk world.
  - visarga 4y ago
    > I don't want to live in a cyberpunk world. Snow Crash was like that, companies > countries.
- iainmerrick 4y ago
  I don't think USB-C is a good yardstick. Apple could (and I think should) move to USB-C voluntarily. They already switched laptops and tablets over to USB-C, and most phone peripherals these days are wireless, so why should phones stick with Lightning?
parasense 4y ago
> Besides, I'm glad to see interoperability mentioned there, perhaps one day we could text from one messenger to another one without being held back by the owner. By forcing message passing platforms to submit to sharing private encryption keys? And that interoperability entailing the possibility of passing messages to government eavesdropping schemes? Sounds like a utopian paradise!
- idle_zealot 4y ago
  > forcing message passing platforms to submit to sharing private encryption keys? Why assume that requirement? For E2E encrypted messaging services all that needs to be shared are public keys for interoperability to work. In the case of middleman encrypted messaging you already trust the provider not to sell you out. If they interoperate then you trust N providers, where N is the number of providers engaged in a particular chat thread.
  - mrbombastic 4y ago
    You say this like it is not a big deal, I trust Apple much more than I trust Meta with my messages. Apple has made privacy a cornerstone of their sales pitch, Meta not so much. N=2 is too many.
- zaik 4y ago
  Take a look at OMEMO (Signal encryption protocol for the XMPP internet standard). Interoperability and E2EE are not exclusive at all.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by mehdix 4y ago

Gareth321 4y ago

It depends what you mean by walled garden. If you're referring to their ability to secure iOS, then no. The legislation includes many exceptions for security purposes; but they must be demonstrable and genuine. The current iOS implementation already sandboxes applications and only provides limited permissions ad hoc, according to user approval. So even under the current architecture, allowing users to install applications doesn't undermine security.

ls15 4y ago

> Is this potentially breaking apple's walled garden? I wonder wether they will comply at all. They will or there will be a repetition of Microsoft Corp. v. Commission, but with much higher fines.

dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago

> I wonder wether they will comply at all. Of course they will try not to. They will do everything to prolong the appeal process and so on - it's unthinkable they would allow any other app store on their devices, that's the very core of their identity - to be as closed and unified as possible. I don't believe the EU has enough power to fight Apple. I'll believe it when I see the first iPhone with an USB-C charger.

ethbr0 4y ago
The other side of the coin is "Does Apple have enough brand goodwill to spend it on X years of 'Apple fights EU to keep monopoly' news articles?" Kind of hard to claim you're all unicorns and rainbows, when you're actively involved in a court case to defend anti-user practices...
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
  I think you underestimate them. Off the top of my head: 1. EU bureaucrats are threatening one of the most successful business models ever. 2. Jealous EU tries to punish successful American tech companies as they can't compete with them in the market. 3. The EU attempts to lower the value of tech stock, threatening pensions of millions of Americans. 4. Apple will need to fire thousands if the malicious plan of EU bureaucrats succeeds. Etc. etc.
  - toyg 4y ago
    1. Who cares, it's an American company contributing very little to the EU market - in fact, siphoning billions of euros to tax havens 2. see point 1 3. see point 1 4. see point 1
    - dodobirdlord 4y ago
      The EU has a bunch of reciprocal trade agreements with the USA to not engage in punitive harassment of each other’s companies. Of course they still can, but that’s what’s called a “trade war” and it’s generally not a good thing for all involved. Public perception of these changes in the US is also very important, since if the US government chooses to view these actions as punitive harassment calculatedly targeted only at US companies, it will respond with tariffs etc on EU goods.
      - unity1001 4y ago
        > but that’s what’s called a “trade war” Yeah. That has been going on since 2005, and the US started it. It even adopted the whitepapers of think-thanks that advocated that exact trade war, elaborating how to sink the Eu's economy. This has been escalating since then. This law basically says that the Eu is going full-out.
  - frostburg 4y ago
    They have to convince the EU power structure, which truly doesn't care about any of that on any level.
ko27 4y ago
> I don't believe the EU has enough power to fight Apple Of course they do. EU Commission, with parlament and member state approval (which they have), has supreme sovereign power over these matters. Market regulation is basically the main point of EU. Because it's a new targeted law, Apple has zero chance of appealing this to a higher court. Thank god that companies don't have "power" over countries and sovereign bodies. I don't want to live in a cyberpunk world.
- visarga 4y ago
  > I don't want to live in a cyberpunk world. Snow Crash was like that, companies > countries.
iainmerrick 4y ago
I don't think USB-C is a good yardstick. Apple could (and I think should) move to USB-C voluntarily. They already switched laptops and tablets over to USB-C, and most phone peripherals these days are wireless, so why should phones stick with Lightning?

parasense 4y ago

> Besides, I'm glad to see interoperability mentioned there, perhaps one day we could text from one messenger to another one without being held back by the owner. By forcing message passing platforms to submit to sharing private encryption keys? And that interoperability entailing the possibility of passing messages to government eavesdropping schemes? Sounds like a utopian paradise!

idle_zealot 4y ago
> forcing message passing platforms to submit to sharing private encryption keys? Why assume that requirement? For E2E encrypted messaging services all that needs to be shared are public keys for interoperability to work. In the case of middleman encrypted messaging you already trust the provider not to sell you out. If they interoperate then you trust N providers, where N is the number of providers engaged in a particular chat thread.
- mrbombastic 4y ago
  You say this like it is not a big deal, I trust Apple much more than I trust Meta with my messages. Apple has made privacy a cornerstone of their sales pitch, Meta not so much. N=2 is too many.
zaik 4y ago
Take a look at OMEMO (Signal encryption protocol for the XMPP internet standard). Interoperability and E2EE are not exclusive at all.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]