5 ms·
Apple to EU, Drop Dead
- kayodelycaon 3y agoYeah, Apple pretty much gave everyone the middle finger. Unfortunately, this rant adds little to nothing to the discussion. :/
- layer8 3y agoIt nicely collects Apple’s passive-aggressive petulant language into one place.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoI read all of that language in their blog post, though. Apple's been giving EU the middle finger for years as far as I can tell. If this was something about how Apple's proposed changes don't meet the requirements it would be more interesting but it's really just someone writing that they don't like the tone of Apple's post.
- cybrox 3y agoI mean... that's what they always do. Though usually by technical means within their power. Now that that's taken away, they just start gaslighting the consumer. I'm not going to pretend EU law is a flawless godsend but I also can't say that I feel bad for Apple here.
- gfodor 3y agoat this point it reads like the kind of thing you'd hear when you're being told what will happen if you exit a protection racket we'll be ok, just let us use our computers
- bearjaws 3y agoIt really does, and their implementation is an actual racket. The best example is that you cannot install Chrome through the app store on MacOS. In its place? A bunch of garbage apps that people install thinking they're Chrome. So much for quality control. Millions of users have braved the risky, buggy and deadly internet to install Chrome as a result of this. Nobody cares. Tell me, if millions of Mac users can download apps successfully, with little malware, why is it the phones need all the protection? We all know the real answer involves 27-30%.
- CharlesW 3y ago[Deleted, missed that parent commenter was talking about macOS.]
- ArchOversight 3y agoThat's not the macOS App Store. There is no version of Chrome that is installable from the macOS App Store because Google does not publish Chrome in the macOS App Store (probably owing to the sandboxing that would be required and Chrome wants access to all the things).
- gigglesupstairs 3y agoThis is for iOS and not macOS. Why did you share this?
- Terretta 3y agoYour best example is people can't easily install this spyware that misled them about spying, until forced to come clean? "Based on these Google representations, throughout the Class Period, Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably expected that Google would not collect their data while in Incognito mode. They reasonably understood 'You've gone incognito' and ‘Now you can browse privately’ to mean they could browse privately, without Google's continued tracking and data collection. Google could have disclosed on this Incognito Screen that Google would track users and collect their data while they were browsing privately, but Google did not do that. Instead, Google included representations meant to assure users that they had ‘gone incognito’ and could ‘browse privately’ with only limited exceptions, none of which disclosed Google's own tracking and data collection practices while users were in a private browsing mode." https://www.wired.com/story/chrome-incognito-mode-privacy-warning/ https://www.wired.com/story/chrome-incognito-mode-privacy-wa...
- Terretta 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- btmiller 3y agoThis was the most obvious characteristic about all this new legislation and I haven’t seen nearly enough chatter about it. It’s analogous, in my opinion, to the Star Wars prequels where all the senators praised the formation of the empire to thunderous applause.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 3y agoMajor reason Apple is mad about this is because it threatens their strategy of taking over the ad market: https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/11/19/apple-secret-digital-advertising-giant-revenue/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/11/19/apple-secret-digit... Apple’s only real beef with other companies is when they are making money on iPhones without giving Apple their cut.
- kevingadd 3y agoWhat part of this bill justifies a comparison to sexual assault?
- Terretta 3y agoThe "drop dead" phrasing... "drop dead" / "drop your pants". Presumably one of these is more extreme than the other ("drop your pants" is a thing doctors say for a proctology exam much like adtech installed in your phone, not a sexual assault reference) but regardless both are figure of speech hyperbole.
- nabla9 3y agoNo it didn't. The bill is fine. Apple will lose. It just takes some time.
- 3y ago
- Cupprum 3y agoWhy is this Apple telling to EU drop dead?
- adr1an 3y agoThey say that malware won't be prevented as best as possible, thanks to the new regulations.
- cybrox 3y agoBet your sweet bippy they won't hesitate a single second to elaborately point out any scam happening via apps in third party marketplaces.
- CharlesW 3y agoThat's just objectively true. https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosys...
- rakoo 3y agoA document from Apple is not as best an objective truth as possible.
- CharlesW 3y agoI couldn't find a better summary. You're right that readers should be cautious and assume bias, but judge it on the content.
- nickthegreek 3y agoCare to attack the claims made within the document or provide a link to the objective truth?
- realusername 3y agoThe document is a bunch of nonsense aggregating various android malware and saying its the fault of sideloading (why? who knows it's not stated but of course we know why Apple says that). Of course the document never mentioned that iOS has a bunch of malware on its own and the appstore doesn't seem to help any of that. You could add [citations needed] to pretty much every paragraph.
- tibbydudeza 3y agoAnd if you want to have our euros , put on your big boy pants and suck it up Cupertino. PS we have some more rules in the pipeline for you - you gonna luv them. From Brussels with love, EU Privacy "Tzar"
- kyriakos 3y agoReaction from EU is to be expected I believe. Interested to see how it pans out.
- kspacewalk2 3y agoGlorious copium on Apple's part.
- shmerl 3y agoApple should pay for monopoly abuse it likes to excuse with "security needs". No one buys their koolaid arguments.
- emilsedgh 3y agoHow is their press release important? They did provide the means and tools EU forced them too. Users are not going to be reading this and deciding not install Firefox on iOS.
- cybrox 3y agoAt least some users will. Not the original but a regurgitated version on some news site. That's all they can do, so why wouldn't they.
- andersa 3y agoThey haven't yet provided the tools they're being forced to. What they announced so far is a joke and clearly non-compliant with the DMA. Given it's still two months out until it comes into force, they're probably testing the water how much they can still get away with... after all it really sucks when someone takes away your ability to steal 30% from the whole market...
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago> clearly non-compliant with the DMA This article doesn't actually make an argument about this. Is there a good analysis of why their proposed changes won't be compliant?
- layer8 3y agoI’m tempted to switch from nano-Dijkstra to nano-Apple.
- kredd 3y agoTangent question — isn’t Chinese iOS firmware different due to their regulations as well? It’s a similar situation, just different applications of laws.
- ayewo 3y agoYes, but China is still a very important manufacturing partner they can’t (yet) afford to offend. At least until India, Vietnam etc are able to make the more complex devices at volumes comparable to what China is doing today.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoApple is calling the EU's bluff here. It's an american company. The EU can't break it up. They could ban the import of Apple devices, but they don't have the nerve.
- HeuristicsCG 3y agoWhat they will do is simply fine them until they comply. Apple is a public company, their share holders won't let them exit the EU over such a small thing.
- lagt_t 3y agoThat's hilarious. I'll just wait for the new regulations from the EU and Apple will fold like they did with the chargers.
- jsnell 3y agoThey can fine Apple for up to $40 billion. Double that for repeat offenses.
- adam_arthur 3y agoThe EU can certainly legislate and regulate Apple within their jurisdiction. There is no bluff here. Apple seems to have determined it's better to fight against the intended nature of the legislation. Likely they can eek a few more months or years until the hammer comes down. As planned, I'm sure.
- layer8 3y agoI believe the relevant company here is Apple Operations Europe, which strictly speaking is not an American company.
- elicash 3y agoNo they aren't; they are complying. Apple is just angry about it. (I'd argue wrongly so.)
- Sharlin 3y agoDo you think it often happens that when: 1) a large sovereign entity (or a collection thereof, as the case may be), 2) which, incidentally, also happens to be one of the largest economies in the world, 3) with legislative and executive power over actors wishing to make money within its jurisdiction, 4) drafts legislation intended to control said actors and 5) announces it is going to exercise aforementioned executive power, 6) to use the legislation for its intended purpose against a non-complying actor, that entity is bluffing? (Apple already folded, by the way. They're simply sore losers.)
- devwastaken 3y agoSecurity in this context is a red herring, it's PR nonsense. We solved the most common vectors of malware when code signing was thought of a generation ago. The problem is only Apple has cared to loosely implement it, and refuses to do it on mobile even though you can do it yourself on Mac. The double standard is clear: you can run whatever you want on a "computer", but not your "phone" even though phones have far better permissions and protection systems. We can solve this today if the big players will join in - neutral party code signing. Anyone can provide identity to get a dev key, they get to sign their software. If their software is malicious there's all kinds of evidence of who they are and various agencies very interested in it.
- camdenlock 3y agoWhy is no one standing up against the EU in this imbroglio?
- CharlesW 3y agoBecause we love Big Government telling Big Tech how to run their private services here except when it affects us personally.
- rakoo 3y agoWhat's wrong with the EU regulation ? Less lock in, more choice should be better no ?
- timeon 3y agoDo you want to be able install only App Store approved apps on macOS too?
- oldpersonintx 3y ago[dead]
- pompino 3y agoI think what a lot of corporations are going to realize is there is a giant wrecking ball coming for them in the political future. Strong anti-trust laws are the functional equivalent of a progressive tax system. You make more money - or you're a dominant market player - different rules apply. You still get to be overwhelmingly rich, just not the kind of rich and powerful where you can topple governments, or endanger the democratic process.
- isatty 3y agoUnpopular opinion, but most of what Apple is saying is objectively true.
- layer8 3y agoThey are doing a very poor job of explaining why it should be true. Regarding security, for example, apps from third-party app stores still have to go through Apple’s review process. The apps require notarization. They also explicitly mention human review. So how would that be any less secure than for apps from their own App Store?
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoSo why is it not applied on MacOS?
- thiht 3y agoYou misspelled "subjectively"
- _ph_ 3y agoFor one, even if you make several statements which by themselves are true, but leave out the other half of the truth which describes the situation, then you are misleading people. Also, the statements themselves are only partially right too. There are some severe shortcomings of the App Store at the moment. First of all, it isn't as secure as they make it. There are enough bad apps which are not detected in time and there are many apps which are on the store which basically scam the user. But Apple is happy to take 30% of the scammed money. And the elephant in the room is the fact, that the App Store routinely rejects apps, that are absolutely no risk to the user, but rejected for non-security related reasons. Or just because of sloppy review. Just google for some random rejections. That all those internet giants try to handle customer contact in a non-personal way where your means of appeal are low or non-existing, makes the situation worse.
- UIUC_06 3y agoThis became a meme because it's true. World: We're having a global party! China: We'll bring the hardware! U.S.: We'll bring the software! EU: We'll bring the lawyers!
- rakoo 3y agoSo the EU is the only place where the law has a chance to be respected ?
- UIUC_06 3y ago> the law
- rakoo 3y agoCould you explain ? I don't get it
- UIUC_06 3y agoYou say The Law as if it's something magical, come down from Mt. Sinai. Instead of the political decision of a bunch of unelected Brussels would-be "elites" which would never pass a general referendum. If they ever had such things, which they generally don't. Would we call a rule that "phones must have a USB-C connector" The Law? No, it's just lawyers with too much time on their hands.
- rakoo 3y agoI don't think you understand how the EU legislative system works. The EU is composed of multiple bodies, one of which is unelected people, one of which is people chosen by someone who is elected (roughly) and one of which is people directly elected by EU citizens. This last body is a Parliament, and is where laws happen. Once laws are voted, each individual country has a delay to transform it into a local law. So, yes, the fact that phones must have a usb-c connector is, in fact, the law. The text is here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2380 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32... Admittedly, it's a bit more complicated than that between who has to say OK and whatnot because, you know, that is how The Law works.
- Kon-Peki 3y agoThis is just the first public round of a negotiation process. The EU is going to force Apple to dial this down to some level that the EU considers acceptable. Apple wants zero liability from the upcoming changes to the Product Liability Directive and the introduction of the EU Cyber Resilience Act. They want to say "the system was more secure, but the EU made us do this so go pound sand". > Inevitably, the new options for developers’ EU apps create new risks to Apple users and their devices. Apple can’t eliminate those risks, but within the DMA’s constraints, the company will take steps to reduce them. That's exactly what this means. Nobody will be able to argue that Apple could have done more. It will be "Apple was doing more, but the EU made them do less".
- rakoo 3y agoThey could absolutely do more. They could actually vet all applications and exclude knock offs. They could ask for sources of applications they distribute to see if they're legit or not. They could partner with 3rd party known reliable sources. The EU isn't making it less secure, because WebKit isn't the only secure rendering engine in the world, far from it.
- Kon-Peki 3y agoWhatever. People are so angry they can't see that there is other legislation coming out, and Apple is trying to position themselves well for it. Be shocked and angry when Google makes a bunch of Android changes that YOU WILL NOT LIKE next year.
- rakoo 3y agoOh I will absolutely love any change that reduce the monopolistic position of Google.
- jlhawn 3y agoImagine if Apple behaved this way for mac OS. A significant number of Mac users I know: - do not use the Mac App Store for anything other than first-party apps like keynote, et al - Use chrome or firefox as their default web browser - download and install software from trusted 3rd-party marketplace apps like Steam all the time And it's not the end of the world.
- pointlessone 3y agoIf you look at Apple’s financial reports, it is. AppStore is a massive revenue stream for Apple. They’d rather have macOS locked down as iOS, than the other way around—iOS as open as macOS. They could not do that because locking macs down would severely cripple the platform and peopple would have a concrete example of how it became terrible. That attention would also shine a light on how terrible this aspect of iOS is. Notice how they’re telling how terrible everthing will become now on iOS in EU. Yet, the next macOS will be "the safest yet”. This is also why they don’t even acknowledge Mac’s existence in these posts.
- Terretta 3y agoYep, and Steam is 30% of revenue. Why aren't we screaming about how unfair that is?
- pauby 3y agoThere are numerous games stores I can install on my PC or Mac. There are numerous games stores that game developers can use to sell their game through. Steam do not have a monopoly on the devices it runs on. Apple do.
- notpachet 3y agoI know this is not directly related to the point of the post, but please, please, stop using garbage AI generated header images for your blog posts. Just look at the man's fingers. Look at his fucking thumb. It's insulting to your readers. The implication is that we are so myopic that we wouldn't notice the body horror. If you insist on using AI-generated images, then at least do us the courtesy of spinning the image-generating bingo cage until you get lucky and it spits out something that isn't so patently gross.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- _ph_ 3y agoWhat a nasty piece of scare tactics. I am a big Apple user, in many senses really a fan. But these scare tactics are just off. First of all, the safety promises of the Apple store are way worse than Apple makes them. There is tons of dubious apps around which rob users quickly, just barely within the guide lines. Often enough, bad apps slip through the nets. On the other side, many absolutely legit apps get blocked due to bad review or overzealous restrictions. Would it be a bad idea to install apps randomly from everywhere? Sure! Would it be a security risk to install well known open source software from a reputably curated alternate store? Most likely not! Also, the system should have more robust implementation which would prevent malicious apps of doing damage until the user explicitly grants entitlements. And I would be much less interested in installing apps from different sources, if the content of the app store were just guided by safety concerns. But a ton of stuff is blocked just becaue Apple wants to block it. That is, where the demand for alternatives comes in. And lets not even talk about adult content. It would be great for the safety of the users, if Apple would allow such content within the protections of the App Store. But no, even though you have solid age information about your users, it is banned and people are driven to sources outside of the App Store safety and outside of secure payments.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago> But a ton of stuff is blocked just because Apple wants to block it I am avoiding to release anything on iOS (even that my customers would love it) because Apple can shut me down anytime they feel like. Can I sideload like on MacOS or Android? Nope. Can I recompile my app into PWA with decent WebBLE support? Nope, because every browser is reskinned Safari with a poor PWA support. So the moment when they decide to shut me down, all the effort to create iOS application will be thrown out of the window.
- _ph_ 3y agoOh, and Apple, please start showing the search results in the App Store first, not some rip off clones.
- renegat0x0 3y agoLooks as if it was written by Annie Wilkes from Stephen Kinga Misery novel. "Look what you made me do!"
- joshspankit 3y agoWe’ve come a long way from breaking IE off of Windows because it was monopolistic.