5 ms·

Yeah, as I’ve said before: the root problem here is that the EU wants to outlaw apples business model. People don’t think of it that way, they tell themselves

by paulmd 3y ago

Yeah, as I’ve said before: the root problem here is that the EU wants to outlaw apples business model. People don’t think of it that way, they tell themselves all the reasons why that’s a good thing, but that’s ultimately what it is - a legislative solution to end the “android vs iOS” debate for all time. The argument is walled gardens shouldn’t exist, so the solution is to either legislate requirements that apple destroy the walls, or that they exit the market. That is a statement that most android advocates would agree with. And the EU will largely just keep ratcheting up the legislation until that happens. Driving apple out is the point - walled gardens are (in the EU sense) unacceptable and the option for a walled-garden business model needs to be removed from the market. Apple is (correctly) perceiving this and pulling out of the market, first by dropping the affected features, and I’m sure there will be a “next compliance requirement” before many years too.

Nullabillity 3y ago
Apple is free to switch to a less fascistic business model.
- paulmd 3y ago
  Is SELinux also fascistic? Grow up. if someone wants to sell systems where the only supported configuration is SELinux, why should that be illegal?
munk-a 3y ago
I feel like this is a win for consumers - I'd much rather there remain more OS competition on mobile devices[1] but if Apple wants to pursue a business model that excludes large portions of the world from their customer base that's their decision. I don't believe there exists any maliciousness from the EU towards Apple - they do, after all, benefit greatly from corporation tax revenues from Apple and iPhones are still quite popular in the EU. I think at the end of the day there's just a difference in the social expectation of privacy and freedom between the EU and NA. Apple, being primarily steeped in NA's expectations for freedom, hasn't built an ecosystem that is compatible with the EU's higher expectations. 1. Still hoping to see something amazing RIM!
- jokethrowaway 3y ago
  I don't see how you can call EU having any expectation of freedom when commenting about a law which forces a company to comply to regulation. This actively reduces freedom, the freedom of running your business. You just don't care about it. If you don't like walled gardens you can just not use them (I certainly never bought anything Apple for this very reason), there's no need to infringe on the freedom of everyone else who wants to use walled gardens. The EU is in general becoming increasingly less free, thanks to barely elected bureaucrats who line up their pockets with sponsors money.
  - munk-a 3y ago
    I think this is a great example of what I had mentioned as social differences of freedom between the EU and NA - in NA the freedom of businesses is often well protected up until it causes actual harm to human beings[1] - in the EU the freedom of human beings tend to be given priority of those of companies. It's important to remember that there are a lot of freedoms in this world and they often conflict in major ways. A quote that I love is "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins". Freedoms are extremely easy to guarantee if they're non-conflicting but that's rarely the case. In this case the EU is siding with the freedoms of the customers rather than the freedom of the corporation - whether that makes the society less or more free overall is a matter of opinion. 1. I'd point to a great example from one of our current justices in this regard: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/23/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-frozen-trucker-alphonse-maddin https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/23/neil-gorsuch-sup...
    - jquery 3y ago
      That dissent sent him to the top of the Heritage Foundation SC shortlist for being a corporate kowtowing stooge.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > line up their pockets with sponsors money. That's not just an EU problem though. It seems to be well established (and perhaps worse?) in many places.

by paulmd 3y ago

Nullabillity 3y ago

Apple is free to switch to a less fascistic business model.

paulmd 3y ago
Is SELinux also fascistic? Grow up. if someone wants to sell systems where the only supported configuration is SELinux, why should that be illegal?

munk-a 3y ago

I feel like this is a win for consumers - I'd much rather there remain more OS competition on mobile devices[1] but if Apple wants to pursue a business model that excludes large portions of the world from their customer base that's their decision. I don't believe there exists any maliciousness from the EU towards Apple - they do, after all, benefit greatly from corporation tax revenues from Apple and iPhones are still quite popular in the EU. I think at the end of the day there's just a difference in the social expectation of privacy and freedom between the EU and NA. Apple, being primarily steeped in NA's expectations for freedom, hasn't built an ecosystem that is compatible with the EU's higher expectations. 1. Still hoping to see something amazing RIM!

jokethrowaway 3y ago
I don't see how you can call EU having any expectation of freedom when commenting about a law which forces a company to comply to regulation. This actively reduces freedom, the freedom of running your business. You just don't care about it. If you don't like walled gardens you can just not use them (I certainly never bought anything Apple for this very reason), there's no need to infringe on the freedom of everyone else who wants to use walled gardens. The EU is in general becoming increasingly less free, thanks to barely elected bureaucrats who line up their pockets with sponsors money.
- munk-a 3y ago
  I think this is a great example of what I had mentioned as social differences of freedom between the EU and NA - in NA the freedom of businesses is often well protected up until it causes actual harm to human beings[1] - in the EU the freedom of human beings tend to be given priority of those of companies. It's important to remember that there are a lot of freedoms in this world and they often conflict in major ways. A quote that I love is "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins". Freedoms are extremely easy to guarantee if they're non-conflicting but that's rarely the case. In this case the EU is siding with the freedoms of the customers rather than the freedom of the corporation - whether that makes the society less or more free overall is a matter of opinion. 1. I'd point to a great example from one of our current justices in this regard: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/23/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-frozen-trucker-alphonse-maddin https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/23/neil-gorsuch-sup...
  - jquery 3y ago
    That dissent sent him to the top of the Heritage Foundation SC shortlist for being a corporate kowtowing stooge.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > line up their pockets with sponsors money. That's not just an EU problem though. It seems to be well established (and perhaps worse?) in many places.