5 ms·

Why would you assume that it’s malicious and not just the result of getting further clarification from lawyers on both ends? The DMA isn’t an exact set of step

by dagmx 3y ago

Why would you assume that it’s malicious and not just the result of getting further clarification from lawyers on both ends? The DMA isn’t an exact set of steps to follow. A lot is left to interpretation

RicoElectrico 3y ago
Steve Jobs was legendarily spiteful and petty. They just carry over the tradition.
arccy 3y ago
they didn't need to remove a capability they already had, so any lawyer clarification would be on if they would be punished for being anticompetitive by removing the capability
- dmitrygr 3y ago
  So..you've never written software with a lawyer standing over your shoulder? Very often legal requirements lead to removal of features that cannot easily comply rather than expansion of the feature to comply. Removal is less rick.
- dwaite 3y ago
  Except they have had to do this multiple times (although usually patents). Examples include portions of AirPrint functionality on macOS, Bootcamp suspend/resume, and FaceTime peer-to-peer. The latter being the reason that Apple did not open up FaceTime as a broader industry initiative. In the US we currently have Apple Watch being sold without access to the blood oxygen feature due to an import restriction. There are also restrictions on showing certain maps in certain countries, as well as whether or not the Taiwan flag emoji displays in China.
elevatedastalt 3y ago
I won't say it is malicious. But I won't give Apple a pass either. Ultimately, the truth is that a company like Apple doesn't want to deal with DMA. Their whole services business model (whether it be the App Store monopoly or the iMessage monopoly) relies on behavior that is counter to DMA. It's also clear from their seething press releases about the DMA that they don't want to mince words about how much they don't like it or don't want to do it. It's always easy for them to give a vague privacy / security argument to justify whatever benefits their monopolistic control. It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want. I think it's important for users to keep calling them out at every opportunity so they don't get away with it.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Get away with what though? You’re the one who’s ascribing maliciousness to their actions. But you don’t have that backed up by anything concrete other than your subjective perception. From what they’ve written they removed it initially to keep all browsers equal, which is what the DMA implies is necessary. They now brought it back with only WebKit support. It’s completely logical that their lawyers worked with the EU to clear this exception. People here ascribe too much in the way of human emotion to corporations. If they were really trying to kill PWAs they’d have done it everywhere. If they were really trying to stick it to the DMA, PWAs are such an insignificant feature to do it with. What are the percentage of people who’d be so inconvenienced that the PWA would open in a browser tab instead of a pseudo browser instance?
- latexr 3y ago
  > It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want. It is very different. The outcome from “think of the children” is loss of privacy, while Apple’s actions means loss of software functionality. The former is more dangerous for society and freedom of thought.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    How can we be certain that Apple's actions don't mean a loss of privacy too? Whenever they're asked about seriously decentralizing their own trust model Apple tends to fall back on the "legal compliance" note, if not directly on think-of-the-children. Their lack of transparency (even the base level that Google provides with the AOSP) isn't very reassuring, at least to me. Now, one could argue that Apple's decisions are less impactful than politicians. Circumstantially, they may be right, but I think it's appropriate to compare the line of reasoning. After all, Apple employs both.

by dagmx 3y ago

RicoElectrico 3y ago

Steve Jobs was legendarily spiteful and petty. They just carry over the tradition.

arccy 3y ago

they didn't need to remove a capability they already had, so any lawyer clarification would be on if they would be punished for being anticompetitive by removing the capability

dmitrygr 3y ago
So..you've never written software with a lawyer standing over your shoulder? Very often legal requirements lead to removal of features that cannot easily comply rather than expansion of the feature to comply. Removal is less rick.
dwaite 3y ago
Except they have had to do this multiple times (although usually patents). Examples include portions of AirPrint functionality on macOS, Bootcamp suspend/resume, and FaceTime peer-to-peer. The latter being the reason that Apple did not open up FaceTime as a broader industry initiative. In the US we currently have Apple Watch being sold without access to the blood oxygen feature due to an import restriction. There are also restrictions on showing certain maps in certain countries, as well as whether or not the Taiwan flag emoji displays in China.

elevatedastalt 3y ago

I won't say it is malicious. But I won't give Apple a pass either. Ultimately, the truth is that a company like Apple doesn't want to deal with DMA. Their whole services business model (whether it be the App Store monopoly or the iMessage monopoly) relies on behavior that is counter to DMA. It's also clear from their seething press releases about the DMA that they don't want to mince words about how much they don't like it or don't want to do it. It's always easy for them to give a vague privacy / security argument to justify whatever benefits their monopolistic control. It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want. I think it's important for users to keep calling them out at every opportunity so they don't get away with it.

dagmx 3y ago
Get away with what though? You’re the one who’s ascribing maliciousness to their actions. But you don’t have that backed up by anything concrete other than your subjective perception. From what they’ve written they removed it initially to keep all browsers equal, which is what the DMA implies is necessary. They now brought it back with only WebKit support. It’s completely logical that their lawyers worked with the EU to clear this exception. People here ascribe too much in the way of human emotion to corporations. If they were really trying to kill PWAs they’d have done it everywhere. If they were really trying to stick it to the DMA, PWAs are such an insignificant feature to do it with. What are the percentage of people who’d be so inconvenienced that the PWA would open in a browser tab instead of a pseudo browser instance?
latexr 3y ago
> It's no different from the "Think of the children!" style of reasoning that politicians use to get what they want. It is very different. The outcome from “think of the children” is loss of privacy, while Apple’s actions means loss of software functionality. The former is more dangerous for society and freedom of thought.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  How can we be certain that Apple's actions don't mean a loss of privacy too? Whenever they're asked about seriously decentralizing their own trust model Apple tends to fall back on the "legal compliance" note, if not directly on think-of-the-children. Their lack of transparency (even the base level that Google provides with the AOSP) isn't very reassuring, at least to me. Now, one could argue that Apple's decisions are less impactful than politicians. Circumstantially, they may be right, but I think it's appropriate to compare the line of reasoning. After all, Apple employs both.