4 ms·
i don't understand how the EU didn't put up a very simple rule : users owns their phones and should be able to install any software they want without apple putt
by bsaul 3y ago
i don't understand how the EU didn't put up a very simple rule : users owns their phones and should be able to install any software they want without apple putting artificial restrictions or gateways exclusivity. Period.
That should remove all the possibilities of apple trying to find the loopholes with shit measures such as those "options".
- alwayslikethis 3y agoOr alternatively, that the manufacturer shall have no special privileges when it comes to software. The OS APIs needs to be public and if Apple can do something, someone else unauthorized should be able to do it also. This would also apply the play store privileges on Android, but that is a much less egregious violation than what Apple does.
- temac 3y agoGoogle Play store has some exclusive privileges?
- alwayslikethis 3y agoYes, for example you can't allow an alternative app store to do auto updates on the background.
- themacguffinman 3y agoThat kind of restriction is now gone https://www.xda-developers.com/android-14-new-apis-app-stores/ https://www.xda-developers.com/android-14-new-apis-app-store...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- EMIRELADERO 3y agoThey already did that. Article 6(7): > The gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.
- user_7832 3y agoWould this mean that something like safetynet and the payment api need to allow 3rd party alternatives? That would be very good for the rooting/custom ROM community.
- arminluschin 3y agoThere are also security requirements imposed by regulation. A free for all would not be compliant as far as I understand. Also arguably not in the user’s interest.
- layer8 3y agoNo, they are not imposed, merely allowed, and only if they are “strictly necessary and proportionate”.
- auggierose 3y agoThe EU will still want to protect their capabilities to spy on people's phones, now, or maybe in the future. They will not want to mess with that by giving users too much control over their phone.
- toyg 3y agoYour view of "the EU" as some sort of personified and consistent entity, is very naive. This legislation is primarily pushed by commercial interests.
- auggierose 3y agoIn the end it is always people making the decision. That is who "they" refers to. But you are right, the EU should be much more unified and consistent. Also, have their own army that they could send into Ukraine to put Russians back where they belong.
- latexr 3y agoNo, not “period”. As if Apple wouldn’t attempt loopholes around that rule as well. What defines an “artificial restriction”, or what’s “gateways exclusivity”? Things need to have definitions and laws have contexts. No EU regulator is reading random internet comments and thinking “ah, if only we thought to put in that one random sentence from sword_punisher_69, it would’ve made the law airtight. Those arm chair regulators sure know their stuff”. People in tech are in dire need of some humility. We don’t know everything, we don’t have all the answers, we can’t just jump into someone else’s job and immediately do it better. Is the law flawless? Probably not. Would all its issues be solved with one sentence? Definitely not.
- matwood 3y agoBecause the EU wanted to be able to target specific companies and not others. The way the DMA is written they can pick and choose to enforce it on whoever they want.