4 ms·

> How many years will it be before audio on the Linux OS doesn’t suck? to be blunt, it doesn't seem to suck whenever someone designs a consumer product around

> How many years will it be before audio on the Linux OS doesn’t suck? to be blunt, it doesn't seem to suck whenever someone designs a consumer product around it. I have DVD-Players, BluRay Players, Network Radios, all based on Linux OS, and I never have to hassle with alsa and pulse-audio. In fact I never interact with the underlying Linux, just like accessory vendors don't use linux APIs to communicate with iOS. > If we imagine a world where os init was regulated by the EU We don't need to imagine anything like this, the EU is not regulating any OS. The EU identified that Apple is a gatekeeper to a market and simultaneously a player there, controlling the market in its favor. To ensure fair competition, Apple is required to ensure that it's a fair market for all players. As stated elsewhere, Apple is still enjoying a significant advantage, because they could still develop i.e. a Airpods feature which relies on a newly developed iOS-feature, launch both simultaneously and be the only one on the market using it. The only major impact is that they are not allowed to restrict competitors from ever catching up with them.

tpmoney 2y ago
> We don't need to imagine anything like this, the EU is not regulating any OS. The EU identified that Apple is a gatekeeper to a market and simultaneously a player there, controlling the market in its favor. That market being… software development for their OS? And the features they are regulating being OS features (see “newly developed iOS feature”). So they are trying to regulate the OS then right? Like if Apple release iPhones with two OS options, “iOS Core” with not private APIs and no developer restrictions, but limited (even for Apple products) to all their things any external developer is limited to now and “iOS Apple Edition” with a model exactly like the current iOS and reserved all their “competitive advantage” features to interactions running against that OS, this clearly wouldn’t be good enough to satisfy the DMA requirements right? The goal isn’t that Apple competes “fairly” on any arbitrary platform, it’s specifically that Apple competes “fairly” on the platform that Apple puts their best features on.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  The market being the sum of iPhone end-users buying other stuff than iPhones. > The goal isn’t that Apple competes “fairly” on any arbitrary platform, it’s specifically that Apple competes “fairly” on the platform that Apple puts their best features on. It's about putting features on the platform which are beneficial only to other products of Apple. The goal is that if Apple offers products on the market it is gatekeeping, it does so in a way that doesn't hinder fair competition on that market. Apple competing on headphones for iPhones while offering features that require iOS functionality not accessible to competitors is not fair competition.
  - tpmoney 2y ago
    > The market being the sum of iPhone end-users buying other stuff than iPhones. Which seems a little ridiculously narrow doesn’t it? Why does any hardware vendor have an obligation to open all of their APIs and functionality to all comers just because they open some of them? Why is selling a highly sandboxed product not a valid thing to do? And especially why is that not valid when there is an entire other half+ of the market that is completely open and exactly the sort of free for all people are apparently looking for? Ultimately it always comes down to this. Apple is one vendor, selling one piece of hardware that runs one OS. You can not buy or run iOS on anything other than Apple supplied phones. You can not run anything on an iPhone except an Apple supplied OS. Apple does not force carriers or retailers to exclusively carry Apple phones. They don’t require hardware manufacturers to buy iOS licenses even when they sell a phone without iOS. They don’t require 3rd party iOS developers to sign exclusivity contracts when developing for iOS. They don’t fine developers for making better versions of their software for other platforms. They don’t do those things for accessory manufacturers either. Apple sells Apple phones that run Apple software in a way that Apple feels is best for that phone. Why is this a problem? Yes I understand that iPhone users who want a pebble smart watch are given a worse experience. But they don’t have to use an iPhone. Nothing at all stops them from buying any of the hundreds of Android phones on the market and having the ultimate pebble smart watch experience. This whole thing feels like the equivalent of demanding the government force GM to support CarPlay. GM has decided they don’t want to do that. They think they can sell a better product without it. That might suck for people who want a Chevy and also want to use CarPlay, but is that really unfair competition and worthy of government regulation to force GM to open up their in-car entertainment systems?

tpmoney 2y ago

> We don't need to imagine anything like this, the EU is not regulating any OS. The EU identified that Apple is a gatekeeper to a market and simultaneously a player there, controlling the market in its favor. That market being… software development for their OS? And the features they are regulating being OS features (see “newly developed iOS feature”). So they are trying to regulate the OS then right? Like if Apple release iPhones with two OS options, “iOS Core” with not private APIs and no developer restrictions, but limited (even for Apple products) to all their things any external developer is limited to now and “iOS Apple Edition” with a model exactly like the current iOS and reserved all their “competitive advantage” features to interactions running against that OS, this clearly wouldn’t be good enough to satisfy the DMA requirements right? The goal isn’t that Apple competes “fairly” on any arbitrary platform, it’s specifically that Apple competes “fairly” on the platform that Apple puts their best features on.

rickdeckard 2y ago
The market being the sum of iPhone end-users buying other stuff than iPhones. > The goal isn’t that Apple competes “fairly” on any arbitrary platform, it’s specifically that Apple competes “fairly” on the platform that Apple puts their best features on. It's about putting features on the platform which are beneficial only to other products of Apple. The goal is that if Apple offers products on the market it is gatekeeping, it does so in a way that doesn't hinder fair competition on that market. Apple competing on headphones for iPhones while offering features that require iOS functionality not accessible to competitors is not fair competition.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  > The market being the sum of iPhone end-users buying other stuff than iPhones. Which seems a little ridiculously narrow doesn’t it? Why does any hardware vendor have an obligation to open all of their APIs and functionality to all comers just because they open some of them? Why is selling a highly sandboxed product not a valid thing to do? And especially why is that not valid when there is an entire other half+ of the market that is completely open and exactly the sort of free for all people are apparently looking for? Ultimately it always comes down to this. Apple is one vendor, selling one piece of hardware that runs one OS. You can not buy or run iOS on anything other than Apple supplied phones. You can not run anything on an iPhone except an Apple supplied OS. Apple does not force carriers or retailers to exclusively carry Apple phones. They don’t require hardware manufacturers to buy iOS licenses even when they sell a phone without iOS. They don’t require 3rd party iOS developers to sign exclusivity contracts when developing for iOS. They don’t fine developers for making better versions of their software for other platforms. They don’t do those things for accessory manufacturers either. Apple sells Apple phones that run Apple software in a way that Apple feels is best for that phone. Why is this a problem? Yes I understand that iPhone users who want a pebble smart watch are given a worse experience. But they don’t have to use an iPhone. Nothing at all stops them from buying any of the hundreds of Android phones on the market and having the ultimate pebble smart watch experience. This whole thing feels like the equivalent of demanding the government force GM to support CarPlay. GM has decided they don’t want to do that. They think they can sell a better product without it. That might suck for people who want a Chevy and also want to use CarPlay, but is that really unfair competition and worthy of government regulation to force GM to open up their in-car entertainment systems?