6 ms·

I am certainly not surprised that Apple is employing a lot of legal tricky to work around judgments. But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common att

by jb1991 1y ago

I am certainly not surprised that Apple is employing a lot of legal tricky to work around judgments. But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common attitude in forums that somehow Apple is the only company doing this, or they’re doing it worse than any other company.

LoganDark 1y ago
> But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common attitude in forums that somehow Apple is the only company doing this, or they’re doing it worse than any other company. Apple creates vertically integrated devices. For many people, Apple dictates their entire digital life - far more so than any megacorporation on the mere level of, say Google, could ever hope to, considering Apple owns the hardware, software, and everything in between. So they are in a position shared by no other company - they are entirely unique in this. You cannot buy a device with entirely Google-designed hardware and software - Pixels with Android come close, Chromebooks come close, but nothing reaches Apple, even without custom silicon. I would say the closest company that exists in terms of vertical integration is Oxide Computer, but those aren't consumer devices. So it's not that Apple is the only company doing this. It's also not that they're "doing it worse than any other company". It's that when they do this it affects people on a level not shared by any other company. It has a much larger impact than anybody else ever could. For the record, I don't mind Apple's vertical integration, in fact that's one of their main selling points for me. It just gives them the greatest possible leverage to implement these sorts of practices.
- culturestate 1y ago
  > You cannot buy a device with entirely Google-designed hardware and software - Pixels with Android come close I don’t really understand this distinction. How is eg a Pixel 9 Pro running Android with GMS on a Tensor any less entirely Google-designed than an iPhone 16 is entirely Apple-designed?
  - KoolKat23 1y ago
    You can still install Huawei market place or Fdroid marketplace and sideload all the apps you want. And it's easy to do.
  - LoganDark 1y ago
    > How is eg a Pixel 9 Pro running Android with GMS on a Tensor any less entirely Google-designed than an iPhone 16 is entirely Apple-designed? Android is developed by the Open Handset Alliance[0], which is not just Google: Its member firms included HTC, Sony, Dell, Intel, Motorola, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics(formerly), T-Mobile, Nvidia, and Wind River Systems. Android is more of a collaboration than Apple's entirely in-house. (Technically Apple's current generation of operating systems traces back to NeXTSTEP, which itself traced from some other things, but it's still had much cleaner provenance and been much more tightly controlled than Google's continuous conglomeration.) I will say though I'd never heard of the Tensor until now, that's very interesting. I guess I am out of date on Pixels. Apple owns manufacturing and patents for most of the tech they use in their phones (e.g. batteries, biometric sensors, and so on). Google Pixels use third-party suppliers (e.g. their fingerprint sensors are usually from FPC, Goodix or Qualcomm), they follow the same sets of protocols as other Android devices, and they use many of the same drivers provided by the third-party component vendors. For this reason I also wouldn't say the Microsoft Surface is vertically integrated. At best it's designed to work well with the software that's on it, and the software has had some features added for the device. Maybe that's some measure of vertical integration, but not quite to the level of Apple. Apple certainly doesn't own everything; for example the actual display panel in an iPhone usually is manufactured by Samsung or LG Display. In my opinion though they still own enough to be far more integrated than Pixels are. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
vladms 1y ago
For me personally they seem to be more expensive than competitors and have a more aggressive stance on openness (ex: compare PWA support on Android vs iOS, not to mention the multiple other things like no multiple stores, the browser engine discussion, etc). So, I am not amazed that people think "on top of all the other things that you annoy us with you also try to avoid the law?!".
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  While I hate Apple's anti-consumer practices as much as anyone, the PWA platform is a system set up by Google first and foremost. Take-up has been limited outside of Google Chrome. I wouldn't say Apple's PWA approach is necessarily an example of Apple's fuckery. This wouldn't be much of an issue, of course, if Chrome would just run on iOS like it does on any other OS, so Google can implement PWAs themselves.
  - lmm 1y ago
    > This wouldn't be much of an issue, of course, if Chrome would just run on iOS like it does on any other OS, so Google can implement PWAs themselves. You do understand that the reason it doesn't is because Apple won't let it, not that Google don't want to?
    - shuckles 1y ago
      This is a fantasy. No customer wants PWAs. They exist to make developers' lives easier, not consumers' lives.
      - threatofrain 1y ago
        Developer efficiencies can be translated to customer wins.
        bzzzt 1y ago
        Then allowing Apple the efficiency of not implementing yet another way to build a GUI also is a customer win.
ashdksnndck 1y ago
I wouldn’t argue that Apple is worse than any other company. They’re just the tip of the spear in the fight against EU competition regulation. Other companies would fight just as hard if they had as much to lose by following the rules.
rickdeckard 1y ago
> But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common attitude in forums that somehow Apple is the only company doing this, or they’re doing it worse than any other company. Apart from being irrelevant and whataboutism, this is the narrative Apple is playing, particularly towards its userbase. The EU regulation doesn't focus on Apple in any way, the purpose of the DMA is to have objective criteria to identify a scaled market of digital goods with an uneven playing field for all players. The EU DMA has identified that Apple created a closed market of significant size, made themselves the gatekeeper and invited companies to compete there. But Apple participates in the market also as a player, and skews the playing field in their favor. So it's an unjust market where forces are unable to flow freely, and the EU is attempting to rectify that. The reasons why Apple is in such public focus on this are #1 because they operate an unusual amount of closed markets and #2 because they WANT this: it is part of Apple's strategy to rally publicly against the regulation and shape a different perception of it.
resource_waste 1y ago
Apple is a very stylish kind of company. Their public perception matters more because when you use an Apple product, it creates an image of you. If I buy a Google phone, no one is going to comment on it. If I buy an Apple, or a Tesla, or luxury vehicle, people are going to comment on it. If Apple is known to be scummy and you buy it, it makes you look bad. I think we are seeing that with Tesla now, I doubt too many liberals are buying a cybertruck.
- jb1991 1y ago
  I’m not sure where you live but this is a rather strange perspective. Apple is a lifestyle company? I think for every person I know that has an android phone, there are three or four with iPhones, where I live. Doesn’t make a very convincing case of some specific kind of a lifestyle niche. Then, among the developers I know, nearly none of them are actually writing apps for Apple devices, approximately half using MacBooks.
- spogbiper 1y ago
  maybe true in some parts of the world. where i live, literally 50% of phones are apple phones. they are commonplace. nobody comments on them.
gpm 1y ago
I can install apps that Google doesn't approve, and app stores other than Google's on my pixel. I can get root access to my pixel. I can replace the operating with an open source fork on my pixel. Google is not using its monopoly on the hardware to get a monopoly on the software - they're competing on software primarily on its own merits and the convenience of being the default. No other phone company that I know of even develops their own operating system. Apple really is unique in their attempt to control the software that runs on the mass market general purpose computing devices that they sell.

by jb1991 1y ago

LoganDark 1y ago

> But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common attitude in forums that somehow Apple is the only company doing this, or they’re doing it worse than any other company. Apple creates vertically integrated devices. For many people, Apple dictates their entire digital life - far more so than any megacorporation on the mere level of, say Google, could ever hope to, considering Apple owns the hardware, software, and everything in between. So they are in a position shared by no other company - they are entirely unique in this. You cannot buy a device with entirely Google-designed hardware and software - Pixels with Android come close, Chromebooks come close, but nothing reaches Apple, even without custom silicon. I would say the closest company that exists in terms of vertical integration is Oxide Computer, but those aren't consumer devices. So it's not that Apple is the only company doing this. It's also not that they're "doing it worse than any other company". It's that when they do this it affects people on a level not shared by any other company. It has a much larger impact than anybody else ever could. For the record, I don't mind Apple's vertical integration, in fact that's one of their main selling points for me. It just gives them the greatest possible leverage to implement these sorts of practices.

culturestate 1y ago
> You cannot buy a device with entirely Google-designed hardware and software - Pixels with Android come close I don’t really understand this distinction. How is eg a Pixel 9 Pro running Android with GMS on a Tensor any less entirely Google-designed than an iPhone 16 is entirely Apple-designed?
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  You can still install Huawei market place or Fdroid marketplace and sideload all the apps you want. And it's easy to do.
- LoganDark 1y ago
  > How is eg a Pixel 9 Pro running Android with GMS on a Tensor any less entirely Google-designed than an iPhone 16 is entirely Apple-designed? Android is developed by the Open Handset Alliance[0], which is not just Google: Its member firms included HTC, Sony, Dell, Intel, Motorola, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics(formerly), T-Mobile, Nvidia, and Wind River Systems. Android is more of a collaboration than Apple's entirely in-house. (Technically Apple's current generation of operating systems traces back to NeXTSTEP, which itself traced from some other things, but it's still had much cleaner provenance and been much more tightly controlled than Google's continuous conglomeration.) I will say though I'd never heard of the Tensor until now, that's very interesting. I guess I am out of date on Pixels. Apple owns manufacturing and patents for most of the tech they use in their phones (e.g. batteries, biometric sensors, and so on). Google Pixels use third-party suppliers (e.g. their fingerprint sensors are usually from FPC, Goodix or Qualcomm), they follow the same sets of protocols as other Android devices, and they use many of the same drivers provided by the third-party component vendors. For this reason I also wouldn't say the Microsoft Surface is vertically integrated. At best it's designed to work well with the software that's on it, and the software has had some features added for the device. Maybe that's some measure of vertical integration, but not quite to the level of Apple. Apple certainly doesn't own everything; for example the actual display panel in an iPhone usually is manufactured by Samsung or LG Display. In my opinion though they still own enough to be far more integrated than Pixels are. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

vladms 1y ago

For me personally they seem to be more expensive than competitors and have a more aggressive stance on openness (ex: compare PWA support on Android vs iOS, not to mention the multiple other things like no multiple stores, the browser engine discussion, etc). So, I am not amazed that people think "on top of all the other things that you annoy us with you also try to avoid the law?!".

jeroenhd 1y ago
While I hate Apple's anti-consumer practices as much as anyone, the PWA platform is a system set up by Google first and foremost. Take-up has been limited outside of Google Chrome. I wouldn't say Apple's PWA approach is necessarily an example of Apple's fuckery. This wouldn't be much of an issue, of course, if Chrome would just run on iOS like it does on any other OS, so Google can implement PWAs themselves.
- lmm 1y ago
  > This wouldn't be much of an issue, of course, if Chrome would just run on iOS like it does on any other OS, so Google can implement PWAs themselves. You do understand that the reason it doesn't is because Apple won't let it, not that Google don't want to?
  - shuckles 1y ago
    This is a fantasy. No customer wants PWAs. They exist to make developers' lives easier, not consumers' lives.
    - threatofrain 1y ago
      Developer efficiencies can be translated to customer wins.
      - bzzzt 1y ago
        Then allowing Apple the efficiency of not implementing yet another way to build a GUI also is a customer win.

ashdksnndck 1y ago

I wouldn’t argue that Apple is worse than any other company. They’re just the tip of the spear in the fight against EU competition regulation. Other companies would fight just as hard if they had as much to lose by following the rules.

rickdeckard 1y ago

> But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common attitude in forums that somehow Apple is the only company doing this, or they’re doing it worse than any other company. Apart from being irrelevant and whataboutism, this is the narrative Apple is playing, particularly towards its userbase. The EU regulation doesn't focus on Apple in any way, the purpose of the DMA is to have objective criteria to identify a scaled market of digital goods with an uneven playing field for all players. The EU DMA has identified that Apple created a closed market of significant size, made themselves the gatekeeper and invited companies to compete there. But Apple participates in the market also as a player, and skews the playing field in their favor. So it's an unjust market where forces are unable to flow freely, and the EU is attempting to rectify that. The reasons why Apple is in such public focus on this are #1 because they operate an unusual amount of closed markets and #2 because they WANT this: it is part of Apple's strategy to rally publicly against the regulation and shape a different perception of it.

resource_waste 1y ago

Apple is a very stylish kind of company. Their public perception matters more because when you use an Apple product, it creates an image of you. If I buy a Google phone, no one is going to comment on it. If I buy an Apple, or a Tesla, or luxury vehicle, people are going to comment on it. If Apple is known to be scummy and you buy it, it makes you look bad. I think we are seeing that with Tesla now, I doubt too many liberals are buying a cybertruck.

jb1991 1y ago
I’m not sure where you live but this is a rather strange perspective. Apple is a lifestyle company? I think for every person I know that has an android phone, there are three or four with iPhones, where I live. Doesn’t make a very convincing case of some specific kind of a lifestyle niche. Then, among the developers I know, nearly none of them are actually writing apps for Apple devices, approximately half using MacBooks.
spogbiper 1y ago
maybe true in some parts of the world. where i live, literally 50% of phones are apple phones. they are commonplace. nobody comments on them.

gpm 1y ago

I can install apps that Google doesn't approve, and app stores other than Google's on my pixel. I can get root access to my pixel. I can replace the operating with an open source fork on my pixel. Google is not using its monopoly on the hardware to get a monopoly on the software - they're competing on software primarily on its own merits and the convenience of being the default. No other phone company that I know of even develops their own operating system. Apple really is unique in their attempt to control the software that runs on the mass market general purpose computing devices that they sell.