Well they need to wait a few more months before Apple will get their teeth kicked in, for this Bullshit Compliance by the EU Commission, and cry about handing over a sizeable chunk of their global turnover to them.
Maximum fine under DSA is 10% of Global Turnover
I can tell you that the courts in the EU mainly care about the letter of the law.
Less SCOTUS-esque rollercoaster rides about intent and historical tradition, more plaintext reading of the law.
Doesn’t mean they never have to interpret if something is unclear, but the DMA is actually pretty straightforward, with here and there some language that’s open for interpretation but not pertaining to browsers.
This will not happen. If Apple complies, it complies. They can’t blame Apple for not following a random EU directive in jurisdictions outside of the EU to begin with. They’re even different legal entities. The EU is not going to do anything about this at all and if they try: it will be blocked. I’ll check back here in 6 months to see how this aged.
> We are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Apple’s proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-specific apps,” DeMonte says. “The effect of this would be to force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations — a burden Apple themselves will not have to bear.”
I guess they were hoping that the EU's rules apply everywhere?
I feel like ‘surely follow’ will be measured in many years. The idea of not allowing competing browser engines on iOS has struck me one of Apples more egregious sins. Ideally I could be running Firefox prior to 2030 in the US, but I don’t trust our government’s pace to bet on it.
Well if Safari wouldn't intentionally suck, more people would choose to use Progressive WebApps instead of going through all the hassle of creating a dedicated iOS App
You mean like all of the people who choose to use PWAs for Android?
I’ve never once heard anyone say “you know Electron is such a great experience on the desktop, I would love to have all my mobile apps to be web based too”.
How many different Android devices does a serious developer need to buy to ensure their app works well across the spectrum from the top end Android phones to the sub $100 Blu R1 phones?
How many different versions of the operating system do they need to support because of how soon Android phones are abandoned by the manufacturers?
But this still doesn’t answer the question, if PWAs are so great on Android, then why are the same companies who are making iOS apps making Android apps instead of just telling Android users to use the web version?
depends on the complexity of the app. An app that can reasonably be a PWA (e.g. it is more or less a webpage wrapped in an APK) can probably be tested well enough on a dozen emulator pofiles and a few physical devices you have lying around.
Also I have been testing out PWAs in various different browsers (non-Safari) this last month and...ahem...I have been unimpressed.
I also think ad tech companies will prefer native apps for major markets (iOS) because it is tougher to block ads. PWAs tend not to support content blockers at the moment, but there certainly can.
South Korea already forced Apple to allow other payment processors, I guess China will follow surely suit if the EU is successful.
If that happens, it doesn't matter that much anymore if the US follows or not
EU's mandate of USB-C on phones is resulting in benefits for the rest of the world too, it's understandable to hope for the same in this case. Apple must have a lot to gain from keeping the other markets locked down if they're willing to invest the necessary time & money to maintain different guidelines like this.
The impact to Apple’s bottom line is very different. Maintaining regional SKUs for hardware would be much more expensive for Apple than just acquiescing to the mandate. Software doesn’t have nearly the same issues as physical goods when it comes to splitting feature by region, especially considering the goal will be to keep things more advantageous for apple in as many regions as possible for as long as possible. They can always flip the switch if/when they have to.
The cost of maintaining the restrictions in the EU are minimal, while it's trivial to buy phones in the EU and ship them out, and each additional hardware SKU is expensive. It's effectively "if location = EU then (features) else (lolgtfo)".
Yes, they have to deal with laws of different countries that apply the same to everyone. In this case Apple creates their own rules that do not apply the same to everyone, and are purely for malicious compliance.
Since anyone could travel to EU at any time and then the EU rules apply, either Apple must allow all their phones to follow the EU rules if user says they are in EU jurisdiction, or Apple should get a fine for non compliance.
That’s not how international laws and customs work. Besides, be careful what you wish for since if they’d follow that line of thought you’re in for a 20-25% tax plus an import fee for importing electronic devices from a different jurisdiction. (Also, the non-compliancy would be your doing as importer; not Apple’s.)
The current word on the street is iOS has a daemon that checks Wi-Fi, cell carrier, and GPS data to determine if the user's in the EEA or not, specifically so they can gate these profit-diminishing features to the minimum possible jurisdiction. Ergo, if you fly to the EU, you can install all this shit, and presumably it disables itself the moment you fly back to the US.
The regulatory process is focused on outcomes. Here, the desired outcome is fair browser engine competition. If Apple's rules appear unfair to the EU (as they probably will, since they probably will not create robust competition), then the directive will adapt to make that shortcoming clearly prohibited. Apple can kick the can down the road a couple times, but this process is not finished until browser competition on iOS is deemed fair.
> this process is not finished until browser competition on iOS is deemed fair.
But, by the same token, the laws as put into place outline none of the specifics of how that should actually function. All the EU did was wave its hand, say “browsers, please” and assumed that magically a perfect outcome would occur.
Well, now that lack of clarity is biting the EU in the ass, because it left Apple a ton of wiggle room. What Apple has announced of 17.4 changes is essentially a lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying.
The more specific they get and the more prescriptive they are in how a business should do business, the easier it is to get it overturned in court.
That’s also the reason why the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, because the first question a judge will ask is why is necessary and how they landed in the price.
The inverse is also true though. By using vague terminology like “reasonable”, they have more wiggle room to argue one way or another once it gets before a court.
At that point you then have to cross your fingers that the court not only finds that your reading of the vague language is the one true reading, but also that the reading itself is in line with the rest of the laws.
Contrary to what people seem to think about the EU, it isn’t some benevolent dictatorship that can put a wishlist to paper and then it’s some law of nature that can’t be contested.
The makers of the DMA are legislative bodies and the EC that enforces it is an executive body. Both need to work within the limitations of the law and the European courts will be the arbiters of that.
Yes, how can Mozilla possibly fund the development and maintenance of a derivative when they're so strapped for cash that the CEO makes $7,000,000 USD a year and after firing hundreds of developers.
Sure it does, those developers can work on an EU version of FF. If they're more interested in paying executive salaries than developing a product, that's a prioritization issue, not a technical one.
> Or that you refuse to empathize with any company that pays well?
That pays well? That's an indecent salary. I'm sure many people would love to have that position for a fraction of it, and they would not do a worse job.
>Apple takes EU specific actions to satisfy EU specific regulations
Is that an indecent argument? I'm probably among the last people to defend Apple, but the only problem I'm seeing here is Mozilla complaining they can't keep paying their CEO $7,000,000.00 USD if they have to hire more developers.
By effect, i can quick judge a website by its cookie banner. When i'm looking for quality content (most of the time), i know immediately if i've been clickbaited by my google search.
There's just one unintended benefit: when I'm looking for in-depth information on a subject, I've found that the presence of a cookie popup seems to correlate with a site containing only superficial information; it's an indicator that the site's primary purpose is harvesting eyeballs rather than imparting knowledge, so I should keep looking.
In theory I think people would thank the EU for this, but in practice people generally dislike the new cookie banner status quo.
We can quibble about whether the legislation necessarily dictates the shitty scenario we find ourselves in, but its the scenario it did lead to nonetheless.
The cookie banner status quo is malicious compliance by the tracking industry that the EU should come down hard on. In many cases they violate the GDPR by not giving accept and reject equal billing.
Many of those popups are clearly engineered to make it painful to "reject all" and easy to "accept all". This is malicious compliance, and it should be fined big time.
They could follow the DNT header. Non intrusive. Automatic.
They could also... not track you?
It's crazy that we have to explain that every time a thread about the cookie banner comes in.
Isn't HN supposed to be a forum full of tech saavy people?
What kind of blind spot people have to not be able to reach this conclusion themself and instead blame a protective law for what clearly is an abusive move from companies that have a long track record of abuses?
Or do they just repeat what the PR of those companies tell them?
I mean in what world have you been living in the past 30 years with companies lying, trying to escape all possible constraining laws, spying on users and generally bullying at every occasion they could? And your first conclusion is that they did the annoying banners because they are the good guys and took the best solution possible because they like you?
GDPR supposedly came into effect six years ago and they haven't fixed low-hanging fruit like cookie banners. Now imagine how long it will take them to fix Apple's bullshit.
I thought there's a fix incomming. But I can't find a link right now. Something about exactly the issue with "big green accept button", "small half hidden reject button".
bureaucrats don’t understand second order effects. it's in their interest not to. indeed, a lot of people seem to struggle with the concept based on the comments here.
Well, perhaps you'll thank the EU for it. I personally hate the cookie banners (that don’t do anything to stop ad tech) and the annoyance of needing new (expensive) cables for no real reason. I had very nice cables which worked great for years, that was fun to explain to the wife. And now the car stereo doesn't work through a wire to my phone any longer.
The last thing I want is another App Store. I enjoy the privacy and security of its payment disintermediation. An App Store from Facebook or Amazon is just going to be 'yet another spying apparatus.' No doubt employers and schools will be demanding their use soon.
Mandatory USB-C charger is awesome. With one power adapter I can charge everything! Laptop, phone, power bank, Bluetooth speaker, ever car seat for my child (yes, car seat nowadays have a battery).
I hope everything will be with USB-C, all home appliances as well.
My kettle is a boiler wired under the sink. But a normal 2400w kettle in countries with 240v outlets plugs into the wall. It's not really the kind of appliance you want battery operated either.
My toothbrush is already USB charged. I think for those small / battery charged applications you mentioned we'll get there pretty soon.
1. Cookie banners allow for informed consent. I like to see which companies are abusing my data, and take the extra couple of clicks to stop them from doing that.
2. USB-C cables are ludicrously cheap and massively preferable to needing to hunt for the Apple-specific proprietary cable. Not sure why you had to explain the purchase of a $2 cable to your wife.
3. Freedom of choice means you are free to continue using the walled garden, should you wish, but others are also free to explore alternatives which is currently impossible.
Shitty USB-C cables are ludicrously cheap. Quality cables are merely not expensive, and when you have to replace them in quantity [1], it leads to a decent amount of money having to be spent to replace otherwise perfectly fine non-USB-C cables and a whole bunch of electronic waste as those now-obsolete cables make their way to the trash bin.
—
[1] I easily have over a dozen and a half Lightning cables between the ones in my bedroom, my living room, my laptop bag, and my home desk. At ~$10-12 for a pair of braided Anker USB-C replacements, I’m looking at nearly a hundred dollars to replace them all.
Certainly the Apple cables aren’t quality. Or perhaps the better word is durable. The jacketing on the cables is a joke and gets worn through by a swift breeze.
Third-party cables, for whatever connector, you get what you pay for. Is it a shame I have a good number of lightning cables that I will have no use for in the near future? Yes.
I also have countless other cables that I longer have use for. I still haven’t been able to fully remove micro-usb from my life but we’re getting close and I’m glad for it. It would be much nicer to only have one type of cable in my bag, that’s for sure.
And presumably you only have to replace them if you replace your phone? It's not like the change came in and you had to rush down the shops straight away for new cables.
I’m not sure how you got 10 from “a dozen and a half”; 18/212 = $108.
Also, to your second point, because of the EU, everybody* who currently uses Lightning will be replacing all of their cables eventually. That’s money out of pocket sooner or later. Maybe it’s easier to swallow when it’s $12 every three months instead of $100 all in one go, but the sum doesn’t change.
I got 15 from a dozen and a half because I'm stupid and halved half a dozen. 10 was the lower bounds price. Anyway, $108 on cables. We're not breaking the bank here. You'll probably get to keep those cables for quite a few years. The waste bothers me more. I'm still stoked to have a single charging cable standard though.
3.) that’s not exactly true. Currently, you can choose for an open system or a walled garden in which you can’t be de facto blackmailed in to leaving the walled garden. With this so called freedom of choice you mention, I am no longer able to choose for a true walled garden. If I rely on certain apps that are moved to their own store, I am forced to go there and break the walled garden. Ergo: my choice is taken away from me. For completely arbitrary reasons.
As it was you had choices as a consumer; open, closed - whatever you want. But the thing I deliberately want to choose for is now taken away from me through one of the worst and most unfair business laws I’ve ever seen, that only does harm to the majority of consumers whose choice is taken away and whose privacy and safety is being weakened to destroyed. But “they have a choice to stay in their walled garden” (they just can’t use their phone the way they want and were always used to anymore if they do, but we don’t mention that part and we don’t care those millions of people are getting royally screwed over).
You know, true choice could’ve been achieved if the EU had made a fair law. They didn’t and now we as consumers are going to pay a very heavy price.
the car has USB-A ports, but none of the half dozen USB-C cables I tried could handle the connection. I guess I'll have to continue buying more USB A-to-C cables until i find one that works, or give up the feature i had before. It's just a silly inconvenience with a smattering of e-waste.
Clearly a couple of people disliked this line of inquiry, but FWIW, I've never had any issues connecting our honda's USB-A to USB-C on android phones. But I might not be trying advanced functions - I've just used it as a media player. The jack works well to, as well as bluetooth, so those are what I usually use.
At least in android, depending on your device, you might have to change settings related to file sharing over USB.
Agreed. Postfix is hard. Best to avoid the issues in the first place. USB-C remains a thorny subject because it’s probably a net win, but there’s a lot to dislike still. No I don’r want a high speed cable just to charge my damn phone.
- There is no cookie banner law, only an informed tracking consent law. Companies could follow the DNT header. They don't. They chose to inflict the banner on you, the worst way to comply to the law they could find, and managed to make you blame a pro privacy text for their choice.
- Apple changed cable without the EU once and would have changed again (remember the 30 pins?). They even didn't bother providing one at a point. At least this way we all get a uniform version that is cheap and can charge non phone devices.
- "yet another spying apparatus". Apple is one of the biggest advertiser in the world, and was part of the PRISM program. Their genius is to make you believe they don't spy on you. And noone force you to use the alternative store. That's called choice. Something I know Apple users are not big on.
If only people spent 10% of the energy they use to defend billion dollar bullies on caring about freedom.
i didn't "defend bullies." i just expressed my annoyance at the second order effects of the EU's diktats, which are a bunch of annoyances to me personally. i guess i should be glad i have the "freedom" to see useless cookie banners all over the net, and the "freedom" to not use my perfectly functional cables.
in my view, you’re the one defending bullies. wielding the power of the state to control free enterprise is like pointing a gun at somebody to get your way. "do what i say, or else" is what a bully does.
> noone force you to use the alternative store
i get the strong feeling you didn't really read what i wrote
>> And now the car stereo doesn't work through a wire to my phone any longer.
> Remember 30 pin?
I’ll do you one better: The first 30pin was widely deployed to all sorts of cars, and the majority of those hardwired the end that plugged in to the car. Then Apple changed the 30pin wiring while keeping the actual connector the same. The 30pin still plugged in, but it no longer charged the device nor passed audio through to the stereo.
Generally agree, but unfortunately the EU screwed up informed tracking consent. By giving control of the consent UI to the website owner, it's as painful as possible to use (incentives!). Make the requirement an API so the browser controls the UI and there's a competition to make users happy.
I agree that Apple carving out special exception for EU is indeed intentionally making sure that as few products will take advantage of it as possible.
But at the same time I am somewhat saddened that it seems so far fetched that Europe could produce world-class apps, including browser, by itself for itself.
That’s also why the EU probably won’t get more strict than this. The climate is very bad for tech companies with increasingly vague and weird laws (that mostly nobody asked for I might add) and this is starting to piss some countries off as they see other continents starting to excel and we can’t catch up due to such insane amounts of red tape.
Definitely understand why this would be painful for Firefox given that it forces a certain architecture e.g. use of XPC, authenticated pointers and sandboxing extensions.
But equally as a user my priority is the overall security of my phone over any one particular app. And we know from decades of experience that browsers are a major source of security issues.
I wish Firefox instead of playing the victim card would instead do a white paper outlining technically why certain approaches are hard to implement, why their approach is more secure if it is and what steps they do take to protect user's security and privacy. Would help the overall discussion that's for sure.
From the article, I don't see Mozilla saying they don't want to comply with the technical requirements, just that they don't want to maintain two versions of Firefox for iOS (one Webkit, one Gecko).
I think that is a fair complaint. It's a financial burden to maintain two versions that Apple is imposing on them.
Has the verge always been using that typeface for article headlines? The cutouts in the letters look like ink traps[1], but are distracting as all-getup when trying to read the thing as-is.
They introduced it in late 2022 or early 2023 I think. It was part of their rebranding. I agree with you, it's distracting, especially when used in a text-heavy medium like online journalism.
You know, I'll pay the 50 cents to run firefox on an iphone. No regrets. My goodness, that would be the best 50 cents you could spend on an iphone app. Holy shit. Better than the hot garbage you assholes peddle (especially in-app gacha hell addict bait - fuck you!)
>“The effect of this would be to force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations — a burden Apple themselves will not have to bear.”
Apple doesn't have to bear that burden because they use webkit everywhere, the same thing you (Mozilla) could be doing.
We really need a no-tether law. If you buy a device, then it should be possible to use it even after cutting all ties with the original vendor, otherwise it is a service, not a product.
If I buy a device from company A, then want to do business with company B, why does company A have anything to say about it? Am I not the owner of my device?
Bad faith arguments never end here. This general purpose computing device that you are trying to redefine as an "appliance" for the sake of the argument is how majority of the population consume media and information, manage their bank accounts, track their habits, communicate with each other, set up doctor's appointments, edit text documents, take and edit photographs, sign documents, and the other 99.9% of use cases that you must be disregarding in order to call it an "appliance".
>Not every appliance has to be a general purpose computing device.
it doesn't (I'm fine with game console OS as is), but Apple/IOS is definitely in an arguable position to be a general purpose computing device. I think subjecting anti-tether laws to companies in such a position seems reasonable fro the consumer end.
>What is a ”device“, exactly? What does it mean if it ”possible“ to use the device?
I feel it's less about what Apple can do and more about what they can't. They can't make it any more difficult to tinker with the hardware a user bought than any other general purpose computing device (in this case, desktop/laptop devices).
Yes and let's extend that - if you can't cut the tether then you're renting it and they have to keep it up to spec and comply with some rental regulations. If you decide it's not for you within an agreed lifetime of the device they have to refund the proportional difference.
The caveat is that it only seems to be available on older hardware. This is absolutely a hack that Apple actively tries to stop in hardware implementations.
The rules, as I understand them, mean that if Mozilla wishes, it can use its own engine with the browsers distributed in the EU -- and not that it must.
Why would these rules "force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations"? Can't they just keep on using the current implementation?
The point is that Mozilla wants to use their own browser engine for Firefox on iOS for all users. While the change opens up the possibility to do this in the EU, it's only possible to do so in the EU. iOS users in the US cannot get this version.
This means that Mozilla would have to maintain 2 versions, one for non-EU using webkit, the other for EU using their own, preferred browser engine.
Isn't the webkit one basically a marketing facade?
Genuinely interested: wouldn't it make sense for Mozilla to just drop support for the webkit one and go with their own engine for the EU? That would reward the better legislation, and then the US could follow.
>Why would these rules "force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations"?
it is obvious that Firefox users want the real Firefox and not a Safari skin, so Apple screws their customers that prefer Firefox. As I understand when you buy an Apple device they do not put on the box or the website a big banner that tells the user about their apps limitations, the Apple tax and that Apple forces developers not to inform them about better deals.
No big banner, but a EULA on first boot that explains the limitations and an option to return the device if you don’t agree.
No language on what the developer agreements terms are, because the E and the U in EULA stand for “End User”, so presumably it’s not deemed relevant to the end user.
So what do you think about the Apple rule that FORBIDS a developer to inform the user that there is a better deal on their website.
IMO the above is disgusting, illegal, anti-user crap, they prevent that you the user get informed about something that could benefit you but might make Apple lose some money.
EULAs (or agreements in general, for that matter) are unenforceable if the terms of the agreement aren’t known to the consumer before it binds them.
That’s why companies present EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap type agreements to the user before the user can use the service.
In Apple’s case, it’s slightly more complicated because there’s a purchase for a physical device involved.
Because of that, all their EULAs state in the opening in all caps and bold to stop using it and return it for a refund if you disagree with the terms.
This is sufficient for the EU because it allows consumers to read the terms before they’re bound to it while also providing an option to undo the sale for the device, preventing consumers from being stuck with a device they can’t use.
EU courts regularly enforce EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap agreements.
Typically, the only contention is about specific terms and clauses because while the contract form is fine, the terms within still need to adhere to the law.
The EU has an explicit grey list and a black list of unreasonable terms.
But in most cases where a term is considered unlawful, only that specific clause is struck down, not the entire agreement.
Often, this is the desired outcome by the person subject to the agreement because they might otherwise not be able to use a piece of software at all.
Remember that the default legal status is that you can’t use someone else’s software.
You need permission (i.e., a license) from the copyright holder.
That license is granted via a license agreement.
Voiding the entire agreement also voids the license granted to you.
Yes, generally the best you can hope for normally is cancellation of the agreement -- that is, a refund. If you want to contest a EULA, you can't continue using the product. If the manufacturer has a policy of no-questions-asked refund on seeing the EULA, then there's not much more the consumer can ask for; if the seller were to refuse the refund, then that would likely count as a hidden term.
Not sure about other browsers, but Safari has them, and they've been doing the job for me for years as well.
My browser of choice is still Firefox and I'd love to use the full version on iOS (for its extensions and because I could sync my history and bookmarks to my computer), but privacy-wise I really can't complain about Safari.
164 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] threadI can tell you that the courts in the EU mainly care about the letter of the law.
Less SCOTUS-esque rollercoaster rides about intent and historical tradition, more plaintext reading of the law.
Doesn’t mean they never have to interpret if something is unclear, but the DMA is actually pretty straightforward, with here and there some language that’s open for interpretation but not pertaining to browsers.
I guess they were hoping that the EU's rules apply everywhere?
I’ve never once heard anyone say “you know Electron is such a great experience on the desktop, I would love to have all my mobile apps to be web based too”.
How many different versions of the operating system do they need to support because of how soon Android phones are abandoned by the manufacturers?
But this still doesn’t answer the question, if PWAs are so great on Android, then why are the same companies who are making iOS apps making Android apps instead of just telling Android users to use the web version?
Every year there is some excuse (usually missing API X) why they aren't a success.
I also think ad tech companies will prefer native apps for major markets (iOS) because it is tougher to block ads. PWAs tend not to support content blockers at the moment, but there certainly can.
What does your app do that's so special it needs more than a console game?
Only one of these definitions just cost Google $5 billion settlement for tracking Chrome incognito mode users.
From investigation to enforcement to adjudication all the way to the ECJ you’ll be looking at roughly 10 years.
Once all of that has played out, maybe some other jurisdiction might then decide to copy some parts.
We haven’t even entered the pre-investigation phase in which the EU will wag their fingers.
Agree or disagree with the changes, but this is a non-sensical line to take. If you want to play on the world stage, this is how it goes.
It’s up to Apple to decide how it complies with the rules of each market it does business in.
But, by the same token, the laws as put into place outline none of the specifics of how that should actually function. All the EU did was wave its hand, say “browsers, please” and assumed that magically a perfect outcome would occur.
Well, now that lack of clarity is biting the EU in the ass, because it left Apple a ton of wiggle room. What Apple has announced of 17.4 changes is essentially a lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying.
do you think that the regulators did that on purpose, or are they simply not competent enough to understand the implications?
The more specific they get and the more prescriptive they are in how a business should do business, the easier it is to get it overturned in court.
That’s also the reason why the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, because the first question a judge will ask is why is necessary and how they landed in the price.
The inverse is also true though. By using vague terminology like “reasonable”, they have more wiggle room to argue one way or another once it gets before a court.
At that point you then have to cross your fingers that the court not only finds that your reading of the vague language is the one true reading, but also that the reading itself is in line with the rest of the laws.
Contrary to what people seem to think about the EU, it isn’t some benevolent dictatorship that can put a wishlist to paper and then it’s some law of nature that can’t be contested.
The makers of the DMA are legislative bodies and the EC that enforces it is an executive body. Both need to work within the limitations of the law and the European courts will be the arbiters of that.
That gives Apple an "advantage"...but the nature of the advantage originates outside the EU.
Cry me a river, I have no sympathies.
Their complaint seems legitimate, to me. I think you're throwing around ad-hominem to discredit a valid argument.
That pays well? That's an indecent salary. I'm sure many people would love to have that position for a fraction of it, and they would not do a worse job.
And that's only the CEO, not all the employees.
Even if you keep all that lean, you now created a giant cost center with no additional revenue.
It's an artificial financial burden imposed by Apple, and there is not even a decent argument for it.
>Apple takes EU specific actions to satisfy EU specific regulations
Is that an indecent argument? I'm probably among the last people to defend Apple, but the only problem I'm seeing here is Mozilla complaining they can't keep paying their CEO $7,000,000.00 USD if they have to hire more developers.
Universal chargers, informed tracking consent, separation of accounts...
US and EU balance each other pretty well.
Has to be as easily clickable as the "accept all" button, otherwise sites are not compliant
Turns out you chose not prioritize judging the humans that run those billion dollars companies.
Works really well for me.
We know:
- the ones that track you
- the ones that track you and use a cookie banner but no allow DNT, annoying you for no good reason
- the ones that track you and use a dark pattern
That's a good way to avoid their product.
Let the bastards self identify loud and clear.
Have you noticed that HN doesn't have a cookie banner?
In theory I think people would thank the EU for this, but in practice people generally dislike the new cookie banner status quo.
We can quibble about whether the legislation necessarily dictates the shitty scenario we find ourselves in, but its the scenario it did lead to nonetheless.
Or drop the unnecessary ones.
2. Provide a simple "can we share your data with third parties Allow/Decline" box, and
3. Apply DNT value automatically so they don't need to ask.
They could also... not track you?
It's crazy that we have to explain that every time a thread about the cookie banner comes in.
Isn't HN supposed to be a forum full of tech saavy people?
What kind of blind spot people have to not be able to reach this conclusion themself and instead blame a protective law for what clearly is an abusive move from companies that have a long track record of abuses?
Or do they just repeat what the PR of those companies tell them?
I mean in what world have you been living in the past 30 years with companies lying, trying to escape all possible constraining laws, spying on users and generally bullying at every occasion they could? And your first conclusion is that they did the annoying banners because they are the good guys and took the best solution possible because they like you?
Most people do, and techies/HN people are people.
EU: “You need to respect PII”
The market: malicious compliance and obvious dark patterns
EU: sigh Ok, we’ll also have to tell you how you’re allowed to ask. drafts new legislation
I do love GDPR's ability to download your data, but I am unsure of how much actual good that's done.
Universal chargers is great!
The last thing I want is another App Store. I enjoy the privacy and security of its payment disintermediation. An App Store from Facebook or Amazon is just going to be 'yet another spying apparatus.' No doubt employers and schools will be demanding their use soon.
> the annoyance of needing new (expensive) cables for no real reason
A USB C cable is like $5 and one with a built in dac is $20
I hope everything will be with USB-C, all home appliances as well.
I'm not sure I want a kettle pulling 2400w over a usb cable
USB kettle is not a joke you can find plenty on Amazon.
But I'm thinking about cordless appliances: shaver, toothbrush, vacuum cleaner, etc.
My toothbrush is already USB charged. I think for those small / battery charged applications you mentioned we'll get there pretty soon.
2. USB-C cables are ludicrously cheap and massively preferable to needing to hunt for the Apple-specific proprietary cable. Not sure why you had to explain the purchase of a $2 cable to your wife.
3. Freedom of choice means you are free to continue using the walled garden, should you wish, but others are also free to explore alternatives which is currently impossible.
Shitty USB-C cables are ludicrously cheap. Quality cables are merely not expensive, and when you have to replace them in quantity [1], it leads to a decent amount of money having to be spent to replace otherwise perfectly fine non-USB-C cables and a whole bunch of electronic waste as those now-obsolete cables make their way to the trash bin.
— [1] I easily have over a dozen and a half Lightning cables between the ones in my bedroom, my living room, my laptop bag, and my home desk. At ~$10-12 for a pair of braided Anker USB-C replacements, I’m looking at nearly a hundred dollars to replace them all.
And don't tell me lightning is quality, I've seen my friends consume them by the dozen.
Third-party cables, for whatever connector, you get what you pay for. Is it a shame I have a good number of lightning cables that I will have no use for in the near future? Yes.
I also have countless other cables that I longer have use for. I still haven’t been able to fully remove micro-usb from my life but we’re getting close and I’m glad for it. It would be much nicer to only have one type of cable in my bag, that’s for sure.
And presumably you only have to replace them if you replace your phone? It's not like the change came in and you had to rush down the shops straight away for new cables.
Also, to your second point, because of the EU, everybody* who currently uses Lightning will be replacing all of their cables eventually. That’s money out of pocket sooner or later. Maybe it’s easier to swallow when it’s $12 every three months instead of $100 all in one go, but the sum doesn’t change.
As it was you had choices as a consumer; open, closed - whatever you want. But the thing I deliberately want to choose for is now taken away from me through one of the worst and most unfair business laws I’ve ever seen, that only does harm to the majority of consumers whose choice is taken away and whose privacy and safety is being weakened to destroyed. But “they have a choice to stay in their walled garden” (they just can’t use their phone the way they want and were always used to anymore if they do, but we don’t mention that part and we don’t care those millions of people are getting royally screwed over).
You know, true choice could’ve been achieved if the EU had made a fair law. They didn’t and now we as consumers are going to pay a very heavy price.
Besides, before lightning, apple obsolated all 30-pin compatible devices.
- Apple changed cable without the EU once and would have changed again (remember the 30 pins?). They even didn't bother providing one at a point. At least this way we all get a uniform version that is cheap and can charge non phone devices.
- "yet another spying apparatus". Apple is one of the biggest advertiser in the world, and was part of the PRISM program. Their genius is to make you believe they don't spy on you. And noone force you to use the alternative store. That's called choice. Something I know Apple users are not big on.
If only people spent 10% of the energy they use to defend billion dollar bullies on caring about freedom.
in my view, you’re the one defending bullies. wielding the power of the state to control free enterprise is like pointing a gun at somebody to get your way. "do what i say, or else" is what a bully does.
> noone force you to use the alternative store
i get the strong feeling you didn't really read what i wrote
> Remember 30 pin?
I’ll do you one better: The first 30pin was widely deployed to all sorts of cars, and the majority of those hardwired the end that plugged in to the car. Then Apple changed the 30pin wiring while keeping the actual connector the same. The 30pin still plugged in, but it no longer charged the device nor passed audio through to the stereo.
I have 4 stores installed on my Samsung phone.
It's fair the average consumer don't want to deal with those things. It's not that we can't.
It sucks, but it's less bad to let them do all the wrong things, and then say "not that", until only what's good remain.
I wish companies would not start by being assholes to save a step, but politicians is terrible.
But at the same time I am somewhat saddened that it seems so far fetched that Europe could produce world-class apps, including browser, by itself for itself.
But equally as a user my priority is the overall security of my phone over any one particular app. And we know from decades of experience that browsers are a major source of security issues.
I wish Firefox instead of playing the victim card would instead do a white paper outlining technically why certain approaches are hard to implement, why their approach is more secure if it is and what steps they do take to protect user's security and privacy. Would help the overall discussion that's for sure.
https://mozilla.github.io/platform-tilt/
So would be good to understand in detail what Firefox's issues are.
I think that is a fair complaint. It's a financial burden to maintain two versions that Apple is imposing on them.
[1]: https://tosche.net/blog/ink-traps-and-pals (first link I found describing it--I didn't know the term ink trap until just now)
Apple doesn't have to bear that burden because they use webkit everywhere, the same thing you (Mozilla) could be doing.
If I buy a device from company A, then want to do business with company B, why does company A have anything to say about it? Am I not the owner of my device?
Not every appliance has to be a general purpose computing device.
it doesn't (I'm fine with game console OS as is), but Apple/IOS is definitely in an arguable position to be a general purpose computing device. I think subjecting anti-tether laws to companies in such a position seems reasonable fro the consumer end.
>What is a ”device“, exactly? What does it mean if it ”possible“ to use the device?
I feel it's less about what Apple can do and more about what they can't. They can't make it any more difficult to tinker with the hardware a user bought than any other general purpose computing device (in this case, desktop/laptop devices).
/s?
Apple's operating system (iOS) gets installable packages from the Apple Store.
Please do provide a link.
The caveat is that it only seems to be available on older hardware. This is absolutely a hack that Apple actively tries to stop in hardware implementations.
Why would these rules "force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations"? Can't they just keep on using the current implementation?
This means that Mozilla would have to maintain 2 versions, one for non-EU using webkit, the other for EU using their own, preferred browser engine.
Genuinely interested: wouldn't it make sense for Mozilla to just drop support for the webkit one and go with their own engine for the EU? That would reward the better legislation, and then the US could follow.
it is obvious that Firefox users want the real Firefox and not a Safari skin, so Apple screws their customers that prefer Firefox. As I understand when you buy an Apple device they do not put on the box or the website a big banner that tells the user about their apps limitations, the Apple tax and that Apple forces developers not to inform them about better deals.
No language on what the developer agreements terms are, because the E and the U in EULA stand for “End User”, so presumably it’s not deemed relevant to the end user.
IMO the above is disgusting, illegal, anti-user crap, they prevent that you the user get informed about something that could benefit you but might make Apple lose some money.
EULAs (or agreements in general, for that matter) are unenforceable if the terms of the agreement aren’t known to the consumer before it binds them.
That’s why companies present EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap type agreements to the user before the user can use the service.
In Apple’s case, it’s slightly more complicated because there’s a purchase for a physical device involved. Because of that, all their EULAs state in the opening in all caps and bold to stop using it and return it for a refund if you disagree with the terms.
This is sufficient for the EU because it allows consumers to read the terms before they’re bound to it while also providing an option to undo the sale for the device, preventing consumers from being stuck with a device they can’t use.
EU courts regularly enforce EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap agreements. Typically, the only contention is about specific terms and clauses because while the contract form is fine, the terms within still need to adhere to the law.
The EU has an explicit grey list and a black list of unreasonable terms. But in most cases where a term is considered unlawful, only that specific clause is struck down, not the entire agreement.
Often, this is the desired outcome by the person subject to the agreement because they might otherwise not be able to use a piece of software at all.
Remember that the default legal status is that you can’t use someone else’s software. You need permission (i.e., a license) from the copyright holder. That license is granted via a license agreement.
Voiding the entire agreement also voids the license granted to you.
In this case, I think the issues of privacy and user choice/competition are largely orthogonal (but both important!)
My browser of choice is still Firefox and I'd love to use the full version on iOS (for its extensions and because I could sync my history and bookmarks to my computer), but privacy-wise I really can't complain about Safari.