> This is genuinely tricky due to battery life and data usage considerations.
Which isn't really any of Apples business if I want to make that sacrifice, but rather something they can promote as a win by using their solution if it turns out that alternative push notification services implement it poorly.
But it's optional enshittification. I should have the option of messing up my device. Apple are free to scare me away from doing so, but the choice needs to be mine as the owner.
If I take Apple's goodwill (which in this specific case to me is plausible, but whatever ...) the issue with alternate notification channels is that it's quite tough to attribute for users if there are 10 push daemons doing it their way. But the bad press about bad battery life time hits Apple.
Especially if Apple allows others to move it from application layer to system layer (by providing a Kernel interface?) which is required for being really energy efficient.
They already have annoying modals that pop up when apps are using my location in the background, they could easily make these hypothetical "NotificationServiceKit apps" spawn similar modals when they take up a lot of CPU time, memory, or other energy intensive metrics.
> We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own
Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.
It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is?
It would be perfectly sensible to force large platform vendors to let you install arbitrary software. No problem at all. Doesn’t mean that also has to apply to, I don’t know, refrigerators with WiFi. Or cars.
Conflicting regulations when it comes to cars, and for WiFi refrigerators (meaning any gadget that runs some sort of OS) I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it makes sense to make different regulation for general-purpose computing devices and purpose-specific devices.
Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.
How would you classify a PlayStation: general-purpose computing that should be required to be open, or purpose-specific that can be allowed looser regulations?
PlayStation is a games console, it's a purpose-specific device. I think there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android, or whatever Apple are slowly trying to turn MacBooks into.
I don't pretend to know all the answers, my stance is that the reason our society is where it is today is at least in part because computers have been computers, and not this "my way or the highway" approach Apple has for the iPhone.
> PlayStation is a games console, it's a purpose-specific device
Why isn't the iPhone a smartphone, a purpose-specific device?
> there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android
This shifts the game from defining what Apple can and cannot do to what a general-purpose computing device is. And that's the point. That's why this framing is great if you're Apple. A specific discussion regarding tangible outcomes morphs into an arcane debate over jargon and philosophy.
That's a little different, but an interesting topic to discuss!
In my opinion there are 3 ways forward in such situations.
1. The manufacturer designs the car so that the infotainment unit is replaceable when they stop updating the original. Replacements not certified as "road safe" would be illegal to install.
2. The manufacturer literally never stops updating the software... (yeah, obviously this isn't a real alternative, but it's technically acceptable if a manufacturer wants to attempt to make that promise)
3. The manufacturer, after ceasing updates, provides the necessary documentation for an alternative software to be built, but it wouldn't be obviously legal to install just anything, the software would need to be certified "road safe" and how you would assert that you're not running unsafe software is not obvious to me.
I don't know why my infotainment system modifications would need to be certified. The head unit itself is swappable with something that just runs stock Android.
(I don't swap it because there are a few minor annoyances with that)
Because there are laws about what a driver is allowed to do while driving and for very good reasons. Infotainment systems are a natural source of distractions, and without safeguards there isn't anything stopping things like Netflix from running while the car is being driven.
I wish we lived in a world where we could say, "sure but the driver knows not to put that on while driving, so we're all good!", but we very much unfortunately don't...
I can mount my tablet and run Netflix. I don't think one needs to restrict what software I can install when it's already illegal to use it while driving.
Hell, I could pull a small grill into the 12V power supply and cook dinner while driving down the road.
The idea that software can police our lives is actually part of the issue we are talking about. Apple doesn't want us to be able to install arbitrary software on our phones "for our safety".
PlayStation 3 ran Linux just fine so it can be classified as a computer and forcefully opened. Not sure why do you all think this is some "gotcha" when the corpos you defend proved you otherwise already.
I'm not defending the corporations, just bringing up an important borderline case that any regulatory proposal needs an answer for.
On the one hand, the hardware of a PlayStation is pretty close to a general purpose PC and some iterations have been claimed as such by Sony for tax reasons. On the other hand, a great many PlayStation customers would be up in arms if regulators forced the platform open in any way that weakened the security that their competitive multiplayer experiences are built to rely on.
> It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is
General-purpose computing is workable. General-purpose computing on any hardware you own is not. Government regulations prohibit tampering with most emissive hardware, for instance.
General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators.
Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access. I still think even in those cases there needs to be some regulation that ensures manufacturers allow independent, qualified, repair shops to effectively repair broken tech.
> General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators
Since when have iPhones been marketed as such? Apple goes out of its way to promote its walled garden.
> Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access
Delineating this is hard. iPhones contain modem chips, for instance.
Again, I'm not arguing against the principle in general nor even specifically when it comes to Apple. Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."
Prove to me that Apple has never marketed the App Store or the fact that you can run non-Apple software on an iPhone. If you can do that I'll drop this argument immediately.
> Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."
But I'm specifically not saying that, I'm saying hardware sold to me with the promise that I'll be able to expand its functionality via software. Regardless how you want to try to spin it that's what general-purpose computing means.
I'm saying that if you want to sell a product which relies on software written by other people (that are not the vendor) to be successful, then you have to go the whole way, you can't then say "ah but see actually I'm the only one that can decide WHAT can run on your device, and you have to pay ME forever for the pleasure of running anything on it!". You can put up road blocks if you want, but you've sold me a device intended to be expandable via software, a general-purpose computing device, not a purpose-specific device.
> Prove to me that Apple has never marketed the App Store or the fact that you can run non-Apple software on an iPhone
Being able to install third-party software does not make the iPhone a general-purpose computer. Apple never marketed its devices as general-purpose computers. The original iPhone didn't even allow third-party apps. (Had they, there would be a false marketing angle to play. But they didn't so there isn't.)
> if you want to sell a product which relies on software written by other people (that are not the vendor) to be successful, then you have to go the whole way
This is the debate. Restating a position isn't argument.
> Had they, there would be a false marketing angle to play. But they didn't so there isn't.
That argument is relevant for the original iPhone, not for any iPhones sold after the advent of the App Store.
> Apple never marketed its devices as general-purpose computers.
Yet they are. It isn't up to the manufacturer to choose which class of regulations they want to play under, that definition is for an external part to decide, otherwise Apple could just classify all of their devices as fidget spinners and do whatever the hell they want.
I would consider a phone as damgerous as a scooter, if not more - considering the amount of private information in it and the access to bank accounts it grants. The damage that can be incurred by malware in a phone can ne greater than a medium speed accident on a scooter.
(At least me, personally, I’d prefer to hit a wall with my car at 60-70kmph than to have a malware on my phone. And I said that after being in more than one serious car accident)
> I would consider a phone as damgerous as a scooter, if not more - considering the amount of private information in it and the access to bank accounts it grants.
App sandboxing protects you from apps trying to access your information without your say-so, I'm not advocating for Apple to allow these third party apps to bypass the sandbox.
The sandbox and review processes are completely separate from each other. Technically if the review process was flawless Apple wouldn't need a sandbox in iOS.
Yeah sure, things that attempt to break out of the sandbox will not be caught before ending up running on a users phone, but this also gives Apple somewhere to learn about novel sandbox escaping techniques from, so they can eventually patch them.
> Can't those cases simply be exempted from the requirement?
Congratulations, you've turned a discussion about Apple's anticompetitive actions into a multi-industry free-for-all demanding and drafting exemptions. Hence why I said this is lobbyist-of-the-year material.
HN tends to go down extreme rabbit holes that anyone with professional legal expertise would smile at near-immediately due to it coming across as earnest and naive.
Here, we see a flippant comment consume tons and tons of replies, because we tend to think of laws like code. Absolutist, and if the absolutes are wrong, we'll patch.
Which then leaves you open to recursive arguments about patches and unpersuasive railing about regulation being ineffective, lobbyists, etc etc.[^1]
I think this situation might be a bit of a wake up call. Apple decided to implement a maliciously compliant solution, and it's immediately obvious to all concerned they didn't fulfill the spirit of their obligations, and there will be consequences. Not necessarily negative ones. But this isnt going to get delivered with no changes while the EU stays quiet.
[^1] "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."
> we see a flippant comment consume tons and tons of replies, because we tend to think of laws like code. Absolutist, and if the absolutes are wrong, we'll patch.
To be fair, this resembles a lot of lawmaking, too.
> Apple decided to implement a maliciously compliant solution, and it's immediately obvious to all concerned they didn't fulfill the spirit of their obligations, and there will be consequences
You don’t have to go down any of those definition rabbit holes. It doesn’t matter because you can count the platforms that really have an impact on probably one hand.
Windows, macOS, iOS, iPadOS, Android. I’m up for including game consoles on this list.
Let everybody else be all closed and only require them to open up when they become more important/widespread.
> I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"?
The unworkable bit is the breadth. Being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own" means every computer is a general computer. That includes the one in your cable box, on your cellular modem chip, in your car.
> Not if those devices aren't marketed as "being able to install new software"
What does that mean, though? My thermostat updates itself OTA. So does my modem chip. And I can configure, to a degree, optional add-ons on my Subaru.
This is the problem with changing the argument to being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own." It's unworkable not because it's fundamentally flawed, but because its edges are fractally messy. You can absorb an infinite amount of time into delineating it. In the meantime, the thing you were actually going for--a competitive App Store--is forgotten.
I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse. It's pretty obvious from the discussion I am not talking about anything that has updatable software, I'm talking about things sold with the promise to be able to add broad new functionality in multiple fields. A thermostat may be able to add new methods of scheduling, energy saving, other means of control, integrations with other smart devices, but all with the singular purpose of controlling a radiator, under-floor heating or other heating device.
But if we're gonna entertain the notion somewhat, yes, if the thermostat allowed installation of non-thermostat related things like video streaming services, games, Twitter, or other apps that were allowed to run on the device to give it more use than at point of sale, and it was also marketed as such when sold, then yes, it was being sold as a (rather silly) general-purpose computing device and should be required to give users access to what they need to build their own software and run it on it, sans manufacturer control.
That's how almost everything worked before the user hostile mobile takeover, not sure why it's not possible anymore. It's the previous state of affair and worked fine.
That can also mean "wipe the device of the OS, and install your own".
Ownership of hardware, has never implied ownership of software. Usage rights, with first sale in most countries, but not ownership of the software.
But where do usage rights end, and where does "right to use the device as purchased" start? Certainly, Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem.
I suspect Apple's next move might be disabling their apps, and ecosystem, leaving a bare OS, if you move to a competing app store.
Or maybe leaving core apps, and prohibiting installation of other apps while removing their app store.
They might have a case for that. And Google for the longest time, will not allow the play store in a legit way, unless the OS is validated by them. So in this Apple wouldn't be an outlier.
> Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem
Unfortunately this advertisement is just an illusion designed to lure naive customers, as has been amply proven by the long list of CVE's revealed at the end of 2023, due to which the Apple devices have been completely insecure against those who had known them many years before the public.
After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless.
Forget CVEs. The App Store itself is a hive of scum and villainy[1]. How this stuff gets past review while email and calendar apps have to raise a public stink[2] to get in is beyond me.
After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless
This isn't a legit argument. Sadly, like it or not, no software on the planet escapes CVEs. You'd never successfully argue what you're suggesting in court.
Yeah - that could be solved by a one way fuse that unlocks the bootloader but prevents you from ever reinstalling iOS. I’m not actually kidding. I’d be quite happy to be able to install Linux on my old iOS devices that Apple no longer supports so that I can repurpose them as hobby devices.
I think they are referring to like a really simple scorched-earth solution that Apple could make which would scare off literally 99% of users but would technically be fully compliant.
Unlockable bootloader should 100% be a thing, but I doubt it'll happen, and in its absence Apple will probably need to open up their walled garden more to actually be DMA compliant.
There are all kinds of poor customer experience edge cases that arise if people can go back and forth, and Apple wants to protect the customer experience and brand from that. Whether you agree with their reasoning or not, it is what it is.
On the other hand I understand why people (myself being one of them) want to use the hardware they bought for something other than running iOS. This seems especially important once Apple drops support for the device.
What kind of chaotic world would we live in if you could put third party paper in your Smith Corona typewriter? Think of the security risk and how much it would confuse people! And it's their platform...they deserve a cut of any commerce performed using it. /s
This is why I find the idea of Apple making an electric car so intriguing. It opens up a whole world of possibilities for things that Apple can take a 30% cut of: anything you buy at the supermarket, any clothes you buy, etc. If any store doesn't allow Apple to audit their sales and pay the tax, your Apple car simply won't go allow you to go that store anymore.
I've thought a tremendous amount about this. Its important to note, we're speaking from an ethical/moral angle, not a legal one. Apple isn't doing anything that courts have been found to be illegal.
First, on what Apple calls their "Core Technology Fee" in Europe.
Ethically, I believe its really obvious that this fee is something that is paid by users. When I buy an iPhone, I am buying the operating system, which includes the core technology that iPhone ships with. Apple absolutely charges users for this; they also double-charge developers for it, as its part of their 30% fee structure.
Apple has also made the argument that the 30% fee structure also includes App Store marketing services. This is a more-reasonable argument from Apple, specifically in the situation where the sale is DIRECTLY attributable to an action within the App Store application (e.g. searching for an app to buy, home page marketing, etc). This differentiation is not a new idea: the Windows app store formalizes this model by taking a larger cut of sales that came from the store channel versus external channels [1].
However, Apple's cut is universal, regardless of channel. In their infinite ability to double-dip, they also charge for advertising services within the App Store; so, developers may pay for a click-through within the App Store home page or search results, then also pay the 30% cut when that ad converts into a sale.
A few years ago, Apple reduced their cut on subscription revenue to, effectively, 15%. This is still extremely high for the level of service Apple is providing to justify that 15%; but it makes sense from the perspective that what Apple definitely and obviously isn't doing is any kind of customer support or marketing to maintain that customer. Apple has never been willing to admit that the same thing holds true for any piecemeal purchase where the primary marketing channel is the app itself, and not the App Store. If I buy an audiobook on Spotify, Apple did nothing to push that sale forward, similar to how they did nothing to convince me to renew my Spotify subscription. Yet, they would in theory get an additional 15% of the sale.
All of this is also, please do not forget, in addition to the $99/year fee Apple charges all developers. Its not a lot, especially for companies like Spotify. But, that supposedly includes things like the core technology license; so in some sense Apple is actually triple-dipping on these sales.
Oh, and also: A some of these numbers are different and worse for games. Why? Because I guess games are, just, different? For some reason. Unclear. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Apple is the world's largest gaming company by revenue.
Here's what I strongly feel is ethical:
- Apple can charge whatever percentage they want for IAP. Its their product, do what you will.
- Apple can require applications distributed through the App Store to only leverage Apple IAP. Its their App Store, do what you will.
- Apple must allow the installation of applications via a web browser outside of the App Store channel. Apple may elect to scan these applications with some kind of on-device threat classification, and present the results of that scan to the user. Apple may also elect to change the wording of this installation prompt to account for whether the app is signed by Apple, and the developer is within the Apple Developer program. All of these protection systems must be user-overrideable, point in time, without any additional navigation or payment from the user.
Here's the thing: I think, under a system like this, Spotify still doesn't change. I think most major apps don't change.
The impact Apple's rules have on e.g. Spotify's business model cannot be understated. As an example: Spotify wants to get into Audiobooks, which we'll assume is a reasonable and interesting expansion of their business. Traditionally, audiobooks are sold piecemeal; but its difficult for Spotify to find success doing this, because the majority of their users are on mobile, and mobile platforms would require a 30% cut, which far exceeds the meager margins Spotify would already be taking on the sale.
One alternative people who aren't close to this topic propose is: Why can't Spotify just charge iOS users 30% more to compensate? Easy: Apple explicitly forbids this. You cannot charge iOS users more than other users.
This leaves Spotify with two courses of action. (1): They can globally raise the price of their audiobooks by 30% (or, put another way, by some amount to compensate for Apple's 30% cut). (2): They can refuse to sell audiobooks in the Spotify app on mobile.
Globally raising the cost of audiobooks is an entirely untenable path. Generally, the cost of audiobooks is set by the publishers; and Apple themselves is a competitor in this space. This means that Apple would get an implicit ~30% discount on every audiobook they sell over competitors; and consumers would obviously flock to that.
Spotify has walked the alternate path: You cannot buy audiobooks in the Spotify mobile app. This is a better solution for their business, but it presents its own challenges because, again, a very significant portion of Spotify users likely have never launched the desktop or web experiences. This has pushed Spotify toward their newest initiative: Premium subscriptions come with a number of bundled audiobook listening hours. They can leverage the pre-existing subscription channel, which already bypasses IAP. They're not really turning more revenue from this, but its a value-add and eventually they'll raise the price of the subscription or add additional subscription tiers to compensate.
An interesting further angle to this is the downstream impact on authors. Subscriptionizing has almost universally had the impact of hurting content creators; its a capitalistic efficiency-maximizer which has wrecked the movie industry, the TV industry, the music industry, and now its coming for audiobooks. What deals has Spotify made with audiobook publishers to make this "free listening hours" model possible, we may never know. But, its important to recognize that, while Spotify should bare some responsibility/blame for this shift, Apple is the one that forced them to change the model.
Capitalism is a closed-loop system. Apple's tax isn't just hurting app developers: their pain gets passed down the supply chain. It hurts content creators, and it ultimately hurts consumers as well.
> Easy: Apple explicitly forbids this. You cannot charge iOS users more than other users.
Wondering how that stands up legally. Wasn't there a long litigation about this in the context of credit cards, that the banks eventually lost? Merchants are allowed to charge more for credit card use.
The banks ended up winning that case. Merchants are no longer allowed to charge a credit card fee, although some still do anyway. The Apple v Epic case specifically brought up this question and the clause that prevents charging ios users different amounts was ruled legal.
It's for subscription services I believe. The case brought up often is Netflix which is forced to allow people to sign up on their game apps for the regular price even though apple takes 30% of the revenue from those users.
There is no such rule, subscription service or otherwise.
You can charge whatever you want on iOS. Apple does not have a favored nation clause, the way Amazon does. It's a weird myth.
Developers can, and do, charge more on iOS than on other platforms. Those that don't chose not to.
What you cannot do is talk about Apple's 30% in your pricing. That's it. That's the rule. Don't talk about the commission but charge whatever you want to cover it.
In terms of Netflix … there are no purchase options within a Netflix game. You either have an active Netflix account, or you don't. If you don't, you can download the game but you can't play it.
I no longer trust anything Spotify says after they fought so hard to get support for home pod actions, Apple added those and years later they haven't bothered to implement that OR airplay 2.
If you think Spotify has only done one bad thing, you're delusional.
There's mountains of evidence that shows how they regularly fleece artists. Just last week this site hosted a story that researched how they're now using AI to generate fake music to avoid paying artists even further.
They pay a fortune to Joe Rogan, a man who is willfully destroying the country by spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.
This company is responsible for so, so much damage.
> Just last week this site hosted a story that researched how they're now using AI to generate fake music to avoid paying artists even further.
Could you source this, please? I've missed it.
> There's mountains of evidence that shows how they regularly fleece artists.
70+% of revenue goes to pay licences, a lot of artists have bad deals with their labels and get shafted from that revenue, deals like labels taking 50-70% of the licencing deals, historically it has been extremely common for labels to shafts artists, way before the internet age.
Or with how they shut out third party clients for paid customers by deprecating libspotify without ever providing a playback-capable replacement (despite promises otherwise).
I’m sure paid Spotify users would like freedom of choice just as much as the Apple customers they’re supposedly advocating for. Until they address this, as well as support for devices that aren’t Spotify Connect™ devices (like HomePods), they’re being hypocritical.
It is shitty they killed libspotify, but it isn't hard to reverse engineer the way the app communicates with the backend, this has already happened in the form of https://github.com/librespot-org/librespot as an example.
And if Apples ecosystem wasn't so locked down I could write a HomePod client using librespot and Daniel Ek could get however mad he wants about it.
librespot is a fine piece of engineering, but because it’s reverse engineered there’s a risk of getting banned for using it, which a lot of people aren’t going to want to take a chance on. It also means that apps built on it can’t promote themselves too much or gain wide usage without risk of Spotify coming after the app’s developer and/or librespot.
"Just" make the implementation imitate some old Spotify Connect hardware that isn't being updated anymore and it would be near impossible for Spotify to realistically tell the difference.
Sure, people would still worry about using such software, but from an engineering standpoint, unless there's a signed Spotify Connect chip that for some reason can't be emulated, there isn't much Spotify can do to detect well-implemented reverse engineered API clients.
Not something you throw together in a day obviously, but definitely not impossible.
The point remains that they’re throwing stones in a glass house. There’s no reason that they should be held to any lower of a standard than any other company.
Can we update the title to read "Digital Markets Act" instead of "DMA"? On first read, I thought the title was about Direct Memory Access, and what restrictions Apple places on different applications using DMA.
101 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 172 ms ] threadThings like:
- Developer onboarding and review (Legal and KYC) - App submission and review (standard, priority, exposure, etc) - App distribution (origin storage and download) - Push notifications
I believe that Apple should be forced to change, I just don’t know what we all should expect
Don’t do it at all? On Android, you can just run an app with no involvement whatsoever from Google. There is no customer to “know”.
- App submission and review (standard, priority, exposure, etc)
F-droid apps are neither submitted to nor reviewed by Google.
- App distribution (origin storage and download)
That would be the alternative app store’s job, no?
- Push notifications
This is genuinely tricky due to battery life and data usage considerations.
It is far fetched that it will get any industry wide traction, but unifiedpush.org/ provides a solution
Which isn't really any of Apples business if I want to make that sacrifice, but rather something they can promote as a win by using their solution if it turns out that alternative push notification services implement it poorly.
The path you propose inevitably leads to the exact enshittification we’re trying to avoid.
Stop trying to turn the system WE want into what WE don't. WE don't want android or else we would already be using it.
As soon as you fracture the ecosystem the positive network effects start to fade.
Especially if Apple allows others to move it from application layer to system layer (by providing a Kernel interface?) which is required for being really energy efficient.
Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.
It would be perfectly sensible to force large platform vendors to let you install arbitrary software. No problem at all. Doesn’t mean that also has to apply to, I don’t know, refrigerators with WiFi. Or cars.
Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.
I don't pretend to know all the answers, my stance is that the reason our society is where it is today is at least in part because computers have been computers, and not this "my way or the highway" approach Apple has for the iPhone.
Why isn't the iPhone a smartphone, a purpose-specific device?
> there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android
This shifts the game from defining what Apple can and cannot do to what a general-purpose computing device is. And that's the point. That's why this framing is great if you're Apple. A specific discussion regarding tangible outcomes morphs into an arcane debate over jargon and philosophy.
Because it can be extended via software to support whole new categories of apps.
Sure, a games console technically is a computer and the above statement is true for it as well, but it wasn't marketed as such.
In my opinion there are 3 ways forward in such situations.
1. The manufacturer designs the car so that the infotainment unit is replaceable when they stop updating the original. Replacements not certified as "road safe" would be illegal to install.
2. The manufacturer literally never stops updating the software... (yeah, obviously this isn't a real alternative, but it's technically acceptable if a manufacturer wants to attempt to make that promise)
3. The manufacturer, after ceasing updates, provides the necessary documentation for an alternative software to be built, but it wouldn't be obviously legal to install just anything, the software would need to be certified "road safe" and how you would assert that you're not running unsafe software is not obvious to me.
(I don't swap it because there are a few minor annoyances with that)
I wish we lived in a world where we could say, "sure but the driver knows not to put that on while driving, so we're all good!", but we very much unfortunately don't...
Hell, I could pull a small grill into the 12V power supply and cook dinner while driving down the road.
The idea that software can police our lives is actually part of the issue we are talking about. Apple doesn't want us to be able to install arbitrary software on our phones "for our safety".
On the one hand, the hardware of a PlayStation is pretty close to a general purpose PC and some iterations have been claimed as such by Sony for tax reasons. On the other hand, a great many PlayStation customers would be up in arms if regulators forced the platform open in any way that weakened the security that their competitive multiplayer experiences are built to rely on.
General-purpose computing is workable. General-purpose computing on any hardware you own is not. Government regulations prohibit tampering with most emissive hardware, for instance.
Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access. I still think even in those cases there needs to be some regulation that ensures manufacturers allow independent, qualified, repair shops to effectively repair broken tech.
Since when have iPhones been marketed as such? Apple goes out of its way to promote its walled garden.
> Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access
Delineating this is hard. iPhones contain modem chips, for instance.
Again, I'm not arguing against the principle in general nor even specifically when it comes to Apple. Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."
Prove to me that Apple has never marketed the App Store or the fact that you can run non-Apple software on an iPhone. If you can do that I'll drop this argument immediately.
> Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."
But I'm specifically not saying that, I'm saying hardware sold to me with the promise that I'll be able to expand its functionality via software. Regardless how you want to try to spin it that's what general-purpose computing means.
I'm saying that if you want to sell a product which relies on software written by other people (that are not the vendor) to be successful, then you have to go the whole way, you can't then say "ah but see actually I'm the only one that can decide WHAT can run on your device, and you have to pay ME forever for the pleasure of running anything on it!". You can put up road blocks if you want, but you've sold me a device intended to be expandable via software, a general-purpose computing device, not a purpose-specific device.
Being able to install third-party software does not make the iPhone a general-purpose computer. Apple never marketed its devices as general-purpose computers. The original iPhone didn't even allow third-party apps. (Had they, there would be a false marketing angle to play. But they didn't so there isn't.)
> if you want to sell a product which relies on software written by other people (that are not the vendor) to be successful, then you have to go the whole way
This is the debate. Restating a position isn't argument.
That argument is relevant for the original iPhone, not for any iPhones sold after the advent of the App Store.
> Apple never marketed its devices as general-purpose computers.
Yet they are. It isn't up to the manufacturer to choose which class of regulations they want to play under, that definition is for an external part to decide, otherwise Apple could just classify all of their devices as fidget spinners and do whatever the hell they want.
(At least me, personally, I’d prefer to hit a wall with my car at 60-70kmph than to have a malware on my phone. And I said that after being in more than one serious car accident)
App sandboxing protects you from apps trying to access your information without your say-so, I'm not advocating for Apple to allow these third party apps to bypass the sandbox.
Android definitely fails in this aspect, if you look at stats on viruses etc.
Yeah sure, things that attempt to break out of the sandbox will not be caught before ending up running on a users phone, but this also gives Apple somewhere to learn about novel sandbox escaping techniques from, so they can eventually patch them.
Congratulations, you've turned a discussion about Apple's anticompetitive actions into a multi-industry free-for-all demanding and drafting exemptions. Hence why I said this is lobbyist-of-the-year material.
Here, we see a flippant comment consume tons and tons of replies, because we tend to think of laws like code. Absolutist, and if the absolutes are wrong, we'll patch.
Which then leaves you open to recursive arguments about patches and unpersuasive railing about regulation being ineffective, lobbyists, etc etc.[^1]
I think this situation might be a bit of a wake up call. Apple decided to implement a maliciously compliant solution, and it's immediately obvious to all concerned they didn't fulfill the spirit of their obligations, and there will be consequences. Not necessarily negative ones. But this isnt going to get delivered with no changes while the EU stays quiet.
[^1] "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."
To be fair, this resembles a lot of lawmaking, too.
> Apple decided to implement a maliciously compliant solution, and it's immediately obvious to all concerned they didn't fulfill the spirit of their obligations, and there will be consequences
Agree.
Windows, macOS, iOS, iPadOS, Android. I’m up for including game consoles on this list.
Let everybody else be all closed and only require them to open up when they become more important/widespread.
I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"?
The unworkable bit is the breadth. Being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own" means every computer is a general computer. That includes the one in your cable box, on your cellular modem chip, in your car.
What does that mean, though? My thermostat updates itself OTA. So does my modem chip. And I can configure, to a degree, optional add-ons on my Subaru.
This is the problem with changing the argument to being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own." It's unworkable not because it's fundamentally flawed, but because its edges are fractally messy. You can absorb an infinite amount of time into delineating it. In the meantime, the thing you were actually going for--a competitive App Store--is forgotten.
I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse. It's pretty obvious from the discussion I am not talking about anything that has updatable software, I'm talking about things sold with the promise to be able to add broad new functionality in multiple fields. A thermostat may be able to add new methods of scheduling, energy saving, other means of control, integrations with other smart devices, but all with the singular purpose of controlling a radiator, under-floor heating or other heating device.
But if we're gonna entertain the notion somewhat, yes, if the thermostat allowed installation of non-thermostat related things like video streaming services, games, Twitter, or other apps that were allowed to run on the device to give it more use than at point of sale, and it was also marketed as such when sold, then yes, it was being sold as a (rather silly) general-purpose computing device and should be required to give users access to what they need to build their own software and run it on it, sans manufacturer control.
That's how almost everything worked before the user hostile mobile takeover, not sure why it's not possible anymore. It's the previous state of affair and worked fine.
I want some of what you're smoking mate.
That can also mean "wipe the device of the OS, and install your own".
Ownership of hardware, has never implied ownership of software. Usage rights, with first sale in most countries, but not ownership of the software.
But where do usage rights end, and where does "right to use the device as purchased" start? Certainly, Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem.
I suspect Apple's next move might be disabling their apps, and ecosystem, leaving a bare OS, if you move to a competing app store.
Or maybe leaving core apps, and prohibiting installation of other apps while removing their app store.
They might have a case for that. And Google for the longest time, will not allow the play store in a legit way, unless the OS is validated by them. So in this Apple wouldn't be an outlier.
Unfortunately this advertisement is just an illusion designed to lure naive customers, as has been amply proven by the long list of CVE's revealed at the end of 2023, due to which the Apple devices have been completely insecure against those who had known them many years before the public.
After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless.
[1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/in-app_purchase_scams_in_...
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/apples-response-hey-sh...
Apple can easily argue that people full well know its ecosystem is a walled garden, and that it is a selling point.
This isn't a legit argument. Sadly, like it or not, no software on the planet escapes CVEs. You'd never successfully argue what you're suggesting in court.
Unlockable bootloader should 100% be a thing, but I doubt it'll happen, and in its absence Apple will probably need to open up their walled garden more to actually be DMA compliant.
On the other hand I understand why people (myself being one of them) want to use the hardware they bought for something other than running iOS. This seems especially important once Apple drops support for the device.
My solution is meant to solve for this situation.
But what about security? Apple developers should handle that, they are well paid to implemnt sandboxing and other safety stuff.
First, on what Apple calls their "Core Technology Fee" in Europe.
Ethically, I believe its really obvious that this fee is something that is paid by users. When I buy an iPhone, I am buying the operating system, which includes the core technology that iPhone ships with. Apple absolutely charges users for this; they also double-charge developers for it, as its part of their 30% fee structure.
Apple has also made the argument that the 30% fee structure also includes App Store marketing services. This is a more-reasonable argument from Apple, specifically in the situation where the sale is DIRECTLY attributable to an action within the App Store application (e.g. searching for an app to buy, home page marketing, etc). This differentiation is not a new idea: the Windows app store formalizes this model by taking a larger cut of sales that came from the store channel versus external channels [1].
However, Apple's cut is universal, regardless of channel. In their infinite ability to double-dip, they also charge for advertising services within the App Store; so, developers may pay for a click-through within the App Store home page or search results, then also pay the 30% cut when that ad converts into a sale.
A few years ago, Apple reduced their cut on subscription revenue to, effectively, 15%. This is still extremely high for the level of service Apple is providing to justify that 15%; but it makes sense from the perspective that what Apple definitely and obviously isn't doing is any kind of customer support or marketing to maintain that customer. Apple has never been willing to admit that the same thing holds true for any piecemeal purchase where the primary marketing channel is the app itself, and not the App Store. If I buy an audiobook on Spotify, Apple did nothing to push that sale forward, similar to how they did nothing to convince me to renew my Spotify subscription. Yet, they would in theory get an additional 15% of the sale.
All of this is also, please do not forget, in addition to the $99/year fee Apple charges all developers. Its not a lot, especially for companies like Spotify. But, that supposedly includes things like the core technology license; so in some sense Apple is actually triple-dipping on these sales.
Oh, and also: A some of these numbers are different and worse for games. Why? Because I guess games are, just, different? For some reason. Unclear. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Apple is the world's largest gaming company by revenue.
Here's what I strongly feel is ethical:
- Apple can charge whatever percentage they want for IAP. Its their product, do what you will.
- Apple can require applications distributed through the App Store to only leverage Apple IAP. Its their App Store, do what you will.
- Apple must allow the installation of applications via a web browser outside of the App Store channel. Apple may elect to scan these applications with some kind of on-device threat classification, and present the results of that scan to the user. Apple may also elect to change the wording of this installation prompt to account for whether the app is signed by Apple, and the developer is within the Apple Developer program. All of these protection systems must be user-overrideable, point in time, without any additional navigation or payment from the user.
Here's the thing: I think, under a system like this, Spotify still doesn't change. I think most major apps don't change.
[1] https://appetiser.com.au/blog/microsoft-store-revenue-now-gi...
One alternative people who aren't close to this topic propose is: Why can't Spotify just charge iOS users 30% more to compensate? Easy: Apple explicitly forbids this. You cannot charge iOS users more than other users.
This leaves Spotify with two courses of action. (1): They can globally raise the price of their audiobooks by 30% (or, put another way, by some amount to compensate for Apple's 30% cut). (2): They can refuse to sell audiobooks in the Spotify app on mobile.
Globally raising the cost of audiobooks is an entirely untenable path. Generally, the cost of audiobooks is set by the publishers; and Apple themselves is a competitor in this space. This means that Apple would get an implicit ~30% discount on every audiobook they sell over competitors; and consumers would obviously flock to that.
Spotify has walked the alternate path: You cannot buy audiobooks in the Spotify mobile app. This is a better solution for their business, but it presents its own challenges because, again, a very significant portion of Spotify users likely have never launched the desktop or web experiences. This has pushed Spotify toward their newest initiative: Premium subscriptions come with a number of bundled audiobook listening hours. They can leverage the pre-existing subscription channel, which already bypasses IAP. They're not really turning more revenue from this, but its a value-add and eventually they'll raise the price of the subscription or add additional subscription tiers to compensate.
An interesting further angle to this is the downstream impact on authors. Subscriptionizing has almost universally had the impact of hurting content creators; its a capitalistic efficiency-maximizer which has wrecked the movie industry, the TV industry, the music industry, and now its coming for audiobooks. What deals has Spotify made with audiobook publishers to make this "free listening hours" model possible, we may never know. But, its important to recognize that, while Spotify should bare some responsibility/blame for this shift, Apple is the one that forced them to change the model.
Capitalism is a closed-loop system. Apple's tax isn't just hurting app developers: their pain gets passed down the supply chain. It hurts content creators, and it ultimately hurts consumers as well.
Wondering how that stands up legally. Wasn't there a long litigation about this in the context of credit cards, that the banks eventually lost? Merchants are allowed to charge more for credit card use.
I thought the loophole was that you could offer a cash discount, but not specifically charge more for using a credit card.
This is not true. Apple has no rules regarding favored pricing. We charge 30% on iOS to cover the store fee.
You can charge whatever you want on iOS. Apple does not have a favored nation clause, the way Amazon does. It's a weird myth.
Developers can, and do, charge more on iOS than on other platforms. Those that don't chose not to.
What you cannot do is talk about Apple's 30% in your pricing. That's it. That's the rule. Don't talk about the commission but charge whatever you want to cover it.
In terms of Netflix … there are no purchase options within a Netflix game. You either have an active Netflix account, or you don't. If you don't, you can download the game but you can't play it.
There's mountains of evidence that shows how they regularly fleece artists. Just last week this site hosted a story that researched how they're now using AI to generate fake music to avoid paying artists even further.
They pay a fortune to Joe Rogan, a man who is willfully destroying the country by spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.
This company is responsible for so, so much damage.
Do people still fall for this FUD?
If you have actual arguments, please list them. Otherwise don't insinuate with far-left dog whistles.
Could you source this, please? I've missed it.
> There's mountains of evidence that shows how they regularly fleece artists.
70+% of revenue goes to pay licences, a lot of artists have bad deals with their labels and get shafted from that revenue, deals like labels taking 50-70% of the licencing deals, historically it has been extremely common for labels to shafts artists, way before the internet age.
Ironically, if the Apple ecosystem wasn't so locked down the open source community would have solved this issue by now.
I’m sure paid Spotify users would like freedom of choice just as much as the Apple customers they’re supposedly advocating for. Until they address this, as well as support for devices that aren’t Spotify Connect™ devices (like HomePods), they’re being hypocritical.
And if Apples ecosystem wasn't so locked down I could write a HomePod client using librespot and Daniel Ek could get however mad he wants about it.
Sure, people would still worry about using such software, but from an engineering standpoint, unless there's a signed Spotify Connect chip that for some reason can't be emulated, there isn't much Spotify can do to detect well-implemented reverse engineered API clients.
Not something you throw together in a day obviously, but definitely not impossible.
But I agree with you in general!
Apple's Proposed Changes Reject the Goals of the DMA
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39148422
Spotify attacks Apple's 'outrageous' 27% commission
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39042094
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek says Apple's new App Store changes are a 'new low'
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39170822
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek says Apple's new App Store changes are a 'new low' - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39170822 - Jan 2024 (44 comments)
Spotify calls Apple's DMA compliance plan 'extortion''complete and total farce' - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39156492 - Jan 2024 (166 comments)
Apple's Proposed Changes Reject the Goals of the DMA - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39148422 - Jan 2024 (68 comments)
Spotify attacks Apple's 'outrageous' 27% commission - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39042094 - Jan 2024 (91 comments)