Well reasoned? “I absolutely lack the ability to chose products that do what I need them to do” is well reasoned? 😉
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Faces First Italian DMA Probe on iCloud Interoperability
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Samplasion
macrumors 6502a
You mean the ones that make you deselect 80 different fake categories because ad companies just had to maliciously comply until they were forced to add a Reject All button? (and still, I find "legitimate interest" to be an elaborate circumvention of automatic rejection, but I digress...)
You're complaining about more jobs in the market?
This one is actually very bad but fortunately we managed to reject it by one vote.
Any modern browser comes with anti-tracking measures built-in. On top of that, the EU should have defined a standard spec so that browsers could just respond on behalf of the user automatically without ever seeing the stupid banners. It made the web worse without giving the user any practical advantage.
They are fake jobs. It means they employ people without producing any value. The product is the same as it was before but it costs more to produce because companies have to pay people to make sure they comply to arbitrary rules that have no real impact when it comes to actual user privacy.
It's like paying somebody to make a hole in the ground and then paying somebody else to fill it. And the taxpayers are funding the whole stupid game.
Not at all. They are still working on it (if you read the link, you'll find more info about "chat control 2.0"), and the majority is still supporting it. The first version will be discarded for a technicality, but they are still trying to make it happen.
Nice pedantry there, just assume that gatekeeper == Monopoly for my arguement.
uacd
macrumors 68000
Sure not, but it is just such a basic feature that it is found in every operating system ever since the ages of Windows 98. And actually it is well implemented in Android, you can choose all the possible USB options in submenu in notifications
SBlue1
macrumors 68020
So just like the US insisting to have all kind of personal data from passengers on Air France traveling to the US. How dare Air France break French privacy laws just to fly to the US.
zarmanto
macrumors 65816
I expect Apple considers their solution to be well implemented, as well.
What? You thought Apple didn't put any effort into a solution at all? You thought they just ignored the issue? Well, as it turns out, that is not at all the case. Apple's solution (based on a very quick bit of research) is essentially to avoid the most common source of the problem entirely.
Based upon your posts, it seems that you view this issue as having two parts: hardware and software corruption. Let's address those separately:
Hardware corruption is an extremely rare occurrence with modern hardware... based upon what I can find online, I think it's safe to say that you'd have to use a device that is well over a decade old for that to be any real concern -- at which point, you probably shouldn't be using that USB stick for anything critical anyway. This aspect of the issue is, for all practical purposes, a solved problem, contrary to your assertions.
Software corruption, on the other hand, is actually made into a more significant problem by the common practice of caching prior to write. That means that your data doesn't necessarily reach the disk when you think it does... a progress bar can indicate that it is "finished" while the data is technically still in transit, and some portion of that data can remain in cache right up until you manually hit the soft eject button. iOS doesn't do that; it handles operations essentially as immediate, soft-disconnect file transfers, which means that you usually only risk damage if you yank the cable out right while your device is telling you that your data transfer is still active... and so, Apple is merely trusting that the typical user is smart enough to not do that. (Most of us are, right? Right?)
As an interesting aside, Apple reportedly does not use the same quick-disconnect friendly practices on macOS; it still uses caching for performance reasons, just like Linux and Android... but Windows, starting back in about 2019 or so, does favor quick-disconnect friendly practices by default. The more you know...
This is really good news for Apple. It means their lawyers should be able to clear up the confusion with the EC in no time 😆.
Stromos
macrumors 65816
Well okay you just took all that money away from Apple. What exactly do you think is going to happen? Now iPhones are 100-200 more expensive and you can use Google Drive or whatever congrats now less savy users are playing extra for the device and iCloud. Such a big win.
Madmic23
macrumors 6502a
It’s not about taking money away from Apple, it’s about having choices. The Apple One bundle is a good deal if you’re all in on Apple services and Apple devices. That’s what I use, and it makes sense. But if you use a mix of Windows, Android and Apple devices, maybe a Google subscription makes more sense since it’s cross platform. Or Amazon. Or DropBox and a Spotify plan. why pay for multiple services if you don’t need them?
Also, if Apple were to make this change, it doesn’t mean all of these other companies would instantly support it. It just means that they could. Likewise, i don’t see Apple rushing to support backup on Android phones, but there wouldn’t be anything stopping them.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
If only the EU knew what it was doing. The DMA is a clear indication of icebergs ahead as it’s easier to invent a term “gatekeeeper” than prove a company runs afoul of anti trust laws.
No legislation is perfect. Cookie banners are largely an implementation problem, not a reason to abandon privacy rights. GDPR certainly created compliance costs, but it also gave citizens far more control over their personal data and influenced privacy standards worldwide. As for Chat Control, it remains controversial precisely because the EU’s democratic process allows criticism, amendments and opposition. The debate is still ongoing and the critiques seem valid so there’s a good chance it’s not happening.
In the EU, they are two VERY distinct things as defined by EU regulators, so not even hardly a minor detail in this case. 🙂
Nope. Apple was affirmed by the EU as NOT a monopoly (which makes sense because there’s no rational definition of monopoly that applies). But since Vestager wanted to do something anyway in a failed attempt to increase her political status, they created a new definition of wrongdoing which, over months of analysis of the metrics of the matter, was crafted to be defined as “the way Apple currently and legally does business in the EU”. There’s no confusion and Apple has effectively altered how they do business to align with the new reality.
The DMA was so rapidly written and passed, that, while they did put in provisions to punish companies that tried to disable features in the EU, they were so expecting that no one would ever not avoid business in the EU, they did not include any punishments for companies that just avoided bringing features to the EU.
“Well, what they meant was…” well, next time they should put “what they mean” in the legislation. 😉
Then it turns out it’s neither of them and actually it’s because they’re just used to a thing and can’t wrap their head’s around things not working like they used to. It’s like jamming your foot on the brakes in an antilock enabled vehicle and being annoyed by the vibration that confirms the system is pumping the brakes rapidly to slowdown as quickly as possible without causing a loss of control.
EXCEPT where it means choosing a phone that does what you want?
The targeted companies should be happy that the DMA exists. The alternative would be dozens of antitrust proceedings stretched over many years each with very high fines. This would create even more uncertainty for these companies than the rules laid out in the DMA.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Those allegations can be fought with uncertainty of a “win”. Certainly has to be cheaper then the idiotic 10% of worldwide revenue fine.
That is not my opinion. Probably would solidify things.
That's not really necessary. We all know that no for-profit US company will leave money on the table (see China). If there is money to be made with Siri AI, it will come to the EU.
Last edited:
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Corporations will leave money in table if the opportunity cost is greater than the gain. In this instance I’m sure Siri ai will come to the eu at some point in the future.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
Apple leaves money on the table all the time.
In this instance I really don’t think Apple will compromise on this. I think best case scenario Apple will get sign off to build the trusted platform they want. But if the EU is going to continue insisting on the idiotic idea that an AI assistant is just another app that can be made modular and not a core part of the OS then it’s not going to get one for iOS. It might get one on Android, but given their recent attack on Google for this same point, I wouldn’t count on it. And any third party that gets big enough will run into the same issue.
arvinsim
macrumors 6502a
Opportunity to innovate?
Who is stopping this mutlinational trillion dollar company from innovating? 😂
It's coming, and it will be modular. There recently have been rumors circulating that Apple is already working on a feature which will allow users to switch the LLM backend to a different provider in a later version of iOS. I can't find the source right now. If I do, I'll link to it.
There is also the elephant China in the room. Do you think Apple can afford to not release Siri AI there? The Chinese government will under no circumstances allow user data to be sent to a US company for processing. They will have to cooperate with a local LLM company for the whole thing. Ergo Siri AI needs to be modular just to be available there.
I'm pretty sure the necessary architecture of the system is already in place. The only question will be about who gets to decide which providers are acceptable and if Apple can charge a commission.