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.
EU Has 'No Intention' to Repeal DMA Following Apple Challenge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why would they? This is how their tech sector works, making up ways to extort money from American companies.
At least I can use all the features on my iPhone to assist with the dissociation.
?? eh, none of that has any connection or revelance to this discussion. It’s just more copium.
What is relevant to the discussion is that 1) you make a lot of assumptions that are not based on facts and 2) you don’t really understand how third party app stores have been implemented.
I am under no threat from anything on TikTok because I don’t have a TikTok account and I have never installed a TikTok app on my devices or have ever viscosity TikTok from a browser.
Is that logical?
In the same way, just because the EU made Apple allow third party app stores to be installed on iOS devices, do you think that the EU, totalitarian meanies that they are, have made all iPhones automatically install third party app stores?
That hasn’t happened. There are no magic EU fairies installing third party app stories while you sleep.
If you don’t trust third party app atires or the apps from n those store, then you install a third party App Store.
And, as it has been pointed out to you, more than once, Apple still notarises the apps on third party app stores, so really, where should you be directing your mistrust?
It’s that simple.
It is disingenuous to say “There is nothing in the DMA that requires companies to lower their privacy standards, their security standards”.
Requiring Apple to permit arbitrary browser engines is a case in point. As it happens, I think it’s fair enough that users are given the option of doing so, but there’s no real denying that letting any old 3rd party let rip in such a manner has extreme potential for lowering privacy and security standards.
Requiring Apple to permit arbitrary browser engines is a case in point. As it happens, I think it’s fair enough that users are given the option of doing so, but there’s no real denying that letting any old 3rd party let rip in such a manner has extreme potential for lowering privacy and security standards.
Notice Apple isn’t writing angry press releases about Japan’s law? That’s because it limits itself to requiring third party app stores and doesn’t declare Apples inventions should be given to its competitors. Had the EU limited itself, you’d have live translation and the other missing features. But instead the EU wanted to nationalize Apple’s property.
Their companies can’t (or won’t) develop live translation for their headphones, so let’s give away Apple’s work for free! No wonder EU tech companies can’t innovate! They know if they do they’re just end up subsidizing competitors.
You're not forced to download from somewhere else.
And even for distribution through alternatives stores, Apple reserves the right to "vet" apps.
No wonder, given how blatantly pushy they're... well, shoving it into consumers' face with every hardware purchase.
Maybe. They're not required to, are they? Apple may just be prohibited from locking them out. But it is up to those third-party manufacturers to make their phones accurate and perform well with Apple's translation functionality.
Wouldn't that be the user lowering their own privacy and security standards, not Apple? Nobody's forcing apple to preload another engine, and nobody is forcing the user to download one. It just gives them the option to do so if they want to for whatever reason.
Don't get me wrong, I think Chromium is booty, but it should be the end user deciding that. Not Tim Apple.
Apple already allows quite complex programs on the app store. I don't think Microsoft's Office apps or huge high-end games are any less complex than browser engines. If Apple can effectively sandbox MS Office, I'm sure they can handle a browser engine.
No matter how often you repeat it, Apple's inventions are not given to competitors.
Case in point: They keep live translation on their iPhones.
They don't have to allow competitors to copy the feature.
It will remain "locked" to iPhones and Apple retains their algorithms and code.
Allowing it to work with another headphone isn't giving away the invention.
It's merely making it interoperable.
The DMA could have easily done what was intended with out all the word vomit by saying:
DMA -
1: If the electronic device has a digital store front and/or access to the internet, then the owner of the hardware has the right to install applications from the first party vendor, trusted third party vendors and/or the web at the hardware owner’s discretion.
2: The owner/developer of said application have the right to choose a payment processor of their choice. If the first party payment option is not selected, a small percentage of the price/sale will go to the manufacturer of the device to support the use of their IP.
I had a third one that I felt polished off the spirit of what the DMA was/is trying to do. Some of my wording probably needs tweaking, but a handful of sentences that are clear cut and dry, none of this gate keeper bs, would have been much better for the consumer then what the DMA word vomit does as there would be no room for personal interpretation. This is what is written, and it clearly means what it says.
DMA -
1: If the electronic device has a digital store front and/or access to the internet, then the owner of the hardware has the right to install applications from the first party vendor, trusted third party vendors and/or the web at the hardware owner’s discretion.
2: The owner/developer of said application have the right to choose a payment processor of their choice. If the first party payment option is not selected, a small percentage of the price/sale will go to the manufacturer of the device to support the use of their IP.
I had a third one that I felt polished off the spirit of what the DMA was/is trying to do. Some of my wording probably needs tweaking, but a handful of sentences that are clear cut and dry, none of this gate keeper bs, would have been much better for the consumer then what the DMA word vomit does as there would be no room for personal interpretation. This is what is written, and it clearly means what it says.
And no matter how many times you deny it giving competitors access to a feature Apple spent millions to develop for free is giving them the feature for free. Apple isn’t allowed to differentiate its headphones with a feature Apple developed.
Would destroy innovation if applied to products worldwide.
That's because... that's probably not what happened.
For years Apple users in some cities received unsolicited AirDrops–including sexually explicit material. It was also a security risk (hello 0 day exploits!).
Limiting it to 10 mins reduced the attack surface.
Apple was likely already considering some sort of limit.
The argument is completely nonsense and contradictory (I explained explained that numerous times, most recently today).
If their intention is to break encryption and surveillance (which, frankly, it unfortunately is), they would not push for alternative App Stores and consumers being able to install apps without support of their phone manufacturer and OS developer.
Wanting to control communication does not align with allowing consumers to install apps from uncontrollable sources.
👉 Competition regulation and police/law enforcement are just two different branches of EU government, if you will. Acting more or less uncoordinated in this case.
Not sure what people don’t understand: China is not a democracy. You complain and you lose access to a market with billions of people. You complain to the EU, which is a democracy, and you risk nothing. And the EU is only 450 million people. Of course Apple pushes back where they can and doesn’t push back where they can’t.
how does chrome, edge, or firefox lower privacy and security standard on windows, macos, or even linux?
even funier when you consider not a single desktop browser actually use any sanboxing for their app (they all want wide system access so they can access other browser data), which is required on iOS
It's available only on iPhones - which aren't free.
Apple is also allowed to make it payable subscription service or app, rather than including it with their iPhones for free.
👉 They certainly do not have to give it away for free.
Nothing in the law makes Apple give it away for free.
That's precisely my the impression I'm getting from this.
Luckily or unluckily, the Orange Man doesn't know (or care) today about what he said or threatened a week ago.
Or remember and consider the gifts he obtained from Timmy's bootlicking mission a while ago.
Either way, Apple better be reshoring some hardware production to the U.S. soon.
The text of the DMA disagrees with you.
I swear if I got mugged you’d be telling me “you didn’t have to give your wallet to the guy with a gun in your face, it was your choice to do so”
if you only stick to your values when it suits you, you dont have any.
Where?
How?
Providing interoperability access isn't giving away the feature - or its IP - for free.
When government mandates free choice of internet router, that doesn't mean the cable company has to give away their service to you for free (not even when they're charging rental fees for their own routers).
Yeah, this for sure has to do with consumers... For sure. Absolutely. Just like the UK age verification laws.
How does letting me use Live Translate with a pair of Galaxy Buds the same as giving Samsung the feature? It's still an Apple feature; I still need to use an iPhone.