Microsoft Blames European Commission for Major Worldwide Outage

[bsolar]

We've already established kernel cannot be accessed by third party apps today.

That's not the point. The point is that if Apple at some point decides to give kernel access to one of their products (e.g. Apple Music) they would be already required to also provide that access to third-party competitors of said product (e.g. Spotify).

There would be no "further step" the regulator would need to enact as the current rules already require equal access.

 

[breenmask]

That's not the point.

It is the point. It's currently not accessible, so apply the same logic as to how we got side loading today to kernel access in the future.

 

[bsolar]

It is the point. It's currently not accessible, so apply the same logic as to how we got side loading today to kernel access in the future.

Getting side-loading required new regulation to be enacted. Kernel access would not require new regulation to be enacted, as the already existing regulation already requires Apple to give equal access to competing products.

Basically, side-loading was not available until the regulators said it had to be made available, whereas kernel access is not available until Apple decides to make it available to one of its competing products, then Apple would automatically be required to provide the same access to competitors, no new regulation required.

 

[dimplemonkey]

Ridiculous

Exactly what I'd expect from Microsoft

How disappointing

...attorneys. What you'd expect from Microsoft attys.

 

[justperry]

Microsoft windows again, such a rubbish OS, sadly I have to work with this crap, shame companies don't sue
MS for the daily bugs/security risks.
Would you buy a new car to find out that one day the gears don't work, next day the engine stutters and another day the Heating/airconditioning does not work, and then there is security, would you drive a car that looses a wheel once in a while or the breaks lock up in heavy traffic....

 

[breenmask]

Getting side-loading required new regulation to be enacted. Kernel access would not require new regulation to be enacted, as the already existing regulation already requires Apple to give equal access to competing products.

No. Again, currently it is not accessible. So far sideloading is available.

Also there are provisions in EU DMA where Apple can deny third party apps from kernel access to ensure the integrity of the operating system as long as Apple can prove the restrictions are at a bare minimum.

 

[bsolar]

No. Again, currently it is not accessible. So far sideloading is available.

My point is that the reason it's not accessible is because Apple does not make it accessible to its own products, not because the regulation would not require it if they would.

Also there are provisions in EU DMA where Apple can deny third party apps from kernel access to ensure the integrity of the operating system as long as Apple can prove the restrictions are at a bare minimum.

That's true in general, including for side-loading applications which are already available. Nothing in the DMA specifies "kernel access".

 

[breenmask]

My point is that the reason it's not accessible is because Apple does not make it accessible to its own products,

And therefore further laws are needed for third party apps to access the kernel because there's no point in Apple developing an app that requires kernel access. What I said is exactly correct.

That's true in general, including for side-loading applications which are already available. Nothing in the DMA specifies "kernel access".

DMA specifies gatekeepers are allowed to restrict things to keep the operating system secure. Side-loading apps doesn't harm the operating system because apps are denied from accessing the kernel due to their sandboxed nature. Had Apple denied side-loading, that would be too restrictive which would be in violation of DMA.

 

[AppliedMicro]

DMA specifies gatekeepers are allowed to restrict things to keep the operating system secure

…but in bsolar’s example of Apple Music, justifying it seems a stretch. To put it mildly.

But there’s little indication of Apple (a)busing kernel-level features on DMA-designated core platforms to gain an advantage over third-party developers of software/services, so it’s a non-issue IMO.

 

[bsolar]

And therefore further laws are needed for third party apps to access the kernel because there's no point in Apple developing an app that requires kernel access. What I said is exactly correct.

Your original statements were:

We couldn't sideload before, but now we can due to EU laws.

Now apply that same step process in the future with accessing the kernels.

You are implying a step the future that opens that capability to third-parties, but unless Apple itself uses that capability there is no reason to do so and if Apple suddenly uses it, the current rules already would require them to grant the same access to third-parties.

The only scenario where new regulation would be required is if the regulators decide to grant that access to third-parties no matter what, but such scenario is completely unfounded as far as I know.

DMA specifies gatekeepers are allowed to restrict things to keep the operating system secure. Side-loading apps doesn't harm the operating system because apps are denied from accessing the kernel due to their sandboxed nature. Had Apple denied side-loading, that would be too restrictive which would be in violation of DMA.

Side-loaded apps can definitely harm the system even without kernel access, that's why Apple does already impose limitations on third-party apps including e.g. the requirement for notarization and Apple's ability to block applications on safety grounds.

 

[breenmask]

Your original statements were:



You are implying a step the future that opens that capability to third-parties, but unless Apple itself uses that capability there is no reason to do so and if Apple suddenly uses it,

1. No. I'm not betting that Apple will use it therefore third party will use it. You're saying that. not me.
2. Apple isn't using it. And therefore a modification to the law or a new law is needed.

The only scenario where new regulation would be required is if the regulators decide to grant that access to third-parties no matter what, but such scenario is completely unfounded as far as I know.

A scenario where Apple needs kernel access for one of their first party apps is completely unfounded.

Side-loaded apps can definitely harm the system even without kernel access

Harm the operating system? Nope. Source: I'm an iOS developer. That's one of the main points of sandboxing the apps. To protect the operating system. What I said originally is valid.

I feel like I'm repeating myself so I'm done. Onwards.

 

[bsolar]

1. No. I'm not betting that Apple will use it therefore third party will use it. You're saying that. not me.
2. Apple isn't using it. And therefore a modification to the law or a new law is needed.

A scenario where Apple needs kernel access for one of their first party apps is unfounded.

So there will be no kernel access for third-parties... The regulators have no reason to open that access unless Apple itself uses it in its competing products.

Harm the operating system? Nope. Source: I'm an iOS developer. That's one of the main points of sandboxing the apps. To protect the operating system.

The sandbox does not only prevent kernel access, so you agree other capabilities can be used in a harmful way by an application beside kernel access.

Now, what makes you think Apple is allowed to sandbox third-party apps in the first place? It's because the DMA already allows to limit their capabilities for the reasons mentioned before.

I feel like I'm repeating myself so I'm done. Onwards.

I agree.

 

[I7guy]

I think this is hilarious. Microsoft taking a punch at the EU.

 

[LillDrutten]

Almost certainly not the whole story.

Microsoft could require stricter testing procedures for third-party kernel-level software. This comes down to CrowdStrike skipping testing and Microsoft not doing their part either.

Is this driver not singed by microsoft?

 

[BradMacPro]

Exactly. It's a leadership problem. If the CEO had any shame he would have stepped down on Friday.

Let's nail him to a cross while we are at it. We don't have the power to get him to quit.

 

[nekton1]

I'll say it once again: The correct solution is for Apple, Microsoft and other tech firms to simply divest from Europe entirely. Let Europeans enjoy the socialism that they keep voting for.

Rubbish—half the code in those companies comes from Europe.

 

[lxmeta]

I'll say it once again: The correct solution is for Apple, Microsoft and other tech firms to simply divest from Europe entirely. Let Europeans enjoy the socialism that they keep voting for.

Oh wow! You have little clue how the high tech industry works, right?
You also have no clue about what socialism is, right?
The EU consists of multiple sovereign states, and the socialists are the minority...
All good, please just stay in your bubble and never leave it! Hope you enjoy down town San Francisco as it is today. Nope, you cannot blame the EU or socialists for this.