I think a simpler and more logical law would have been to disallow the sale of products which are locked down beyond their owners wishes. It's a net negative for society when we add additional production steps to decrease the usefulness of the things we produce.
So any computer (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, watch) would have to allow installing whatever software the user wants. On the hardware level.
That would mean alternative OSes like Linux could run on any computer.
It would still be allowed to ask or even warn the user "Do you REALLY want to install an alternative OS?" but not to ultimately deny it.
If people in the EU wanted that, they can have it today. They can buy any number of cell phones from various manufacturers that they can install any version of android (or other OS if available) on it. Likewise they can buy the Pinephone, or the Librem if they want something like ubuntu mobile.
But it's clear that isn't what people want. If it was they would be buying it. What they want is what Apple sells. They want iOS. They want the apps and the app store. They want the hardware and the polish. They just also want to be able to install arbitrary software packages.
You can't get that with a law that allows people to install whatever OS they want at the hardware level.
As someone in the EU, I can say that's not realistic.
The apps for my bank, the local bus transit system, electronic payments, and even my kid's school, are only available for iOS and Android, and the first three use Google exclusionary software to lock out non-Google OSes. You must have a Mac or Windows computer, or iOS or Google Android, to run the proprietary software used as single-sign-on for most government web apps.
Ok, but all the freedoms people want from iOS and Apple are already present on Google and Android. And any restrictions by the 3rd parties that block non iOS or Android OSes are problems with those vendors not Google or Apple. Perhaps we’d be better served by mandating that banks and governments not dictate the OS you can use to access their services, rather than try to force Apple to do completely unrelated things that don’t solve the problems you mention.
Librem 5 owner here. It’s an amazing device, and I’m really happy, but it’s far less usable than iPhones due to the unfair, monopolistic practices of Apple and Google.
What about Apple's practices make the Librem less usable? They don't forbid developers selling versions of their apps on other platforms. They don't require exclusivity contracts with carriers or retailers. They don't control content platforms choices of DRM schemes. How is it that one company, that had never before produced a cell phone, in 2007 managed to make such a complete shakeup of the industry that they are now the single largest player in the industry? How did this company, known for its "my way or the highway" product design and its very consistent stance on locking down the phone OS become the leader in the space? Why has open not won? Why haven't Spotify, Epic and all the various people upset about Apple's policies not poured resources into a unified open phone platform that allows them to have the freedoms they demand and the quality the consumers expect?
If we lived in a world that was like the 90's computers era, where Apple was dominating the software front and by extension the hardware front. If people only ever developed for iOS, and most never bothered with even a cursory port to android; then maybe it would be reasonable to say that Apple's business practices make Librem or even Android unappealing to consumers and anti-competetive in the market.
But the evidence just doesn't seem to support that. Most developers are clearly willing to write two versions of their apps. Certainly the major vendors are. Apple doesn't sell their OS for any other hardware except their own, and there are multiple other hardware vendors, so it's not a case of "have to bundle an iOS license with every phone regardless of the OS shipped".
The conclusion has to be that there's something specific about Apple's combination of hardware and software that makes it compelling despite the lack of open access. So the question then becomes what is it that Apple is offering that open platforms can't or won't offer?
> Also, it’s almost impossible to create a freedom-respecting phone due to vendors refusing to release the hardware specs,
This is the only item that answers “what does Apple provide that open platforms are unable or unwilling to provide”. So now my next question is if that’s what preventing open platforms from succeeding, why aren’t our governments working to force low level component suppliers to open up? Surely open specifications for the baseband modems and other necessary phone components would do a lot more for open platforms than the ability to install yet another chrome reskin browser on iOS.
I would certainly try out Linux on one of the new 13" iPad Pros with anti-glare display. With an external keyboard, it could make for a great mobile development machine.
And many kids would certainly have dual booted their iPhone into Android when Fortnight stopped working on iOS.
Everything everyone says they want from Apple as far as openness and ability to install and run any software they want is available on numerous Android and non-Android devices. The ability to install one’s own OS is available on numerous devices that are not iPhones. The clear conclusion then must be that people don’t just want those things. They also want specifically iOS and specifically an iPhone. Otherwise they would buy any of the other options available to them.
There are too many reasons why this is wrong, so I am not going to list them all. But one is network effect. If friends own an iPhone, you are going to buy an iPhone too because then you can use Facetime, etc. Another is simply the fact that people don't know what they want, and they assume the vendor offers what is best for them. A third reason is that any phone has many cons and pros, so "best" is not well defined, and a regulator might as well try to regulate towards more pros and less cons.
It does greatly reduce us that property law is not in effect over computational devices. Someone else continues to own a sizable piece of that which we carry around and use. This tension is visible with tractors that farmers no longer own, can't repair.
If we owned our devices, if property law applied, not only would amti-anti-cirumvention be legal, anti-cirumvention would be illegal. It's not your right to control this device, maker. It's mine now.
> I think a simpler and more logical law would have been to disallow the sale of products which are locked down beyond their owners wishes. It's a net negative for society when we add additional production steps to decrease the usefulness of the things we produce.
Okay, but note that this would affect all media protected by DRM … books, movies, and most streamed content. Not so simple to outcompete the lobbyists.
A law that's easier to justify would be an "anti-tether law": You should be able to use a device as advertised, even if you break all ties with the original vendor.
(Because otherwise, you bought a service and not a product; also: if I buy a device and want to use it to do business with someone else, why does the vendor of the device have anything to say about it? Don't I own my device?)
They still cost the same to make regardless, and they’d still need some form of distribution that would take a cut.
PC games aren’t any cheaper at launch than console games. Console games don’t become any cheaper when the cost of manufacturing goes down over the course of a generation.
I think you misunderstand how the cut works and why they’re subsidized.
Take a look at PC games. Steam also takes a 30% cut, which is the same as what the console makers take. Steam doesn’t have to pay anyone back. The 30% is a pretty long standing cut and is about the lowest most incumbents have gone despite reductions in other costs.
The subsidizing of the console is pre-factored into that 30% cost. Historically console manufacturers have also reduced the amount of subsidization over the course of a generation without affecting the price of the games. The subsidizing is to get it into as many homes as possible, but even a few games purchased over the lifetime of a console would negate any subsidy.
There’s no precedence or indication other than wishful thinking that removing console subsidies wouldn’t remove that cut.
No it wouldn't, companies like Nintendo and Sony make money from selling games on their platform, and they still need to sell as many of their consoles as possible to do that.
Security doesn’t equal to giving away the full control to a third party. By this logic, Linux servers are insecure.
Also you can’t install Linux on Android due to the closed specs and proprietary derivers. Not even on Google Pixels advertized by the GrapheneOS crowd.
> Security doesn’t equal to giving away the full control to a third party.
Allowing the user to install and run any software does result in a less secure system.
Also if that software is run in a sandboxed way (but allowing installation from anywhere).
Because software could impersonate and trick the user into giving away sensitive information, such as credit card data, or authentication to act on behalf of the user.
> By this logic, Linux servers are insecure.
Yes, if we go with there being one single thing called "Linux servers", they are insecure by the same measurement.
I would differentiate between mobile software that targets end users and server software that targets professionals.
With server operating systems, you provide secure/convenient defaults (with Linux distros often leaning towards convenient), but you always provide the systems administrator the ability to `curl ... | sudo sh`. You also say it is the system administrator's fault if they ever do that and something goes bad. If you are a platform owner with millions of users, you cannot claim security when you allow for any code to be run, sandboxed or not.
>Because software could impersonate and trick the user into giving away sensitive information, such as credit card data, or authentication to act on behalf of the user.
Emails and phishing websites are much more widely used than standalone software for tricking users into giving away personal information because 1) compared to building an application in Java or Objective C it's much easier to craft emails and fake websites and 2) everyone is already browsing the web.
It's interesting to see how a company, instead of taking the hint and opening up its OSes to third parties and diversifying its business, keeps on trying to come up with bad-faith interpretations of the law.
It'll hit them hard when the EU punishes them again for malicious compliance, and when other countries enact similar laws.
this is still beyond me how EU treats iOS and iPadOS as two different operating systems. iOS was designated gatekeeper at the start of the whole DMA thing, iPadOS was just recently.
What do you mean? EU is considering them as the same from the start. Are you talking about the process that happened because Apple appealed and wanted them separate?
No, the EU considers them separately. Apple did successfully convince them that they are separate, however the EU then said that iPadOS would soon cross the threshold itself so would preemptively include it
Anyone tried to think a bit back and see where this comes from?
it's the EU laws that are demanding this. Since their laws are different (note: I'm not taking sides. I'm not saying there are better or worse, just stating they are as they are).
Developers just have to confirm.
I does not matter at all if it's apple or google or microsoft or whatever company is involved, the thing is multiple markets have different laws and developers have to follow suit.
nonsense. EU law is meant for EU based users and not dev teams. dev team should be allowed to properly test for EU users and
this is basically apple trying yet again block opening up ios. cant be more transparent
If you want to use geofenced features (while being outside the fence) you'd want to hide your location when your device checks it for the purposes of geofencing. Which is, I'd imagine, all the time.
It's funny to watch companies go to such lengths to protect their own little turd. But hey, it's all for user "privacy", right? Or has the official slogan changed now?
So any computer (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, watch) would have to allow installing whatever software the user wants. On the hardware level.
That would mean alternative OSes like Linux could run on any computer.
It would still be allowed to ask or even warn the user "Do you REALLY want to install an alternative OS?" but not to ultimately deny it.
reply