Under current law, you cannot be compelled to share more data than you're already collecting. However, the term "collecting" is a bit wider than the most common use. If you receive some piece of data, you are collecting it, even if you don't keep logs, or don't do anything with it.
It's not much different than how detective work is done in the physical domain. You cannot be compelled to ask a customer for more info, but you can be compelled to share info that the customer gave to you, even if you didn't ask for it or never wrote it down.
Apple may not have a monopoly, but they have enormous market power. By themselves, monopoly or market power are neither illegal or even undesirable.
However, they become undesirable when they are abused to undermine cometition in other markets. For example: Apple has successfully prevented competition to Apple Pay for a long time, by only allowing their own products access to NFC. This meant that parties that were already specialized in handling payments, had no chance to compete, despite them being in an excellent position to do so.
If this behaviour is left unchecked, over time we will end up with one single company dominating most markets. I feel that's undesirable. Given the number of dystopian novels on that premise, most of society considers that future to be undesirable.
Why would IpadOS not be held to the same DSA rules as IOS? Apple has applied the same model of gatekeeping (walled garden) to both the iPhone and the iPad. DSA attaches requirements to the gatekeepers if they are big enough.
Software similarity and market positioning don't really come into consideration once the role of gatekeeper has been established.
It's control of the market that matters. Apple (and Google) each effectively control 40%-60% of the world market on digital goods. Pay Apple 30% for your app and 15-30% for all digital goods. That's unacceptable because their market is so large. 2 billion+ devices each (or is it 3 billion now?) 100s of thousands of companies are under their thumb. Don't follow their rules, loose 50% of your entire market. Do follow their rules, lose all your profit.
Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft's markets 2 orders of magnitude smaller and effect 3-4 orders of magnitude less companies.
That doesn't really change much. Assuming the numbers are correct, there are 6 billion people have smartphones and 2 billion have PCs. That still means Google and Apple collectively control the majority of world's digital distribution. I suspect many of those PCs are not used nearly as much as the phones as well and have far less digital content on them (apps/music/movies/games/books)
Consoles are (still and mostly) singe purpose devices. While I do approve force opening every Turing complete device to side loading - game consoles are way down in the worst offenders list.
Last year, 7.4 million games consoles were sold in Europe. And 57 million iPhones (as far as I can see they don't report numbers on iPads). Like, I think it's fairly obvious why they concentrated on iOS first.
Consoles are not defined as general-purpose computers (except for a time, the PS3), and there aren't many complaints from the game industry at large about access discrimination or unaffordable devkits any more, there's tons of indie games for just about every major platform these days. So, too much effort for too little gain, there is no artificial competition impediments any more.
The only complaints tend to come from gamers - DRM, "console exclusive" titles and lootboxes, mostly, but of these three the only realistic field where the EU can/will/should intervene is the lootbox crap.
The iPad was heavily marketed as a computer replacement so definitely is supposed to be "general purpose" device. Many people I know don't use a laptop or desktop at all, and just use their iPad.
iPad marketing has historically focused on how it's _not_ a computer, so if people bought the marketing that is an implicit indication that they weren't looking for a general purpose computer.
iPad is so versatile, it’s more than up to any task. Whether you’re working on a project, expressing your creativity, or playing an immersive game, iPad is a fun and powerful way to get it done. Here are just a few of the countless things you can do with iPad.
--- end quote ---
And it has historically been "it's like a computer, but in tablet form".
The new iPad Pro will enable a new generation of advanced apps for everything from productivity, design, illustration, engineering and medical, to education, gaming and entertainment.
The innovative Apple Pencil and new Smart Keyboard enable users ... making iPad Pro ideal for everything from professional productivity to advanced 3D design.
Deloitte is creating a first-of-its-kind Apple practice with over 5,000 strategic advisors who are solely focused on helping businesses change the way they work across their entire enterprise, from customer-facing functions such as retail, field services and recruiting, to R&D, inventory management and back-office systems.
The new offering will help customers discover the highest impact possibilities within their industries and quickly develop custom solutions through rapid prototyping.
I don't believe that's true. Can you provide some details? There are some programs indie devs can use to get software on Xbox, but they require approval from MS, which is the opposite of side loading.
Because it doesn't meet the criteria. To summarise heavily, they are:
- Size criteria:
Have an annual turnover in the European Economic Area (EEA) of at least €7.5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or
Have a market capitalization of at least €75 billion, and
Provide the same core platform service in at least three EU countries.
- Control an important gateway:
Provide a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users.
- Entrenched and durable position:
Enjoy an entrenched and durable position on the market, operationalized by having had at least 45 million monthly active end users and 10,000 yearly business users of the same core platform service in the EEA in the last three years.
In fact, the EU has admitted that iPads do not meet the criteria, and are making an explicit exception to include them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm _very_ happy about this, but you asked ;)
EU isn't making an exception in this case. DMA empowers the commission to investigate, and even declare as gatekeepers, products that do not meet the quantitative thresholds on the basis of qualitative assessment.
Following this decision EU Commissioner Thierry Breton said: “We continue monitoring market developments and will not hesitate to open new investigations should other services below the thresholds present characteristics to be considered important gateways for business users,”.
per the commission iPad passes the threshold for business users elevenfold.
>The Commission's investigation found that Apple presents the features of a gatekeeper in relation to iPadOS, as among others:
>Apple's business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future.
>End users are locked-in to iPadOS. Apple leverages its large ecosystem to disincentivise end users from switching to other operating systems for tablets.
>Business users are locked-in to iPadOS because of its large and commercially attractive user base, and its importance for certain use cases, such as gaming apps.
>On the basis of the findings of the investigation, the Commission concluded that iPadOS constitutes an important gateway for business users to reach end users, and that Apple enjoys an entrenched and durable position with respect to iPadOS. Apple has now six months to ensure full compliance with the DMA obligations as applied to iPadOS.
> In this case the iPad is actually not big enough but the EU has chosen to regulate anyway.
They just realized that Apple was full of shit and trying to circumvent the law by differenciating iPadOS and iOS in the same arbitrary way you think the EU is working.
It is rarely a good strategy to play the smart ass in front of authority.
Why are you defending having less ownership over devices that you own? It’s like your employer wants to give you a salary increase but you complain and say you don’t want more money.
Because I should have that choice. Government should not make this decision for me. If it’s important to me that I have devices I fully own, I should seek that out. If I like the products and prices that result from walled-garden business models, I should be able to choose them.
You will have the choice of installing or not installing the software you wish. The "choice" as you're describing it is a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome.
I might not want that choice. That requires that I use my brain as I use the device and not do the harmful thing. Or maybe I want to hand the device to my child and be assured that she cannot install software, or use it as a publicly-accessible kiosk and be assured members of the public can’t break it. People who have handed Windows PCs to software illiterates and have to constantly return to eradicate crapware understand this problem.
Also, it costs the vendor to implement support for installing other software - resources the vendor could have spent on features I value, rather than features I don’t want. If only a government didn’t dictate to the vendor what it should do, stripping the vendor and the user of the power to decide for themselves.
If you don't want that choice you don't have to enable the feature. Installation from Unknown Sources in Android is off by default and requires a user to explicitly go into the settings and find the obscure toggle, which in recent times has proven to be a big enough deterrent that there don't appear to be any recent mass-scale attacks using this vector. On top of that Android and Windows both have fairly comprehensive parental controls, which can disable the entire option of installing non-approved software, so that point is moot.
And the resources needed to make an app installer are not nearly as high as you make it out to be because iOS already has the mechanism to install signed .ipas. All that's needed in theory is a check to disable signing (which they already have implemented in MacOS) and to add a few pages to the Settings app, which surely shouldn't be an issue for a tech company of Apple's size. And if you argue that it might break some spaghetti code then maybe that should be fixed anyways and it's doing them a favour.
Having a choice will not harm you. The "brainpower" required to stick to one appstores is virtually nil, evidenced by the vast majority of android users sticking with only the play store. You don't want other people to have that choice because you're a sycophant for a corporation.
Because there are already users with Apple devices and those users might have been locked into using Apple's ecosystem for other reasons (already purchased apps, already owning Apple accessories that don't work with other devices, etc).
As an anecdote myself, the main reason I haven't switched to a Galaxy S24 is because my Airpods work amazingly with my iPhone and Macbook, and my Apple Watch only works with iPhones. But very often I sorely miss having Termux, NewPipe, Tachiyomi, a non-gimped version of GBoard, Syncthing, a sensible launcher, and probably other things that I can't remember off the top of my head. I've decided that I value the Apple system more than the value I get from those apps but this regulation means I get to have my cake and eat it too.
Why are you presenting something that happened as entirely one sided? This move means the end of an enforced, curated walled garden for iOS. This will mean a race to the bottom for iPad apps. Which, of course, means even more ads (since everything must be paid for one way or another). It likely means iPad prices go up even more because now they're forced to support configurations they've never tested.
For me personally, all of the above is the cost and what I get is something I wasn't using and didn't miss (if I want to install things outside the walled garden, I use a my Mac not a mobile device).
> This move means the end of an enforced, curated walled garden for iOS.
Great! (Imagine having wallgardened Windows computer where you could not install whatever you want).
> This will mean a race to the bottom for iPad apps. Which, of course, means even more ads
iOS store is already at the bottom. Everything is with ads or subscription based. More ads won’t scare me because I won’t use app with any ads. If app offers one time purchase - I’ll buy it if I like it. Examples of apps I bought: Structured, Bobby, ArtStudio, MusicStudio.
> if I want to install things outside the walled garden, I use a my Mac not a mobile device
What if Apple decided you cannot install apps outdide off their App Store on a Mac neither? What would your “Apple-defending” argument be then? It’s NOT a far fetched idea. Microsoft tries it with Windows S Mode and they currently constantly threaten people when they download software from internet about how dangerous it may be, trying to scare people into using their store.
>Great! (Imagine having wallgardened Windows computer where you could not install whatever you want).
Again, you are presenting this as if it has only one side to it. I need a computer that has no walled garden for certain kinds of work. For other kinds of work I'm happy to know I can't break it. Even more important, I'm happy when my parents can't break the one I buy them.
>More ads won’t scare me because I won’t use app with any ads. If app offers one time purchase - I’ll buy it if I like it.
As long as such an option exists. But in a true race to the bottom situation, there may not be anyone willing to invest in developing an app and then selling for a one time purchase. One time purchase is a model that's nearly dead anyway.
>What if Apple decided you cannot install apps outdide off their App Store on a Mac neither?
This I wouldn't accept because I can't. It's a development machine for me. But an iPad is a consumption device, I need the thing to just always work.
The EC decides what the rules for defining a gatekeeper are, they invented the designation. You can call that arbitrary if you want, but they set their rules and are sticking to them. Deciding that iPads and iPhones are the same platform seems pretty common-sense to me.
> The EC decides what the rules for defining a gatekeeper are, they invented the designation.
It's more complicated than this: the EC has the initiative for legislation in the EU but the text they submit is later amended and voted by both the European Parliament and the Council (representing member states) so it's not true that the EC defines the rules. And both the member states and the European Parliament are pretty jealous of their prerogatives in the decision process so you can be sure that the EC cannot have arbitrary power that bypasses the Council and the Parliament.
If the unqualified existence of judicial remedy justified any arbitrary bureaucratic action, the world would be a much worse place (and indeed countries where bureaucrats make up rules to suit their whims and your only recourse is the judiciary tend to be dysfunctional).
You are making things up: there is no arbitrary action at all here. The EC must abide to the DMA and have no power to overcome it. If they did it would basically be a coup from the Commission against the Parliament and the Council, and you can be sure that member states would not stay silent against it (but don't worry it's not going to happen, as the balance of power is clearly not in favor of the Commission).
I'm just using the CJEU as an illustration that Apple themselves doesn't believe in the “arbitrary rules” narrative as they aren't even fighting in court.
Also, you're trying to use the “bureaucrates” card here, but Apple executives are bureaucrates too, and Apple's management of sanctions and their habits of shutting down user accounts without recourse shows that their own bureaucracy is closer to the one from authoritarian regimes than anything else.
I believe it follows the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a European Union legislation designed to promote fairness and competition in digital markets. You can find more information here: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en
Just that less people buy tablets than phones. As a percentage of market share iPad probably the same or higher (guess). But in absolute numbers lower.
The distinction between both OS and app stores is entirely arbitrary as well, and the EC is just not buying the argument that this is a different product and should be treated differently.
Edit: looks like the EU didn't even bother challenging the arbitrary distinction between both OS, since the iPad crosses the threshold for business users by itself, it's submitted to DMA on its own.
> looks like the EU didn't even bother challenging the arbitrary distinction between both OS, since the iPad crosses the threshold for business users by itself, it's submitted to DMA on its own.
While it does pass the threshold for business user the threshold, I think, is end users and business users. But that doesn't matter at all since the EU commission can declare a service as a gatekeeper, after an investigation, even if it had both business and end users bellow the threshold.
I mean, I think they're just not buying Apple's claim that iOS on the phone and iOS on the iPad are different things. If they _were_ to accept this, it would be a slippery slope - coming soon: iOS Smol for the smaller phones. It's totally different, we promise.
That makes intuitive sense, but that's not enough. Many untrue things make intuitive sense, especially when it comes to poverty.
Is there any research that shows that having witnessed someone get shot affects future prospects INDEPENDENT of the factors that lead to the kid witnessing someone get shot?
Maybe sloppy isn't the best term here. More like not being beat-perfect. E.g. using slightly off-beat hits or slight tempo variation as a way to emphasize other instruments or lyrics.
Pre drum computers these changes would more likely have been considered to be sloppy drumming, whereas these are more likely to signal authenticity these days.
I played nomic once. Pretty early in the process, someone proposed something akin to gerrymandering, effectively preventing over a third of the players from having their vote counted. Although that proposal didn't pass (a few of the proposed majority understood that they would be next), that kinda set the tone for the rest of the game.
Sad to see a more subtle version of the same thing play out in "democratic" societies.
There's several ways the original ID-less item is not a problem:
* The attacker might have physical access to the genuine item, but not have ownership of it. A counterfeit seller might peel of stickers in a legitimate store, and use them in the fake store. Walking out with a bunch of stickers in a Farraday cage is a lot easier than walking off with the actual merchandise. The original retailer is then stuck with an unauthenticatable genuine item.
* The attacker might transplant a sticker from a defective genuine item (e.g. in a repair shop) to a counterfeit item. The genuine item was already worthless at this point.
* The attacker might transplant a sticker from an authorized object (e.g. locked suitcase that has passed inspection) to an unauthorized object (e.g. locked suitcase with contraband). The original object can then be discarded.
This tech would prevent each of these attacks (should it prove pracical)
Depending on the article it might still be possible to detach/reattach the tag without damaging the glue interface (e.g. it's on the casing of expensive devices, or fabric etc)
It is both incredibly hot due to solar radiation, and extremely cold, due to the lack of atmosphere to transfer heat.
The sun-side of this parasol will be all melty, while the shade side will be extraordinarily chilly. Whatever it is made of, will need to withstand that extreme thermal gradient.
Very minor possibility though as any space debris that is not already in a semi-stable orbit would most likely have been filtered out by the planets before making it to any location inside of Earths Orbit, and a space parasol would be fairly small on an astronomical scale.
It's not much different than how detective work is done in the physical domain. You cannot be compelled to ask a customer for more info, but you can be compelled to share info that the customer gave to you, even if you didn't ask for it or never wrote it down.
reply