9 comments

  • Lerc 1 hour ago
    TLA overload strikes again.

    Reading this after a day of fighting microcontrollers made me interpret the headline quite differently.

    Ignoring DMA requests and contradictory documentation sounded entirely on point.

    • Namidairo 1 hour ago
      I too honestly thought that this was going to be a deep dive on the M-series PCIe controller or something similar.
    • rayiner 55 minutes ago
      Same here lol.
    • 1e1a 1 hour ago
      I too was confused
  • traspler 1 hour ago
    I think it is a valid article but it tries very hard to ignore that it seems like at least 12 (21%) of the requests are currently in development at Apple. If all of them are medium/complex requests then they are all still within the advertised timeline. So yes, technically nothing was released yet but I read at least an implied suggestion that nothing will be, which does not look like a conclusion that can be drawn at the moment.
    • ptx 51 minutes ago
      On the other hand, the article does say that

      "When the DMA took effect, it expected gatekeepers like Apple to deliver interoperability by default [...] Instead, Apple created a request-based system where each developer must seek permission for specific features"

      and

      "the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist"

  • u_sama 2 hours ago
    Not surprised, I can't still install any app I want on an iPhone despite the DMA/DSA Acts pushing clearly in that direction
  • nazgu1 2 hours ago
    I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are.

    On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was released Apple talked that "PWA" will be the future, and nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)

    • Tepix 40 minutes ago
      > allow it when iOS started allowing third-party

      Did you mean "allowing"? Or "prohibiting"

    • inetknght 1 hour ago
      > I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it

      It's not like we have a choice. Either allow it or... what? Buy a different computer? With what money? Spend time installing a new OS? With what time? And for most users: with what skills?

      So long as businesses make choices about the devices you own, you don't really have a choice about "allowing" it to happen.

    • mastermage 2 hours ago
      Security is not a fixed state, a closed system is not fundamentally more secure as the most vulnerable component is still within the system. The user.
    • dangus 26 minutes ago
      Is macOS more of a closed platform? What is more closed about it?

      I totally agree that iOS is too closed down and I would say it’s part of an illegally operated duopoly, but macOS is pretty much the same as it has always been.

      Apple objectively went out of their way to make sure you can install other operating systems on their silicon platform on Mac which they really didn’t have to do.

    • CharlesW 1 hour ago
      > nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)

      Incorrect: https://pwascore.com/ Nobody cares about PWAs, but that's not Apple's fault.

  • zb3 3 minutes ago
    Apple will listen only when executives are physically put in jail.. Europe can't do this, and I don't see this happening in the US soon either.
  • intothemild 57 minutes ago
    I wonder how much this will change now that Tim Apple, is out and John Apple is in. (probably none)
    • benoau 13 minutes ago
      The status quo is insanely profitable for Apple and Cook is still going to be "engaging with policymakers around the world" so I don't think they'll deviate from malicious compliance and stalling tactics any time soon.

      The perjury, contempt and referral for criminal investigation in the US carried no consequence, Japan and Brazil's regulations have been undermined by massive fees, as has the EU but they're afraid to fine them because of Trump. Except for the possibility of a $38 billion fine in India this strategy has been very successful for Apple: it's 5 years since the US ruled developers could use third party payments, 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.

  • pjc50 2 hours ago
    Disappointed but not surprised. Their intent is not to comply, so you'll have to sue them at every step for every atom of compliance.
  • anthk 2 hours ago
    FSFE should top caring about Apple and giving awards to Microsoft and propietary software company supporters. Learn a thing or two from FSFLA and stop being a honeypot against libre software.
  • actionfromafar 2 hours ago
    Is anyone surprised? I suppose Apple will care when a lot of money is extracted from their bank account.
    • Luker88 1 hour ago
      It's not about being surprised, is about finally having proof and being able to go to the lawmakers with something concrete.

      Apple could initially dismiss this as "doomsayers that talk about unreal future". Now this is proof.

      Let's not dismiss this ourselves.

      This is "I told you so", not "breaking news: nobody expected this!".