Hacker News Reader

Comment by o11c | Hacker News Reader

Title really undersells this. It is very much not a "we want free backups" thing, but "we want to be able to do non-iCloud backups at all":

> Much of the lawsuit’s emphasis is on the fact that iPhone users only have one option when it comes to full device backups

View on HN

Really wished Time Capsule for iOS is a thing.

Can't you backup your device locally?

I’m assuming cloud backups, the way the vast majority of users back up, is what’s being discussed.

That would've been a reasonable argument back in the day when there were more computers than phones.

If they want multiple options, maybe they can buy Android?

I buy iPhones because I want a tightly integrated environment.

Allowing another option does not decrease that integration.

Of course it does. With a given number of resources, more options needs to be supported means less resource spend on each one.

Apple is more than able to increase resources to accommodate.

Yes, someone would have to pay for that engineering resource to make the support. I don’t want to pay for it because I prefer iCloud backup already.

The core issue here is whether governments should control how iOS is designed and which part of iOS.

Furthermore, it can be argued that forcing iOS to be more like Android decreases competition. If you want a more open platform, just get an Android phone.

> The core issue here is whether governments should control how iOS is designed and which part of iOS.

That's Apple's core issue, maybe.

Now, look at it from the perspective of a sovereign market. Their core issue (a-la United States v. Microsoft Corp.) is how much they are willing to allow while admitting market access. In Microsoft's case, their manipulation of technical capabilities was considered illegal monopoly action. Apple is treading on the exact same ground with Safari and going even further in the case of the App Store - corrective litigation was an inevitability.

Apple ultimately doesn't have to abide by the EU's decisions if they don't intend to intend to access their markets. Governments[0] already[1] control[2] so much[3] of iOS[4] though[5] that it's kinda a moot point =)

> Furthermore, it can be argued that forcing iOS to be more like Android decreases competition.

It can be argued that competition with Android is not what iCloud, Safari and App Store regulation is about. It's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the DMA or Japan's equivalent legislation.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Prism_sl...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/us/politics/nso-contract-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

[4] https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754

[5] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22361762/iphone-russia-sta...

All of this comes at the expense of focus on the things that really matter.

It really doesn’t. It comes at the expense of a rounding error in Apple’s annual profits.

It’s a bucket for bits. The iPhone does the diffing for the backup and encryption and then sends the data to the server. How many resources are needed to implement an if-statement for picking which address to upload to?

And if you want to fuel your Ford, you better only use Ford branded fuel. Oh and this Ikea bowl can only be filled with ikea brand meatballs.

Can't you see how ridiculously anticompetitive this attitude is?

Actually I don’t really see the problem as long as there is a free competitor (Android). Just boycott Ford/Ikea in these cases and don’t buy their products. It only becomes a problem if everyone does this, the question is if you want to stop it at the start and prevent anyone from doing this, or if you want to allow it until it becomes a problem

No, I don't think it's ridiculous.

I will vote with my wallet. If Ikea branded meatballs and their bowls combo provides more value for me, I would buy them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com