Hacker News Reader

Comment by thewebguyd | Hacker News Reader

> Apple is doing the right thing for users.

The right thing for users would be to allow user choice, and for Apple to compete fairly.

Apple allowing third party access doesn't automatically mean user data gets hoovered up by OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. It just means users now get the choice, if they want to make that choice. Users could stay with Siri/Apple if they care about what Apple is offering, or choose to accept the risks and terms of service with other third parties.

The EU isn't saying "you must preinstall every competitors offering" its "you must offer the ability for others to hook into the same APIs to be able to offer their own assistant on par with the first party option."

The user still remains in control by virtue of their own choice.

View on HN

I never understood how any regulatory body is going to decide which APIs in iOS must be made available to third-parties to hook into. So what if I'm a third-party maker of TCP/IP stack and I want Apple to offer me the ability to sell my custom TCP/IP stack to my iOS customers as a replacement for the stock TCP/IP stack that ships with iOS. Clearly no regulatory body has cared about that because it's too niche of a space?

So some government official will scour the entire API surface of iOS and decide which ones Apple needs to expose to third-parties? They have already decided App Store and Payments APIs need to be made available. Now it looks like they also expect off-device foundation models need to be made available to third-parties.

What about making Apple Watch specific APIs in iOS be made available to all third-party watch makers so any one can bring any smartwatch and use it just as effectively as the Apple Watch with an iPhone? What about all the AirPods specific APIs that lets Apple offer a better experience with AirPods than a generic bluetooth earbuds? What about Apple Pencil? And so on... If you go down this path, the list is endless.

Replacement TCP/IP stack sounds like a VPN—which iOS allows

VPN is not a replacement TCP/IP stack. I literally meant the TCP/IP stack in the XNU kernel. It might be an esoteric example but it's not that far off. DMA already forced Apple to open up browser engine layer so third-parties can now bring in their own browser engines in the EU and are not restricted to using just WebKit.

True. Will add, device must be supervised to use VPN always-on which is possibly sensible albeit annoying (would have to reinstall iOS and set up as new I believe).

> What about making Apple Watch specific APIs in iOS be made available to all third-party watch makers so any one can bring any smartwatch and use it just as effectively as the Apple Watch with an iPhone? What about all the AirPods specific APIs that lets Apple offer a better experience with AirPods than a generic bluetooth earbuds? What about Apple Pencil? And so on...

Don't threaten me with a good time? All of those seem like great policies. The fact that I cannot use an apple watch with an android phone is ridiculous, and vice versa as well.

Yes I'd like some of these too but at the same time I get an uneasy feeling when I think that some potential idiot in a regulatory body in every country is now going to decide which API surface needs to be made available to third parties. If they take it too far, they could end up making nonsensical choices and kill innovation.

Should you be able to use a Samsung SoC in an Apple phone?

At some point this is just a debate about vertical integration. Apple can deliver better experiences with it, but of course it limits user choice.

Many people want fully modular, open systems, which is lowest common denominator.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I am so skeptical of regulators deciding what can be integrated or not. If modularity is better for consumers, why don’t they prefer modular systems?

At the very least I think there should be a very clear tradeoff; right now the EU seems to think they can regulate their way to all of the benefits of vertical integration while outlawing vertical integration. I don’t see how anyone could look at that with a straight face.

> Should you be able to use a Samsung SoC in an Apple phone?

How did we go in less than two comments from providing access to APIs that are already present, implemented and actively used by Apple (who in their holy wisdom deem us mortals not worthy to access these the way we choose) to a completely different hypothetical of requiring actively building support for another companies hardware?

Such slippery slopes really aren't helpful, nor in any way comparable to what the DMA actually intends or states.

> why don’t they prefer modular systems?

Because there aren’t any to choose from?

“Smartphone” has become a mandatory thing everyone is required to use to function in society without major friction.

Businesses hate supporting a ton of distinct platforms, as proved by the developer marketplace killing Windows Mobile through refusing to ship apps for it.

This suffocates any third entrants just like the FPTP voting system suffocates third political parties.

So what modular OS are people supposed to choose?

> Should you be able to use a Samsung SoC in an Apple phone?

That's irrelevant to the discussion. SoC is not a digital platform in any way under DMA. It's not a platform at all.

I think if you actually invested time into researching the DMA you will be able to understand why they are making certain decisions.

Oh, me, me! I spent a few years being responsible for a significant bit of DMA review and CYA and responses to regulators.

I’ve read all of it, multiple times, and been grilled by EU regulators (vicariously, via corporate lawyers).

It still boils down to general guidelines that it’s impossible to know if you’re violating before the fact, and they will not even approve/reject proposals in advance. It’s basically “go read the act yourself, and ship what you think is compliant, and you’ll know whether we interpret the words the same way by whether or not we fine you.”

Good times.

> It still boils down to general guidelines that it’s impossible to know if you’re violating before the fact, and they will not even approve/reject proposals in advance. It’s basically “go read the act yourself, and ship what you think is compliant, and you’ll know whether we interpret the words the same way by whether or not we fine you.”

Companies want to know exactly where the line is so they can figure out how to comply with the letter of the law while doing as much as possible to get around the spirit of the law. This has been demonstrated over and over again. It isn't the job of the regulator to help companies with this process.

So you’d be cool with speed limit signs that said “hey, don’t go too fast” and no specific limits? And the cops decide who to pull over on vibes, reputation, mood?

I’m more of a rule of law person myself. If there’s a law that must not be broken, and breaking it results in penalties, it seems insane to me to not specify it in advance.

Sure, big tech is largely evil. Arrest ‘em, find them, IDGAF.

But pretending that DMA and related regulations provide enough information to ensure compliance is willfully ignorant. The regulations are designed to allow selective enforcemen.

>speed limit signs that said “hey, don’t go too fast”

Yeah we already have that. We have the words 'SLOW' on the road that ask you to slow down from the current limit for the hazard ahead, but pulling you up on this is officers discretion.

Bad example, as there is a posted speed limit above which you are positively breaking the law. Discretion may lower the limit.

The DMA doesn’t have the objective measures. It’s all discretion, all subjective, all post hoc.

Which, cool, some people like the idea that police target those people and need flexibility to make life harder for undesirables in ways they would never do to high status people. I don’t personally like that, and I don’t think tech regulation should work that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_speed_limit#Germany

Creating competition where it would not otherwise exist is the essential nature of the EU. Originally it was mostly about forcing protectionist member states to accept competition from other member states. But they extended the approach to breaking perceived natural monopolies a long time ago.

The exact rules ultimately don't matter, because the EU is after outcomes. If the current rules don't lead to the desired outcomes, they will keep changing the rules, until they get what they wanted. (Or until their goals change.)

Destroying competition by removing the consumer choice for vertical integration in service of strong security, privacy, reliability, etc.... is mistaken.

It's competing at the wrong level.

The iPhone is a toaster. Nobody's up in arms about whether the toaster takes other manufacturer's crumb tray. It's a television, and nobody's demanding QLED and OLED be swappable. It's a console. Xbox doesn't play PS5 games. It's fine.

There's no real line between hardware / firmware / software / malware ... For what Apple offers consumers, every layer of whateverware should be trusted.

Drawing imaginary lines based on the embodiment or substrates for logic gates is mistaken.

There are lots of phones. Lot's of different philosophies. Stop taking away consumer right to pick a philosophy and design for an end to end experience. It's fine.

Nothing about allowing others equal access to the OS means that someone can’t still choose Apple’s first party services and products.

It’s not an either/or thing, it’s about preventing so called gatekeepers from anticompetitive behavior via favoring their own accessories and services while simultaneously preventing any others from possibly competing.

There’s no valid reason at all a third party smartwatch shouldn’t be able to integrate to the same level as an Apple Watch. No reason third party Bluetooth earbuds shouldn’t be able use ADWL for automatic device switching, etc.

Want to still use only Apple? Great, nothing says you can’t. But at least it would be user choice and there would be actually competition which would lead to better products for all.

Can’t believe I lived to see the day that people on HN start defending vendor lock in and closed platforms as a good thing. Have all the hackers retired?

> Want to still use only Apple? Great, nothing says you can’t. But at least it would be user choice...

It's already user choice. The problem is too many users like the lineup. And too many who aren't going to use it, don't.

We already have user choice - it's called buying an iPhone or not. Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone, or a smartphone at all.

The EU is just a disaster with these laws. They can't innovate so they do this.

> the list is endless.

Good. They are making an operating system. User choice and competition matter. I know Apple would prefer to allocate more resources to Liquid Glass animations and burying more UI elements inside “…” menus, but I personally think I don’t need any more innovation above the OS level from Apple. Especially because 80% of their changes to the application layer in 10 years have just made their platforms worse.

Let them ship a stable platform that allows applications to do tons of useful things, even when you don’t accept a mega-package of apps and services all from the first-party vendor that locks you in.

If Apple built houses, you would have to jump through hoops every time you use a microwave or lamp you didn’t buy from Apple.

That's...literally the point of these regulations. Sounds great to me.

> Apple allowing third party access doesn't automatically mean user data gets hoovered up by OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. It just means users now get the choice, if they want to make that choice.

Apple is also restricted in the sort of consent prompts they give the user. That could matter when a non-technical users is prompted by a third party app to effectively allow unfettered access to all user personal data on the device.

Sometimes when you look at the functional requirements for a feature it turns out to be a bad idea. In the EU, functional requirements can come after-the-fact from regulator interpretation of the DMA. Until Apple determines what those requirements actually are going to be, releasing a potentially harmful feature is irresponsible.

And why is that a good thing? The average user can't even spell Anthropic. Why do you think they can safely pick a third-party model provider that could harvest the hell out of their conversations? The control of ecosystem is part of the privacy and security. My mom's Android phone has like 100 apps that she had no idea how they were downloaded. For real user choices, the vast majority of users just want a phone that they can trust and don't have to be a techie to avoid being exploited. They can choose to buy a phone that can be built from legos, OR they can choose to buy a phone from someone they trust to get the privacy and security taken care of for them. This is the real user choice.

Forcing choices is not "competition". We already have competition. People can buy any phone they want. They can use whatever AI they want.

There's nothing "fair" about this at all. It's a group of luddites in the EU who dislike how successful American companies are.

Again, the EU is stifling innovation with these backwards-looking rules. No wonder they have no innovative companies.

There is a vast asymmetry in knowledge and capability to make those choices for most users. Most users will press agree and consent to things they don’t understand to get to the next screen, and while that would be terrible for the individuals I think it’s also important to look further at the ramifications because probably Apple would be blamed.

They can't under GDPR. The DMA is for market access - there are other laws for privacy. Those require use commensurate with what is needed for the service, so anyone who e.g. scraped all of a user's local info and stolen it would be breaking EU privacy laws themselves.

This is not complicated. Even in the US, every other industry is regulated to your benefit, you're just used to it and haven't realised. Digital technology obviously needs to be too. And yes, you have to do it properly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com