That's absolutely the opposite of how most of EU operates. See every single EU banking application. You can't run on rooted Android. Yes, EU absolutely should focus of their own tech first and foremost.
coz where I live there is no such regulation, but banks still checks for root because of the support load concern
And you don't want a world where banks are not liable for such things, they have to be or they wouldn't spend any resources on their systems.
If you say a general-computing device, I’d agree. It’s a slippery slope, though.
Im sure there are legal nuances, but thats what lawyers are for.
Device manufacturers that are also service providers want nothing more than to adopt the licensing business model. The public has mostly accepted that when you buy physical media that contains digital media, you buy a limited use license to the digital media, and the physical media just happens to be the delivery mechanism. In that same sense, it could be construed that buying a mobile device grants you a license to a digital service, without which the device is useless. You technically own the device, but you license the operating system.
So the argument is: feel free to do what you want on any other operating system, if you can manage to run it, but on our OS, you'll abide by our rules. Apple has been successful at this for years, Google is well on its way there with Android, and even desktop OSs have been trending in this direction.
The last bastion of OSs that give users actual freedom are Linux, BSDs, and other niche OSs. Everything else is becoming a walled garden.
If you want to hack a device and get it do something other than what it was designed for, then that's the hacker spirit so go for it. But why does that mean we* all have to accept your way when we just want to run apps.
*royal we. i do not use apps as i don't trust any of you app developers to not be shady.
I can work around most things but not the banks, therefore a phone is required to live in a modern society, therefore I am required to use either Android or IOS. I am not required to have a PS5 or Xbox. This is the main reason I am so opposed to locking down phone OS's, I only have a choice of IOS or stock Android, and I have to choose one.
Everyone is so gung ho about running whatever they want on the very custom hardware Apple is selling.
But then complete silence about the PS5 and Xbox, which are 99% plain old PC hardware with a custom OS.
Why?
But also, it doesn't matter, because it's a different topic. If someone wants A, it doesn't mean they are automatically wrong because they didn't also talk about B and C.
I want to buy a PS5 and install SteamOS on it and play PC games. Why can't I?
IIRC EU had a rule that "general purpose computers" had a significantly lower tax than "gaming devices" -> let users install Linux on it -> general purpose -> more money for Sony.
By the same metric, it's reasonable for a consenting adult to own their phone in a legal sense while the true owner is Apple (which they willfully paid for this). So in this case yes, iPhone owners are real owners even if it's a complete walled garden.
You made the argument claiming that freedom of choice and strong ownership rights will inherently allow kids to bypass parental controls when that's obviously not the case. A device can always be locked down by its legal owner or by someone's legal guardian who has a duty of care for that person. This sort of bad faith concern trolling has gotten out of hand.
But then again you seem to be confusing parental controls with Apple controlling who can make apps for a a 3rd party store
They can first force Sony to let us run anything on the PS5, then go for Nintendo and Switch, after that Microsoft and the Xbox.
All three are more generic computers than any Apple mobile device and are purely walled gardens where we can't run whatever we want.
I guess it's just as good as any other of the vendors you mentioned. I don't see why we shouldn't start with Apple but at the same time I don't think anyone opposes to the other companies being forced too.
At least I know I would like to run personalized software on my Switch without having to rooting it by other 'ways'.
How can you say that with a straight face? The EU opposes other companies being forced to! That’s why they wrote their DMA the way they did!
No they aren't. Game consoles are designed for a singular purpose. Apple's mobile devices are not singular purpose. I guess their watch might be? but that's the closest you'd get IMO.
They also have chat apps and you can stream your own games to places like twitch for others to watch. And through simple steps they all have browsers you can load web pages on.
If a mobile phone is a computer, a game console is a computer.
https://github.com/XITRIX/iTorrent#donate-for-donuts
The developer had his app distribution rights removed in mid-July. i am the one who reached out to TorrentFreak; they were the first to respond. (The Verge /MacRumors/9to5Mac ignored me)
(i had no input in the article.)
And today it is Apple, and I'm curious to see whether HN folks feel the similar passion. Historically, people pick up pitch forks for Google but give Apple a pass - so looking forward to the conversation here.
This is the kind of conduct I expect from Apple and the reason I have no interest in using one of their devices. I think it's bad for them to do this. I think it's bad for them to have the ability to do this. I don't think ranting about it on HN will accomplish anything. It has been this way for nearly 20 years and it will only change if governments make even stricter laws against it.
Google, on the other hand is trying to lock down a previously (somewhat) open platform. That's a rug pull for those who picked Android for its openness, and it's possible that sufficient outrage from the tech community will stop that plan.
I highly doubt that. It would take the common non-tech person to be outraged. This is where google makes all their money. Not from a small minority of tech workers.
And Apple being a middleman parasite for every app wasn't something that I had much sympathy for.
This is the behaviour I, unfortunately, expect out of Apple.
But to actually answer the question, I think this is a strategic mistake. I'm broadly of the opinion that:
The android ecosystem is reliant on Android capturing part of the high end market, without it their won't be sufficient money in the ecosystem. Money in the ecosystem is necessary to justify things like developers making apps, phone companies investing in product lines, advertisers paying high prices for in app ads, etc.
Android captures part of the high end market only because of enthusiasts and developers choosing and evangelizing the less abusive company. From other perspectives (hardware quality, software quality, signalling wealth, etc) Apple has generally been better. There's the occasional exception like Android being the first to flip-phone-touch-phones, but not enough to sustain an ecosystem.
And thus Google's general movement to matching Apple here is shortsighted, and likely to significantly contribute to the collapse Android's phone ecosystem, which in turn will destroy the huge source of profit that is Google Play.
But still better than Apple, yeah? Last I checked, still allows alternate stores, still allows sideloading (but requires verification), still allows customization, still allows OEM choice ..
You didnt say it explicitly what you'll switch to, but my assumption is that you were going to go to iPhone but isnt it worse over there?
As mentioned in TFA:
> While there may be a perfectly logical explanation for iTorrent’s revoked rights, Apple’s handling of the matter so far only fuels speculation. Some might even argue that the lack of transparency in revoking distribution rights violates the letter or the spirit of the EU’s Digital Markets Act.
If Apple is truly trying to block an app that has substantial legal uses that is being distributed outside of its own App Store, there is a problem.
You're technically right that we havent seen Apple do the thing _in this instance_ but why do you still give the company the benefit of the doubt.
One one hand we have an official policy announcement from Google, and on the other hand we have speculation about why one developer is having issues distributing one app.
Speculation is not on the same level as an official policy.
The EU changed the laws within their jurisdiction to require third party app store availability.
Historically speaking, Google made claims that Android would allow you to run anything you like (they didn't even have their own app store at first), and also that Android was open source.
They have incrementally been rolling back those stances ever since.
Look, kids! It’s a poor, little trillion dollar mega corporation. Everybody wave!
Meanwhile, walled gardens remain perfectly legal, unless you explicitly change the law.
Look at Microsoft, which created and marketed Xbox as a walled garden with no legal repercussions in the decades since.
However, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform, and then used anticompetitive tactics to retain control (just as Google did) and was found just as guilty as Google in the courts.
When Apple created iOS it was a closed platform. When they added the ability to create third party native apps they were clear that the platform would be a walled garden.
It clearly was not a closed platform in the way that Apple believed. It never should have been closed. I own my devices, so I get to decide what they run. It’s my electricity driving the chips, so I decide which bits get flipped. Simple as.
I do hear you, I just don’t know if I have the same perception of the facts on the ground. Google and Apple should be compelled to support users’ decisions about whether to defer to the corporate overlords, or not.
That's not how the law works.
As long as the device creator is absolutely clear to consumers that choosing their platform means that consumers will be buying into a walled garden, it's perfectly legal.
The only way to change that is to change the law, as the EU did.
A right that can’t be exercised is a wrong.
Nevertheless, this serves as an excellent demonstration of the problem with the changes Google are making, since they would allow Google to do exactly what Apple just did.
I use a macbook pro as my main laptop because macos is bearable (also it's become steadily worse in the last few years) and their hardware is great. But, ipads and iphones are just locked down trash from my perspective and I refuse to use money to get a device that I can't control.
TorrentFreak are the first to respond to our emails, Getting the news out is hard.
(i am the one who alerted Ernesto, but i had no input in the article.)
They are not at the same level.
This hasn't really been the case for the past year or two. People are pretty fed up with Apple's BS, even here in their historic stronghold.
Can we now revisit the arguments that people were making in those threads to defend this?
Android exits, it's relatively open. I can download an APK and easily install it on my device (unless this changed since I last did this).
Apple is a walled garden. That's both a gift and a curse. I see a lot more spammy low-quality apps on Android, but I also have more choice. I prefer Android for mobile and Mac for desktop.
As an aside, any time I've seen the state intervene in affairs like this it has made my experience as a user worse. I remember something about Google can no longer "favor" their services. So for instance, if I search for an address, it can't show me Google maps because it theoretically harms all the fledgling map companies. But now it's just more clicks for me. I don't care about competition, I care about the best product. If I search for an address I want google maps. If I search for a video, show me YouTube. And if Google fails to deliver the best product, I'll switch.
It's no different than going to a restaurant and them serving only Pepsi products.
Competition is how you get to the best product. Lack of competition leads to malaise of product improvements as the market dominators are owning the space and happily exert their power over people.
> It's no different than going to a restaurant and them serving only Pepsi products.
There are two viable players for the average Joe in the phone market. There are I would guess 200-300 restaurants in my not so big town.
The number of choices matters a lot. If there were only two real option for restaurants around me, I would hope the management does not decide to be evil and lower food quality, jack up prices, or collude to only offer specific food while the other restaurant does not offer.
Also, in the restaurant example, we always have the option to buy our own food and cook at home. So to match the phone market situation, imagine cooking at home is illegal, and the only food you can eat is from two restaurants.
Competition means differentiating your product. You don’t have competition if both products are the same.
Apple is trying to differentiate by offering a curated experience. Google is trying to differentiate by offering less curation and more customizability. Both are valid.
It would be bad for competition if iOS and Android were just copies of each other. That would be malaise.
I think the malaise is when you require every company to take the exact same approach.
Let two companies take different approach. One is walled garden and the other is bazaar. I wish we had more walled gardens personally. I'm tired of wading through hundreds of results in Amazon through shady third party sellers. At this point I go to Best Buy, knowing that they won't sell me absolute garbage. Curation is very useful.
> I think the malaise is when you require every company to take the exact same approach.
I think you're arguing against yourself here. The way to allow companies to take different approaches is to require any app store/approach be allowed. Then Apple can curate, FOSS app stores like FDroid can use their approach, etc.
Fundamentally I think this issue is about ownership. Modern companies/products like to pretend that you don't own the things you buy, because it makes them money. Apple loves their 30% cut of apps, and hides behind "protecting the users" to maintain it, but they really want to control the your device. People would never ever tolerate not being in full control and maintaining true ownership of most things in their lives, but for some reason we let it slide with phones, which, like it or not, are one of the most important objects people own. They should be treated that way, and provided full ownership of them.
I don't want to worry about giving my dad an iPhone and making sure he doesn't sideload some scammy app because that's essentially what you'll get. The same was the "third party sellers" on places like Amazon are pretty terrible.
I'm on an Android because I like the freedom. But again, Apple would not exist if you had this rule in place because it would immediately be en-shittified and no one would voluntarily pay the Apple tax that allows them to invest and invent this new ecosystem if they feel they can't control it.
If you don't want walled garden, don't use Apple. Plenty of people don't use Apple products. iOS is about 25% of European market, so what are we even talking about here?
Preventing bad things at the cost of certain fundamental freedoms is not a desirable goal. Law enforcement is intentionally made harder by the 4th Amendment. It's literally there to obstruct the police, because it's more important for people to have privacy.
The same applies to your phone. A device you buy should be yours to use however you want, especially a device as important as a smartphone in the 21st century. No one expects to be able to run Linux on their toaster if it didn't already come with it, but preventing certain major functionality because ToasterCorp wants a walled garden is not acceptable. I see no difference with a phone.
Going forward, you could emphasize to Pops: "Never install anything not from the Apple App Store. Only use the Apple App Store." Problem solved. The rest of keep our freedom, Pop is safe.
Unfortunately we have the platform owners controlling (or essentially controlling) which stores are allowed to operate on those platforms right now. This needs to change.
Fixed that, and agree. ("Walled garden" means a platform that doesn't allow other choices, curated or not.)
I don't think that accurately depicts the situation.
> Apple has threatened to remove creator platform Patreon from the App Store if creators use unsupported third-party billing options or disable transactions on iOS, instead of using Apple's own in-app purchasing system for Patreon's subscriptions.
This happened because 5 years after Patreon published their app, Apple decided they were now due a 30% recurring cut of "indie creator" revenue. And that's ignoring that they did this while under court order to allow external payment options. And we've seen them try to force IAP purchases and subscriptions into WordPress, to Hey, and other apps too.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-says-patreon-must-switc...
It's their market. No one is forcing you to participate. But if you do you should have a good faith effort to abide by the rules. If not, bow out. If enough people bow out then he market is no longer the best market and they will lose to competitor markets.
On the regular 'market', you have plenty of options. You can sell to supermarkets, you can make a webshop, you can sell on a local market, etc. You could even directly sell goods from your own farm (which works in a lot of places). Similarly, a buyer can get most products from a lot of places.
If you make an smartphone app, you practically only have two markets: the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store. They can dictate outsized fees and draconic rules, because there is no other way to sell your product. Moreover, they can kill apps that they decide to compete with or pick winners. It is everything but a free market and the EU is right to regulate it with the DSA/DMA.
It's not. That's the entire point. The EU Single Market is the EU's. No trying to take it away, that is exactly what this is all about.
We, the European people, are the ones that have set up the world's largest market of well-off consumers. Apple is the one that is trying to subdivide it and create a walled-off area where they don't have to follow our rules.
It changed with Google's announcement yesterday.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028
> I don't care about competition, I care about the best product.
You can’t have the best product if there’s no competition.
> And if Google fails to deliver the best product, I'll switch.
You won’t if there’s nothing to switch to because due to monopolistic practices no other service was able to survive.
The practice of charging different prices for the same digital good depending on the buyer’s country is generally called international price discrimination (or geo-based price discrimination). Just so you know.
It didn't yet but it will change next year. All APKs will have to be signed by Google then.
One can see world wide where jail time or extra judicial punishments has made business people most upstanding citizens.
FWIW, I get tempted to switch when my Android starts feeling like it works for Google and not for me. The advantage of the iPhone is that it works for nobody.
Always some new notification to be disabled (or cannot be disabled without ADB). The Play Store "helpfully" refuses to install some software on my phone that doesn't meet the minimum specs or whatever. Can't remove protected applications from phones (such as Facebook on some Samsung phones). For all its talk about being open source, it's certainly always been more locked down than a Windows PC or a Mac.
At least Windows Phone did almost nothing, which was more relaxing lol
If it is, there's a good chance LineageOS with root and Play Integrity Fix will work, at least it's been working for me for years.
iTorrent's ability to play while "sharing" was the bridge too far. There are plenty of players for personal media in the App Store (Plex, Jellyfin, etc.), but as a BitTorrent client it's clear that its primary purpose was to play media that was vanishingly unlikely to be the user's.
It also didn’t help that AltStore PAL regularly spotlighted these apps, basically taunting corpos and eurocrats alike. On the bright side, qBitControl won’t be affected, since it isn’t a BitTorrent client itself but merely a remote for qBittorrent.
It would be surprising if the EU they didn't hit Apple with billions in fines for the most obvious form of malicious non-compliance after going through all that effort of passing the regulations.
Not in general, and courts would have to decide whether it's a violation in this specific case. The DMA doesn't force Apple to platform apps used primarily for piracy, it just requires that they be able to justify restrictions and keep them as narrow as possible. De-platforming a specific app is about as narrow as it gets.
Also, it's arguable that the DSA (Digital Services Act), which is just as applicable, actually compels Apple to de-platform this app. The DMA is a competition law, and allowing an app whose primary purpose is distribution of infringing content undermines fair competition among legitimate content providers.
But they haven't provided a justification for this. The least you'd expect would be a "this app violates notarization guideline x.x.x". They might have to edit the CSS on their website a little (add the .lighter-override class) but after that they could just cite 5.2.3 [1].
[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#leg...
> it's arguable that the DSA (Digital Services Act), which is just as applicable, actually compels Apple to de-platform this app
I'll assume this is completely bogus, unless you elaborate.
Also, the text of the DMA confirms that they can only restrict apps outside of the App Store if they endanger the integrity of the OS, not for any other reason. Not even for "enabling IP infringement" (which browsers would also be guilty of).
The EU does seem to take violations of the DMA seriously, and this is unambiguously a violation.
Article 6(4).
> The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper.
By requiring notarization, Apple requires users and developers to use their core platform services in order to access 3rd party apps.
However, this is beyond Apple’s own App Store, which is sort of interesting. I think it still highlights the dangers of App stores, though.
Appaling.
So why are even complaining for??
We all know that the current Apple will go until the last consequence before reverting anything. If you continue using their devices, you are agreeing with their practices.
Apple business model is no longer based on the sales of hardware as it tanked, but 30% cut from the Apple Store. Thanks to Epic, that income has been severely affected making it very easy to hit Apple where it hurts: Their pocket.
Apple will never listen while folks keep using their services, buying new iPhone that is just the same crappy year after year.
I wonder how the data compares to the data Apple could send and do they respect when user's have opted to NOT send app developers data?
I know when you first sign on to the App Store it prompts you about 2 things, sending Apple data, and sending app developers data.
*EDIT* I know it's not fair and doesn't mean they're all bad but given the current circumstances in the world, I am going to be quite skeptical of developers with .ru in their email or anything else.
Update August 28: A day after publication, Apple informed us that the distribution rights (notarization) were revoked due to sanctions-related rules.
“Notarization for this app was removed in order to comply with government sanctions-related rules in various jurisdictions. We have communicated this to the developer,” Apple told us.
No further context was provided, but the developer purportedly had a Russian developer account, despite living in Malta.
Apple fully knows they are looking forward to a huge fine. I guess they are banning a torrent app here to be able to tell: look the EU is sponsoring piracy. They are also trying to get Trump to intervene on their behalf obviously. Given how spineless the current European Commission is, that might even work.
To my fellow European, my advice remains the same: boycott American companies, stop voting for parties affiliated with the EPP.
It's just used to share files. I use it to share my videos & photos of my cat.
it would be nice if someone had a backbone and fought Apple like Epic's Tim Sweeney.
the benefit is private. Nobody would publicly claim they support piracy, because it's too politically incorrect.
So the PR machine doesn't have a hard job at all convincing law makers of a non-truth, despite privately that people would generally not agree with said non-truth.
Many in Europe do, there are even political parties for that.
It's not true, of course, but everyone and their dog still knows it.
(a) they agree to Apple's demands and have Fortnite on the App Store during its peak of popularity for years and eat the junk fees on mtx or
(b) they fight an extremely costly lawsuit, which they have no guarantee of winning, for years, during which time Fortnite could leave the cultural zeitgeist (which it to some extent has) and maybe eventually one day get closer to 95% of mtx money?
I think he wants to be Steam. He wants to grow to be a foundational pillar of the market. He is to a certain degree with Unreal Engine, but that's split with Unity. He wants Epic to be the top player. Might be ego/power more than cash, but it's still coming from a place of greed.
So maybe he wants to use mobile as the lever to make the Epic Store relevant, and suing the first party markets is the path to do that.
Or maybe he's just used to being the richest guy in the room and doesn't like to be pushed around.
Either way, I think it's misplaced to herald him as a folk hero. I don't think he actually cares about individual freedom. He cares about whatever is good for Tim/Epic.
Epic's got its own anticompetitive bullshit. They don't let you play their games on Linux. They make excuses about Linux being a haven of cheaters, but really, they're just trying to add friction to keep people from moving to SteamOS.
Ambition and high mindedness are not necessarily disjoint.
He sees the potential for his company to be a bigger platform, and Apple has put itself in the way of him attempting to do so on the merits. That must feel as wrong to him as it would to any individual whose potential is being blocked.
Most principles that get upheld in society, are fought for by people who benefit from them.
Preliminary findings from the European Commission are legally meaningless. The EU court of justice has annulled fines against tech companies before, ruling that the EC has not done enough of an investigation. For example, here is a ruling that confirms that the one billion Euro fine against Intel should have been annulled because the EC did not do a satisfactory investigation:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
I understand your confusion but the EU is still a liberal democracy. Obviously we have appeal courts and some judgements are overturned. One being overturned concerning Intel has absolutely no bearing on what will happen in the Apple case.
It’s the General Court which cancelled the Intel fine by the way. The Court of Justice is the next in line jurisdiction and confirmed the court decision after the Commission appealed.
Otherwise why not also remove safari since apple does not prevent copyright abuse there.
Are they legally required? Why would they then.
Apple on the other hand...
There is nothing about torrent apps in DMA.
In the US, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, Section 512
In the EU, E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (2019/790/EU, “DSM Directive”), Digital Services Act (DSA).
Additionally specific countries each have their own laws on the matter.
Why would the DMCA apply to an app store hosting torrent download apps?
And that's not even the case there. Its like claiming Microsoft is somehow responsible for someone downloading a torrent app.
Silly...
1. You have absolutely no clue how the BitTorrent protocol works. 2. You have never maintained a widely used app as a single developer. 3. The extent of your use of LLMs is either academic / hobby or very narrowly focused and not integrated into a global product.
Just these points make your "suggestion" about using "LLMs to detect stuff is extremely easy" laughable at best.
The reason why people want to install their own software is to have freedom over their devices. The copyrighted content removal has a mechanism for it, called DMCA. And this is not how it works. The application does not have any content or means to circumvent any measures.
I ran a company doing this for real time internet traffic and the tech worked great. My mistake was suggesting a specific solution; the reality is there is a dozens ways to go about it, and it doesn't matter to me how its solved. What does matter is the EU probably isn't going to work overtime to protect people illegally downloading music, and I don't fault Apple for wanting to limit how many people can do it
Apple's prior approach to DMA compliance was to loudly grumble about it, but do the absolute bare minimum to kinda sorta comply if you squint at it. The whole idea with iOS notarization was that Apple was ceding control over iOS apps for editorial but not technical reasons; i.e. that they'd only ever refuse to sign an app because it broke iOS, used private APIs, or was literal malware. Not because they didn't like it. This scheme is already kind of dubious, if OAMA had passed it would definitely be illegal in the US, but I'm told EU regulators enforce the law differently than in the US[0].
Now Google wants to adopt the same system Apple has just proven doesn't work. I hope the EU regulators are not only listening, but willing to actually fight this. The related debacle of digital services taxes would indicate that the EU is spineless enough that Apple thinks the DMA is already unenforceable enough to start killing apps they don't like.
[0] US regulation is something like "if we say jump, each foot must leave the ground for at least 0.8 seconds and clear at least 20cm off the ground", and then people figure out you can just lift one foot at a time and still comply. EU regulation is more like "if we say jump, you must jump", and then the regulators decide whether or not you made a good-faith attempt at jumping. So no stupid loopholes like lifting one foot at a time, but the regulators can be very subjective as to if you jumped high enough or not.
Just as the regulators planned, I'm sure. I really doubt anyone will have luck getting apple to approve an app which is so often used to distribute copyright content and malware, and I doubt the EU is going to fight for people to be allowed to download movies illegally