- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I like the article, but red tape means pointless or needlessly complicated bureaucracy. Doesn’t apply to just any regulation.
Exactly, this isn’t red tape, it’s very legit and useful.
In quest to defeat Euro red-tape, local construction company had to stop using Asbestos
Omg what a stupid argument from Apple.
I mean, it’s a smart argument, because they want to keep control of their closed platform and not follow regulations. It’s just also nonsense and rather unethical.
This strategy appears not to have been very effective.
It appears the author agrees with you.
One for x86(/64), one for arm(64), one for RISC ? That doesn’t seem like a valid argument.
Lol, that is still a monopoly in the Apple garden according to the EU.
because it is. Also why Risc V?
RISC != RISC-V
for the long explanation, look it up in Wikipedia, but briefly, RISC is a “family” of CPU architectures that includes ARM, MIPS and RISC-V. The other one is called CISC, which x86 belongs to.
I get it, but he explicitly mentioned arm already, hence I implied Risc V
If you read the article, it’s one for iOS, one for iPadOS and one for macOS. Which makes sense to see them as three different software (they probably only share the WebKit engine), but not as different product for core market.
It also might explain why Apple is so adamant on renaming the OS on different devices, and not using the iOS brand for iPad and Apple TV for example.
It’s flailing at best for technically being correct in legal cases. Which works in the US, but the EU is seeing right through it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Apple tried to avoid regulation in the European Union by making a surprising claim – that it offers not one but three distinct web browsers, all coincidentally named Safari.
As a result, it’s expected that Apple will allow third-party app stores that work with iOS and browser engines other than Safari’s WebKit by March 2024 – in Europe, if not elsewhere.
In its response, “Apple reiterated its position that each of its Safari web browsers constitutes a distinct [core platform service],” the European Commission said in its newly published decision document [PDF].
He also argued that Apple’s approach explicitly violates the DMA’s Anti-Circumvention provision that forbids subdividing a platform’s market share to avoid regulation.
Citing six different issues with Apple’s claims, the commission concluded: “Safari qualifies as a single web browser, irrespective of the device through which that service is accessed.”
Jon von Tetzchner, CEO of browser biz Vivaldi, told The Register in a phone interview that Apple, Google, and Microsoft all are trying to find ways to avoid onerous DMA requirements.
The original article contains 837 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
He also argued that Apple’s approach explicitly violates the DMA’s Anti-Circumvention provision that forbids subdividing a platform’s market share to avoid regulation. The provision says those providing core platform services “shall not segment, divide, subdivide, fragment or split those services through contractual, commercial, technical or any other means in order to circumvent the quantitative thresholds laid down in Article 3(2).”
This quote is plainly incorrect. Apple hasn’t fragmented their browsers in order to circumvent thresholds that didn’t even exist; each OS gets a separate version for clearly legitimate reasons. The legal question is if they are separate enough to count separately, which at the very least isn’t an absurd argument to make.
No it depends on how you interpret it. Apple may have legitimate reasons for technical differences between the different versions of Safari. The issue would be if Apple is claiming they are more different than they really are to say they don’t count as one when calculating market share.to.determine whether regulation applies.
Mozilla Forefpx has different versions for Android, and Desktop. So does Chrome. But in terms of marketshare generally people class them as one browser.
Lmao, how does this bullshit get upvotes? Is chrome on android not chrome because it isn’t bit for bit the same as on desktop? This is an incredibly blatant attempt to circumvent regulations. It is absolutely absurd to make this argument.
It’s actually not that absurd, because Safari is actually very different on iOS. Safari on macOS is just an application. Safari on iOS is an application but also an OS component with its own system API calls for developers to use.
Somewhere, somehow, apple fans are nodding along and agreeing with this disingenuous take while ordering another overpriced device.
IQ 1000
