Gregory's ServerThis proposal effectively states that Apple should provide private headers to internal frameworks on request, and developers should subsequently decide whether they need to submit an interoperability request to make the frameworks or APIs public
|
38 comments
 lolol "Where appropriate Apple may include other information, however Apple may not disclose any additional information about the developer’s request without explicit consent from the developer” No more throwing developers under the bus publicly? I wonder why that provision had to be added /s 😛 In this proposal, Apple has to notify the European Commission of every interoperability request or internal headers request it rejects in part or in full, and provide all relevant material to the EC. Apple wants to nanny developers, so now Apple has the EC as a nanny.  @stroughtonsmith why tf are the EU doing this to be fair? @jglypt @stroughtonsmith Apple has a proven record of not playing fair and not following EC guidelines , unsurprising they go full steam ahead. Deserved. @jorgesalvador it’s not _just_ Apple though. The EU are going after a ton of tech companies where we’re now at the point where some are just not releasing products within the EU to begin with. that’s a shame for the company & the consumer, and imo things need to change. @jglypt yes we agree on that point, things need to change, companies must change and not be anti consumer @jglypt 1) because Apple refuses to follow the existing laws, and 2) because developers need all of this to fairly compete with the lock-in Apple has created. It just so happens that it will make the platform better, too, but that's an aside. @stroughtonsmith ohh ok i didn’t know the full context - that they weren’t following current rules I feel like some of this stuff seems unnecessary though, and not dev-related, no? @jglypt none of it should be necessary, but Apple has demonstrated that it is  @jglypt @stroughtonsmith Apple has shown a pattern of terrible behaviour that is forcing regulators to take drastic action. Thankfully the EC has done a pretty decent job so far, but governments will eventually make stupid decisions (e.g. spinning out Chrome from Google) That’s fine. It’s punishment for being an anti-competitive monopolistic business. In the future they can avoid such a result by just not being anticompetitive in the first place. @jglypt @stroughtonsmith This is misinformation. The current rules are ambiguous enough to be open to interpretation. @jglypt @stroughtonsmith Apple has a history of throwing tantrums and subsequently disobeying daddy EC Also, just to acknowledge the spin Apple is taking on this, which I have no interest in linking to: they just threw Meta under the bus for interoperability requests, something that is forbidden under the EC's proposal, triple-underlining why the EC needs to legislate all of this in writing in the first place @stroughtonsmith ”Meta can see everything we can see!!” Yes, that is what we have GDPR for. Americans are so used to dysfunctional governments they have to place trust in specific companies to guard their privacy, causing them to see interoperability as a threat model. @callin @stroughtonsmith Meta has never cared and will never care about GDPR. @whereami @stroughtonsmith You're treating personal privacy rights as if it should be up to company values. You're not choosing airlines based on whether they have seatbelts or not. @callin @stroughtonsmith $1.3B was 3% of their net profit from last year. That’s like fining me $500. Fining Facebook chump change after the fact doesn’t stop them from already having misused user data, or misuing other user data in the future. You know what does help? Apple not giving data to Meta in the first place. Meta can’t misuse data that they don’t have. Personal privacy rights should not be up to company values, but they currently are. @callin @stroughtonsmith Any regulation that attempts to prevent misuse of data that a company *already has* is unlikely to work unless breaching it results in consequences approaching the severity of, say, liquidation of the company and the imprisonment of every employee and board member with knowledge of the breach who did not report it. @whereami @stroughtonsmith It's 3% this time. You're talking as if meta shareholders are ok with potentially being fined 20% of global revenue is business as usual. @callin @whereami @stroughtonsmith if its that or a theoretical 21% loss of revenues via WAVES HANDS then they will accept it @stroughtonsmith all these proposed changes sound great, but I don’t see Apple having the resources to implement this stuff by next year (or maybe rather: I don’t see them prioritizing this stuff as highly) Almost feels like there will be an iOS EU version or no iOS update in the eu next year at all … which I hope the EC would come down hard as well @stroughtonsmith One of the dumbest things I can remember recently is the disabling of volume buttons inside the Sonos app. It's such terrible UX now. Thanks, Apple. Assholes. @stroughtonsmith why, these processes should be kept out of the public eye?! There should be maximum transparency about what tech companies are doing @stroughtonsmith Brilliant. (I used to live in the EU. 😭Thanks, Brexit!)  @stroughtonsmith It's great they're looking at interoperability hard but the question to me is whether the EU will allow Apple to keep the per-app-install fee to developers when apps are installed through a third-party store. As long as that stays the platform remains radioactive as far as I'm concerned @stroughtonsmith sorry if this sounds ignorant, but I’m really wondering. This all sounds like Apple is being forced open up to all, and effectively hollow out what make Apple products special in the first place. I’m wondering as an end-user. Not a developer. @RAOF @akafester @stroughtonsmith How is it Apple's fault that other operating systems don't support M3? That's one of the few things Apple is doing right here, you can fully unlock your Mac to run any OS. @nicolas17 @akafester @stroughtonsmith They don't ship drivers, or the documentation to produce drivers, and while the Asahi project has done an excellent job of reverse-engineering drivers there's still a catch up required as firmware interfaces change with each MacOS release. But more: Lenovo, Dell, Asus, etc would buy as many M3 chips as Apple could produce; they can't, because you can only by an M3 in a Mac. This is not a benefit to consumers! @RAOF @akafester @stroughtonsmith How many laptop vendors provide Linux drivers or documentation? Isn't most of it reverse-engineered? The suggestion that Apple sells its custom chips for third parties is just absurd. It's like requiring car manufacturers to sell their engines standalone for other companies to use in their cars. @nicolas17 @akafester @stroughtonsmith I don't think it's at all absurd; Apple is unique in not selling its CPUs. But I don't particularly think that Apple should be required to sell M3 CPUs; I think that Apple Silicon should be a different company to Apple Computers, at which point it would obviously sell M3 CPUs. @nicolas17 @akafester @stroughtonsmith
I think you may have missed the last decade or so of Linux development; I don't know of a laptop vendor that doesn't provide Linux drivers? And almost all of them are open-source (the notable holdout being NVIDIA). @RAOF @nicolas17 @akafester @stroughtonsmith Even that is beginning to crumble: https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules @nicolas17 @RAOF @akafester @stroughtonsmith I know at least from Dell that they did this for their developer series notebooks. They offered an Ubuntu with all the drivers / kernel patches needed to get all peripherals running and it's already fine-tuned for battery saving. There are others out there directly supporting linux as well, e.g. FrameWork, but I don't know if they supply drivers/patches themselves, mine just works as intended after installing current NixOS. |
(Apple can, however, require an NDA for any provided headers/reference docs)