I think it is a valid article but it tries very hard to ignore that it seems like at least 12 (21%) of the requests are currently in development at Apple. If all of them are medium/complex requests then they are all still within the advertised timeline. So yes, technically nothing was released yet but I read at least an implied suggestion that nothing will be, which does not look like a conclusion that can be drawn at the moment.
"When the DMA took effect, it expected gatekeepers like Apple to deliver interoperability by default [...] Instead, Apple created a request-based system where each developer must seek permission for specific features"
and
"the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist"
the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist
Not that I don’t think Apple is being petulant and maliciously compliant, but just because a politician passes a law declaring something to be so doesn’t mean that it is so. Apple built their platform for years assuming a lot of these things are and would remain private. When you design private APIs and locked down features, you make different choices and design decisions than if you make open APIs. Any interoperability was going to take months or years to get to, no matter what.
I tried keeping my comment very focused on one point that jumped out to me in the article instead of commenting on the whole situation. Their process, delays and circumvention of the intent of the law are indeed very problematic. They have been fighting the same fight with the same techniques on all fronts where they have to open their platform up. Disappointing but something that can be fought by governments and organisations at least.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the style of this article but at least to me the way how it presents it's critique, arguments as well as details of rejections feels a bit deceptive and overly broad while the reality is a bit more nuanced, even if the core of the critique is valid.
> 56 interoperability requests under the Digital Markets Act have produced no concrete solutions by Apple,
The chart, stupidly created as a pie chart and with percentages rather than numbers: 21% of requests are in Phase III, ie implementation by Apple.
When liars make clear their intent is to deceive, the correct reaction is to ignore them entirely. You can fairly quibble about what requests are approved or not, but honest people fairly communicate the state of things.
Maybe you are saying something that makes sense. But your comment doesn’t read that way.
A “concrete solution by Apple” would be a solution that shipped.
Cook got accused of acting illegally by a judge. Which is very unusual. It is pretty clear that Apple is dragging their feet as hard as they can get away with.
DMA/DSA are all about fair competition, not necessarily about user freedom. They tackle the inability to compete with the App Store, not the inability to manage your own apps.
I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are.
On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was released Apple talked that "PWA" will be the future, and nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)
> I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it
It's not like we have a choice. Either allow it or... what? Buy a different computer? With what money? Spend time installing a new OS? With what time? And for most users: with what skills?
So long as businesses make choices about the devices you own, you don't really have a choice about "allowing" it to happen.
What? Obviously we can purchase a different computer, install Linux, etc. Apple doesn’t have anything close to a monopoly market position. I buy Apple because I don’t care about customizing my device, I just want something reliable that works and has a good design. Don’t paternalise me by implying I don’t have a choice here.
In today’s market, you basically have three realistic, working choices I wish they were more, but no one seems to want to do the work, at one time there were many choices in the 1980s thru 1995? most of those vertical companies (OS/Hardware) are gone. Apple is basically the last.
Is macOS more of a closed platform? What is more closed about it?
I totally agree that iOS is too closed down and I would say it’s part of an illegally operated duopoly, but macOS is pretty much the same as it has always been.
Apple objectively went out of their way to make sure you can install other operating systems on their silicon platform on Mac which they really didn’t have to do.
People have been saying that Apple was going to require apps to be sold through the Mac App Store since 2010. You can install anything you want on your Mac.
And if only mean old Apple is suppressing PWAs, then why are the same companies who make apps for iOS also making apps for Android instead of telling Android users to use the web?
Second point, Apple could care less about random indie developers using a PWA. It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue came from loot boxes and other in app purchases for pay to win games.
Third point, users no more wish they could have shitty PWAs than Electron apps. It’s just what we are stuck with on the desktop
Steve Jobs' "sweet solution" (web apps) for iOS was derided by developers when he announced it at WWDC 2007. But Apple had included a bunch of useful features (touch controls, native-like widgets, javascript canvas, etc.) in mobile Safari so that web apps could be usable and useful. Apple preferred javascript web apps to flash or java apps, which were seen as power-hungry and sources of security flaws. Fast forward to today and you can have a cloud game streaming client (such as Xbox Cloud Gaming, GeForce Now, or Amazon Luna) running as a web app in Safari.
One reason Apple was cautious about third party apps was the concern (from both Apple and carriers) that iPhone features would be misused or the iPhone itself might become unreliable or unusable. So when the App Store was rolled out the next year, apps required approval from Apple and were restricted to running in a sandboxed environment. (Background execution was also forbidden at first due to concerns relating to responsiveness, memory usage and battery drain, as well as security and privacy.)
I think I misstated efficiency concerns for flash/java/etc. influencing web apps; efficiency was more likely a driver toward statically compiled, native apps in objective-C (at the time) such as Apple's own native apps on the iPhone.
Ironically in 2026 many "native" apps on desktop and mobile are basically wrappers for web apps.
Educating billions of nontechnical users is far harder than technical fixes. It’s not going to happen at scale, so that’s basically an excuse to do nothing.
Mobile phones are mostly for nontechnical users. There are some accommodations for power users and I’m glad they’re there, but we’re not the primary audience.
As a refugee from the 1980s I remember all of the vertical computer companies that were out there all competing against each other but Wintel won, it is not too late for a new operating system or new hardware and in light of all this money being spent on AI currently it could still be done, but there seems to be no will to do so.
You don’t need Apple, Microsoft or Linux approval if you have the talent and the money you can create your own ecosystem. I would’ve loved to have bought a Next computer or a SGI computer back in the day, but I couldn’t afford it at that time.
Someone talented or a group of someone’s who don’t know any better will get the ball rolling again.
"nobody cares about PWAs" says commenter in reply to post that seems to care about PWAs
also, I care about PWAs
glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
I think if it were a viable option on an iphone, a nonzero number of people would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
> also, I care about PWAs / glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
As the creator of pwascore.com, I'm in your elite club of the teensy percentage of people who care about PWAs.
> I think if it were a viable option on an iphone¹, a nonzero number of people² would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
¹They are, and ²they don't. It'd be nice to blame this on HN's favorite boogeyman, but the reality is that (1) PWAs work fine today (pwa.com), (2) the tech industry is anti-PWA, (3) almost no consumers even know what PWAs are, and (4) consumers who do know also prefer "real" apps.
Lets say you were making an app and had to decide between native or PWA. You don't need much more than push notifications so there shouldn't be a big difference between the two. You do your research and find that you can either have:
a) Native app: publish to App Store, make links on your website directly open the App Store page where the user can install your app
b) PWA: your app is usable directly on your website, but push notifications don't work unless your users add the page to their home screen. You can't have a button on your website to install it - you must instruct the user to navigate some Safari menus to find an option which is hidden *six* taps away
Do you think b) is a viable option? I don't, and I'm sure that's one of the reasons the tech industry is anti-PWA. It also doesn't help that Apple drags its feet with supporting new standards (web push only supported in iOS Safari from 2023, but 2016 in other browsers).
Native apps can't send push notifications without asking for permission on iOS either. If all you need is push notifications, that shouldn't be your deciding factor.
I didn't even cover push notification permission in my comment. The PWA also needs to ask for permission to send push notifications after the user adds it to their home screen, so they're the same.
> If all you need is push notifications, that shouldn't be your deciding factor.
I'm dealing with this right now! Rewriting a React Native app as a PWA because reasons. Current plan is to ship it as a WebView app to avoid Apple's PWA installation hurdle. Everyone else will be able to easily install it as a PWA.
This is completely illogical. There are a lot more dark pattern tracking that websites can do across websites than native apps without a user’s permission
The status quo is insanely profitable for Apple and Cook is still going to be "engaging with policymakers around the world" so I don't think they'll deviate from malicious compliance and stalling tactics any time soon.
The perjury, contempt and referral for criminal investigation in the US carried no consequence, Japan and Brazil's regulations have been undermined by massive fees, as has the EU but they're afraid to fine them because of Trump. Except for the possibility of a $38 billion fine in India this strategy has been very successful for Apple: it's 5 years since the US ruled developers could use third party payments, 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
> 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
Not nothing. In the EU, there are settings now to set default apps for browser, email, navigation, contactless payments, calling and messaging, for example.
"Interoperability only works when it is built into the platform from the start"
-- Lucas Lasota, FSFE Legal Programme Manager
To my mind, this is almost exactly opposite of true. Most new capabilities need to be incubated in private first, so that the APIs can get real-world usage and have a chance to evolve into a stable state before they become public interoperability promises.
> Interoperability only works when it is built into the platform from the start.
So the solution is for Apple to offer Linux (or FreeBSD, etc.) as setup options for people who don't want to be locked into a proprietary, walled-garden, vertically integrated platform?
That is an interesting idea. Apple has some experience writing hardware drivers for other operating systems, as they did with the Boot Camp drivers for Windows.
Whether or not you agree with their position on JIT, their claim is more complete and nuanced than that. Their actual denial states:
We have reviewed your submission and determined that your request falls outside the scope of
Article 6(7) DMA because it is not seeking interoperability with a software feature accessed or
controlled by iOS or iPadOS and used by an equivalent Apple service. Apple does not itself
offer emulation functionalities on iOS or iPadOS and it does not offer JIT compilation for non-
browser apps on iOS or iPadOS.
Specifically they are arguing that since the only application on iOS that is allowed to do JIT is safari and that since they already have access to that JIT capabilities for other browser apps, the DMA does not require them to create a broader JIT capability for all applications.
That’s not a wholly unreasonable stance though I can certainly see how the EU might argue that the capability existing for browsers at all implies it should be available for all applications regardless of their purpose. This does make me wonder about the swift playground app. Is that not using JIT to execute the swift code?
Are people honestly surprised that companies being forced by the EU to give up parts of their competitive advantage would be maliciously compliant? That’s honestly baked into the regulatory system. Make better legislation next time LOL
Reminded me of being a CS student. I got a list of 10 requirements for the software design. Most people implemented 9, struggling with the 10th. I implemented 6. Professor asked why I only did 6. Well, if I implemented 6 features and those would all pass testing that would have been enough for a 6/10 grade, which is enough to pass the class. The rest of my precious time I could spend on classes that I found more interesting.
Don't think of it as defending a trillion dollar company, think of it as pushing back against a weak, badly-formed argument. When there are valid complaints to be made, bad arguments pollute the conversation and make it harder to focus the discussion on the root issues that actually need to be fixed to achieve the desired outcome.
If you don't like how Apple conducts their business, you really should want clear, open discussion of flaws in EU regulations that make them not effective against Apple, rather than threads full of blaming Apple for reacting to the incentives in front of them.
If blatant perjury didn't get anyone in jail nothing will...
> “The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.”
> …
> “Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:
> Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct?
> A. The decision was made that day.
> Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases?
> A. That is correct.”
> “Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.
> Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”
FSFE should top caring about Apple and giving awards to Microsoft and propietary software company supporters. Learn a thing or two from FSFLA and stop being a honeypot against libre software.
TLA overload strikes again.
Reading this after a day of fighting microcontrollers made me interpret the headline quite differently.
Ignoring DMA requests and contradictory documentation sounded entirely on point.
I wonder if some of these headlines are impacted by the submit article character limit
"12 too long" might lead to acronyms.
would be nicer if they could say:
Apple ignores 56 interoperability requests under the Digital Markets Act, leaving third-party developers locked out of iOS and iPadOS.
I too honestly thought that this was going to be a deep dive on the M-series PCIe controller or something similar.
I too was confused
Same here lol.
I think it is a valid article but it tries very hard to ignore that it seems like at least 12 (21%) of the requests are currently in development at Apple. If all of them are medium/complex requests then they are all still within the advertised timeline. So yes, technically nothing was released yet but I read at least an implied suggestion that nothing will be, which does not look like a conclusion that can be drawn at the moment.
On the other hand, the article does say that
"When the DMA took effect, it expected gatekeepers like Apple to deliver interoperability by default [...] Instead, Apple created a request-based system where each developer must seek permission for specific features"
and
"the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist"
TFA claims that it needs to be built into the platform from the start. Which would seem to disqualify most Apple platforms.
I tried keeping my comment very focused on one point that jumped out to me in the article instead of commenting on the whole situation. Their process, delays and circumvention of the intent of the law are indeed very problematic. They have been fighting the same fight with the same techniques on all fronts where they have to open their platform up. Disappointing but something that can be fought by governments and organisations at least. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the style of this article but at least to me the way how it presents it's critique, arguments as well as details of rejections feels a bit deceptive and overly broad while the reality is a bit more nuanced, even if the core of the critique is valid.
Yeah, this article is written by liars.
First paragraph
> 56 interoperability requests under the Digital Markets Act have produced no concrete solutions by Apple,
The chart, stupidly created as a pie chart and with percentages rather than numbers: 21% of requests are in Phase III, ie implementation by Apple.
When liars make clear their intent is to deceive, the correct reaction is to ignore them entirely. You can fairly quibble about what requests are approved or not, but honest people fairly communicate the state of things.
Are you implying in-implementation means shipped?
Maybe you are saying something that makes sense. But your comment doesn’t read that way.
A “concrete solution by Apple” would be a solution that shipped.
Cook got accused of acting illegally by a judge. Which is very unusual. It is pretty clear that Apple is dragging their feet as hard as they can get away with.
"A thing is being implemented."
Liars only: Apple is doing nothing.
Not surprised, I can't still install any app I want on an iPhone despite the DMA/DSA Acts pushing clearly in that direction
DMA/DSA are all about fair competition, not necessarily about user freedom. They tackle the inability to compete with the App Store, not the inability to manage your own apps.
You probably can if you pay $99/year for a developer certificate.
I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are.
On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was released Apple talked that "PWA" will be the future, and nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)
> I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it
It's not like we have a choice. Either allow it or... what? Buy a different computer? With what money? Spend time installing a new OS? With what time? And for most users: with what skills?
So long as businesses make choices about the devices you own, you don't really have a choice about "allowing" it to happen.
What? Obviously we can purchase a different computer, install Linux, etc. Apple doesn’t have anything close to a monopoly market position. I buy Apple because I don’t care about customizing my device, I just want something reliable that works and has a good design. Don’t paternalise me by implying I don’t have a choice here.
In today’s market, you basically have three realistic, working choices I wish they were more, but no one seems to want to do the work, at one time there were many choices in the 1980s thru 1995? most of those vertical companies (OS/Hardware) are gone. Apple is basically the last.
Is macOS more of a closed platform? What is more closed about it?
I totally agree that iOS is too closed down and I would say it’s part of an illegally operated duopoly, but macOS is pretty much the same as it has always been.
Apple objectively went out of their way to make sure you can install other operating systems on their silicon platform on Mac which they really didn’t have to do.
> allow it when iOS started allowing third-party
Did you mean "allowing"? Or "prohibiting"
First iPhone had no App Store: no third-party apps.
People have been saying that Apple was going to require apps to be sold through the Mac App Store since 2010. You can install anything you want on your Mac.
And if only mean old Apple is suppressing PWAs, then why are the same companies who make apps for iOS also making apps for Android instead of telling Android users to use the web?
Second point, Apple could care less about random indie developers using a PWA. It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue came from loot boxes and other in app purchases for pay to win games.
Third point, users no more wish they could have shitty PWAs than Electron apps. It’s just what we are stuck with on the desktop
Steve Jobs' "sweet solution" (web apps) for iOS was derided by developers when he announced it at WWDC 2007. But Apple had included a bunch of useful features (touch controls, native-like widgets, javascript canvas, etc.) in mobile Safari so that web apps could be usable and useful. Apple preferred javascript web apps to flash or java apps, which were seen as power-hungry and sources of security flaws. Fast forward to today and you can have a cloud game streaming client (such as Xbox Cloud Gaming, GeForce Now, or Amazon Luna) running as a web app in Safari.
One reason Apple was cautious about third party apps was the concern (from both Apple and carriers) that iPhone features would be misused or the iPhone itself might become unreliable or unusable. So when the App Store was rolled out the next year, apps required approval from Apple and were restricted to running in a sandboxed environment. (Background execution was also forbidden at first due to concerns relating to responsiveness, memory usage and battery drain, as well as security and privacy.)
I think I misstated efficiency concerns for flash/java/etc. influencing web apps; efficiency was more likely a driver toward statically compiled, native apps in objective-C (at the time) such as Apple's own native apps on the iPhone.
Ironically in 2026 many "native" apps on desktop and mobile are basically wrappers for web apps.
Security is not a fixed state, a closed system is not fundamentally more secure as the most vulnerable component is still within the system. The user.
Closed systems are fundamentally more secure. Principle of least privilege demonstrates this
Educating billions of nontechnical users is far harder than technical fixes. It’s not going to happen at scale, so that’s basically an excuse to do nothing.
Mobile phones are mostly for nontechnical users. There are some accommodations for power users and I’m glad they’re there, but we’re not the primary audience.
As a refugee from the 1980s I remember all of the vertical computer companies that were out there all competing against each other but Wintel won, it is not too late for a new operating system or new hardware and in light of all this money being spent on AI currently it could still be done, but there seems to be no will to do so.
You don’t need Apple, Microsoft or Linux approval if you have the talent and the money you can create your own ecosystem. I would’ve loved to have bought a Next computer or a SGI computer back in the day, but I couldn’t afford it at that time.
Someone talented or a group of someone’s who don’t know any better will get the ball rolling again.
There are plenty of people running Linux. The Framework laptop looks pretty sweet. Raspberry Pis are popular and cheap.
It's not mainstream but it doesn't have to be. You could use an iPhone and another computer for hacking.
> nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)
Incorrect, see https://pwascore.com/ for a non-religious take. Nobody cares about PWAs, but that's not Apple's fault.
"nobody cares about PWAs" says commenter in reply to post that seems to care about PWAs
also, I care about PWAs
glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
I think if it were a viable option on an iphone, a nonzero number of people would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
> also, I care about PWAs / glad we could make your day by introducing you to something new
As the creator of pwascore.com, I'm in your elite club of the teensy percentage of people who care about PWAs.
> I think if it were a viable option on an iphone¹, a nonzero number of people² would choose the more privacy-preserving aspects of a PWA over installing a random app
¹They are, and ²they don't. It'd be nice to blame this on HN's favorite boogeyman, but the reality is that (1) PWAs work fine today (pwa.com), (2) the tech industry is anti-PWA, (3) almost no consumers even know what PWAs are, and (4) consumers who do know also prefer "real" apps.
Lets say you were making an app and had to decide between native or PWA. You don't need much more than push notifications so there shouldn't be a big difference between the two. You do your research and find that you can either have:
a) Native app: publish to App Store, make links on your website directly open the App Store page where the user can install your app
b) PWA: your app is usable directly on your website, but push notifications don't work unless your users add the page to their home screen. You can't have a button on your website to install it - you must instruct the user to navigate some Safari menus to find an option which is hidden *six* taps away
Do you think b) is a viable option? I don't, and I'm sure that's one of the reasons the tech industry is anti-PWA. It also doesn't help that Apple drags its feet with supporting new standards (web push only supported in iOS Safari from 2023, but 2016 in other browsers).
Native apps can't send push notifications without asking for permission on iOS either. If all you need is push notifications, that shouldn't be your deciding factor.
I didn't even cover push notification permission in my comment. The PWA also needs to ask for permission to send push notifications after the user adds it to their home screen, so they're the same.
> If all you need is push notifications, that shouldn't be your deciding factor.
I'm dealing with this right now! Rewriting a React Native app as a PWA because reasons. Current plan is to ship it as a WebView app to avoid Apple's PWA installation hurdle. Everyone else will be able to easily install it as a PWA.
This is completely illogical. There are a lot more dark pattern tracking that websites can do across websites than native apps without a user’s permission
I wonder how much this will change now that Tim Apple, is out and John Apple is in. (probably none)
The status quo is insanely profitable for Apple and Cook is still going to be "engaging with policymakers around the world" so I don't think they'll deviate from malicious compliance and stalling tactics any time soon.
The perjury, contempt and referral for criminal investigation in the US carried no consequence, Japan and Brazil's regulations have been undermined by massive fees, as has the EU but they're afraid to fine them because of Trump. Except for the possibility of a $38 billion fine in India this strategy has been very successful for Apple: it's 5 years since the US ruled developers could use third party payments, 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
> 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
Not nothing. In the EU, there are settings now to set default apps for browser, email, navigation, contactless payments, calling and messaging, for example.
And there are alternative app stores now, AFAIK.
I thought this pull-quote was interesting:
"Interoperability only works when it is built into the platform from the start"
-- Lucas Lasota, FSFE Legal Programme Manager
To my mind, this is almost exactly opposite of true. Most new capabilities need to be incubated in private first, so that the APIs can get real-world usage and have a chance to evolve into a stable state before they become public interoperability promises.
> Interoperability only works when it is built into the platform from the start.
So the solution is for Apple to offer Linux (or FreeBSD, etc.) as setup options for people who don't want to be locked into a proprietary, walled-garden, vertically integrated platform?
That is an interesting idea. Apple has some experience writing hardware drivers for other operating systems, as they did with the Boot Camp drivers for Windows.
Is anyone surprised? I suppose Apple will care when a lot of money is extracted from their bank account.
It's not about being surprised, is about finally having proof and being able to go to the lawmakers with something concrete.
Apple could initially dismiss this as "doomsayers that talk about unreal future". Now this is proof.
Let's not dismiss this ourselves.
This is "I told you so", not "breaking news: nobody expected this!".
Oh the hoops I had to jump through to get UTM with JIT enabled on my 17 Pro Max with iOS 26…
The article claims Apple said the OS doesn't control that feature lmao...
> But Apple rejected the request from the developer and said JIT for non-browser apps was not a feature controlled by iOS.
Whether or not you agree with their position on JIT, their claim is more complete and nuanced than that. Their actual denial states:
Specifically they are arguing that since the only application on iOS that is allowed to do JIT is safari and that since they already have access to that JIT capabilities for other browser apps, the DMA does not require them to create a broader JIT capability for all applications.That’s not a wholly unreasonable stance though I can certainly see how the EU might argue that the capability existing for browsers at all implies it should be available for all applications regardless of their purpose. This does make me wonder about the swift playground app. Is that not using JIT to execute the swift code?
Disappointed but not surprised. Their intent is not to comply, so you'll have to sue them at every step for every atom of compliance.
Break it up
Are people honestly surprised that companies being forced by the EU to give up parts of their competitive advantage would be maliciously compliant? That’s honestly baked into the regulatory system. Make better legislation next time LOL
I stand with Apple here :)
Reminded me of being a CS student. I got a list of 10 requirements for the software design. Most people implemented 9, struggling with the 10th. I implemented 6. Professor asked why I only did 6. Well, if I implemented 6 features and those would all pass testing that would have been enough for a 6/10 grade, which is enough to pass the class. The rest of my precious time I could spend on classes that I found more interesting.
Why is it you feel the need to defend a trillion dollar company?
Don't think of it as defending a trillion dollar company, think of it as pushing back against a weak, badly-formed argument. When there are valid complaints to be made, bad arguments pollute the conversation and make it harder to focus the discussion on the root issues that actually need to be fixed to achieve the desired outcome.
If you don't like how Apple conducts their business, you really should want clear, open discussion of flaws in EU regulations that make them not effective against Apple, rather than threads full of blaming Apple for reacting to the incentives in front of them.
Apple will listen only when executives are physically put in jail.. Europe can't do this, and I don't see this happening in the US soon either.
If blatant perjury didn't get anyone in jail nothing will...
> “The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.”
> …
> “Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:
> Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct?
> A. The decision was made that day.
> Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases?
> A. That is correct.”
> “Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.
> Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”
https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/01/read-the-juiciest-bits-fro...
Or they start limiting sales of Apple Hardware. Not something I expect to happen either.
They better hurry up the Mac Neo means more regular users coming on board in the EU….
FSFE should top caring about Apple and giving awards to Microsoft and propietary software company supporters. Learn a thing or two from FSFLA and stop being a honeypot against libre software.