They definitely talked with their lawyers and the EU regulators, but this doesn’t mean that where Apple ended up today was mutually agreed. They very likely ended up in disagreement and basically told their EU regulators to take them to court if they don’t like it. This happens all the time.
This made me think of the other recent case against Apple from Epic, where Apple's response to the court was essentially trolling. The judgement required Apple to allow apps to advertise outside marketplaces where users could purchase in-game items. So apple responded by allowing developers to apply to place exactly one text-only (non-hyperlink), static, reference to an outside payment source on one page in an app, and further added a new term that developers must also pay Apple 27% of all revenue from these off-site purchases.
I'm certain they have the best legal team that money can buy, but I'm equally certain that that legal team is under the sort of pressure that happens when a multinational corporation is looking at the prospect of possibly losing billions of dollars in zero-effort recurring profit. I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand, which is certainly Apple's most valuable asset - which is to say that I think they're acting in an irrational way, because of the amount of money at stake.
> I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand, which is certainly Apple's most valuable asset - which is to say that I think they're acting in an irrational way, because of the amount of money at stake.
I think you're vastly overestimating how much people outside of the HN crowd cares... or even knows what you're talking about for that matter.
No but there are people in the hack news crowd that care about these outcomes. Those people write articles talk to policy makers, discuss these issues at conventions and help to get the word out to other people that have influence who do care. Everything is connected.
I think it matters a little bit less than you think it does. If that were true we would've convinced people to stop using Chrome a long time ago. I've converted maybe two of my normie friends to Firefox, the rest just shrug and move on with their day.
> I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand
I have a lot of Apple kit, and the Vision Pro is hugely tempting. Unfortunately, Apples’ shenanigans the past few years, starting with “we will scan all pictures you want to send to iCloud on your phone” which signalled to me that Apple feels fine about unilaterally altering our agreement whenever they feel like, have increasingly soured me on their brand to the point where we as a household and as a business were discussing to stop purchasing new Apple products and services. Their recent actions, both in terms of their Epic situation as well as their reaction to these new EU regulations, have cemented that decision.
Who will you change to? Pretty much every other company with a mechanism to send photos to the cloud scans your pictures for CSAM right now and nobody cares. They've been doing it for many years. Nobody cares.
Unlike every other cloud photo service, Apple invited community discussion before implementing it. Apple heard the feedback and didn't implement it, but people still criticise Apple as if they did. What should I conclude from this? That criticism of Apple is frequently false, disingenuous and devoid of context?
Pretty much every other comparable mainstream ecosystem has most of the same vices. Most are arguably worse in my opinion. Epic still haven't satisfactorily explained why they haven't pursued Sony or Nintendo with the same arguments.
Since there is only one alternative, I am going to assume that this is a rethorical question designed to invite a discussion about how the alternative is significantly worse in your point of view. Not an interesting debating technique, to be honest.
> Pretty much every other company with a mechanism to send photos to the cloud scans your pictures for CSAM right now and nobody cares. They've been doing it for many years.
There are alternatives available that don't do this, but again, your point appears to be written simply to elicit this specific reponse. Your "pretty much every other company" makes it clear that you are also aware that options exist.
> Nobody cares.
Your next paragraph indicates that, actually, a _lot_ of people cared.
> Apple invited community discussion before implementing it.
Not really. Apple made an announcement, and in the face of an absolute, unmitigated _shitstorm_ of criticism from pretty much _everyone_, they -after fighting an incredibly hard and expensive PR battle- grudgingly called a temporary truce and relented on some of the items they wanted to implement. To frame this as "Apple worked with the community and listened" is... fancy.
The point of that debacle, and this sub-thread, is that Apple is irrepairibly damaging their brand. In the "we will scan all your photos on your device to make sure the content is acceptable" story, they destroyed (literally forever, in the eyes of many people) their branding message that they were on _my_ side, when it comes to privacy and unwanted intrustion of all vendors, including Apple, into my device. That was literally the reason I switched from Android, and by retroactively changing that deal unilaterally on devices I already purchased, they instantly and irrepairably invalidated my only reasons for buying into their overpriced and closed walled garden.
In this new debacle with the EU and their -frankly- childish reponse they once again showed their disdain for their users.
Devolving a discussion into meta commentary about debating techniques is not an interesting debating technique either. There isn't only one other alternative to the Apple ecosystem, I was asking an actual question. It wasn't a rhetorical question. But even if it was, are you seriously saying that rhetorical questions are a point of criticism in persuasive writing? Seriously?
Then you want to take issue with "Nobody cares" as though it was intended to be literal rather than idiomatic. For the record I was being idiomatic. I hope this clarifies things.
As for your alternative interpretation of what went down in the great Apple CSAM scanning controversy, none of what you said strictly conflicts with what I said. The core facts aren't in dispute, but I accept that people interpreted motives differently. Do you seriously think Apple would have made a big song and dance about their proposal around CSAM scanning if the intent was to implement it regardless? (Apologies for the rhetorical question.) Obviously they wouldn't have. They would have just subtly changed the license terms and implemented it without telling anyone.
It's amazing how quickly people forget why Apple wanted to implement the initial fingerprinting stage on-device, rather than in the cloud as all their major competitors had already done. Disdain for users' privacy, really? Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole point of doing it on device was, as I'm sure you remember, protecting privacy by having industry standard scanning while remaining compatible with end-to-end encryption.
>Do you seriously think Apple would have made a big song and dance about their proposal around CSAM scanning if the intent was to implement it regardless?
I think the reason why people are angry at Apple in spite of their climbdown is because Apple did a lot of damage announcing it the way they did.
Far from "inviting a debate" on how or whether this can be done in a safe and privacy friendly way, they made an announcement explaining exactly what they were going to do and how it was going to work.
The message was received loud and clear by politicians who are up against critics disputing the technical feasibility of surveilling the entire population in a safe and privacy friendly way.
Apple has dealt a hammer blow to privacy advocates. The effects of Apple's announcement have been percolating through parliaments and law enforcement agencies all over the world ever since.
Add to that the effects of Apple's side-loading ban, which is hands complete control over what software people can and cannot install to authoritarian rulers across the planet, their decision to hand over Chinese iCloud operations (including encryption keys) to a state owned company, and their willingness to make questionable security claims in defense of their own business model.
The picture that emerges is not pretty.
At the same time, Apple provides privacy protections to hundereds of millions of people who would not otherwise have them - realistically speaking.
If mobile OS competition was between Google, Microsoft and Samsung, there would not be a setting to blanket disable all tracking requests. Markets often end up in an equilibrium where certain choices simply don't exist.
Regulating this space without doing more harm than good is very difficult. We're going to have to wait and see whether the EU has done a good job this time.
The olden days equivalent of the HN crowd (Slashdot? Kuro5hin?) hated Microsoft's behaviour but had to build on their platforms because there wasn't an alternative that would pay the bills. So Microsoft kept raking in profits and probably thought that everything was OK and there wasn't an issue.
But that ill-feeling meant that as soon as an alternative emerged (in this case Apple, powered by open-source, Unix, the web - and later smartphones with the iPhone and Android) there was an exodus and Microsoft's attempts to regain ground (IIS, Windows Phone) were widely ignored.
Apple is on the same ground now (and I say this as an Apple-lover). They are pulling in huge amounts of money through their behaviour but I have no doubt, as soon as an alternative appears (probably through some platform shift) they will come to regret it.
UPDATE: and it would be ironic if the Vision Pro was the thing that triggered the platform shift. If the Vision Pro works well as a Mac alternative (a proper productivity environment but with an infinite screen), once others implement the same idea effectively (and maybe not quite as well as Apple has) it could be the catalyst for developers (and hence apps) jumping ship.
>when a multinational corporation is looking at the prospect of possibly losing billions of dollars in zero-effort recurring profit. I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand, which is certainly Apple's most valuable asset - which is to say that I think they're acting in an irrational way, because of the amount of money at stake.
Being a Mac user since the 90's, it is unfortunate what Apple has become. However, this is often happens when a charismatic leader leaves the company (in one way or another). From what is seen in the the process of how so many startup at YC went from little company to transnational corporation, and what people's reaction to them have changed over the course of the year as well as the influence of funding and corporate culture has on a company are also very telling.
Now days I'm sticking to linx BSD F-Droid for personal stuff even though they are not as user friendly in the UI aspect.
> However, this is often happens when a charismatic leader leaves the company
This has absolutely nothing to do with a charismatic leader or founder.
Steve Jobs was notoriously the most hard-ass negotiator you'd ever meet. The way Apple is dealing with the EU here is probably exactly how he would have done it, or maybe he might have been even worse.
He created incredibly user-friendly machines, but in the business world he was incredibly ruthless.
And you can kind of see this in the their culture. Everything is, our way, or the highway. I feel bad for people that have to work in that poisonous environment.
When you come from a place of "We have all the right answers and your views don't matter" like how Steve Jobs operated, you can see the harm that mind set is causing in the world today.
It has little to do with a charismatic leader. If you don’t think Jobs would have been worse then let’s not forget Jobs wasn’t even in favor of the App Store in the first place.
It has everything to do with when a company is an outsider it tries to be consumer friendly, but then when it becomes the dominant player then it adopts all the characteristics all dominant players do of trying to attract as much rent from their business as they can, users be damned.
This is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the matter at hand. Mainly floated around by Sweeny as he practices his best Pikachu face.
> So apple responded by allowing developers to apply to place exactly one text-only (non-hyperlink), static, reference to an outside payment source on one page in an app
They allow an actual button that links directly to a website[0].
I mean the article by Apple that describes the terms and options literally is titled “Distributing apps in the U.S. that provide an external purchase link” and there a plenty of examples provided.
> and further added a new term that developers must also pay Apple 27% of all revenue from these off-site purchases.
Both the district court[1] as well as the appellate court that later affirmed the ruling[2] spelled out in clear plain language that developers would still owe Apple the commission, that Apple would be able to audit developers and that it’s all legal because its payment for the use of Apple’s IP.
Only difference is that the courts assumed Apple would simply charge 30% instead of the discounted 27%.
Some examples:
> In essence, Apple uses the DPLA to license its IP to developers in exchange for a $99 fee and an ongoing 30% commission on developers' iOS revenue.
> As the district court noted, in a world where Apple maintains its distribution restriction but payment processing is opened up, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its 30% commission on in-app purchasers. Apart from any argument by Epic, the district court "presume[d]" that Apple could "utilize[e] a contractual right to audit developers ... to ensure compliance with its commissions."
> Because the court upheld the app-distribution restriction, Apple would still be entitled to its 30% commission on in-app purchases within apps downloaded from the App Store. On its own initiative, the district court floated the idea of Apple permitting multiple in-app payment processors while reserving a right to audit developers to ensure compliance with the 30% commission.
> Suffice it to say, IAP is not merely a payment processing system, as Epic Games suggests, but a comprehensive system to collect commission and manage in-app payments.
> First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple's intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
I’m sure not only does Apple have a host of lawyers working on understanding this specific regulation but they have gone through the process of developing rigorous estimates of the costs and benefits of compliance vs litigation. Given the size of Apple’s market and the potential for other countries to follow suit with their own regulations pending these cases, they have likely deemed compliance to be extremely costly to their business. In that case, their potential budget for fighting this may be enormous.
Oh yeah, it was an aside. I'm not worried about the world-leading US and Asian incumbents. Expensive regulations help incumbents. I'm more worried about the local EU companies that play in this market. Or I would be, something mysterious (sotto voce probably regulatory expenses) put them out of business.
That's the thing about the DMA. These provisions only apply if you hit a certain extreme market presence. These regulations do not apply to those small companies.
It's a common law perspective really (writing from the UK) - laws are interpreted by judges and that forms a body of past cases which 'fill in the gaps' so to speak, and become the rule for the future. In contrast to civil law in much of Europe which attempts to codify everything, leaving nothing to interpretation. (I'm no expert - I don't know what happens when they come across a gap, the proceedings are suspended until legislators full it in I suppose?)
A US-centric perspective, stereotypically, would be like 'my Starbucks coffee is too cold, I am suing'. You can have common law without sue-happy individuals.
The difference is that precedent can guide a judge's decision, it doesn't force it.
Likewise in civil law the judge isn't simply a referee, they're meant to actively investigate. While in common law lawyers get to do a big show by asking various questions, in civil law the questions are asked by the judge and the lawyers only exist to make an argument.
Eh. I think "break the rules and see what happens" has been a _very_ common means of GDPR 'compliance' in Europe, in general. Worked, too, at least for a while; the first fines >100million only showed up in 2022 or so.
Yeah, if you can afford normal lawyers they attempt to make the company comply with the law, if you can afford Apple lawyers they attempt to make the law comply with Apple’s interests. They will eventually implement something specific the EU tells them and receive a fine but for now it is worth trying it on and messing the EU around to try to water down what this law eventually means.
Note: while legislators can chose to accept lesser terms, "leave it" means they follow up with the legal repercussions for non-compliance. Apple's only "leave it" move would be pulling out of the EU, which is an unlikely response.
Apple will as shown here do their best to comply the least with the intent of the legislation, but it's up to the legislators if it is acceptable.
E.g., if notarization turns out to be used for central gate keeping by declining specific apps in the human review step or by using it to impede the process for apps intended for third-party stores, that would be a violation.
I think this fits the intent of EU regulators. The DMA is essentially a tariff on American tech companies. A European company could now fork android and have a locked down App Store with large fees, without complying with DMA (as it only applies to certain companies the EU does not like).
Remember that Meta actually followed GDPR law in terms of getting constent for personalised ads, and the irish courts even said that Meta was doing things legally, and then the EU courts decided Meta was actually doing illegal things, and fined Meta.
So there can be multiple layers to this, and ultimately I don't think the EU really works as a robust legal system any more, there are so many politically driven cases where the courts follow the politics not the law.
Ireland is trying to attract overseas businesses by being as "business friendly" as possible even if it means shafting local businesses and workers. This includes half-assing any EU regulations to the fullest extent possible and having very low taxes. The Irish DPA is a prime example of this.
"The first thing to note is that no one — including Apple — knows if this plan abides by the DMA. This is, unfortunately, par for the course for the European Union. Regulations are passed that insist on certain outcomes, with various carve-outs and definitions, and it is up to the companies impacted to figure out how to meet them; only then do the powers-that-be decide whether or not said company is in compliance. This is, needless to say, an insane way to write regulations, but when you consider the E.U.’s insistence on contradictory end goals — increasing competition while insisting on an absolutist approach to user privacy, for example — you can understand how the burden ends up falling on companies to come up with their own solutions. This also, needless to say, opens up the door to massive loopholes (like the fact that Apple believes it can still enforce App Tracking Transparency restrictions on apps not in the App Store)."
During USB-C debates, Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation and got an explicit public warning from EU commissioner who read the secret plan from the media outlets. Then they retracted their MFi for USB-C plan.
I'm reasonably sure Apple didn't reveal most of their compliance plans to EU, since they will ask Apple to implement the most strict interpretation of the regulation and it would be headaches in the court if there's any evidence that Apple knowingly ignored such requests.
> During USB-C debates, Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation
Given that Apple had already been shipping standard USB C ports with zero restrictions starting with the 2021 iPad Pro, this conspiracy theory made no sense.
Apple markets the iPad Pro as a general purpose computer, like a MacBook, where dual ended USB-C connectivity is taken for granted (in part due to Apple).
Given different roles and low numbers of iPad Pro's vs. iPhones, I don't think any cross over assumptions can be made.
> Apple could view an iPad Pro as needing USB-C ports
The iPad Air as well as the plain old iPad had also gotten standard USB C ports with zero restrictions before this particular conspiracy theory became popular.
This has been reported by multiple media outlets where some of them are known to be fairly reputable. You gotta understand that there's a good chance of this being genuine if a EU commissioner seriously reacted to, instead render it a "conspiracy theory" reflexively.
The outlets all echoed the same leak by one “supply chain specialist”.
None of them were from confirmed sources or even cross referenced.
As for a commissioner seriously reacting to it; your local police department is more professional when it comes to commenting on active investigations.
They mainly act like politicians that want to look though in crime. Vestager is a great example of how much PR the average commissioner is willing to utilize, even when they get wiped out of court.
Apple still hasn't denied or even commented on the matter, even though it could play a very significant role on future potential antitrust cases against Apple. Also, it's worth noting that Apple has a long and rich history of public campaigns against many of those "conspiracy theories" and this USB-C case is a rare exception.
Apple doesn't need to issue a denial for every conspiracy theory that rolls around. The fact that people are still bringing up a mere rumor as if it's true definitely lends credence to this being nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
> Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation and got an explicit public warning from EU commissioner who read the secret plan from the media outlets. Then they retracted their MFi for USB-C plan
Source? This has conspiracy theory written all over it. My take is that the rumor mill was just flat out wrong about this like they often are.
EDIT: To be clear here, I don’t deny that an EU commissioner sent a letter but I doubted the existence of these secret (and rumored) plans that prompted it e.g. seems out of character for Apple given iPads have had USB C for some time without such restrictions.
hi, I also read this website and sometimes comment on it. after I read your comment, I ran the query “apple usb-c eu commissioner warning” through an internet search engine, and I found this article – https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-li...
> It was rumored in February that Apple may be planning to limit charging speeds and other functionality of USB-C cables that are not certified under its "Made for iPhone" program. […] In response to this rumor, European Commissioner Thierry Breton has sent Apple a letter warning the company that limiting the functionality of USB-C cables would not be permitted and would prevent iPhones from being sold in the EU when the law goes into effect.
I would posit that a commenter with a sincere wish to dispel “conspiracy theories” might instead take a moment to do that search themselves instead of posting this (pardon me) inflammatory remark!
I would gladly say you’re welcome – yet I believe your edit exacerbates the issue
you speak of a “secret” Made For iPhone program as if that’s still some conspiracy – https://mfi.apple.com/
my read of the article is that the EU commissioner advised Apple that if the company attempted to negate the USB-C regulations by only allowing full access to Apple devices connected via a cable with an Apple-approved MFi chip… that indeed they would be held accountable by the EU. had that been the case, it would be Apple continuing its regime of connector control over its users’ devices, as it has done up til now by insisting on MFi-certified Lightning cables
Honestly, I regret raising the point - sorry. The existence of the MFI programme isn't the problem. Just that Apple was planning on enforcing it on a USB C iPhone when they didn't on iPad. I could never imagine this situation: an Apple Store employee explaining to a customer why their iPhone won't charge with the same generic USB C cable that charges their iPad when they both share the same port.
Seems right up Apple's alley to me. They're about to geofence all these App Store changes to the EU, after all. Would make complete sense for them to hobble the USB ports on iPhones despite the existence the iPad which disproves the infeasibility of a fully-features USB port for iOS.
Seems like this is going to become increasingly common as Apple clings to their rent-seeking practices in every jurisdiction that dawdles on antitrust enforcement.
hey, fwiw, I don’t regret your raising it, and I appreciate that you’ve been engaging with me :)
I would love for this thread to accomplish something other than meta rifraff, so — I’ve never worked as an Apple Store floor sales person, but:
> In the 90's, a USB cable was just four braided wires – literal copper wires which link copper pins in your [computer] with your [printer]. Two of them carried the data, and the other carried power and ground. This worked, and it was an affordable, easy-to-implement standard which spread like dandelion seeds on the wind.
> Now in the 2020's, we have USB-C. Have you ever had a kind of “friend” who tries to be “everything to everyone“? Well, that‘s USB-C.
> We fixed some things with USB A and mini – er, micro – B, like how hard they were to plug in, and how you invariably seemed to find yourself holding them upside down more than 50% of the time!
> And, well, engineers being engineers, and USB standing for universal serial bus, we tried to also solve all other problems at the same time. Like you couldn’t use a USB cable for video, or to power an air fryer.
> So, these days, USB cables are more than braids of copper wire. They are “active” cables! meaning they have a microchip inside. Even our cables became little computers.
> And we kept backwards compatibility with USB, so that if you use a plug adapter, you can take an original 90’s USB mouse and plug it right into your brand new iPhone n±1!
> Or nowadays, you might grab the wrong cable in your kitchen, and plug your toaster oven into your iPhone. yikes! I know you came in to the store today with a simple-seeming question, and we’ve been standing here now for minutes, and I apologize – but now I hope I can answer your question about why this cable isn’t recognized by your new phone.
> When an active cable is plugged in, the chip inside the cable “negotiates” with the chip inside the device. For a device you hold in your hand and use without thinking about it, like your phone, we have made the negotiator more stringent than we did in our tablet. :)
I love USB-C. Its awesome with one cable I'm able to plug in multiple different models of computer to my monitor and get 3440x1440 160Hz + multiple USB 3.0 + audio + 65W power. Or go to my desk at work and plug into my dock and get multi monitors + gig networking + multiple USB ports + audio + 90W power. I'll take that over proprietary dock connectors any day.
I love that the same power adapter I use to charge one computer works with all my computers, my portable game console, my headphones, my portable speaker, my phone, my tablet, my flashlight, my battery bank, and more. I like that the USB-C port in my car can natively charge my laptop, at least when asleep/powered off, without needing an AC inverter to run a 19V brick.
There's no way you're going to convince me my life with dozens different sizes of barrel power adapters with different voltages/polarizations, micro + mini USB, and more proprietary power connectors were better. You're never going to convince me having the vendor lock-in of proprietary laptop docks was better than just a single cable to do it all. I can't wait to retire my last few barrel-type power devices.
Well, generally speaking, you can't use "just a single cable". Because a USB-C cable only carrying a power charge would still technically be a USB-C cable. And you would never know until you tried to connect your display with it
I do use a single cable in that it's just one cable coming from my monitor or dock. It's just one charging adapter in my bag. So generally speaking I am just plugging in a single cable to my monitor or carrying a single charger in my backpack. I'm not plugging in power, HDMI, network, and a USB hub separately every time I hop from one desk to another, just plug the one cable on the desk and it's good to go.
Sure, I'm not literally talking about a single cable I'm taking from one port to another port, but the fact I can just plug my laptop into my monitor and get all of that is awesome. And if I bought a good cable I could totally do that. The fact I'm able to charge all my devices off my laptop charger is awesome. The fact one could cheap out and buy a cable that wouldn't work with all the features of the monitor/laptop link doesn't make that less awesome. I just use the included cables with the docks or what not or make sure to buy a cable that does what I need if replacing/upgrading and it's not a problem.
You're still not convincing me the existence of cheap cables that can't do it all makes having several different cables and power adapters a better time. In one case you're absolutely forced to have them be separate every time, in another it's only that they're separate if you're buying cheap bullshit online from trash vendors.
> I do use a single cable in that it's just one cable coming from my monitor or dock.
I do, too. However, what I wrote is a fact. Almost everything in the USB-C spec is optional, and you can't deduce which optional parts a USB-C cable supports from the cable alone.
I'm not just constantly picking up random cables off the street and trying to use it to connect my monitor. While what you're saying is true, you're practically describing a non-issue. Devices usually come with a cable that matches its capabilities, and if you're replacing it just check the capabilities when you buy the replacement cable. Don't buy random cables, keep cables related to their usage (aka leave the cable plugged into the dock or monitor, or at least near it), and its not a problem. I keep my charge-only cable with the battery bank, the laptop power adapter has a fixed cable on the brick, I keep the cable plugged into the dock and the screen, I keep a cable that meets the specs needed for Android Auto in the car, and I'm never confused about what goes where.
For your link, this is a good vendor. They're (presumably) accurately describing the features of the cable. If it matches your needs, buy it! But clearly its specs don't meet my needs for my monitor, so I wouldn't buy it if I was replacing the cable for my monitor. Not that I even needed to buy a separate cable, the dock/monitor/etc all came with cables that matched the device's needs and have so far lasted many years. Use the included cable and it is not a problem. The line about "cheap bullshit from trash vendors" are vendors selling cables that don't meet their listed specs on the store listing. Which is why I don't buy cables from AliExpress or Amazon or others, I can't trust the cable to be what it says it is.
Even back in the day pre-USB-C you'd still have to check the specs on the cable. What voltage does your laptop run at? How many watts is it going to pull? What size barrel? Polarity? If I reached into a bin full of various "laptop chargers", what are the odds it would work with your device? Pretty damn slim! And what are the odds that power brick would charge your phone as well? Zero!
Reach into a bin full of USB-C-based laptop chargers, what are the odds it'll work with your USB-C laptop? Extremely high! What are the odds it'll charge your phone as well? Extremely high!
Which experience is better?
This whole issue is largely because we're starting to get to the point where the data transfer speeds we're hoping for is getting pretty insane from a physics standpoint, and it doesn't make sense for every cable to be built to that level. If I'm getting a cable that I know I'm only ever going to want to charge a few watt device off of, I don't need it to be built to the spec of many many gigabits of throughput. This is even getting to be true with digital video cables in general. I've got some DisplayPort cables on my desk here. What max resolution and refresh rate do they support? How about these HDMI cables? Did they even bother listing their specs on the sheathing? Nope! But should they have just created a new connector every few years requiring all new cables and have monitors with a dozen different ports on them?
I'd say having different cable specs that are clearly known when originally sold is an OK compromise for continued growth without needing new connectors. This issue of "not all cables support all things" as some reason why the old way of having a million different cables and connectors was better is focusing on such a tiny problem compared to how much better practically everything else is. Are you seriously arguing for the barrel and other proprietary connectors, different power adapters for everything? Are you seriously arguing for having either proprietary docks or needing to plug in several cables going from one desk to another?
In the end, I am using one cable to connect my laptop to my whole desk setup, right now. This is better than the past where the same setup would have required a bunch of cables. Sure, I do have other cables in the house that would physically connect but not do all the things, but once again that never happens because I'm not trying to use only one cable that I don't know the specs on to try and do everything. And FWIW, I could do that "one cable to do everything" if I picked the right cable at the start. I could just use this cable on the monitor to charge at the nightstand, in the car, with the battery bank, to charge all my other devices, etc.
It's exactly what you're talking about. Pick a random cable and show it doesn't meet all potential possibilities of USB-C, that seems to be your entire point. That not all cables can do everything as if it's some critical failure of USB-C. I'm never just ending up with some random cable that I didn't already know the specs on, so it's a non-issue.
Like, cool, you found a USB-C cable I can't use with my monitor. So I won't buy that one, I'll buy a different one. They're clearly spec'd on nice retailers, so buying the right one isn't an issue, once again unless you're with crappy stores.
This big "issue" is way better of a problem than how things were before. I'll take this trade any day.
They definitely consulted a bunch of lawyers. The App Store makes on the order of $100B profit annually. Given that, a reasonable budget for consulting lawyers - on a matter which may result in them losing a substantial amount of that profit - would be massive. Even $1B in attorney fees would be a tiny price to pay to protect that.
Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the content of those discussions. It's easy to assume they were checking whether their proposed implementation would satisfy the regulators. It's equally likely, even more likely, they were gathering information, posturing and probing to see how the EU would react, to gauge how best to craft their scheme to outwit them and what they could or could not easily get away with.
You can hold a negotiation and still screw the other side over afterwards - isn't that actually the best way to do it? Holding a meeting first to learn what cards your opponent has in their hand is just a better way to play any game.
Thanks for pointing this out. App Store sales (not profit) for 2020 was estimated at around $64B. Apple apparently does not make the profits from the App Store public.
From my own experiences and plenty of others their so called moderators are crap. App Store review process is total bullshit most of the time, and yet they still end up with scam/trash apps on the store.
Besides, how many app updates are there per day? The amount they pay an app reviewer x n reviewers is going to be _nothing_, a drop in the bucket of what they make from the app store overall.
App Store is a cash cow so they'll protect it viciously; I expect Apple will win this one through their usual gaslighting/cult personalities unless EU is willing to come down hard enough on 'em. Ban sales of Apple products that do not conform, easy.
It doesn't affect consumers in any negative way, only positive.
I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, for 2023 their net income was $97b. At some point the tax stuff won't be possible, and it will be even less than that. Apple's gross profit was $169b, which excludes a lot of stuff, but even then I don't think it's possible over half of it would be from the App Store.
Apple stated "App Store revenue generated $1.1 trillion in developer billings and sales in 2022, 90% of which was commission-free." [1]
10% was not commission-free. App Store commissions are between 15% and 30% depending on the size of the developer. That would be between $165B and $330B revenue for Apple from commissions.
Nobody knows how profitable the App Store is to Apple. "It’s a question that investors would love to know the answer to, because it addresses the entire business model of the App Store. Apple does not disclose any detailed financial results of the App Store,". "Barnes calculated that the App Store had hefty profit margins, which increased to 78% in 2019, up from 75% in 2018" [2]
App Store revenue is still growing (not least with inflation) so the number of 2023 was likely even higher.
~80% margin on $165-$330B revenue in 2022 would be $132-$264B. So my original number of $100B may actually have been on the low side.
How can something be so wrong and still being upvoted on HN is totally beyond me.
From [1] ( The Link you referenced )
>This $1.1 trillion breaks down as $910 billion in total billings and sales from the sale of physical goods and services, $109 billion from in-app advertising and $104 billion for digital goods and services.
They take 15% to 30% of $104 Billion. That is at best $31.2B. In case this isn't even clear. Apple collect ZERO on the $910 physical goods and services such as Uber and ZERO on the $109 In-App Advertising revenue.
>~80% margin on $165-$330B revenue in 2022 would be $132-$264B. So my original number of $100B may actually have been on the low side.
It is 80% margin on the at best $31.2B revenue. Not the $104 Billion Sales.
Apple reported FY 2022 Services Revenue as $78B. You cant have a Net Profits more than your total Services Revenue Income.
If 90% of billings were commission-free, that means $110 billion had Apple's commission applied to it. 110 * 0.3 = 33 billion of revenue at most, or 16.5 billion if we use the 15% commission.
It's interesting that Apple seem to be including (estimated) sales of physical goods (i.e. Amazon) and subscriptions (i.e. Netflix) that are billed entirely outside the App Store.
I guess that since those apps came from the App Store to begin with, they are counting that as revenue that the App Store "generated"? Talk about playing word games.
According to the TC article you linked, Apple previously released this figure phrased as sales that it "facilitated"[1]. A much more accurate, and far less braggadocios descriptor.
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I see a huge difference between "generated" and "facilitated". Bad Apple.
> Apple also said iOS app developers have earned more than $320 billion on the App Store from 2008 to 2022, a jump from the $260 billion reported in 2021.
> Apple says its App Store ecosystem generated $1.1 trillion in developer billings and sales in 2022
I'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements. It's been a long day, but what am I missing to make sense of this?
Apple is including money developers make that they don't get a cut of.
For example, Spotify makes money from people streaming music to iOS devices, but they do not allow you to upgrade from a free account to a Premium account through their iOS app.
Since Spotify handles subscription purchases outside of their iOS app and their app is free, they pay nothing to Apple under the current system.
Isn't Spotify one of the "special" companies that Apple bent to and gave an exception just for them?
Afaik, pointing users to subscriptions and payments outside of the app is explicitly not allowed. Telling the user it's cheaper to buy outside the app is not allowed, etc. Such blatantly predatory rules, I'm surprised it's taken this long for a wider discussion to start about it.
I guess it's because whenever you ask people that buy Apple gear they're all "That's fine! Don't you shit talk Apple, they can do what they want! They do what's best for us!" Stockholm syndrome lmao.
> Isn't Spotify one of the "special" companies that Apple bent to and gave an exception just for them?
Nope. Under the old rules any company with a free app used to access subscription content didn't have to pay anything unless they took payments through their app.
Netflix would be another example.
> pointing users to subscriptions and payments outside of the app is explicitly not allowed
It's definitely allowed now, since that's the only point on which Epic won their case vs. Apple.
Apple is being disingenuous. The App Store didn't "generate" those "billings and sales". That number includes physical goods and subscriptions that didn't go through Apple.
They used to report this number as sales they "facilitated". A far more accurate descriptor. But now that they are engaged in a PR battle with various governments they have taken to embellishment.
>The Company’s total net sales were $383.3 billion and net income was $97.0 billion during 2023.
Because $97B is < $100B, it is impossible for AAPL to have earned $100B net income just from the App Store (because we also know its other divisions do not lose money, again according to the 10-K they filed).
You can put an even stricter limit on it than that - net sales for services is listed as $85B, and they state
> Therefore, the Company accounts for all third-party application–related sales on a net basis by recognizing in Services net sales only the commission it retains.
So the commissions are <=$85B. Given the $1.1T number is from Apple, that implies the average commission rate is <15% (many categories of app excluded from commissions perhaps?).
They list gross margin for services to be $60B but I don't see where they break down net profit with greater granularity or "per division" (the word division does not seem to appear in the 10-K). For example they could make $80B in App Store commission, sell $5B in other services, make $80B in profit from commission, but lose $20B on other services, and that would still be consistent with the numbers in the 10-K, right? And those numbers presumably don't include indirectly related operating expenses which totaled $55B.
Apple has not revealed how profitable the App Store really is, but either way it's a LOT of profit, certainly enough to warrant expensive attorneys and stalling implementing this legislation in good faith for as long as possible.
> The App Store makes on the order of $100B profit annually.
> Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the content of those discussions.
Geeze, that's a lot of money. Out of curiosity, how bribeable are EU regulators? If this were the US, they'd just make a few campaign donations and it'd all go away and the citizens would just shrug at the business as usual in DC.
Do EU regulators typically have more integrity and teeth?
EU regulators are civil servants, and in the EU at least this makes them nominally non political, so campaign donations won't work.
But you can always offer to look after them when they retire. Give them a nice non-exec role, or perhaps make them vice‑president of global affairs and communications....
Whilet he parent's point is correct, note that Nick Clegg is not and never was a EU civil servant (although he was a member of the European Parliament when the UK was still in the EU).
Whilst I know he was a curious example, he was obviously a high profile one.
According to the linked article he actually did work for the European Commission (part of the EU executive) as a civil servant.
"He took up a post at the European Commission in April 1994, working in the TACIS aid programme to the former Soviet Union. For two years, Clegg was responsible for developing direct aid programmes in Central Asia and the Caucasus worth €50 million. He was involved in negotiations with Russia on airline overflight rights, and launched a conference in Tashkent in 1993 that founded TRACECA—an international transport programme for the development of a transport corridor for Europe, the Caucasus and Asia. Vice-President and Trade Commissioner Leon Brittan then offered him a job in his private office, as a European Union policy adviser and speechwriter. As part of this role, Clegg was in charge of the EC negotiating team on Chinese and Russian accession talks to the World Trade Organization.[33]"
While it's good to assume that everyone is bribeable at some price, in the EU there is no clear legal way to do so. In particular, campaign contributions are highly limited in all EU countries (typically around a thousand euro per person I believe), and typically only open to individuals, not corporations or other legal entities.
To be fair they were going to license the tech but instead hired employees of the company whose tech they said they were interested in buying. Allegedly. It is quite often just worth going to court and settling rather than paying extortionate fees forever. It’s very unlikely at Apple’s scale a court will give them a percentage of sale price of an Apple Watch as the headline number would just be too large.
That's now, at some point at in the past their lawyers probably said It's all going to be fine, put the sensor and make it a main feature of the product.
Look at the long list of massive fines levied on the US tech giants for GDPR violations [1]. Every one of them consulted lawyers (and likely substantially ignored their advice).
