I don't know, it's not as if they have done nothing that benefits society, that we all use daily, forgetting how much of it would not be possible without the contributions and innovation from these companies.
I am absolutely not surprised by the whining and am in no way giving these companies a pass. Something absolutely must be done to better protect user data and privacy.
But babies and bath water come to mind when I read comments like yours.
What I want is for us to reward companies for what they produced, not by what they managed to squeeze out of customers after getting big.
Apple was revitalized by the iPod and later the iPhone? Great, let them sell as many iPods and iPhones as they possibly can. But when they sell it, do not let them keep control of everything. If they are saying the only they can make money is by keeping the iPhone closed and being the gatekeeper of the app store, it means that they are not really making money on the device, so we shouldn't be rewarding them.
Google search was incredible? Ad sense let publishers earn money online? Great. Then let's reward them for that instead of letting them take 60-70% of the ad publishing market.
Does Facebook want to innovate on the communication space by developing an application on XMPP? When was it even working with Google Talk? Amazing, let's reward them for that instead of letting close things down and please let's not them have WhatsApp to feed their endless appetite for user data.
> Google search was incredible? Ad sense let publishers earn money online? Great. Then let's reward them for that instead of letting them take 60-70% of the ad publishing market.
This one sticks out among your examples - that dominant position and the profits from it is the reward. How else would you have a reward work?
This isn't an idle question. Right now companies are doing things that generate their own financial rewards. What other way would you have it work, beyond just some notion of differently?
My possessions were not nationalized at least a dozen times yesterday. It hasn't changed my behavior much, nor that of any company worth mentioning. Perhaps your life has been different from mine.
The absence of a major punishment is not a strong reward. It provides no incentives except to avoid the specific things that produce that punishment.
I’m uncertain on what terms any European nation is going to nationalize Apple, Google, Tiktok, etc. (Is there to be conquest first?)
Because it’s not clear you’re limiting your ideas to the jurisdiction where the DMA applies, I’m only marginally less uncertain about what terms the US would use to nationalize TikTok, and wondering whether the proposal for nationalizing the others - that is to say, taking private property for a public use - would be attached to just compensation (because the trillions involved would surely dent the deficit), or whether there’s some refined subtlety of the case law on Constitutional principles that I have missed or has yet to happen (e.g. trashing the whole takings clause? hard to be certain).
That is to say: this proposal is quite difficult to take seriously, as it implies, but does not identify or engage with, some rather striking changes to the world that would have far reaching consequences.
I absolutely agree and made the cardinal sin of conflating data privacy with the subject of the article, which is about anti-competitive behavior.
But they are both huge issues for the companies we're discussing and I absolutely agree with your thoughts on rewarding them for what they do well but not assuming that everything they do must be just as great and giving them a pass for when they get it wrong or actively hostile to their customers.
Companies are not people. We do not need to "remember their contributions and innovations." Their valuation today is because of those contributions, so they got their rewards, profit and then some.
Commission a statue for them if you want. What is this parasocial relationship some people have with fiscal entities?
That sad thing is... I don't think most people defending Apple in these topics actually own a significant amount of their stock directly. And they're actually undermining the strength of their own portfolios by undermining the strenght and resilience of USA economy due to erosion of free market competition and market stagnation via monopolies.
There is another type of stock: immaterial social capital. As long as Apple products are status-symbols, owners gain social relevance from their ostentatious use. This is why brands promote themselves way beyond what is necessary to just sell widgets: to build identities that people will invest in, binding themselves into enough social stock that they will feel compelled to campaign for a brand just to protect that investment.
I don't disagree, Apple's brand was built before the current shenanigans were even possible. "Think different", am I right? I'm just saying that the previous investment in brand-building can now be leveraged into defending the indefensible.
Kind of ironic that social capital on HN is earned by being being pro-regulation, anti-big-tech, isn’t it? Your point holds but there is more than a little irony in the post.
I think it just shows that large tech companies have lost all credibility even among early-adopting, tech-positive nerds.
New technology, unbridled, inevitably reaches a point where its negatives become clear to society at large. The printing press is regulated, cars are regulated, nuclear energy is regulated - because society recognized that we can't just let anyone build reactors in their sheds. Internet tech has probably reached that point.
Yup, again, yet another thread that devolves into android people doing the 'brainless apple sheeple' meme. It's fucking offensive and it's literally any thread that mentions apple. I wish Dang would crack down - this is not good discourse, it's not making HN a better place.
There is the same problem with NVIDIA, all NVIDIA threads eventually devolve into "people too dumb to buy AMD like me" as well, but, with apple there isn't even a slope, it's right into it from the outset.
We have just utterly normalized this sort of conduct from some of these fanboys to the point where it doesn't even register with most people. We just have taken it as the inherent nature of Android fans to be offensive like this.
Perhaps it is their nature. People with poor social skills self-selecting to the nerdy phone, etc. I have been leaning more and more to this theory after seeing it in thread after thread after thread - people simply cannot restrain themselves even here on HN. But oh gosh you can't say those things back! how uncivil! how dare I soil our sacred discourse of "brainless sheeple buying it for the blue bubbles" etc.
But there's no reason for the rest of us to tolerate it. It's shitty discourse. But it's so utterly normalized that everyone just shrugs and looks past it.
I don't own stock in any of the companies mentioned in the article, although I do own tech stocks.
And I'm not suggesting I have a relationship with any of them, parasocial or otherwise.
I wasn't trying to suggest we treat them like people or put them above us or give them a pass... I simply meant that getting rid of them completely could possibly eliminate the problem being discussed, but would also throw out a lot of value that they created and I didn't think that was the best solution.
> What is this parasocial relationship some people have with fiscal entities?
America’s relationship with the tech giants is distinct from Europe’s. We can directly regulate them, if we want to. And our cities are littered with buildings and institutions named after their founders and senior leadership, as well as start-ups seeded by their cash and alumni. We see tremendous side-channel benefits, in other words, from that wealth.
Europe, not as much. Because the founders aren’t there. That is in part due to Europeans’ aversion to big business—if you don’t like big businesses you won’t have them homegrown. (Exception for industrial companies in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands.) But it’s also because American companies have been taking advantage of its until-recent regulatory weakness.
It seems the only big company in the USA is tech. The rest is in Europe or Asia. The biggest chemical and pharmaceutical industry is in Europe … cars .. planes…. What’s not big industry about Europe beside the stock price of their industry.
Also, largest companies in the world by revenue [1]. American and Chinese with a handful of Swiss, German and Dutch industrial companies. (Plus Vitol, a Swiss commodities group.)
It is a bit tangential, but this article [0] by Baldur Bjarnason sheds a light on the EU's perspective in crafting regulations such as the DMA, and how that seems to be largely misunderstood by the big US tech companies.
This was a great read. One problem that I have, at least, is that I think the eu is not understanding the tech on this one and actually violating their own, all important, single market principle. With the apple all store, there actually was just one market and a set of standards and regulations that governed it. Now, there will be x many standards. The experience on the foo app will depend on what App Store it was purchased in.
If the eu had taken a more ambitious route then I could see this actually working for apple, who operates, imo opinion, under the principle of balancing what is best for the customer against what the developer can tolerate. This has created the apple ecosystem as the only one that is profitable, precisely for the same reason the author argues the eu seeks to regulate businesses.
So by more ambitious I meant there needs to be a convention that governs technology along a framework akin to a technology user’s bill of rights. No stealing information, no antipatterns, cancel subscriptions with a single click, etc…
> actually violating their own, all important, single market principle
Single-market perspectives only apply to EU member-states. There is no expectation of "singleness" outside the EU borders, any extra-EU standardization is just an occasional side-effect.
This is the same as talking about "free trade" inside and outside the US: outside US borders there is no obligation for the US government to obey "free trade" principles, which is why they will happily apply import tariffs that would be illegal to have between US states.
> apple, who operates, imo opinion, under the principle of balancing what is best for the customer against what the developer can tolerate
Big lolz. Apple operates under the principle of balancing what is best for Apple against what the market will tolerate. The rest is just advertising.
I think you misunderstood what the "single market" in that article means. The EU doesn't want there to be a single marketplace (App store). The single market means unifying the different national European markets. The EU cares about maintaining that market, keeping it healthy and competitive and using it as a glue to keep the European nations together and peaceful.
> convention that governs technology along a framework akin to a technology user’s bill of rights. No stealing information, no antipatterns, cancel subscriptions with a single click, etc…
What you're suggesting is exactly what the EU is doing through GDPR and now the DMA. The balancing act is them recognizing that these big powerful tech companies derive their value partly from their scale, network effect, etc. and trying not to, for example, try and break them up, but instead lay out a set of principles that a sufficiently big tech company has to comply with. These rules are designed to promote consumer interests and limit what is perceived as abuse of market power by forcing the companies to be more open to competitors.
> I think you misunderstood what the "single market" in that article means
I can see your point, and when as I was reading I was definitely finding myself understand better the EU's POV, however at the end, when I tried to apply the same example given in the article to the present circumstances, I had a hard time seeing how DMA furthered those goals. But to see what I mean, let's look at an example:
> The single market means unifying the different national European markets.
This is the general thrust of it, and I agree with it and it makes sense to me. The article even went to great lengths to say that the EU would do this even at the expense of their own industries, because the outcomes would ultimately be better for everyone. The example given was roaming, and I think that makes a lot of sense. Another example given was standardizing on 230v AC, while still allowing each country to maintain their regional outlet shapes.
Ok, so far I think we should be in agreement and I haven't said anything that doesn't come directly from the article. In summary the single market means unifying the national markets, and this is done by making one set of rules, even if it's at the expense of their own industries. So nothing thus far should be controversial.
Now in the case of Apple, the question is what being regulated. They're not requiring iOS and android apps to be cross platform, as that would be intractable and is akin to the example in the article of requiring countries to change their plugs. It's basically "infrastructure" at the point, and the cost doesn't justify the benefits. So in this case, the "what" means iOS apps.
To that end, what remains is defining a set of rules that applies to all iOS apps so they can be some uniformity of regulations, similar to the example of standardizing on voltage or charger format. So what are these things in particular? That would be where apps can be found, how they're downloaded, how people pay for stuff, how they cancel subscriptions, etc...
Ok, so now we've reached the point. All of these things actually were already standardized in a single, predictable way, just that they were done by apple. This was done even at the "expense of industry", which in the case would be the developers. I'm sure developers, like cell phone carriers would love to do bad stuff to their users if it makes them more money, but it's ultimately better for the industry as a whole to forbid it. This only works when your competition can't do the bad stuff either.
There are legitimate complaints that I believe can and should be guided towards apple's stewardship of the App Store, but I don't think requiring multiple app stores was the solution. My point is I think the ethos of what the EU is doing is correct, and I wholly support the effort, as I indicated in my ancestral comment. However, I just don't agree that they chose the right unit of abstraction. They should be forcing apple and Google as app stores to abide by a single set of guidelines, but the implementation therein should be left to those companies. Google allows multiple app stores, great. Apple doesn't want to. That should also be fine.
So if you disagree with me, or if I still don't understand the article, can you explain to me better how? As I see it there are multiple levels they could have chosen to enforce the one market principle. I just don't agree with where they chose it. By the same token, forcing iOS and android to be cross platform would also be incorrect.
Ok, and finally I say this mostly from the pserpsective of an iOS user. I like the platform and I feel like I can trust it, however it really only works if developers don't have alternatives where they can do bad stuff. So if there's another App Store where they're free to do shady stuff then it puts all the developers distributing their apps through the apple App Store at a disadvantage.
On the other hand, if the EU wants to manage and regulate all the app stores with a consistent set of guidelines, then I don't understand what are even the points of other app stores. So help me understand, because to me it just seems like what the EU wants we already had when apple was curating the App Store, and it wasn't even really that bad for anyone besides developers, which the EU seemed to be fine with if it was for the good of the industry.
> All of these things actually were already standardized in a single, predictable way, just that they were done by apple.
If there is only one company, it's not a standard - it's a monopoly.
> They should be forcing apple and Google as app stores to abide by a single set of guidelines
They are. It's just that what Apple does simply won't fit in those guidelines.
> but the implementation therein should be left to those companies.
It is. The DMA doesn't tell Apple how to run their servers or what APIs to allow. It just tells everyone, including Apple, that some behaviors in the market are ok and some are not. It just so happens that Apple falls in the not-ok bin.
> Google allows multiple app stores, great. Apple doesn't want to. That should also be fine.
According to whom, you?
The fact is that European society, as represented in the EU Parliament, EU Council, and EU Commission, determined that such behavior is NOT fine in the market. It strangles competition to Apple in the digital-services arena and effectively allows them to extract rent from the whole industry. Hence, Apple should stop what they are doing or face consequences. This is a side-effect of issuing guidelines for acceptable behavior in the digital marketplace.
If you don't like the directive, go vote for some party in European elections (hey, this year) and national elections (possibly this year, depending on the country) to change it. If you're not in Europe, well, you are not affected by the directive, so you don't really get a say about it.
The Facing Reality article [1] explains what "single market" means in the context of app stores:
"App Stores let private companies subdivide and control the single market to their own financial gain. When much of the digital economy is taking place on phones, tablets, and various other devices that are largely limited to App Stores, this is effectively ceding the single market to a fragmented market that’s entirely under corporate control.
This is against the core operating theory behind the EU."
I think it's a mistake to think that someone we use every day is by default beneficial to society? There are countless examples of the public discovering a thing, and the government then having to spend countless decades getting them to stop doing it in the interest of public health (both rightly and wrongly in different scenarios).
Sure Instagram is great for discovery of events, but we came from a world where local bars would list those events on their own sites for free. Now the data is locked behind Insta, or FB which I consider a real step backwards for true discovery.
>it's not as if they have done nothing that benefits society, that we all use daily, forgetting how much of it would not be possible without the contributions and innovation from these companies.
Perhaps I'm parsing this wrong, but it sounds a lot like "past successes are a license for future abuses." Which is not something I think we should, or can, allow.
Nah, there's no reason to accept terrible behavior from people just because they also do some good, the more we push back and frankly punish large companies in real terms the more likely we are to get a peaceable arrangement.
Google and Apple are not thinking "ah let's figure out how to work with these people to make a sustainable system" they are thinking what the most extractive operation they can get away with is, they do not deserve our regard because we also got blinky toys.
Google and apple have helped ruin society by developing the smartphone. They might have occasionally done something useful but I am convinced they are a net detriment. All their products are about surveillance and control. The positive might be them making some tools they use to do that available for others to use.
And after them, let’s get the television. And I read a pretty convincing opinion piece about how the novel is destroying today’s youth (dated 1910 or so).
I found it to be a cesspool before the name change and it's only gotten worse.
I suppose I'm conflating "enjoyable" or "tolerable" with your description of "real" but everything I've glanced at from a distance lately defies your description of Twitter as real.
I, similar to the parent, have very few issues on either my computers or phones. I run Firefox on several different OS's and I just don't have the issues you mention.
Do you have some examples of websites that really behave that differently depending on the browser you're using?
Having lived through the "best viewed with..." days I'd hoped we were past all that by now!
The most recent ones that I ran into seem to have been fixed based on a quick check. mermaid.js docs site was one of them where nothing on the page was clickable (I think Firefox was rendering an invisible div over the entire page) but this issue wasn't present in Chrome or Safari. That appears to have been fixed. Examples are hard to provide since they almost always get fixed but in the moment its enough pain to always get me to drop Firefox.
If it always getting fixed shortly after, it probably means something is going on in your settings or in the background that is interfering at the time you are trying to access them. Just my two cents. I know when I run proton vpn, little snitch, my various extensions, etc. one of them is always the culprit no matter what browser I use.
If it gets fixed quickly, it was probably an issue with the particular website or a plugin of yours rather than Firefox's issue. People are fast to "conclude" it must be Firefox. You should also test in a private tab with no plugins enabled. That might very well also fix the issue.
Google Images has problems with Firefox. If previewing several related pictures, the back button of the browser doesn't bring you back to the last image, but to somewhere else.
I too like it when people link to things to back up a statement.
But the way he described the phenomenon made it seem pretty common, and indeed, a quick search for "patel cfo scam hotels" turns up a number of relevant results... Seems like it's a pretty well known, frequently occurring event in the hotel industry.
That whole "you're not paying"'thing is really a straw man at this point too. When Google was young and eager to be a good netizen I'd have agreed with that and said it was all part of helping to make the web better.
But they've been entrenched for years now, completely dominate so many aspects of the web and get plenty of value out of even their free users.
Given their size and stranglehold on just about everything, pulling an "oops, sorry, I guess you get what you pay for" is just ludicrous at this point.
And sorry if it seems like I'm arguing directly with you, that's not my intention. But I see this a lot and have gone from saying it myself to vehemently disagreeing with it over the last decade or so.
Of course Google gets value out of free users--that's a huge piece of their business model. And of course if Google had actually kept to their original "don't be evil" model, they wouldn't routinely screw over users the way they do.
However, as you note, they have been entrenched for years now, and it has been obvious for that same amount of time that they have long since dropped "don't be evil". So while it certainly sucks that they do the things they do, acting surprised when it happens is not a reasonable position at this point. Anyone who expects Google to honor any kind of commitment is simply asking for trouble. I don't trust them for anything.
And if widespread realization of that fact gets people to stop using Google services, so much the better: maybe that would actually get their attention.
The average non-tech savvy person doesn't really have an option than to get screwed over then. Assuming you have an Android phone, it's practically required to have a Google account; many apps just flat out do not work without Google Play Services or without signing in with your Gmail account.
Yes, I know about microG, Graphene, F-Droid and the like, but the average person is not going to flash their phone. They will inevitably hit a wall that says "you need to login with Google," create a Google account, and won't ask questions.
Just as an example, my mother-in-law couldn't find her contacts when she bought a new phone. Why? Because she was unknowingly saving her contacts to a Google account she forgot she made.
You can use apps from F-Droid without flashing your phone. The only apps I have from the playstore are apps for a few financial institutions, otherwise it's all F-Droid.
And you don't need to be hackerman to do this, I told my retired parents "you should check out F-Droid" and they did. Now they recommend F-Droid apps to me.
But you and I (and perhaps your retired parents) are the exception. Most people want to have their bank app on their phone. They can't get that on F-Droid, so they go to Google Play Store.
Last I checked a bank is a financial institution, which the GP said they still get from Google Play. But that doesn't mean you have to get all your apps from Google Play, which was the GP's point.
Good point. I have never considered this argument before, but I agree. In a healthy case, the sphere of responsibility (of a company, individual) should approximately match their sphere influence. And with a sphere of influence this large, this goes far beyond the "contract" between individual parties only.
In some cases this kind of relationship auto-regulates itself (e.g., taking a small vs large credit in a bank): at larger scale, both parties are invested into maintaining a good relationship. The problem in this case is, any individual investment into any relationship with Google is just a drop in the ocean.
I looked into that myself years ago, and honestly can't remember now why I made that decision back then :) Should probably document such stuff somewhere.
I agree with the decision and in principle absolutely agree with what you are saying about our laws.
But you're oversimplifying the case here. They weren't complaining that the law was being published, they were complaining that their standards were published. The court agreed with PR that once those standards were incorporated into law, they were subject to fair use publication under the auspices of making available and explaining our laws to the public.
The courts agreed and here we are. But as another user wrote, this wasn't about copyrighting the law, it was about the inclusion of copyrighted material in the law and whether or not it fell under a different category with regards to fair use.
I'm sure I'm oversimplifying or missing something too, but I, who am generally opposed to how copyright is currently handled in the US, can see that there is more nuance to this case than your post admits to.
So what you're saying is that we're A-OK as a society with the gatekeeping of critical safety information behind private paywalls and copyright.
Safety information that is gathered at the expense of the public: we suffer the consequences that inform the standards. My fellow citizens have paid for those lessons with fucking blood.
You are saying we are all better served if copyright (another "benefit for the public" according to the proponents, mind you) were to apply to that information as default.
We are collectively better if we forced to enrich a private organization to simply read and understand critical safety information.
That is what you are saying?
Because my clear and immediate response is: fucking bullshit.
This tone doesn't feel especially productive. You asked:
> So what you're saying is that we're A-OK as a society with the gatekeeping of critical safety information behind private paywalls and copyright.
but the comment you're responding to explicitly said:
> I agree with the decision and in principle absolutely agree with what you are saying about our laws.
So like... they're obviously not saying what you're accusing them of saying. They're just explaining why this litigation occurred in the first place (and agreeing with the outcome, which seems to be the outcome you also want).
Given the fraction of cases that make it to a jury, one might conclude it’s not a big part of the law.
Delving a bit deeper into the law, the jury is not deciding the law; they are deciding what facts are true. They do this, quite often, based on feelings. But they do not (jury nullification aside) decide what the law should be.
If I say the red car ran the red light and you say the blue car ran the red light, the jury decides who ran the red light. The question of who is allowed to run the red light is not something the jury ever addresses. This question is only ever a “should” question in the ballot box or the legislature.
But the gpp wasn't talking about Windows help. He said documentation and Visual Studio; I presume he's talking about the MSDN CDROM that came with a VS installation. You could optionally access the docs from the CD or install it to your hard drive for speedier access.
And it was quite good. You could learn just about everything you needed to work from it, offline and from one source.
There are many things I did not like about Microsoft back then but their developer ecosystem was not one of them. Tools were expensive and closed but quite complete and well put together.
Until I learned about open
source and free software I considered MSDN to be the pinnacle of how software development should be.
These days it just feels like MS can't decide between free or prosperity and so can't seem to get either one right.
That's an odd take, I honestly don't find anything about this article, or the broader topic of privacy and overreach by companies and law enforcement, amusing in any way.
Yes, that's correct, it's only about searching the right directories to find and execute the program you asked for.
But autocomplete after sudo doesn't work for me on a stock Debian install anyway, not sure what one needs to do to get around that. I don't really rely on it. If I'm doing enough work that needs root I start the session with "sudo su -" anyway so not having autocomplete after sudo is not a big deal for me.
but recent IT strategies are highly questionable in this regard.
I think it of as a result of high profile hacks. Either a company is hacked once and they go way overboard trying to ensure it doesn't happen again. Or, some high profile company gets hacked, some C*O's see it, overreact and decide they're not going to be next.
I am absolutely not surprised by the whining and am in no way giving these companies a pass. Something absolutely must be done to better protect user data and privacy.
But babies and bath water come to mind when I read comments like yours.