anonymouse

So, let me get this straight, Trump is slapping special tariffs on iPhones while the Trump Organized Crime Family is bringing a phone to market?

I will just say to those of you cheerleading the EU on this that what you are actually cheerleading is the undermining of the rule of law. And what's going on with EU regulators "enforcing" the DMA erodes the rule of law in a way that is entirely insidious and perhaps even more dangerous than what's going on in the US right now. It doesn't matter what the regulators intentions are, they have created and are part of a process that so corrupts the notion of law as to render it meaningless.

This so-called "law" known as the DMA, and the regulatory bodies "enforcing" it, is not actually law at all. What it is is a purported "legal" framework that erodes the very concept of law in a way that leads to lawlessness. Much is talked about the "spirit of the law" in regard to the DMA, but that's not how law works. Law works according to the letter of the law, and anything that depends on "spirit" is not actually law.

Something as nebulous as "spirit" isn't law because laws must clearly state what they mean. How can anyone know if they are following the law, or breaking it, if the laws is so ill defined as to depend entirely on the "interpretation" that regulators choose to give it. Even in announcing these fines against Apple, they haven't said exactly how Apple "violated" the law, nor exactly how they could be in compliance. Instead there is hand waving verbiage that states Apple hasn't done enough and isn't in compliance, but nothing at all on what compliance would actually look like. How could anyone know if they are compliant if they don't know what compliance is? It's like posting a sign, "Speed Limit", with no indication of what that limit is but telling motorists that they must follow the spirit of the speed limit.

No, this "law" and its "enforcement" depend entirely on the whims of the regulators. Are these really the kinds of "laws" you want in the EU? "Laws" where the meaning of the "law" is whatever the authorities decide it is and you can never know if you are following or breaking it? "Laws" that can change whenever new people begin "enforcing" them? Sure, a lot of you don't care, or even think it's great, because this "law" is being used right now to target American companies. As a European, it won't affect you, right? But, who knows what the future may bring and "regulators" decide to turn "laws" like this against you. Perhaps right now there are no other "laws" like this, but there may well be more, and who knows whom they may target? You are creating a model where a pretense for law replaces real laws with entirely subjective "rules" that are whatever those in charge want them to be.

To paraphrase: First they came for the American tech companies, and I did not speak out because I was not an American tech company. I'm sure you know the reference, and this is where you are heading.

More legalized piracy from the EU. More meaningless verbiage from its apologists.

[The Apple Silicon transition] was, by far, the easiest transition that Apple had made, and it had done so twice before as we've talked about already.

It's really more than twice they have done this, and you have to start with the NeXT lineage, not [Classic] MacOS, because [Classic] MacOS was a dead end and what we today call macOS is a descendant of Next/NeXTSTEP, not [Classic] MacOS.

NeXT started out on Motorola processors just like Apple did with the Macintosh, but from fairly early on they worked on moving it to Power PC and Intel. It was also ported to PA-RISC and SPARC. The Cocoa frameworks were also ported to several environments under the OpenStep name, including Windows NT. And the development of WebObjects brought more experience from turning it into a web development environment.

So when NeXT effectively took over Apple (and was paid by Apple to do so) they brought with them all that individual and institutional experience as well as specific experience in designing portable operating systems, application frameworks, etc. Most of the things that have made the subsequent transitions so apparently simple — the application frameworks, fat binaries, etc. — had already been thought out and refined for years before "Apple" released Mac OS X (and it's always been at least rumored that they kept the Intel version up to date while they were selling Power PC hardware, which would have made the Intel transition even easier).

So, the foundations for how simple these hardware platform transitions have appeared were laid years before they started happening at Apple, and they, as an institution, have done this a lot more than "twice before".

cropr said:

anonymouse said:

This so-called "law" known as the DMA, and the regulatory bodies "enforcing" it, is not actually law at all. What it is is a purported "legal" framework that erodes the very concept of law in a way that leads to lawlessness. Much is talked about the "spirit of the law" in regard to the DMA, but that's not how law works. Law works according to the letter of the law, and anything that depends on "spirit" is not actually law.

There is a major difference between the law system in the US, which is derived from UK law system of the 17th century and the European law system which is based on the Codex Napoleon.

In the US law system the letter of the law is indeed the absolute truth.  In the European law system this is less the case.  There is a concept of common sense in the European law, which translates in a different impact of any rule of law.    Just look at the disclaimer that is added to sale of any hardware.  The US disclaimer is 3 times longer than the EU version

Sorry but that doesn't change anything about the DMA being just an excuse for the authorities to do whatever they feel like and continually move the goalposts, which are still mostly invisible even after they are moved. US and UK law also include the concept of Common Law, but absolutely nothing about the DMA would fall under that, or Common Sense. This "law" is simply the legalization of an extortion racket and cover for tilting the playing field in favor of European companies, rather than the meritocracy that is the necessary basis of free trade. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that lends legitimacy to Trump's claims about the EU treating the US unfairly and justifies, to his supporters at least, his tariffs.

twolf2919 said:

anonymouse said:

twolf2919 said:

Anybody else feel like the White House calling these fines "economic extortion" is like the pot calling the kettle black?  Trump's tariffs are exactly that - economic extortion - just on a much grander scale.  The whole Trump Presidency, thus far, has been about extortion: demanding universities accept Trump agenda or face withdrawal of grants - pure extortion.  Sending the DOJ after individuals and corporations unless they do his bidding - pure extortion.  Preventing law firms from being able to get into Federal buildings unless they submit to his whims - extortion, pure and simple.

The Trump Administration is the most extornist Administration in American history.  For them to call the EU simply enforcing their laws (that are disadvantageous to American companies) extortion is just hilarious.

Tu quoque is not an argument. No matter how extortionist US policies may be, that has no effect on whether EU policies are extortionist or not. Trump can be right, possibly by chance, for all the wrong reasons, and regardless of whether he does the same or worse, or whether he even understands the issues.

Or, are you arguing that two wrongs make a right?

I am not.  Simply stating that people who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.  But I actually don't think the EU's fines are extortion at all, since their demand is within the law.  Extortion is a criminal activity.  The particular law Apple was fined for is that Apple doesn't allow app developers to point to alternate app stores that might be cheaper.  Assuming they have the same law for other app platforms - e.g. Android - it's not even singling out "American" companies (although the affected platforms happen to be American).

Right, "within the law," so if you make it legal for government to extort, it isn't extortion. Got it.

Wesley_Hilliard said:

They built a concentration camp on asphalt in the middle of a swamp surrounded by alligators they hope will eat them.

Yes, this is worth repeating, the so-called Alligator Alcatraz is a concentration camp.

So, AI's writers seem to be having trouble distinguishing what is Liquid Glass and what is not. Liquid Glass is specifically a full cosmetic makeover, including some changes in the way UI elements behave and react, that is being applied simultaneously to all of Apple's OSs. The Spotlight changes — e.g., a clipboard manager — you reference above, apart from the appearance and behavioral changes in the controls themselves, are not part of Liquid Glass.

Likewise, not every enhancement to every OS is necessarily related to Liquid Glass. Yes, these new features do appear with Liquid Glass UI elements, but that doesn't mean they depend on Liquid Glass to exist. Apple could have added a clipboard manager even if they had not included Liquid Glass in this release. So, basically, if you are looking at enhancements that are, "more than skin deep," they are probably not part of Liquid Glass, even if you have never seen them using any other "skin".

Or will they be "convinced" to back down on this as well? I guess they were inspired by the EU's shakedown strategy as an important revenue source and want to get in on the legalized piracy themselves. Hey, UK and EU, you want to make money from tech? Go develop some tech that the world wants and stop stealing money from those who have. World-class my a...

This whole question of the bias and corruption of the EU judicial system, while interesting in and of itself and an actual problem, is really a red herring. If you create a legal framework that legalizes, in fact institutionalizes, piracy, then even an unbiased judge, working within that corrupt framework, must rule that the piracy is legal. And legalizing and institutionalizing piracy, theft, is exactly what the EU has done with the DMA. So, in fact, there is no legal recourse if an American company thinks a ruling is unfair, because the entire legal framework behind that ruling is in fact corrupt.