[jstsch]

As a EU-citizen, I'm not happy with this legislation and enforcement. I choose Apple versus Android, because I want the safe and user friendly ecosystem Apple offers. Otherwise, it makes much more sense to go with Android. Those phones are much cheaper and are very much the same quality-wise (performance, screen, form factor...).

The same goes with iOS on iPad. I'm very happy that my parents can use those devices versus a Windows machine (or even a MacBook) and know that they are pretty much safe from malware.

Even now, I noticed that with the mandatory browser selection screen both my parents independently have moved on from built-in Safari to Chrome (independently), since that was the only browser name they know. And now they are in a much worse position privacy-wise than before. Which is certainly not in the spirit of the GDPR and DMA.

[lucianbr]

You're upset that your parents were free to make some choice that you feel is wrong, and you believe Apple should be allowed to take that choice away from them?

Honestly, I feel that Apple has completely brainwashed some people. Comments like yours abound, complaining about the dangers and disadvantages of freedom and choice. You're only a few words away from "freedom is slavery".

[matwood]

You're assuming the OPs parents made an informed choice. Chrome might be the only name they recognized so they picked it. Is Chrome really the best choice for them? Hard to know. A bunch of choices up front is also generally bad UX. Reasonable defaults that can be changed later are likely better for the average user.

[lucianbr]

No, I'm not assuming that. The freedom to make a choice is not contingent on your being informed. Imagine being kept in jail with the pretext "you are not yet fully informed of what is out there, so we're not letting you go out for your own good".

Anyway, OP can just inform their parents and fix this thing, if that was really the problem.

> Is Chrome really the best choice for them? Hard to know.

If you imagine this is a good argument for taking choice away from people, you are damaged. There is no freedom if you get to restrict people until they will make the choice you feel is perfect for them. Freedom means freedom to make mistakes. It's not like Chrome is explosive, and if handled incorrectly it may kill its user and some innocent bystanders to boot.

Really doubling down on the absurd arguments.

[matwood]

I also said that it should be changeable later - so I'm not taking away anyones choice. Sticking a bunch of questions in front of a user, when all they really want to do is use their new phone almost feels like a dark pattern. They just pick whatever and move on. Is that really any better than default that can be changed later? IDK, other than randomly getting people using something different.

[npilk]

> Imagine being kept in jail with the pretext "you are not yet fully informed of what is out there, so we're not letting you go out for your own good".

Isn't this basically what school is for children?

I don't think it's crazy that people might have a range of preferences for how "locked down" a device or ecosystem is. One end of the spectrum might be Linux phones and the other might be those Jitterbug (?) phones for old people that can only dial a few preset numbers. Android would be more towards Linux and Apple more towards Jitterbug.

But I do think Apple should be more transparent with their users, and has generally been "maliciously complying" with these regulations.

[jstsch]

> Anyway, OP can just inform their parents and fix this thing, if that was really the problem.

Yes, the little time we have in our lives, I really want to spend talking with my parents about topics like browser choices.

[Moldoteck]

considering all this ai gen improvements, you should talk to them not just about browsers... scams that do imit ppl's voices are on the rise, you should also talk to them about being virgilent about some websites that do try to trick ppl, maybe even give some examples. The web is not safe and soon it'll be even less safe if there are photos of you/videos with your voice registered & available online

[hu3]

You'll have to do it anyway.

I have to explain on average once a month to family why some websites break on "the Apple internet app" (safari) and they should use Firefox or Chrome for critical stuff instead.

Had to explain again yesterday because Safari crashed to a white screen error on my wife's macbook while she was trying to buy plane tickets.

Firefox just worked.

Internet browsers are very present in 2024.

[alt227]

Something like this is really important considering the future of all of our live is digital whether we like it or not.

Have those discussions, educate them on choices, and it will make their lives much safer going forward.

[badwolf]

Have you ... ever dealt with people? This doesn't seem to be the typical reality for most.

[jstsch]

No, of course, everyone should be free to have the choice to install whichever software they want on devices that they own. E.g. put the phone in developer/hobbyist mode by connecting it with a USB cable to a PC, show some big fat warnings, and then allow all forms of sideloading. But it needs to be like a safety switch.

Then the matter of an informed browser choice. This is simply not a thing most regular people make or care about. Remember the Internet Explorer era? In this case, simply the most recognisable picture gets chosen (e.g. the only company that advertised their browser).

[EMIRELADERO]

How does other users' ability to install stuff outside of Apple's control impact your enjoyment of your devices?

[endisneigh]

The general argument is that the changes end up being annoying.

Simplest example would be 1st party apps only vs including 3rd party apps. Clearly there are implications around including 3rd party apps that would affect the operating system and thus user experience

[alt227]

I never understand this argument.

iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all. But if I want to go to the app store, install a different browser engine, and set it as default, how does that affect any users that are just using the default device as supplied to them?

There is no reason at all to hinder this choice. It does not affect 1st party apps, or how the device works by default. It just allows choice for those who want to explore it.

[jstsch]

> iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all.

No, this is not allowed and currently also not the case. When you're setting up a new iPhone, one of the questions during setup is which browser do you want to use.

[alt227]

Then IMO this went too far. All they needed to do was allow people to doanload alternatives if they want them.

[gbalduzzi]

EU did this to Microsoft years ago to disrupt the internet explorer monopoly. It wouldn't be fair to not demand Apple and Google to do the same now

[robertfall]

In the EU Safari is no longer used by default. You're forced to choose a browser when setting up the phone.

[endisneigh]

Suppose there were a rule that there could be no defaults ever, and all of the apps are randomly arranged in the App Store for the sake of fairness.

Your argument would be equally true, you could just scroll and scroll until you find the app you’re looking for, but surely you’d agree the experience would be worse?

[slashdave]

Because web sites will start using Chrome only features and stick a big box over the page insisting the user switch. Unless, of course, you want to pass complete control over web standards to Google.

[Novosell]

That's not very clear to me. How would it affect anything?

[endisneigh]

If there were no 3rd party apps everything else could be coupled, no App Store, etc.

Depending on particular user design goals, the experience could be far superior at the expense of being limited.

[vsl]

See GDPR side effect of annoying banners everywhere even if I don't give a damn about my website visits information being processed, for how unintended consequences played out and made the web worse for everyone.

For DMA specifically, see Apple withholding Screen Mirroring (a feature I would enjoy tremendously) from EU for fear (IMHO quite reasonable) that the vaguely written DMA could be interpreted as requiring them to open mirroring to 3rd parties.

It's been just a few months and already DMA impacted my enjoyment of my devices, no?

[Moldoteck]

the only problem with gdpr is that it didn't push far enough. If your browser provides a header with accept/reject all, a banner should not be shown. Also, GDPR does have many other interesting things, including being able to download/delete your data

[xandrius]

Just for your info, the banners are absolutely not required and they are the band aid solution of websites who don't give a crap about their users.

If you also don't care about yourself, it's worse for you but many others now have the chance to deny providers of their scummy way to make money off unwitting users.

[shagie]

Here is the home page of the European Union https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en

There is a banner.

The European Commission on data protection https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_e...

There is a banner.

The press release for the current enforcement against Apple https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...

There is a banner.

> the banners are absolutely not required and they are the band aid solution of websites who don't give a crap about their users.

If this is true, it says a lot about the organization running those websites.

[alt227]

Parent is right, banners are not required by GDPR. These websites do not reflect the people in the organisations they represent, they are made by developers like the rest of us who are following the crowd like sheep.

[shagie]

From https://european-union.europa.eu/cookies_en

    3. Analytics cookies

    We use these purely for internal research on how we can improve the service we provide for all our users.

    The cookies simply assess how you interact with our website – as an anonymous user (they data gathered does not identify you personally).

    Also, this data is not shared with any third parties or used for any other purpose. The anonymised statistics could be shared with contractors working on communication projects under contractual agreement with the European Commission.

    However, you are free to refuse these types of cookies – either via the cookie banner you will see on the first page you visit or at Europa Analytics.

That appears to be things covered by the GDPR and that they need some way to inform you that you can reject them ... and that's done with a banner that allows you to reject those cookies.

Given that analytics is used, and that has cookies that track information, they're required to have that notification somehow. That page doesn't appear to be a "developers following the crowd like sheep" but rather "the requirements of the law are followed to the spirit and letter and the easiest and most accessible way to provide that functionality is with a banner."

[hindsightbias]

It's interesting the views in the threads of "screw your parents if they can't figure out how to protect themselves w/o iOS/AppStore" to "we must think of the children and protect them from cookies"

[gbalduzzi]

> I choose Apple versus Android, because I want the safe and user friendly ecosystem Apple offers

And nobody wants to destroy the ecosystem. Just make it default, but not mandatory.

[Moldoteck]

as eu citizen i'm happy with it. I have both a pixel and an iphone and imo you can continue using app store apps if you are afraid of security (let's not dive into this argument, bc the statements about security in some cases are false), while others will use other app stores when/where they want, that's kinda the point, you as a user can decide what to do. If you are afraid about your grandma/kids installing something, I'm fairly sure there's(or will be) an option in settings to limit such actions. It's true that ppl do need more education related to digital privacy, on the other hand, who knows if chrome is much worse than safari, and if they use chrome on their laptops... chances are the data is already collected, if they use google - data is already collected.

[jdiez17]

> I choose Apple versus Android, because I want the safe and user friendly ecosystem Apple offers.

Me too.

> The same goes with iOS on iPad. I'm very happy that my parents can use those devices versus a Windows machine (or even a MacBook) and know that they are pretty much safe from malware.

iOS (and Android) are very different position, security-wise, than desktop operating systems (Windows, Linux, macOS) because of the strong application isolation and permissions system. On a desktop OS ~any software you run has access to ~all your files (https://xkcd.com/1200/). Even as a die-hard desktop Linux user, we have to recognize that Apple leads in platform security, both in mobile and on the desktop. Take a look at Hector Martin’s (from Asahi Linux) thoughts on this.

> both my parents independently have moved on from built-in Safari to Chrome (independently), since that was the only browser name they know. And now they are in a much worse position privacy-wise than before. Which is certainly not in the spirit of the GDPR and DMA.

Two thoughts here: 1) the point of the GDPR and DMA is to give people the choice. In my opinion, choice is good. 2) people choosing things that hinder their privacy because they “don’t know better” is, well, an education problem.

Of course the GDPR/ePrivacy directive is notorious for lax enforcement (it’s ramping up, though) of illegal techniques and dark patterns like making it more difficult to reject unnecessary spyware cookies than to accept them. I predict the same will happen with the DMA.

[arthur-st]

It’s worth noting that ePrivacy directive is an EU directive, in contrast to GDPR being an EU regulation.

Inconsistent enforcement is a feature of directives. The comment on the GDPR though is full-well valid.

[jstsch]

Downvotes for an alternate viewpoint, what is this, Reddit?

[gbalduzzi]

It's not an alternative viewpoint, it's just plain missing the point.

The strength of Apple products and their ecosystem does not require apple forcing a monopoly on payments in their ecosystem.

If they stop abusing their position, their products will be just as good and as secure. I don't see the correlation between the article linked and that comment

[layer8]

Downvotes on HN are (also) for mere disagreement:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392347

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

[pstric]

Answers seem to imply the downvotes are for a naïve rather than alternate viewpoint.

[isleyaardvark]

This is a big enough forum that you will find anti-Apple posters that will reflexively downvote anything sympathetic to Apple.

[m3kw9]

a lot of people actually clueless on why apple charge a fee so they are like, why are you charging? the web didn't charge me either. when in fact apple provides all the infrastructure, distribution, security, payment system.

[alt227]

It depends which way you look at it.

You seem to be saying 'Look at all this infrastructure Apple gives you for free, of course you should pay them their cut'.

You could look at it the other way and say 'They made all this infrastructure in order to lock in vendors and monopolise the app market, thereby forcing you to pay them their cut'.

If posts on HN are anything to go by, it seems this perspective is decided simply by whether you like Apple or not!

[m3kw9]

Providing a good service which “lock you in” is a good thing. What do you rather?

[alt227]

Is that sarcastic? If not I feel you have missed the point of this whole thread/argument.

People would rather the freedom to choose what they buy, who they buy it from, and where they buy it. This freedom of choice is much more important to a great many people than being locked in to a service 'because its good'.