I buy iPhones because I want a tightly integrated environment.
The core issue here is whether governments should control how iOS is designed and which part of iOS.
Furthermore, it can be argued that forcing iOS to be more like Android decreases competition. If you want a more open platform, just get an Android phone.
That's Apple's core issue, maybe.
Now, look at it from the perspective of a sovereign market. Their core issue (a-la United States v. Microsoft Corp.) is how much they are willing to allow while admitting market access. In Microsoft's case, their manipulation of technical capabilities was considered illegal monopoly action. Apple is treading on the exact same ground with Safari and going even further in the case of the App Store - corrective litigation was an inevitability.
Apple ultimately doesn't have to abide by the EU's decisions if they don't intend to intend to access their markets. Governments[0] already[1] control[2] so much[3] of iOS[4] though[5] that it's kinda a moot point =)
> Furthermore, it can be argued that forcing iOS to be more like Android decreases competition.
It can be argued that competition with Android is not what iCloud, Safari and App Store regulation is about. It's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the DMA or Japan's equivalent legislation.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Prism_sl...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/us/politics/nso-contract-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
[4] https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754
[5] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22361762/iphone-russia-sta...
Personally, I can only take you seriously if I was working at Apple in such a capacity and then you reached out to me with a good case on why investing in such a effort would be good in context of my relationship with Apple and the world. Arguments to the effect of "you have a lot of money" don't count.
If people dislike the above take, they are free to disrupt this ecosystem by making their own companies to compete with Apple... otherwise they can (and should) pound sand.
I'm sorry but it's difficult to take this perspective seriously.
It ought to be very obvious that in the context of a Hacker News comment I am not claiming authority to decide what Apple does. I am merely stating that if Apple decided to support third party backup solutions they have more than enough spare money to increase resources rather than, as the OP suggested would be necessary, divert resources away from something else. The OP's "with a given number of resources" qualifier is incorrect because that number isn't actually constant.
The lengths some folks go to on Hacker News to defend Apple absolutely astounds me. They're a multinational corporate, they don't care about any of us here. Stating the simple fact that Apple has the ability to increase their resources is not somehow offensive.
Plenty of people (and their companies) die trying to "increase their resources". Apple is no different or special from any of the other companies participating in the economy. I'm not an Apple fanboy but even I do see the point that statements such as "enough spare money" generally do not get anywhere simply because they patronise their targets and imply that somehow someone being rich makes it morally correct to grift them or break them.
It is agreeable that Apple doesn't care about any of us here. It's simply due to the fact that our relationship with any company is purely transactional. No one shouldn't be burdened with the responsibility of something they can't control, thus, no one should hold other in responsibility of something they have don't have authority over.
> imply that somehow someone being rich makes it morally correct to grift them or break them.
I can’t help but feel like you’re injecting an unrelated personal view into the discussion here. Apple is not a person, personifying a company muddies the waters, not clear them.
Please don't put words in my mouth. My original statement was only to the effect of "people (who are not associated to a respective company) shouldn't take calls on how the respective company should spends their budgets" and not to discourage the discussion of the finances of a company.
I assure that it definitely is a personal view... and all of us are projecting our own personal view(s) in this discussion _because_ this discussion is largely about the many ways to interpret this.
Anyway, not to take anything away from your point, even in the eyes of American/European law, a corporation is sometimes actually treated as a person, depending on circumstances. So, I think it is useful to look from that perspective as well.
That statement is just a fact. Normal people are not being offended by calls to regulate Apple, most of them don't even realize until they update their iPhone to Apple's conformant implementation and scare-ware modals.
You know what people want? They want all their messaging apps to go away so their carriers can finally figure out what "SMS" actually means. They want mobile sites to stop saying "This resource is not compatible with Safari", and they want developers to offer them better experiences at lower prices. Apple has the largest margins of any hardware manufacturer in their league, and software margins just as large as the industry leaders. It's not just that Apple has money; it's that they have no excuse to neglect the development of their platform. They are replete with capital, and spend those financial resources blocking out their competitors.
Can't you see how ridiculously anticompetitive this attitude is?
I will vote with my wallet. If Ikea branded meatballs and their bowls combo provides more value for me, I would buy them.
> Much of the lawsuit’s emphasis is on the fact that iPhone users only have one option when it comes to full device backups