▲Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation(fsfe.org)
110 points by kirschner 2 hours ago | 7 comments
▲Lerc 36 minutes ago
TLA overload strikes again.

Reading this after a day of fighting microcontrollers made me interpret the headline quite differently.

Ignoring DMA requests and contradictory documentation sounded entirely on point.

▲Namidairo 14 minutes ago
I too honestly thought that this was going to be a deep dive on the M-series PCIe controller or something similar.
▲1e1a 29 minutes ago
I too was confused
▲traspler 54 minutes ago
I think it is a valid article but it tries very hard to ignore that it seems like at least 12 (21%) of the requests are currently in development at Apple. If all of them are medium/complex requests then they are all still within the advertised timeline. So yes, technically nothing was released yet but I read at least an implied suggestion that nothing will be, which does not look like a conclusion that can be drawn at the moment.
▲nazgu1 1 hour ago
I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are.

On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was released Apple talked that "PWA" will be the future, and nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)

▲inetknght 16 minutes ago
> I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it

It's not like we have a choice. Either allow it or... what? Buy a different computer? With what money? Spend time installing a new OS? With what time? And for most users: with what skills?

So long as businesses make choices about the devices you own, you don't really have a choice about "allowing" it to happen.

▲mastermage 57 minutes ago
Security is not a fixed state, a closed system is not fundamentally more secure as the most vulnerable component is still within the system. The user.
▲CharlesW 6 minutes ago
> nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)

Incorrect: https://pwascore.com/ Nobody cares about PWAs, but that's not Apple's fault.

▲u_sama 1 hour ago
Not surprised, I can't still install any app I want on an iPhone despite the DMA/DSA Acts pushing clearly in that direction
▲pjc50 1 hour ago
Disappointed but not surprised. Their intent is not to comply, so you'll have to sue them at every step for every atom of compliance.
▲anthk 1 hour ago
FSFE should top caring about Apple and giving awards to Microsoft and propietary software company supporters. Learn a thing or two from FSFLA and stop being a honeypot against libre software.
▲actionfromafar 1 hour ago
Is anyone surprised? I suppose Apple will care when a lot of money is extracted from their bank account.
▲Luker88 28 minutes ago
It's not about being surprised, is about finally having proof and being able to go to the lawmakers with something concrete.

Apple could initially dismiss this as "doomsayers that talk about unreal future". Now this is proof.

Let's not dismiss this ourselves.

This is "I told you so", not "breaking news: nobody expected this!".