Losing the plot

I love the Mac and I've had an iPhone since the first one. I've enjoyed a Mac since I used a Mac to layout my first yearbook in 1998 using Adobe Pagemaker.

I wanted the smartphone to become the next computing platform and I was thrilled when Apple decided to adopt sandboxing - as is the case  with almost any modern platform.

Sandboxing has many benefits and one of it is the better security model in these portable computing devices. But, sandboxing is just a pattern - an engineering framework to design systems - it's not even a specific technology.

Your web browser employs sandboxing to ensure that no one website can take down another tab or your computer. One can engineer their way to improve capabilities while still sandboxing.

We have to realistic. Apple seems to be making a choice here. And the choice is an obtuse decision which is control and monetization at all costs.

John Gruber writes:

I’ve often said that Apple’s priorities are consistent: Apple’s own needs first, users second, developers third. The European Commission’s priorities put developers first, users second, and “gatekeepers” a distant third. The DMA prescribes not a win-win-win framework, but a win-win-lose one.

Apple is proud, stubborn, arrogant, controlling, and convinced it has the best interests of its customers in mind.

https://arc.net/l/quote/yozjvele

I've always accepted and liked that Apple's opinionated. However, I've felt like they were thoughtful and reasonable. This is why I've liked owning and working on Macs. When iOS and iPad OS was launched and even in the initial days, I aligned with Apple's decisions to not open the platform for its own sake.

However, I always believed that the end result would be to eventually open up the system. Apple's current stance is a disappointment. Apple is suggesting that the fact that I can use any browser on my Mac, can write code and run whatever I choose to run is the biggest flaw of the Mac. That's just a bummer.

I try and not be cynical. Everything shouldn't be a zero-sum corporate game aimed at maximizing economics. It's a disappointment that Apple's decided to just be a "regular" corporation. I guess "normal" people deserve a "regular" corporation and not what I thought Apple was.

Ian Betteridge writes:

Rich people gonna rich. But what amazes me more is how many cheerleaders they have. Now Apple has always had cheerleaders — lord knows, at times I’ve even been one of them — but the latest wave of online criticism of those of us who would very much like Apple to allow us to use the computers we bought in the way that suits us, rather than the way that suits Apple, strikes me as different. Louder. More vocal. More focused on the idea that not only is wanting this stupid, but that it’s somehow a threat to other people’s security.

https://ianbetteridge.com/2024/01/27/some-thoughts-on-apples-response-to-the-eu-dma/

https://elk.zone/toot.cafe/@slightlyoff/111830767678294347

Benjamin Mayo writes:

Firstly, I do not consider the policies introduced this week as the end of the conversation. In many ways, it is the opening gambit. The Digital Markets Act leaves much to interpretation and the EU regulators have essentially left it up to companies to apply the law, and then assess whether the changes that companies implement is sufficient. I view the published Apple rules as a working proposal, very much subject to change. Apple would rather it wasn’t weakened from here, of course, but I think the EU has shown that it is operating proactively and will follow up with addendums of legislation and enforcement action, as it sees fit.

https://bzamayo.com/app-store-versus-eu-commission

I sincerely hope this is the case.