abigail95

Surely the point is competition, growth and a higher quality of life?

Or is it actually a crusade against margin?

You are agreeing with me. Apple would be violating the law by releasing it.

Thus the people that are mad at Apple for saying the EU is trying to stop them releasing this feature don't have much ground to stand on.

I think that's exactly what people would be upset about as it was the impetus for the DMA in the first place.

Phrasing it like that that without mentioning the $40B penalty if Apple releases the feature today feels a bit off to me.

Well I guess that settles it. Losing to LLMs in CTF challenges must be in my head.

Same result and then Microsoft would be paying for arbitration

Yeah it gets radiated into space

Now Uber is profitable what stops a taxi from just competing again, forcing Uber to have to be unprofitable again?

Would you want to live there?

Should HN links be compensated on a percentage of non-click-throughs? There are people who just come for the comments. Would you support this law being universal and not only applied to Meta/news?

the people who do "AML checks" are the ones processing the transaction.

i don't do that every time i want to send money. private individuals don't just "run checks" - it would make commerce untenable and possibly unconstitutional.

say you get a passport, an address, a photo, a signature, a phone call - how do you verify any of this is real?

Even with a user agreement I think they need to gate their service behind that agreement, otherwise the agreement is optional and open ports are open for use.

You still need to form a valid contract - no notice, no assent, no contract.

If there's a gate that's being bypassed then this all changes but it doesn't seem like there is - and it doesn't seem like they can add one without breaking existing printers.

That's copyright circumvention not CFAA authorization circumvention

You must put authorization on your server if you don't want others connecting to it.

While the right of access is not granted by AGPL - it is not reasonable to run a public service with an AGPL client and say you shouldn't be connecting to it.

They are doing a lot of work to create implied consent under CFAA.

If you want to control access you must do something to control access - it must reach a threshold, it cannot just be a public user agent string.

With no authentication it's a "gates down" scenario and it's assumed that if you put your server on the open internet you intend people to connect to it.

With authentication it's "gates up" and then "without authorization" from CFAA kicks in. I think it's unlikely that a user agent string creates a "gates up" situation, especially not if it's from code granted under a permissive license.