There's good reason you might not want that behavior, and no reason to enforce it. Booting an alternate OS doesn't interrupt Windows update operations.
I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. If you google something like "windows 11 advanced startup settings" you'll see what I mean, though: the boot menu is now in Windows.
I guess it allows the bootloader to be much simpler, at least in theory.
Man that's cool. Not for me personally as I need a display and not glasses, but it's cool we have so much computer power in such portable formats now.
I love that we have pretty powerful laptops with 20 hours of battery that only weigh a pound or so. I remember 20 years ago lugging around a 2kh brick with only 2 hours of battery.
I have a bootloader signed with my own keys to boot my kernel. Nothing else will be able to boot the machine. I couldn't have this setup without a bootloader.
> Is this 'couldn't' a self imposed requirement or a technical one I can't think of ?
Probably not technical. There is another element, obtaining a HDD encryption key from the TPM. The idea that the HDD is encrypted outside of my laptop and nothing can boot on my laptop that isn't my signed OS to read it.
Thinking about it I probably could do everything in the kernel directly - why not? Well, because it would be extra work to write all that, but probably not a technical limitation.
> Just to be clear, this is signing for validation
Yup. I was just referencing wanting to obtain keys from the TPM to decrypt a partition. This is useful for me to have the following setup:
- Laptop turned on, no keys pressed, boots into super locked down guest OS.
- Laptop turned on, certain key pressed within 2 seconds, boot into 'hidden' OS.
- In both cases, HDD is encrypted, decrypted automatically via retrieving keys stored in the TPM. This means the harddrive cannot be read outside of that particular laptop, unless keys are extracted from the TPM.
- Bootloader signed with own key, any and all existing keys wiped, so laptop cannot be booted with any external OS.
Because I've seen this claim many times over more than a decade, and have seen evidence multiple times. I've also been able to search for it when I was curious and find it without issue.
I believe most authors do not earn out their advance of $5k - $10k. I'm not sure how long it takes to write a book, but I'd be willing to be that ends up being less than minimum wage. If you enjoy reading, but don't think they deserve even that amount, well...
That's a pretty good argument against copyright. Is it really worth losing the cultural intellectual commons so that the average author (nearly all authors, in fact) can make well below minimum wage? I'm unconvinced about that being a societally beneficial trade-off.
And that's the thing. One could make the case that in a world of UBI, copyright diminishes in relevance. If the intent of copyright is to allow people to use capitalism to create wealth via their words so that they can live a "life of the mind" and pursue grand ideas... If UBI gets us the same goal then that does something to the good/harm balance of the temporary monopoly on ideas.
The key point is remembering that copyright isn't some divine right stemming from the muses blessing the author with their own exclusively-owned words; it's a right societies fabricate because we believe it will incentivize people to build new knowledge that eventually benefits everyone. It's that incentivization that's the goal.
I think we probably agree with each other. Even with UBI, I do think it makes sense to have some degree of copyright. Just to allow creatives room to breath and tell stories they want to tell without their narratives by more popular forks. That argument is a different issue altogether, though, I think, and we are nowhere near being in a context where we need to figure it out.
I do think UBI should be a minimum, and people should still receive compensation for work they produce that people enjoy. Just not exclusive rights and perpetual royalties and all this nonsense.
I'm sure someone great at math could come up with a function. Although I'd think it's more to do with the popularity and amount of times a work is consumed, while accounting for people consuming it for free.
> That doesn't really sound like a donation. That sounds like paying for a service.
I agree, but this is common. Look at EFF 'donations' at conferences, for example, where they are just selling a product for a set price and call it a donation.
I mean, if it's too much, they will just pull out of the EU and sell to Europeans via online only. EU citizens will still be Apple customers, just without any EU protections.
To be fair, the EU is being a bit ridiculous sometimes. Apple decided not to compete in the EU because of the restrictions, and the EU seemingly wanted to penalize that decision also.
> Selling your product in the EU means having an EU presence.
Ehhhhhh. Kind of. Maybe. Certainly not always.
I mean, if there is some shitty little porn company in say, California, and they make porn that say, caters to a fetish that is legal in California but illegal in the EU, well, what then?
The porn company isn't doing anything wrong, and EU laws are irrelevant. At this point they can try to firewall off the company, punish ISPs, maybe punish citizens who do business with that company, because it isn't breaking any EU laws, and has no EU presence that can be fined, sieved, etc.
This is very normal, this is the way international laws work barring treaties or other agreements to have a special arrangement outside of that.
So, if Apple pulls out of the EU, maybe they can no longer ship mail to the EU, I'm doubtful of that but let's just say. Well, there are plenty of non EU countries close by, including the UK. Not really a problem for EU citizens to get one at all, so again, the EU can only punish people, not the company.
> Like, I can’t just ship heroin to Europe from abroad and claim I’m immune.
If it was legal to do so in the sending country, sure you could. That isn't true for any country though, so it's not a great analogy.
> So, if Apple pulls out of the EU, maybe they can no longer ship mail to the EU, I'm doubtful of that but let's just say.
Why? Apple has Customs pulling (ironically, actually genuine) Apple parts being shipped.
Customs is built around this whole model, unless what, you propose that Apple starts selling commercial quantities of iPhones by disposable drop shippers?
Excellent point, I clearly wasn't thinking too clearly when I made that point. The main point I was thinking is that trying to stop iPhones coming in to the EU is significantly harder.
Imagine the amount of people wanking through the 'nothing to declare' exit after coming back from pretty much any other country and buying an iphone.
The EU could start blocking payments to that porn studio. Avoiding the block would be money laundering, which is also illegal in California. The EU (or it's constituent countries - not sure) also controls imports, and could seize and destroy illegally purchased iPhones at the border. Every one of my international purchases is already stopped and processed by customs to evaluate import taxes. It would be quite easy for them to simply say "you can't import this."
> The EU could start blocking payments to that porn studio.
Sure, but this is not punishing the company in any way which was the other posters point. If the EU was blocking payments to Apple after Apple withdrew from the EU, they are not punishing Apple or holding them accountable to EU law (specifically in the context of complying with competition guidelines and DMA type stuff).
> Avoiding the block would be money laundering, which is also illegal in California.
Hmmmm. I'm not so sure about that. If the EU barred payments to Apple, that block would be on banks and payment processors, not people. If someone goes to the US and buys an iPhone in this new world, they are not committing a crime unless the EU passes a law prohibiting its citizens to buy iPhones.
> The EU (or it's constituent countries - not sure) also controls imports, and could seize and destroy illegally purchased iPhones at the border. Every one of my international purchases is already stopped and processed by customs to evaluate import taxes. It would be quite easy for them to simply say "you can't import this."
Absolutely, but this has nothing to do with Apple, and it isn't the EU punishing Apple, it's Apple punishing people or organizations.
The other posters point was that if Apple withdraws from the EU, EU law wouldn't apply (in the sense they wouldn't need to allow any 3rd party app store, period), and people could still buy iPhones and Apple products outside of it. It's on the EU to try and deal with that.
So they’d lose 20% of their global revenue just out of spite? Can you name a single rational reason why’d they do that?
> Or bypass
How? They won’t be able to sell directly to EU customers…
> Re-read the comment in context.
It just doesn’t make any sense. Apple wouldn’t be able to sell to clients in the EU on a large scale. It just wouldn’t work due to perfectly obvious reasons.
> So they’d lose 20% of their global revenue just out of spite? Can you name a single rational reason why’d they do that?
If EU fines exceed EU revenue.
> How? They won’t be able to sell directly to EU customers…
The EU would have to police its own citizens from going outsize their walls and buying iPhones from literally any other country.
> It just doesn’t make any sense. Apple wouldn’t be able to sell to clients in the EU on a large scale.
So it made sense, and you understood fine, you just disagreed and decided to be obtuse about it. Sigh.
The point was simply that the EU can't touch a company in another country with no presence in the EU, even if EU citizens are buying from it.
All they can do is try and block payments to it, firewall it off, and similar things.
So sure, the EU could police its citizens buying iPhones online, but that's going to be an awful lot of work considering all the third party sellers, and I don't think it would be terribly successful. Not without enforcement which would be extremely unpopular.
They won’t. Also you’re assuming that Apple’s management is irrational and petulant, because if not it should be “if the cost of compliance with EU regulations exceeds their EU revenue/net income” which isn’t going to be even remotely true.
> obtuse about it
Not at all. It’s just that this seems fairly obvious to me:
A very small fraction of people
buying iPhones in Europe now would buy them if they had to ship them from outside the EU, pay the VAT themselves and have no warranty/support.
So sure it won’t be 100%, just 80-90% which doesn’t change anything
You're awfully cocksure with nothing to back it up.
Apple's global revenue in 2023 was about 120 billion. EU revenue was 24 billion. DMA allows fines up to 10% of global revenue. Two max fines under the DMA is already more than their EU profit.
> Also you’re assuming that Apple’s management is irrational and petulantv
I'm not the one making an assumption here. I'm saying if x then y which is perfectly reasonable. You're saying x would *NEVER* happen, which I would consider foolish.
I think Apple will comply with the EU to a point, I agree they are not trying to leave the EU at all. But ultimately they are still a US company and follow US leadership, who may want to do things or try and circumvent EU policies in a way they think are fine, but the EU doesn't.
I mean, there was already a clash with their first fine, it won't be surprising if more come.
I also really think you are being dismissive and downplaying their decision to not enter the AI market in the EU.
> It’s just that this seems fairly obvious to me:
> A very small fraction of people buying iPhones in Europe now would buy them if they had to ship them from outside the EU, pay the VAT themselves and have no warranty/support.
> So sure it won’t be 100%, just 80-90% which doesn’t change anything
I'm so confused at what point you are making here. You're saying EU citizens, if Apple left the EU, would just, and to quote "ship them from outside the EU, pay the VAT themselves and have no warranty/support."
Is this correct? Because that has been specifically the point I was making. Jesus. My point though, to clarify again, is if they do that, Apple won't be subject to any EU rules. All those iPhones bought outside the EU won't have 3rd party app stores, for example, and the EU would be powerless to enforce that. Seriously. That's the point I made several comments ago that you decided to dispute. Which now you are making yourself?
Sure, like let's not be silly and absurd and refuse to consider the possibility Apple might leave the EU?
> Also it’s the cost of compliance that has to surpass their profit
Right, but the fines the EU issues are from their global revenue. While I think this is reasonable, for the same reasons it's a problem that the rich can speed and not care about a fine, but it could well be enough for Apple to withdraw.
It’s a rough not very educated estimate of what proportion of their global revenue Apple might lose by complying with the regulations ( I’d personally bet it’s significantly less than that). Do you have a better figure?
Once again, you're just making assumptions. So, all this time you've just assuming the max fines won't apply - that's the entire crux of your argument, right?
As where I've been talking about a situation where the max fines are being imposed.
I really don't think you're reading or keeping the context of the discussion in mind when replying. I have no other explanation for you assuming 2% and asking if I have a better figure in spite of me specifically citing the max fine number as a prerequisite for my scenario numerous times.
No, it’s still a problem for apple because they won’t leave. Even in the absurdly inconceivable (to an extent that it’s not even worth discussing) case that they did losing a significant proportion of their revenue would be a much bigger problem for them than the EU.
Less than 20% of Apple’s net income comes from what they call “Europe”, which actually includes Africa and the mid-East.
If Apple pulled out of the EU, which isn’t even all of the European continent much less the “Europe” reporting region, they would probably take less than a 10% hit. Significant, but not a showstopper. I don’t know where everyone gets this idea that pulling out of the EU would kill Apple.
It wouldn’t. It would still be an immensely absurd thing to do. I assume Apple is not run by 12-year olds, why would they lose 15-20% (probably closer to 20%, EMEA seems to be ~27% and besides Britain the EU would be the overwhelming majority of what’s left) of their revenue out of spite when realistically they are only risking 1-2% by staying?
They are just trying to find the “optimal” way of complying with the regulations while maximizing their income.
Apple even continue to follow all Russia demands even though they only sell subscriptions there and accept payments on App Store. E.g few days ago they removed VPN apps from App Store due to demands of Russian government.
The difference is that China’s domestic requirements don’t require Apple to become a non-profit. If the EU’s requirements are actually as many HN’ers would like them to be, Apple will have no reason to sell iPhones in the EU.
Apple still makes significantly more money from selling the actual iPhones than from the App Store.
This such an obvious fact that anyone even mildly interested in the topic (i.e. commenting here and making such strong, yet silly, claims) surely must know..
If that were true, Apple wouldn’t care to poke the bear.
If you were honest, you would read Apple’s SEC filing, which show that (globally) about 43% of Apple’s profits come from Services, while 57% comes from hardware. You could just admit that you don’t understand the difference between revenue and profit. I’m sure you’ll move the goalposts and claim that’s “significantly” more.
The EU wants to zero out Services revenue, while simultaneously removing Apple’s brand value (a curated “walled garden”, where app developers can’t take too much advantage of customers).
The alt stores in the EU will be a race to the bottom of which one allows developers to abuse customers the most. Why would any app stay on Apple’s store when alt stores allow more invasive privacy violations? And then when the app ecosystem on iOS looks like Android, what possible reason could you have to buy an iPhone?
So, yes, the EU very much wants Apple to be a non-profit.
> If that were true, Apple wouldn’t care to poke the bear
They are just searching for the optimal way of complying with the regulations while maximizing their income .
you do have a valid point about services being a larger % of their net income than I implied but that includes Apple Care, iCloud, the estimated $20(?) billion from Google that’s basically pure profit and is massively inflating the services segment’s margins? What proportion is left to the App Store? Who cares let’s just ignore that I guess..
> You could just admit that you don’t understand the difference between revenue and profit
Ok, that’s that, you’re either being obtuse or worse. Either way no point in continuing this silly discussion. But no, most of what you’re saying makes very little sense
So instead of losing 5% or so of their revenue in the EU they’d rather lose > 80-90% seems like a smart business decision…
In any case (not quite the same but gives a glimpse into their mindset) they have zero issues with kowtowing to authoritarian regimes like those in Russia or China
> So instead of losing 5% or so of their revenue in the EU they’d rather lose > 80-90%
They would directly lose ~40% of profit. Additionally, there’s no reason to buy an iPhone if it just works like an Android, so Apple would be competing with Samsung hardware on price instead of on having a superior customer experience. So there go the other ~60% of profits.
So, yes, pulling out of the market completely starts to look like a rational business decision.
How did you come to that conclusion. Doesn’t “services” include the $20 billion get from Google per year which is basically pure profit? Also Apple care, icloud etc etc. how would that be impacted?
> Additionally, there’s no reason to buy an iPhone if it just works like an Android
Why would it work the same as an Android? Most people don’t use third party appstores or side loading anyway…
> So, yes, pulling out of the market completely starts to look like a rational business decision.
> So instead of losing 5% or so of their revenue in the EU they’d rather lose > 80-90% seems like a smart business decision…
Not sure where you're pulling that 5% figure from, but the EU wants to fine companies like Apple a much larger percentage of their global revenue, not just EU revenue.
If the fines the EU wants to impose are greater than Apple's profit in the EU, indeed it would be a smart business decision to pull out.
> In any case (not quite the same but gives a glimpse into their mindset) they have zero issues with kowtowing to authoritarian regimes like those in Russia or China
Well, duh. Apple are not concerned with a government abusing its own people, they are concerned with a government taking 10% of their global revenue.
> Good thing the fines are optional and can be negotiated down
Source? Which of the fines so far have been negotiated down?
> when apple starts complying with the regulations.
Heh. Or, Apple just starts withdrawing from spaces in the EU because they don't like the EU's behavior. For example, they are withdrawing from the AI space citing that exact reason.
If they are already pulling out of cashcows like AI, is it that much a stretch to think they could withdraw entirely?
Not to mention Apple consideres the regulations to be unclear given the the EC seem to want Apple to figure out the 'spirit' of the law and comply with that instead.
> They could do that, that in no way means that they are planning to
They already do that. Look at what the max fines for say DMA or GDPR allow for. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume all your previous replies are because you haven't actually done this yet.
I guess most Iphones are sold in a bundle with a carrier contract. Those bundles would become impossible. Without this scheme, most Iphone users would notice how overpriced their shiny status symbol actually is.
I think that’s pretty rare in the EU these days and seems to be restricted in some countries at least. You might get some nominal discount but you’re still being billed separately for the device/contract each month
You can just move it after. .local is different from local so there is no clash.