iPadOS Identified as Digital 'Gatekeeper' Under New EU Tech Rules

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

EU regulators have designated iPadOS a “gatekeeper” platform under the Digital Markets Act, triggering requirements for Apple to open it further to competition. Commenters debate whether Apple’s tight control over browsers, app distribution, and OS updates is necessary for security and privacy or instead cripples capable hardware, locks in users, and accelerates e‑waste. The move also raises concerns about how consistently EU rules and market-share thresholds are applied, and whether weakening Apple’s walled garden mainly strengthens Google and other large rivals.

Browser Control on iPadOS (Safari vs Chrome)

  • Many argue Apple “cripples” iPadOS by blocking full Chrome/Blink and other browser engines, making iPads worse than cheap Chromebooks for web apps and extensions.
  • Strong split on Safari: some call it junk and point to missing APIs, poor compatibility, and slow update cadence tied to OS upgrades; others praise its speed, battery life, resource efficiency, and privacy.
  • Chrome is repeatedly criticized as a resource hog and “spyware,” with UI “enshittification” (dark patterns, Google account nags, Pay/Lens integrations).
  • Debate over web APIs: some see Chromium’s rapid API additions as privacy‑hostile; others view Safari/Firefox as intentionally cautious.
  • Several see Chrome as the new IE and worry that weakening Apple’s control will just cement a Chrome web monopoly.

EU DMA, Gatekeeper Status, and Thresholds

  • Many think iPadOS clearly functions like iOS and should have been covered from the start; Apple is seen as having used a contrived platform split to delay compliance.
  • Some criticize the EU for stretching its own quantitative thresholds (treating “near 45M users” as sufficient), calling it arbitrary and bad for rule of law.
  • Others point to DMA language about “foreseeable” entrenched positions and argue the EU is acting within the law’s intent.
  • There’s disagreement over whether the EU is unfairly targeting Apple or simply addressing uniquely restrictive app-install policies compared to Android.

Web vs Native, User Choice, and Power Dynamics

  • One camp wants powerful web apps and full browsers to bypass App Store control, enable richer SaaS, and avoid “install our app” pressure.
  • Another camp dislikes web/electron apps, push notifications, and hardware-access APIs, preferring native apps and a simpler web.
  • Some argue current debates are driven more by corporate interests (Apple vs Google/Meta vs developers) than by what end users actually want.

Longevity, E‑Waste, and Lock‑In

  • Older iPads that can’t run new apps (e.g., Zoom) are cited as wasteful compared to old Macs that can run Linux.
  • There is disagreement over how much Apple “forces” developers to drop old devices versus tooling/SDK incentives making backward support impractical.
  • Several see opening mobile platforms (side‑loading, alternative OSes) as both a competition and e‑waste issue.

iPad Hardware vs Software Limitations

  • iPad Pro hardware is widely praised, but many feel iPadOS arbitrarily limits “real work,” forcing users to keep a Mac as well.
  • Wishes range from dual‑booting macOS to simply having a real CLI and fewer artificial restrictions.