Bill Gates (via Slashdot):
It feels like just yesterday that Paul and I were hunched over the PDP-10 in Harvard’s computer lab, writing the code that would become the first product of our new company.
That code remains the coolest code I’ve ever written to this day—and you can see it for yourself at the bottom of this page.
[…]
Paul and I set out to create a BASIC interpreter, which would translate code into instructions the computer understood line by line as the program runs.
[…]
Paul and I decided to divide and conquer. We didn’t have the Intel 8080 chip that the Altair computer ran on, so Paul got to work writing a program that would simulate one on Harvard’s PDP-10 mainframe. This allowed us to test our software without needing an actual Altair. Meanwhile, I focused on writing the main code for the program while another friend, Monte Davidoff, worked on a portion called the math package. We coded day and night for the two months to create the software we had said already existed.
Richard Speed:
The source code is provided as a 157-page PDF [link] of scanned fan-fold paper rather than as source in a convenient repository. An annotated disassembly of Altair BASIC 3.2 can be found on GitHub.
Previously:
BASIC Bill Gates History Microsoft Open Source Programming
Reuters (PDF, Slashdot):
Apple was hit with a 150 million euro ($162.4 million) fine by French antitrust regulators on Monday for abusing its dominant position in mobile app advertising on its devices via a privacy control tool.
[…]
“While we are disappointed with today’s decision, the French Competition Authority has not required any specific changes to ATT,” Apple said in a statement.
Coeuré told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling.
Ben Lovejoy:
Both advertisers and developers of free ad-funded apps complained loudly at the impact of ATT, as it was estimated that it would cost social media companies alone tens of billions of dollars.
Complaints were made in a number of countries – some arguing that it was unfair because Apple exempts its own apps (which are in reality subject to even tighter controls), others saying the loss of revenue forced developers to raise prices to compensate.
Jon Brodkin (Hacker News):
The intent of ATT “is not problematic in terms of the likely benefits for users as regards privacy protection,” but “how the framework is implemented is abusive within the meaning of competition law,” the agency said. Apple’s “implementation methods artificially complicate the use of third-party applications and distort the neutrality of the framework to the detriment of small publishers financed by advertising,” it said.
Third-party publishers “cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligations,” so they “must continue to use their own consent collection solution,” the French agency said. “The result is that multiple consent pop-ups are displayed, making the use of third-party applications in the iOS environment excessively complex.”
[…]
The agency said there is an “asymmetry” in which user consent for Apple’s own data collection is obtained with a single pop-up, but other publishers are “required to obtain double consent from users for tracking on third-party sites and applications.”
[…]
Apple said in a statement that the ATT “prompt is consistent for all developers, including Apple[…]”
Is this actually true? It sounds like when Tim Cook told Congress that Apple’s own apps have to follow the same guidelines as third-party apps. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an Apple app display the “Allow ‘App’ to track your activity across other companies’ apps and websites?” prompt. Apple has defined tracking in such a way that it doesn’t count if you own the app store, so why would they ever show that prompt? I have seen Apple apps show different prompts, and the French Competition Authority includes a screenshot of one.
Nick Heer:
Because the ATT prompt does not allow developers to specify which third-parties are receiving tracking data, developers must include a second opt-in screen that provides more details about how their data will be used. This is fairly granular — arguably too much — but Apple’s version lacks detail. If a user agrees to third-party tracking, is their consent fully informed if they do not know with which advertisers their information is being shared, or even how many? I am not sure they do.
They also seemed to disagree with how Apple defines tracking. German regulators are also interested in what amounts to self-preferencing, even if that is not Apple’s intent. The authority has not yet published the text of the decision, which will hopefully answer many of the questions I have.
One thing I am curious about is how the regulator reconciles Apple’s apparently “not problematic” attempts at improving user privacy with the callous disregard toward the same shown by ad tech companies. Trade groups representing those companies, including the French offices of the IAB and MMA, were among those who filed this complaint. Both trade groups are loathsome; their inability and failure to self-govern is one reason for this very privacy legislation. Yet Apple’s particular definition of “tracking” is something only relevant to very large platform operators like itself. There is very clearly a conflict of interest in Apple trying to apply these kinds of policies to competitors, especially as Apple expands its ads business.
John Gruber (Mastodon):
It’s ostensibly “not necessary” because French and EU privacy laws are supposedly enough, and all that’s needed. And it’s unfair because now, under ATT, third-party surveillance advertisers who seek to track users across apps on iOS need to ask permission twice — first through the clear-as-a-bell “Ask App Not to Track” / “Allow Tracking” prompt required by Apple, and again through the byzantine but ultimately toothless permission requirements of France and the EU. ATT has had measurable effects because users understand it, and they prefer not to be tracked. EU and French privacy laws are largely ineffective because, in practice, they bury users with confusion.
I’m not sure these last two sentences are really true, as Heer also discusses.
Previously:
Antitrust App Tracking Transparency France iOS iOS 18 Legal
Joe Mullin:
In a moment of clarity after initially moving forward a deeply flawed piece of legislation, the French National Assembly has done the right thing: it rejected a dangerous proposal that would have gutted end-to-end encryption in the name of fighting drug trafficking. Despite heavy pressure from the Interior Ministry, lawmakers voted Thursday night (article in French) to strike down a provision that would have forced messaging platforms like Signal and WhatsApp to allow hidden access to private conversations.
Via Irreal:
One of my favorite stories is the probably apocryphal story of some legislature trying to legislate the value of pi. The same mindset is in play with legislators who believe that they can simply will a secure backdoor into existence. The fact that experts everywhere say, “No you can’t.” makes no impression.
Alexander Martin (via Nick Heer):
The European Commission announced on Tuesday its intention to join the ongoing debate about lawful access to data and end-to-end encryption while unveiling a new internal security strategy aimed to address ongoing threats.
[…]
The aim is to “identify and assess technological solutions that would enable law enforcement authorities to access encrypted data in a lawful manner, safeguarding cybersecurity and fundamental rights,” said the Commission.
Previously:
France Legal Privacy Signal WhatsApp
Apple:
Starting today, with the availability of iOS 18.4, iPadOS 18.4, and macOS Sequoia 15.4, Apple Intelligence features are now available in many new languages, including French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Spanish, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese (simplified) — as well as localized English for Singapore and India — and are accessible in nearly all regions around the world.
In addition, iPhone and iPad users in the EU have access to Apple Intelligence features for the first time[…]
I’m not sure why the Mac is absent from that list.
Norbert Heger:
Wasn’t macOS 15.4 supposed to bring support for additional languages like German to Apple Intelligence?
He has the system language set to English (which Apple Intelligence already supported) and is getting an error that Apple Intelligence is not available when Siri is set to German. But it works after changing the system language to German.
Nick Heer:
I remain skeptical that Apple Intelligence was ever “delayed” in the region. Until today, it was only available in variations of English. When Apple announced in November it would be bringing these features to the E.U., it sure seemed like it also needed the time to train its models on a range of new languages reflecting the regions where it would be used.
If Apple was so worried about the wrath of regulators, it could have made accessing Apple Intelligence in the E.U. as complicated as it does E.U.-specific features outside the region. But it did not.
Previously:
Update (2025-04-03): Steve Troughton-Smith:
[The] Mac doesn’t qualify as a VLOP, only iOS and iPadOS. Even if it did, though, it meets most if not all of the DMA requirements anyway, because it’s not locked down like iOS.
Apple Intelligence Digital Markets Act (DMA) European Union iOS iOS 18 Mac macOS 15 Sequoia Siri
