By far the biggest contradiction on this thread. You don’t want Apple to allow people the freedom to install third party apps under the guise of “malware” or “I don’t need it so no one else does too” mentality.
You aren’t making a point at all. You’re trying to justify your position by ONLY listing Adobe, Microsoft, or Autodesk. Those verifiably legitimate and secure apps from reputable developers does NOT mean a system is NOT less secure by allowing side-loading. For every reputable developer you mentioned…there‘s a shady one as well and you seem to be ignoring that. The simple fact that something that ISN’T legitimate or reputable can be downloaded easily…makes it less secure. macOS and Windows are inherently less secure due to the simple fact that software can be downloaded from anywhere.
I'm not going to try to open your eyes here but my last two cents, here is a recent example for Apple's "good" review team (Feb 2024):
How much do you think a drop in AppStore revenue will effect Apple's stock value? That is likely the biggest reason for these decisions.. Myself as a fairly significant holder of Apple stocks certainly don't want to lose part of my 401K, so that someone can add a emulator (which is pirating BTW - as no one actually owns a real copy of the games they play).
What is the difference between this and having regional control of media rights? Such as watching BBC in Australia? If I have a BBC Licence and want to travel somewhere else, I cannot have access to that programming even if I have that licence. Unless I use a VPN, which is always (attempted) at being blocked.
As I said in another post lately on the forum. I understand Stock holders defending Apple's decision to maximizhe or save their revenue, I wouldn't do different if I were you, the thing I don't understand are normal users who find different excuses to justify it and denying that it has to do with revenue.
I'm with you on the dislike of govt overreach. The smaller and less intrusive a govt, the better.
I'm saying, that when you enter into an agreement with Apple inside the EU, that agreement is not automatically voided, when one of the parties exits the territory of the EU physically.
From what I understand, updates will work during this grace period, which I suppose will be around 60-90 days, which is the max amount of days countries allow you to visit during vacations, or without an special permit.
So far Apple only has to support the Eu decision in the EU; should other countries mandate similar actions then Apple will support those regions until it became easier to make a global change.
You can't have it both ways. People also know it upfront as well. Otherwise, why are we here? I don't believe the EU have control of Apple Products outside of the EU, but happy to be shown this contract or agreement that means people can openly use alternative apps stores outside of the EU.
This is not about who want's it in which way, that's your private decision, it's about contract law. The relation between users and Apple is still governed by a contract. And companies can't change the contract, just because someone is physically crossing a border.
In this case it literally is voided once you live outside the EU long-term.
If you read the "contract" around the DMA decision it is also known upfront.
It’s not always the case. For example GPDR applies to European users wherever they are in the world. The EU could easily mandate that the alternative app stores are made available to Europeans wherever they are.
The Eu ruling is region-specific; to get the benefits, you can't live outside that region long-term.
Rare take, for some reason. But I agree. I want them to harden the walled garden even more and add a moat around it.
It's not. That is my point. Apple's lawyers could invent some language that states otherwise. But this does not mean that any such clause will be enforcable. Anyways, this issue seems to be too abstract for this kind of forum.