Apple Again Changes EU App Store Rules and Fees to Comply With DMA

[surferfb]

My point is, that the decision by the court did not question if third party cartridges with original programs (not pirated ones) were allowed to be distributed just because they used parts of the copyrighted software on the console. If that was the case, it would have been a slam dunk for Nintendo and there would have been no need to call the EUCJ to resolve an ambiguity in the law.

Prefacing all of this with the fact that IANAEUL.

Maybe I’m missing something with how the courts in the EU work, but that wasn’t the question the court was asked. The issue wasn’t “can third-party software run without Nintendo’s permission?”, it was “can Nintendo stop others from selling devices that allow unlicensed software to run?” Courts (at least in the US) need to answer the legal question put before them, and Nintendo focused on the circumvention tools, not the apps themselves.

Because the CJEU ruled Nintendo can block unlicensed software, even if it has some legitimate uses, that strongly suggests to me that Nintendo’s code and platform are protected copyright, and that accessing them without authorization (i.e., a license) is infringing IP rights.

If developers could run whatever they want on end users’ devices because they legally bought a copy of Nintendo’s OS as you and @Sophisticatednut are arguing, then modchips should’ve been allowed too. The chips didn’t contain a jailbroken copy of Nintendo’s OS or other infringing code themselves, they modified the code sitting on the (legally purchased) device to access Nintendo’s protected platform to run unlicensed software. But the court ruled that Nintendo could block them (even if some uses were legitimate. If Nintendo (or Apple’s) rights were exhausted because they sold the console (or phone) to the end user, the court wouldn’t have ruled the way they did.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

My point is, that the decision by the court did not question if third party cartridges with original programs (not pirated ones) were allowed to be distributed just because they used parts of the copyrighted software on the console. If that was the case, it would have been a slam dunk for Nintendo and there would have been no need to call the EUCJ to resolve an ambiguity in the law.

If we accept their legal interpretation of how copyright and licensing obligations would apply

that triggering preinstalled code on a user-owned device is a copyright infringement, then every developer needs a license from Microsoft, Google, or Canonical just to call standard OS functions. Scripting a print job on Windows or accessing a camera API on Android would be unlawful without explicit permission from the OS vendor.

The fact the user is independently using the software would mean all modern software development is illegal unless pre-cleared by platform holders, turning runtime interaction into de facto copyright infringement. And every software developer would be under legal obligation to acquire a license to every single platform to protect themselves from any users who might deploy their software unlawfully an violate the copyright

 

[turbineseaplane]

The fact the user is independently using the software would mean all modern software development is illegal unless pre-cleared by platform holders, turning runtime interaction into de facto copyright infringement. And every software developer would be under legal obligation to acquire a license to every single platform to protect themselves from any users who might deploy their software unlawfully an violate the copyright

Don't threaten Tim with a good time!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Prefacing all of this with the fact that IANAEUL.

Maybe I’m missing something with how the courts in the EU work, but that wasn’t the question the court was asked. The issue wasn’t “can third-party software run without Nintendo’s permission?”, it was “can Nintendo stop others from selling devices that allow unlicensed software to run?” Courts (at least in the US) need to answer the legal question put before them, and Nintendo focused on the circumvention tools, not the apps themselves.

Because the CJEU ruled Nintendo can block unlicensed software, even if it has some legitimate uses, that strongly suggests to me that Nintendo’s code and platform are protected copyright, and that accessing them without authorization (i.e., a license) is infringing IP rights.

If developers could run whatever they want on end users’ devices because they legally bought a copy of Nintendo’s OS as you and @Sophisticatednut are arguing, then modchips should’ve been allowed too. The chips didn’t contain a jailbroken copy of Nintendo’s OS or other infringing code themselves, they modified the code sitting on the (legally purchased) device to access Nintendo’s protected platform to run unlicensed software. But the court ruled that Nintendo could block them (even if some uses were legitimate. If Nintendo (or Apple’s) rights were exhausted because they sold the console (or phone) to the end user, the court wouldn’t have ruled the way they did.

Well as a funny side note mod chips are legal and been so for a long while. It’s a question if the user violates copyright, not the chip seller, or them selling it as a primary intent to pirate content( so private copies are fine)

And the courts I and you are referring is the EU court of justice, or as it’s called in the U.S.: the Supreme Court. They do make wide rulings depending on the case. As you can often read in the end of how they interpret the question or might reframe the question.

Here you have two ancient cases from Spain and Italy.

Spanish judge rules X-Box mods 'legal'

Intellectual property loophole

www.theregister.com

Chipping PlayStations isn't illegal, says Italian court - Law & Policy - Breaking Business and Technology News at silicon.com

 

[turbineseaplane]

I continue to be mesmerized by so many people wanting such broad and expansive rights and control for "corporations".

It's like people enjoy being controlled or something.

Then again, it's my understanding that at any given time, even in free countries, about 1/3 of the population is quite susceptible to, if not deferential to, authoritarian ideology and rule.

So ... maybe it does make sense why a certain chunk of people want to be controlled.

It's still a little bizarre to me due to all the downstream implications of it, as well as all the potential things we don't get when living under such control.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Prefacing all of this with the fact that IANAEUL.

Maybe I’m missing something with how the courts in the EU work, but that wasn’t the question the court was asked. The issue wasn’t “can third-party software run without Nintendo’s permission?”, it was “can Nintendo stop others from selling devices that allow unlicensed software to run?” Courts (at least in the US) need to answer the legal question put before them, and Nintendo focused on the circumvention tools, not the apps themselves.

Because the CJEU ruled Nintendo can block unlicensed software, even if it has some legitimate uses, that strongly suggests to me that Nintendo’s code and platform are protected copyright, and that accessing them without authorization (i.e., a license) is infringing IP rights.

If developers could run whatever they want on end users’ devices because they legally bought a copy of Nintendo’s OS as you and @Sophisticatednut are arguing, then modchips should’ve been allowed too. The chips didn’t contain a jailbroken copy of Nintendo’s OS or other infringing code themselves, they modified the code sitting on the (legally purchased) device to access Nintendo’s protected platform to run unlicensed software. But the court ruled that Nintendo could block them (even if some uses were legitimate. If Nintendo (or Apple’s) rights were exhausted because they sold the console (or phone) to the end user, the court wouldn’t have ruled the way they did.

Extra interesting if you also check the EULA for a U.S. purchased switch and EU purchased ones regarding the right to brick it.

Nintendo can disable your Switch 2 for piracy in the U.S., but not in Europe, as confirmed by its EULA

The significant legal differences between the United States and Europe cause Nintendo to punish piracy differently depending on the territory.

en.as.com

I have quoted the parts from the article below

”highlights significant differences in the legal frameworks of the United States and Europe. The following can be read in the EULA for the United States:”

“Without limitation, you agree that you may not (a) publish, copy, modify, reverse engineer, lease, rent, decompile, disassemble, distribute, offer for sale, or create derivative works of any portion of the Nintendo Account Services; (b) bypass, modify, decrypt, defeat, tamper with, or otherwise circumvent any of the functions or protections of the Nintendo Account Services, including through the use of any hardware or software that would cause the Nintendo Account Services to operate other than in accordance with its documentation and intended use; (c) obtain, install or use any unauthorized copies of Nintendo Account Services; or (d) exploit the Nintendo Account Services in any manner other than to use them in accordance with the applicable documentation and intended use, in each case, without Nintendo’s written consent or express authorization, or unless otherwise expressly permitted by applicable law. You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.”

”The most relevant part is at the end of this EULA clause, where Nintendo reserves the right to disable Nintendo Switch 2 consoles if its strict rules are broken, including game piracy. However, this text is absent from the European EULA. The closest version reads as follows:”

“Any Digital Products registered to your Nintendo Account and any updates of such Digital Products are licensed only for personal and non-commercial use on a User Device. Digital Products must not be used for any other purpose. In particular, without NOE’s written consent, you must neither lease nor rent Digital Products nor sublicense, publish, copy, modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble any portion of Digital Products other than as expressly permitted by applicable law. Such unauthorized use of a Digital Product may result in the Digital Product becoming unusable.”

 

[surferfb]

I think you have narrowed it down with what our core disagreement might circulate around.

But that’s the thing it’s a question regarding the software being deployed are enacted by the user. How will you argue that the software developer is violating IP rights when they are at no time violating said rights.

Even if we assume some of your points are correct, your overall interpretation still doesn’t hold water under EU law and leads to legal paradoxes nobody wants.

Let’s take your strongest claims as given:

• Apple’s APIs and libraries are fully protected copyrighted works (even though SAS v. WPL clearly ruled APIs and functionality aren’t copyrightable).
• Any invocation of those APIs by a developer’s app counts as “use” of Apple’s IP that requires a license.
• Apple’s platform restrictions are justified under Article 6 or similar provisions.

How can a developer infringe Apple’s IP when all software execution happens on the user’s device, under their control? Even if we assume Apple’s APIs and libraries are fully copyrighted, and calling them requires a license, your view still fails under EU law.

Directive 2009/24/EC Article 4 grants exclusive rights over reproduction, adaptation, and distribution—but Article 5 allows lawful users to run software and make temporary copies as needed. If calling APIs counted as infringement, these exceptions would be nullified, which contradicts the directive’s purpose.

This is critical: if a user has lawfully acquired the device(as has already been established as a purchase and transfer of ownership)(with iOS and its libraries), then execution of iOS APIs on that device including when invoked by third-party apps are permitted without further authorization. This is settled EU law. The lawful acquirer (the device owner) has rights that are not extinguished just because a developer’s code triggers preinstalled APIs.

When they install a third-party app that calls Apple’s libraries, it’s the user, not the developer, who’s actually “using” Apple’s code.

You're misundestanding and misinterpreting the law.

Article 5 says users have the right to run lawfully acquired software and make temporary copies, but that right doesn’t automatically extend to developers who build commercial apps that rely on invoking Apple’s proprietary libraries. Developers aren’t just passive beneficiaries of user rights, they’re actively creating software that depends on and exploits protected platform code.

When a developer writes code that calls Apple’s APIs, they are reproducing and functionally adapting Apple’s software—an act covered by Article 4 and still subject to licensing. The fact that the code executes on the user’s device doesn’t shield the developer from needing permission to use Apple’s IP. Apple’s SDKs, headers, and libraries are protected works, and using them in a commercial product requires more than user possession—it requires a license from the rights holder.

Remember, in the Nintendo case, the consoles were legally acquired. And yet the court ruled Nintendo could block the mod chips from being sold, even if they had legitimate uses. How do you square the circle? The consoles were legally purchased.

2. Misunderstanding of Exhaustion and Lawful Use

The claim that apps invokes Apple’s IP (even if preinstalled), the developer must get a license. But this misreads how copyright exhaustion and user rights work in EU software law.
Distribution right is exhausted once Apple sells the device with iOS and libraries preinstalled. The buyer (end user) is now a lawful acquirer.

What the developer does is provide code that interacts with the user’s device. The developer is not distributing iOS or Apple’s IP; they’re distributing code that expects certain OS features to be present.
It’s akin to writing a Word macro, you’re using MS Word’s runtime behavior, but you’re not copying Word.

As a lawful acquirer of iOS and the iPhone , the user has the right to run and execute that software (Article 5(1)). So when they install a third-party app that calls Apple’s libraries, the actual use of Apple’s code is by the user, not the developer.

The developer does not reproduce or distribute Apple’s code
Your interpretation conflates calling a library with copying or distributing that library. The developer’s binary is their own code and does not contain Apple’s code. Apple’s software is already on the device. EU law requires reproduction or distribution to infringe copyright (Article 4). None of that happens here.


If API invocation were infringement, everyday software development would be illegal
Your theory would mean the moment I run software on any device I would invoke copyright infringement by proxy of the software developer.

And This logic would impose indirect liability on developers for lawful user behavior Developers would be indirectly liable whenever users execute apps that call into preinstalled system libraries.
That would create a bizarre strict liability regime, where lawful user behavior (running software) causes third-party copyright infringement by proxy. That’s a form of copyright by proxy that EU law does not recognize.

So even if we assume that Apple’s APIs and libraries are fully protected IP (which they arguably aren’t, per SAS Institute), the C-159/23 Sony v Datel confirms that using those APIs at runtime is not an infringing act by the developer.

In other words, your position that developers must have a license simply to call Apple’s system libraries fails under this ruling. It rejects any theory that runtime use or invocation is equivalent to reproduction or distribution.

If Apple really wanted to control this, they’d have to prohibit users themselves from running apps that call these libraries, which of course they can’t do because the user owns the device and software copy as a legally purchased product.

Again, I think you are misunderstanding and misinterpreting how the law works.

First, user rights under Article 5 don’t extend to third-party developers. Article 5(1) allows the lawful acquirer to run software and make temporary copies, but that covers the user, not a developer who builds and distributes code that relies on and calls proprietary platform libraries. Developers aren’t just writing neutral code, they’re building commercial products that depend on and execute Apple’s protected software at runtime.

Second, invoking APIs isn’t like writing a Word macro. A macro is executed within a licensed app the user has opened. But apps on iOS link to Apple’s protected libraries at runtime. That’s a technical act of reproduction (even if temporary), and under Article 4(1)(a) reproduction requires the rights holder’s permission es,pecially when the developer knows and intends that the code will rely on Apple’s IP to function.

Third, copyright exhaustion only applies to the distribution right. It doesn’t exhaust the rights to control reproduction or adaptation, which are the rights at issue when a developer creates an app that invokes Apple’s libraries. Just because the code runs on the user’s device doesn’t mean the developer isn’t leveraging Apple’s IP.

Finally, Sony v. Datel (C-159/23) doesn’t say what you claim it does. That case focused on compatibility and anti-circumvention, not on whether invoking protected libraries at runtime requires a license. It didn’t overturn Nintendo v. PC Box, which, again, confirmed that platform owners can restrict unlicensed software access through TPMs (if your theory was correct, they wouldn't have ruled that was legal) and that executing platform code without authorization can still infringe rights, even if it’s initiated by the user.

Under your theory of how this all works, any developer could freely build commercial software that calls into proprietary platforms like Photoshop or MS Office, so long as the end user owns a legal copy. You could sell an app that depends on Adobe Photoshop’s internal libraries to render or manipulate images, without ever licensing Adobe’s SDKs, because the app “just runs on the user’s machine.” You could build and sell tools that programmatically call into Microsoft Office’s internal APIs, because “the user owns Office.” This logic would let any developer feely commercialize and exploit someone else’s protected software, without permission, as long as they avoided bundling the target’s code. That’s not how IP law works, in the EU or anywhere else. IP protection isn’t nullified just because the user has a legitimately acquired copy.

If we accept their legal interpretation of how copyright and licensing obligations would apply

that triggering preinstalled code on a user-owned device is a copyright infringement, then every developer needs a license from Microsoft, Google, or Canonical just to call standard OS functions. Scripting a print job on Windows or accessing a camera API on Android would be unlawful without explicit permission from the OS vendor.

The fact the user is independently using the software would mean all modern software development is illegal unless pre-cleared by platform holders, turning runtime interaction into de facto copyright infringement. And every software developer would be under legal obligation to acquire a license to every single platform to protect themselves from any users who might deploy their software unlawfully an violate the copyright

You're conflating public APIs on open platforms (like Windows, Android, Linux) with proprietary SDKs tied to closed ecosystems like iOS. Microsoft and Google explicitly license their APIs under clear developer terms, developers agree to those licenses when using the SDKs. That’s how lawful use is granted. They have given explicit permission.

But Apple’s iOS APIs and tools are not freely licensed or open by default. They’re available only under Apple’s Developer Agreement, which includes terms about App Store distribution, payment, and use of proprietary frameworks. If you sidestep those terms but still write code that relies on Apple’s proprietary libraries, you’re not just interacting with public infrastructure you’re leveraging protected IP without a license.

This doesn’t mean all development requires individualized licenses for every OS. It means that you need a license when your code relies on protected, non-public platform software that isn’t freely licensed for general use. That’s true in the EU and everywhere else.

 

[surferfb]

I continue to be mesmerized by so many people wanting such broad and expansive rights and control for "corporations".

It's like people enjoy being controlled or something.

Then again, it's my understanding that at any given time, even in free countries, about 1/3 of the population is quite susceptible to, if not deferential to, authoritarian ideology and rule.

So ... maybe it does make sense why a certain chunk of people want to be controlled.

It's still a little bizarre to me due to all the downstream implications of it, as well as all the potential things we don't get when living under such control.

And it mesmerizes me that so many people are fine with property rights being taken away because "Apple is a big company." Rights are rights, and should apply equally if you're big or small. When they start applying differently, history shows we start running into trouble.

 

[breenmask]

Nah, I still prefer Apple devices so I'm good, thanks.

Great, so sideloading isn't as important as everyone makes it to seem.
You're welcome.

 

[jlc1978]

Great, so sideloading isn't as important as everyone makes it to seem.
You're welcome.

Sideloading would simply be a way for Apple to extract itself from many of the existing and proposed regulations since they no longer would be a gatekeeper in the sense it would be possible to completely sidestep them.

It would also make piracy easier, lowering consumer prices even more. That would probably lead to fewer pay once apps and more subscriptions as developers try to protect their revenue.

 

[djphat2000]

Well thinking more fully renting. Not a payment plan.

Meet you half way and say Lease.

This logic “everyone agreed from the start, so what’s the problem?” sounds reasonable until you realize that competition law exists precisely to step in when those initial agreements become unavoidable due to market power.

That seems to be some inherent built in mechanism to prevent being to successful. If the original plan was accepted, and nothing changed except more developers and consumers purchased and or are making products for the iPhone. I'm failing to see why anything needs to be done. There is an alternative platform. And it's more open by default. With many more brands at different price points and feature sets to pick from.

Market power in this instance was gained by creating a product people wanted to buy. And developers wanted to "develop" for. Everyone wins in this situation. Apple sells a great product and makes money. Developers sell their software/services to more customers. Customers get better hardware, and more software they want. Governments get sales/VAT/Duty/taxes/fees from all these transactions. What's the issue?

Sure, developers agreed to Apple’s terms. But that doesn’t make those terms immune from scrutiny once Apple gained entrenched gatekeeper power over a critical access point to millions of users.

And how many of the millions of users are asking any government to solve this? This isn't even a consumer problem. As most consumers that want "more" than Apple gives. Simply purchase an Android phone.
I'm still failing badly to understand how Apple became a gatekeeper with all this power of critical anythings.
All I see though is developers got greedier. This is the genesis of all of these issues.

 

[wbeasley]

Nah, I still prefer Apple devices so I'm good, thanks.

So knowing Apple lock the AppStore and dont do what you want, you still prefer Apple devices...

The "logic" there defies me...

Is it some variant of Stockholm Syndrome?

"I hate you but love you..."

Just buy the Android device. It meets your needs rather than your wants.

 

[Ubuntu]

Great, so sideloading isn't as important as everyone makes it to seem.
You're welcome.

Nah it’s important, although not a necessity. I actually quite like the iPhone being simple and not a mini computer like android, I just don’t like how Apple dictates what can and can’t be on iOS without there being an alternate way.

So knowing Apple lock the AppStore and dont do what you want, you still prefer Apple devices...

The "logic" there defies me...

Is it some variant of Stockholm Syndrome?

"I hate you but love you..."

Just buy the Android device. It meets your needs rather than your wants.

Sure, these are complex products that have many advantages and disadvantages. You don’t have purchases you enjoy but feel could be better?

 

[breenmask]

I just don’t like how Apple dictates

I've never used or seen a perfect product so it's ok to not like aspects of a product. Doesn't mean we should enact laws to change in the way we want to.

 

[laptech]

Apple do not seem to get it, the DMA is basically saying you cannot charge developers for using external links. If an app developer wants to put an external link in their app that tells the user to go to the app developers website to upgrade or buy stuff, Apple is saying the app developer has to pay for this feature and the DMA is saying no they shouldn't.

The EU will wait till Apple implement it's changes and then hit it again saying they are breaching the DMA.

 

[Ubuntu]

I've never used or seen a perfect product so it's ok to not like aspects of a product. Doesn't mean we should enact laws to change in the way we want to.

It's possible for both to be true. I don't really like the laws being brought in when maybe the people making those decisions don't fully understand the logistics, but at the same time I do think it would be beneficial for Apple to loosen its grip a bit.

At the end of the day the Mac works well despite not requiring the App Store, but Apple exaggerates the impact of the iOS App Store on the security of iOS, imo.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

It's possible for both to be true. I don't really like the laws being brought in when maybe the people making those decisions don't fully understand the logistics, but at the same time I do think it would be beneficial for Apple to loosen its grip a bit.

At the end of the day the Mac works well despite not requiring the App Store, but Apple exaggerates the impact of the iOS App Store on the security of iOS, imo.

Whereas I think that different schemes can apply better to different classes of device. I love my MacBook and would get as grumpy as everyone else here if Apple were to lock macOS down as tightly as iOS. I have yet to be convinced that opening iOS up is a good idea. Someone did propose a schema for opening up iOS that I could reluctantly live with, but while I know it can’t, I’d rather the overall model stay as it is.

 

[wbeasley]

Nah it’s important, although not a necessity. I actually quite like the iPhone being simple and not a mini computer like android, I just don’t like how Apple dictates what can and can’t be on iOS without there being an alternate way.

Sure, these are complex products that have many advantages and disadvantages. You don’t have purchases you enjoy but feel could be better?

youve had the same set up of apps for more than decade.
it's Apple's way of doing it.

to continue to push for something radically different when an alternative that suits your needs exists...

your idea of better isnt mine...
i've had more than enough people (myself included) get PC viruses from dodgy links and malware apps posing as real ones. wasted so much time reinstalling OS and app and reloading data.

i like the closed Apple-approved apps and an environment that treats the phone as a consumer device rather than a general purpose computer. the sales growth over the years would show many regular phone buyers are also happy.
we dont get people whinging about tvs or toasters needing to be open.

and you all seem happy to go along with game consoles being closed...

it is what it is.
accept it or go Android

 

[wbeasley]

Whereas I think that different schemes can apply better to different classes of device. I love my MacBook and would get as grumpy as everyone else here if Apple were to lock macOS down as tightly as iOS. I have yet to be convinced that opening iOS up is a good idea. Someone did propose a schema for opening up iOS that I could reluctantly live with, but while I know it can’t, I’d rather the overall model stay as it is.

totally agree.

i love my desktop and laptop Macs. Love their openness to install what i want because these apps need bigger screens, more horsepower and do jobs i would never expect a pocketable device to do.

and i prefer my phone to be more like a calculator or torch.
you use it to do a simple job.
the fact we can add some approved apps to make them more useful is wonderful.
but i dont want backdoors to steal my banking data or drain my battery or steal my photos.

not once have i seen a credible app that cant be installed on an iPhone with legal mass appeal.
if you can name one, feel free.

if you need some wifi sniffer, VPN or similar then a lightweight laptop is going to give you that app and a bigger screen and keyboard/mouse to use it well...

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

totally agree.

i love my desktop and laptop Macs. Love their openness to install what i want because these apps need bigger screens, more horsepower and do jobs i would never expect a pocketable device to do.

and i prefer my phone to be more like a calculator or torch.
you use it to do a simple job.
the fact we can add some approved apps to make them more useful is wonderful.
but i dont want backdoors to steal my banking data or drain my battery or steal my photos.

not once have i seen a credible app that cant be installed on an iPhone with legal mass appeal.
if you can name one, feel free.

if you need some wifi sniffer, VPN or similar then a lightweight laptop is going to give you that app and a bigger screen and keyboard/mouse to use it well...

For me, the iPhone needs to cater to a wider audience. Everyone and their dog has a smartphone, so I want that my smartphone is tightened down a bit more, and is more straightforward conceptually. Some of the people in my circle aren't going to use a computer, but rely on their smartphones. Those people need to be considered too. There are a lot of them, and they deserve consideration as much as the rest of us!

 

[surferfb]

For me, the iPhone needs to cater to a wider audience. Everyone and their dog has a smartphone, so I want that my smartphone is tightened down a bit more, and is more straightforward conceptually. Some of the people in my circle aren't going to use a computer, but rely on their smartphones. Those people need to be considered too. There are a lot of them, and they deserve consideration as much as the rest of us!

In fact, there are a lot more of them than there are technically inclined users. Probably hundreds of millions more.

The idea “it’s your own fault if you get pwned, so there’s no issue” is a classic case of people projecting their biases onto the situation.

I’m not criticizing anyone for wanting it, or for wishing Apple offered it. I’m sure there are some Android “power user” features I would take advantage of. But I am going to criticize people for selfishly trying to take the option for a locked-down platform away from others when it isn’t even important enough issue for them to switch to the platform that offers it.

 

[Ubuntu]

and you all seem happy to go along with game consoles being closed...

it is what it is.
accept it or go Android

Did I say that? I'm not, really, no. My PS5 has a disk drive because I don't like Sony having complete control over the prices of digital purchases. Same goes for my Switch.

And I guess I won't need to go for Android because it seems the walled garden is crumbling. I don't enjoy it, especially as a developer, but tbh Apple could have avoided this. Look at how they're responding to the DMA. First time it was so maliciously compliant and now they're stepping back a bit but it's of course just unnecessarily complicated so that no one will use it. The result? Probably more legal action against Apple. Great.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple could have avoided this

That's the big takeaway from all of it.

Over the long term, this will have been a huge miscalculation on strategy from Tim.

 

[Ubuntu]

Whereas I think that different schemes can apply better to different classes of device. I love my MacBook and would get as grumpy as everyone else here if Apple were to lock macOS down as tightly as iOS. I have yet to be convinced that opening iOS up is a good idea. Someone did propose a schema for opening up iOS that I could reluctantly live with, but while I know it can’t, I’d rather the overall model stay as it is.

Overall, I agree. I like the simplicity of the App Store, I like that all my subscriptions are in one place etc.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Overall, I agree. I like the simplicity of the App Store, I like that all my subscriptions are in one place etc.

I have no qualms with it as a great option for folks, somewhat like on the Mac.

There was an alternate reality here where none of this gets to where it is now, likely if Apple had just gotten down to far more reasonable rates over time.

That said, I still think it should be more like the Mac, with notarization and the ability to install from wherever one would like, given an adjustment to settings (more advanced users only, again, like on the Mac).