not the same. I have lots of options for getting games for my PS5. Just last night, I "side loaded" a game I purchased at GameStop. Sony got their cut. GameStop got their cut. The developer got their cut. I paid less than I would have through Sony's store. Everyone was fine.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Report: Sideloading in Europe Will Still Involve App Review and Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except they did. If Apple will not follow EU's ruling, fines are coming. And that's great!
And as it seems from the article, Apple clearly does not follows the DMA requirements.
Wrong about you wanting Firefox for uBlock?
We = me and you. Idk who are "others", but nice try shifting the focus away from stealing from content creators.
With games readily available for download, no one will believe you've bought them. Except very naive guys.
Most consumers are not deeply versed in the restrictions of the App Store. I download an app. If the only option I am presented is to buy something through the app, then most consumers will just click that. If you're not given other options (because Apple won't let it), most consumers aren't going to think "they're not telling me I have other choices. that doesn't seem right...must be because they're not allowed to! TO THE INTERNET FOR RESEARCH!!".
Ek loves to cry about how Apple hurts his business...which is built off devaluing music and hurting artists while also not being a sustainable business model.
Ek is a failure, knows he's a failure, and all the grandstanding has been to try and delay his investors realizing that for as long as possible.
Yeah, that's like ads are working, tenth toothpaste, tenth shampoo. And at some point you just buy it. Called "brand visibility".
Is this something new for you?
Then how do you explain general consumer apps like Netflix, Spotify and Amazon Kindle moving all of their purchasing to the internet successfully? They did it without any in-app communications whatsoever.
You're presenting conjecture. I'm presenting real-world actions by consumers.
Yes. In no moment in the discussion I said "uBlock". That's what you said. Again what you projected in my message. Even when I described my needs for alternative browser already in my previous post.Wrong about you wanting Firefox for uBlock?
Can you read properly or why you're acting like that and fail to discuss properly?
In such case you clearly can't read. Because I did not agreed on what you said.
Uh what? I have physical GB cartridge. What are you talking about? If you believe me or not, I don't care. I have a physical original copy.
I'm just saying that Apple is going to get paid, regardless of whether it's through a commission or higher prices elsewhere, and regardless of whether that's reasonable or not. It just is what it is.
In case you're not getting it, players with enormous economic power, especially monopolies and duopolies, are often subject to special rules and regulations that others are not. The DMA here is a great example of this. Sony does not have the same impact in the gaming space that Apple does in the mobile platform space.
Oh, how mighty have fallen…sad to see Apple tarnishing their brand so much.
Democratization, openness, and federation are clearly the future and if they don’t want to be a part of it, well, it just means they are not going to be relevant anymore.
Democratization, openness, and federation are clearly the future and if they don’t want to be a part of it, well, it just means they are not going to be relevant anymore.
Actually, I'm happy you like to watch ads. It means the system keeps running and I can enjoy the internet with less ads.
Win-win 🤝.
So do you want Firefox for uBlock or not? )))
There's kind of people who never agree.
How does it prevent you from downloading games you don't own.
Last edited:
Half of the people commenting on here have no understanding of what the regulation actually is. There’s nothing relating to Apple not being able to charge for a service. In line with the regulation
‘The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.’
Apple are providing the ability but implementing a security review process, which they are entitled to do so and also entitled to charge for.
Also, to those naive enough to think a company the size of Apple with a massive corporate legal team haven’t interpreted this regulation better than you. They have quite evidently been working in collaboration with the EU on their implementation before implementation to avoid non compliance after the effective date, as they are entitled to do:
‘ A gatekeeper may request the Commission to engage in a process to determine whether the measures that that gatekeeper intends to implement or has implemented to ensure compliance with Articles 6 and 7 are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation’
‘The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.’
Apple are providing the ability but implementing a security review process, which they are entitled to do so and also entitled to charge for.
Also, to those naive enough to think a company the size of Apple with a massive corporate legal team haven’t interpreted this regulation better than you. They have quite evidently been working in collaboration with the EU on their implementation before implementation to avoid non compliance after the effective date, as they are entitled to do:
‘ A gatekeeper may request the Commission to engage in a process to determine whether the measures that that gatekeeper intends to implement or has implemented to ensure compliance with Articles 6 and 7 are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation’
That's cute that you think a trillion dollar company doesn't have lawyers who know every inch of the DMA requirements and haven't found a work around.
That's exactly what he does not understand I'm afraid.
Just as he can't understand that we have freedom on whether we choose to watch the sponsored content or not. From his logic it seems like it's requirement and respectable to watch any sponsorship presented in any video. You must watch fully, with everything. No skipping or you're a thief. Quite crazy logic.
That's cute you think EU can't change their laws easily and add amendment to the law as they need.
And again you bring out the "respect" argument since you likely realize by now you are wrong on the merit of the matter. Said that, I can talk about respect just fine:
I don't believe it's disrespectful for a viewer to skip any part of a video which is not engaging. It's the job of the content creator to be respectful of the viewer time and not waste it with something not interesting.
IMHO a content creator which embeds a segment which is not engaging is being disrespectful towards the viewer's time and should strive to do better in the future.
Sure, not apps plural. They wanted a single, native cloud gaming app. If other devs chose to go through the time and expense of porting a game directly to iOS, rather than streaming a game to users from the cloud, that's on them. Has nothing to do with undercutting anyone. It's simply using a different technology to enable a consumer to play a game. Rather than having individual apps run directly on the hardware, the games are all contained within a single app and run on a server somewhere and then streamed to the user.
This is a good point. I've always seen this fight between Apple vs Spotify/Epic differently than what the surface level interpretation seems to imply. The EU was looking to do something to look like they did something but no one fully considered the outcome and the impending response. It seems to me that Spotify/Epic are actually doing things to undermine the indie dev competition that could otherwise be had by forcing the EU to create insurmountable regulatory hurdles that will ultimately comeback to bite the smaller players.