Keep in mind, the rumor on these kinda sites was that Apple's USB-C implementation for the iPhone 15 was going to implement MFi and require certified cables. Did everyone forget that?
It never panned out. Not sure if it was never in development or if the anticipatory EU response resulted in Apple pulling back on the concept.
In any event, we should probably wait for the regulatory-compliant version of iOS to actually release before forming opinions on this.
I also think Apple is spreading some seeds to see how the industry and the EU commission will react to that.
Paradox, but when Apple pulls out, market share in the country is increasing.
Temporarily. But Apple will not enjoy direct returns, and only die-hard fans will go for that. The average consumer will go with whatever is intuitive.
I'm getting strong USSR vibes.
Easy, Microsoft.
I guess when the US regulates it is also a Marxist nation?
Apple should severely limit what API's side-loaded apps can access- like ML tools or other optimizations. If the companies don't want to pay Apple, they shouldn't be able to benefit from Apple's innovation.
That would be anti-competitive and Apple can expect a fine marathon like they did with Tinder in the Netherlands.
I'm yet to see a real dev with actual profiting app in Appstore who wants sideloading.
Microsoft?
So you want to pirate Youtube
Docker, Postman and VS Code are where in the App Store? iOS capabilities are more than just what's allowed on there, and the APIs exist to make more out of our apps.
You ignored the rest of my post, whereby you can't even inform the customer about that. It relies on customers know that this is an option on their own. Going back to your original point. This model does not exist in retail. It doesn't even exist elsewhere in Apple's own world. I can install things on my Mac, and subscribe to whatever I want on my Safari browser. Apple doesn't take a cut of any of that. The model they have built here restricts choice and information. It's incredibly anti-competitive. I can only imagine the reaction if Microsoft used their Windows market share to enable this kind of model.
Yeah, never thought I would say this but MS is definitely the much fairer company here.
Cloud services that offer non-reader apps can be accessed and paid for through the internet on iOS. Example: Microsoft made a public show of complaining about Apple's commission and Apple saying that they needed to submit each game individually in the App Store...but then quickly released their cloud gaming service via the browser and never had to pay Apple a dime.
They complained because it's a nuissance for the user having to use Safari for that. An app would be much more convenient.
The landlord cannot impose whatever rules they want though: there are regulations that limit what a landlord can impose to a renter.
Exactly. There are laws.
This is so hilarious. Does this law apply to PS5? Anyone know the scope and how they choose the scope?
The scope of a gaming console is limited vs the scope of a smartphone which is a device practically everyone owns and through which everyone is able to be reached.
If content creators want their sponsor blocks being watched, they can make them well integrated in the video and engaging. If a part of the show is not engaging, why would a viewer be compelled to watch it? This is true for whatever part of the video is not compelling to watch, be it a sponsor block or whatever.
Anyway, you were arguing the poster that wanted to skip the block is a "thief": now you are arguing is "being disrespectful". Those are two very different things, even assuming any of the two have merit, which I think do not.
Ultimately content creators need to make the parts of the video they want to be watched to be engaging as there is no legal nor moral obligation for a viewer to watch any segment of a video they don't find engaging.
I see this extension as a personalized ad which shows me the content that is relevant to me, and not waste my time with content where I would look away. By installing it, we already filter content out where we are confident we are not interested in.
I don't get why not using webkit is so great.
I like WebKit but I also like competition and I want to see how Google Chrome and Firefox fare against Safari on this platform, too.
Censorship gets a bad rep. We high and mighty adults and our wild west rules for the web have made it a nightmare of a place for our kids to explore, such so that contained networks like Tiktok have become the de facto method for them to do so. Thats on us. If it wouldn't get printed in a newspaper it doesn't belong online.
So where should adult content be? Should we all walk to the video store again?
I've been to those websites. The only reason people want Spotify and Netflix sideloaded is to avoid paying a subscription at all using hacked apps. That is piracy.
Their platforms already take care of that.
Because some people want their phones to be a little PC and some people want it to be a console. Neither is right or wrong. Android is a little PC, iPhone is a little console. But the "it should be a PC" people are trying to force their will on the "it should be a console" people and ruin it for us.
This applies to iPadOS as well which is a mere fork of iOS. Apple itself markets the device as a fully-fledged computer, so they already shot that argument to the moon.
Also, the iPhone is not a console since it's not limited to gaming.
Right it's not an app, so of course they wouldn't have to pay Apple. That was never in question. This discussion is about native apps and the app store. The entire reason they went with the browser method is precisely because MS and their customers would've had to pay Apple.
Yup.
Apple does a 100% right thing to not allow emulators on the platform. It's a grey area. They can't check if you own a game or not. Not exactly illegal, but they get smacked by IP owners regularly.
I think there are people who disagree, so that makes it not 100% right anymore. Plus I also haven't asked the billion humans who have thoughts on that to come up with the 100%.
You don't have to buy everything you see in every ad. But by skipping sponsored block you completely remove the ability to communicate with you about the product you might not need today, but might need at some point in future.
By their own choice, which is a core topic in this topic.
People want something for nothing. In this case, it's all of Apple's development tools (Xcode, etc), plus the right to use their IP (all the frameworks and APIs like UIKit/SwiftUI). Building and maintaining these costs money. They are free because they are subsidized by the annual developer fee and the commission. Before the App Store, they were subsidized by a much higher annual developer program fee (up to $3499!) and charging $129 for Mac OS X. If you want Apple to get rid of the commission, prepare for prices elsewhere to go up.
Any data that the development fee which is paid by all those devs does not cover the costs they invest in maintaining it? Judging by their state of their QA I wonder how much they actually invest in that sector these days.
As started in this and many other articles, Apple have worked with thr EU on the regulation so I’d imagine they have a far better understanding of it than you. The regulation is about the ability to sideload not that Apple shouldn’t be paid for the use of their services.
The regulation is about what the regulation says it is, not what individuals here think.
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’
I did not find anything in the law that says that Apple can hide the same fees by mentioning the word "security checks". They can ensure measures but nowhere does it say that these measures can be monetized.
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.
I do that too but I respect my time enough to know what I'm interested in and what not. An extension like that (thank you for the hint) saves me time (or having to click forward).
Or it's not about me being wrong, it's about you not having a concept of respect.
I think everyone has a concept of respect. It does not require everyone to agree with said person's concept, but it exists.
And again someone is using the policy itself to prove the paradigm defined in policy.
MS is a "dominant player" in digital market of xbox games
Sony is a "dominant player" in digital market of PS games
Nintendo is a "dominant player" in digital market of switch games
It's not related to "gaming" or some actual market, they are targeting Apple specifically for being a "dominant player" in digital market of iphone app sales.
So I think question "do consoles get sideloading too" or it only works for someone who was pointed at is still valid.
Games is niché enough to just be a category in each app storefront, with said consoles not having gained nearly enough traction to even be in the realm for consideration. These things are not items that affects every consumer or the main tax-driving entities.
What about the all digital PS4 which has no discs and therefore only one store?
The user practically uninstalled the side-loading at launch.
What is the competition to which you refer? How does Meta requiring you to download Facebook and Instagram from their own website or “Meta Marketplace” app change the competitive landscape for iOS.
Now that both major mobile platforms allow side loading, large companies will be incentivize to remove their apps from the App Store (and Google play store) and require users to download and purchase directly from them. Large companies may also offer deals to smaller developers for exclusive distribution of their apps. Perhaps that’s the completion you’re referring to(?) Developers may have the ability to sign exclusive deals with large companies. However, I’m not sure this ultimately advantages end users. It just changes the market dynamics for developers… which was the point!!!
Nothing of the sort has happened on Android and Android had sideloading since the bronze age.
Indie developers are better off to stay with the Apple App Store.
Free hosting, free reviews, free dev tools. Just share a little portion of your profits, and focus on developing your app.
Dev tools are not free, the App Store is not free either. 30% is also not little.
Imagine being Tim Cook and losing 30% of your money. Imagine being poor and at the bottom end and losing 30% of the little you have, it will probably hurt you even more because you lapse out of minimum living standards.
Windows/Mac is a duopoly. iOS/Android is a duopoly. Which one has lower prices for software?
Lower prices and higher cuts. How is this again supposed to be good for devs?
The criticism seemed to be that Apple is doing nothing for developers and just demanding a cut. I think it is more realistic to say that Apple requires a fee to subsidize the development of the platform and their ongoing contributions to all developers.
Devs pay $99 for the dev tools for which the bulk of it existed the year before, and the year before that.
It is not a "concept", it's a "construct", created specifically for a single case of Appstore (as we don't see any other cases using DMA in other walled gardens), that allows politicians to bypass the judicial system (because there's no monopoly and it's a lost anti-trust case) and enforce whatever they want.
Which other smartphone (which is the #1 mainstream device) has a walled garden without the toggle to sideload?
Politicians are not bypassing anything, they passed this law and no one except, oh coincidence, Apple, Google, Meta and maybe MS) vetted against it.
Not a single customer has been interviewed and confirmed as unaffiliated with said Gatekeppers who said they're against it.
They will not pay a hosting fee.
THey'll pay to use Apple's IP.
They already did that with their $99.
As seems to be the running theme. Browser choice was hated and has faded away. This cookie BS I need to suffer through outside of the EU needs to die. Let me manage that once with my browser security and use of VPN. And now this. It’s performative.
I am actually glad that my grandmother gets asked and informed before someone grinds her data like a perv.
Everyone one including developers and consumers have the full freedom to move to Android. If they stay with Apple, they need to play by Apple's rules that they signed at the beginning.
And if Apple stays in the EU, they have to play by the EU rules, simple as that.
If I signed in the contract that Apple can cut off one of my fingers whenever I say "Android", its enforcement is still invalid and illegal. A contract has little meaning if its content is not following the law.
There's a theory it's the same place where you'll end up if you trace DMA lobbysts' money too.
The DMA gets its money from taxpayers, which includes industry players the same as consumers. If you think there have been funny donations to the EU commission's DMA designation, better to back that one up.
Absolutely zero chance this will fly with the EU if this report is accurate (which I doubt), it’ll end up being more like gatekeeper on the Mac.
I also doubt it. I think it's a field experiment like they sent out the unofficial test memo with the MFi USB-C idea.
Yes, the DMA was specifically made to appease certain lobbying efforts targeted at apple. I mean...it specifically targets apple because some people cannot image the market can support two different but sustainable business models. I mean...Apple is limited access to the digital market they created and some EU people are convinced that is wrong. So here we are.
It specifically targets a wide array of major industry players of which Apple is a part of. Nothing more, nothing less.
You dont have to drink water. You dont have to have a phone.
But in practical real world....you will have to do it. Some corporate app you need, or school needs, or something will force you in the practical sense to do it. This changes everything for everyone...it takes away choice from the majority of consumers.
Comparing water to a random sideloaded app downloaded through an alternative app store is quite of a stunt I think.
Apple’s plans may not be approved by the EU.
Yeah I doubt it as well.
