Spotify, Netflix, kindle, Fortnite are all apps I want side loaded.
People crying piracy, Tim isn't going to rock you to sleep.
People crying piracy, Tim isn't going to rock you to sleep.
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
This is either disingenuous or misinformed. Apple picks and chooses what can be purchased outside of the app store. It falls under their made-up classification of a "reader app."
Nope. I actually have YouTube premium. I want to enhance my experience. SponsorBlock is completely legitimate and legal.
Don't project your own intentions to others.
State Members can set VAT rates within certain limits. There is a standard rate and some goods can have highly reduced rates (typically necessity goods).
According to EU regulation the minimum standard VAT rate is 15%. Most State Members impose a standard VAT rate of 20-25%.
Note that in countries with VAT the VAT tends to be high as it ends up becoming one of the main tax sources in the country due to how efficient it is. For this reason it cannot be directly compared to e.g. a sales tax, which cannot rise to the level of a VAT tax without fostering significant evasion.
Last edited:
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.
No sideloading in the UK one assumes since we shot ourselves in the foot with both barrels by leaving the EU?
So stealing from content creators is legitimate and legal.
I can't project, I'm strongly opposed to sideloading.
I’m getting really tired of the BS games from Apple
How that's stealing? I'm paying for YouTube. Do you even know what SponsorBlock is? It does not affect creators at all. It just automatically skips segments of videos (no ads) just like you can fast forward manually at any time.
You can't and yet you're doing exactly that when you're (wrongly) implying I want to pirate YouTube when you know nothing about me and when I already said I want to sideload for legitimate and non-piracy reasons.
Maybe don't argue about something you know nothing about?
Easy, most of the time sponsored blocks are used in videos without monetization. Usually it's some kind of referral. If you are auto-skipping the ad, it's a guaranteed "no click" on something that could interest you now or at some point in the future.
I can appreciate why you have a hard time seeing the issue here, @hacky, since you are in fact paying for YouTube.
The issue is, it's not YouTube you're stealing from.
Sponsors of shows / channels / videos are not paying YouTube for ad placement. They're paying the Content Creator for a direct placement within the show. Tools like SponsorBlock take eyeballs off those segments, thereby lessening their value to the Sponsor, which decreases the value of the Sponsorship, which in turn takes money out of the Content Creator's pocket.
The sad thing about this, not only are you stealing from the Sponsor and the Creator who's Content you enjoy consuming... ultimately you're hurting yourself. If Content Creators can't get sponsorships because everyone starts using Sponsor Block, they may be less inclined to continue creating content for you to consume altogether.
Nope. It's used in the monetized videos as well.
Again, I'm not skipping the ads. SponsorBlocks fast forwards the video itself. Not the ads. Be it intro part, outro, self propagation. It does exactly what I would do manually by clicking fast forward, just automatically.
And no, creators don't see which exact parts of the video I watched. It does not affect their revenue at all.
Again, don't talk about something, you know nothing about - your argumentation is just plain useless then.
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.
Very wrong.
creators don't see which exact parts of the video I watched. It does not affect their revenue at all.
It's really dumb to call someone thief for fast forwarding the video parts which are not interesting for the viewer. (And I'm not talking about ads)
Costco hosted merchandise in this analogy is the apps on the AppStore, not iPhones.
You pay a shelf fee just like you pay for hosting apps.
Only difference this time around is that the apps, based on some informed hypothesis, won't be hosted on Apple's servers but still scrutinized like AppStore hosted ones. We haven't yet seen this mechanism in action though.
You justified piracy in your head enough to think you are not hurting anyone.
All your "use cases" for sideloading so far is to take someone's revenues. Any real use cases?
Don't pretend you haven't seen "most of the time".
Don't pretend you don't know what "referral link in description" is.
Stop repeating this please, let people decide themselves who knows and who doesn't.
This is incorrect: The landlord stated the rules before renting, so you rent from someone else if you don't like that landlord's rules.
There is no contractual obligation for a viewer to watch a YouTube video in its entirety. Even if that action would cost a content creator "revenue", there is no obligation for a viewer to provide that revenue to the content creator.
Your projection is really breathtaking.
- auto fast foward in the video service I'm paying for is not piracy. I'm not taking anyone's revenue.
- I've mentioned proper alternative browser. Firefox. How that's taking someones revenue?
- emulators - how that's taking anyone's revenue, when I already own the games I want to own and when you can not buy them again for iPhone (Gameboy games in particular)
So again, you are so wrong and you are projecting your weird thoughts into my posts. Wake up.
@MacBuddyz give this post 👎 if you agree with me fully and if you're just trolling me. Thank you.
Last edited:
The landlord cannot impose whatever rules they want though: there are regulations that limit what a landlord can impose to a renter.
There's this funny thing in social norms called mutual respect. Someone provided you with entertainment or useful info, why'd you take his revenue in return.
That's how standard retail works. Customers are expected to educate themselves on the options. The idea that iPhone users don't understand that they have access to information outside of the App Store doesn't really make any sense. It's not the 1990s. Consumers know that the internet and web sites exist and that commercial products/services can be purchased online.
This is so hilarious. Does this law apply to PS5? Anyone know the scope and how they choose the scope?
The spirit of the law is not the law. If lawmakers can't write a law clearly, the fault lies with them. No one (at least in countries with the rule of law) is required to follow the "spirit of the law" they are required to comply with the letter of the law.
The day Apple gets sl
I understand. So out of mutual respect you buy from every affiliate link that is in or below a youtube video. That makes sense.