If the requirements are the same as for iPhones, this change is entirely inconsequential, because Apple can just add so many hurdles to sideloading to make this infeasible.
I remember hearing something about requiring a multi million dollar deposit or something that made it infeasible for all but the largest of tech companies.
By all means. After Apple has painted themselves in a corner, when the legislation has been loophole proofed, that’s when Apple gets hit in the face with the Brussels effect - like a big, floppy, dong slapped across Steve Apple’s mouth in every country out there.
I’ll do a dance for every country. I’ll do a shimmy for Botswana, a conga for Japan, a shake for Sebia, etc, etc.
Slap! Other cheek. Slayap! Other cheek! And so on and so forth.
Loophole-proofing means doing a revision to the DMA, which means that they need to go through all of the stages again. It took three years on the first round, and they’re probably going to need a few more revisions to get all of the holes fixed.
Even if there was, the EU runs on civil law, not common law, which means the intent of the law trumps the wording, and there is no emphasis on precedents. So if an EU judge decides that Apple is fucking around trying to skirt the law, there is no change required to the law to slap them down.
Some think that the EU won’t accept the terms that Apple set up for alternate marketplaces, but it’ll probably take a decade or more until the EU can get off its ass.
The problem is that fixing the loopholes most likely needs changes to the Act itself. That takes years, the first revision of the Digital Markets Act took three years.
The current implementation is what Apple (or Apple’s lawyers) think complies with the EU, this doesn’t mean the EU will fully accept this iteration. Apple is probably mainly playing with time here.
There is no real loophole though. Apple latched on to some part of the Act to justify what they are doing and play for time, while pretending the rest of the Act does not exist. The Act says in no uncertain terms that Apple is not allowed to self-preference - meaning that the alternative app stores must have as much exposure and placement on their platform as their own.
This is not the issue here. The problem is that everybody has to pay through their nose to get the priviledge to publish on an alternate marketplace or be an alternate marketplace.
If the requirements are the same as for iPhones, this change is entirely inconsequential, because Apple can just add so many hurdles to sideloading to make this infeasible.
Bored open source devs with a deep hatred for apple: “Challenge accepted”
I remember hearing something about requiring a multi million dollar deposit or something that made it infeasible for all but the largest of tech companies.
First App Store launched.
https://altstore.io/
https://www.pcmag.com/news/first-third-party-ios-app-store-launches-in-europe
Only 2 apps on it with no possibility to sideload cause the apps need to be notarized by Apple :(
By all means. After Apple has painted themselves in a corner, when the legislation has been loophole proofed, that’s when Apple gets hit in the face with the Brussels effect - like a big, floppy, dong slapped across Steve Apple’s mouth in every country out there.
I’ll do a dance for every country. I’ll do a shimmy for Botswana, a conga for Japan, a shake for Sebia, etc, etc.
Slap! Other cheek. Slayap! Other cheek! And so on and so forth.
Hopefully.
Loophole-proofing means doing a revision to the DMA, which means that they need to go through all of the stages again. It took three years on the first round, and they’re probably going to need a few more revisions to get all of the holes fixed.
There is no loophole though.
Even if there was, the EU runs on civil law, not common law, which means the intent of the law trumps the wording, and there is no emphasis on precedents. So if an EU judge decides that Apple is fucking around trying to skirt the law, there is no change required to the law to slap them down.
Such is writing policy. Mayhaps it needs to be reformed down the line as well.
The EU said the Apple’s implementation isn’t complying. The rules are clear. Sideloading means sideloading.
I don’t see why they wouldn’t be. iPadOS is still basically iOS Double Wide.
The rules will almost certainly be the iOS rules, but find and replace iOS for iPad.
Some think that the EU won’t accept the terms that Apple set up for alternate marketplaces, but it’ll probably take a decade or more until the EU can get off its ass.
If it took a decade, it would be the first time regarding these issues.
EU acted at a week’s notice last time Apple tried to pull shit about third party app stores.
They didn’t hesitate fining both Apple and Google 10% of their turnover in the past either.
The problem is that fixing the loopholes most likely needs changes to the Act itself. That takes years, the first revision of the Digital Markets Act took three years.
The current implementation is what Apple (or Apple’s lawyers) think complies with the EU, this doesn’t mean the EU will fully accept this iteration. Apple is probably mainly playing with time here.
The problem is that fixing the loopholes most likely needs changes to the Act itself.
There is no real loophole though. Apple latched on to some part of the Act to justify what they are doing and play for time, while pretending the rest of the Act does not exist. The Act says in no uncertain terms that Apple is not allowed to self-preference - meaning that the alternative app stores must have as much exposure and placement on their platform as their own.
This is not the issue here. The problem is that everybody has to pay through their nose to get the priviledge to publish on an alternate marketplace or be an alternate marketplace.