6 ms·

I find that policy entirely acceptable, for the same reasons I think shrink-wrap EULAs should be illegal. This makes me curious about Apple and iOS / OS X. Doe

I find that policy entirely acceptable, for the same reasons I think shrink-wrap EULAs should be illegal. This makes me curious about Apple and iOS / OS X. Does Apple try to require that the user accepts an EULA for the OS after buying Apple hardware?

easton 6y ago
Yes, they do. On the Mac, at least for the longest time, they put a sticker on the shrink wrap for the device that said something to the effect of "By using this device, you agree to the terms of Software License Agreement found at apple.com/legal/sla". Of course, if you didn't agree with that you could return the device or install Windows/Linux, but on the iPhone (which won't activate without agreeing), you can't since the bootloader is locked.
- placatedmayhem 6y ago
  Iirc, those shrink wrap licenses are of questionable enforceability. The Wikipedia entry on "shrink wrap contract" agrees, but I'm not well-versed on the topic.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    Something about this has always confused me... IIUC (at least in US legal system), using software without an appropriate license from the copyright holder is considered a violation of civil copyright law. Suppose that courts deemed shrink-wrap EULAs to be invalid. If the EULA is the agreement that grants end-users permission to use the copyrighted software, would the invalidation mean that users were in violation of copyright law? Or is there a right to use the software that's implicitly granted by the original purchase?
    - johnday 6y ago
      What would you actually be buying, if you bought the software without being legally capable of using it?
      - Consultant32452 6y ago
        You've bought the privilege of being allowed to accept the EULA.
        Ma8ee 6y ago
        It reminds me of a US visa, which is far from free, and you pay for applying whether you is granted it or not. It allows you travel to a border control and ask to be let in. They can refuse you without explanation.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        dayjah 6y ago
        All visas work this way afaik, at least in the few places I’ve traveled where I’ve needed a visa; notably Africa. I met a Italian man at immigration control in Ethiopia, at the Addis Ababa airport, he had been traveling Africa and this was his third attempt to enter Ethiopia. The first two attempts were via land borders with Kenya and he had been turned around both times, despite having a visa, because border control felt it would be too dangerous for a white man to travel through southern Ethiopia at the time. So he had to travel to Nairobi and get a flight; he was admitted this time, but he had to pay for another visa at the airport. Unclear why? He wasn’t best pleased about the whole thing.
        ooobit2 6y ago
        Oh, let's not with my country. We're also the only nation in the world that requires its abroad citizens to pay the same tax rates domestic citizens pay, and only offers a credit-basis for exempting income that you paid taxes on to the country you reside in. It's the reason nearly all US citizens who move overseas eventually give up their citizenship. My great aunt left for Poland 30 years ago, and renounced her citizenship within 3 years because she was paying taxes on everything she earned twice, one under Polish law and again under US law.
        6y ago
    - singron 6y ago
      I think this skips a step. You don't need a copyright license to use software. Copyright only protects making copies, making derivative works, and public performance. This is why shrinkwrap EULAs are a thing. You don't actually need a license, but they claim you agree to one just by opening the shrinkwrap. When you buy a CD or download software, the (presumably) authorized manufacturer or server made the copy that you receive. The idea that you may not be receiving a copy at all and you merely have access through a license is a legal construction that's not well tested in court and to me seems pretty dubious. How can giving someone a transcription of the bits of the software not be a copy of the software? Anyway this court opinion (final appeal in Step-Saver vs Wyse Tech) deals with the issue and you can read what a court thinks: https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/contract/cases/step.htm https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/contract/cases/s... I particularly like this paragraph where they discuss some of the context of the issue even though they decide not to specifically rule on this part. > When these form licenses were first developed for software, it was, in large part, to avoid the federal copyright law first sale doctrine. Under the first sale doctrine, once the copyright holder has sold a copy of the copyrighted work, the owner of the copy could "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without the copyright holder's consent. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350, 28 S.Ct. 722, 726, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908); 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(a) (West 1977). Under this doctrine, one could purchase a copy of a computer program, and then lease it or lend it to another without infringing the copyright on the program. Because of the ease of copying software, software producers were justifiably concerned that companies would spring up that would purchase copies of various programs and then lease those to consumers. Typically, the companies, like a videotape rental store, would purchase a number of copies of each program, and then make them available for over-night rental to consumers. Consumers, instead of purchasing their own copy of the program, would simply rent a copy of the program, and duplicate it. This copying by the individual consumers would presumably infringe the copyright, but usually it would be far too expensive for the copyright holder to identify and sue each individual copier. Thus, software producers wanted to sue the companies that were renting the copies of the program to individual consumers, rather than the individual consumers. The first sale doctrine, though, stood as a substantial barrier to successful suit against these software rental companies, even under a theory of contributory infringement. By characterizing the original transaction between the software producer and the software rental company as a license, rather than a sale, and by making the license personal and non- transferable, software producers hoped to avoid the reach of the first sale doctrine and to establish a basis in state contract law for suing the software rental companies directly. Questions remained, however, as to whether the use of state contract law to avoid the first sale doctrine would be preempted either by the federal copyright statute (statutory preemption) or by the exclusive constitutional grant of authority over copyright issues to the federal government (constitutional preemption). See generally Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964). Congress recognized the problem, and, in 1990, amended the first sale doctrine as it applies to computer programs and phonorecords. See Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5134 (codified at 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b) (West Supp.1991)). As amended, the first sale doctrines permits only non-profit libraries and educational institutions to lend or lease copies of software and phonorecords. See 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b)(1)(A) (West Supp.1991). (Under the amended statute, a purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted computer program may still sell his copy to another without the consent of the copyright holder.) This amendment renders the need to characterize the original transaction as a license largely anachronistic. While these transactions took place in 1986-87, before the Computer Software Rental Amendments were enacted, there was no need to characterize the transactions between Step-Saver and TSL as a license to avoid the first sale doctrine because both Step-Saver and TSL agree that Step-Saver had the right to resell the copies of the Multilink Advanced program.
  - izacus 6y ago
    Do you think you can fight this out in court against Apple?
    - hombre_fatal 6y ago
      Are individuals taken to court over it for "misusing" their Macbooks?
      - izacus 6y ago
        No, they just get repairs and warranty refused at large monetary cost to them.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      It has been possible to run OSX on PCs for quite a few years now courtesy of the Clover and OpenCore apps. There have been countless Github projects, websites, forums etc dedicated to providing material assistance in using them. At no point has Apple ever gone after the websites or individuals despite it being fairly trivial to do so e.g. DCMA or cease and desist letter. In fact Craig Federighi has gone on the record stating that they fully support people hacking the Mac, OSX etc and believe it to be an important part of the ecosystem.
      - Nextgrid 6y ago
        > Craig Federighi has gone on the record stating that they fully support people hacking the Mac, OSX etc Source?
        easton 6y ago
        Video, but: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/25/talk-show-wwdc-gruber-federighi-joswiak/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/25/talk-show-wwdc-gruber-f...
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I strongly suspect that this is not the kind of hacking around he is describing.
- fizzled 6y ago
  When did they stop? I just bought a new MacbookPro yesterday and there was nothing on it like that. Same for the iWatch I bought last year, and the iPhone 6 two years ago. Or is this just software?
donarb 6y ago
All of Apple's EULAs are published on their website. You can download the PDFs and read through them before you decide to purchase software that Apple creates and sells. https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
- matsemann 6y ago
  EULA's are basically unenforceable in Europe, so why bother. For a contract to be valid it has to be understood by both parties, be reasonable etc., and in many countries forcing arbitration on consumer matters is invalid (don't know if Apple has those terms, but many do). Forcing a consumer to read 20+ pages of legalese for each purchase, each app they download etc. is just not feasible.
  - hvdijk 6y ago
    I do not know about the rest of Europe but in the Netherlands, EULAs can be legally binding. That this means users have a lot of reading to do is true but not relevant. Source (in Dutch): https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-van-software-eulas/ https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-va...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lostgame 6y ago
IIRC the existence of such an EULA includes a clause which was the reason behind Apple's successful court case against a company who was selling pre assembled and configured Hackintosh boxes. (Does anyone remember what the name of the company was? It was like 2007-9 or something) IMHO that EULA's main purpose atm is to tell you that you can only install MacOS on, and I quote, an 'Apple-branded computer'. This led to a hilarious habit of Hackintosh users including myself just sticking the Apple stickers from their iPods or other Apple devices on their custom built machines. Wouldn't hold up in court, of course, we were just having fun with the wordplay.
- nodamage 6y ago
  You are correct, the case was Apple v. Psystar: https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 Of particular note in that case is the court ruled that Apple's alleged "monopoly" over the market of "Mac OS-capable computers" was not a valid antitrust market because users knowingly agreed to the EULA restriction limiting installation of Mac OS to Apple computers when they initially purchased Mac OS. I expect this very same issue will come up in Epic's case as well with regard to Apple's alleged "monopoly" over iOS app distribution.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    You need to actually read that case. It was relevant that at the time the plaintiffs failed to show that Apple had a single brand market... Epic did not make the same mistake.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      I have read the case in its entirety, see the entire section under B. Market definition: Alleged "Mac OS-capable computers" market. (It's true that Psystar's attempt to establish "Mac OS" as a single-brand market in section A also failed, but that is not what I am referring to here.) If you have a more substantive criticism feel free to elaborate in more detail, otherwise making a drive by comment to accuse someone else of not reading just seems hostile and unnecessary.
danShumway 6y ago
It's a very good policy, I wish they'd follow it for their own systems. To download free apps off the Mac app store I need to set up an account and provide Apple with an email address, physical address, and phone number. Apps like the Wireguard GUI don't have access to necessary system APIs outside of the app store, so the developers have no way to allow users to sidestep giving Apple that information. I'm forced to use the command line interface from Brew and mess around with network interfaces on my work laptop just because I refuse to give Apple my phone number and home address, even though Wireguard is free and no billing/payment information would be required for me to download it, and even though having an Apple account is completely unrelated to their sandboxing goals or the information that the app needs to run. Bonus points for telling me I'm providing my phone number "for security purposes" but providing no option during signup to use a secure 2FA app instead of SMS.
- cschep 6y ago
  Put in fake data and move on with your life?
  - danShumway 6y ago
    Fake phone number that can recieve verification codes over SMS and allow me to respond to them? If you know an online service that provides that without also requiring me to give it a bunch of personal information, please let me know.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  These links may help you with your issues. https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/72145/can-i-install-or-update-mac-app-store-apps-through-a-command-line-using-terminal https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/72145/can-i-instal... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42353/can-mac-app-store-installs-upgrades-be-automated https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42353/can-mac-app-... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/59479/can-mac-app-store-apps-be-sideloaded https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/59479/can-mac-app-...
  - 6y ago
jariel 6y ago
"I find that policy entirely acceptable" There's a difference between policies that we agree with, and policies that should be policy. I think in this context, the real policy should be regulatory, and it shouldn't allow Apple to even have such a policy or forbid anything. Apple should be allowed to discriminate in their own garden, and/or to rate or group apps based on various factors. So an app that 'requires social sharing and to make a review' receive a negative quality score ranking etc. - but otherwise - 'informed users' can make their own choices.

easton 6y ago

Yes, they do. On the Mac, at least for the longest time, they put a sticker on the shrink wrap for the device that said something to the effect of "By using this device, you agree to the terms of Software License Agreement found at apple.com/legal/sla". Of course, if you didn't agree with that you could return the device or install Windows/Linux, but on the iPhone (which won't activate without agreeing), you can't since the bootloader is locked.

placatedmayhem 6y ago
Iirc, those shrink wrap licenses are of questionable enforceability. The Wikipedia entry on "shrink wrap contract" agrees, but I'm not well-versed on the topic.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  Something about this has always confused me... IIUC (at least in US legal system), using software without an appropriate license from the copyright holder is considered a violation of civil copyright law. Suppose that courts deemed shrink-wrap EULAs to be invalid. If the EULA is the agreement that grants end-users permission to use the copyrighted software, would the invalidation mean that users were in violation of copyright law? Or is there a right to use the software that's implicitly granted by the original purchase?
  - johnday 6y ago
    What would you actually be buying, if you bought the software without being legally capable of using it?
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      You've bought the privilege of being allowed to accept the EULA.
      - Ma8ee 6y ago
        It reminds me of a US visa, which is far from free, and you pay for applying whether you is granted it or not. It allows you travel to a border control and ask to be let in. They can refuse you without explanation.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        dayjah 6y ago
        All visas work this way afaik, at least in the few places I’ve traveled where I’ve needed a visa; notably Africa. I met a Italian man at immigration control in Ethiopia, at the Addis Ababa airport, he had been traveling Africa and this was his third attempt to enter Ethiopia. The first two attempts were via land borders with Kenya and he had been turned around both times, despite having a visa, because border control felt it would be too dangerous for a white man to travel through southern Ethiopia at the time. So he had to travel to Nairobi and get a flight; he was admitted this time, but he had to pay for another visa at the airport. Unclear why? He wasn’t best pleased about the whole thing.
        ooobit2 6y ago
        Oh, let's not with my country. We're also the only nation in the world that requires its abroad citizens to pay the same tax rates domestic citizens pay, and only offers a credit-basis for exempting income that you paid taxes on to the country you reside in. It's the reason nearly all US citizens who move overseas eventually give up their citizenship. My great aunt left for Poland 30 years ago, and renounced her citizenship within 3 years because she was paying taxes on everything she earned twice, one under Polish law and again under US law.
        6y ago
  - singron 6y ago
    I think this skips a step. You don't need a copyright license to use software. Copyright only protects making copies, making derivative works, and public performance. This is why shrinkwrap EULAs are a thing. You don't actually need a license, but they claim you agree to one just by opening the shrinkwrap. When you buy a CD or download software, the (presumably) authorized manufacturer or server made the copy that you receive. The idea that you may not be receiving a copy at all and you merely have access through a license is a legal construction that's not well tested in court and to me seems pretty dubious. How can giving someone a transcription of the bits of the software not be a copy of the software? Anyway this court opinion (final appeal in Step-Saver vs Wyse Tech) deals with the issue and you can read what a court thinks: https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/contract/cases/step.htm https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/contract/cases/s... I particularly like this paragraph where they discuss some of the context of the issue even though they decide not to specifically rule on this part. > When these form licenses were first developed for software, it was, in large part, to avoid the federal copyright law first sale doctrine. Under the first sale doctrine, once the copyright holder has sold a copy of the copyrighted work, the owner of the copy could "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without the copyright holder's consent. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350, 28 S.Ct. 722, 726, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908); 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(a) (West 1977). Under this doctrine, one could purchase a copy of a computer program, and then lease it or lend it to another without infringing the copyright on the program. Because of the ease of copying software, software producers were justifiably concerned that companies would spring up that would purchase copies of various programs and then lease those to consumers. Typically, the companies, like a videotape rental store, would purchase a number of copies of each program, and then make them available for over-night rental to consumers. Consumers, instead of purchasing their own copy of the program, would simply rent a copy of the program, and duplicate it. This copying by the individual consumers would presumably infringe the copyright, but usually it would be far too expensive for the copyright holder to identify and sue each individual copier. Thus, software producers wanted to sue the companies that were renting the copies of the program to individual consumers, rather than the individual consumers. The first sale doctrine, though, stood as a substantial barrier to successful suit against these software rental companies, even under a theory of contributory infringement. By characterizing the original transaction between the software producer and the software rental company as a license, rather than a sale, and by making the license personal and non- transferable, software producers hoped to avoid the reach of the first sale doctrine and to establish a basis in state contract law for suing the software rental companies directly. Questions remained, however, as to whether the use of state contract law to avoid the first sale doctrine would be preempted either by the federal copyright statute (statutory preemption) or by the exclusive constitutional grant of authority over copyright issues to the federal government (constitutional preemption). See generally Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964). Congress recognized the problem, and, in 1990, amended the first sale doctrine as it applies to computer programs and phonorecords. See Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5134 (codified at 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b) (West Supp.1991)). As amended, the first sale doctrines permits only non-profit libraries and educational institutions to lend or lease copies of software and phonorecords. See 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b)(1)(A) (West Supp.1991). (Under the amended statute, a purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted computer program may still sell his copy to another without the consent of the copyright holder.) This amendment renders the need to characterize the original transaction as a license largely anachronistic. While these transactions took place in 1986-87, before the Computer Software Rental Amendments were enacted, there was no need to characterize the transactions between Step-Saver and TSL as a license to avoid the first sale doctrine because both Step-Saver and TSL agree that Step-Saver had the right to resell the copies of the Multilink Advanced program.
- izacus 6y ago
  Do you think you can fight this out in court against Apple?
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    Are individuals taken to court over it for "misusing" their Macbooks?
    - izacus 6y ago
      No, they just get repairs and warranty refused at large monetary cost to them.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    It has been possible to run OSX on PCs for quite a few years now courtesy of the Clover and OpenCore apps. There have been countless Github projects, websites, forums etc dedicated to providing material assistance in using them. At no point has Apple ever gone after the websites or individuals despite it being fairly trivial to do so e.g. DCMA or cease and desist letter. In fact Craig Federighi has gone on the record stating that they fully support people hacking the Mac, OSX etc and believe it to be an important part of the ecosystem.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      > Craig Federighi has gone on the record stating that they fully support people hacking the Mac, OSX etc Source?
      - easton 6y ago
        Video, but: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/25/talk-show-wwdc-gruber-federighi-joswiak/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/25/talk-show-wwdc-gruber-f...
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I strongly suspect that this is not the kind of hacking around he is describing.
fizzled 6y ago
When did they stop? I just bought a new MacbookPro yesterday and there was nothing on it like that. Same for the iWatch I bought last year, and the iPhone 6 two years ago. Or is this just software?

donarb 6y ago

All of Apple's EULAs are published on their website. You can download the PDFs and read through them before you decide to purchase software that Apple creates and sells. https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

matsemann 6y ago
EULA's are basically unenforceable in Europe, so why bother. For a contract to be valid it has to be understood by both parties, be reasonable etc., and in many countries forcing arbitration on consumer matters is invalid (don't know if Apple has those terms, but many do). Forcing a consumer to read 20+ pages of legalese for each purchase, each app they download etc. is just not feasible.
- hvdijk 6y ago
  I do not know about the rest of Europe but in the Netherlands, EULAs can be legally binding. That this means users have a lot of reading to do is true but not relevant. Source (in Dutch): https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-van-software-eulas/ https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-va...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lostgame 6y ago

IIRC the existence of such an EULA includes a clause which was the reason behind Apple's successful court case against a company who was selling pre assembled and configured Hackintosh boxes. (Does anyone remember what the name of the company was? It was like 2007-9 or something) IMHO that EULA's main purpose atm is to tell you that you can only install MacOS on, and I quote, an 'Apple-branded computer'. This led to a hilarious habit of Hackintosh users including myself just sticking the Apple stickers from their iPods or other Apple devices on their custom built machines. Wouldn't hold up in court, of course, we were just having fun with the wordplay.

nodamage 6y ago
You are correct, the case was Apple v. Psystar: https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 Of particular note in that case is the court ruled that Apple's alleged "monopoly" over the market of "Mac OS-capable computers" was not a valid antitrust market because users knowingly agreed to the EULA restriction limiting installation of Mac OS to Apple computers when they initially purchased Mac OS. I expect this very same issue will come up in Epic's case as well with regard to Apple's alleged "monopoly" over iOS app distribution.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  You need to actually read that case. It was relevant that at the time the plaintiffs failed to show that Apple had a single brand market... Epic did not make the same mistake.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    I have read the case in its entirety, see the entire section under B. Market definition: Alleged "Mac OS-capable computers" market. (It's true that Psystar's attempt to establish "Mac OS" as a single-brand market in section A also failed, but that is not what I am referring to here.) If you have a more substantive criticism feel free to elaborate in more detail, otherwise making a drive by comment to accuse someone else of not reading just seems hostile and unnecessary.

danShumway 6y ago

It's a very good policy, I wish they'd follow it for their own systems. To download free apps off the Mac app store I need to set up an account and provide Apple with an email address, physical address, and phone number. Apps like the Wireguard GUI don't have access to necessary system APIs outside of the app store, so the developers have no way to allow users to sidestep giving Apple that information. I'm forced to use the command line interface from Brew and mess around with network interfaces on my work laptop just because I refuse to give Apple my phone number and home address, even though Wireguard is free and no billing/payment information would be required for me to download it, and even though having an Apple account is completely unrelated to their sandboxing goals or the information that the app needs to run. Bonus points for telling me I'm providing my phone number "for security purposes" but providing no option during signup to use a secure 2FA app instead of SMS.

cschep 6y ago
Put in fake data and move on with your life?
- danShumway 6y ago
  Fake phone number that can recieve verification codes over SMS and allow me to respond to them? If you know an online service that provides that without also requiring me to give it a bunch of personal information, please let me know.
aspenmayer 6y ago
These links may help you with your issues. https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/72145/can-i-install-or-update-mac-app-store-apps-through-a-command-line-using-terminal https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/72145/can-i-instal... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42353/can-mac-app-store-installs-upgrades-be-automated https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42353/can-mac-app-... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/59479/can-mac-app-store-apps-be-sideloaded https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/59479/can-mac-app-...
- 6y ago

jariel 6y ago

"I find that policy entirely acceptable" There's a difference between policies that we agree with, and policies that should be policy. I think in this context, the real policy should be regulatory, and it shouldn't allow Apple to even have such a policy or forbid anything. Apple should be allowed to discriminate in their own garden, and/or to rate or group apps based on various factors. So an app that 'requires social sharing and to make a review' receive a negative quality score ranking etc. - but otherwise - 'informed users' can make their own choices.