3 ms·

>> 7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes o

>> 7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

chongli 4y ago
So if I’m reading this correctly, it sounds like Apple’s entire system of entitlements, app signing, and controlled access to APIs goes out the window along with it. This should also affect macOS which uses entitlements the same way.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Not necessarily. What I think will go away is the annual developer fee, since the provision specifies access to the OS and features must be free of charge. Apple may charge separately for access to the App Store and developer tools if it so chooses. However, I predict that once it becomes viable due to the law, a new community of FOSS developer tools will arise.
  - chongli 4y ago
    What’s interesting is the wording of the law does not seem to include free access to services provided by the “gatekeeper.” So Apple could presumably still lock away access to push notifications, Maps, iCloud storage, etc. I suppose all of those features could be provided by 3rd parties through their own servers though.
    - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
      Exactly. I think that's a very reasonable posture. At the end of the day, the whole deal over sideloading was about not being forced to use Apple's services, not to use them for free.
      - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
        I want sideloading because I want to run a GameBoy emulator on my iPhone. Not because I don’t want to be forced to use the App Store (though I don’t want that either). The demand for sideloading is two-pronged: devs want sideloading because Apple’s App Store policies are unnecessarily restrictive in some ways (e.g. private APIs) and capriciously enforced; end-users want sideloading because the single App Store fundamentally restricts choice and end-user freedoms (if you want an App that necessarily needs to use a private API or, say, a first-party PornHub app, then you’re 100% SOL without jailbreaking or using dev/corp sideloading). Actually I’m curious how Apple’s EU sideloading will compare to the existing dev/corp sideloading system: e.g. https://osxdaily.com/2016/01/12/howto-sideload-apps-iphone-ipad-xcode/ https://osxdaily.com/2016/01/12/howto-sideload-apps-iphone-i...
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      That's what Android has done all this time in terms of Google services, so it's a well-established preexisting model.

chongli 4y ago

So if I’m reading this correctly, it sounds like Apple’s entire system of entitlements, app signing, and controlled access to APIs goes out the window along with it. This should also affect macOS which uses entitlements the same way.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Not necessarily. What I think will go away is the annual developer fee, since the provision specifies access to the OS and features must be free of charge. Apple may charge separately for access to the App Store and developer tools if it so chooses. However, I predict that once it becomes viable due to the law, a new community of FOSS developer tools will arise.
- chongli 4y ago
  What’s interesting is the wording of the law does not seem to include free access to services provided by the “gatekeeper.” So Apple could presumably still lock away access to push notifications, Maps, iCloud storage, etc. I suppose all of those features could be provided by 3rd parties through their own servers though.
  - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    Exactly. I think that's a very reasonable posture. At the end of the day, the whole deal over sideloading was about not being forced to use Apple's services, not to use them for free.
    - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
      I want sideloading because I want to run a GameBoy emulator on my iPhone. Not because I don’t want to be forced to use the App Store (though I don’t want that either). The demand for sideloading is two-pronged: devs want sideloading because Apple’s App Store policies are unnecessarily restrictive in some ways (e.g. private APIs) and capriciously enforced; end-users want sideloading because the single App Store fundamentally restricts choice and end-user freedoms (if you want an App that necessarily needs to use a private API or, say, a first-party PornHub app, then you’re 100% SOL without jailbreaking or using dev/corp sideloading). Actually I’m curious how Apple’s EU sideloading will compare to the existing dev/corp sideloading system: e.g. https://osxdaily.com/2016/01/12/howto-sideload-apps-iphone-ipad-xcode/ https://osxdaily.com/2016/01/12/howto-sideload-apps-iphone-i...
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    That's what Android has done all this time in terms of Google services, so it's a well-established preexisting model.