5 ms·

I don't understand the situation. If you publish a popular app via an alternative app store and don't pay Apple, Apple can still block/remove your app? Then w

• graemep 3y ago
  The point is malicious compliance with EU regulations. They cannot overtly say they are not going to do what they were told to.
  • a_wild_dandan 3y ago
    How could the EU strongly respond to Apple's malicious compliance here? (Assuming regulators see blatant violation in Apple's new policy.)
    • malermeister 3y ago
      The digital markets act allows for fines of up to 20% annual turnover for repeat offenders.
      • graemep 3y ago
        I assume Apple would have consulted lawyers before doing this. WOuld they really take such a risk. I believe actual fines tend to be far lower.
• joshstrange 3y ago
  Apple will no longer block apps based on content, only on malware or accessing private apis. That is the change that 3rd party app stores bring. You could now have porn apps, emulators, copyright infringement (though I assume the rights holders will come after the 3rd party store in that case) and Apple will notarize them so they can be distributed on 3rd party stores.
• nottorp 3y ago
  As it is now, you cannot publish an app on an alternative app store without Apple's permission. The financial part doesn't even matter, they're still reserving the right to censor.
  • anfilt 3y ago
    I would say it's the right of exclusion that they keep post sale via cryptography.
• realusername 3y ago
  You are right, right now there's no point to it and I doubt that'll be good enough for the EU.
• Tagbert 3y ago
  The removing of the app is not the problem. Apple requires signed apps before they can be installed. They retain the right to remove apps specifically for security violations. This does not give them the right to block apps based on content or similar factors. You could publish a porn app that Apple would normally disallow. In this program Apple would not try to prevent that from being installed. If it started stealing user credentials, then their security provisions would come into play and the app would be removed.
  • asadotzler 3y ago
    This absolutely gives them the ability (they have all the rights here, and publishers and users have none -- they only need abilities) so your entire line of argument is rendered silly and moot. What they can do they can do and no amount of fanboy defense changes that. Apple has given itself the ability (rights are immaterial, you have none) to do this, and that's that.
    • Jcowell 3y ago
      You’re arguing ability when they are only taking about rights
    • Tagbert 3y ago
      We all have abilities. Some of those abilities are anti-social and destructive. We use society, laws, regulations to set bounds on those abilities. Under these new regulations, it is clear that Apple would not be allowed to remove apps arbitrarily. That is why Apple is clarifying the conditions under which it might. You can through silly terms like “fanboy” around all you like but that is not the basis of why I said that Apple would not block apps outside the the reasons that they stated. Edit: BTW - I’m not saying that I like all of the rules that Apple has proposed for handling alternate apps stores. Some of those rules are almost spiteful. They are clearly following the letter of the regulation more than the spirit and are stacking the deck in their favor.