5 ms·

I was under the impression the App Store was indeed ruled a monopoly and that Apple was going to be made to open up third party app stores?

iLoveOncall 2y ago
In the EU only
whimsicalism 2y ago
they still have to go through Apple review & still have to pay Apple a revenue cut, so it's basically been defanged
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  I mean, the review part I support. The revenue part is fucking horseshit.
  - tencentshill 2y ago
    What percentage do you think is fair to allow for a quality code review?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      > percentage Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that may or may not be fair: $1000.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      None. Code review is about ensuring the user has a good experience, which Apple claims to value. Pay for it then with some of the absurd profits they've made off of me purchasing Macs and iOS devices regularly for the last decade or so.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like my computer, should be able to install whatever code I damn well please.
    - atrus 2y ago
      > My phone Maybe that's the assumption you need to change
      - weikju 2y ago
        Correct - but the assumption we need to challenge is the one from the makers of the phones and computers.
    - ribosometronome 2y ago
      The idea that we aren't allowed to sell limited purpose electronics seems pretty novel. A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?
      - Spivak 2y ago
        Stallman literally buzzing with excitement at the prospect. Honestly if you're gonna go, you should probably go all the way in the manner you describe and level the playing field for everyone.
      - tadfisher 2y ago
        What is the downside for the consumer here? Put all the scary warnings in front that you want, just have a "developer mode" toggle that unlocks the bootloader and lets us run arbitrary code. There's a huge reverse-engineering hurdle to get over anyway, this just stops the cat-and-mouse game of having to find exploits to run code on your device.
        ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > What is the downside for the consumer here? Destroying their products and flooding customer support with dozens of stupid "I know what I'm doing and your stupid machine stopped working, your product sucks! I want a free replacement" type tickets. Don't get me wrong, I'd like very much to have the ability to do that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of good reasons, not even consumer hostile, to not let people muck about in firmware. To be honest, and this is purely fantasy, but I would absolutely love some kind of "I am a techie" registration process that would: - Let me access functions like customizing firmware - Always elevate my support tickets to tier 2 (yes I turned the fucking thing off and on again, if I'm calling you I have a REAL problem) - Always ensure I get the "grown up" interface for settings and customization
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    The review is very TBD for me. If they really do just check for viruses that's fine. But if it's basically the App store rules without the App store, or we get "we don't like your app" cases like Beeper than this basically ruins the point of an alternative app store. The Apple cut is also absurd but I'm sure that will be rectified sooner rather than later.
  - NotPractical 2y ago
    The review part is much more concerning IMO and completely exiles FOSS from the platform (free as in the GNU definition -- you should be able to make arbitrary changes to your copy of the app without some asshole from Apple telling you that they believe your changes constitute a joke or prank [1]). The review part also re-enforces the revenue part because it costs $100/year to submit apps for EU notarization. [1] Section 1.1.6: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
dialup_sounds 2y ago
There's two+ different things happening that are easy to get mixed up: In the US, after Epic Games v. Apple, Apple is required to open up in-app purchases to third parties. In the EU, the Digital Markets Act declares the App Store a gatekeeper and requires Apple to support third-party stores.
kelnos 2y ago
Only in the EU. This court case is about the US, where Apple does not have to allow third-party app stores.
tiledjinn 2y ago
Epic v Apple the court decided not to answer the question of whether Apple is a monopoly.

iLoveOncall 2y ago

In the EU only

whimsicalism 2y ago

they still have to go through Apple review & still have to pay Apple a revenue cut, so it's basically been defanged

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I mean, the review part I support. The revenue part is fucking horseshit.
- tencentshill 2y ago
  What percentage do you think is fair to allow for a quality code review?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > percentage Already we're asking the wrong questions. A flat fee that may or may not be fair: $1000.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    None. Code review is about ensuring the user has a good experience, which Apple claims to value. Pay for it then with some of the absurd profits they've made off of me purchasing Macs and iOS devices regularly for the last decade or so.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  I think it should all be circumventable. My phone, like my computer, should be able to install whatever code I damn well please.
  - atrus 2y ago
    > My phone Maybe that's the assumption you need to change
    - weikju 2y ago
      Correct - but the assumption we need to challenge is the one from the makers of the phones and computers.
  - ribosometronome 2y ago
    The idea that we aren't allowed to sell limited purpose electronics seems pretty novel. A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?
    - Spivak 2y ago
      Stallman literally buzzing with excitement at the prospect. Honestly if you're gonna go, you should probably go all the way in the manner you describe and level the playing field for everyone.
    - tadfisher 2y ago
      What is the downside for the consumer here? Put all the scary warnings in front that you want, just have a "developer mode" toggle that unlocks the bootloader and lets us run arbitrary code. There's a huge reverse-engineering hurdle to get over anyway, this just stops the cat-and-mouse game of having to find exploits to run code on your device.
      - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > What is the downside for the consumer here? Destroying their products and flooding customer support with dozens of stupid "I know what I'm doing and your stupid machine stopped working, your product sucks! I want a free replacement" type tickets. Don't get me wrong, I'd like very much to have the ability to do that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of good reasons, not even consumer hostile, to not let people muck about in firmware. To be honest, and this is purely fantasy, but I would absolutely love some kind of "I am a techie" registration process that would: - Let me access functions like customizing firmware - Always elevate my support tickets to tier 2 (yes I turned the fucking thing off and on again, if I'm calling you I have a REAL problem) - Always ensure I get the "grown up" interface for settings and customization
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  The review is very TBD for me. If they really do just check for viruses that's fine. But if it's basically the App store rules without the App store, or we get "we don't like your app" cases like Beeper than this basically ruins the point of an alternative app store. The Apple cut is also absurd but I'm sure that will be rectified sooner rather than later.
- NotPractical 2y ago
  The review part is much more concerning IMO and completely exiles FOSS from the platform (free as in the GNU definition -- you should be able to make arbitrary changes to your copy of the app without some asshole from Apple telling you that they believe your changes constitute a joke or prank [1]). The review part also re-enforces the revenue part because it costs $100/year to submit apps for EU notarization. [1] Section 1.1.6: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

dialup_sounds 2y ago

There's two+ different things happening that are easy to get mixed up: In the US, after Epic Games v. Apple, Apple is required to open up in-app purchases to third parties. In the EU, the Digital Markets Act declares the App Store a gatekeeper and requires Apple to support third-party stores.

kelnos 2y ago

Only in the EU. This court case is about the US, where Apple does not have to allow third-party app stores.

tiledjinn 2y ago

Epic v Apple the court decided not to answer the question of whether Apple is a monopoly.