596
submitted 2 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 90 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 44 points 2 months ago

Bored open source devs with a deep hatred for apple: "Challenge accepted"

[-] MinFapper@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago
[-] Dzdzdz@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 2 months ago

Only 2 apps on it with no possibility to sideload cause the apps need to be notarized by Apple :(

[-] taanegl@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 7 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] taanegl@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Such is writing policy. Mayhaps it needs to be reformed down the line as well.

[-] moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 months ago

The EU said the Apple's implementation isn't complying. The rules are clear. Sideloading means sideloading.

[-] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 14 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

The problem is that fixing the loopholes most likely needs changes to the Act itself.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 7 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] themurphy@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
596 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

55692 readers
2665 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS