No more sideloading for you || Android 14 could prevent users from sideloading outdated apps ||

[darknessblade]

26 minutes ago, tikker said:

What about the other side then? They develop Android (at least mostly, from what I know), it's their product. Doesn't that mean that they can do whatever they want with it, because it is their property? Why can you tell them what to do with their software, but they can't decide what to do with their software?

Because of consumer protection laws.

If they do not act in the best interest of the consumer, they should be forced to do so.

 

Them creating a product does not mean they are entitled to say what you can and cannot do with the product even after you bought said product.

 

Why do you think I used those ILLEGAL warranty void if removed stickers as a clear example.

If companies where to do whatever they want with their "product/property" even after you bought said product. does not entitle them to say that you cannot do XXX with your product.

If that was the case, they could even say you are no longer allowed to use the product if said sticker is damaged.

 

[wanderingfool2]

4 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

Because of consumer protection laws.

If they do not act in the best interest of the consumer, they should be forced to do so.

 

Them creating a product does not mean they are entitled to say what you can and cannot do with the product even after you bought said product.

You purchased the product with it's at the time current software.  You did not purchase the product and own the rights to any changes made to the software in the future.  If you don't like what the changes are then you are welcome to say you dislike the change but you are not entitled to say that you deserve the update while demanding the changes not be made.

 

They aren't applying these changes retroactively, and they gave a justifiable reason why they are doing so.

[darknessblade]

13 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You purchased the product with it's at the time current software.  You did not purchase the product and own the rights to any changes made to the software in the future.  If you don't like what the changes are then you are welcome to say you dislike the change but you are not entitled to say that you deserve the update while demanding the changes not be made.

 

They aren't applying these changes retroactively, and they gave a justifiable reason why they are doing so.

In that case do you think Filmora "wondershare" should be allowed to one-sided remove all LIFETIME licenses?

Since as you said the user bought it at that time, and if they do not like the changes they should go back to a older version {if that even is possible}

 

 

Or teamviewer trying to force people who have a lifetime license to change it to a subscription model?

 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

12 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

In that case do you think Filmora "wondershare" should be allowed to one-sided remove all LIFETIME licenses?

Since as you said the user bought it at that time, and if they do not like the changes they should go back to a older version {if that even is possible}

 

 

Or teamviewer trying to force people who have a lifetime license to change it to a subscription model?

That's a strawman argument.

 

Teamviewer case, Linus has to stay with the old version which the perpetual license belongs with (as it's part of the contract)

 

Filmora, well my view on that is that they were within their rights...but it makes it worse for them that they stated not a lifetime license, but a lifetime updates where in the FAQ they implied the updates included version changes.

 

You purchased the phone, you do not have the right to free upgrades if the manufacturer decides not to.  It's like me trying to claim that since I purchased Windows 10 I should get Windows 11 for free (it is within MS's right to not provide it for free).  Anyways, don't like the update, then don't update it.  You do not own the rights to what the company can do with updates.

[porina]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So I don't think it's necessarily straightforward to just look at the year it was released in

Agreed. The thought did cross my mind but I didn't want to over complicate the post.

 

2 hours ago, darknessblade said:

Even if they are a ""Business"" they are using a OPEN SOURCE system, and further locking it down is not really that "open source" if you ask me.

Android and even iOS are open source. At least, the lower level parts are. That doesn't in itself prevent layering closed source features on top of it. 

 

2 hours ago, darknessblade said:

If they handed me the device 100% free of charge it would have been a different story. But since I purchased the device it is 100% my property, and they CANNOT tell me what I CAN and CANNOT do with MY DEVICE.

You are welcome to run whatever you can on the hardware, such as the older version of the OS or an alternative. It is your choice if you don't want to install a newer version that does something differently. Every OS (and updates thereof) comes with certain decisions that you may or may not like. 

[tikker]

49 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

Because of consumer protection laws.

If they do not act in the best interest of the consumer, they should be forced to do so.

Within reason, first of all. It doesn't have to become a reverse "customer is king" dictatorship. Secondly, in the case of not allowing outdated apps using old APIs, the security argument can be a rather valid one, because apps that have not been updated in years and are not allowed or no longer present on the appstore may no longer be fully safe in light of known exploits. You can thus argue that they are acting in the consumers best interest.

49 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

Them creating a product does not mean they are entitled to say what you can and cannot do with the product even after you bought said product.

And you buying a phone does not entitle you to dictate how they further its respective OS.

49 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

Why do you think I used those ILLEGAL warranty void if removed stickers as a clear example.

If companies where to do whatever they want with their "product/property" even after you bought said product. does not entitle them to say that you cannot do XXX with your product.

If that was the case, they could even say you are no longer allowed to use the product if said sticker is damaged.

For those stickers you can more easily argue that they serve no real purpose in protecting the consumer than not allowing outdated apps using old APIs. The XDA-dev article mentions Marshmallow will be the lower limit. That released in 2015. If an app has not updated its API use for 7-8 years then yeah I can see that as a valid argument for security concerns.

[Holmes108]

1 hour ago, darknessblade said:

Because of consumer protection laws.

If they do not act in the best interest of the consumer, they should be forced to do so.

 

 

 

?? In what regard? That's not just some blanket truth. It would depend on what you're talking about. Things don't have to be all for the consumer, full stop. Nor should we want it to be. The system should be mutually beneficial. 

 

 

[Commodus]

2 hours ago, darknessblade said:

The way I look at it is if it is not stopped right now, Google will further lock down android, making Sideloading a thing of the past.

That is why it needs to be stopped before they have even the chance to implement it.

 

Even if they are a ""Business"" they are using a OPEN SOURCE system, and further locking it down is not really that "open source" if you ask me.

 

Also your statement regarding owing  completely unfettered access. Is completely false.

 

IT IS MY DEVICE AND I WANT TO DO WITH IT, WHAT I WANT TO DO.

It is not up to some company to tell me what I cannot do with MY DEVICE, that I PAID FOR with MY MONEY.

 

If they handed me the device 100% free of charge it would have been a different story. But since I purchased the device it is 100% my property, and they CANNOT tell me what I CAN and CANNOT do with MY DEVICE.

 

 

I wouldn't have expected anything else from people who had never known any PROPER consumer protection in their own country.

 

Unlike in the USA and Canada Companies cannot Bribe Lobby against consumer protection regulations in the EU.

Just look at the right to repair act in New-York that recently got botched trough Bribing lobbying efforts by big tech.

_____________________

It still baffles me that soo many people think companies can do whatever they want with something they created. without anything or anyone to stop them.

 

Consumer protection regulations exist for a reason.

If they did not exist, companies would just say ""Warranty void when opening the box it is packaged in"" Just like those Illegal warranty void if removed stickers many PC manufacturers used in the old days.

https://www.ifixit.com/News/11748/warranty-stickers-are-illegal#:~:text=Most consumers don't know,language of your warranty says.

 

Making ANY defect no matter what, a YOU problem. even if that defect is a DOA out of the box. [broken screen], when you have opened right in front of the Seller's/company's employee their eyes. they will deny any rights you as a consumer would have had with proper consumer protection.

 

I generally echo what Tikker said. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, built-in security systems are horrible crimes as they won't let you install malware. The reality is that it's Google's platform, and it's allowed to set parameters for use. Open source means Google is required to share any code it writes under that open source license; it's not obligated to let you do anything you like within the operating system, or even to open source every component.

 

Remember, any Android phone with the Play Store and Google apps is using proprietary code. And of course, manufacturers and carriers can add their own proprietary elements.

 

This is why I still find it amusing that Google shouted "Android is open! Open open open open open!" in the OS' early days. In practice, Google, vendors and carriers call most of the shots — they're interested in making money, not a Richard Stallman-like FOSS utopia. That's not automatically a problem, but it does mean that you're not really making a principled stand against the 'evil' Apple; unless you run AOSP, you're just trusting different big companies.

[starsmine]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

Games. Game developers, particularly on Android, but iOS don't update just to work on newer versions of the OS. But the uproar will be worse on Android simply because developers on Android find it difficult enough to develop ANYTHING for Android in the first place, when on iOS, the biggest obstacle is Apple's approval (who won't approve apps for some very arbitrary or stupid reasons,) not the OS. 

 

So now throw in "we're ripping out old API's cause they're insecure" and you will have applications and even some games that access the camera (eg Unity) just go "NOPE." 

 

I don't imagine there will be too many applications that are sideloaded that "don't work" unless the app uses API's that get ripped out of the OS, which might itself only be things like accessing the Camera, Microphone and GPS.

Any game so old that it uses long depreciated API calls can be emulated on a new layer and not installed onto the system.

Depreciated API calls are depreciated for a reason. And its because it was unfixable without refactoring.

Anyone here arguing they should let you use API calls that are long depreciated because reasons are insane. 

Heads up, no other significant operating system lets you do this. That is why old windows applications do not work without an emulation layer. You cant just sideload windows 95 applications onto windows, I cant run my 16bit x86 assembly programs on windows. I have to run it on a different layer(such as dosbox that emulates a pc running dos), and that layer is a different piece of software entirely. Linux locks you out of old APIs all the time, and its fully open. 

This isnt draconian, this isnt locking you into the playstore. 

[Vishera]

It isn't really an API, It's the SDK version that the app was compiled with,

Every Android version has it's own SDK version, Google doesn't support nor maintain older SDK versions,

As for the "deoecrated API calls" argument - I can install apps made for Android 1.0 just fine, after more than a decade now it's suddenly an issue?

This makes zero sense.

Not only that you can also have the issue that the Google play store would only support apps for devices with Android 12 and newer,

So if you have Android 11 or older you won't be able to use the play store!

 

As for the sideloading they don't want you to make apps that work on older versions of Android, period!

 

It smells like planned obsolescence, it looks like planned obsolescence, It is planned obsolescence!

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

Any game so old that it uses long depreciated API calls can be emulated on a new layer and not installed onto the system.

And, just how do you get it there? For "emulating" games on dosbox, you need GOG, or keep around a pile of 5.25" floppies and CD-ROM's. When those media die, you're stuck with whatever got put on GOG and whatever people pirated during peak MSDOS time, exactly because of this reason.

 

You can't layer emulation on top of emulation and expect the latency of the native application. The best thing that has happened since "64bit" is that DOSBOX can be compiled as 64-bit on 64-bit only platforms, including ARM Mac's. However guess what DOSBOX sucks at? Using newer API's. It still uses SDL1.0 and refuses to update because it will lose the ODD support. Versions you get officially from them are 32-bit, ancient SDL1 versions, and lack some other support like MIDI, because platforms like Windows and MacOS no longer have a MIDI system to play music on.

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

Depreciated API calls are depreciated for a reason. And its because it was unfixable without refactoring.

Microsoft had no reason to remove DirectMusic except to piss off the few owners of games that used it (eg Final Fantasy 7 and 8 PC versions), most DOS games running DosBox just needed a "General Midi" device.

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

 

Anyone here arguing they should let you use API calls that are long depreciated because reasons are insane. 

Nah, If you are playing a game, you have a reasonable expectation that the game will run on the same device, in perpetuity, and any subsequent device, or the game developer should re-release it on the new platform/OS.

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

Heads up, no other significant operating system lets you do this.

Lie. Windows bends over backwards to allow 16-bit games work on 32-bit OS's and 32-bit games work on 64-bit OS's. If Microsoft didn't give a care, they would have released Windows Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 as 64-bit only from the get go.

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

That is why old windows applications do not work without an emulation layer. You cant just sideload windows 95 applications onto windows, I cant run my 16bit x86 assembly programs on windows. I have to run it on a different layer(such as dosbox that emulates a pc running dos), and that layer is a different piece of software entirely. Linux locks you out of old APIs all the time, and its fully open. 

This isnt draconian, this isnt locking you into the playstore. 

Windows is the exception to the rule in many ways because we've been using 32-bit CPU's since 1987 with the 386. Windows didn't catch up to "32bit" until way late in the Windows 3.11 era with the Win32s subsystem, Windows 95 kept 16-bit crap around at the expense of safety, and the first "safe from crashing" was Windows 2000. But like Vista and 8 later, Microsoft ripped the bandaid off too quickly and had to back off and put more compatibility things back into it. That's how we got XP, 7 and 10. 

 

MacOS will let you run old stuff, and made an effort into having compatibility libraries and systems. MacOS X let you run "Mac Classic" software until the Intel CPU's. Intel CPU's let you run OSX PPC binaries with Rosetta, and then the 64-bit migration and later ARM migration.

 

If anything Apple has only ejected compatibility with changes in CPU's. Where as Microsoft would keep it around.

 

Google, on the other hand. Well they have no experience and are a full 27 years less experienced than Apple and Microsoft when it comes to operating systems, and it shows pretty hard with Android, and "Chromebooks".

MS-DOS was 1981, Android was 2008.

 

The fact that Google feels that it should be ripping out functionality, just shows they treat Android like they treat the Chrome browser, something that they can rip functionality out without discussion, and "f those guys who complain."

 

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

And, just how do you get it there? For "emulating" games on dosbox, you need GOG, or keep around a pile of 5.25" floppies and CD-ROM's. When those media die, you're stuck with whatever got put on GOG and whatever people pirated during peak MSDOS time, exactly because of this reason.

?????????
You dont need gog at all. for 90% of dos games, all gog does is preconfigure dosbox. 
As for when media dies? that is a non issue because of back ups. 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

You can't layer emulation on top of emulation and expect the latency of the native application. The best thing that has happened since "64bit" is that DOSBOX can be compiled as 64-bit on 64-bit only platforms, including ARM Mac's. However guess what DOSBOX sucks at? Using newer API's. It still uses SDL1.0 and refuses to update because it will lose the ODD support. Versions you get officially from them are 32-bit, ancient SDL1 versions, and lack some other support like MIDI, because platforms like Windows and MacOS no longer have a MIDI system to play music on.

Sometimes, sometimes not, some times emulation is just saying, hey I see you called this, lets use this instead, its no more then a couple of extra clocks at most, and its not like reflections dont happen in emulators that can just inject code to eliminate some wasted cycles. 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Microsoft had no reason to remove DirectMusic except to piss off the few owners of games that used it (eg Final Fantasy 7 and 8 PC versions), most DOS games running DosBox just needed a "General Midi" device.

 

Nah, If you are playing a game, you have a reasonable expectation that the game will run on the same device, in perpetuity, and any subsequent device, or the game developer should re-release it on the new platform/OS.

 

Lie. Windows bends over backwards to allow 16-bit games work on 32-bit OS's and 32-bit games work on 64-bit OS's. If Microsoft didn't give a care, they would have released Windows Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 as 64-bit only from the get go.

The way they have 16 bit work on 32 bit and 32bit work on 64 bit are compatibility layers. but as you pointed out here to, 16bit programs dont run on modern OS. 
hell you know what also doesnt run, most windows 9x games.

It was nice that windows 7 pro came with a free VM to run windows xp inside windows 7 because xp has the ability to run most windows 9x games. That is gone, getting windows 9x games running today from their base media is nigh impossible with exceptions.

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

 

Windows is the exception to the rule in many ways because we've been using 32-bit CPU's since 1987 with the 386. Windows didn't catch up to "32bit" until way late in the Windows 3.11 era with the Win32s subsystem, Windows 95 kept 16-bit crap around at the expense of safety, and the first "safe from crashing" was Windows 2000. 

 

Windows 2000 is a completly different kernal with NT, it, and its previous versions of NT dont run dos natively. 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

But like Vista and 8 later, Microsoft ripped the bandaid off too quickly and had to back off and put more compatibility things back into it. That's how we got XP, 7 and 10. 

????? what?

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

 

MacOS will let you run old stuff, and made an effort into having compatibility libraries and systems. MacOS X let you run "Mac Classic" software until the Intel CPU's. Intel CPU's let you run OSX PPC binaries with Rosetta, and then the 64-bit migration and later ARM migration.

exactly, Rosetta is a compatibility/emulation layer, but even then it doesnt run everything that powerPC did. It was up to software developers to still port their software over, and if they didnt, and rosetta didnt run it, well, the user is SOL

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

 

If anything Apple has only ejected compatibility with changes in CPU's. Where as Microsoft would keep it around.

 

Google, on the other hand. Well they have no experience and are a full 27 years less experienced than Apple and Microsoft when it comes to operating systems, and it shows pretty hard with Android, and "Chromebooks".

MS-DOS was 1981, Android was 2008.

 

The fact that Google feels that it should be ripping out functionality, just shows they treat Android like they treat the Chrome browser, something that they can rip functionality out without discussion, and "f those guys who complain."

 

Microsoft left OS/2 warp dead in the water as well. look at all the support OS/2 programs have running on modern windows.... there is none.
You have to either VM it, or what people do now is run something like ArcaOS to keep those programs up and running.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

?????????
You dont need gog at all. for 90% of dos games, all gog does is preconfigure dosbox. 
As for when media dies? that is a non issue because of back ups. 

What backups. Are you seriously suggesting that people kept their bloody floppy disks and CD-ROM's somewhere backedup? That's exactly what copy-protection was intended to prevent you from doing. The software companies never wanted you to be able to make a backup, and if you want to play some game from 1981-1991, chances are the only viable copy is a pirated version if it's not on GOG. The problem that we had with backing up game console carts applies equally to magnetic media and optical media. Once those devices die, you're left with a piece of plastic that nothing can read.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

Sometimes, sometimes not, some times emulation is just saying, hey I see you called this, lets use this instead, its no more then a couple of extra clocks at most, and its not like reflections dont happen in emulators that can just inject code to eliminate some wasted cycles. 

That's how DirectX has worked since DX9. Good luck playing anything made before DX9. Hell you know what actually is happening? You know that Portal RTX game? You know how that's accomplished? DXVK.

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

hell you know what also doesnt run, most windows 9x games.

I can name a handful of games that required VXD nonsense. The original release of Ultima 9 was a specific example of a game that only worked on 98, and would not work on any other version of the OS. Pirate versions and later GOG releases would remove that DRM.

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

 

It was nice that windows 7 pro came with a free VM to run windows xp inside windows 7 because xp has the ability to run most windows 9x games. That is gone, getting windows 9x games running today from their base media is nigh impossible with exceptions.

That XP VM didn't let you run games. It did not emulate a GPU, it was intended to run a headless copy inside Remote Desktop.

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

Windows 2000 is a completly different kernal with NT, it, and its previous versions of NT dont run dos natively. 

Windows 2000 and Windows NT4 look like Windows 95/98 but their commandline was far more capable of "emulating DOS" than the current version. There was a sound driver you could install that I forget the name of, that would restore sound blaster functionality, and the NT4/2K/XP OS would work on most DOS games that didn't do funky memory management like Ultima 7.

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

You have to either VM it, or what people do now is run something like ArcaOS to keep those programs up and running.

In an ideal situation there would be a standard "game platform" and games would just work on everything, no questions asked, because the OS's would only have to know how to run "game image", no installing crap, no having to tamper with settings or patches. The OS would just prevent something like a raw Vulkan interface to the image, and that would let reduce the complexity of what the OS has to understand, instead of having to do that with the game engine 5 separate times.

 

But games are only half of what you can do with a computer or smartphone. Applications have far more core rot.

[starsmine]

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

What backups. Are you seriously suggesting that people kept their bloody floppy disks and CD-ROM's somewhere backedup? That's exactly what copy-protection was intended to prevent you from doing. The software companies never wanted you to be able to make a backup, and if you want to play some game from 1981-1991, chances are the only viable copy is a pirated version if it's not on GOG. The problem that we had with backing up game console carts applies equally to magnetic media and optical media. Once those devices die, you're left with a piece of plastic that nothing can read.

A. yes people backed up their bloody floppys and cd roms, it was not that uncommon to. 
B. copy protection back then was stuff like use your manual for a secret keeeeeeeeeey
c. I dont know what you think a pirate copy is but a back up that people shared.  Like its not something abhorent. Its literally a backup of the disk img. 

 

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That XP VM didn't let you run games. It did not emulate a GPU, it was intended to run a headless copy inside Remote Desktop.

 

Damn, How did I play games on that VM then. it will forever be a mystery. Yes it did not have GPU pass through, its not like most windows 95/98 games even used a gpu. We were playing adventure games back then mate. 
 

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Windows 2000 and Windows NT4 look like Windows 95/98 but their commandline was far more capable of "emulating DOS" than the current version. There was a sound driver you could install that I forget the name of, that would restore sound blaster functionality, and the NT4/2K/XP OS would work on most DOS games that didn't do funky memory management like Ultima 7.

Better then dosbox? eh. 

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

In an ideal situation there would be a standard "game platform" and games would just work on everything, no questions asked, because the OS's would only have to know how to run "game image", no installing crap, no having to tamper with settings or patches. The OS would just prevent something like a raw Vulkan interface to the image, and that would let reduce the complexity of what the OS has to understand, instead of having to do that with the game engine 5 separate times.

that isnt an ideal, nor does that make a lick of sense. 

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

But games are only half of what you can do with a computer or smartphone. Applications have far more core rot.

You brought up games, and I came in to say its a bunk argument.

[Kisai]

31 minutes ago, starsmine said:

 

Better then dosbox? eh. 

This was literately before dosbox was a thing.

 

31 minutes ago, starsmine said:

You brought up games, and I came in to say its a bunk argument.

Because games never get updated, nor do most (particuarly licensed titles) ever get re-releases. The game gets pushed out the door, and that's it.

 

Mobile games? Code rot everywhere. And it's worse because games not only die from using older API's, they die because the developer can just push a cripple update to the game so that you can't play it anymore, and then run off and say they sunset the game.

 

So no, if you want to play stuff you enjoy, and the developer doesn't give a crap about maintaining it, as soon as your device dies, the game goes with it.

[AlTech]

10 hours ago, Lightwreather JfromN said:

I don't think you understand what open-source is then, this kind of deprecation of older APIs, and instruction sets are done quite regularly (Further Reading: Linux).

Sure but this is an anti-consumer move because of Google overreaching and not just making this affect the Google Play Store.

[AlTech]

8 hours ago, porina said:

iOS are open source.

It literally isn't though.

 

Parts of XNU and Darwin and other insanely low level stuff are Open Source that go into IOS. But IOS is not open source.

8 hours ago, porina said:

At least, the lower level parts are. That doesn't in itself prevent layering closed source features on top of it. 

Android is somewhat open source but a lot of functionality has been extracted out of Android into Google Play Services so that Google has greater control over them.

8 hours ago, porina said:

You are welcome to run whatever you can on the hardware, such as the older version of the OS or an alternative.

You literally aren't with an iPhone. You have to install the OSes that Apple wants you to install on an iPhone or any Apple product. It's part of the Terms and Conditions of using Apple devices. Apple says if you disagree with that then you're not allowed to use Apple devices.

8 hours ago, porina said:

It is your choice if you don't want to install a newer version that does something differently. Every OS (and updates thereof) comes with certain decisions that you may or may not like. 

Except updates don't usually restrict existing functionality to this extent.

[Sauron]

15 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I mean security concerns are a valid point if the older API's are the ones that get targeted.

Maybe adding a warning is warranted, preventing it? I don't see why.

15 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It also allows them to cut API support at the level that they choose, so that that code doesn't need to be maintained/updated.  If it manages to simplify the code base as well, you might get better performance as well (or just in general better security).  It's sometimes about getting rid of the tech debt.

They already cut official support for these APIs, there is no expectation for them to be maintained. If it doesn't work, so be it... but at least let me try?

[porina]

5 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

It literally isn't though.

 

Parts of XNU and Darwin and other insanely low level stuff are Open Source that go into IOS. But IOS is not open source.

I did acknowledge that if you quoted more, but recognise I could have made it clearer that I wasn't talking about the whole stack, just the lower levels.

 

5 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

You literally aren't with an iPhone. You have to install the OSes that Apple wants you to install on an iPhone or any Apple product.

The "or alternatives" was more for Android. I'm not aware of alternatives for iOS, but haven't looked either. Remaining on older version is still an option. Actually, Apple kinda makes that slightly easier to do than Android, in that whenever I've been offered a version update on iOS I have to enter pin to allow it. Android may vary with device but you can more easily click to go through with it.

[Mark Kaine]

"In case of non-compliance, the EC may impose fines on gatekeepers of up to 10 percent of the gatekeeper's total worldwide turnover in the preceding final year, and fines for repeat infringements may be up to 20 percent of total worldwide turnover."

 

 

 

Bold move from alphabet inc, can't wait to see how it turns out for them!

[porina]

19 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Bold move from alphabet inc, can't wait to see how it turns out for them!

What exactly do you think they may be breaking if they go ahead with this? Again, it is the dropping of support for ancient apps, not the blocking of sideloading in general. It would be like fining Microsoft that some software that only runs on Win7 (possibly originally from 2k/XP era) can't run on Win11. Or do you see it differently?

[Mark Kaine]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

What exactly do you think they may be breaking if they go ahead with this

The law actually? hence bold move  

[porina]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

The law actually? hence bold move  

Specifically which one?

[darknessblade]

6 minutes ago, porina said:

Specifically which one?

The DMA and DSA regulations

 

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/24/22994234/eu-antitrust-legislation-dma-digital-markets-act-details

[Mark Kaine]

9 minutes ago, porina said:

Specifically which one?

The EU law. (heard of DMA recently? )