Alternative app stores will arive on iOS - but there are substantial caveats

[HenrySalayne]

33 minutes ago, Fnige said:

I love how it took until the second paragraph before apple's newsroom piece talked about malware

Maybe somebody dare to explain how they check and validate (sorry - notarize) every single app but it will still open the floodgates for malware. I certainly can't wrap my head around how this is supposed to work.

[Kisai]

50 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Maybe somebody dare to explain how they check and validate (sorry - notarize) every single app but it will still open the floodgates for malware. I certainly can't wrap my head around how this is supposed to work.

https://www.gamesradar.com/after-23-years-developer-reveals-he-snuck-a-cheat-code-past-sony-that-turns-a-cult-classic-horror-game-into-a-godsend-for-retro-enthusiasts/

 

Quote

Argonaut Games' cult classic survival horror FPS Alien Resurrection has been hiding a secret for 23 years: it contains a cheat code that lets you play backup disks on PS1 without having to mod the hardware at all.

 

Literately that.

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

https://www.gamesradar.com/after-23-years-developer-reveals-he-snuck-a-cheat-code-past-sony-that-turns-a-cult-classic-horror-game-into-a-godsend-for-retro-enthusiasts/

 

 

Literately that.

Sure, but that could happen with any other app on Apple's store as well...

So what is the difference?

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Sure, but that could happen with any other app on Apple's store as well...

So what is the difference?

Imagine putting a game, or an application on the iOS store, Apple goes "nope, this will allow it to run unsigned binaries" Then you don't fix it and stick it on the third party store and they don't check it.

 

Apple "does things" and even retroactively does things so people have confidence they can buy things on the app store that won't harm them.

 

Literately, as much as people want to make the competition argument, the only valid argument they have is the censorship angle.

 

No porn allowed on the iOS devices, yet that would be a VERY good market for it. Payment systems would have a guaranteed way of knowing the person who bought porn on the device did in fact make that payment because they would have needed the physical card to enable the iOS payments.

 

But take that way and put the porn games on a third party store with a third party payment provider, and we're right back to where we were in 2001. No payment provider wanting to provide payment services to adult content because of the high chargeback fraud committed by customers.

 

If Apple doesn't want adult games in the iOS store, then let Japan's DLSite or some other site in Europe operate a site that isn't subject to American nanny-state laws. Then that store can be opt'd into directly by customers who want it, and everyone else gets the exact same iOS store they always had.

 

But I digress, this is just Epic, Ubisoft and EA wanting to put their horribly written bloated store-launchers on the device and keep all the money. If Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft were being told to do the same thing I would be like "okay, let's watch this implode the live services", because I'd love to watch the fireworks fallout from that.

 

People will, not install those third party stores without a carrot incentive, if that game costs $10.00 on the App store, and costs $9.99 on EGS, I'm just going to buy it on the Apple App store and save the frustration of having to deal with another store.

 

I literately do that now with Steam and EGS. I may have got the game for free on EGS, but It's such a pain in the ass to synchronize what is installed, that I've literately bought games on Steam I already had for free on EGS because the DLC was on sale on Steam. 

 

THIS is the problem. On the PC software on Steam, EGS, Windows, Ubisoft, EA, GOG, itch.io, Dlsite, etc are all treated as different programs. Every single file is identical in every version you download, but the Steam version requires the Steam API as a mild form of DRM and achievement tracker, thus the main binary is not the same, and then maybe the developer (eg Activision, Square-Enix) stops updating the Steam version, but updates the GOG version once, so now the Steam and GOG versions aren't even the same version any more. Then you have multiplayer and mods.

 

The situation on the PC is essentially. "Buy all multiplayer games on Steam only." You are for hell if you buy Ubisoft games that need to launch Ubisoft connect.

 

And I don't want that to be the situation on iOS. The user experience matters, and the user experience on the PC is downright miserable because Steam is the standard store for the PC, because it has the first mover advantage AND it made no demands of developers to censor or make exclusive. It's a store, first.

 

Windows store? stores things in seemingly asinine named directories, and should you want to remove something, you are going to spend half a day trying to figure out how to remove botched windows store installs. Again, just like buying something on EGS and then buying it again on Steam to just not bother with EGS, I've done this with Windows Store as well. Windows store is utter hell on Windows. Sure, maybe you might buy once, and be able to use it on all your windows devices, but that's not been the experience for me for anything but MS Office.

 

[SG-O]

I don't think that any of their proposed policy changes complies with the spirit of the DMA. 

Quote

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.

Quote

The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.

I hope that the Commission will fine Apple the full  10% of the total worldwide annual turnover for their malicious compliance.

 

By the way this year is an election year for the European parliament. I encourage all you Europeans out there to write and complain to your representatives, or even call them:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home

 

They usually are more interested in citizens input before elections!

[HenrySalayne]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Then you don't fix it and stick it on the third party store and they don't check it.

But they do! That's the whole point. Every single app (revision) needs to be signed of - pardon me - notarized by Apple. Read Apple's news post again.

Quote

Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a combination of automated checks and human review. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

But I digress, this is just Epic, Ubisoft and EA wanting to put their horribly written bloated store-launchers on the device and keep all the money.

There is an underlying problem you might have missed. If you buy a Netflix membership on your phone, even if you watch Netflix mostly on your TV and your laptop, Apple keeps 30% of the end-user subscription fee for the first 12 month. It's ridiculous. Anything happening on the iPhone - as little as it may be - will be downright extorted by Apple.

Not to mention Apple is directly competing with all these services. They offer music, videos and games. Complaining that other companies "want to keep all the money" is insulting and a gross misrepresentation of reality.

[LAwLz]

I still find it mind blowing that people on this forum will defend the world's richest and most powerful company when they are restricting choise for their consumers and abusing their partners and developers. 

 

This is clearly not following the spirit of the law, and I wouldn't be surprised if the EU will force them do change their approach. On the bright side, they lowered the commissions. 

 

What I really can't wrap my head around is how people can have been fooled into thinking that the chances the EU are proposing would result in chaos and a bad user experience. That's just a massive lie that Apple is trying to push because they don't want to lose potential revenue and lose control over their customers. 

If you think everyone will go under then I'd like to direct your attention to MacOS. MacOS is essentially the same as what the EU want iOS to become. Does MacOS have a massive issue with malware, scam apps and such? No it doesn't. What does MacOS allow you to do that iOS doesn't allow you to do? Sideload apps, install third party stores, change your browser, use alternative payment methods in apps, and a bunch of other things. 

Isn't it amazing that none of the things Apple are saying will happen on iOS haven't happened on MacOS? It's almost as if these hypothetical threats Apple is trying to convince people are real are unlikely to occur... 

[hishnash]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This is clearly not following the spirit of the law, and I wouldn't be surprised if the EU will force them do change their approach. On the bright side, they lowered the commissions. 

 

I think people are projecting a LOT onto this law that was never within the law.

People think the law requires side-loading when side loading would not even fulfil the requirements of the law.   The law is all about areas were a gatekeeper has a monopoly, and the ability for EU bassed companies (or subsidiaries) to compete in those areas.   On the iPhone the lawmakers identified a few areas were apple has a gatekeeper monopoly;

* Web browsers
* App disruption
* NFC card payments 

etc

Side loading itself would not remove any of these.

For WebBrowsing the solution is the new BrowserEngineCore and BrowserEngineKit apis (that are in effect public versions of what webkit is using under the hood).  This allows browser devs to use JIT, and communicate with the iOS browser extension apis so that third party browsers can support browser extensions, it also provides the needed bits so that they can render system UIs were needed within a custom views (like text entry that will auto complete using the same features as Safari). 

For App Distribution MarketplaceKit this is a public api based on what the App Store and TestFlight have been using.  These apis allow the Store to install applications, check if they are running, install updates, communicate with applications they installed, present (secure) remote hosted view controllers within those applications (for IAP flows) etc it is in effect the underly system apis that apple have been using for years now with some documentation. 

For NFC the new Core NFC card session apis expose the private apis that apple uses for contactless payments. 

--

Notice how just enabling side loading would not expose any of these apis and thus would not comply with the law. 
 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What I really can't wrap my head around is how people can have been fooled into thinking that the chances the EU are proposing would result in chaos and a bad user experience.

It all depends on how apple were to comply, if apple did what (many people) wanted and more or less just open sourced the OS removing all security checks, removing all enemenemnt runtime requirements, and let any application have un-constrained access to everything then the fears of chaos would be completely correct but the law never required that and yet people still think it did. 

 

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

MacOS is essentially the same as what the EU want iOS to become.

No that is incorrect reading of the EU law, as I explained above the EU law only applies to areas were apple is deemed to be a manopply, it does not even apply to iMessage since within the EU the popularity of iMessage is very low.  Most applications and areas of the OS for that matter are not impacted by the law as apple does not maintain a large enough user-base of that feature within the EU for it to fall under the bounds of the law.  For example apple does not ship a JIT based Nintedo game emulation application so this law does not require apple to permit JIT access to third parties.  Also this law is very much about EU companies not generic open access, this is why apple can do things like require that you are a legit EU company to open a third party market place. 

[hishnash]

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

There is an underlying problem you might have missed. If you buy a Netflix membership on your phone, even if you watch Netflix mostly on your TV and your laptop, Apple keeps 30% of the end-user subscription fee for the first 12 month. It's ridiculous. Anything happening on the iPhone - as little as it may be - will be downright extorted by Apple.

Then you should not look at what happens on games consoles.

Sony (and I believe MS used to do this im not sure if they still do) will require you to pay them 30% even if the user did not buy the game from playation but then ended up playing it on PS.  Eg if you have a free to play game (like fortnight) and the user has the same account on PC and PS5, they then on their PC in the web browser go and buy some `coins` and then buy some in game skins, but then when playing on the PS5 use those skins or left over coins then Sony will send a bill to Epic to pay up... 

Apple explicitly not only do not require a % cut in this situation but have also in the past rejected apps for not letting users use digital content (and currency) that they have purchased elsewhere.   

In general if your looking a extortion then best bet it to look at the game console vendors first as they tend to set the industry standard (who game up with 30%... and that was even when your selling physical copies through a retail store they get 30%)

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, hishnash said:

No that is incorrect reading of the EU law, as I explained above the EU law only applies to areas were apple is deemed to be a manopply

No that is also incorrect. Mac OS would comply so iOS like that would also comply. Mac OS grants access to all the APIs to allow all these things to work, iOS does not. Mac OS lets you install a market place App (why you'd want that is beside the point), Mac OS lets you do in application purchases entirely outside of Apple.

 

There are many ways Mac OS addresses the problem points of iOS in regard to this law. But iOS is not actually Mac OS so I do agree some of the things they exposed are required but again Mac OS does not charge to use these while iOS does.

 

So the overly simplified point is Mac OS on an iPhone would be complaint.

[hishnash]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No that is also incorrect. Mac OS would comply so iOS like that would also comply. Mac OS grants access to all the APIs to allow all these things to work, iOS does not. Mac OS lets you install a market place App (why you'd want that is beside the point), Mac OS lets you do in application purchases entirely outside of Apple.

 

I would say macOS goes way further than what the Law requires (since the law only requires opening up in areas were apple is deemed a monopoly).  Since after all you can turn of secure boot and modify the kernel if you so wish. I think it is clear from the law that the lawmakers did not want iOS to become macOS despite what many nerd on the web might want. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, hishnash said:

I would say macOS goes way further than what the Law requires (since the law only requires opening up in areas were apple is deemed a monopoly).

Correct but it is also more than a fair assessment that the EU commissions want iOS to become more like Mac OS but they can only do so much under current laws or try and pass new ones also while balancing the issue of not creating problematic laws while doing so.

 

Just looking at the end resulting law is not really the best way to gauge the feelings of EU law makers, you can actually get that from their summaries and submissions etc rather than looking at what legislation they were actually able to achieve which could be a compromise of what they wanted.

 

Personally I think Apple would have a more defensible case about a few things if it weren't for the existence of Mac OS because you couldn't point to that and show this very same company is allowing what they do not on iOS.

[hishnash]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Just looking at the end resulting law is not really the best way to gauge the feelings of EU law makers,

The end result is what was agreed on in parliament, the people pushing for it of cource wanted much more but that doe snot mean the rest of the MEPs did, you can project the wishes of a small collection who wrote the first drafts onto the entier parliament. And even more complicating that is many of the seats within the parliament will be up for election this year. 

 

 

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Personally I think Apple would have a more defensible case about a few things if it weren't for the existence of Mac OS because you couldn't point to that and show this very same company is allowing what they do not on iOS.

I don't think the presence of macOS has that much of an impact on the courts or law makers.  The law is knot expliclty targeting apple it is targeting anyone with a large enough market impact. I have seen a lot of takes down the line "well apple should have reduced the cut a few years ago and then the EU would not have written this law" these people completely miss that fact that every single part of the law would still apply regardless of the cut apple took (even if it were 0% and apple made a loss paying card fees out of pocket).  And the EU would have still passed the law as the law does not just target apple, its just that apple makes for good headlines so most of the media reporting around the law as been with respect to them. 

[Mark Kaine]

its also an interesting "interpretation" that apple would only need to allow eu based companies having a store or app on iPhone... i don't think the law is saying that, they say eu consumers need to be allowed access to these stores and apps, regardless where theses stores and apps come from lol...

 

and without apple meddling with these apps and stores obviously! 

 

i really hope as someone said above that apple gets hit with the full 10% because this interpretation doesn't comply with the law at all to my understanding. 

[Kisai]

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

Personally I think Apple would have a more defensible case about a few things if it weren't for the existence of Mac OS because you couldn't point to that and show this very same company is allowing what they do not on iOS.

 

MacOS Predates iOS, but it's pretty obvious just how much iOS and MacOS (and all the other Apple OS's) are the same OS but with a different UI layer. Like the iPad/iOS "UI" is actually there in MacOS. But not every iPad/iPhone app can run on MacOS because they require multitouch input that doesn't exist on laptops, and not at all on desktops.

 

In my opinion, it's an indefensible position to say Apple has a monopoly on anything, because other platforms exist, if you needed "sideloading" to be a feature, you would buy that other platform, complete with all it's downsides. It is however reasonable to say "Apple is controlling what software the user has access to" by not permitting the user a way to install software they choose to install without Apple's App store. Which is a choice they have on MacOS.

 

Pretty much people want "MacOS" more than they necessarily want the "Mac Hardware Platform". If you could install MacOS onto any whitebox PC, Windows would be finished, because Windows is the clunky slowpoke. THEN you could argue Apple has a monopoly. Many people would still buy Windows hardware, but they would run MacOS on it because that's where all their software is. 

 

In a "you will own nothing and like it" world, that's the direction things have to go. You don't own the software, you only rent it, and if you want to have access to something, you need to be on the right platform and on the right store.

 

What a nightmare. At that point, forcing Apple or Microsoft, or Google to make their OS's available to any whitebox computer, tablet, television, or phone would force the hardware vendors to actually offer compelling, competitive hardware, and not just design for the least common denominator people are willing to buy.

 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

If you could install MacOS onto any whitebox PC, Windows would be finished, because Windows is the clunky slowpoke.

lol that's really not how I would put it, for a really long time Mac OS was and probably still is a complete dog on hardware and resources not up to snuff. It's saving grace is Apple no longer sells hardware below that threshold, they used to.

 

Windows is perfectly fast and snappy, just don't install it on an HDD or eMMC storage and don't expect it to run well on the slowest processors possible to find. There are to things that make Windows give a bad user experience, inadequate hardware and the equally as common "user has trashed their own install doing [stuff]".

 

There is nothing that would make me switch to Mac OS if it were generally available because there isn't anything that OS offers me I want or need and I'd be adopting an OS that can't do what I actually do want and need.

 

Honestly allowing Mac OS on any hardware would just result in the very same situation Windows lives with, shoved on any old hardware then itself blamed for being "clunky".

 

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

In my opinion, it's an indefensible position to say Apple has a monopoly on anything, because other platforms exist, if you needed "sideloading" to be a feature, you would buy that other platform, complete with all it's downsides.

This type of take is actually the worst. Remember just because another option exists does not make it an option always and the fact one other, just as bad option exists is of little help. Really sideloading is irrelevant, that's not what the problem is it's just what people point to and say to describe the issue of not being allowing to install applications on a device with [company] blessing and them taking a cut (fair amount or not).

 

Apple simply has no business or be granted the right to take a revenue share of something like a Netflix monthly subscription and they should not and never should have been allowed to do that. All it resulted in was not being able to setup or renew a Netflix subscription on an iOS device due to that which is a horrible and anti consumer experience which actually is indefensible.

 

The use something else fallacy, devoid of the realization that everyone and anyone could follow suit and then have zero other places to turn to. If something is a problem you fix it, doesn't matter about others. It's ok for BP to spill billions of tons of oil in to the ocean because other petrochemical companies are not..

 

Just remember Apple App Store contributes more revenue to Apple than many country's GDP, selling devices that are only allowed to use that market is easily described as monopolistic.

 

Quote

A monopoly is when a single company or entity creates an unreasonable restraint of competition in a market.

Apple is not alone in fitting this.

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, hishnash said:

you can project the wishes of a small collection who wrote the first drafts onto the entier parliament

Is it any better for you to do the same? How do you actually know what they want? Again, very simply, just looking at a passed law is a poor way to interpret the feelings of the people. That's the same as saying because you voted for [xyz] you support everything they do.

 

10 hours ago, hishnash said:

I don't think the presence of macOS has that much of an impact on the courts or law makers.

Law makers respond to public pressure, this is the EU.

 

Like I said if you really did want to know you would read the submissions, read the summary decision documents, watch or read the minutes and summaries of the parliament debates, actually individually ask those people via their contact information.

 

More importantly, at least in my opinion, they represent the people so what people are talking about and asking for is their opinion.

[Mark Kaine]

17 hours ago, hishnash said:

App disruption

yeah but this is why your conclusions aren't reasonable,  this means by default sideloading, especially through other stores must be allowed freely. 

 

now if apple could just claim its all malware is an interesting question,  but indeed in the spirit of this law i don't think they can do that successfully. 

 

its up to the user what they install,  just like, you know, on the competitors side, called android.

 

 

40 minutes ago, leadeater said:

just looking at a passed law is a poor way to interpret the feelings of the people.

maybe, but this law actually demands a lot more from "gatekeepers" no more walled garden,  no questions asked basically,  so saying the law doesn't require this or that really doesn't represent the reality of the law, as always it will be interesting how its actually enforced - and when... and also if it also applies to consoles... absolute nightmare for these guys if they have to open up lol ... but aside from that, it definitely means a total paradigm shift for both big phone makers, more so for apple than google...

 

again i have my doubts about actual enforcement,  cant wait for the first ,almost inevitable, "10% of global revenue" fines tho...

 

 

ps: i still don't know if we finally can uninstall all the pre-installed crap, like gmail, chrome,  etc etc on android (cause im not updating until this is 100% confirmed)  but i honestly think not, i bet google is playing the same playbook of wait and see just like apple does. 

 

(basically they're fact checking how dumb eu actually is, which well... could pay off for them tbth) 

[Kisai]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

lol that's really not how I would put it, for a really long time Mac OS was and probably still is a complete dog on hardware and resources not up to snuff. It's saving grace is Apple no longer sells hardware below that threshold, they used to.

If only you were installing it on the oldest piece of hardware maybe.

 

I've never encountered a mac that "took forever to boot", "constantly crashing (unrelated to hardware)" . For the longest time, especially during the 10.0/.1/.2/.3/.4 era, just before switching to Intel, the Mac OS experience was quite a bit better than the Windows experience out of the box, remember Windows ME? XP and and 10.0 came out the same time, but just like today, people keep holding onto the oldest OS that runs their computer because it's faster.

 

Honestly Windows "experience" peaked with Windows 2000, and it's been just slowly tumbling downward since. Every time something new is added, we lose something that "worked just fine, and was faster" 

 

Like there was nothing wrong with the Control panel, we've had it since Windows 3.x. But no, now we have this annoying "can't open two panels at once" cruft shoved on us, which makes finding things far more time consuming now. Grrrrreat.

 

 

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Windows is perfectly fast and snappy, just don't install it on an HDD or eMMC storage and don't expect it to run well on the slowest processors possible to find. There are to things that make Windows give a bad user experience, inadequate hardware and the equally as common "user has trashed their own install doing [stuff]".

 

I'm talking about the out-of-the-box experience, not the "user is a moron" experience. You can sit your mom or grandma in front of a Mac OS device, tell them "this icon gets you on the internet" and they are perfectly happy not having to venture into it.

 

Windows? What's the first thing people do when they install windows? Download the drivers for the GPU? The Sound card? The Chipset driver? What about an out-of-the-box experience from Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, full of bloatware?

 

The Windows "out of the box experience" is pretty terrible, no matter how you get it.

 

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There is nothing that would make me switch to Mac OS if it were generally available because there isn't anything that OS offers me I want or need and I'd be adopting an OS that can't do what I actually do want and need.

That's you, and you are not everyone. The fact that a hackintosh community has existed since 10.3 tells you that there has always been a desire to return to the "Mac Clone" hardware. It's not like the AmigaOS fans, where the OS was further ahead of the "Mac" in terms of what we have today (like actual multitasking) but the complete incompetence of Commodore to market it outside Europe resulted in it's failure. That's another situation where they should have just made a whitebox version of the OS and it would have had a life outside diehard retro nerds. If you wanted to run AmigaOS 3.1 or later, you needed a legacy Amiga hardware platform. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Honestly allowing Mac OS on any hardware would just result in the very same situation Windows lives with, shoved on any old hardware then itself blamed for being "clunky".

True, but doubtful. Look at Linux and FreeBSD. The reason these OS's didn't just die in 1996, is because people wanted the OS's to work on their hardware.

 

At some point in time, it was looking like Linux "could be" a viable competitor on the desktop, but here we are 20+ years later and it's still no further than it was in 1996. The most common non-server/embedded version of Linux people run into is Android and SteamDeck, and neither of those are intended as Desktop PC's.

 

Remember BeOS? One of the few alternative OS's built to work on PPC's. It's legacy is Haiku OS. I haven't tried it.

 

Then there is ReactOS, which is a re-implementation of Windows. It's not yet reached a point in time that it could "replace Windows" at a level that wouldn't have you switching back to Windows to run specific applications or games. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This type of take is actually the worst. Remember just because another option exists does not make it an option always

Depends on how it's framed. Android exists, therefor, if you your application requires invasive hardware access, then you should release your software on hardware intended to run Android. There's no point whining that it won't work on OSX because you can't get direct access to the NFC hardware.

 

Certain decisions were made for iOS devices to protect the user's safety and privacy. Like how camera applications only work when they're in the foreground. You can't complain that you can't install "Secret camera app" on iOS because Apple won't let you ignore permissions on the OS. Yet, if you wanted to make an Android Spy device that looks like a conventional smartphone, the hardware exists to do so is out there.

 

But again, the point is that the people who complain the most, are not Apple's customers, and never had any intention of being Apple's customers, What they want is access to Apple's customers without going through Apple.

 

 

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

If only you were installing it on the oldest piece of hardware maybe.

Nope, brand new Mac's were being sold at the time with HDDs and 2GB and 4GB of ram when Mac OS actually needed an SSD and 4GB.

 

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

For the longest time, especially during the 10.0/.1/.2/.3/.4 era

That's good because the problem era was 10.7 to 10.9.

 

10.6 was fantastic btw.

 

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

I'm talking about the out-of-the-box experience

So am I.

 

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The Windows "out of the box experience" is pretty terrible, no matter how you get it.

Wrong. There are bad OEMs sure, but no, Windows out of the box even with the HP utilities is very snappy and fine.

 

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Windows? What's the first thing people do when they install windows? Download the drivers for the GPU? The Sound card? The Chipset driver?

Only if you do your own Windows install at which point all these drivers are automatically installed through Windows update or included in the Windows install media.

 

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's you, and you are not everyone. The fact that a hackintosh community has existed since 10.3 tells you that there has always been a desire to return to the "Mac Clone" hardware.

So a small group of users is a good thing to make wide sweeping generalizations and claims from?

 

"That is you" - mirror applied.

 

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Certain decisions were made for iOS devices to protect the user's safety and privacy. Like how camera applications only work when they're in the foreground. You can't complain that you can't install "Secret camera app" on iOS because Apple won't let you ignore permissions on the OS. Yet, if you wanted to make an Android Spy device that looks like a conventional smartphone, the hardware exists to do so is out there.

Err what on earth? Your example is completely irrelevant.

 

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Depends on how it's framed. Android exists, therefor, if you your application requires invasive hardware access, then you should release your software on hardware intended to run Android. There's no point whining that it won't work on OSX because you can't get direct access to the NFC hardware.

It's framed exactly how it needs to be, Android and other devices does not have anything to do with the problems on iOS devices. This isn't about invasive hardware access lol.

 

Sure you can talk about that but not with me 

 

And absolutely nobody should have to put up with buying a $1000+ phone and said company removing, and being allowed to, a capability you were using that is actually important and for people like you to say "just spend $1000+ on a new device that lets you do [xyz]". Nobody should have to be put through the ringer just to pay for a subscription of a service you use on your own device because that device company wants a cut of something they have absolutely zero business taking a cut of.

[leadeater]

30 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

again i have my doubts about actual enforcement,  cant wait for the first ,almost inevitable, "10% of global revenue" fines tho...

Same, laws are worthless without enforcement which hasn't been a strong point for a very long time, not just in the tech space. 10% of global revenue is a bit BS though, not that I object to insanely stupid high fines, but EU needs to keep within their own boundaries.

[Kisai]

51 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Wrong. There are bad OEMs sure, but no, Windows out of the box even with the HP utilities is very snappy and fine.

Pbbt. I think not.

 

The only thing that has improved in the last 20 years is that Windows Update will actually download drivers for your OEM device if the OEM actually went through the bother to get it there. Realtek and Intel still insist on having the absolute worst experiences to install or update a driver. Often having to reboot the PC three times.

 

Meanwhile, the Mac never has this problem unless we're talking about Wacom, cause good gawd Wacom has some of the worst drivers on any platform.

 

51 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's framed exactly how it needs to be, Android and other devices does not have anything to do with the problems on iOS devices. This isn't about invasive hardware access lol.

But the people complaining about are not Apple's customers. They are companies who want free access to Apple's customers without playing by the safety rules.

 

Here's a perfect analogy.

 

Have you ever been to a public pool? What are the typical rules?

- No peeing in the pool

- Shower before and after you enter the pool

- No running

 

All of those are safety rules, but third parties will be like "well I don't think I should shower before I go into the pool cause I'm gonna get wet anyway", ignoring the fact that doing so spreads things from you or your clothing/makeup/sunscreen from you to everyone in the pool. 

 

If the third party doesn't want to play by the most basic of rules to keep everyone on the platform safe, then they should be banned from the platform. That's what happened to Epic Games.

[Lunar River]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Certain decisions were made for iOS devices to protect the user's safety and privacy.

Maybe waaaaay back when Apple released the iPhone 7. But today? Based on their response to the EU law; Most decisions were made for iOS devices to protect Apple's control and bank accounts

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

the third party doesn't want to play by the most basic of rules to keep everyone on the platform safe, then they should be banned from the platform. That's what happened to Epic Games.

nah, they didn't want to give apple a cut, that's what happened to epic games.

 

you really think a huge company like epic wouldn't have "basic" safety features?  

 

according to this law it doesn't even matter, the gatekeepers don't get a say in this, if there are safety issues,  that's an entirely different problem outside of their control,  that would be something the authorities have to deal with.

 

 

 

[hishnash]

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah but this is why your conclusions aren't reasonable,  this means by default sideloading, especially through other stores must be allowed freely. 

 

You miss undemanding SideLoading VS alternative app stores.  The law requires alternative app stores but does not require ad-hock side loading.  And add-hock side loading (aka installing an app from a source other than an App Store) would not fullull the laws requirements.
 

 

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

now if apple could just claim its all malware is an interesting question,  but indeed in the spirit of this law i don't think they can do that successfully. 

 

its up to the user what they install,  just like, you know, on the competitors side, called android.

Users being able to do ad-hock installs does not allow for App Store competition. 

 

Remember this law is all about EU companies being able to compete, it is not a citizens rights law about users being able to side load.   Users ad-hoc side loading would not allow a EU company to compete with the App Store as it would not provide the ability to update apps, talk to them to provide IAP flows, present secure IAP UIs for those apps, check if they are running so that the update starts when the app is not running etc, and be able to gather high level metrics on app usesage so that it can compete with the Apple App Store.