• anlumo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • taanegl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year 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.

    • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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.

  • themurphy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    ITT: People who has no clue about EU law and honestly think Apple will get away with this.

    They won’t and they never had in the past.

    • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      'Mericans - “I demand freedom©®™ from government intervention”

      Also 'Mericans - “Why is this giant corporation allowed to not use lube while fuckin me in the ass?!?”

      EU - Slowly slips a thumb into corporation’s sphincter with untrimmed fingernail

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This does nothing at all for those with a slightly older “unsupported” device. They should have made Apple apply the same fixes to the last few whole number releases.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah apple is just going to turn this into “lol if you want to sideload go buy a new device” and end up reaping additional billions

      • themurphy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        They really won’t, and they can’t.

        iOS supports 7 generations back or something for their devices, which means it’s all those affected by the new software.

        It’s alot and it’s fair for everyone.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They have to allow sideloading for all devices their app store supports. So either cut off support completely and brick all old devices, or let people do whatever.

    • TherouxSonfeir@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      For the entire line, that way I can use my totally functional iPad from 2010 that is a brick now because it cannot connect to the App Store.

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        For that a more reasonable ask is that they be required to unlock the devices so alternate firmware can be used.

      • IamAnonymous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just curious, what do you plan to use it for? I used to use my iPad Mini2 for zoom calls until recently, as zoom now needs iOS 10 or above.

          • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’ve tried to look for some way to do this and found this. Not really what I’m looking for though (I have an old iPad 3 running iOS 9.3.5, and essentially useless) Does anyone have any links to help us out?

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I can see some arguments for not updating older devices. Apple isn’t being compelled by law to do anything more than the bare minimum to support competitive markets. For example, no digging into older abandoned code basis or releasing an update that wasn’t originally planned. It only specifies what must be done going forward.

      With that said, it’s a shame because I expect it would be quite easy to backport the change.

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d like to see hardware makers of appreciable size be required to support said devices for a minimum of ten years after the date of final sale of the device. For example, Apple discontinued the iPod Touch 7th Gen on May 10th 2022, this would require them to maintain support until May 10th 2032. They’d be more inclined to support newer versions of their operating system because one codebase is just easier to manage, but at minimum it would mean security updates and updates like this one would happen. Only a corporate troll would argue against enhancing security, right? 😆

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I want to run unsigned apps on iPadOS, just like MacOS.

      That said, regarding support for “slightly older” hardware. For all that Apple sucks at, they have usually been good about supporting older hardware. iPads have historically received 5 years of major releases, and then a couple years of security updates after that 5 years. The big exception being that very first iPad which was cut off after 3 years.

      Moreover, software support for an old OS tends to become an issue after 2 or 3 years. Those of use who are developing iPad apps look at the traffic and start to deprecate support legacy OS versions that are in the low single digits.

      Realistically, it’s about 7 to 8 years before I start to think about new hardware. That said, I still have an old ass 2013 iPad Air that I use for web browsing and messaging. Thing still works fine for that, but the third party apps are kind of stuck in 2020 / 2021 land.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Apple:

    Opens iOS third party App Store rules.

    Command+F

    Replace “iOS” with “iPadOS”

    Clicks “Replace All”

  • idefix@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m pretty sure Apple is missing a significant market share of consumers like myself who can’t stand their anti-competitive practices. That’s why I can only buy Android phones and tablets, until we get decent Linux ones.

    • Herr Woland@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sure they’ve ran the numbers and the money they make from an exclusive app store is much greater than selling a few more devices to ppl like us.

    • Veraxus@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep! I like their software, but I’m a developer and power-user, and the way their stuff is artificially locked down to protect their money-printing trust screws me over as both a developer and power-user. If they started opening things up - even if it’s “open” like MacOS… I’d be inclined to buy more stuff.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zipBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The sad part is that at some point they were as open as everyone else, in Hypercard and Hotline (I know that’s not Apple) times.

        And the guy who turned it into this edge between scam and toys for stupid people is ironically one of the founders.

    • BaardFigur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I buy Android Tablet as well. Android devices can be powerful, but software support for more advanced stuff (beyond spreadsheets) is really lacking. Appearently Ipads are far better than Android tablets on that department.

      Which is why I just buy the cheapest Samsung tablet I can find with a 10 inch screen, and use it for youtube

      • idefix@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Probably true, but I must mention you also have great things in the Android / Samsung ecosystem. For example, Samsung Dex is impressive and I do use it.

      • idefix@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am on Samsung devices right now (phone & tablet) but I’m not 100% convinced and I do not advocate for this brand.

        I’m just waiting for a more mature Fairphone & /e/os platform.

        • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair phone I could get behind but swapping Apple for Samsung is like swapping Dahmer for Gacey. You’re still getting fucked, they just have different kinks.

          • Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not true. On Samsung devices, at least the Exynos ones, you can install FOSS operating systems like LineageOS or /e/OS. Of course there are still proprietary blobs for drivers, but that’s no different than running GNU/Linux on an Intel microprocessor.

  • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unless the EU makes Apple get rid of the yearly cost per installation, any app store other than Apple’s is limited by the inability to have free or freemium apps, giving them a substantial disadvantage in comparison.

  • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Honestly, I’d rather see the focus on making it so we can transfer purchases across app stores/devices.

    So many people get stuck with one manufacture because they baught some apps over the years and don’t want to buy them again.

    Even just making the stores talk to eachother would be enough. If I add my Google account to the Apple App Store, the app store can pull the list of purchased compatible software from the play store and sync it with my apple library.

    Throw things like the xbox store and PlayStation store into the mix too. To be clear, that doesn’t mean exclusives or incompatible things needs to be compatible, thats silly. But if I buy somethibg like cross- platform like BG3 on the PlayStation, I want to transfer that to the Xbox or PC if I change consoles.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Starting back in March with the release of iOS 17.4, iPhones in the European Union have been subject to the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), a batch of regulations that (among other things) forced Apple support alternate app stores, app sideloading, and third-party browser engines in iOS for the first time.

    “Apple now has six months to ensure full compliance of iPadOS with the DMA obligations,” reads the EU’s blog post about the change.

    But the ability to use alternate app stores and browser engines on the iPad’s large screen (and the desktop-class M-series chips) could make the tablets better laptop replacements by allowing them to do more of the things that Mac users can do on their systems.

    Depending on the results of that investigation, the EU may require Apple to make more changes to the way it allows third-party apps to be installed in iOS and to the way that third-party developers are allowed to advertise non-Apple app store and payment options.

    Any changes that Apple makes to iOS to comply with the investigation’s findings will presumably trickle down to the iPad as well.

    That said, we have seen some recent App Store rule changes that have arguably trickled down from Apple’s attempts to comply with the DMA, most notably policy changes that have allowed (some, not all) retro game console emulators into the App Store for the first time.


    The original article contains 456 words, the summary contains 232 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    6 months? I wish they were harsher. Give them significant daily fines, they’ll get it done quick then.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      6 months of time is effectively 24 hours in a corporation that large.

      • dmalteseknight@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Speaking metaphorically they basically have to create “doors” for the hundreds of “walls” they made to originally prevent this.

        I say “doors” since they will probably make them oddly shaped and hard to access to still make it difficult to allow you in.