Remix.run Logo
zoobab 10 hours ago

European Commission caved in, developers lost.

gpm 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Has the commission confirmed that these changes "resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission" or is that just like... Apple's wishful thinking.

I definitely recall previous iterations where Apple announced changes to comply with legal requirements where the authorities ended up saying "this absolutely doesn't resolve the issue".

twiss 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah. Also, IANAL but even if the European Commission does think Apple's interpretation of the DMA is reasonable, Apple could still be sued by an affected company or person, and a judge might disagree, IIUC: https://bureaubrandeis.com/private-enforcement-of-the-dma-a-...

lsxr 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m not sure that’s how I’d characterise it. I think this is a positive step for consumers in the EU.

I’d argue that it is Apple who have backed down here.

realusername 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Apps still need to go through Apple bureaucracy and they still take their cut. They are still free to ban any of those apps without any specific reason

throw1234567891 10 hours ago | parent [-]

As opposed to what? What’s the alternative you propose?

varun_ch 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

not the OP, but I assume: Apps don't need to go through Apple and Apple doesn't get to take a cut?

throw1234567891 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t buy apps anyway. Want to keep me as a client? Make your website functional. Fuck your apps. With all this b2c invoice bullshit in the EU now everyone wants me to install their app. Fuck you, send me an email!

xp84 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Couldn't agree more tbh. I have an app each for like 8 restaurants I want to be able to order ahead from. All those apps are 200-600MB each, their performance is dogshit and they're obviously all built with web technologies anyway. Just let me do all the same shit on a website, kill the app, and save the download and the Apple bullshit.

realusername 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just download the app from the website and install it

throw1234567891 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Hahahaha, are you fucking serious. As an Apple customer, that’s exactly what I don’t want.

chichichi 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is the weirdest comment to me.

“I don’t want to be able to do what I want to do.”

“Please stop me. I’m about to install a program by a small independent developer that does something I want. Stop me, and first charge me 15%, and them $100. Oh, and install it in my old phone??? No! Please stop me and force me to upgrade!!”

“Oh my phone is too old!! Please force me to but another one!!”

throw1234567891 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> “I don’t want to be able to do what I want to do.”

No. I already do what I want to do. I don’t use apps. Regardless if it comes from the App Store, or any other website on the internet. How do you arrive at your interpretation.

realusername 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You would still be free to use the appstore, I'm sure if it's as great as Apple says, it will have no problem

throw1234567891 9 hours ago | parent [-]

But the mechanics to work around it, and potentially slip something onto my phone, are already in there. No, thanks. The problem with this wholeEU bullshit is that the pro-consumer and pro-security do not always go hand in hand. And relevant dept lawyers don’t always communicate sufficiently.

xp84 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Okay Tim Cook.

If the App Store is such a customer-friendly shield, then why are there millions of scam apps in the App Store?

To combat software threats, sandboxing and fine-grained permissions (which Apple basically pioneered in the consumer space!) is the answer. App Review can't catch all malicious actors. When a vulnerability exists in the sandbox, the exploit can easily be slipped past App Review, with a feature flag holding it until the scammer is ready to attack.

App Review, Notarization, etc. isn't for us. It's for Apple. It's the control that allows them to extract the money. Simple as that. Without the control, only small indie developers would list on the App Store because it's (A) shitty in quality, (B) shitty in financial terms, and (C) shitty at keeping people safe from scams.

If you want proof of that, look at the tumbleweeds in the Mac App Store, where it's not mandatory and anyone can distribute an app in a zip file, and where notarization hasn't (yet) been weaponized to censor apps[1] for reasons having nothing to do with platform security.

No one wants to use the MAS, so they don't, and Apple doesn't get to take 30% of all revenue for every app distributed. You can see why they are fighting tooth and nail to not have the much more important iOS platform turned into that.

[1] https://mjtsai.com/blog/2024/06/14/utm-blocked-outside-app-s...

throw1234567891 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m not Tim Cook. You need to send an email to him, apparently he reads them. Anyway, I still prefer that instead of having a risk accidentally installing some shit scam app from literally anywhere on the internet. Is it so difficult to understand the difference? At least I can hold Apple liable when I buy a scam app on their App Store. What you propose is basically shareware of 1990s. Zero security.

Don’t get me even started on the hypocrisy of the people wanting what you propose. So, the reason you want to build an app for iOS is that there are many of us. There are many of us because of App Store, mainly, as an end user. Pick one. You are proposing breaking the only platform making the iPhone an interesting product for a computer illiterate.

xp84 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> having a risk accidentally installing some shit scam app from literally anywhere on the internet

Don't install random shit scam apps then. It's easy. Just don't do it. Use the App Store. Just because you trust them doesn't mean the entire userbase should all be forced to trust Apple and only Apple.

throw1234567891 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I just told you in this thread that I don’t. Explain that to your mother! Or your paps, or your little kid.

I have my popcorn ready for the new wave of installing malware apps through some click jacking scams.

xp84 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's such a bad argument, the 'but grandma will install malware' excuse. By that logic we also need to fully lock down the Mac, Windows, and Linux the same way because Granny might get scammed there, too. Apple must approve all software.

Again, Apple already allows grannies to be scammed with apps right on the App Store. Apps which are advertised by web popups that try to stop you from going Back, and throw up "You're INFECTED!" warnings and alerts. Then they route you to the App Store to get the scammy apps, with often weekly subscriptions. Apple routinely lets these listings stay up for a long time. I can see an app right now called "Storage Cleaner_ Phone Cleanup" It charges victims $9.99 a month to pretend to do several things that the OS already includes as features. And another one called "Phone Guard: Secure Cleaner" - same basic deal, $6.99 a week.

The sandboxing should be what keeps us safe from "malware" -- these apps don't have root. They can't access your phone's contacts without explicit permission, nor take control of the radios, nor replace your system apps.

Apple can't or won't keep people safe on the App Store. But they still use this line about the poor confused grannies and toddlers as an excuse of why we have to let them keep 100% control of every iPhone in the world, in a way that just happens to earn them tens of billions of dollars every year.

mytailorisrich 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Consumers never had an issue with Apple's app store. They don't care, frankly. In fact it makes it simpler for them.

xp84 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> They don't care, frankly. In fact it makes it simpler for them.

No it absolutely doesn't. Search is so broken that you can't even tell people "Search for Hacker News on the App Store" and have them find your app called "Hacker News" -- search ads get top billing now, so it may be a competitor called "Hacker News Today" infested with unskippable ads and a weekly $14.99 in-app purchase. Not that their organic search results themselves are good either.

So, smart companies send customers to a web URL, and then link to their App Store product page directly. The App Store provides zero value to anyone but Apple (by design).

Customers also don't open the App Store today to browse for new and interesting apps, the way Apple seems to pretend. Customers find out about apps from social media ads and install them directly.

realusername 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Every time you try to inform consumers how much Apple charges, Apple bans the app though.

So even Apple thinks informing consumers on how the appstore works is a threat

mytailorisrich 9 hours ago | parent [-]

How is it relevant to a consumer? If I pay for an app I am interested about how much I pay, not about any fees Apple charges the publisher of the app. Same as when I buy something in a shop...

xp84 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How is it Apple's business to raise that question? They don't own the device, they don't own my app, and they don't employ me or the customer.

iamnothere 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So you’re opposed to more transparency?

chichichi 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You know the trump tariffs. I guess you are cool with them too.

mnewme 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well at least 10x better than in the US now