“App store is not a monopoly”
“We’re going to defend this non-monopoly till our dying breath”
I feel every other hardware manufacturer with a store that sells software for it should be held to the same rules then… Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo…
That sounds pretty good actually
Honestly, it doesn’t surprise nor please me that they’re looking exclusively for the corporations with the large amounts of money capable of running a full system, as opposed to the random Joe down the street running an f-droid repository.
EU should double down with a regulation stipulating that people are free to install whatever OS they want on devices (smartphones included) and companies can’t gatekeep it.
the problem is firmware. the community has been porting postmarketos to android phones for years, there are a ton of phones were POS will boot but most things like camera, phone service or bluetooth won’t work because they are missing the firmware necessary.
It’s PmOS lol, POS stands for Piece of shit (or point of sale if capitalized as PoS)
I don’t even care anymore, they’re just trolling.
God bless the EU for taking this fight, and many others, on behalf of all of us. Only major entity actually making an effort at the moment.
Hasnt apple crashed and burned yet. Why are so many shiny hunting round edged magpies still sucking apples pecker
Now that Apple are aggressively displaying their monopolistic attitude to anything 3rd party and their wanton greed. I wonder if we’ll see regulators going harder on them.
I very much doubt it and fully expect the regulators to effectively say “Oh well we told them and gave them parameters!”
Edit: All their products are fucking over priced, When YOU purchase YOUR phone YOU should be able to do what YOU want with it. Disagree? FUCK YOU
Apple are clearly fleecing anyone who purchases their shit and will continue to fuck you at every opportunity.
Can someone help me understand: marketplace makers will need to prove they have access to $ 1 million. Then Apple will charge 50 cents per marketplace install? So that means no possibility of a 100% free store for open source apps. Is that correct?
Non-Profits are exempt and nearly all large open source projects are non-profits. Small apps are also exempt - the 50c fee only applies if at least 2% of people in the EU use your app.
… however it seems like these exemptions might not apply to third party app stores for some reason.
If that’s the case, then it really defeats the purpose of the whole 3rd party store idea for me. Most apps I would consider installing are open source projects.
Apple: builds their entire software ecosystem on free, open-source foundations.
Also Apple: better have a million euros if you want to even start distributing software.
The best use case for an external app store is free open-source software, like we have on the Android side with F-Droid. Apple stopped that before it even started. Jeez.
Note that third party app stores like F-Droid still aren’t first-class citizens like Google Play, since every installation still needs to be confirmed by an os popup, they can’t automatically install updates on most phones.
TBF if it wasn’t without a popup it would be insanely easy to install malware without the user knowing
You even get that popup on windows when installing something.
The only thing I see a problem with is that something like fdroid can’t be installed from the play store
The thing is, Google Play doesn’t have that for each app it updates. If I can choose to trust Google Play, I should be able to choose to trust F-Droid in that regard.
F-Droid can do unattended installs, you just need A13+ and the basic client.
NOTE: The Basic version of F-Droid Client has a reduced feature set (e.g. no nearby share and no panic feature). It targets Android 13 and can do unattended updates without privileged extension or root.
Great news, thanks!
This is why gpl, mit, and other copyleft licenses exist. If they use those projects then the derivatives would also need to be open source.
MIT is free for commercial use and just requires attribution, you aren’t required to open source software derived from MIT licensed code.
GPL is also free for commercial use… all open source licenses are. The rendering engines used by Safari (and Chrome/Edge) are GPL.
GPL can be used for commercial purposes, but it requires all software derived from it to also be open source and GPL compatible. So no one whose commercial business relies on selling software will use GPL because their customers can copy and distribute the code.
Neither Safari nor Chrome’s rendering engine is GPL. Safari’s engine is LGPL, which means the binary library can be linked into a closed source program, but modifications to the library’s code must remain open.
Chromium is BSD, which doesn’t even require modifications to remain open. So I can take chromium’s source, change it however I want for my own browser, and never distribute that code.
If Safari’s and Chrome’s engines were GPL, Safari and Chrome would be forced to be open source, and they very much are not.
The thing is that source code is just a small part of an application. For example, Quake games are open sourced, but their assets like textures, models and music are not. Thus you can’t just compile the game and call it a day. Another example is all kinds of certificates, they are never part of the source. You can compile the app, but it won’t work.
Source code, GPL or otherwise, doesn’t matter.
Thanks for pointing it out. I was making a project that uses this license and derivatives had to use MIT license. I forgot that it’s not copyleft and so it allows derivatives to be proprietary.
Correct. This is also why Apple switched to zsh as the default shell over bash. They still ship Bash 3.2 in macOS, because from 4.0 on, Bash started using GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.
I’m not against the idea of creating proprietary software out of open-source software, if the license allows that. However, I am always against this practice of “closing the door behind you”.
I agree. If they use open source code. They should give back. It doesn’t matter if it was copyleft or permissive.
for developers and customers
Ah yes, of course.
Delaying the inevitable. The fines that are coming are inevitable too but for Apple it’s just a cost of running their business.
The EU under the DMA can find 10% of global revenue the first time and then 20% thereafter.No corporations can maintain that.
Uh, for that kind of money I could start my own Top Level Domain.
Of course, in this interest rate economy, I would only dare create one dedicated to sharing cat pictures or pornography. Anything else sounds too risky.
You can honestly start your own TLD for a lot less with any DNS server. That doesn’t mean anyone else will necessarily use it, but you can.
It is such a shame that you have to jump through extra hoops to get a .cat domain. They could make so much money.
deleted by creator
The whole point of side loading apps is to not need the app store. One of the most important features of an app store is to distribute and update apps. Storage and bandwidth isn’t free, but it is quite cheap.
I’m sorry if it hurts apples feelings when we tell them they’re not allowed to charge for every aspect of their hardware. But if they didn’t want us to own our iPhones then they shouldn’t have sold them.
