• anlumo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months 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.

    • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

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

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

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

    • taanegl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months 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.

    • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

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

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months 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.

          • anlumo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            This is not the issue here. The problem is that everybody has to pay through their nose to get the priviledge to publish on an alternate marketplace or be an alternate marketplace.