- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
app store , cydia uhhhhhhhhh
Are they referring to different localizations of the same app store, or have they set up paper companies named Bapple, Zapple, Mapple etc?
I think they mean 1 app store for each of their products.
The company in its argument to the EU competition enforcer said it operates five App Stores on iPhones, iPads, Mac computers, Apple TVs and Apple Watches, with each designed to distribute apps for a specific operating system and Apple device.
I would be curious to see how they separate those different catalogs on their backend. I assume that the store detects which device and serves a list of compatible apps.
I think if apple ever gets fdroud they should call it “F-U-Apple”
FApple is worse enough.
Did they start counting Cydia?
Apple App Store, Apple Music store, Apple Movies store, Apple Television store and uhhh Apple News. Checkmate EU
Still just one app store. The others are media stores.
Yea it was a joke, I got to the real issue in the second half of my comment
We don’t have a monopoly on one class of device, we have monopolies on five different classes of device. That’s definitely different and better!
Better for us!
This is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of anything related to monopoly or anti-trust law. Maybe, maybe the iPhone, and even then it’s a stretch. edit: at least in the US.
This happened like a month ago. I recall hearing this argument before.
So let me get this straight.
The EU is finding Apple in breach of their antitrust laws, and requiring Apple to allow third party apps on their platform, like how Android devices can install Fdroid or…can non-Samsung devices install the Galaxy Store? Their argument about why they shouldn’t have to do that is “we actually have multiple app stores”, at least partially counting MacOS, iPadOS and iOS as separate platforms that just so happen to have converging internal technology (they’re all ARM-based platforms now), branding and UI. Why do lawyers get to say irrelevant shit without repercussions?
Then why do developers manage all of those apps through a single experience?
And why can consumers purchase an app on their iPhone and have it automatically installed on their iPad?
Are iPhone apps that don’t have iPad versions that you install on your iPad anyway coming from the iPhone App Store or from the iPad App Store?
Apple silicon Macs also let you install iOS/iPadOS apps. Which App Store is it then?
- App Store for iPhone
- App Store for iPad
- App Store for Apple Watch
- App Store for Mac
- App Store for Apple TV
I guess if this gets argued correctly it means Apple could technically get away with not opening up the iPad, Apple TV and Apple Watch to accept other stores (Mac already lets you install apps directly from developers). I can see this still letting Apple continue to have the stranglehold over their ecosystem.
I doubt this will change much though. We all know the EU were specifically thinking about the iPhone which needs opening up.
It won’t pass, they were all built with Swift Programming and Apple owns it. This can also be said about all Apple apps in the play store, the requirement for Swift is unavoidable.
Uhhh what? Swift is just one of the languages you can use to make native UI for Apple devices and interact with their API.
Yes but you’ll get problems during uploads. It’s like Google forcing you to use Android Studio instead of verifying by other means. That’s why people often go to pay others because they don’t want to mess with the verification process.
Mac already lets you install apps directly from developers
I just find this language interesting. How a computer now “lets” you install non-walled garden software, as if that hasn’t been the default behavior for personal computers for over 40 years since the beginning.
I get what you’re saying and I hate that I had to write it like that. Was saying it to point out that Mac’s just aren’t as locked down as other Apple devices so won’t be subject to the EU ruling anyway.
The entire argument is stupid anyway.
“well ackshullyyyyyy…”
- Apple lawyer
