Hacker News Reader

Comment by uyzstvqs | Hacker News Reader

AFAIK this is just Apple-approved apps, just through another app and servers. How does this change anything? Apple still has full control over what apps users can install. There is no side-loading. They still need to approve every app on third party platforms.

Or has Apple actually decided to remove app signing? They sure didn't when they announced this change.

View on HN

Apple has a history of doing bare minimum compliance with regulation they don't like. Regulators have to treat them like a toddler, because that's how they behave when they don't get their way. They don't want competition, they don't want to give developers any kind of freedom, and they especially don't want any competing payment apps on their platform.

Right now, Apple is testing the limits of what they can get away with. A small infraction here, removing a feature there, just seeing what triggers the regulators and what doesn't. Once regulators start investigating them, they'll just change their software to comply and get a minimal fine for the short period that they did get caught violating the law in.

In a few years time, when the first fine is handed out and has been appealed on all levels of the court, we'll see what Apple will actually end up sticking with.

They're doing everything to discourage devs who'd want to release apps on their own and make actually difficult to do so. You still need to fit their requirements if you want to play the alternative stores game where apple holds all the cards.

So yes, what they did changes anything, and it's just a smack in the EU face while keeping the status-quo. If they wouldn't maliciously comply and do some weird acrobatics we'd have a fdroid-like stores running right now and options to enable side-loading and some kind of scanning feature like google play protect (which on the other hand, likes to turns itself on).

For the user this is really simple: you're a typical consumer who wants to use appstore and stick to apple-approved software just to be "safe" - that's the default for you. You are poweruser who wants to expand the software library on the device - tap the setting, read the warning, read it again and install whatever you like

Anyway, it seems that the EC has received feedback from devs regarding what apple presented: https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/20/eu-antitrust-chief-warn... so things may change in the future.

These are Apple notarized apps. As with macOS, they still have to both be signed and go through some verification , but they don’t apply any of the other App Store rules to it.

Well, except that they do. TFA says that the clipboard app in question had to include a map because it requires a dirty workaround to stay active in the background, at apple's demands. Yes, they're not "app store rules" and they're "notarization rules" but the end result is the same, they could choose to make those rules the same and yeah maybe a European court could force them to comply but in reality land apple has more money and lawyers than god.

You’re conflating two things.

There’s App Store rules and then there’s system rules (security, multitasking etc).

The DMA only side steps the former not the latter. The issue in the article is the latter.

Sure, but as long as apple will play hardball like they're clearly doing, they could very well enforce app store rules as app signing rules and it'd be years before the eu would force them to stop, not even counting on the fact that current app signing rules are already insane.

> go through some verification

Yep. "Some" verification. Random and arbitrary as Apple's verification is known to be.

How many times have you read about a dev who had an app rejected, resubmitted it with no changes and had it approved?

How many times have you read about rejections without a clear motive and any further explanation?

And how many times have you heard about someone rejected from notorization?

It’s been a thing for years now on Mac with many, many notarized apps.

There's an example right in the article?

Which one? I see no mention of Apple blocking notarization of the app.

Whatever app had to add a ... map?

That has nothing to do with notarization though. That’s just system rules.

iOS restricts what apps can run in the background based on their capabilities.

Did it do anything useful for the user yes/no? Was it rejected by Apple because it didn't fit the usage patterns they could think of in Cupertino yes/no?

At this point, it’s clear you’re not even trying to understand the difference between the following

1. App Store rules

2. Notarization of apps outside the App Store

3. System rules like security and task scheduling

They are independent concerns. You’re conflating the limitations of the third point and blaming it on the first two.

The passing the blame game yes …

Reply on news.ycombinator.com