Top
Best
New

Posted by Mayzie 1 hour ago

Epic vs. Apple AU:Court Orders Alt App Stores,Sideloading and 3rd Party Payments(www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au)
73 points | 21 comments
isodev 27 minutes ago|
That’s good news for people who enjoy the freedom of using the device they own in the way they want.

Having (alt store) presence in Australia, Brazil, EU and Japan is in fact more than enough for many indies - one can even begin to imagine ignoring the US as a region.

dannyw 12 minutes ago||
It’s also great news for app developers.

First, Apple does not follow the same rules they set for developers.

Second, Apple does not treat all developers equally. We have functionality we’re unable to offer to iOS users.

The same feature, including technical implementation mechanism, is available in Claude and Gemini. It’s unfair.

Gigachad 14 minutes ago||
I’ve been thinking about open source replacements of proprietary companion apps. It’s easy enough to reverse engineer Bluetooth protocols now, but you can’t run these in websites. Putting stuff on the App Store is too expensive but sideloading could be viable.
isodev 9 minutes ago||
Side*note: I really hope we can move away from the term "sideloading" which makes it sound like we're doing something on the down low.

Installing something is a perfectly normal operation - it's the App Store that's the special case :).

mikeyanderson1 1 hour ago||
This is a massive win for independent Ai.

I want to run so my agents have a local sandbox on device.

MBCook 25 minutes ago||
Does this grant any of that?
Gigachad 18 minutes ago||
Nope. Apple already allows local AI model running in apps on the App Store.
EA-3167 1 hour ago||
Truly a universal concern for 99.9% of people who buy an iPhone.
himata4113 24 minutes ago||
nowhere they've said that this is a win for iPhone users.
oliyoung 1 hour ago||
Huge decision, maybe toughest Apple's seen yet.
deepsun 46 minutes ago|
They will appeal.
motionlessveloc 22 minutes ago|||
The Federal Court is already Australia's second-highest court. The only higher level is the High Court, and like the US Supreme Court, they're quite picky about what appeals they'll accept.
troupo 18 minutes ago||||
They will, but they've already been through this in the EU. They will take several years to drag this out through courts and "negotiations" until they comply so maliciously you'll need a new term for that.
josephg 11 minutes ago||
> until they comply so maliciously you'll need a new term for that.

The ruling is pretty clear that malicious compliance won't be accepted. There's a whole section on all the things apple isn't allowed to do to get around this ruling, starting with this:

> the first respondent must not (including by procuring any act of any related corporation) prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder users of iOS devices from discovering, obtaining and updating iOS apps, including alternative app stores, via Alternative Distribution Channels, or from using iOS apps obtained in that way on iOS devices, or prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder app developers from distributing and updating such iOS apps to such users via Alternative Distribution Channels, ...

ForOldHack 40 minutes ago||||
Where is my pop-corn?
ForOldHack 39 minutes ago|||
"Apple has lost major, high-profile appeals before the European Union courts in two primary landmark matters, while also winning an earlier round in one of them."
MBCook 21 minutes ago||
So now that Tim Cook is gone will we see John Ternus actually apply some braincells to this?

They’re just going to keep losing. And every time they fight they make it worse. They had a chance to get off way easier years ago. They destroyed it by fighting tooth and nail.

I don’t want any of those features myself, I don’t think. Small chance at side-loading.

But everyone, even diehard Apple pundits, realized long ago this was a very stupid hill to die on.

dannyw 22 minutes ago||
I feel incredibly proud do to be Australian right now.

I like how the court’s declarations are punchy, factual, and dare I say obvious. I’d suggest giving section 1 a read.

There’s going to be a million “what ifs”, from walled gardens to security to ‘you don’t have to use iOS’, but it’s blatantly obvious this is all about competition and money.

It’s anticompetitive, illegal, and the remedy is to cease these anticompetitive actions.

troupo 20 minutes ago||
EU got there first, and Apple sabotaged the entire process anyway. Look at the requirements for setting up and running an alt store that Apple imposes.
josephg 13 minutes ago|
Read the ruling. It's clearly written with Apple's EU schenanagens in mind:

> 4. Subject to orders 12 and 13, the first respondent must not (including by procuring any act of any related corporation) prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder users of iOS devices from discovering, obtaining and updating iOS apps, including alternative app stores, via Alternative Distribution Channels, or from using iOS apps obtained in that way on iOS devices, or prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder app developers from distributing and updating such iOS apps to such users via Alternative Distribution Channels, including but not limited to: ..

Then it goes on to list all the ways Apple isn't allowed to quietly break 3rd party app stores - like, they can't make developers or users pay money to use them. They can't restrict which APIs are allowed to be used via 3rd party stores. They can't require that people who publish apps in the official store remove their apps from 3rd party stores. And so on.

troupo 9 minutes ago||
Ooooh. This is good.

Unfortunately, I still expect Apple to invent new ways to circumvent that :( But really good on court's part.

offscript 15 minutes ago|
[flagged]