Hacker News

You already can’t download and run an unnotarized binary on M-series Macs without stripping the gatekeeper quarantine flag, so…

> is the day I stop buying apple hardware and just use linux laptops again.

Kinda tempted to do that already just because of Liquid Glass.

I mean, if I'm going to be stuck with a *nix OS whose UI is badly thought out and inconsistent between apps, might as well take the cheaper option, right?

The up to 3 apps per device stay but cannot be opened after 7 days until refreshed.

And "whatever code you want" here excludes JIT compilation, or as I understand it memory that is both writable and executable, as your app would require a special 'entitlement' from Apple.

You actually need a paid account, even for local installs, if you use certain tech, like NFC

Seriously? I have a custom Android app that I use. It's mostly vibe coded now, which I'm a bit embarrassed about, but demonstrates that the bar for custom software is very low at the moment and getting lower.

I considered getting an iPhone to replace my S-series Samsung, the only reason I stayed with Samsung is for the S-Pen. Had I gone with iPhone I would not be able to write and run my own software? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Strictly speaking, I can't, I don't own any Mac nor planning to do so

There is a big difference between fighting to keep their walled garden in IOS alive and nuking the entire developer ecosystem that they have built on macos.

Have been seeing this comment for a decade at least now.

Anti-developer is anti-consumer because it creates a barrier to entry as a supplier in a market where consumers create the demand, but I suppose the main thesis behind calling it anti-consumer is that competition among suppliers is generally considered good for consumers for keeping prices and product/service quality in check.

> We saw how developers used that "freedom" - now all almost all software runs in a remote server and is delivered through a sandbox (and even then developers try as hard as possible to poison that as well).

Evil developers forcing poor users to download their applications. Guess we all to suffer with braindead supercomputers in our pockets, because granny gran installed hax to get free gems for a gacha (that she downloaded from Apple approved App Store).

>who desperately need to exercise their right to capture every and any piece of data the OS provides.

thankfully the EU has extensive privacy regulations prohibiting developers from doing just that, so we can enjoy open platforms instead of being at the mercy of a private corporations protection racket as if it's the 19th century

Every time I’m forced to do it[0] I feel good because I’m glad these hoops are unavoidable on all the computers of the people I provide family tech support for.

[0] Which is rare. I’m installing random shit all the time using homebrew and it’s basically never an issue.

If what we were discussing was hacky ways of installing apps on your own device rather than distribution to end users, you can do without the Developer membership cost.

It would just be limited to 3 apps per device that require to be refreshed every 7 days to continue to be able to open them.

Web apps are a non starter for iOS since the only allowed browser on iOS happens to not support crucial standards and may drop your app's persistent data.

> $99/year developer membership

Yeah...

> then why not use a Raspberry Pi or something?

Because a Raspberry Pi would be very inconvenient to use as a smartphone, obviously. Doesn't explain why it makes sense to treat one ARM computer as a mildly locked jail (Macs) and another as a hard locked jail (iPhones and other handhelds); I feel like the only explanation here is that the smartphone duopoly has worked hard to condition customers into accepting this.

The $99/yr part gives me the ick.

Microsoft proposed locked-down PCs decades ago and got criticism from sources as mainstream as the New York Times. Everyone more technical than that, with the possible exception of corporate IT types flatly rejected it.

I'm sad there was so much less backlash to restricting user control on phones.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/business/technology-a-saf...

I think what you meant to say is if US regulators weren't asleep at the wheel phones would be just as unlocked as PCs.

If [shitty thing] had been normalized years ago, we wouldn't be questioning [shitty thing]'s existence today. I mean, yeah dude.

What the heck does this defeatist argument have to do with it???

LOL. That security bogeyman argument is a convenient post-hoc justification. The real reason is much simpler: Because "computers" started out with "Owner can run code of their choice on it" as one of the main definitional qualities agreed upon by the market.

Devices which only ran code that the vendor had specially packaged for the device always had other names, like Games Console, Word Processor, MP3 Player, Graphing Calculator, or just plain "Toy." Nobody confused those with computers and nobody accepted them as computers.

Phones entered this world already in that second category, long before Apple even considered making one. Apple kept an iron grip at first and after careful consideration, decided to only allow third-parties to even enter on terms extremely favorable and profitable to Apple, and always under their direct control.

Closing off the Mac would be very messy and also cause tremendous headaches due to it being the development platform for iOS. They don't want to bother. But the reason iOS is closed is because it's always been closed, and they'll never open it unless forced, because money.

> Because malware breaking the sandbox of one of them can mostly only spy on the owner, while malware breaking the sandbox of the other can spy on whoever the owner walks past, GPS trace their movements…

Then fix your s****y sandbox, Apple.

> Apple's hubris is too much and, almost no app developers care about VisionPro exactly because of that, it isn't only the price.

Ah, I think it probably is the price, though Apple's hubris may be the cause of them thinking a product at that price was ever a good idea.

If you're a developer, chase the users. AVP is extremely expensive, so there's not a lot of users, so not much reason for developers to care: even cheap VR hardware has problems getting enough users to justify the effort to make games (let alone other apps) work well on it. Even ignoring AVP, the whole category's sales are, what, mostly Beat Sabre? I think? You don't need a 3.5k device for a rhythm action game.

EU law doesn't actually require a monopoly for competition rules to apply, it's a "dominant position". Apple certainly meets that definition for smartphone platforms.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/competit...

Distribution of software on iOS?

Apple and google essentially own 99%+ of the smartphone market, so it's not that different from a monopoly

iPhone apps.

If it helps, think if Windows apps had a 5% Microsoft tax and had to be approved by Apple.

'Monopoly' is the wrong term. It's abuse of market power.

Agree.

However, in this scenario every neighbourhood only has 2 STORES - and each CUSTOMER only shops at one of these STORES.

Then, if you made HATS, the only way to sell HATS is to get them on the shelves of both those stores.

--

This is Australia: two major supermarkets - so the only way to sell a lot of your product is to submit to the terms of Coles or Woolworths.

I think the fundamental thing here is that this isn't merely a store. The Apple ecosystem is large enough to BE a market in itself.

It's not about the market for apps, or the market for smartphones. Those markets are comparable to any market.

This is about the market for apps ON the apple ecosystem. And the problem that is being solved is: Apple can't have a monopoly on that market, such that they can (for example) charge a commission for every sale.

Basically: we can't allow a company to be so successful that their STORE becomes a MARKET.

> Isn't it "interesting" how do many of these EU regulations always have these side doors that allow the very practices they promoted to adress

You mean it's "interesting" that enforcement of EU regulations is not immune to political pressure?

Sadly and unbelievably, it appears to be true:

> [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)

Notarization is a grey area. A competent Commission would have successfully argued against it, but there are arguments for it. On the much clearer violations I'll copy my comment to another user:

Article 5(4):

> “The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”

This means the 15% commission on purchases made after linking out is explicitly forbidden by the legislation. Article 5(4) says gatekeepers must let developers, free of charge, communicate and promote alternative offers and conclude contracts with those users. More importantly, in a June 2025 Apple compliance workshop, the Commission explicitly said Apple had been ordered to ensure that both promotion and “the conclusion of contracts following steering” are free of charge. It said Apple could receive only limited remuneration for the initial acquisition of a customer, and prohibited other fees linked to customer acquisition. Yet Apple now says that an App Store app linking to the web will pay Apple 15% of the resulting transaction, or 10% for certain programmes.

Article 6(4):

> “The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.

> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

> Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.”

On the 5% “Core Technology Commission” on apps distributed outside the App Store, the Commission previously issued preliminary findings that Apple violated Article 6(4) specifically because its Core Technology Fee disincentivised alternative distribution.

And then we have the eligibility restrictions for web distribution. Apple still requires developers to satisfy criteria such as a financial-stability threshold, being publicly traded, having established venture funding, having undergone a financial audit, or falling within certain institutional categories. The Commission’s previous findings criticised Apple’s “overly strict eligibility requirements” for alternative distribution. Article 6(4) allows Apple to impose measures protecting hardware/OS integrity only where they are strictly necessary and proportionate. How the fuck is it strictly necessary and proportionate to protect iOS that developers have venture funding? OBVIOUSLY, these terms are a form of malicious compliance, intended to deter anyone from using this distribution method.

Which would be the most pathetic but plausible interpretation of this. Instead of working to improve the legislative mechanisms in the EU to prevent malicious abuse of the system, they merely let Apple just do whatever it wants.

EU is corrupt is not the same as one of the most corrupt.

It is certainly not one of the most corrupt.

10 years ago I would have disagreed with you vehemently, but now I agree with you. Every new EU regulation makes my life worse, and very few of them actually address systemic issues re competition which would make my life better. This is one such example. The law is crystal clear, Apple is in clear violation, and the Commission allows them to continue. I cannot believe this. I'm honestly stunned.

I'd like to see Windows 2000 as a base taken by Anthropic and beefed up with security stuff.

>Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.

It's not at odds with consumer interests at all. It's at odds with developer interests.

It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.

Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets instead of their own, but overall this model is beneficial for everyone involved. It is also better for the environment because directly making money from developers incentivizes them to support old hardware for as long as possible.

So why does this not apply to macOS?

Wait, which apps are you referring to having been delisted by EU (which branch? what process?), as opposed to "breaching app store terms and conditions" (which the companies do of their own initiative all the time)

yeah, I think for as much as many of us hold out hope that the EU will break the back of these brazen monopolists, there's a limit to their friendliness to the actual interests of consumer freedom when it's got to be balanced by their love of censorship.

The Play Store is not required for APK distribution. Not now, nor has it ever been.

Sadly and unbelievably, it appears to be true:

> [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)

> How do you not use their SDK?

The first third party iPhone apps existed before the SDK existed. iPhone OS was jailbroken pretty quickly and apps emerged fast. SDKs are nice references and tools but the're not the only way to skin a cat.

Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. If the DMA was enforced correctly this would have already happened.

Personnally I use Flutter which has a very minimal use of their SDK.

Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface.

And I'd argue that this is a core OS feature that you expect on any modern OS.

The feeling of security and tightness on iOS does not come from its monopolistic restrictions on 3rd-party devs.

> Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks?

A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.

A much more accurate nonsensical analogy would be getting take out but only being allowed to eat it with Apple branded utensils because otherwise your food would catch fire.

> Users are free to choose a different manufacturer

It’s an oligopoly, so no, consumers are not exactly free to do what they want. If the market were truly competitive you might have a point.

It's not against the law to create a better and more profitable business.

They charged for the operating system. The first MacOS X was $130.

[flagged]

And they act like there's no motivation for R&D unless they're making this rent. I'd say if the R&D makes their devices better then they'll sell more of them and gain marketshare. They don't need the rents to justify that.

> It's to keep spammers out.

Doesn't seem to be working. Have you seen the App Store? You can buy 'antivirus' apps with $79.99 weekly subscriptions. On a sandboxed platform where you can't "scan" anything but yourself.

Also -- it's not that hard to make $143 in scam sales, which will pay for that $99 account.

I actually would rather the developer program fee was $2,000 if it meant it actually was harder for scammers to get in. Of course, it should be free to make apps for my own phone, and to distribute it to those in my family group.

Of course it's to make profit

My point is rather, why couldn't they just simplify and make the developer program fee tiered. So indie devs pay $99, and huge businesses pay more.

Yeah. Also, IANAL but even if the European Commission does think Apple's interpretation of the DMA is reasonable, Apple could still be sued by an affected company or person, and a judge might disagree, IIUC: https://bureaubrandeis.com/private-enforcement-of-the-dma-a-...

Apps still need to go through Apple bureaucracy and they still take their cut. They are still free to ban any of those apps without any specific reason

[flagged]

Those requirements apply to direct distribution or alternate marketplaces. Developers not meeting those criteria can still participate in non-Apple distribution by submitting to an alternate marketplace.

No, those are the qualifications to run an app marketplace.

Independent web distribution of an app requires only notarization.

[dead]

> My understanding is that it's based entirely on self-reporting by developers.

I look forward to the bans and/or automated deductions issued when Apple's automated system believes you're lying, there's money at stake here so they'll be strict about it.

I disagree. Developer machines have to be open, others maybe yes maybe not. Users can choose their security model by the machine they buy.

The closed model has been very good for both developers and consumers. If we use Android as a counterfactual to iOS there are entire swaths of apps that are available on one that are not on the other. Android is more amenable to open source apps and whatever Apple doesn’t on its store. But it is also easier to pirate and download cracked software.

My own interest in making music exposed me to a stark difference between Android and iOS. There is an enormous number of audio apps available on iOS that simply don’t exist in Android. There are a fair number of apps that mirror windows and Mac apps but are far far cheaper on iOS. I am convinced that the console approach to iOS apps is responsible for the existence of a lot of apps that wouldn’t be offered otherwise.

We are better off with a mix of platform types. I can’t imagine any real way a development machine could be completely locked down. They have to be able to run arbitrary code.

And I’m fine with that. Owned 6 iphones, bought another one but fuckers keep complaining instead of voting with their wallet. They want a cookie, eat a cookie, and the EU just keeps degrading my trust to the company because fuckers don’t practice what they preach: go snd vote with your wallet.

The first part is clearly illegal in the USA. Is it not in the EU?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...

Yes, there is a lot to unpack - and im sure very smart people has worked on these changes, so spotting what is and what is not peculiar ways to get around EU regulations is not easy.

Are you saying that this is not the case at all?

It would be better to read the page the URL links to.

Is this a bot comment or something? What does AI have to do with any of this? And regardless Apple is in many ways best in class for local AI support.

Luckily, none of that is even remotely close to happening.

Nobody cares about AI. Nobody wants that shit running on their device eating away at precious battery life.

Exited my Apple position.

Good. It will allow you to learn how little your "position" matters.

Apple cares about the hundreds of billions of dollars held by large investors, not some rando Reddit-grade Wall Street wannabe.

Anything EPP and their Ursula von der Leyen think they are. Mandatory surveillance of your communication for example, something they have been trying and slowly succeeding in for the past 5 years.

> Chat Control 1.0 passed the European Parliament — through the back door

https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-pas...

don't feed the trolls - most of his comments are focussed on how bad Europe or the EU is. Weird.