I think a simpler and more logical law would have been to disallow the sale of products which are locked down beyond their owners wishes. It's a net negative for society when we add additional production steps to decrease the usefulness of the things we produce.<p>So any computer (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, watch) would have to allow installing whatever software the user wants. On the hardware level.<p>That would mean alternative OSes like Linux could run on any computer.<p>It would still be allowed to ask or even warn the user "Do you REALLY want to install an alternative OS?" but not to ultimately deny it.
It's interesting to see how a company, instead of taking the hint and opening up its OSes to third parties and diversifying its business, keeps on trying to come up with bad-faith interpretations of the law.<p>It'll hit them hard when the EU punishes them again for malicious compliance, and when other countries enact similar laws.
this is still beyond me how EU treats iOS and iPadOS as two different operating systems. iOS was designated gatekeeper at the start of the whole DMA thing, iPadOS was just recently.
> It effectively geofences the development team.<p>Anyone tried to think a bit back and see where this comes from?
it's the EU laws that are demanding this. Since their laws are different (note: I'm not taking sides. I'm not saying there are better or worse, just stating they are as they are).
Developers just have to confirm.
I does not matter at all if it's apple or google or microsoft or whatever company is involved, the thing is multiple markets have different laws and developers have to follow suit.
It's funny to watch companies go to such lengths to protect their own little turd. But hey, it's all for user "privacy", right? Or has the official slogan changed now?