[smoldesu]

Why do you see that as a problem? Apple is welcome to leave if they disagree with Europe's market terms. They didn't leave Russia when they made their demands though, and Lord knows they're deep enough in bed with China. Whipping up a fuss over sideloading and PWA guidelines is a red herring; Apple is just butthurt that regulators found their infinite service revenue loophole.

Apple has every right to self-determination, but sometimes that means deciding whether they agree with the law.

[palata]

> Why do you see that as a problem? Apple is welcome to leave if they disagree with Europe's market terms.

The problem I see is that IMHO, the law should not force Apple to accept a new technology just because web devs don't want to learn Apple's technology (that provide at least the same features as PWAs).

> Whipping up a fuss over sideloading and PWA guidelines is a red herring; Apple is just butthurt that regulators found their infinite service revenue loophole.

That's the thing: you conflate the App Store with the PWAs, and that's where I disagree. Enabling side-loading of native iOS apps is completely orthogonal to enabling PWAs. For some reasons pro-PWAs hijacked the side-loading lobbying effort and are trying to leverage it for their own agenda.

[smoldesu]

Well, you're welcome to take issue with that I suppose. The way I see it, Apple has invited this for years; the only way in their ecosystem is through the App Store or the browser. If they make unreasonable demands out of their App Store, the exploitation of the browser will be next. It's been this way since Cydia, really.

Much as we'd rather deny it, the App Store and Safari are inextricably linked on iOS. There aren't alternatives allowed to either, and the purpose leads back to the same reason; control. It's really not hard to see how Apple's desire for stable service revenue is at-odds with the capabilities of their platform. The DMA and the DSA both give Apple the ultimatum; loosen up or ship out.