Yeah, some people (Epic and Spotify for example) will probably publish IPAs for installation from their own websites, along with documentation for how to enable installing such IPAs.
What they won't do is stop publishing their apps on the App Store, because only a tiny minority of users will ever actually install any apps from third party app stores.
I suspect Apple will change their fee structure to account for revenue lost if companies want to use teh App Store but not get payed via a third party payment system. Apple idoes not have to let people free ride on their infrastructure.
I will, but I'm a software engineer.
So you should the technical knowledge to know how Apple's ecosystem operated, chose it, and now complain about how it works after the fact?
I get you don't like it, but then change to one more suited to your desires.
I suspect many will discover tehy can now more easily run up the Jolly Roger.
It was really really stupid of Apple not to provide a sensible mechanism for all this on their own terms, because now it won't be under their own terms, which is a shame, but they brought that on themselves.
I suspect when Apple does implement side loading it will be on their own terms and result in smaller developers being hurt by piracy and increased upfront costs.
The FAA's 50-year old law has now prevented the development of new supersonic planes though that do not disturb the ground.
While it certainly hinders it, the economics of supersonic flight play a large role in preventing its widespread adoption. If airlines and a/c manufacturers really thought it could work in today's passenger market they'd have lobbied for changes.
Even so, the
FAA has moved towards allowing supersonic flight over land.
This.
I'll admit the Panama Canal comes close.
While impressive, I'd argue the Hoover Dam, or even the atomic bomb was its equal; or even some of teh mountain tunnels in the US and Europe.
To me, the Chunnel was more of a political feat given the UK's historic view of the Channel as a natural barrier preventing entry of barbarous Continental Europeans.
In reality, the EU and the US have had some pretty impressive projects over time.
If you disagree with that, then I would like to hear clear arguments as to why you believe some corporation has the right to sell you a device and then tell you what you can and can't do with it.
For me, the reason is Apple tells you upfront how iOS and the iPhone works, it's not some bait and switch. You knew the deal upfront, took it and then complain about what you agreed to.
I'll guarantee you that this has been a discussion at Apple. The question is not only whether they'd lose $100 billion/year, the question is whether they'd lose control of their company over the long-term.
I'd wage any discussion would revolve around how to protect their profits and marketshare while complying, even if minimally, with EU regs.
My purchase of an Apple device was not tantamount to an endorsement of all their business practices, and for you to suggest otherwise is a completely absurd take on how consumers operate.
No, but it is an acceptance of them.