sudotstar

I think that's the rub, in my theoretical scenario, Apple is not blocking the distribution or sale of iOS applications through third-party means, they'd enforce their existing restrictions on and power over building iOS applications in the first place. Developers would absolutely still be able to distribute unsigned applications - end user iOS devices would just be unable to install them.

It sounds ridiculous to me, and as I wrote earlier, it would be a clear violation of the spirit of the DMA, but I don't see any reason why this scenario would not be technically possible for Apple to pull off.

I'm not too sure that these actions violate the letter of the law here, even though I agree that they're 100% in violation of the spirit of the law.

It's been some years since I've put the mobile development world behind me, in no small part because of Apple's shenanigans, but the way I understand how this might work - Apple may be required to allow "iOS software" to be installed from third party stores, but software that runs on iOS must either be signed using a certificate that only allows installation in a developer or enterprise context (which require explicit and obvious user consent to that specific use case, and come with other restrictions such as the installation only lasting for a limited period of time), or through an "appstore" certificate that allows installation on any device, but the actual application package will need to go through Apple's pipeline (where I believe it gets re-signed before final distribution on the App Store). All certificates, not just the appstore ones, are centrally managed by Apple and they do have the power to revoke, or refuse to renew, any of those certificates at-will.

If my understanding is correct (I'd appreciate if any up-to-date iOS devs could fact-check me), then Apple could introduce or maintain any restrictions they please on handling this final signing step, even if at the end of the day the resulting software is being handed back to developers to self-distribute, they can just refuse to sign the package at all, preventing installation on most consumer iOS devices, and to refuse to re-issue certificates to specific Apple developer accounts they deem in violation of their expected behavior. I haven't read the implementation of the DMA in detail, nor am I a lawyer, so I'm not sure if there are provisions in place that would block either of these actions from Apple, but I do expect that there will be a long game of cat and mouse here as Apple and the EU continue to try and one-up the other's actions.

I was aesthetically a fan of the Fossil watches, and was using a Fossil Sport (1st gen) for quite a while. Unfortunately the layers of proprietary-Fossil required software/watchfaces on top of the layers of proprietary-Google WearOS hampered the software experience a tiny bit, and the frankly poor hardware quality marred the experience significantly. My charging band coil in the watch completely dislodged itself (it appeared to be held in with glue), rendering the watch unusable.

Fossil's customer support was excellent, replacing the device fully when this happened, though that was when that model was still on store shelves. I recently inquired about getting a replacement battery and was told I can just trade it in for 50% off a current-gen model, which while being far more generous an offer than I expected, still leaves me hesitant to upgrade to another device that suffers from the same problems and is in danger of being outright discontinued.

At this point I don't really need/want a WearOS device specifically, and would actually prefer something that's less tied to Google's whims, the hardware OEM's whims, and whatever the interplay is between those two companies. I've been eyeing more hobby-oriented projects like bangle.js or the PineTime smartwatch, but the fact that I'm even looking in that space shows that it's become a device I would get for tinkering, not one I strictly "need".