Comment by Telaneo
1 hour ago
> Subject to orders 12 and 13, the first respondent must do all things necessary (including procuring any act of any related corporation) to ensure that users of iOS devices can discover, obtain and update iOS apps, including alternative app stores, via distribution channels other than the App Store (including via direct download and alternative app stores) provided those iOS apps have undergone an automated scan for genuine security and/or privacy reasons and been notarised by Apple or a suitably qualified third party (Alternative Distribution Channels), and that app developers can distribute and update such iOS apps to such users via Alternative Distribution Channels, including but not limited to providing access to all tools and APIs (including software development kits):
So notarisation is still on the table? I won't be surprised to see Apple using that for all the loophole its worth.
That is, unless that's already covered by the ruling and I just didn't see it while skimming. Maybe the Alternative Distribution Channels is that, although it doesn't seem to be defined beyond 'a suitably qualified third party', which I'm sure Apple would love to say is no-one.
Still, the rest of it is very nice. The altstores for Apple have seemed kind of useless to me just through either costing money to use or needing to connect to a PC every so often, or needing to perform some other stupid dance. If we can get the F-Droid of iOS and an option to just download and install an IPA if I want to, then I'll be pretty happy.
See order 5(h) that sets out the limited conditions by which Apple can automatically remove, disable or block an application that has already been distributed and installed on a device. Importantly for Australia this list includes 5(h)(iii) for section 128 of the Online Safety Act 2021 and the receipt of an "app removal notice" from the Australian Government.[1] You can ignore the "subject to orders 12 and 13" as that just addresses timing of the orders coming into effect. An order in this judgement is anything numbered under the heading "AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT:" and preceding the heading "REASONS FOR JUDGMENT".
The nuance is the Online Safety Act 2021 does not have an "app distribution blocking notice" or "app blacklisting notice" or similar, therefore, I think the effect is Apple can't stop a Russian website distributing apps to Australian users who seek them out, but Apple can use a received "app removal notice" to then blacklist the relevant app on existing devices?
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text
> I won't be surprised to see Apple using that for all the loophole its worth.
That has already happened on several occasions (Apple refusing notarisation, since you still need to be a member of their Developer Program thus subject to their ToS and all the crazy in it).
Hopefully, the next revision of EU's DMA and equivalent in other countries will close the loop hole.
Or maybe... John Ternus would wake up one day and decide to be a better human being and just fix this globally for everyone.
Your pesky morals are no match for my capitalism!
/s