A "bank" that isn't FDIC insured and can lock your account for all sorts of reasons while holding any balance in it until, or if they reactivate it.

I don't keep any amount of money in PayPal that I'm not willing to lose.

It applies to any gatekeeper platform with more than 45 million monthly active users, or with more than 10,000 yearly active business users established or located in the EU Apple is not being singled out here, nor are smartphones, and this could very well apply to game consoles as well if they meet the user requirements.

Depending on the level of access, it could conflict with other safety regulations though, but being able to modify your equipment in any way shouldn't be restricted in order to force people into having it repaired at an official service center.

John Deere and Apple are very similar in that respect... they require that any service done to your property be done by them, even if the device is no longer under warranty and parts are readily available from third parties. They enforce this by serializing every piece of equipment and requiring special tools only available to the company and authorized service providers in order to service the device...

Being able to control the software of a device, and being able to repair a device do overlap to some extent.

People can want iOS while also wanting features that iOS doesn't have in order to improve it.

There's more to a phone OS than if it can sideload or not, like how Apple updates their devices for years, and the average Android is lucky to get updates for more than one year.

As far as ignoring the sandbox, there's nothing suggesting that, and even now, every app on the device sideloaded or not is run within the sandbox.

So you're saying I should either put up with not being able to install software from where I want onto my own computer, or that I should buy a different computer that barely gets security updates... Neither of those are good choices, and this law will give users more choice.

If Apple refuses to carry the app, then it simply wouldn't have been available to users. However, when alternative app stores and sideloading is allowed, the developer will still be able to reach users even if Apple says no, and that's a good thing.

The entire $1 app market is why the fee was set at 30%, but as time went on they just kept it at that because for the longest time that's what people were willing to pay. But now we have that same fee being applied to services charging $15 monthly and quite frankly I think that fee is ridiculous in that case. For subscriptions, charge 50% or more for the first term for the referral fee and then drop it down to 5% to cover the payment processing fee. For one-time purchases, maybe make it a sliding scale based on the price of the app

And people were still largely buying boxed copies of software for their computers at that point because the internet hadn't yet caught up for digital distribution of huge software suites. In 2008 Steam was just starting to really take of. Broadband adoption is what enabled digital distribution for large pieces of software.

Meanwhile, Windows has plenty of free tools that have been developed and can produce a Windows app just as good as any other, one of the most popular options being Microsoft's own Visual Studio

You can't copyright game ideas, you copyright assets used and the final result. Unless there was a software patent on the gameplay, what case do they even have other than hoping that Apple and Google cave and remove them?

NVIDIA GPUs are still supported, just not anything newer than the GTX 600 series because for some reason Apple isn't allowing NVIDIA to make their web driver any more.

Seems like an easy solution to that is to not include payment in-app, but rather as part of the on-boarding process. So you'd have an on-boarding like so: 1. Create account in-app 2. Send email validation email 3. User clicks to confirm email. 4. User fills in required payment information. Of course, this completely excludes apps that have in-app purchases for currency and whatnot.

For what it's worth, I was seriously considering switching to another bank that supported Apple Pay prior to my own bank adding it. I wouldn't say that is as far-fetched as you think it is

This is not an acceptable solution, it is not sideloading, it's enterprise deployment (which is limited only to employees mind you)

CoreNFC only allows an app to function in reader mode, there are no public APIs to make the hardware act as a NFC card.