Well you argued that having to pay Apple $100 a year to be allowed to install software of your choice on a device that you supposedly own constitutes "software freedom". I argue that this is perversion of the word "freedom" considering it's neither free as beer, nor free as speech.

You’re not forced to do anything, that’s freedom. You don’t have to use Apple, that’s freedom. We don’t want to coerce you. We also don’t want to coerce Apple. Let free men make free choices.

I'm merely pointing out that there is no "software freedom" in Apple's ecosystem, just an illusion of one, and even that's locked behind a steep fee.

tldr; don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.

Ah ok, yes I agree that Apple obviously had a closed ecosystem, I don’t think Apple is saying differently. Glad you’re not advocating for coercion.

You can sideload for free. You have to press a button to renew your local signature every week. The $100/year is to skip pressing the button. You don’t have to get permission to run locally signed apps.

> You don’t have to get permission to run locally signed apps

You absolutely do need permission, that's how Apple enforces the app expiration. Apple will grant you a developer account and sign your apps for local use, but you cannot load your own apps without them doing so.

Any app that Xcode can build will be signed to run on the phone. There’s no permission required in any meaningful sense.

1. Valid Xcode signature is subject to Apple's approval. They might blanket approve everything now, but they could pull that rug tomorrow if they wanted to.

2. Having to re-sign every 7 days is a completely unworkable proposal, it means that you can't be away from your Mac for more than a week or the apps that you rely on will just stop working

3. Most people don't own a Mac, much less the have knowledge to sign apps with Xcode, for this to even be a realistic proposal

1. Then tomorrow you could argue human rights are violated. Not today.

2. So like I said: being able to run whatever software you want for more than a week at a time without having to click a button is the human right? Is that so?

2+3. I propose you start a human rights defending company that rents people a Mac Mini in the cloud for a minute a week and auto-signs any locally signed apps. All the necessary API already exists, and the marginal cost is in the cents. Cheapest welfare ever!

They would have to rent for longer than that, per the SLA:

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSVentura.pdf

> 3. Leasing for Permitted Developer Services.

(ii) each lease period must be for a minimum period of twenty-four (24) consecutive hours;

It also depends on whether auto-signing qualifies as a Permitted Developer Service, which sounds like it might-

> (B) Permitted Developer Services means continuous integration services, including but not limited to software development, building software from source, automated testing during software development, and running necessary developer tools to support such activities.

Great, 52 hours of rent a year! Marginal cost is approaching $1/yr. Still very cheap welfare if you think this kind of thing is a human rights violation.

I'd be happy if the EU deemed these terms unenforceable. That sounds like it could allow for real innovation.

TestFlight was born out of sidestepping an onerous app provisioning process, so you are unironically correct. Would be nice if the EU weighed in on behalf of Corellium as well.

I wasn’t trying to be ironically correct. The EU doesn’t have to weigh in: Apple failed its appeal of the case.