The apps runs on a native 119.56 hz refreshrateIf the U.S. ever got one, it'll probably be called AltStore NTSC
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AltStore PAL Alternative App Marketplace Launches on iPhone in EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What if Apple increase their sales in EU after the alternative store became available.
Would you people support Apple implementation of it in the USA as well voluntarily if it’s actually good for business
Would you people support Apple implementation of it in the USA as well voluntarily if it’s actually good for business
This is a nonsensical argument. It would be like saying that door locks are stupid because every now and then a thief picks a lock.
The App review process will occasionally not prevent something. But the overwhelming majority of reviewed apps do not turn out to be malware.
in an ideal world (for them) then epic and Spotify etc.. will want to keep their apps in the App Store, charging an inflated price so that people move from that store to their own store to get a 'better' deal. so its not all okay just because they stay in the App Store, the customer is still either going to have to pay more, or move.
and I agree with you about what you said about pc. despite that, and despite not really being a pc gamer but a Mac owner who used to play pc games through bootcamp before realising a playstation made more sense , for my meagre selection of games I had them through about 5 different stores. Uplay, battlenet, EA Origin, GOG, sure there was more.
No. I want iPhone to be the iPhone that provides the best user experience. I want to discover and manage all of my apps and subscriptions in one place and not rely on some subscription based 3p software to track it for me.
If want that experience. I have an Android
why would apple sell more phones because the experience was worse due to having to work with half a dozen stores to get the same apps we could have had from apple?
No. Because the precedent of government dictating how Apple should operate their business is a terrible model. Apple is doing just fine business wise without needing the nanny state meddling.
I want the best vertical integration I can have in my tech with as much privacy and protection possible.
The EU did not create this legal framework for the protection of consumer choice, this was in response to huge lobbying and backhanders from Apple competitors who want to get a cut of the Apple pie. People, especially in continental Europe, appear naive to what actually goes on behind closed doors. We are about to see what fragmentation of choice, security, payments and consumer help really means in practice.
I love the EU, but this reminds me of the crazy situation with English football. It used to be all you needed was Sky Sports. then the EU said it wanted competition. naive fans thought this meant competition that would increase choice and reduce prices as companies vied for business. No, the EU wanted competition of companies getting their share. so instead of the EPL being forced to sell its games non exclusively so customers could get the same games either from Sky or TNT or Amazon, the EPL was forced to sell its games in packages. Now for fans who want what they used to get just by paying Sky, they now need to pay Sky, TNT and Amazon and it costs more than it ever did.
All applications available on the Mac App Store need to be sandboxed, meaning that there are things that they're just unable to do when compared to applications distributed outside of it.
The last one I ran into when I was developing a small application for myself to open certain files and URLs. Since I always wanted to use my application for those URL schemes, I wanted to use the NSWorkspace.shared.setDefaultApplication API to set my application to be the default application for that URL scheme. The problem is that if your application is sandboxed, that API does not work. You just can't set your application to be the default application for a scheme. And if I want to distribute this application in the App Store, I need to remove the "Always open xxx:// URLs with this application" feature unless Apple decides to make an API for it available inside the sandbox.
From what I understand, with the current policy in place, if you're in the App Store, you can't be in an alternative one, and vice versa. That's why Delta is only available in the AltStore in the EU but the App Store everywhere else; to be in the App Store, you can't be in the AltStore.
Maybe Apple will be forced to change this practice, who knows, but it doesn't look like other countries legislation are making any kind of provision around this, so until otherwise noted, that's how side loading will work on iOS. With that model, it would be very hard for the larger companies to build up both the following and the revenue back.
EDIT: This might actually be incorrect now - seems developer documentation has been updated to say "and/or".
Last edited:
"Apps will be cheaper!" was one of the primary arguments.
Now, you get this same app for free in the US, and pay $1.50 per year in the EU. AND, the developer is charging a fee beyond just covering his expenses, it would seem. He's not passing savings onto the user; he's charging enough to make a profit from the App. And of course he will; because now he has to manage server space, payment processors, etc.
This developer COULD have chosen to keep this app in the App store for free to the user.
Now, you get this same app for free in the US, and pay $1.50 per year in the EU. AND, the developer is charging a fee beyond just covering his expenses, it would seem. He's not passing savings onto the user; he's charging enough to make a profit from the App. And of course he will; because now he has to manage server space, payment processors, etc.
This developer COULD have chosen to keep this app in the App store for free to the user.
This is the most concise explanation I've seen for this argument. Thank you. I would prefer meta, google, etc would use separate stores so their apps aren't clogging up the top charts, or being advertised.
Lost me at paying before trying honestly. I am not gonna subscribe to anything with my details without trying it. I am too germanized for that.
It's not like Apple lets them give you a trial. The second you install the application on your iPhone, Apple wants their 0.50€.
I will wait for the EU to nuke that ridiculous core service fee then and simply use my alternative US AppStore ID to download it in the meantime.
Also kind of rubs me the wrong way that literally the first developer is already choosing not to release something in BOTH stores.
Except that the developer could have chosen to distribute the app for free in the EU, just like he's doing everywhere else.
Good. They shouldn't have to compete on their own platform to begin with.
Not going to happen. The DMA specifically allows for charging money for use of IP.
But the EU already opened an investigation regarding this
since I already have altstore, delta and a few sideloaded app flavors of ad free apps to go along with it. plz come to US to make it less of a hassle than 3 clicks....
Stating the [should be] obvious thing here...opening an investigation doesn't mean they are (or aren't) going to find it in violation. The investigation very well could end up determining that the CTF is not a violation. Or it could determine that it is. Until the investigation concludes...don't sound so sure and get your hopes up. Opening an investigation doesn't automatically mean the CTF is wrong. The investigation is to determine if it is or not. Plus, if they made a determination without an investigation, it would make their legal process look like more of a joke than it already is.
The EU had to say they were opening an investigation because their lobbyists (Spotify, Epic, etc) were crying. An open investigation doesn't mean the Core Tech Fee will be removed.
Apple could have chosen to allow "retro" emulators in the App Store back in 2019 too. But for some reason they decided to wait only after the Digital Markets Act went into effect. Would've saved the developers the trouble of having to make an alternative app store for distribution in the first place.