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
Maybe there is a chance that this will be the future iOS „fdroid“ clone for FOSS apps. Would be great. As far as I understand, the alt store supports sources. If you add a specific repository you should get access to other software. Fantastic.
Wish list:
- hypervisor
- torrent client
- popcorn time
- öffi public transport schedules
Wish list:
- hypervisor
- torrent client
- popcorn time
- öffi public transport schedules
They have two. But Android offers almost everything which iOS didn't before DMA.
Is there any functionality which you think were missing on iOS which weren't available on Android?
Which isn't the best experience.
How nice it would be to handle all payment and subscriptions in the Mac App Store.
It's fine, but I bet you anything it would have been free if the Core Technology Fee didn't exist.
Ah yes, I’m sure we’d all love to be told by Apple what software we’re allowed and not allowed to have on our Macs as well.
So...he's taking a 66% cut of the 1.50 fee. Apple is getting a 33% cut.
The more things change, the more they stay the same
"We’ve done the math — a lot of math — and €1.50 is just enough to cover the CTF (+ payment processing) for our apps. This obviously isn’t ideal, but our priority is making sure we run AltStore sustainably so that developers can confidently distribute their apps with us — and this ensures we can pay Apple’s CTF no matter how many users we get."
Apple banned emulators for over a decade. Now the developer of an emulator is fed up, starts his own App Store at the first chance...only for Apple to allow and publish emulators a couple of days before the store launches. Such an obvious way to pull the rug away under AltStore's feet and MacRumors is really falling for it.
Last edited:
Meta voluntarily uses the Mac App Store along with Microsoft and Slack. Why would they leave Apple's store on iOS? Nobody spends money on WhatsApp and the last thing Meta wants is to pay more money only to make it harder to install their free apps.
It's all the others like Google Chrome, Discord, Zoom, Steam, all developer tools, (most apps by) Adobe etc. that avoid the MAS and sandboxing along with it.
Last edited:
I'm not against other app stores or choice as such - but honestly using a PC for gaming only it's not a great user experiencing managing games across 6 different app stores with different UIs.
If I had the choice of one app store with everything and easy updates i'd choose it there too - instead you've got Steam, GOG, Epic, Xbox Live, Microsoft Store, EA's Orgin app (which links to the Xbox Live one), Ubisofts app (Also links to others), Amazon...
Then you've got to keep each app store app updated as well.
If I had the choice of one app store with everything and easy updates i'd choose it there too - instead you've got Steam, GOG, Epic, Xbox Live, Microsoft Store, EA's Orgin app (which links to the Xbox Live one), Ubisofts app (Also links to others), Amazon...
Then you've got to keep each app store app updated as well.
This is the "dream" they're trying to export on our phones. And then they'll start complaining that 8gb of ram in a phone is not enough anymore and blame Apple for needing to upgrade to 12gb phones.
I think it's clever - PAL is the video broadcasting standard in Europe Vs NSTC used in the USA.
A little preview of what is even available would be nice like at this stage u just sign up and hope for the best
Oddly enough you can buy Apps and Games with the Meta Quest App on iOS using their own payment methods (no IAP). I always wondered why Apple allows this. Shouldn’t they be required to use IPA? Is it because what you are buying is an digital good not actually played / used on the Apple platform?
F-Droid and APKMirror also haven't had a huge impact on availability except when Google decides your app now violates the ToS for some reason and remove you. If more people start using 3rd party app stores, Apple will have to make their App Store more lucrative and reduce their cut or allow more apps.
If Google or Amazon were to control that market with their own app stores, Apple will get under pressure which is a good thing. A monopoly isn't the answer
How can we forget the origin of it all?
Why Installing Fortnite on Android Will Be a Security Nightmare
Epic Games' plan for Fortnite on Android looks fraught with danger -- you'll have to disable security settings. Here's how to keep safe.
Because you couldn't sideload or install 3rd party app stores on iOS, Epic simply released Fortnite on iOS and made it readily available to the iPhone's hundreds of millions of users right from day one.
In contrast, because Android technically supported those features, Epic tried to circumvent the google play store by withholding said app, while trying to entice users to undergo a particularly risky process in order to access Fortnite.
While Epic would eventually release Fortnite on the google play store, the point is that iOS users didn't have to deal with any of the aforementioned shenanigans, simply because Epic was physically incapable of even attempting it in the first place.
I honestly don't recall it, but since you took the effort and trouble to reply to me, here goes.
I am going to turn this question around.
If an app isn't available in the App Store, I will find another alternative. However, I would prefer a situation where I didn't have to. So let's say in theory, I use a particular document scanner app which then decides to make itself available only via a third party App Store. I suppose I could just shop around for an alternative (and the App Store is likely littered with tons of them). However, I would also prefer a scenario where I didn't have to (shop around for an alternative) in the first place, and that begins with not allowing the conditions that would make it possible for a developer to make their app available outside of the App Store.
I am not seeing the relevance of this statement.
It's one thing to have a wish list of the features you would like to eventually come to iOS, and I can accept such a list that is put forth in a respectful manner. What I don't understand is some people sounding all entitled like Apple owes them and that Apple is somehow obligated to include a particular feature just because. To me, Apple has a list of priorities, I will just use whatever features come with the next release of iOS, and if I don't get something, no biggie. It's one of those things I came to accept when I decided to go all-in on the Apple ecosystem. That I am not going to be one of those people who are constantly "banging table" here in this forum demanding this or that all day.
I remember the immense vitriol and negativity when the non-M1 iPads did not get stage manager (even though I suspect the people arguing so fervently for them likely don't even have a 2018 iPad Pro, much less use said feature), or the iPhone 7 not getting the iOS update with the lock screen customisation features.
Like sure, I made use of features like App Library and widgets when iOS 14 came out, but I am also okay with it never coming out, and I don't care that it came out when it did and I am not going to whine about how it could have been released earlier, or that android has had a similar feature since forever. Some things just are.
I also don't get the whole "iPhones suck because android phones have had this one feature since like forever", and then it turns out said feature isn't even something that users even want or use. And I will say - life is too short to constantly be angry and upset over one thing or another, which is what this forum seems to be in a constant state of. So yeah, if you are constantly angry and upset over iOS not having one feature or another (and if said feature is available on android), then yeah, maybe they then should go over to android, and we will all be happier (they get the features they want, and I don't have to deal with their incessant whining).
I don't know. Is it a US thing or an online social media thing?
The value of the iOS App Store lies in all iOS developers having to use it for lack of an alternative. Which in turn is to my benefit because I get to purchase and manage all the apps I need in one place, without needing to deal with the drawbacks of managing apps downloaded from multiple different sources.
I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily. It's been a long day at work, it took me way longer to type this out that I thought, I don't know why I feel so shagged these past few weeks, and I am going to get some McDonalds nuggets for my family and myself. Hope you are all having a great time over on your end as well.
If all the apps on the alternative stores, are the same on the Apple store, why would I want to install a 3rd party store?
I heard all apps must be verified by Apple first.
I heard all apps must be verified by Apple first.
All apps having to come from the iOS App Store would be less of an issue if Apple didn't choose who or what gets to be on the store and who or what does not. If Apple allowed anything outside of malicious, IP-infringing, or otherwise illegal apps on the store, much of the problem with the previous status quo would've been eliminated immediately. Outside of a those few areas it's not Apple's place to tell folks what they can install on their phones. Though what this doesn't resolve is the problem where Apple gets to take a cut from direct competitors, such as Spotify or Netflix. Hell, Apple could've met regulators and other folks critical of this practice halfway and said, "ok we won't take a commission from apps/IAP/subscriptions in areas where we compete directly with others, such as music and video streaming." At that point the only major issue left is that there's no competition for the App Store for those apps left that would have to pay the commission Apple sets and that devs are forced to take or leave if they want to be able to reach the roughly half of consumers with iPhones. But at least that's a smaller problem to tackle.
I am reminded of the recent controversy surrounding MKBHD. He gave the human AI pin a rather scathing review, which in turn promoted someone on Twitter to remark that he needed to be more responsible with his comments given his 18-million subscriber base and be mindful of how a bad review by him could potentially tank someone's business (and possibly livelihood). The implication seemed to be that the larger and more influential someone is, the more they ought to be conscious of their words, to the point of self-censoring what they say.
But the point is that MKBHD grew to be as popular as he is today because what he said and did resonated with a lot of people, and it seems hypocritical to expect him to now do the exact opposite of what made him so popular in the first place, just because he is popular now. Aren't you alienating the very people who made you so successful in the first place?
It just made me think of Apple's current situation.
Everything that Apple is being accused of not doing right, they have always done since day 1, and in spite of the immense amount of criticism levelled at them. The high prices, the closed App Store model, the 30% cut, the absence of sideloading, the banning of flash, the tight-knit integration with their products, amongst other "Apple is doomed if it doesn't copy this thing their less successful competitors are doing" proclamations. While Apple products do not enjoy majority market share, they nevertheless have a large user base precisely because their opinionated design resonated with a core user base.
So if I get everyone here right, Apple is expected to abandon what made them so successful in the first place, just because they are now enjoying a certain degree of success. They are supposed to give up their App Store cut just like that. They are supposed to open up their platform and make it more like Android (interesting that the Vision Pro runs a version of iPadOS rather than macOS).
And as I type this, I am reminded of the parable of the oak and the reed. I am sure many people here would rather that Apple emulate the reed. Go with the flow, pick your battles and stop making things so hard for yourself. But I fell in love with Apple precisely because they were the proverbial giant oak who stood steadfast against the strongest of storms and prevailed, not the reed who swayed with the tide just because it was easy or convenient. The floppy drive. Blackberry. Flash. The netbook. Windows Phone. The headphone jack. And we cheered on the Apple who marched to their own beat without caring two hoots about the rest of the world felt.
But deep down, I guess I had to have known that one day, Apple would eventually encounter a storm so great that it couldn't stand up to. Apple would lose not to Microsoft, not to Samsung, not even to Facebook or Android, but to what I feel is not a good piece of legislation.
And I guess it's a shame. Because an Apple who retains full control over their ecosystem, is an Apple who always wins.
Sure, as the parable goes, the reed is the one who survives at the end of it all. But is an Apple who lost still the same Apple as before? Maybe, maybe not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The only way to construe this as expecting Apple to abandon what made them a success is if someone genuinely believes that what made Apple a success is restricting what people could install on their phones (even beyond malicious apps and the like) and taking a commission from apps in the app store. Is that really what you or anyone else is saying made Apple successful? I would find that preposterous. What made Apple successful is designing great hardware and great software. Launching revolutionary products like the Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Making their products work together as seamlessly as possible. What does any of that have to do with app restrictions and commissions?
And the App Store is part of that integrated ecosystem.
I believe that it boils down to iOS not giving users enough rope to hang themselves with. App restrictions mean lesser chance of malware and software piracy. This is what allowed developers to earn more on iOS compared to android, even with the latter's greater market share (the implication is that when users can't easily sideload pirated copies of an app, they are more inclined to actually spend money purchasing it via legitimate channels). And it's hard to argue this when the iOS App Store earns more than twice what the Play Store brings in despite having only a fraction of the users.
30% is not unreasonable compared to what developers used to get by distributing their software via physical channels (and was actually preceded by Nintendo). So charging 30% may seem overkill compared to 0%, but it can also be seen as a steal compared to say 50% or even 70%.
People say - I am not losing anything by not venturing outside the App Store. The same can be said for the google play store as well, and still we see app developers earning less on Android, we see a less vibrant app market, and this is what you all truly think that aping a less successful software distribution model on Android is what is truly best for iOS users?
FYI this has already been proved false in other threads:
Developers operating under the alternative business terms for iOS apps in the EU will have the option to distribute their iOS apps from the App Store and/or alternative app marketplaces.
“and/or”
So developers are free to distribute in both places