ProbablyDylan
macrumors 68040
Why does it matter to you or anyone what other people do with their devices?
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 Plans to Launch iPhone App in Three More Countries This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why does it matter to you or anyone what other people do with their devices?
Abazigal
Contributor
Recent events have gotten me thinking about this as well. For now, my tentative conclusion is that it comes down to individual rights vs collective rights.
In my country, we banned chewing gum in trains a long time ago, because of a few inconsiderate commuters who were sticking them everywhere and causing train delays. In the greater scheme of things, the desire to provide train passengers with a clean and comfortable journey outweigh whatever individual benefits those few may have gleaned from chewing gum (even if majority claim they can do so without causing a hassle for other people).
Holding a middle management position in a school, I have also seen time and time again colleagues who advocate for initiatives which do make sense from a personal level, but have their issues when trying to implement it at the system level for everybody else. Again, I don't blame them, because they do not always have the oversight needed to appreciate the bigger picture (nor are they expected to), I view it as my responsibility to help be the bridge between teachers and school policy, and neither side is wrong really.
Likewise, I can appreciate the benefits of working from home for individual employees, while also acknowledging the drawbacks and the fact that some organisations are just not built to be run that way (again, individual vs collective).
People fight for sideloading because they believe (whether rightfully or otherwise) that they are knowledgable enough to manage the risks involved, and again, it is also true that they are not the ones who have the deal with any fallout that occurs as a result (that problem is Apple's). After all, it's not their problem or their money if another person halfway across the globe gets his device compromised as a result. It just is.
It's easy to dismiss this as Apple's cynical attempt to hold on to their 30% cut of App Store revenue (which is not wrong), but I still believe it's not the only reason. There are people whom I believe benefit from a curated App Store, and it's not so straightforward as to simply say "they don't have to sideload if they don't want to". For instance, these people didn't choose to download malware from scammy Facebook ads on their android devices; they did nonetheless, and paid the price for it.
Nearly 2,000 victims fell for Android malware scams, at least S$34.1 million lost in 2023
The majority of victims were aged 30 to 49, and were most frequently targeted on Facebook and Instagram.
It's also easier to advocate for something when you think the drawbacks will not apply to you.
At the end of the day, life is all about tradeoffs. It's easy to point a finger at Apple's recent blocking of the ICEblock app to justify the need for sideloading, but it also means that Apple can't keep out apps which you find controversial (eg: vaping or porn apps). In a bid to allow one app on your device, you end up allowing them all. Which again, is easy to dismiss because it's not any of our business or problem to deal with. Maybe until one day when it does become our business.
The question ultimately is - would society as a collective continue to be better off with the current curated App Store model, or should Apple open up and make their iOS devices more akin to PCs? I don't think the answer is as obvious or as straightforward as one might initially believe, because I see each model as having its own respective pros and cons as well, I admit it's a bit frustrating at times when the "pro-side loading" crowd refuse to acknowledge the drawbacks and act like it's 100% upside all the time.
But it is also not a debate that might matter any more in time, if we look at current trends. We will see. 🙂
AppleTO
macrumors 68000
I find this a strange thing to “announce”. Ultimately they have no control over the situation; it’s up to the countries/regions to legislate their digital platform rules.
Generally companies announce things they are capable of doing themselves or with partners, but this is mostly wishful thinking.
Starfia
macrumors 68000
Right, that point was clear to begin with. My analogy between iOS not doing something it can do, and macOS doing something it theoretically could do, was an attempt to illustrate that I think that point isn't relevant in light of the broader question of respect for design intent generally. I meant to show that, outside of this one drearily-hyped issue, people generally find it acceptable to invoke "sure, a company could do that, but that just isn't what they're trying to do. Let's support one that is."
It's the same sort of reason we're presumably not seeing governments go after Nintendo to make the Switch an open platform for anyone to develop and distribute for, including their competitors. Clusters of enthusiasts form communities to figure out how to hack in and do it anyway, but generally speaking, people – I would say sensibly – understand that someone who wants accessible, uncurated game development should simply consider a PC, a Playdate, a Pico-8 setup, or any of a ton of other things about which the designers have said "yes, that's why we want to make this; yes, that's how we deeply believe this should work."
Shirasaki
macrumors P6
Yes. It’s just that accepting tradeoffs are monumentally difficult for some people.
Alternative App Store has drawbacks, so does Apple App Store. Nothing is 100% perfect. You gain some and you lose some. I advocate alternative App Store not because they are always superior to Apple App Store, but they offer a different set of tradeoffs for people to choose from.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
What’s odd is seeing folks advocate for government regulation to force companies to operate in a way that’s antithetical to their philosophy instead of buying the product that works best for you.
If you’re interested in Fortnite, maybe? Or emulating forever ago games. No, wait, the Delta Emulator is also on the regular App Store. Sooooo, Fortnite it is!
People seem to like choice only up to a point. They don’t like the fact that choice includes choosing what to buy because that requires a little more personal responsibility than they can muster.
Right? App Stores have been around for quite awhile. Now, if they were bringing forth new hardware, with an innovative OS and UI along with that, THAT would be worth looking into. This is just “We’ve figured out how to use someone else’s code (open source) to make money on someone else’s platform! But, check out the name, we did that all ourselves! Way to innovate, right?”
Part of this was what the developers and publishers in the EU wanted. They know that, today, they make more money on iOS because it’s juuuust hard enough for people to steal apps that they just pay for them instead. They, in NO way, wanted iOS to become like Android, they just wanted some of the money Apple was making for themselves, so they wanted Apple having control over the other App Stores.
And, people don’t realize all the different places they get macOS software from, right now because the vast majority of people don’t even know what a macOS is. 🙂
Starfia
macrumors 68000
Or more specifically to this whole saga, it doesn't mean the law should require whichever company to do it.
According to the EC, the main point of the DMA is to promote so-called "competition" within the EU, specifically among software developers, specifically amid existing hardware platforms. "Benefit to users" and "consumer choice" is in there, but I'd say it's more incidental, and I think whether either goal has been achieved remains debatable and might always remain subjective.
mansplains
macrumors 68000
Please refrain from the term “side-loading”, it’s simply installing software you want to on hardware you own, the same as from “official” sources. We need to stop redefining language for various agendas.
There are numerous modified apps. I use a modified YouTube client for sake of disabling all of the bloat, like shorts. I’ve always hated how an accidental tap on almost any part of the screen can take you out of the content you’re trying to view. With this modified client, I can use the iPad layout, and I can remove video suggestions from underneath the comment box. These are a couple examples of the many tweaks I’ve made, which improve my experience, save data, and reduce loading times. Even with YT premium, there’s still sponsored content in videos. This client implements SponsorBlock, which is indispensable.
What I’m pining for personally is the ability to install this software without needing to enable developer mode, connect to VPN once a week for renewal, or see the fearmongering nonsense. SideStore is less painful than AltStore to me. Also, you can install multiple instances of the same apps, something you can’t do from the AppStore. (LiveContainer)
It’s only a matter of time before some larger company (or group of companies) with a range of widely used apps decides to open their own App Store and remove the choice of using Apple’s App Store. The people who are against it understands that large companies can’t help but encrapify themselves. Look at all the companies that removed MY choice of using Apple’s payment processing primarily because Apple’s system allows easy cancellation of any subscription.
Everyone except the AltStore cheerleaders understands this.
Essentially, “Let us lock in the commanding position of the US tech companies so it doesn’t make sense for anyone to introduce ACTUAL innovation in the way of new hardware, BUT try to reduce their profits.” Which is what Vestager was trying to do. Apple benefitted users and provided actual consumer choice by creating the iPhone. Does the EU think that Apple would have been MORE “innovative” if they just created an App Store for Nokia phones?
Please refrain from using a term that was coined in the late 1990s? NOT calling it sideloading is redefining language for a very specific agenda, so I’ll keep using the word that means “install (software, especially an app) obtained from a third-party source rather than an official retailer.”
So, the REAL story here is that they “plan” to release in those countries, even with no way to launch in those countries in order to pull in 6 million dollars of funding. 🙂 They’re just tech kiddies trying to become tech bros off of people with too much money and not enough common sense! Even if they never release, they can just go “Market conditions blah blah blah blah ceasing operations immediately blah blah” and still keep a decent chunk of change.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
Irrespective of the history of the term "sideloading", the reason many are against using it here is that Apple has tried to create a narrative of danger around the software not installed via their App Store.
On iOS/iPadOS is that the actual Apps are essentially identical whether procured via Apple App Store or any number of third parties.
DocMultimedia
macrumors 68030
Phones and computers are different. Different OS, different form, different purposes, different security, etc.
Everyone can buy a phone or a computer from a myriad of developers. That is freedom.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
Nah, they really aren't different in the ways you've laid out.
You're accepting Apple narratives on this and it's not accurate.
The OS is exceptionally similar, the purpose is irrelevant, the form factor is irrelevant and the security is exceptionally similar.
Apple could absolutely make iPhones/iPads behave exactly like macOS on security/gatekeeper and things would be just fine.
Do people not realize how much easier it is to get all software from a single App Store?
Do developers not realize how much easier it is to distribute and access hundreds of millions of users of foot traffic?
surferfb
macrumors 68030
I really think you aren't accounting for the vast scale differences. iOS is a MUCH more attractive target. A vulnerability that affects 5% of iOS users is equivalent to one that affects HALF of all Macs.
I'd also argue that the history of PC computing shows that "anyone can install anything from anywhere" is a terrible idea for the vast majority of users and I can't believe people still think it's a good one in 2025. A mode for people who actually know what they're doing? And that is significantly protected with warning screens to prevent social engineering to the maximum extent possible? Sure, I guess.
But the way this is going to be implemented will result in real damage to real people and a bunch of power users don't care because they assume they're too smart to fall for it so it won't impact them. "Who cares about the majority - I shouldn't have to use Android so sorry grandma, enjoy your scams and malware!"