App Store to Be 'Split in Two' Ahead of EU iPhone Sideloading Deadline

[OneBar]

Apple actually prevents alternative app stores from becoming a potentially viable business by restring app access on iOS and iPadOS. They are stifling app access competition on major (as part of duopolies with Android) mobile and tablet operating systems.

Just like any reseller restricts product access. And? And no they are not restricting app access to other OS's, nor could they. If you want to make your app iOS, Android, and Windows compatible, no one can stop you. Happens every day.

Apple has the overhead they do because it’s a global company employing over 150,000 people, is involved with various types of products, etc. Being a public company can also elevate the importance of profits and profit margins. Smaller, leaner companies don't necessarily expect/need the profit margins Apple seeks and are also able to provide competitive options and ideas that Apple may have chosen not of felt no need to because they’re been able to restrict app access competition on iOS and iPadOS.

Being a business elevates the importance of profits and profit margins. That's the point of having a business. Making less money doesn't translate into reducing costs of your product. In fact, running a leaner company incentivizes the business to not reduce costs or run sales. They can't afford a dip in income generation.

Oh and the App Store is like a sub-entity within Apple and has it's own financials. The overhead for App Store in mostly generated from storage and distribution resources that an independent app dev would be responsible for if they sold their app on their own. App Store also acts as Tier 1 tech support for most apps as well. So if my weather app bugs out, I contact Apple first. That's a very expensive resource that the app dev is going to have to front the cost of independently. Again, your prices aren't going to drop and they might actually increase because the app devs are going to have to provide storage, distribution, tech support, etc. Their overhead is going to balloon and that's going to translate directly to app pricing.

 

[webkit]

Just like any reseller restricts product access. And? And no they are not restricting app access to other OS's, nor could they. If you want to make your app iOS, Android, and Windows compatible, no one can stop you. Happens every day.

Being a business elevates the importance of profits and profit margins. That's the point of having a business. Making less money doesn't translate into reducing costs of your product. In fact, running a leaner company incentivizes the business to not reduce costs or run sales. They can't afford a dip in income generation.

Oh and the App Store is like a sub-entity within Apple and has it's own financials. The overhead for App Store in mostly generated from storage and distribution resources that an independent app dev would be responsible for if they sold their app on their own. App Store also acts as Tier 1 tech support for most apps as well. So if my weather app bugs out, I contact Apple first. That's a very expensive resource that the app dev is going to have to front the cost of independently. Again, your prices aren't going to drop and they might actually increase because the app devs are going to have to provide storage, distribution, tech support, etc. Their overhead is going to balloon and that's going to translate directly to app pricing.

Apple is not just like any "reseller" as they have a dominant position in the mobile OS and tablet OS markets as part of a duopoly with Google/Android. Apple is stifling competition by restricting app access on major segments of the mobile OS and tablet OS marketplaces.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's not.

In-house Apps signed with enterprise certificates are not for App Store distribution - but still signed. And the end user has to trust the developer (and its certificate) when "sideloading" an app.

Same with macOS - on which you can, in addition to a) signed apps from the App Store and b) signed apps acquired from identified developers elsewhere, also run apps from unidentified developers.

Well when it comes to the Mac, you don’t need it to install software, as it allows the user to install applications without a valid certificate.

And in the context of the DMA.
And with regards to the text, it can’t be required for local deployment of software.

This leaves only the AppStore as the single place where it is actually required to have it. If the application is distributed on 3rd party stores, their own store fronts or just local deployment the certificate isn’t required.

 

[dk001]

Reading through this and looking at all the “Apple provides this and now you will…” and “Devs will lose this and now will …” and “They don’t realize the cost …” you would think that Android would have imploded many many moons ago. It hasn’t.

This is just MHO but I think that Apple is their own worst enemy.

 

[dk001]

Apple is not just like any "reseller" as they have a dominant position in the mobile OS and tablet OS markets as part of a duopoly with Google/Android. Apple is stifling competition by restricting app access on major segments of the mobile OS and tablet OS marketplaces.

I have had more than a few ask my why I use alternative app stores and sideload on Android - there are some GREAT! apps out there that are not allowed on the Play Store. If the devs and apps via the Appt Store are so good, the potential for those “GREAT! APPS” is even higher.

 

[dk001]

And? That's not going to change because the store changes. There's a reason that model is being pushed; everyone gets more money by charging monthly because people don't do simple math and realize they're paying much much more.

Focus on the low hanging dev fruit and ignore the corporate finance aspect.

That didn't even address the point...

Must have not understood your point. My bad.

 

[OneBar]

Apple is not just like any "reseller" as they have a dominant position in the mobile OS and tablet OS markets as part of a duopoly with Google/Android. Apple is stifling competition by restricting app access on major segments of the mobile OS and tablet OS marketplaces.

"Stifling competition" means an action currently taking place against an existing entity. What other app store is there for iOS? There isn't one. So there is no stifling of anything because nothing else exists. And, again, there is no competition when the apps will cost the same or more and there will be no retention when people have to navigate to other stores to acquire something. Hence why alternative Android stores don't do as good as the Play Store.

 

[OneBar]

Focus on the low hanging dev fruit and ignore the corporate finance aspect. ...

So we'll be inundated with free apps packed with obnoxious ads? Yaay.....

 

[Samplasion]

So there is no stifling of anything because nothing else exists.

I wonder why that is... Could it be because Apple doesn't want another app store competing with its own?

So we'll be inundated with free apps packed with obnoxious ads? Yaay.....

Congratulations! You've just described half of the current App Store (the other half is polluted with $40/week copycat apps)

 

[OneBar]

I wonder why that is... Could it be because Apple doesn't want another app store competing with its own?

There wouldn't be competition. It would be an identical store run by XYZ Corp that yall will also spend endless amounts of effort complaining about that there needs to be more of. I'm starting to think yall actually want more things to complain about rather than more apps to choose from.


[/QUOTE]Congratulations! You've just described half of the current App Store (the other half is polluted with $40/week copycat apps)[/QUOTE]
And yall want more of it.....

 

[webkit]

"Stifling competition" means an action currently taking place against an existing entity. What other app store is there for iOS? There isn't one. So there is no stifling of anything because nothing else exists. And, again, there is no competition when the apps will cost the same or more and there will be no retention when people have to navigate to other stores to acquire something. Hence why alternative Android stores don't do as good as the Play Store.

There are none because Apple won't allow them HENCE the stifling competition argument. Other app stores exist (and more could exist) that could be used to market iOS and iPadOS apps but Apple is preventing that by restring alternative app stores and sideloading on iOS and iPadOS. Again, Apple is stifling competition by restricting app access on major segments of the mobile OS and tablet OS marketplaces.

 

[Samplasion]

There wouldn't be competition. It would be an identical store run by XYZ Corp that yall will also spend endless amounts of effort complaining about that there needs to be more of. I'm starting to think yall actually want more things to complain about rather than more apps to choose from.

I personally don't care about having another App Store (capitalized), I just want the option to have another app store (uncapitalized) and the ability to install apps from no store at all. Is that too much to ask?

And yall want more of it.....

Never said anything like that, but even if that were to happen, would that disrupt your life irrevocably? Because you're acting like your life depends on it.

PS: before you reply to me with the malware strawman, iOS is already designed so that all apps run in a container no matter where they come from, so any bugs that would surface because of "sideloading" would presumably be present even today, and it wouldn't be too far-fetched to say they could very well be snuck into an App Store app even today. So basically the whole argument boils down to two results:

1) We get another App Store similar to Apple's, resulting in the same system we have today but with the added benefit of being able to install IPA files from external sources
2) The above but we get a store à la F-Droid which is a net positive.

 

[I7guy]

There are none because Apple won't allow them HENCE the stifling competition argument. Other app stores exist (and more could exist) that could be used to market iOS and iPadOS apps but Apple is preventing that by restring alternative app stores and sideloading on iOS and iPadOS. Again, Apple is stifling competition by restricting app access on major segments of the mobile OS and tablet OS marketplaces.

Not in the US.

 

[webkit]

Not in the US.

What's not in the U.S.?

 

[I7guy]

What's not in the U.S.?

Because there is no current “anti-trust” action against apple. Of course, we can’t predict the future. And there is a rumored DOj action coming. But if it does come, they have to win.

Aside from that the courts haven’t found any other finding related to the App Store except one anti-steering provision.

 

[webkit]

Because there is no current “anti-trust” action against apple. Of course, we can’t predict the future. And there is a rumored DOj action coming. But if it does come, they have to win.

Aside from that the courts haven’t found any other finding related to the App Store except one anti-steering provision.

That doesn't mean they aren’t stifling competition by restricting alternative app stores and sideloading on major mobile and tablet operating systems. How this may be handled from a legal perspective going forward and what any potential results will be remains to be seen.

 

[I7guy]

That doesn't mean they aren’t stifling competition by restricting alternative app stores and sideloading on major mobile and tablet operating systems. How this may be handled from a legal perspective going forward and what any potential results will be remains to be seen.

Sure, it’s your right to voice your opinion - to date legal actions say otherwise.

 

[dk001]

So we'll be inundated with free apps packed with obnoxious ads? Yaay.....

Oh yeah I expect we will see some of those. I also expect there will be some real gems in there too.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

"Stifling competition" means an action currently taking place against an existing entity. What other app store is there for iOS? There isn't one. So there is no stifling of anything because nothing else exists. And, again, there is no competition when the apps will cost the same or more and there will be no retention when people have to navigate to other stores to acquire something. Hence why alternative Android stores don't do as good as the Play Store.

That is exactly the point, so glad you understood. If no alternative exist=then no competition exist = apple is stifling the competition by preventing it to exist in the first place.

More competition=/= lower cost. It can simply have better features for everyone.
Imagine if the AppStore had these functions:

• Wishlist
• Better search
  • Specify Price range
  • Specify category for the search
  • search only free apps
  • Search only for apps without IAP
  • Find only apps with a watch app
• A report button for fake apps
• A browser version to search for easier search of apps on the computer.

And that’s just a few things,

 

[Samplasion]

Exactly!

Better search

• Specify Price range
• Specify category for the search
• search only free apps
• Search only for apps without IAP
• Find only apps with a watch app

I'd like to expand on this by saying that for example, despite the Play Store not having these functions (or having them buried inside of unintuitive search tags), on Android I can use apps such as Aurora Store to do that.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sure, it’s your right to voice your opinion - to date legal actions say otherwise.

Well we are seeing legal actions from other jurisdictions.

And Apple is definitionally stifling innovation in the iOS space for AppStore’s. It’s just legal for them to do so.

Some anticompetitive practices just aren’t illegal depending on the circumstances.

Such as refusal to deal or the similar U.S. law of essential facilities doctrine.

​

 

[I7guy]

Well we are seeing legal actions from other jurisdictions.

And Apple is definitionally stifling innovation in the iOS space for AppStore’s. It’s just legal for them to do so.

It’s their apple store. Apple is under no obligation to allow any innovation in the app store. Having said that, an open app store will have innovation. For the criminals.

Some anticompetitive practices just aren’t illegal depending on the circumstances.

Such as refusal to deal or the similar U.S. law of essential facilities doctrine.

​

Ok.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It’s their apple store. Apple is under no obligation to allow any innovation in the app store. Having said that, an open app store will have innovation. For the criminals.

Ok.

I 100% agree with you and wouldn’t want that to change, but both you and me know the DMA isn’t asking for the AppStore to be opened, but the preventative measures implemented in iOS that prevent anyone who wants to offer better services can’t because of artificial barriers.

It’s the application storefronts being available on the iOS iPhones and iPadOS iPads that are lacking and close to non existent that because of anticompetitive measures.

 

[OneBar]

There are none because Apple won't allow them HENCE the stifling competition argument. Other app stores exist (and more could exist) that could be used to market iOS and iPadOS apps but Apple is preventing that by restring alternative app stores and sideloading on iOS and iPadOS. Again, Apple is stifling competition by restricting app access on major segments of the mobile OS and tablet OS marketplaces.

Yall don't seem to get that there's no competition when the same app is sold at the same price on a different store. And considering the majority of apps are free with ads, Apple isn't getting any kickback from sales, so it profits no one to go to another store. Hence there's no competition.

 

[OneBar]

I personally don't care about having another App Store (capitalized), I just want the option to have another app store (uncapitalized) and the ability to install apps from no store at all. Is that too much to ask?

Don't know but the EU gets to guinea pig that idea, so we'll see if it's too much.

Never said anything like that, but even if that were to happen, would that disrupt your life irrevocably? Because you're acting like your life depends on it.

I'm not the one fighting tooth and nail to get it accomplished. But to your question, not on the face of it. It will, however, increase the size of iOS again, which does increase the risk of install failure.

PS: before you reply to me with the malware strawman, iOS is already designed so that all apps run in a container no matter where they come from, so any bugs that would surface because of "sideloading" would presumably be present even today, and it wouldn't be too far-fetched to say they could very well be snuck into an App Store app even today. So basically the whole argument boils down to two results:

1) We get another App Store similar to Apple's, resulting in the same system we have today but with the added benefit of being able to install IPA files from external sources
2) The above but we get a store à la F-Droid which is a net positive.

Not at all concerned about malware or viruses. Spyware, definitely, key loggers, definitely, it is another access point for hackers, most assuredly. To go back to your question of affecting my life, not necessarily mine, but I have a friend in data security and it's going to definitely affect his life irrevocably and anyone in any kind of secure data environment running iOS, which is a large population. Because even if sideloading is geofenced to the EU, the code will be there for everyone, it'll just be disabled.