Apple Accuses Epic Games of Wanting a 'Free Ride'

[Bigbuddy1]

It’s factual Apple isn’t greedy and is protecting their property. It’s also factual Nintendo is more “greedy” than Apple.

Society isn’t like this regarding smartphones. I dont see the masses clamoring for any of this. Just greedy devs.

Hi
It’s not about feels
apple as a company are factually more greedy than Nintendo do you have any evidence of that because it’s quite easy if what you’re saying is true regarding Nintendo

Society isn’t like what regarding smartphones
Compared with games consoles most households don’t have a games console

 

[Abazigal]

That is the point due to Apple’s business model they are guaranteed your money more than any other console maker out there and by the nature of the cost then Apple are a greedier company numbers don’t lie and
There is also different factors to it like this if you purchase a Nintendo product then that money gets reinvested back into the games industry to then make a better product and then better games for the industry but apple as a company are not interested in that as the iOS App Store is a generic store so it doesn’t matter to them.

I don't think this line of reasoning holds as much water as you think it does.

For one, it's credit to Apple that they are in the business of making profitable hardware, which allows them to aggregate the best customers in the world, which then provides a lucrative user base for app developers to target. I really don't see anything wrong with their business strategy here.

Second, I don't see how Nintendo is "reinvesting" in the games market. At least Apple works hard every year to develop their own custom silicon which offers leading-edge processor and GPU performance. For example, one of my favourite games, Grimvalor, runs like a champ on my 2018 iPad Pro (thanks to its A12x chip and 120hz screen), while performance and loading times are noticeably worse on the Switch Lite. Nintendo uses an off-the-shelf chip that's already several years old by the time it debuted, performance pretty much stays that way for the next decade, and the game even cost more for the switch compared to iOS!. Mario Kart World cost $70 while Donkey Kong cost $80? Is this your definition of Nintendo being charitable to its customers? Besides, it's not like iOS is standing still. The money spent on developing new features for iOS every year has to come from somewhere, you know.

Third, I am not sure if you have looked at the Nintendo game store of late, but it's getting overrun by AI slop and cheap hentai-sounding titles. It would seem like Nintendo isn't really bothering to curate their own online store of late.

As far as arguments go, I find the points you raised have been pretty weak thus far.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

I don't think this line of reasoning holds as much water as you think it does.

For one, it's credit to Apple that they are in the business of making profitable hardware, which allows them to aggregate the best customers in the world, which then provides a lucrative user base for app developers to target. I really don't see anything wrong with their business strategy here.

Second, I don't see how Nintendo is "reinvesting" in the games market. At least Apple works hard every year to develop their own custom silicon which offers leading-edge processor and GPU performance. For example, one of my favourite games, Grimvalor, runs like a champ on my 2018 iPad Pro (thanks to its A12x chip and 120hz screen), while performance and loading times are noticeably worse on the Switch Lite. Nintendo uses an off-the-shelf chip that's already several years old by the time it debuted, performance pretty much stays that way for the next decade, and the game even cost more for the switch compared to iOS!. Mario Kart World cost $70 while Donkey Kong cost $80? Is this your definition of Nintendo being charitable to its customers? Besides, it's not like iOS is standing still. The money spent on developing new features for iOS every year has to come from somewhere, you know.

Third, I am not sure if you have looked at the Nintendo game store of late, but it's getting overrun by AI slop and cheap hentai-sounding titles. It would seem like Nintendo isn't really bothering to curate their own online store of late.

As far as arguments go, I find the points you raised have been pretty weak thus far.

Again this is whataboutery talking about Nintendo’s chips for their consoles and if the original switch console came out in 2018 & just got replaced in 2025 then if they as a company then bring out a replacement generation but charge $70 dollars for a physical copy of donkey kong then that just makes one of the points because the length of time these products are on retail sale for is one of the actual points compared with apple
and if Nintendo make a poor product like the
WiiU then generally nobody will buy it and it affects them because they are a games company so that money gets reinvested to make better games and products for the games industry however apple are not in the games industry so it fundamentally doesn’t matter to them because it’s a generic store and they are not in the games industry.

how can epic be getting a free ride or wanting a free ride because you can’t just put an app on iOS

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

I took a break from this forum because the relentless negativity was starting to bother me. Coming back and seeing the same arguments being argued is amusing.

Leaving aside the 'hurr Apple Bad hurr' arguments, which aren't worth engaging with, no one has managed to make a convincing argument as to why I should be blocked, by law, from having the ability to choose to buy into an mobile phone ecosystem that is set up the way I want it. The argument of 'if you don't want to use an alternate App Store, don't use one' entirely misses the appeal of the walled garden approach. I have to provide support for my family and friends, some of whom are rather gullible in the tech space, and I know that opening up the walled garden is just going to make my life harder. It has been suggested that retaining the requirement of Apple notarising all apps in all app stores would mitigate that, but how many in the 'bust open the walled garden' camp would accept that?

Arguing that console makers don't have the same responsibility as Apple because they don't have new consoles as often as Apple releases new phones doesn't work either. While sales will drop off after the initial rush, they don't die off. People are still buying PlayStations and Xboxes even though they've been out for a while.

The two sides of this argument will never come to an agreement. I will never be able to convince people that Apple should be allowed to operate a walled garden, and I'm not sure it'll be easy to convince me that governments should force Apple to give free access (degree of freedom pending further argument) to their platform.

 

[Abazigal]

how can epic be getting a free ride or wanting a free ride because you can’t just put an app on iOS

Epic could do the same thing they are already doing on the switch and PS5 - pay 30% to Apple.

 

[MacFarmer]

It's not a "free ride" when they're paying the developer fees. If Apple wants to use this logic, then apps selling physical goods and services will need to be booted too but they're not doing that.

haha, you think that would fly? Then Apple will just change the developer fees and make them a percentage of total year revenue. Same S*it, different hand.

 

[ChamomileTea]

I want the choice to be able to load whatever i want in my devices.

Either stop your hypocrisy (its for your safety, not for our profits) censorship or allow proper sideloading.

Again, I dont understand apple's customers that insist in having LESS options, which conveniently works in favor of Apples coffers and worse, they insist in taking that option away from the ones that do want that option.

If I paid over 1 thousand dollar for a device, I should be able to do with it whatever I like, not what Tim Apple and Jobs ghoul spirit decides.

Edit thanks for confirming my point.

If you don’t want Apple policies, don’t buy a device from Apple.

When you buy a Sony PlayStation, you can only play games that are licensed by Sony, either physical or digital.

The same for Xbox and Nintendo.

There are even more strict devices like car infotainment. A Mercedes could cost the same as 100 iPhones or more and doesn’t let you sideload Apps, a Tesla doesn’t even let you use CarPlay.

Plenty of closed platforms, even for making a CD, you need to pay a fee to Sony/Philips or else you can’t say it’s a “Compact Disc Digital Audio”.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

Epic could do the same thing they are already doing on the switch and PS5 - pay 30% to Apple.

Again epic do have an issue with the 30% commission on consoles however as they have consistently pointed out the console industry brings out a new generation of console every 6 to 7 years compared with apple & commissions made to these console then are then reinvested to make better products for the games industry where as apple are not in the game industry so it’s not in their interest to as it makes no difference what so ever to them as a company.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

If you don’t want Apple policies, don’t buy a device from Apple.

When you buy a Sony PlayStation, you can only play games that are licensed by Sony, either physical or digital.

The same for Xbox and Nintendo.

There are even more strict devices like car infotainment. A Mercedes could cost the same as 100 iPhones or more and doesn’t let you sideload Apps, a Tesla doesn’t even let you use CarPlay.

Plenty of closed platforms, even for making a CD, you need to pay a fee to Sony/Philips or else you can’t say it’s a “Compact Disc Digital Audio”.

I love this response if you don’t like it then go else where so based on this logic then people should never complain about anything & just accept it from anything in life or is it just because it’s apple & epic are challenging the conditions that are on offer so is that what individuals do now just accept what they are given in life

 

[I7guy]

Hi
It’s not about feels
apple as a company are factually more greedy than Nintendo do you have any evidence of that because it’s quite easy if what you’re saying is true regarding Nintendo

Society isn’t like what regarding smartphones
Compared with games consoles most households don’t have a games console

Factually greedy is a weasel word term. And no Apple isn’t more greedy than Nintendo. If Nintendo weren’t greedy they would open up their platform voluntarily.

 

[TheDauterive]

Huh, and all this time I thought it was Apple wanting monopoly power over my phone.

Me: "I'm going to install the Epic store so I can install FortNite."

Apple: "I'm sorry, you can't do that Dave."

Me: "But it's my phone!"

Apple: ...

Me: "it's my phone."

Me: "...isn't it?"

 

[turbineseaplane]

I always get a chuckle at folks defending Apple on this one specific point:

"I demand to have a choice ...to have no choice!"

See, the beauty of "not doing something" (like using a 3rd party App store) is that you can NOT do that on any platform or system. 😉


This all reminds me of a Steely Dan album from my collection.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

See, the beauty of "not doing something" (like using a 3rd party App store) is that you can NOT do that on any platform or system. 😉

Oftentimes their grievance is that other people might do that, and that's somehow their problem. Which is funny because they're (presumably) humans with agency who can just... choose not to deal with it.

Isn't choice wonderful?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Oftentimes their grievance is that other people might do that, and that's somehow their problem. Which is funny because they're (presumably) humans with agency who can just... choose not to deal with it.

Isn't choice wonderful?

"But I want the CHOICE ... to have NO CHOICE!"" ARGGGGGGGHH
🤬

This has turned into a topic where people have debated and defended Apple narratives so deeply and completely that they've argued themselves into positions that are objectively bad ... for them. This is usually easily revealed when follow up arguments come about WHY it's so great to have the choice for no choice... or concerns about not having the choice to have no choice.

It's like a prisoner spending time defending having the choice to have no choice, but to go to prison ... and why being in prison is so much better, for them, than not being in prison or having the choice to not stay in prison.

To those on the outside and/or simply not accepting Apple narratives, this comes across as so confusing.

What has clarified this for me a little bit is some data I caught, casually thrown about, recently in a podcast that indicated that at any given time about 1/3 of folks are supportive of and desiring of authoritarian tendencies. I think that might help explain why some want Apple to be "in control".

 

[BaldiMac]

"But I want the CHOICE ... to have NO CHOICE!"" ARGGGGGGGHH
🤬

This has turned into a topic where people have debated and defended Apple narratives so deeply and completely that they've argued themselves into positions that are objectively bad ... for them. This is usually easily revealed when follow up arguments come about WHY it's so great to have the choice for no choice... or concerns about not having the choice to have no choice.

It's like a prisoner spending time defending having the choice to go to prison ... and why being in prison is so much better, for them, than not being in prison or having the choice to not stay in prison.

To those on the outside and/or simply not accepting Apple narratives, this comes across as so confusing.

What has clarified this for me a little bit is some data I caught, casually thrown about, recently in a podcast that indicated that at any given time about 1/3 of folks are supportive of and desiring of authoritarian tendencies. I think that might help explain why some want Apple to be "in control".

You and I agree on most things politically, but you seem downright intolerant of people that have different priorities than you on this topic. We’re not irrational fanboys because we don’t want to complicate things.

You mock people who don’t want be overwhelmed with choices, even though that’s exactly Apple’s advantage over its competitors from my perspective. I literally bought my first Mac for one reason. I was frustrated by having to enter my contacts in various address books on Windows. On the Mac, there was one address book that every app could access. And it synced with other devices!

I have lots of things I care about that have nothing to do with computers, and I don’t want to waste my time managing my phone. When I go to the doctor, I pay them to decide on the best options to treat me. I don’t want them to list hundreds of traditional remedies to give me “choice”. My choice is picking the expert that I trust most to do the research and provide the best options, so I have more time for the things I care about.

I completely understand that some people who are passionate about computing, particularly developers, want full control over their OS. I think that’s completely reasonable, and I fully support it. As pointed out repeatedly, you already have a solution on the market. I just think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want the advantages of Apple’s control without the disadvantages. Or you pretend they don’t exist.

 

[djphat2000]

First it’s ludicrous to make a device to compete on a service. Am o to make a car just to compete with repairing paint jobs?

It was ludicrous for Apple to make a phone in the first place. Many people/companies thought so. People can't complain after the fact that they were wrong to assume it wouldn't' be successful. And then later, they should be able to benefit freely from someone else's success. Or dictate the terms of business to Apple on what is beneficial to them at the expense of Apple's business.

If a car company you like choice of paint on the car was not to your satisfaction. And you knew you had no choice of a 3rd party paint repair company. Yet still choose that car from that car company. That was your choice to make. It would be different if there was an assortment of 3rd party companies supported by the car company, but then one day they said "NOPE, not allowing this anymore FO you 3rd party weirdos we will bring that in house thank you!" Of which you had not prepared for or wanted. Which is not the case here. Those 3rd party stores (Cydia) wasn't meant to be on the iPhone. They did not allow it from the start. It was a hack (well meaning enough, but still a hack.) Web apps was the original intention for 3rd party anythings. That didn't fly with dev's so Apple created the store. And if anyone didn't like it, they didn't have to build for it or purchase it.

Nobody have questioned the fact it cost to run a store, they make money from the ones that earns more than a million a year. They don’t have a rule for the first million, it’s every single million every year. They think they’ll make money by offering them better services and opportunities.

That is their business model for the service. But that doesn't not mean anyone else has to do it. Competition is not just about price. Otherwise Hermes or any of these high end fashion brands wouldn't survive against cheaper clothing or apparel stores. Same goes for any business. If it was just price, Apple wouldn't even be in the discussion because they always charge more. EPIC wishes to get more businesses on their platform. Enticing them with a lower price of entry. That's great if it works out for them. What would happen though if every business under them only sold 1 copy under a million? Do you expect they would stay in business with that model or would they alter the deal, pray I don't alter it any further?

The question is the only way the market decides is by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the store simply sucks but it’s what they have to deal with.

We don't get to pick everything we want in life. We often get the choices we get because that's all that can be offered, until someone else comes up with a new idea. With the openness of Android, we could have had many new devices pop up with builtin stores from the manufacture AND they could have opened it up to 3rd party stores. But I'm going to guess that most of them came to the same conclusion, that there isn't enough money in that to be profitable. There are not enough folks out in the world that would pay for it. Not worth the effort and not necessarily a better product for it either.

Apple could have the worst intentions yet the competitors might actually doing the worst so you stay.They are primarily for profit seeking ventures, not a charity. And yes these games don’t bother you because you’re not the one purchasing them, but there’s a lot of Apple users who are purchasing these gambling products that does everything they can to rip you off and Apple is fine with it as they are mighty profitable. And did you miss the entire F1 add complaints?

iPhone Users Upset About Apple Promoting F1 Movie With Wallet App Notification

Apple today sent out an ad to some iPhone users in the form of a Wallet app push notification, and not everyone is happy about it. An unknown...

www.macrumors.com

This is a self responsibility issue, not an Apple issue. You can view Corn on iPhones too, just not via an App from the store. No one is stopping you from bad life choices. And yes, I read the complaints about F1. And from what I see on my phone. I never got the F1 ad's. But, it seems it went away quickly after they got those complaints. So Apple does listen. Again, the apps on the App Store is at Apple's discretion. They have the right to allow or not any application they so choose to. It does not have to anyone's rules. Just like any developer can so choose to NOT develop for Apple. I will bring games up as the easy one to point out on this. Apple does not get games at the same rate PC's do. And even now with the technology being more than capable on the Mac side. Being iPhone or Mac mini. We still don't get them. Why? Because there isn't enough money in it for those developers. They get to choose to be on the Mac or not. This applies to Apple as well.

There was what you had to do. Example being able to use the flash as a flashlight with a dedicated button, with the iPhone 4. Or being able to film video with the iPhone instead of only taking pictures. Or just having the settings bar to lower screen brightness and other settings without having to exit the app and enter the settings, multitasking, proper Adblocking etc etc.

All fine well and good. Just Apple has the right to not allow it. And it wasn't allowed, then not allowed. It was never something Apple wanted on the iPhone.

The Adobe and MS of the world already sold their software in online stores and their own websites.

Yes, and this Store was a new distribution. That has its own costs associated with it, IF you wanted to sell such products to said iPhone customers. Same as any physical store. CODB.

The. Apple should stop complaining when they think they’re paying too much royalties for licenses and parts when they wouldn’t even exist without them. Terms pence accepted to then be renegotiated.

Apple Escalates Fued With Qualcomm, Stops Paying iPhone Royalties | Fortune

Two titans of the mobile phone business are slugging it out in court

fortune.com

Yeah, they did complain. And guess what they did. THEY BOUGHT INTEL'S modem and BUILT their own with that tech. They are going at it themselves. It's exactly what I'm talking about with others trying to compete with Apple or Google. Make your own!!! Even when it's hard to do. Qualcomm leads the world in this area. Apple said NO, we can do this too. And as soon as they could they did.

An inconvenience is a revenue issue. They would make more money if users could subscribe directly from the app, but they don’t think it would make them more money than refusing to allowing. Especially when you require to have 30%+ margins. And sometimes you’re just forced to provide IAP despite you not wanting to.

Apple made ProtonMail add in-app purchases, even though it had been free for years

Apple strongarmed another independent email app

www.theverge.com

Those extra sales at the expense of Apple's business. Perhaps 30% is too much for such a business, or perhaps not. I'm not in either to know fully what they need to make and what they can get away with charging customers to make that profit. Either way, they don't seem to be lowering prices having never been paying Apple 30% anyway........ Because prices always go up. Just the Apple tax never did.

I bought my iPhone to be a useful device for me. I didn’t buy it for the different apps, I just found the usefulness of said apps. I bought infinity blade because I found it. Epic store=/= Epic games.

Exactly. You did not buy the iPhone FOR infinity blade. You bought the iPhone for IT itself. Everything else is a bonus.

I had to modify my device to make it more functional or to get access to apps that wasn’t available or to improve privacy etc etc.

That is all well and good too. Just knowing that Apple is in no way responsible for making that hack work. They are in the business of selling iPhones, not 3rd party app stores. Or ways to circumvent the security of the device they just sold. Which is exactly how Cyida was able to Jailbreak an iPhone.

Well I do make suggestions and I can hold the beliefs that Apple or other are violating some rights of mine and that some representatives of mine should protect said rights and act on it.

What rights are being violated? You bought the device. You didn't have to do so. There was no bait and switch. No unkept promises. You still have the ability to do with it as you see fit and are able to do. Just no help from Apple in any of it outside of what they sold it as able to do.

Just if facebook or google wants to profit of my data o have acted to prevent them to do so by legal means because they refused to change their product to be better.

But, that's how Facebook and Google make their money. If everyone did that, neither would exist. Its that, or they charge a subscription for use.

Samsung have the Google Play store. They don’t profit off it.

And that's great for them. They also make LCD/OLED screens for TV's, Monitors, and phones. They make cameras (if I am not mistaken), CPU for their mobile phones, washing machines, fridges, dishwashers, stoves, vacuums, and god lord knows what else. Memory, they make ram too. They have chosen not to profit off a store. That is their choice.

Lo and behold my vast software and gaming library doesn’t work on Linux 🤷‍♂️ so I’m using what I have.

Apple knows the felling all too well.

The M ship can be the best in the world, It still is fairly inadequate compared to dedicated hardware and I can’t use a GPU in a Mac Pro so I again had to abandon the Mac hardware to run windows on standard AMD components.

And that's a valid reason to do so. I would argue you get way more power efficiency on M chips (both CPU and GPU) for the money compared to x86. But, that wouldn't apply to you mainly due to not having the availability of games. If we had equal footing on that, it could be VERY different.

You certainly can get a PC with top end specs at half or better price than a well spec'd Mac Studio. However, a Mac Studio will run full tilt about 100 watt power draw and get half or 3x less performance in gaming compared to a 5090/AMD Ryzen/32GB/2TB M.2, and that is a GUESSTIMATE. But, that would run 1000 watts. 10x more power for 3x more performance is not my cup of tea. Even if you cut it down to a 500 Watt PSU (Which you would not do). That's still 5x power requirement for 3x gaming improvement.


Just a quick check at Dell for a top spec gaming PC. Intel Ultra 9 285K 24 core, 64GB ram 4TB M.2 Win11 home 5090 32GB card. 1500 WATT PSU (OMG) $5,250. Of course we "should" wait for Apple to make an Ultra M5. But, with an Ultra M3 32Core CPU, 80Core GPU, 96GB of Ram and 4TB storage. $6500. I'm willing to bet the M3 will smoke the intel in CPU performance. And get anywhere from 30-40% of a 5090 depending on the game or workload. Maybe even beat it in some cases. All for not even double the price, and 15X (fifteen!!!) less power.

I don’t see why you would ever use cloud computing and stream games, but I rather own and run it locally compared to pay a subscription and more for it than it’s worth.

Shear convenience. And honestly to save time on the crazily sized patches for some games. Multi GB downloads for updates. When you can just "play". Or if you don't have the hardware to run the game smoothly.

Hence why the best option for everyone is a store for those who find the dedicated AppStore inadequate or poorly designed as a general service instead of specialized services such as steam.

Which opens up all kinds of cans of worms. That's not Apple's way. They should have the right to control the product they made. And we have the right to NOT buy it, if we don't like that level of control.

If I’m using windows, Linux or macOS i can get software from anywhere to compete and contrast the stores service quality and library.

To use a proper browser that blocks adds and tracking superior than iOS allows for etc etc

The iPhone was never made to be a computer replacement. It was made to be a mobile phone that CAN do computing. And be a controlled locked down device. It can do a lot, but Apple has chosen (rightfully so) to make it what it IS. They seem to be doing just fine with that decision. And if one day, Sales dip low enough to make them reconsider that plan. Maybe they will, or maybe they will stop making the phone entirely.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

Oftentimes their grievance is that other people might do that, and that's somehow their problem. Which is funny because they're (presumably) humans with agency who can just... choose not to deal with it.

Isn't choice wonderful?

So my parents are magically going to understand what’s going on, and not stuff up their phones like they do their computers? Or do I just tell them they choose to install rubbish, and I choose not to deal with it?

 

[ProbablyDylan]

You mock people who don’t want be overwhelmed with choices, even though that’s exactly Apple’s advantage over its competitors from my perspective. I literally bought my first Mac for one reason. I was frustrated by having to enter my contacts in various address books on Windows. On the Mac, there was one address book that every app could access. And it synced with other devices!

I have lots of things I care about that have nothing to do with computers, and I don’t want to waste my time managing my phone. When I go to the doctor, I pay them to decide on the best options to treat me. I don’t want them to list hundreds of traditional remedies to give me “choice”. My choice is picking the expert that I trust most to do the research and provide the best options, so I have more time for the things I care about.

The part you're ignoring is that you still get to have this experience you describe by literally doing nothing. It's a door for people that want it. I don't see what's complicated or controversial about that. You can keep making the same choice that you're already making.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

The part you're ignoring is that you still get to have this experience you describe by literally doing nothing. It's a door for people that want it. I don't see what's complicated or controversial about that. You can keep making the same choice that you're already making.

And it’s a door for people who don’t understand, so that people who do have to come and fix things again.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The part you're ignoring is that you still get to have this experience you describe by literally doing nothing. It's a door for people that want it. I don't see what's complicated or controversial about that. You can keep making the same choice that you're already making.

People are worried that some apps/companies might choose to leave the Apple App Store if there is an option to do so.

Apparently it hasn't occurred to anyone that those companies would do that to their own detriment (hassle, expense, many drawbacks vs just staying put in Apple store) and would NOT be interested in it (at all) if Apple weren't trying to extract onerous terms and unjustified rents.

Put simply .. if the Apple App Store doesn't offer a compelling and attractive product to developers who have options ... the problem is the Apple offering, not the existence of options.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

People are worried that some apps/companies might choose to leave the Apple App Store if there is an option to do so.

Apparently it hasn't occurred to anyone that those companies would do that to their own detriment (hassle, expense, many drawbacks vs just staying put in Apple store) and would NOT be interested in it (at all) if Apple weren't trying to extract onerous terms and unjustified rents.

Put simply .. if the Apple App Store doesn't offer a compelling and attractive product to developers who have options ... the problem is the Apple offering, not the existence of options.

I think the difference is that you want there to be internal competition between Apple and others within the iOS ecosystem, where I am satisfied that external competition is sufficient.

 

[neomorpheus]

Truly love the "excuses" created by the loyalist.

Have any of you researched how sideloading is enabled on an Android device?

It goes like this (because I know none of you would bother in researching it just so your narrative is derailed):

On modern Android (Android 8 and newer)

1. Open your device's Settings.
2. Tap on Apps (or Apps & notifications).
3. Navigate to Special app access.
4. Select Install unknown apps.
5. Find the app you'll use to install the APK (e.g., Chrome, your file manager) and tap on it.
6. Toggle on the Allow from this source option.
7. Download the APK file from your chosen source using that app.
8. Open the downloaded file from within the app, and follow the prompts to install it.

But the absolute best part is, these people think that if I enable sideloading in MY iOS device, it will magically enable it on theirs or something like that.

Truly insane that people DEMAND less for their money.

 

[BaldiMac]

The part you're ignoring is that you still get to have this experience you describe by literally doing nothing. It's a door for people that want it. I don't see what's complicated or controversial about that. You can keep making the same choice that you're already making.

Sure, if you pretend that you haven’t seen a rebuttal to that statement over the years we’ve been having this discussion. It’s really annoying that same people on both sides of this argument have to start fresh every thread and ask the same questions and make the same points as if they weren’t already addressed dozens of times.

Once again, I only have the same choice until the first app leaves the App Store for an alternative one. Developers have that choice, not me. I’m also affected by increases in piracy and malware on other people’s devices. And the resources Apple wastes to support the changes.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Once again, I only have the same choice until the first app leaves the App Store for an alternative one. Developers have that choice, not me.

So why isn't this an issue on Android? Everything is still on Google Play as far as I'm aware. You say it's basically guaranteed to happen - so why hasn't it?

I’m also affected by increases in piracy and malware on other people’s devices.

I'm of the understanding that iOS has pretty robust security, even when users get apps from elsewhere. Everything still lives in a sandbox no matter where it comes from.

Though, I'm curious how other people's piracy affects you.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm of the understanding that iOS has pretty robust security, even when users get apps from elsewhere. Everything still lives in a sandbox no matter where it comes from.

Correct.

The security model design of the system and the Apps are the protection here, not the particular source of the Apps (particularly when signing by Apple is a requirement still).

What people fail to fully understand is that the Apple App Store review process is primarily about reviewing compliance with Apple business terms and policies. It's not about checking for safety or security.