So your argument to my discussion about Apple allowing side loading is to have people get a Mac? No, side loading is not an open feature of iOS. Side loading on PS4 is allowed….if you hack it.
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.
Apple Files Appeal in Epic Games Lawsuit, Asks to Delay App Store Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hacking, buying other tools ($700+ for a Mac) is not equivalent as saying side loading works in iOS.
Agree with what you wrote except as someone corrected me, the training and materials are provided by Apple for free. Apple only charges for the developer program if the developer wants to distribute his app, then charges him again by taking a cut of the app sales revenue. Apple should either charge more for the developer program or only charge a percentage of sales. Apple will eventually be forced to acquiesce and allow developers to distribute apps via alternate means - when that happens I expect the price for the developer program will get materially more expensive (or will be split into two tiers, based on how the developer will be distributing the app). When that happens the previous practice of double-dipping will be more obvious.
No Apple doesn't charge again. Developer materials <> infrastructure use. Developer is not obligated to use infrastructure and the developers fees do not covers infrastructure use.
Take it up with apple if you don't like the t&C of their developer program.
I don't think they will. YMMV on how strongly you believe this to be true. There is no double dipping as the developer fees don't cover infrastructure and IAP doesn't cover developer fees.
Think of the $99 yearly fee as an Application Fee. Or a Registration Fee. It's used for identification and verification purposes. It also shows that you're serious about being in the Developer Program.
But when you decide to sell an app in Apple's store... that's when the store (Apple) gets a cut. Remember... ALL stores take some kind of cut. That's how retail works.
Too many times I hear "I already pay $99 a year... why does Apple want 15% or 30% of every sale too?!?!? They're being greedy!"
Would you be happier if Apple dropped the Registration Fee and just took their percentage?
The opposite wouldn't happen. No retailer would accept just $99/year from a vendor and let them sell items in their store for free.
I also hear "well Apple should just charge more to be in the Developer Program"
I've even heard that it should be a percentage of the developer's sales.
Funny... that's exactly how it is RIGHT NOW.
But when you decide to sell an app in Apple's store... that's when the store (Apple) gets a cut. Remember... ALL stores take some kind of cut. That's how retail works.
Too many times I hear "I already pay $99 a year... why does Apple want 15% or 30% of every sale too?!?!? They're being greedy!"
Would you be happier if Apple dropped the Registration Fee and just took their percentage?
The opposite wouldn't happen. No retailer would accept just $99/year from a vendor and let them sell items in their store for free.
I also hear "well Apple should just charge more to be in the Developer Program"
I've even heard that it should be a percentage of the developer's sales.
Funny... that's exactly how it is RIGHT NOW.
Last edited:
Just wait and see. Remember there's more to see beyond the tip of your nose. I'm not saying that every developer will abuse it. But there are developers who will. Just imagine: "Dad, I need your credit card to buy more coins for my game!". Or a $999 charge for something you thought it was $9.99... "Sorry, you didn't read the fine print, there's no refunds...". Enjoy!
Developers are obligated to use Apple's infrastructure if they want to distribute their apps, since Apple doesn't allow apps to be distributed outside of Apple's infrastructure (ie, Apple's app store). We're back to the square one - developers are charged to "on ramp" to Apple's infrastructure, then charged again when they actually started distributing their apps on that infrastructure by charging a percentage of sales.
My comment has absolutely nothing to do with side loading. My comment was only correcting the previous comment that one had to pay the $99 membership fee to develop and deploy an app.
But, since you raised the topic into my comment - Sideloading is possible on iOS today. If one wants to deal with it. Hacking (jailbreaking) is one option just like your comment regarding PS4. AltStore is possible but you do need a Mac and Xcode to deploy (not code or compile).
There are also several cross-platform development toolsets that are available (and run under Windows) that allow deploying apps onto an iOS device.
Last edited:
Apple will most likely make a third-party payment framework/API that allows developers to use their own merchant accounts or payment processor and would return a validation code that payment has been made so Apple can keep track of revenue and the app will know the external IAP was made. It would be well within Apple’s rights to collect their 15 or 30% at the time and not validate the successful payment unless it is collected.
Apple does that today. Apple charges a percentage of sales. When an app is purchased and when every IAP transaction is accomplished.
Forcing other IAP mechanisms to avoid paying the 15-30% at IAP transaction does not necessarily mean that Apple is unable to collect on the percentage of sales due under the terms of the developer program. Apple would be fully within its rights to collect sales reports from developers who opt out of IAP and charge a fee based on that reporting. That is actually the more common model - How malls do it for rent collection for stores, and even how EPIC is dealing with Unreal engine licenses - first $1m lifetime earnings are royalty-free then 5% in perpetuity after that. Given how much money gets spent on mirotransactions it would not take long for an app to cross that threshold. How do you think EPIC knows when the license applies without sales reports from their licensees?
Last edited:
Yes, we will all wait and see, because that didn't happen with Apple at all 🙄🙄🙄🙄
They are charged for access to development tools ($99 / Annually)
They are charged for commercial use of Apple’s IP (15 or 30%)
In 2008, Apple made a commitment to encourage developers to make public serving apps that would make mobile platforms (specifically iOS) more useful and to a larger extent continue the trend of digitalization of services in general that started with Web 2.0 by offering free distribution in the AppStore for those apps that do not charge users directly for their use. The fact that companies have exploited this by soliciting payments off-app runs counter to that intention and are exceptions taking advantage of loopholes in Apple’s terms. They idea was never to profit from access to infrastructure, but to profit from commercial use of their IP.
Developer tools are distributed for free by Apple - they do not require the $99/year developer subscription. Developers want the option to distribute apps outside of Apple's distribution system - the fact developers have to do an end-run via IAP is a demonstration of that. They wouldn't need to do so if Apple let developers distribute their own apps.
Apple has set forth certain terms with respect to the app store. As a dev you are free to follow those terms or go somewhere else. Apple has invited the dev with a non-substantial investment to make a lot of money, given only to put in sweat equity and some computer. Apple is under no obligation to change the way it operates because a dev wants them to. (It would be nice if all companies kow-towed to their customers, but that is not reality).
I am not back at square one, you are. We have a fundemental difference of opinion that the charges for the dev program and IAP are different.
And the point of selling those alterations would be? If you can't sell the OS with it, which is fully Apple's IP.
And the alteration of the software would be enough to prove you tampered with it. Unless your EU laws simply don't give an F about it.
I'd expect to see wide spread pirating and or a massive modification community in the EU with Apple's iOS and iDevices.
Again, unless the EU has some sort of ridiculous law that says "you" or anyone in the EU can obtain as many iDevices they want, modify it how they see fit, AND resell it. I don't think it's what you say it is.
WHAT?? So, again to clarify. You bought it, so that makes you the owner under EU law. BUT, you can't sell it as that is copying someones IP? Sounds exactly like a license holder agreement to me. Under EU law it seems you can resell a license (key or certificate, whatever that proves you purchased the item) which is fine. That's just a transfer agreement, which EU fully allows even if the license states otherwise.
But, yes you do agree when you click accept. If there is no EULA/License/Terms/Conditions/ then your back at my previous point of being a pirate union. Maybe even worse than China with IP theft (Which clearly is not the case). Whether or not "YOU" personally agree or the EU says you can a do as you wish with the device/OS (so long as you don't resell/copy someones IP). It's just semantics.
I believe you believe that.
That does not mean iOS supports side loading. So the people asking for iOS to have side loading, you want them to first pay around $900 for the iPhone THEN $700+ for a Mac just to side load?
Requiring dev tools doesn’t mean iOS supports side loading. It’s a major up front cost. And how will people get the files needed to deploy to their phone? How much time will they have to use it? Using Xcode as a side loading argument is faulty. Just like hacking the device.
I don't want to speak for him here, but I'm thinking he means to remove the store in totality. As in no store, and developers can't sell to iOS users in SK. Since there is no store.
Apple already drew the line that they require you to pay and revenue share if you want to use their IP commercially on iOS as it is their right to do so. I think you are getting hung up on aspects that make no material difference in Apple’s position and its right to enforce it. There is currently no commercial distribution outside the appstore (other than limited enterprise licenses) and Apple has no plans to do so. Should they be forced by law to allow side-loading in some jurisdictions, it would not affect their right to collect commission for commercial use of their IP nor would it allow developers the right to distribute apps that violate Apple’s terms. It may hamper Apple’s ability to seamlessly enforce those two rights, but it would not prevent them from enforcing them through other means. E.g. Apple could use the kill switch to delete apps on phones from developers that don’t pay or otherwise violate the terms and endusers would have no recourse as they agreed to this in their EULA.
Apple (and others) would very much say different. If you "choose" to be on the platform. Which Apple created by the way. They (Apple would say) get to choose who or whom gets to be on the platform. They get to set the rules of the road so that ALL on the platform follow said rules. This way there is no rogue (a la EPIC) stuff going on that we (Apple) can't deal with. Apple isn't selling a computer in your pocket (while it very much is a computer). They are selling a different class of product. iPhones, iWatch, iPad. There are limitations to these devices that make them less of a full fledged computer, they are not equal. Security and privacy being one and two of the biggest issues they will have to now tackle very differently if they are required to treat these devices like a computer.
For a lot of people, they have the following in there pocket or risk almost all day:
1) Credit card information
2) Facial or Fingerprint Identification
3) NFC communication
4) Bluetooth
5) WiFi
6) Cellular
7) Constant internet access
8) Health care information
9) shopping history
10) browsing history
11) GPS location(s)
etc.
All it would take is a bad SMS/MMS/Text/email/weblink etc to pwn someone's life. If your allowed to install outside the App Store. Nothing, zero, nada stopping any malicious app from getting onto your device. As you have allowed it to happen. Apple will have to not only keep on top of the normal laundry list of security issues of the OS and hardware, but also the fact that the front door is wide the F open all the time.
Yet these nations/governments think well, you can put a stop to all that and just make it as safe as you have been.
You can allow 3rd party payments and still secure everything just the same. Having no clue how any of it works, just make it work. We command you! LOL
Again, they were competitive and profitable before the Appstore. And if they have to open it up via 3rd party app stores or allow alternate in-app-purchasing payments. They will make it up in other areas, and so will Google.
I don't want anything regarding side loading. I never brought that into the conversation. The last comment I replied to implied that I was arguing something regarding side loading and corrected that statement.
I did comment that there are ways to side load today. The fact that there is not an Apple-certified Settings toggle to enable an easy way of doing so does not change the fact that there are several ways to load apps onto an iOS device without using the App Store. And that is all I am saying on this topic. I have no public opinion one way on the other regarding the benefit or risk of side load, not do I have any public opinion as to whether Apple should allow it via a simple toggle and provide the related support that would be expected.
Apple will soon be under considerable obligation to change the way it operates. It's only a matter of time, and it's not just the USA that will be pressing the matter.
I agree, Apple does get to set the rules...until they're compelled to change them, which IMO will happen sooner than later. As for the security issues, I don't take much comfort in security by obfuscation and "gate keeping" via app-store approval. If Apple thinks otherwise and is interested in protecting users they're free to integrate the same private-API usage checks in the iOS process launcher as they presumably use in their app-store approval software.
That is pure speculation and as Apple will still be the sole regulator for the AppStore globally, it remains to be see how any piece-meal regulations in some jurisdictions will pose any insurmountable hurdles to the way it operates.
Sure, we'll back discussing that, when (or if) it happens. Remember the famous Yogi Berraism: "it's ain't over till it's over."
How is what is exactly starting to happen now, speculation? You really just don’t want to take those rose colored glasses off huh?