Okay, one last post just to clear up what I’m actually saying. Firstly, just because apps aren’t able to be distributed through the App Store doesn’t make them sketchy. It’s a great propaganda line if you work for Apple PR but it’s blatantly false.
I didn't say sketchy, I said questionable. You said adult material that Apple doesn't like or emulators that might be legally dubious. "Questionable" is more a one word summary of what you're saying than it is propaganda.
And yeah, I don’t think this will meaningfully harm those who don’t wish to sideload. The idea that for one distribution method to succeed, the other has to be made worse is frankly kinda stupid and unfounded.
Apple gets to keep its walled garden with easier distribution for devs who need it and users who want a relatively idiot-proof experience. Win for Apple, existing devs, and users.
The walled garden works because there are enough people in it that developers are willing to follow Apple's rules to access those users. It's like collective bargaining-- individually nobody cares what we think, but together we're worth paying attention to.
What will break it down is when the big players exit. As I've said in other threads, I expect Meta to leave first because they can finally duck the privacy controls. Google for the same reasons, and because they have the Play Store infrastructure in place so will just make that cross platform and distribute their stuff from it. Microsoft and Adobe because they're big enough to do it and can control their brand presentation. Epic because the world revolves around them. Steam because they have a working distribution platform already. If the anti-steering ruling doesn't make the streamers happy, Netflix and the others will retreat to their own sites.
The fact that they can now offer sideloads for both Android and iOS makes it easier to message now, and they they know they can always cry to the EU to force Google and Apple to make sideloading easier.
The problem here is that I don't want to leave the walled garden, but will be forced to when apps I depend on leave. The more people get peeled away to the alternate app stores, the less collective bargaining power we have.
It's not that the AppStore has to be made worse for side loading to succeed, it's just a natural consequence of the change.
New, lucrative apps and app categories, like game streaming, etc are allowed to compete on iOS. Win for consumers and previously disallowed devs.
I'll have to take your word for it that game streaming is worth all this... To me it seems like a petty reason to gut an entire business model. I get that theres things you want to do that you can't on iOS. But you can on Android. Android seems a better fit for people that want to treat their phone like it's a linux box and treating the phone like a linux box undermines the entire ethos of Apple and the reason many of us prefer Apple's products.
Devs who currently distribute through the App Store can continue to sell their app through the App Store, but also offer versions that might include more powerful features or previously disallowed experiences, or offered with different pricing models (just like devs currently do on MacOS). Win for Apple, existing devs, and users.
Why do you think they will? As I keep pointing out, it costs money and effort to do that. You can accuse me of propaganda, bad faith and word twisting all you want, but I keep seeing you and others insist that the world "can" be various ways while ignoring the economic realities.
It says right in the thing you linked to that this came as a result of companies amassing considerable economic power. I’m saying if Apple hadn’t squeezed so much money out of the App Store over the years while being the sole decider of who gets to compete on their platform, maybe this regulation would never have come about.
You're not reading the document. It's not anti-competitive as discussed in the Epic case, it is presumed to be anti-competitive because it's successful as measured by the user count and revenue and Apple's market cap. It has nothing to do with "squeezing" money out of the App Store, and specifically to the point you were making:
They could have opened up the App Store to more types of apps — game streaming, adult content, emulation, etc
it's not my opinion that wouldn't have changed anything. There are specific thresholds and Apple's success crossed those thresholds. Opening up to more revenue sources would only put them further past them.
The EUs response to their presumption of anti-competitiveness is to drain the platform of its popular uniqueness and essentially declare it a utility. What this means is that we will never again have a non-Android like platform that exceeds a certain level of success-- because it won't be allowed to.
