Apple Files Legal Challenge Against EU Law as Sideloading Requirement Looms

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Companies should run their company however they want. The whole thing is stupid.

Yes let companies run however they want.

• The electric company yeah let them mark up their prices during the winter, it's their business they can run it however they want.
• Microsoft should force everyone to use Edge instead of whatever browser they want on Windows, after all it's their company they should run it however they want.
• John Deere being forced to give schematics and allowing farmers to repair their tractors that cost as much as three Lamborghinis is stupid. They should be allowed to run their company however they want, making the farmers go to their dealers and pay $15000 for a $500 field repair.
• Those natural gas companies fracking near towns shouldn't be held liable for damages to the environment or contamination of the public drinking water. It's their company and they should be able to run it however they want.
• Apple? Yeah they can lock down software distribution, and keep their iPhones on lightning, and not let people repair their own phones. After all it's their company the government shouldn't restrict their business

Teddy Roosevelt cracked down on the railroad corporations for a reason Jeremy.

 

[jakey rolling]

I think there's a difference though when iOS changes. At the moment Meta would have to say "go to the AppStore on iOS and go to Meta.com rather than the PlayStore for Android". What will happen in the future is "Go to Meta.com for iOS and Android clients".

Why would you think that would be different? Wherever it is that Meta would "say" go to xxx to download the app, in reality Meta would just offer a link to the app, as they do now. As it is right now, the iOS link would point to the iOS store and the Android link could very well point to whatever store or download site they would want to link to. The fact that the Android links currently still point to the Google Play store should tell you that nothing really would change.

The reality, though, is that people aren't following whatever Meta "says" at all. They already just go to whatever store is installed on their phone. There is no reason to think that this behavior will suddenly change.

Meta or Microsoft or Adobe risk having users install an app store that they haven't submitted to? How many will they justify maintaining? It'll just be easier to take matters into their own hands.

Would it really matter? There is really no inherent risk to users to download Photoshop directly from Adobe or MS Office directly from Microsoft. They could just maintain their own sites. Like they do already with their desktop applications.

 

[VulchR]

Android has had side-loading for over a decade. Every major piece of software is still available in the Google play store (and many are also available in other alternative stores). It's not like there isn't already a real-world example of what will actually likely happen when side-loading becomes available in iOS.

Surely how a user defines 'major' depends on their unique perspective. I use a lot of scientific apps that are necessary for my work. As mercenary as scientific software houses can be, I expect they'll be gone to their own proprietary stores the instant side-loading is available and jack up the prices even more because the prices of the competition will no longer be visible. Time will tell.

Also, I take it the fee structure of Apple's store differs from others, so comparisons to the Android store might not be valid. Moreover, now that neither Apple nor Android can ban sideloading, there could be a proliferation of developer stores, with varying degrees of utility and consumer information. Imagine you are looking for apps that control left-handed wind-shifters. Now you just go to the app store. The format is standardised, including consumer feedback. With sideloading you might be forced to go to many store to try to compare apps. Under those circumstances an informed decision might not be so easy.

Not sure that regulating every aspect of how the app store works would be a "compromise" over simply allowing customers to obtain software from alternative sources. Side-loading only creates a market in which Apple has to offer superior services in order to compete. What you are proposing is far more heavy-handed.

I do not oppose regulation. However, i would like regulation to protect consumers, not EU companies that cannot compete without their government rigging the game.

All that would accomplish is making Apple's customers incredibly frustrated with Apple, and would give the EU ammunition to impose even heavier restrictions on Apple's business practices.

Admittedly it would, but it wouldn't be irritating as, say, popping up a message about unvetted software when side-loaded apps are used, slowing them down, pausing them at startup for a virus scan, or any number of ways Apple could sabotage side-loading.

Except that we have the Play Store as a concrete example of this not being the case.

Which means already consumers have a choice so this new law was not necessary, but in any case please see my comments above.

This still leaves users with access to only what Apple deems to be acceptable apps. It's not just about the fees Apple charges and the things they do or don't do to vet apps that they list on the App Store, it's about opening platform up to apps that Apple chooses not to allow for arbitrary reasons.

As I have suggested, it would have been possible to pass a law banning those arbitrary prohibitions in any app store and everybody lives. Preventing arbitrary bans on apps does not entail sideloading.

 

[Plutonius]

Sure, you leave EU, you lose the app - wow, what a solution

It's all about money.

Apple will look at the profit they will make if they implement the EU directive vs the cost (direct and indirect) of the EU directive.

As per the article, the directive is requiring Apple to change many things that Apple relies on for profit and will greatly impact the company. With the number of things that need changing, I can't see them making EU only changes.

In the past, Apple has accepted the EU directives in order to stay in the EU. Time may tell but this might finally go over the limit on what Apple will accept from the EU and Apple might actually pull out.

If Apple does pull out, it's not to get revenge on the EU but is based on profit and cost.

The current legal challenge is just to push out the decision as long as possible.

 

[Analog Kid]

Also, if it were so beneficial to circumvent the Play Store and force sideloading, they could find a way to make that messaging work. The simple fact is that it's not, and so they don't.

My point is that what made sense under the old rules may not make sense under the new rules. That's why they changed the rules.

I don't think people are just going to forget where they've been getting apps for the last 15 years. I also suspect Apple will make you jump through a bunch of hoops to even enable sideloading in the first place, just like they do on MacOS and Google does on Android. The App Store and Play Store will still be the easiest ways for developers to distribute apps and for users to download them.

Change their habits of 15 years tomorrow? No.

Do you think the EU is going through this trouble just so Apple and Google can make it impossible to succeed? The hoops will be reduced by the power of the State to the bare minimum justifiable as "user education".

I don't think competition is so weak that devs can afford to make their apps hard to get.

Oh, I agree. I'm also not sure small devs can afford to make their apps easy to get either, though.

I suspect there will be one, maybe two, alternative app stores that really take hold, and then a bunch of indie devs who will sell their software from their own infrastructure (much like how many apps for the Mac are sold).

The idea that every company is going to be running their own app store seems like a no-brainer way for them to start shedding users.

Globally? The same one or two? The US, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, China, Japan, etc will all settle on the same one or two?

Even in one market, how long will it take for those one or two stores to be settled upon if every user is greeted with a menu of stores to choose on install with no real way to differentiate among them?

 

[Gloor]

Mac has both so could the iPhone/iPad. Simple as that.

It's all about money.

Apple will look at the profit they will make if they implement the EU directive vs the cost (direct and indirect) of the EU directive.

As per the article, the directive is requiring Apple to change many things that Apple relies on for profit and will greatly impact the company. With the number of things that need changing, I can't see them making EU only changes.

In the past, Apple has accepted the EU directives in order to stay in the EU. Time may tell but this might finally go over the limit on what Apple will accept from the EU and Apple might actually pull out.

If Apple does pull out, it's not to get revenge on the EU but is based on profit and cost.

The current legal challenge is just to push out the decision as long as possible.

 

[boss.king]

Which means already consumers have a choice so this new law was not necessary, but in any case please see my comments above.

Meh, as an iOS user, I'd rather my iPhone operate the way I want it to than switch to Android and then have to also replace my watch and rebuy all my apps. Lock-in cuts both ways. Apple's made it hard for me to leave their platform, so now I'd prefer that their platform evolve to fit my needs than having to go through the effort of switching.

As I have suggested, it would have been possible to pass a law banning those arbitrary prohibitions in any app store and everybody lives. Preventing arbitrary bans on apps does not entail sideloading.

Sure, lots of things are possible. That's not the route the EU is going though. Maybe if there weren't these arbitrary restrictions on what apps Apple allows, they wouldn't find themselves starring down the barrel of regulation.

 

[Analog Kid]

Why would you think that would be different? Wherever it is that Meta would "say" go to xxx to download the app, in reality Meta would just offer a link to the app, as they do now. As it is right now, the iOS link would point to the iOS store and the Android link could very well point to whatever store or download site they would want to link to. The fact that the Android links currently still point to the Google Play store should tell you that nothing really would change.

The reality, though, is that people aren't following whatever Meta "says" at all. They already just go to whatever store is installed on their phone. There is no reason to think that this behavior will suddenly change.


Would it really matter? There is really no inherent risk to users to download Photoshop directly from Adobe or MS Office directly from Microsoft. They could just maintain their own sites. Like they do already with their desktop applications.

First you're arguing that they won't host their own apps, and then that they will.

 

[Gudi]

Are you comparing drugs to regulating apps? Also didn't you just complain about the drug busting that the US does? You are contradicting yourself.

Every product on the market is subject to regulation. Good regulation prevents crisis like an opioid epidemic, by not even allowing harmful drugs coming on the market. The invisible hand of the market doesn’t even need to decide that heroin is much cheaper than oxycontin. Both are illegal everywhere in the world, except in the US, where the FDA regulation failed. The same with the FAA, who failed to stop the 737MAX with its flawed MCAS coming to the market. Sure the Boeing stock took a nosedive after hundreds of people died in two crashes. But enlightened people prefer markets and societies to work from the get go and not correct their mistakes with huge upheavals like a third world war or something. Drug busting isn’t even needed, if they were proper jobs for minorities other than drug dealing. I mean, Walter White became a meth cook to pay for his cancer treatment. Image if he would’ve had access to universal healthcare! Just don’t treat your Chemistry teachers like **** and they might even contribute something positive to society.

 

[I7guy]

Most US businesses are used to exploit their American customers in every which way without much government intervention. Their biggest risk is a class action lawsuit, which is something entirely different than government regulations to avoid damages in the first place. It’s a learning experience for both sides with a good outlook for a fruitful longterm relationship. Apple will allow side loading within the EU, if they can’t avoid it. EU citizens will be happy and Apple will make billions and even pay taxes. It’s a win-win situation.

You think a consumer oriented for profit company that produces lifestyle products can exploit consumers? Would you say then that Rolex exploits consumers? Samsung? Gucci?

 

[jakey rolling]

Surely how a user defines 'major' depends on their unique perspective. I use a lot of scientific apps that are necessary for my work. As mercenary as scientific software houses can be, I expect they'll be gone to their own proprietary stores the instant side-loading is available and jack up the prices even more because the prices of the competition will no longer be visible. Time will tell.

Surely you can point to at least one example of this with an Android version of your scientific apps.

Also, I take it the fee structure of Apple's store differs from others, so comparisons to the Android store might not be valid.

From what I've read (which is admittedly very little) the fee structures between Apple and Google's stores are pretty similar.

Moreover, now that neither Apple nor Android can ban sideloading, there could be a proliferation of developer stores, with varying degrees of utility and consumer information. Imagine you are looking for apps that control left-handed wind-shifters. Now you just go to the app store.

Not really, no. If I'm looking for a new solitaire game or a social media app I might start at the app store. If I'm looking for a critical business application, I look for developer and industry websites to find what software is being used by people in my industry and do comparisons of that software, ask for demonstrations and references, and possible even engage a third party implementer to help me evaluate and implement the software. Only after deciding on the application to use would I search out whatever App store I would source it from.

The format is standardised, including consumer feedback. With sideloading you might be forced to go to many store to try to compare apps. Under those circumstances an informed decision might not be so easy.

Or I could just do what people have always done when researching software for non-mobile platforms - start with Google.

 

[I7guy]

Every product on the market is subject to regulation. Good regulation prevents crisis like an opioid epidemic, by not even allowing harmful drugs coming on the market. The invisible hand of the market doesn’t even need to decide that heroin is much cheaper than oxycontin. Both are illegal everywhere in the world, except in the US, where the FDA regulation failed. The same with the FAA, who failed to stop the 737MAX with its flawed MCAS coming to the market. Sure the Boeing stock took a nosedive after hundreds of people died in two crashes. But enlightened people prefer markets and societies to work from the get go and not correct their mistakes with huge upheavals like a third world war or something. Drug busting isn’t even needed, if they were proper jobs for minorities other than drug dealing. I mean, Walter White became a meth cook to pay for his cancer treatment. Image if he would’ve had access to universal healthcare! Just don’t treat your Chemistry teachers like **** and they might even contribute something positive to society.

Regulation is required to avoid harm to consumers, the environment, animals etc and that’s where it should end.

 

[Confused-User]

This is straight up fiction. You can look at the Play Store right now and see that most "true behemoth" apps are still listed there even though they could easily pull their apps and force sideloading. We even have an example of an app that tried to do that and had to reverse course — Epic pulled Fortnite from the Play Store, saw downloads drop off significantly, and subsequently had to bring Fortnite back to the Play Store.

I hope you're right, but I doubt it. @Analog Kid has already responded in some detail so I won't say more.

I see this argument all the time here, and it is a brutally disingenuous one. Apple's platform was built upon the app ecosystem. That ecosystem was built by app developers, not by Apple.

Um. What planet do you live on? Here on Earth, the App Store came after the iPhone, and the ecosystem proliferates around the iPhone and the APIs, libraries, and environment that Apple provides.

Apple artificially limits which browsers can be installed on their platform, and thus also diminishes the user experience of those web apps. It is hardly an "open platform" when browser extensions and improved browser technologies are not allowed to be used on the platform.

You know I was going to make a separate post about this, but...

I don't know about you, but I find the creeping hegemony of Chrome utterly terrifying. We are slowly sinking back into a state where a single browser can dictate standards to the world. It *sucked* the last time, in case you weren't around to see it (the age of IE). Apple's requirement that all IOS browsers use the Safari engine (WebKit) is probably the only thing left holding back the tide.

Apple carved a special exception for companies like Netflix to be able to do this, specifically because they realized that without those key players, the iOS platform would die. Most third-party services are not allowed to offer client software on iOS and charge for those services separately. This has been an ongoing fight for quite some time now. There are companies who specifically don't want to have to rely on Apple's infrastructure at all, and yet they are forced to.

Do you have any idea how the app store works at all? This is a blatantly false claim, and counterexamples are everywhere you look. For example, office 365. What Apple has tried to prevent are a host of behaviors that reduce their income, like steering. (I won't offer an opinion on whether that's good or bad, but it is true.)

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

Every product on the market is subject to regulation. Good regulation prevents crisis like an opioid epidemic, by not even allowing harmful drugs coming on the market. The invisible hand of the market doesn’t even need to decide that heroin is much cheaper than oxycontin. Both are illegal everywhere in the world, except in the US, where the FDA regulation failed. The same with the FAA, who failed to stop the 737MAX with its flawed MCAS coming to the market. Sure the Boeing stock took a nosedive after hundreds of people died in two crashes. But enlightened people prefer markets and societies to work from the get go and not correct their mistakes with huge upheavals like a third world war or something. Drug busting isn’t even needed, if they were proper jobs for minorities other than drug dealing. I mean, Walter White became a meth cook to pay for his cancer treatment. Image if he would’ve had access to universal healthcare! Just don’t treat your Chemistry teachers like **** and they might even contribute something positive to society.

Again, we are talking about phone apps, you are going on a different topic.

 

[boss.king]

My point is that what made sense under the old rules may not make sense under the new rules. That's why they changed the rules.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that the new rules won't change things as much as you think they will.

Change their habits of 15 years tomorrow? No.

Do you think the EU is going through this trouble just so Apple and Google can make it impossible to succeed? The hoops will be reduced by the power of the State to the bare minimum justifiable as "user education".

I don't think the barriers to entry will ever be so low that people will accidentally end up running seven different app stores. I see them likely settling somewhere around what we have to do when installing third-party apps on MacOS, which feels like an appropriately high barrier to me.

Oh, I agree. I'm also not sure small devs can afford to make their apps easy to get either, though.

I genuinely don't know what you mean here. The App Store makes apps easy to get. If they can't live in the App Store and they can't get a business model working with sideloading then maybe that app doesn't really need to exist?

Globally? The same one or two? The US, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, China, Japan, etc will all settle on the same one or two?

I'd assume at least one major one globally. Possibly regional ones if the market is big enough, but who knows.

Even in one market, how long will it take for those one or two stores to be settled upon if every user is greeted with a menu of stores to choose on install with no real way to differentiate among them?

Probably not that long. These things tend to consolidate down to a handful of competitors pretty quickly. Why does that matter though? Install the ones you need, ignore the ones you don't. What's the crisis you foresee here?

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

Any business strategy to increase the profits of a company against the best interests of consumers, workers or the environment. Planned obsolescence comes to mind, but also addictive foods, cigarettes or video games. The exploitation of Amazon workers, who don’t even have the right to go to the toilet. You’ll come up with thousands of examples yourself when you think about it.

I never said no regulation at all, obviously some limited regulation is still needed. However, I would like to add that red tape actually prevents innovations in green energy from happening faster.

 

[Gudi]

Regulation is required to avoid harm to consumers, the environment, animals etc and that’s where it should end.

And limiting the user’s choice to install apps is harming both the consumer and the app market as a whole. That’s why Apple must be forced to allow side-loading independent from Apple’s AppStore rules. I’m glad we agree!

 

[jakey rolling]

First you're arguing that they won't host their own apps, and then that they will.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that since they don't host their own Android apps right now, there is no good reason to assume that they would in the future. I then continue to say that if they did decide to host their own apps, I'm not sure why that would necessarily be a problem.

 

[webkit]

You're right. The EU can define "monopoly" however they like. But, in this case the EU isn't alleging that Apple is a monopoly; Apple only has 30% market share in the EU. Rather, the EU invented a new term, "Gatekeeper" and subjectively defined who does and does not fit that category.

Perfectly understandable for the EU to practice protectionist practices over a market they have failed to compete in.

I never said the EU was alleging Apple is a monopoly. My response was to the other poster's comment suggesting that something can't be a monopoly when people can decide if they want to buy the product. That, and alternatives existing in the market, doesn't mean a monopoly can't still exist.

 

[webkit]

The Apple app store and Apple restrictions were implemented a long time before the recent EU rules.

What has changed over time is the mobile OS (and tablet OS) markets, and Apple's "dominance" in those markets. That is largely why it has triggered antitrust issues.

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

And limiting the user’s choice to install apps is harming both the consumer and the app market as a whole. That’s why Apple must be forced to allow side-loading independent from Apple’s AppStore rules. I’m glad we agree!

Your definition of "harm" is different. You consider the inability to download apps from the internet as "harm". Not being able to download apps is not harmful, it does not cause illness or mental issues nor violates the consumers ability to get an Android device.

 

[boss.king]

Regulation is required to avoid harm to consumers, the environment, animals etc and that’s where it should end.

Encouraging competition prevents harm to the consumer, so this would fit nicely into your required regulation.

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

Encouraging competition prevents harm to the consumer, so this would fit nicely into your required regulation.

The competition is Android.

 

[Confused-User]

We are not complete Socialists or Communists like some countries! There is this thing called "Freedom" and we love it here in America. If you want to be controled and told what to do like in the Matrix that is up to you but that will not fly here in America!

Arguably, there has never been a truly Communist country, and there certainly isn't today. They are all some combination of Oligarchy, Kleptocracy, Dictatorship, and similar.

Socialism is a much broader category, and not necessarily much like communism, and definitely has very little to do with existing governments that call themselves "Communist".

Sadly, freedom is becoming more difficult to find in America. Most hard right-wingers appear ready to use force to achieve their goals if cheating doesn't work. Many hard left-wingers want to impose their views too, but so far vastly fewer of them appear willing to cheat or kill to make it happen. If things don't get better, that may change.

You remind me of Cypher, "Igonrance is Bliss!".

You must be the happiest person.

 

[jakey rolling]

Here on Earth, the App Store came after the iPhone, and the ecosystem proliferates around the iPhone and the APIs, libraries, and environment that Apple provides.

The iPhone APIs and libraries did not have to be built around Apple's App store. Those are OS libraries and could very well have existed independently of Apple's store. Apple chose to curate a single source for applications, and I would even admit that at the time, it was a great idea. But if developers hadn't flocked to building applications for the platform, it would have died.

Apple is analogous to Triple-Five corp. They built the mall. They may have even built some of the best attractions at the mall. But the only reason why that mall survives today is because independent retailers continue to sell their wares within that mall. The largest of those retailers can survive without the mall, but the mall cannot survive without those retailers.

I don't know about you, but I find the creeping hegemony of Chrome utterly terrifying. We are slowly sinking back into a state where a single browser can dictate standards to the world. It *sucked* the last time, in case you weren't around to see it (the age of IE). Apple's requirement that all IOS browsers use the Safari engine (WebKit) is probably the only thing left holding back the tide.

I have to agree with you there. It is unfortunate that Firefox and other third-party browsers are just barely able to creep along in the market. For my part, I avoid using Chrome or chromium-based browsers whenever I can.

Do you have any idea how the app store works at all? This is a blatantly false claim, and counterexamples are everywhere you look. For example, office 365. What Apple has tried to prevent are a host of behaviors that reduce their income, like steering. (I won't offer an opinion on whether that's good or bad, but it is true.)

I mean, MS Office is not really a better example. It is another example of a cornerstone software company which, if it were to disappear from the iOS or Mac platform, would severely hurt those platforms.