Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I prefer the Apple that gets people to buy its products through innovation.
Yes, innovations like the App Store.

Apple lies about app-store search and exercises its app-store "policies" capriciously and hypocritically. But it's their store, and they are not a monopoly. Apple is also not a gatekeeper to anything but its own store; unlike Google and Amazon, who are gatekeepers to huge portions of the Internet for millions of people.

Lumping Apple into the "big tech" hysteria is ignorant. European countries do a lot more to protect consumers than the theft-abetting U.S. Congress does, but this move is blundering overreach that should be opposed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
That’s backwards thinking - ie throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Can you explain how it's backwards thinking. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

As I’ve said a few times the EU should develop a platform to its’ liking for its citizenry.
Why? Apple wants access to the EU because it's a highly profitable market, and so they needs to operate within the boundaries of EU regulation. They're free to pull out of the EU, but they won't because they like making money. Regulation should serve consumers first and foremost. Businesses are not people, their rights are always a lesser concern.
 
I already addressed this "physical POV". The EU is not forcing anyone to sell anything on their shop. They are forcing a shop owner to stop preventing customers from going to other shops.
No they're not. There's other phone options out there. What they choose to sell in their shop (on their phone) is their business. They'd be forced to give other options (eg. items in the shop) with this. It's a simple and logical analogy. EU would be forcing them to do side-loading. Simple as that. Bad move IMO. You don't like the game, make your own. Simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
It absolutely is.
giphy-9.gif

What? It's literally just a video game. It isn't vital to a persons well-being. (I'm writing this as someone who plays Fortnite regularly btw)
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
What? It's literally just a video game. It isn't vital to a persons well-being. (I'm writing this as someone who plays Fortnite regularly btw)
And as someone who never played Fortnite, I can tell you that playing games for mental recreation, fun and escapism are absolutely vital to human well-being. You don't need to bleed out of open wounds to be harmed. Losing anything of value is a harm. Aren't Americans entitled with the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" ? Don't you dare to cut me off from playing a fun video game!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
No they're not. There's other phone options out there. What they choose to sell in their shop (on their phone) is their business.
The phone is not Apple's phone. It is the customers' phone. It ceased to be Apple's phone the minute the customer bought it. It is disingenuous to say "buy a different phone" to someone who already owns a perfectly functional (aside from artificial limitations) phone.

They'd be forced to give other options (eg. items in the shop) with this.
How? How is allowing side-loading of apps onto a customers' phone the same thing as forcing Apple to host apps on their store? Far as I can see, side-loading is the exact opposite of this.

It's a simple and logical analogy. EU would be forcing them to do side-loading.
EU would be forcing Apple to allow iPhone customers to do side-loading on their phones (and by "their" I mean consumers, not Apple. It is not Apple's phone). It is not forcing Apple themselves to do side-loading, and it is certainly not forcing Apple to sell any apps within their store that they don't wish to sell.
 
Sure, but what I'm saying is that the new rules won't change things as much as you think they will.
Then why make the rule? It's an enormous expense to the EU, it's an enormous expense to Apple, it's a significant dislocation to Apple's customers. If things aren't going to change much, then why do anything?

The only assumption I can make is that the EU is doing this because they want to see something change, and if the rules they've enacted so far don't affect that change, they'll keep going until they see it.

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.
I'm not sure people will run seven different app stores, but I imagine seven people might each run different app stores.

Macs have to deal with multiple app stores and managers-- the Apple one, Microsoft Update, Adobe CC, different payment processors and key systems for various medium sized businesses such as Serif, Honest Jim's Online Shareware Emporium for little stuff.

Personally, I hate it. I do everything I can to not buy or manage things outside the Mac AppStore, but it's impossible.

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?
I mean that it takes effort for a dev to sell through each portal, and effort equates to cost. With a growing number of portals, devs will start to be squeezed on their ability to sell through them all. Smaller devs likely will have to make choices that mean you'll have to figure out where their app is available or perhaps not discover it at all.

Asking if smaller apps need to exist seems contrary to the intent of improved competition. Tilting the playing field against the little guys seems pretty anticompetitive to me.

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

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?
There seems to be a lot more outlets taking my credit card for Mac apps than you seem to imagine will do the same for iPhone apps and the consolidation hasn't happened. It seems the list of names is ever changing...
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
That's exactly what the EU is doing. We are building the EU market and Apple Inc. is just one corporation running on our platform. Oh sorry, you thought capitalist rule the world?? 🤣
Well at least your honest about how anti - America tech the EU is as they have to legislate rather than build.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
Can you explain how it's backwards thinking. It seems pretty straightforward to me.


Why? Apple wants access to the EU because it's a highly profitable market, and so they needs to operate within the boundaries of EU regulation. They're free to pull out of the EU, but they won't because they like making money. Regulation should serve consumers first and foremost. Businesses are not people, their rights are always a lesser concern.
It doesn’t change the fact the the EU is making apples product into a public utility. And sure apple is fighting a last ditch attempt to get this ridiculous legislation overturned .
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: strongy and Gudi
Well at least your honest about how anti - America tech the EU is as they have to legislate rather than build.
No EU laws apply in America or on Americans. That's why you can still die from as many food poisoning, gun violence or opioid epidemics as you please. Europeans hate or respect Americans so much that we leave you to regulate yourself. You do believe in the competence of your own political class, don't you?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: I7guy
just a reminder to everyone here, the Mac, which I assume many of us love, allows for Apps to be downloaded from the App Store, or from online with verification for security, but we are able to disable the verification. I feel very safe using my Mac. iPhone has to open up. I assume it will be similar to the Mac and hopefully everything will be OK or even better
The Mac has less security than the iPhone.

It would be much more convenient for me to able to get all Mac software from the Mac App Store. Now, I have to get to the developers site for almost all Max software I use because Apple has given them freedom.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Gudi
It doesn’t change the fact the the EU is making apples product into a public utility. And sure apple is fighting a last ditch attempt to get this ridiculous legislation overturned .
What do you even mean by "public utility"? You make no sense.
 
And anyone who is overwhelmed with security worries still has the OPTION of getting Mac apps from Apple's Mac App Store... as would be the case here for iDevice apps. So if Apple's App Store is best, let it win the competition with others... exactly like the Mac App Store competes with getting Mac apps direct from the makers and via third party store offers. Let the consumers decide where to get a given app vs. a lone, single source with lucrative for-profit motivations above all else.

A majority of the important applications for the Mac is not on the Mac App Store.

I don't care about competition or the needs of developers. I only care about me. For me it's most convenient to get all software from one source.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Gudi
Apple has deep pockets but whats the endgame considering its their 3rd largest market.
 
And anyone who is overwhelmed with security worries still has the OPTION of getting Mac apps from Apple's Mac App Store... as would be the case here for iDevice apps. So if Apple's App Store is best, let it win the competition with others... exactly like the Mac App Store competes with getting Mac apps direct from the makers and via third party store offers. Let the consumers decide where to get a given app vs. a lone, single source with lucrative for-profit motivations above all else.

A majority of the important applications for the Mac is not on the Mac App Store.

I don't care about competition or the needs of developers. I only care about me. For me it's most convenient to get all software from one source.
I told them they could impliment sideloading now or be forced to kicking and screaming. I see Apple chose the kicking and screaming route. My favorite 🍿

Man the sideloading update can't come fast enough. I can't wait. I'll probably upgrade my iPhone when it arrives.

Apple has made billions of dollar by delaying this as long as they could.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Gudi
I don't care about competition or the needs of developers. I only care about me. For me it's most convenient to get all software from one source.
I also care about me but I care more about the law and right now the law in EU is that sideloading gates be force opened. So Apple or your and mine opinion hardly matters.
 
  • Angry
  • Like
Reactions: strongy and Gudi
Then why make the rule? It's an enormous expense to the EU, it's an enormous expense to Apple, it's a significant dislocation to Apple's customers. If things aren't going to change much, then why do anything?

The only assumption I can make is that the EU is doing this because they want to see something change, and if the rules they've enacted so far don't affect that change, they'll keep going until they see it.
Context is key. I mean not much will change in terms of what's available in the App Store. There will obviously be whole app categories that were previously not possibe on iOS that will be available outside of the store, but those who don't want to leave the official App Store can simply ignore them.

I'm not sure people will run seven different app stores, but I imagine seven people might each run different app stores.

Macs have to deal with multiple app stores and managers-- the Apple one, Microsoft Update, Adobe CC, different payment processors and key systems for various medium sized businesses such as Serif, Honest Jim's Online Shareware Emporium for little stuff.

Personally, I hate it. I do everything I can to not buy or manage things outside the Mac AppStore, but it's impossible.
Yeah, but the difference there is that the Mac was an open platform long before it had an App Store, and the Mac App Store is really restrictive on what apps can do compared to those available outside of it. iOS has an established App Store, so it's not trying to cram that genie back in the bottle. Again, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to just ignore the stuff outside of the App Store and continue to live your life as is.

I mean that it takes effort for a dev to sell through each portal, and effort equates to cost. With a growing number of portals, devs will start to be squeezed on their ability to sell through them all. Smaller devs likely will have to make choices that mean you'll have to figure out where their app is available or perhaps not discover it at all.
You're coming at this from the perspective that everything will have to be distributed through another app store model. What's wrong with traditional app distribution? Also, discoverability is already a nightmare in Apple's App Store, so I don't see how adding other avenues to discovery is a drawback.

Asking if smaller apps need to exist seems contrary to the intent of improved competition. Tilting the playing field against the little guys seems pretty anticompetitive to me.
Not at all. Improved competition doesn't mean anything and everything has to succeed. An app that can't find an audience inside or outside of the App Store seems like a prime example of something that the world doesn't need.

There seems to be a lot more outlets taking my credit card for Mac apps than you seem to imagine will do the same for iPhone apps and the consolidation hasn't happened. It seems the list of names is ever changing...
Again, the Mac App Store was late to the game and really restrictive in what apps can do. I have a bunch of apps I use every day that would never get through the Mac App Store review. If the Mac didn't have a history of more open software distribution, the Mac App Store might have taken off. It'd be interesting to see what apps you use and how many wouldn't even make it through the app review process.

But, to go back once again to the earlier point, you'll likely still have access to all the same apps from the App Store and can ignore alternative distribution models if you so choose. Just because you have options doesn't mean you have to use all of them.
 
It doesn’t change the fact the the EU is making apples product into a public utility. And sure apple is fighting a last ditch attempt to get this ridiculous legislation overturned .
That doesn't explain your backwards thinking point at all. I get that you're somewhat of a libertarian, but I was hoping your points would at least have some sort of logic behind them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gudi
Apple has made billions of dollar by delaying this as long as they could.
Nonsense, they have allowed Android to get the reputation of being more free and open, less restrictive than the iPhone. Billions of dollars were lost to the competition as a result.
 
So predictable that this literally hasn't happened in the decade+ that side-loading existed on Android.

One reason being Google has allowed developers to use their own payment solution, for the most part, and thus not charging 15-30%.

Google has also been much more liberal with which apps they allow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jakey rolling
Sideloading apps will only increase the value of the platform for everyone! Customers, developers and Apple shareholders will be better off in the end.
Exactly.. the App Store in its current form only works for two kinds of developers/publishers. Ones who have a free or ad supported app, these must pay Apple $99 every year regardless of the market, if they want to give an app to iPhone users and the others who have a paid service and these others must pay a high commission for digital services even if it drives them out of competition.
Both these options do not in any way support the free market concept. iPhone is not a service, its a platform and it must be opened up.
 
  • Angry
  • Love
Reactions: strongy and Gudi
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.

Two reasons for this:

Google has allowed developers to use their own payment method, for the most part.
Google is quite liberal with the apps and content they allow.
 
Or success, or enterprises that don't need government bailouts...


This will be used in ways people refuse to imagine, and in 10 years all of you will be screaming about how those things are horrible while refusing to admit you cheered the things that made them possible in the first place.
Mmhh, no horrible things to scream about after more than 10 years of sideloading on Apple Macs …
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gudi
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!

It's harming me, because it allows software to exist outside the App Store.

I want all software to exist in the App Store or not at all.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.