Except that’s not what Apple is doing, Apple is applying the rules equally. It’s like Apple not selling chocolate cakes to anyone and Epic demanding Apple sell chocolate cakes.
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 Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope. You can install whatever you want, Apple just shouldn’t be forced to help you do it and shouldn’t have to support you if you do. If you want that feature get a device that allows it.
Yes, and BTW the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker that didn’t want to sell a cake to certain types of people. So I’m not sure what the argument from Act3 is...
You seem to not even understand whats being asked. if epic wins it wouldn't be that they would get to use the app store for "free" the whole point would be to use their own payment processing their own hosting their own store. Apple for its part has benefit from third party developers. Without third party innovation the i ecosystem would not have taken off as people come to the iPhone for its apps. as far as security of the store itself that's debatable as a lot of craptstic apps have been able to scam people very recently.
1. Not every operating system allows side loading.
2. If you want to side load, buy an Android phone, you’ve always had that choice.
3. Allowing side loading isn’t trivial and would require Apple to devote significant resources to enable it, to adjust the security model of iOS around it, to deal with the long term consequences, to deal with supporting all the customers who screw things up, etc. It’s not simply flipping a switch. Your saying the should be compelled to devote millions of dollars to support a feature they don’t want to just because you’d like it. That’s a horrible take.
4. If you don’t like Apples app model AND you think Apple devices are too expensive, BUY AN ANDROID PHONE ALREADY and leave those of us who CHOSE the iPhone option alone.
LOL you have no idea what tyranny is. Any one of us can walk away from the iPhone at any time. There’s no tyranny. I also prefer an automatic car, is that tyranny too because it won’t let me change gears manually? If I wanted that option I could buy a car that allows that. If I want side loading I can buy an Android phone that allows that. We CHOOSE iPhones because we prefer the trade offs compared to Android. Absolutely I prefer a more locked down model of App distribution, not because of “tyranny” but because it provides better security and stability. It protects me from malware and gives me more trust in the apps I buy. It creates convenience by having a single payment method (Apple’s) for in app purchases. All those are PLUSES in my book. If they are minuses in yours, I have no problem with that, you shouldn’t buy an iPhone, you should buy an Android. Buy what works for you. Don’t take away the choice from the rest of us.
As the App Store currently exists... yes, it does mean they can use the App Store for free. They list it as a free app, meaning they pay Apple nothing, and then they collect money from in-app purchases. If the court allows that, then Apple might start charging free apps per download or something in order to keep themselves from losing money.
Your proposed 3rd-party App Store would require a rewrite of iOS. I sincerely doubt the court will order that, and if they do, it will be appealed for many years.
Bull-****. Apple has already done the engineering and testing to implement it here. It in fact does not open the OS to security holes apple has already solved the problem they make it seem like the world would fall apart if the iPhone had other stores but it wont, pure corporate ********.
And for those wondering im not an apple hater Im an apple hype-beast apparently.
again the work has already been done since 2012. re see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(macOS)
Funnily enough... Epic already has experience with this.
Fortnite was originally only available on Android outside the Google Play Store via sideloading. Epic didn't want to pay Google's required 30% fee... so they released it on their own website.
But 18 months later... Epic put Fortnite on the Google Play Store.
Why?
As it turns out... having to go to a website to download a file, then go into your settings and flip a switch, then having to see a bunch of scary security popups... well that's not a great experience for consumers.
So it's funny how sideloading keeps getting mentioned on any article about Epic... when Epic themselves turned their back on sideloading on Android already.
Now... could Apple create a "premium" sideloading experience with sandboxing and other additional safety and security measures? Probably.
The question is... should they have to? Can the courts force Apple to create an entirely new system?
That will be determined...
Yes I do, you know that iOS shares 90 percent of its os with mac as per steve jobs
Do whatever you want with your device, no one is stopping you. What you (and Epic) are demanding is more than that, you are demanding that Apple HELP you do whatever you want with your device even if they’d rather spend their time and resources elsewhere. Additionally you are saying “I don’t care if there are advantages to Apples approach or if some people prefer it, I want it MY way and that’s the ONLY way that should be allowed!”
It’s not as simple as “just don’t use it”. Changing the OS to allow it AT ALL opens up security holes. Apple would have to devote significant resources to the following:
1. modifying iOS to support side loading
2. Modifying the security model to deal with the increased attack surface
3. Handling and responding to more security threats due to the increased attack surface
4. Dealing with customers who screw up their devices due to side loading
All of those things cost people and money and time. All of which could be spent elsewhere instead. Why should Apple be compelled to do something they don’t want to do and many of their customers aren’t interested in just to placate a small number of people who do want it but are too entitled to just buy an Android phone that lets them do all that anyway?
Aside from that aspect of of it there is not wanting to reward Epics disingenuous and self serving behavior.
There is not wanting to set the precedent that eliminates companies like Apple from offering a choice in the kind of devices we can buy.
There is not wanting to reward the people who can’t seem to tell the difference between “I would prefer if Apple did this or that thing different” and “Apple must give me what I want or be forced to!”
I’m sure others have more reasons, but there is a few to get you started.
Wrong. You turned my comment on the spectrum of possibilities into a binary. Nope.
Apples approach is not perfect but it’s still superior to Androids. Saying I wish they’d go even further down the spectrum doesn’t negate that fact. Ignoring that there are more than two options doesn’t change it either.
Another issue rarely mentioned is, that Apple also enforces their license on Apps, e.g you can't release a GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed Apps in AppStore. Just another reason why sideloading must exist. Things like brew.sh will never be possible with the current iOS/iPadOS lock-in.
Humans and cats have about 90% of DNA in common, there are still some rather significant differences between us and them.
Nope, you are both an Apple hater and also someone who clearly doesn’t know what’s involved in software development to make such a false and inaccurate statement as evidenced by using a macOS feature as your example. Hint macOS and iOS = not the same thing.
That doesn't apply here since that is about discrimination. Apple isn't refusing to sell apps based on religious beliefs.
Oh really? When did he say that? Can you post a link so I can see it? Also, are you aware Mac OS and iOS have changed a lot since Jobs was alive?
You don’t know how much of the codebase is or isn’t shared. You don’t know how much work it would take to rewrite iOS to allow 3rd-party software installation. You’re making assumptions out of thin air and asserting them as facts.
No you didn’t. This has been the AppStore model since day one.
Can you please list some of the anti-trust violations you believe Apple has committed?
Nope, you bought a product that specifically provided certain capabilities and not others and now you are throwing a tantrum because of something you knew wasn’t there from the beginning. You are free to use the product however you want, but that doesn’t mean Apple has to help you do things it never promised in the first place. If you don’t like the options Apple offered you shouldn’t have bought an iPhone. You could have bought an Android instead. If neither phone offers the perfect combination of what you want, we’ll, tough cookies, you don’t have a universal right to have your every demand catered to.
You will read it about it in the news in here, when they face the punishment, at least in the EU they will!
What is garbage. I find many apps totally useless, but some needs them. Even some apps made by Apple are a total mess and should be removed from the store according to high standing quality...
A simple very ugly utility app might be incredibly helpful for tens of thousands of people, the dev just simply didn't have 5000$ to throw at a designer for a free app which cost him still 120$ per year to be on the AppStore. It is charity from the developer. Many apps are simply charity from developers.
If we continue in this direction, we should also forbid 99% of the fastfood, which sells not only un-eatable **** but which also cost billions in health issues...
So no thank you. I don't want to loose the choice of apps just because of totally arbitrary decisions of Apple. I'm currently on some specific apps for specific business. Apple prevent me to do this app because of their arbitrary rules. But that's what my customers need and want... Why should Apple prevent the creation of such application only due to their totally arbitrary rules. The companies spends tens of thousands in Apple devices, which now they have to throw because a very simple feature is not possible ONLY because Apple doesn't feel like it...
This only should be enough to force Apple to allow the installation of external signed application like on the mac.
1. App Store rules change constantly.
2. App Store rules are not enforced equally.
I don't think Epic has a case here at all because they are barking up the wrong tree.
But Apple has opened themselves up to plenty of scrutiny by engaging in selective enforcement for partner companies that do or do not compete with them.