Apple Says Fortnite for iOS Isn't Blocked Worldwide, Just the U.S.

[ThailandToo]

Tim built a better apple with multiple avenues of revenue; eg wearables. Services revenue went up. Consumers are worse off with the fractured operating system, devs aren’t worse off it’s exactly the same with some additional caveats for the app store.

As far as your comment about the top 1% - they always make out. That is not new news.

And what about the assembly line? Apple doesn’t own them and monitors the conditions. And many assembly factories are shared with other manufacturers.

I think you should go to China and see the assembly lines yourself. Or maybe the essential prison establishments they keep the workers in. Or maybe the safety nets at the buildings outside as people are essentially slaves and prefer to kill themselves. It’s worse than prison in the USA as you have to actually work nonstop. Oh, get ten hours off per day. Your money goes to pay for the living costs and you have little to send back to your families. I have actually spoken with people who have dealt with it and worked there. If you’re not in the top 5%, you are treated worse than dirt, taken advantage of and stolen from. Apple gets away with this by outsourcing all the work to a third-party company that takes the blame. What happens, Tim Crook gets his wealthiest wealthier and everyone who buys their iPhones should understand the situation. It’s worse than you can ever imagine. This is in the year 2025, not 1725.

 

[Abazigal]

In fact, the Mac has accomplished everything you’re talking about. You can prevent your Mac from running applications that aren’t from the App Store or signed by Apple. You don’t need to give up anything you like about the Apple “closed” ecosystem for the power users to get what they need out of the hardware they purchased.

Personally, I feel that any security system that can be disabled by its users turning off a few options is as good as not having a security system at all. I am aware that by default, certain apps downloaded from outside the App Store are barred from running or accessing certain settings, and those can easily be worked around in the settings app. The best security comes when said feature is not even available to the user at all.

In short, users should not be given enough rope to hang themselves with. You are, as always, free to disagree with me on this matter. But that's why I bought into the Apple ecosystem in the first place, I stand by every argument I have made here, and it's a hill I am prepared to die on.

You seem to think that in order for you to get what you want, everyone must sacrifice… that’s just not true.

The inverse appears to be the case here. A few people want to access features such as sideloading, and they have completely zero qualms about any possible ramifications on the rest of the user base so long as they get their way. I disagree with the entire "you don't have to use it if you don't like it" argument, which I find to be incredibly dismissive, and it annoys me to no end that every legitimate concern bring brought up is just being swept under the carpet.

These people are the ones who expect everyone else to sacrifice for their own wants. They believe they are tech-savvy enough to navigate whatever issues that may arise as a result, and they know it's not them who will have to deal with any subsequent fallout at the end of the day, and I find this line of thinking to be incredibly selfish and irresponsible.

This is the part of my argument where I make an assumption about you based on what you’ve told me… You’re a teacher, right? You are used to telling people how they should think about the world around them? Based on how others tell you to think? You might try to break that cycle a bit and critically think about the rules of the game you’re playing, because they’re someone else’s… Come up with your own talking points. Some of us aren’t content with “you will own nothing and be happy” - what’s really at the core of the walled garden.

Is it so hard to believe that after having had a decade of debating this exact same talking points with countless other people, that this is what I have come to believe is best for me, and why I continue to entrench myself inside the Apple ecosystem?

I admit that my talking points may not be entirely original, but it doesn't mean that I stand by them any less. I firmly believe that the current design of the iOS App Store continues to what is best for the vast majority of users, and users who desire more flexibility (eg: sideloading, expandable storage) might be better off exploring what Android devices can do for them instead. In this context, it would be better to have two mobile OSes which are diametrically different from each other, rather than insisting that iOS and Android simply be carbon copies in terms of what people are allowed to do with them.

Where then is the "meaningful choice" for the end user?

 

[Abazigal]

Apple has made Billionaires bigger Billionaires with Tim Crook at the helm. But as far as innovation goes, did Tim truly build a better Apple or just a more profitable AAPL? I say he made it more profitable, but every stakeholder got the shaft except the shareholders. Look at how bad it is for people assembling the products, the consumers are worse off, developers much worse off, you got suppliers and what about direct employees? Who makes out? Only the top 1% made out under Tim Crook’s Apple. That is corporate greed and not beneficial to society. They can spin great with marketing, but it’s all just spin.

Give me an example of a company who does it better then.

Developer are still paying the same 30% to the App Store now as they were back when Steve Jobs was running Apple (as is any game developer publishing games for Steam, Switch, PS5 and Xbox). Perhaps the one thing that's different is that there are more people releasing apps for iOS, which translates to greater competition, but I don't see how this is Apple's problem.

I don't own any apple stock (so I have no vested interest in how well Apple does well financially as a company), and I will say that the Apple ecosystem is by and large more fully-fleshed out under Tim Cook. My Apple TVs got peer-to-peer airplay mirroring (which means I can mirror my iPad without the need for a dedicated wifi connection), my iPad came with a stylus and keyboard, I got Apple Watches and AirPods and larger phones and more functionality in iOS overall). I buy more apple products and subscribe to more services because they do work great for it, so in that sense, a more profitable Apple is the result of a better Apple that made more products which resonate better with more people.

Managing costs and profits is basic business 101. I don't see it as a good or bad thing. It just is, everybody who runs a business will have to do this on some level, and some are just better and more successful at it than others. Or perhaps they should take a page out of Microsoft, who announced that they would be laying off thousands of employees after another profitable quarter?

This is in direct contrast to all the criticism about how Apple was too locked down, how apple devices lacked features such as expandable storage or removable batteries, how they cost more etc.

Apple makes stuff I like to use, and I buy them with money I make from working hard at my job. That's all there is to it. Apple does not exist to fight your political or ideological battles for you.

 

[Eithanius]

Oh this is getting good lol. I’m team Epic here. How on earth is more choice a bad thing for the consumer?

They get spoilt…!

 

[ppenn]

I'm failing to see what the problem is here? I have several apps that take you to an external site to make your purchases. Is Epic just not willing to that? Are they trying to get in app purchases without paying Apple the fees? I don't understand the issue here from either party.

 

[I7guy]

I think you should go to China and see the assembly lines yourself. Or maybe the essential prison establishments they keep the workers in. Or maybe the safety nets at the buildings outside as people are essentially slaves and prefer to kill themselves. It’s worse than prison in the USA as you have to actually work nonstop. Oh, get ten hours off per day. Your money goes to pay for the living costs and you have little to send back to your families. I have actually spoken with people who have dealt with it and worked there. If you’re not in the top 5%, you are treated worse than dirt, taken advantage of and stolen from. Apple gets away with this by outsourcing all the work to a third-party company that takes the blame. What happens, Tim Crook gets his wealthiest wealthier and everyone who buys their iPhones should understand the situation. It’s worse than you can ever imagine. This is in the year 2025, not 1725.

TC is being blamed for what started with SJ.

 

[ThailandToo]

Give me an example of a company who does it better then.

Developer are still paying the same 30% to the App Store now as they were back when Steve Jobs was running Apple (as is any game developer publishing games for Steam, Switch, PS5 and Xbox). Perhaps the one thing that's different is that there are more people releasing apps for iOS, which translates to greater competition, but I don't see how this is Apple's problem.

I don't own any apple stock (so I have no vested interest in how well Apple does well financially as a company), and I will say that the Apple ecosystem is by and large more fully-fleshed out under Tim Cook. My Apple TVs got peer-to-peer airplay mirroring (which means I can mirror my iPad without the need for a dedicated wifi connection), my iPad came with a stylus and keyboard, I got Apple Watches and AirPods and larger phones and more functionality in iOS overall). I buy more apple products and subscribe to more services because they do work great for it, so in that sense, a more profitable Apple is the result of a better Apple that made more products which resonate better with more people.

Managing costs and profits is basic business 101. I don't see it as a good or bad thing. It just is, everybody who runs a business will have to do this on some level, and some are just better and more successful at it than others. Or perhaps they should take a page out of Microsoft, who announced that they would be laying off thousands of employees after another profitable quarter?

This is in direct contrast to all the criticism about how Apple was too locked down, how apple devices lacked features such as expandable storage or removable batteries, how they cost more etc.

Apple makes stuff I like to use, and I buy them with money I make from working hard at my job. That's all there is to it. Apple does not exist to fight your political or ideological battles for you.

But Apple pitches that they exist to help the environment and they’re the crossroads of creativity and humanities. It’s all market garbage. I love my Apple products, too. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t differentiate between what is right and wrong.

I will pay more for a fair iPhone. And if people can’t then they shouldn’t have them. It shouldn’t be all about greed. It’s a public company not a dictatorship. It shouldn’t get to rule the world and take advantage of everyone to give to the shareholders only. The employees have lost their benefits and work for less year after year versus inflation. The CEO does this based on greed and all the rest is spin. I know it’s spin and just bought a $15k Mac Studio and plan to buy more. I am not saying I am not going to buy it. I am saying I want the process to change to not make the wealthy wealthier at the expenses of other human beings. I want all stakeholders to be cared for like what makes countries great and not companies monopolistic.

 

[iPhoneUser#]

Sweeney should be tried as a traitor acting on behalf of the Chinese government to destroy Apple’s business model. The App Store is the core of Apple’s business … built over many years, the concept, platform, and all the work, R&D, coding of engineers, developers, marketers to create it - now China using the fool Sweeney are tricking idiot politician into thinking this is about consumer rights and monopolists practices … the reality is the Chinese government-funded Tencent will now create a massive App Store of their own, outside of this system, charge whatever they want for apps and the iPhone will end as we know it. Tencent will continue to buy out every popular app on the current App Store and move it to their store. Is this what anyone wants? This is the virtual version of what China has done to US based manufacturing.

Someone is paying attention, ty

 

[TheColtr]

Grow up. This is the most petty school yard fight ever. Two mega corporations acting like elementary school children.

 

[Chazz12]

Apple lost my support for denying my app for arbitrary and made up issues, like the font not being readable sometimes and other times saying it's a spam app and there are others like it even though there are not...they literally don't test the apps or look at them. they just ******** you. So after supporting Apple since the beginning of this fight, screw Apple. I launched with testflight...lol, and am setting up Alt Store. I removed ALL apple payment systems and moved to Stripe. WAY lower fees (I think it said 2.5% on average), WAY better than Apple's 30% and dealing with their ******** review process. Also, I like how Apple is literally lying and trying to play with words here. Fortnite said the update was needed for all users to be able to play. So with one being denied in the US blocks it's usage world wide. Apple, stop playing ****ing games and acting like you don't know how servers/backends work.

 

[Chazz12]

But Apple pitches that they exist to help the environment and they’re the crossroads of creativity and humanities. It’s all market garbage. I love my Apple products, too. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t differentiate between what is right and wrong.

Exactly. And I used to believe their garbage. I worked for Apple, and they wouldn't allow ANY employees to create apps. Made zero sense to me, especially as an indie developer wanting to put an app on their app store should be beneficial to them, not competition. That's what they called it too, when I asked. They said it would be considered "competition" for employees to make apps that Apple has no hand in or competing app, to... They don't care about creativity and what not. it's just marketing BS.

 

[Chazz12]

Oh this is getting good lol. I’m team Epic here. How on earth is more choice a bad thing for the consumer?

They don't care about the consumer. They want a monopoly and full control. It's time the US did what the EU did with Apple so they can't screw over indie developers. I get Epic is big, but small developers face the same BS issues. So here's hoping Apple and Google get the same treatment as they did in Europe.

 

[Dorfdad]

Honestly hope epic returns the favor and makes unreal engine unsupported on osx and iOS. I’m done with apple when I change phones they are just turning into a **** company under Tim Cook. They really don’t innovate anymore they just wait years and release android tweaks and stupid locked to iOS only features. Keep rising the prices and have proven to not care about the user experience but only the bottom line. Plus osx has been degrading in security and more lately. I have to do more research but I’m probably leaving their ecosystem going forward.

 

[3224932]

Personally, I feel that any security system that can be disabled by its users turning off a few options is as good as not having a security system at all. I am aware that by default, certain apps downloaded from outside the App Store are barred from running or accessing certain settings, and those can easily be worked around in the settings app. The best security comes when said feature is not even available to the user at all.

In short, users should not be given enough rope to hang themselves with. You are, as always, free to disagree with me on this matter. But that's why I bought into the Apple ecosystem in the first place, I stand by every argument I have made here, and it's a hill I am prepared to die on.

The inverse appears to be the case here. A few people want to access features such as sideloading, and they have completely zero qualms about any possible ramifications on the rest of the user base so long as they get their way. I disagree with the entire "you don't have to use it if you don't like it" argument, which I find to be incredibly dismissive, and it annoys me to no end that every legitimate concern bring brought up is just being swept under the carpet.

These people are the ones who expect everyone else to sacrifice for their own wants. They believe they are tech-savvy enough to navigate whatever issues that may arise as a result, and they know it's not them who will have to deal with any subsequent fallout at the end of the day, and I find this line of thinking to be incredibly selfish and irresponsible.

Is it so hard to believe that after having had a decade of debating this exact same talking points with countless other people, that this is what I have come to believe is best for me, and why I continue to entrench myself inside the Apple ecosystem?

I admit that my talking points may not be entirely original, but it doesn't mean that I stand by them any less. I firmly believe that the current design of the iOS App Store continues to what is best for the vast majority of users, and users who desire more flexibility (eg: sideloading, expandable storage) might be better off exploring what Android devices can do for them instead. In this context, it would be better to have two mobile OSes which are diametrically different from each other, rather than insisting that iOS and Android simply be carbon copies in terms of what people are allowed to do with them.

Where then is the "meaningful choice" for the end user?

All of your arguments are based on assumptions - not even technical assumptions. You can’t even argue all of the points I brought up.. you completely dropped my counter that malware has made it to the App Store. You dropped social engineering as the biggest risk to falling victim to cyber crime. You assume escalating to a higher privilege level as bad security. You’re so stuck in your malformed opinion that you can’t even argue. You just regurgitate Apple’s talking points. You think the majority has to lose for the platform the be open - unequivocally false. You’re outside your element on this. You’re just an end user with no context into information security. Your platform won’t save you… it’s foolish to rely on only buying apps from the App Store to keep you safe. You’ve clearly lured yourself into a false sense of security - putting you at a higher risk to being a victim one day. You’re picking fights with people with real world engineering experience that understand more than you… and digging your heels into something you’re not qualified to talk about.

 

[Wanted797]

Once again Epic punishes its customers to try and get what they want (extra profits).

 

[Abazigal]

All of your arguments are based on assumptions - not even technical assumptions. You can’t even argue all of the points I brought up.. you completely dropped my counter that malware has made it to the App Store. You dropped social engineering as the biggest risk to falling victim to cyber crime. You assume escalating to a higher privilege level as bad security. You’re so stuck in your malformed opinion that you can’t even argue. You just regurgitate Apple’s talking points. You think the majority has to lose for the platform the be open - unequivocally false. You’re outside your element on this. You’re just an end user with no context into information security. Your platform won’t save you… it’s foolish to rely on only buying apps from the App Store to keep you safe. You’ve clearly lured yourself into a false sense of security - putting you at a higher risk to being a victim one day. You’re picking fights with people with real world engineering experience that understand more than you… and digging your heels into something you’re not qualified to talk about.

Every argument here is pretty much made on assumptions.

For one, the people making the argument for sideloading are assuming that there will be zero downsides whatsoever, even though we already have a pretty good model of what might happen in the form of Android. Said platform is notorious for high rates of app piracy. You cannot deny that people can be led to install malicious apps via fake links. The Google Play Store by and large brings in less money compared to the iOS App Store despite having way more users. People like to recommend Revanced as a popular app to sideload - and it's a third party YouTube app which lets users bypass ads. I just pay for YouTube Premium, because what use is having said app on my phone but not my Apple TV? I have a hard time believing that anyone would look at the state of the Android app market and go "yeah, that's a great model for Apple to emulate". 🙃

At least I am open to admitting that the current App Store model is not without its drawbacks, and that I am willing to live with those limitations. This is why I will continue to push back against the whole "you don't have to sideload if you don't want to" argument, which I find to be totally disingenuous. Admit that there might be downsides or unforeseen consequences, even if you may not really know what they are or to what extent, then we can start having a productive conversation.

I guess I am not really addressing those other points because they are tangential to what I was saying. I never said that scams came in only one shape and form. The prevalence of social engineering does not obviate the existence of other ways of scamming people, and it's an undeniable fact that people using android devices are falling for it, and you don't see this happening on iOS because iOS users, by definition, cannot download apps outside of the App Store. If this is indeed happening to iOS users, then I am not seeing it reported in the news. Even banking apps are disabling their apps from running on Android devices if they detect the presence of sideloaded apps.

Maybe Malware has made its way into the App Store, and at least Apple can remove them subsequently. If I am tricked into signing up for an overpriced subscription, I can easily terminate it via the subscription tab. How is downloading apps from the web any safer or more secure? This is not being lulled into a false sense of security, but rather, acknowledging that some basic form of security, however flawed, is better than zero security at all.

And lastly, perhaps the people I am arguing with are more knowledgeable than me, and maybe that's the whole problem. That the vast majority of users are not as well-informed as them. They feel confident of protecting themselves in a world where sideloading is the norm. How confident then are they of speaking for the rest of the Apple's entire user populace?

And maybe that gets at the heart of the entire discussion. It's easy to advocate for a change when you know you are not one who are going to have to deal with any fallout that may occur.

 

[3224932]

Every argument here is pretty much made on assumptions.

For one, the people making the argument for sideloading are assuming that there will be zero downsides whatsoever, even though we already have a pretty good model of what might happen in the form of Android. Said platform is notorious for high rates of app piracy. You cannot deny that people can be led to install malicious apps via fake links. The Google Play Store by and large brings in less money compared to the iOS App Store despite having way more users. People like to recommend Revanced as a popular app to sideload - and it's a third party YouTube app which lets users bypass ads. I just pay for YouTube Premium, because what use is having said app on my phone but not my Apple TV? I have a hard time believing that anyone would look at the state of the Android app market and go "yeah, that's a great model for Apple to emulate". 🙃

At least I am open to admitting that the current App Store model is not without its drawbacks, and that I am willing to live with those limitations. This is why I will continue to push back against the whole "you don't have to sideload if you don't want to" argument, which I find to be totally disingenuous. Admit that there might be downsides or unforeseen consequences, even if you may not really know what they are or to what extent, then we can start having a productive conversation.

I guess I am not really addressing those other points because they are tangential to what I was saying. I never said that scams came in only one shape and form. The prevalence of social engineering does not obviate the existence of other ways of scamming people, and it's an undeniable fact that people using android devices are falling for it, and you don't see this happening on iOS because iOS users, by definition, cannot download apps outside of the App Store. If this is indeed happening to iOS users, then I am not seeing it reported in the news. Even banking apps are disabling their apps from running on Android devices if they detect the presence of sideloaded apps.

Maybe Malware has made its way into the App Store, and at least Apple can remove them subsequently. If I am tricked into signing up for an overpriced subscription, I can easily terminate it via the subscription tab. How is downloading apps from the web any safer or more secure? This is not being lulled into a false sense of security, but rather, acknowledging that some basic form of security, however flawed, is better than zero security at all.

And lastly, perhaps the people I am arguing with are more knowledgeable than me, and maybe that's the whole problem. That the vast majority of users are not as well-informed as them. They feel confident of protecting themselves in a world where sideloading is the norm. How confident then are they of speaking for the rest of the Apple's entire user populace?

And maybe that gets at the heart of the entire discussion. It's easy to advocate for a change when you know you are not one who are going to have to deal with any fallout that may occur.

I’m done arguing with you. While you keep arguing on assumption - I argue with facts. You still can’t fully acknowledge malware making it to the App Store: “Maybe Malware has made its way into the App Store…”

You keep going back to this idea that adding third-party apps to iPhone and iPad inherently puts everybody at risk… You have no engineering experience, and no concept of nails within the OS. No concept of privileged execution. You don’t understand the underlying technologies that make it safe. I don’t want to talk about this with someone who just assumes. The fact is, the mechanism already exists to run third-party software… you just don’t have a working knowledge of operating systems. You live in a false sense of security… that the App Store is protecting you. It’s not. It’s just a giant revenue stream for Apple, and they’re fighting to protect it at the cost of crippling their devices. Then there are people like you… they don’t understand the system. But, they fight to protect it, because they only know how to regurgitate Apple talking points.

 

[Abazigal]

I’m done arguing with you. While you keep arguing on assumption - I argue with facts. You still can’t fully acknowledge malware making it to the App Store: “Maybe Malware has made its way into the App Store…”

I go back to my original point - how can you be 100% certain that sideloading will have absolutely zero impact on the user experience?

What Does It All Mean?: A Look at Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ Decision in the Epic Versus Apple Trial

Yesterday, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit against Apple, delivering a ruling in favor of Apple that comes with significant caveats. Although the Judge found that Apple‘s operation of the App Store isn’t an exercise of monopolistic power, she...

www.macstories.net

Although Epic Games presents some alternative methods that could be used to prevent malicious direct distribution (which are discussed below), there is little dispute that completely unrestricted sideloading would increase malware infections.

Thus, the Court finds that centralized distribution through the App Store increases security in the “narrow” sense, primarily by thwarting social engineering attacks.

Even the Epic Judge says so herself. That's why she eventually concluded that Apple was not a monopolist, and that is why Epic's attempt to push for sideloading on iOS ultimately failed.

But hey, I guess the judge must be regurgitating Apple talking points as well? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[3224932]

You mean the same judge that just told Apple they had to allow third party payments, because they are a monopoly? And, isn’t the exchange of money the biggest concern with social engineering attacks in this context? This completely nullifies the spirit judicial ruling from 4 years ago that social engineering is mitigated from the App Store distribution model.

A judge just blew up Apple’s control of the App Store

The judge called Apple’s insubordination a “gross miscalculation.“

www.theverge.com

I can actually be certain side loading won’t impact you if allowed. Making it an opt in feature will ensure only those who want to allow side loading do use it - contrary to your belief this model works on ChromeOS just fine. Plus, all iOS apps are ran in a sandboxed environment almost like containerized applications in the enterprise. The OS won’t allow one app to gain access to system resources that aren’t allocated to it. Also, you don’t let applications have root access to the system. Letting apps have root access will get you in trouble. Thankfully Unix like operating systems account for this, and Apple has done a good job taking this a step further. The framework exists to run sideloaded apps safely.

I mean, you do realize all you need is an active dev account to run third party apps outside of the App Store? Heard of the AltStore?

AltStore

altstore.io

I told you the mechanism exists and that Apple’s business model is the only thing holding the platform back. You don’t seem bothered by this existing functionality, so I’m not sure why you keep arguing. I just don’t want to pay $99 every year to use it…

Again, the bigger threat to cyber security is social engineering. You seem to downplay that fact, because you don’t understand the key principals of information security. You think being a nanny is the only way to keep people safe.

 

[surferfb]

You mean the same judge that just told Apple they had to allow third party payments, because they are a monopoly? And, isn’t the exchange of money the biggest concern with social engineering attacks in this context? This completely nullifies the spirit judicial ruling from 4 years ago that social engineering is mitigated from the App Store distribution model.

The judge did not find Apple had a monopoly. The opposite, in fact. And, more importantly, found Apple does not have to offer sideloading or alternative in-app purchases.

I can actually be certain side loading won’t impact you if allowed. Making it an opt in feature will ensure only those who want to allow side loading do use it - contrary to your belief this model works on ChromeOS just fine. Plus, all iOS apps are ran in a sandboxed environment almost like containerized applications in the enterprise. The OS won’t allow one app to gain access to system resources that aren’t allocated to it. Also, you don’t let applications have root access to the system. Letting apps have root access will get you in trouble. Thankfully Unix like operating systems account for this, and Apple has done a good job taking this a step further. The framework exists to run sideloaded apps safely.

How can you be certain sideloading won't impact me? Are you going to do the tech support for me if my father/mother-in-law/son gets tricked into enabling sideloading and then downloads a malicious app? Is Apple? Of course not - it'll be up to me to pick up the pieces.

Not everyone is a software engineer or otherwise technically adept. I am sure you and everyone posting on this thread could sideload to our heart's content and not get our devices hosed. But Apple has a lot more users to think about than "tech nerds who post on MacRumors and know what the AltStore is." As you correctly point out, social engineering is a thing. Phishing is a thing. And right now, it's a lot harder to get someone to install malware on iOS because sideloading is not allowed.

The idea that there are no downsides to sideloading, or that it's just as safe as going through the App Store, is laughable. You can argue the safety downsides are worth it, or that they're rare enough to not matter, but to argue they don't exist at all is just silly. There's a reason Android devices that have sideloaded apps on them are 80% more likely to have malware on them. As @Abazigal pointed out, some banks in their country don't let you install the bank's app if it detects sideloaded apps on the device. You think they're doing that because they hate sideloading? I'd argue that maybe, just maybe they have a really good business reason for doing so.

And again, there is no public benefit to forcing a company to offer a feature that it doesn't want to, that will absolutely result in more of its users getting exposed to malware, particularly when its largest competitor offers that feature AND the company has spent almost 20 years talking up how its platform works as a selling feature. Anyone who wants a device that can have sideloaded apps has known for over a decade and a half that Apple isn't going to give them that ability and Android is.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

You mean the same judge that just told Apple they had to allow third party payments, because they are a monopoly? And, isn’t the exchange of money the biggest concern with social engineering attacks in this context? This completely nullifies the spirit judicial ruling from 4 years ago that social engineering is mitigated from the App Store distribution model.

A judge just blew up Apple’s control of the App Store

The judge called Apple’s insubordination a “gross miscalculation.“

www.theverge.com

I can actually be certain side loading won’t impact you if allowed. Making it an opt in feature will ensure only those who want to allow side loading do use it - contrary to your belief this model works on ChromeOS just fine. Plus, all iOS apps are ran in a sandboxed environment almost like containerized applications in the enterprise. The OS won’t allow one app to gain access to system resources that aren’t allocated to it. Also, you don’t let applications have root access to the system. Letting apps have root access will get you in trouble. Thankfully Unix like operating systems account for this, and Apple has done a good job taking this a step further. The framework exists to run sideloaded apps safely.

I mean, you do realize all you need is an active dev account to run third party apps outside of the App Store? Heard of the AltStore?

AltStore

altstore.io

I told you the mechanism exists and that Apple’s business model is the only thing holding the platform back. You don’t seem bothered by this existing functionality, so I’m not sure why you keep arguing. I just don’t want to pay $99 every year to use it…

Again, the bigger threat to cyber security is social engineering. You seem to downplay that fact, because you don’t understand the key principals of information security. You think being a nanny is the only way to keep people safe.

@surferfb already said it well, but I can promise you that if side-loading were available as you envisage, it will only be a matter of time before I am going to have to be doing tech support for friends and family who are good people, but gullible in the tech space, and they are NOT tech-savvy in any way. Some grifter will use their social engineering skills to get the to disable the safeties, and install things that even if not outright malicious, will change the way they expect their phones to work.

Some tech sometimes must be made for EVERYONE to use, and not just for those of us who know what we're doing.

 

[turbineseaplane]

@surferfb already said it well, but I can promise you that if side-loading were available as you envisage, it will only be a matter of time before I am going to have to be doing tech support for friends and family who are good people, but gullible in the tech space, and they are NOT tech-savvy in any way. Some grifter will use their social engineering skills to get the to disable the safeties, and install things that even if not outright malicious, will change the way they expect their phones to work.

Some tech sometimes must be made for EVERYONE to use, and not just for those of us who know what we're doing.

I get all the concerns, but the main problem I have with it is that you can do this now.

A nefarious actor could get someone to install a 3rd party dev profile via the web and Apps and have whatever folks are concerned about, "happen". (the phishing or scamming or other things)

It's really not a technical process (especially if a flow is built for it by said actor) at all.

Ultimately, rather than speculate about this concern, I'd rather see the assertion tested and have Apple further develop a safeguard if it becomes needed.

Erring on the side of the broadest set of consumer choice and benefit, as you both know, is where I land.

Just wanted to add my $0.02
Cheers ✌️

 

[icanhazapple]

No, it’s not. Read the judge’s order.

Edit: to save you the Googling, from Page 179 of the order:

(i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.

Looks like I was right - https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/19/apple-fortnite-us-app-store-dispute/

 

[surferfb]

Looks like I was right - https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/19/apple-fortnite-us-app-store-dispute/

No, you weren’t right. While it certainly looks as if the judge will let them back in unless the appeals court grants Apple the injunction, the reason they’re being let back in isn’t because, as you put it, “The original reason they were banned from the App Store (attempting to offer a payment mechanism outside of Apple's control) has been struck done by a US court.The original ban reason is subsequently null and void”, but rather because Apple said at trial they’d let Epic back in if Epic followed the rules.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I have to love how deep in the weeds of arguing you guys all get

lmao

All about something that I'm not even sure any of us really care about...
Like .. does Fortnight being in or out of the App Store impact us?

😂