Apple Says Revised U.S. Sideloading Bill Would 'Undermine the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Rely On

[AppliedMicro]

Your comments are pretty much equivalent to malware. It’s designed to be frivolous and malicious and they are totally unwelcomed. It’s mainly targeted towards legitimate users who are here to contribute. And despite the rules and guidelines (set by Mac Rumors) they will forge with their purpose so they can annoy as many people as possible.

You're trying to brand me as a troll?
No, it's an honest argument:

If a platform refuses hosting legal apps/content

Being a platform truly (quote) "open to any developer who wishes to have their app hosted" means that you'll also host legal content / apps that you "don't like". Confederate flags, porn and emulators are legal. So are tobacco and vaping products and game streaming services. Yet Apple refuses to host them.

Therefore, the platform isn't open to every- and anyone.
It's only open to many or most - the ones complying with the moral standards Apple enforces.

Bookings.com is a subsidiary for a parent company called Bookings Holdings. And guess what? It’s an American travel company based in Connecticut.

SAP has acquired so many high profile US entities (Ariba, etc.) that it practically contributes to US economy more than EU economy.

Try again. Pick a company that isn’t a subsidiary of a US corporation or does not own large US entities

You're really twisting and turning things to fit your narrative of what's "American companies" here.

Booking Holdings themselves say that only 13% of their revenue is made in the U.S. - whereas 79% is made in the Netherlands. Straight in their latest annual report.

SAP, based in Germany, on the other hand derives 32% of its revenue from the United States - compared to 45% from EMEA, including 16% from Germany alone. (the "MEA" in EMEA is typically a rather small percentage for most companies, that's why they're lumping it together. Though of course Brexit has somewhat lowered the EU share).

So when a US-based company owns and makes most of its revenue in the EU, it's American?
Yet when a Germany-based company makes about the same in the EU as in America, it's American, too?

That doesn't add up, sorry.

 

[djphat2000]

Because the vast majority of mobile app profits are in iOS and developers are looking for levers to force Apple to reduce their app-store and IAP take. Side-loading is one lever to force Apple's hand.

But if its basically unused??? I mean if we said 30% of users will make the move off the Appstore and go it themselves. I could see this being useful. Worth it to make the switch for a developer and worth it economically for users. If 30% of your apps are not on the store, and you can side load them and save some money. But, this seems more like under 10% if not under 5% use on a VERY popular platform (Android). Seems like most Apple users will stick with the Appstore. So you could get even less use there.

Again, why are we doing this? What lever is anyone pulling against Apple here? This is all "show". Big hat no cattle.

 

[djphat2000]

iOS was created as an intentionally closed system right? And was then slightly opened through the App Store, a single doorway to the closed system which was heavily monitored by Apple, and explicitly so from day one.

Why now, that outside options exist, do people feel the need to say "things have changed" just because their closed system became such a popular option? Nothing's changed, just the size of the user base, and everyone involved is getting a piece of the action. No two pieces are identical, but as the old saying goes, life isn't fair. If you want a bigger piece, work for it; don't cry about something being unfair because someone got there first and laid the groundwork for you to make your fortune.

Feel that's the core problem nowadays. Everyone wants to make a buck, but few actually want to invest the time and resources into infrastructure. So when someone does that legwork, they immediately want to mooch off it as soon as it gets big enough and cry monopoly if they don't get their way.

100%

 

[Aydo2000]

You're trying to brand me as a troll?
No, it's an honest argument:

If a platform refuses hosting legal apps/content

Being a platform truly (quote) "open to any developer who wishes to have their app hosted" means that you'll also host legal content / apps that you "don't like". Confederate flags, porn and emulators are legal. So are tobacco and vaping products and game streaming services. Yet Apple refuses to host them.

Therefore, the platform isn't open to every- and anyone.
It's only open to many or most - the ones complying with the moral standards Apple enforces.

You're really twisting and turning things to fit your narrative of what's "American companies" here.

You know what’s also legal? Having your own policy! I am currently vacationing at a resort where they they have dress codes for every restaurant. Flip flops and sleeveless shirts are also legal but I can’t get in anywhere if I am wearing them. Do I make fuss about it and filing lawsuits for it???? The answer is no.

Porn is prohibited if you are under 18 and on a federal level it may be all good but state level it may not be. Since Apple products are widely used by children also, Apple has a moral obligation to provide children safe platforms.

Confederate flags are the same. Federally may be fine fine state level it may not. It is banned in NY for example as the courts rules it’s a hate symbols.

Emulators legal to download and use (personal only) but since they are tools to distribute copyrighted material, Apple has all the right to not allow them in their platforms. Apple is under no obligation - legally or morally - to allow things are widely used for illegal activity. If you want to use emulators freely, go and create your own platforms. Don’t blame Apple for having rules which is well within its legal rights. This isn’t wild Wild West.

Europe is Apple’s second largest revenue source. I believe last quarter it constituted around 30% of the total revenue. You do the math how much money that is. So shouldn’t EU be less unwelcoming considering how much business and workforce Apple is contributing in the region? You would think that but it’s the opposite. It’s for a reason.

Average growth of any EU based company is less than 3%. That’s an important figure to keep in mind.

EU only cares about EU based companies making it in the region. It’s bad only when American companies thrive in EU. That’s enough for EU to consider it anticompetitive whether true or not. EU doesn’t care if you are an EU based corporation making money in the US. Even better if you make that money in EU region. Protectionism works only one way. You blame your failures on others’ success regardless how unrelated it may be.

 

[M3gatron]

You can’t be serious comparing a business whose sole reason for being is to maximize profits to a government that’s supposed to work for the people, with its main purpose being to protect its citizens? And comparing switching smartphones to moving from one country to another??? Sorry, you completely lost me with that not-so-well thought out analogy.

Honnestly his comment was quite spot on.

 

[Aydo2000]

You're trying to brand me as a troll?
No, it's an honest argument:

If a platform refuses hosting legal apps/content

Being a platform truly (quote) "open to any developer who wishes to have their app hosted" means that you'll also host legal content / apps that you "don't like". Confederate flags, porn and emulators are legal. So are tobacco and vaping products and game streaming services. Yet Apple refuses to host them.

Therefore, the platform isn't open to every- and anyone.
It's only open to many or most - the ones complying with the moral standards Apple enforces.

You're really twisting and turning things to fit your narrative of what's "American companies" here.

Booking Holdings themselves say that only 13% of their revenue is made in the U.S. - whereas 79% is made in the Netherlands. Straight in their latest annual report.

SAP, based in Germany, on the other hand derives 32% of its revenue from the United States - compared to 45% from EMEA, including 16% from Germany alone. (the "MEA" in EMEA is typically a rather small percentage for most companies, that's why they're lumping it together. Though of course Brexit has somewhat lowered the EU share).

So when a US-based company owns and makes most of its revenue in the EU, it's American?
Yet when a Germany-based company makes about the same in the EU as in America, it's American, too?

That doesn't add up, sorry.

Honnestly his comment was quite spot on.

Not even close. Twisted comments that do not reflect reality are far away from being spot on. It’s a one-sided argument. Zero analytical insight that is based on legality and reality. You may agree with him because neither of you like Apple. Doesn’t make the argument spot on. It makes it a subjective view that completely disregards any established legal structure.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Not even close. Twisted comments that do not reflect reality are far away from being spot on.

Next time you're trying to prove your point by full-quoting me, please refer to the strand of the discussion that was referred to (including by yourself, see #332), i.e. post #330, not #351.

But going back to your accusation of providing "a subjective view that completely disregards any established legal structure":

SAP has acquired so many high profile US entities (Ariba, etc.) that it practically contributes to US economy more than EU economy.

Try again. Pick a company that isn’t a subsidiary of a US corporation or does not own large US entities

Edit: None of the companies you listed are part of EU and even the ones you said they were (2 companies) are either not based in EU or they are more American than they are EU

So SAP isn't an admissible (in this discussion) European company because they're owning large US entities?

To put your own words:
If that ☝️isn't "a subjective view that completely disregards any established legal structure", I don't know what is.

(Side note: What about Apple? Do they own large EU entities?)

You know what’s also legal? Having your own policy!

Absolutely.

But seems that's currently being changed in developed democracies around the world for the biggest of gatekeeping software/online platform services.

Confederate flags are the same. Federally may be fine fine state level it may not. It is banned in NY for example as the courts rules it’s a hate symbols.

As far as I know, it has been explicitly named and prohibited by a new/change of law:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S8298/amendment/B

Average growth of any EU based company is less than 3%. That’s an important figure to keep in mind.

Why?

 

[webkit]

I am not going to insult you by telling you how to Google information but if you want even easier info to find, Google what Epic’s practices were back in the 90s. Tim Sweeney even admitted and confirmed the information in the recent Epic vs. Apple lawsuit that he filed. That should be easy to find since the whole thing was few months ago. That was the standard practice and it was the standard rate distributors and stores used to take out of each sale.

FYI, Epic lost I think 9 out of their 10 claims and Sweeney is not happy.

I am able to search online just fine, thank you. However, your inability to provide support for your "70%" claim suggests that your search skills may not be up to par or your statement was incorrect.

If you are unable to do it, maybe someone else on here can. Unit then, I am going to have to stick with my original comment/opinion that your 70% figure seemed high as I've found nothing that suggests Circuit City typically used to "keep" that much of software sales.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Android allows sideloading. Let's see...

facebook - Android Apps on Google Play

Enjoy millions of the latest Android apps, games, music, movies, TV, books, magazines & more. Anytime, anywhere, across your devices.

play.google.com

Oh look, Facebook is in the Play store.

Seriously, app makers have no desire to make their stuff harder to find by forcing sideloading. Your favorite apps will all still be in the Apple app store. You'll just now have the option of installing apps not sanctioned by Apple should you choose to.

For better or worse Apple is a lot more restrictive about the App Store, and Google's policies have only been trending in that direction.

Back in my day "sideloading" is how we got all our software, from the developer's website or God help us CNet.

To be honest I don't know how I feel about it. On the one hand I don't like the idea that only Apple approved software can ever be run on the device I supposedly own. On the other, the Internet has only gotten nastier and some measure of control improves the experience for the vast majority.

But I do know that once the duopoly of mobile operating systems allow it, there's no more point to any app store. We're back to the CNet days. For better or worse.

We are even heading that direction on the desktop, as Microsoft just keeps pushing harder and harder for Store only software. I definitely do not like that.

 

[deevey]

I am able to search online just fine, thank you. However, your inability to provide support for your "70%" claim suggests that your search skills may not be up to par or your statement was incorrect.

If you are unable to do it, maybe someone else on here can. Unit then, I am going to have to stick with my original comment/opinion that your 70% figure seemed high as I've found nothing that suggests Circuit City typically used to "keep" that much of software sales.

The retailers would not typically keep that much, but the developers would receive far less than 30% once everyone else in the supply chain got their piece of the pie.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If you are unable to do it, maybe someone else on here can. Unit then, I am going to have to stick with my original comment/opinion that your 70% figure seemed high as I've found nothing that suggests Circuit City typically used to "keep" that much of software sales.

They're used to be computer software retailers in the 1990s, for some of which you can find their SEC filings. Company that were as focused or pure-play on software as it gets. Their gross margin figures absolutely don't indicate that 70% was a typical figure at all.

70% of sticker price, yes I could absolutely imagine that on some products. But I doubt that many people actually these prices (e.g., keeping 70% of sticker price for a company that's sold at a 50% discount or something).

 

[Aydo2000]

I am able to search online just fine, thank you. However, your inability to provide support for your "70%" claim suggests that your search skills may not be up to par or your statement was incorrect.

If you are unable to do it, maybe someone else on here can. Unit then, I am going to have to stick with my original comment/opinion that your 70% figure seemed high as I've found nothing that suggests Circuit City typically used to "keep" that much of software sales.

I already told you. Search for Epic’s rate in the 90s. All documented on the court case from EPIC VS APPLE. I am vacation and you can’t even find information from several months ago. Somehow I am the guilty one for not spoon feed you information.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I already told you. Search for Epic’s rate in the 90s.

The 70% figure over which doubt has been cast here wasn’t about EPIC. It was for Circuit City. Who, you claimed…

Are you old enough to remember Circuit City? They used to keep 70% of the software sales simply by putting developer’s CDs on their shelves.

 

[macjoshua]

It honestly baffles me that there are so many people who obviously hate Apple or want to see them fail on a forum for Apple products.

I get that you might not like the business model, but that's why there's Android, Windows, etc. I don't care how either of those companies do business because I choose not to use them. It's simple.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It honestly baffles me that there are so many people who obviously hate Apple or want to see them fail on a forum for Apple products.

It honestly baffles me how you’re equating criticising select parts of their business model (or wanting to have them legally regulated or changed) to „hating“ the company and „wanting it to fail“.

Quite the contrary. I do like (most of) their products’ design, usability, reliability - and their stance on user privacy. I want them to succeed.

At the same time, I do believe there shouldn’t be a single gatekeeper for software distribution on their software platform that can set their policies and fees at a whim. And I do believe it’s an undesirable situation for competition, consumer and business pricing and access to software.

And no, the existence of Google and Android doesn’t remedy or alleviate these concerns. Because as a matter of fact, there aren’t many relevant alternative platforms to choose from.

If there’s at least half a dozen mobile OS and App Stores (on which I can all get „essential“ apps), then yes, I might agree on having enough competition and choice - and not having to regulate things.

There are reasons why lawmakers and regulators in developed countries around the world (EU, UK, South Korea, Japan, Australia and, not to forget, the US themselves…) are looking into mobile app distribution practices and planning or pondering introducing new laws against the dominance of these so-called gatekeepers.

And these reasons are not all of them „hating“ Apple or wanting to prop up their „own“ (European or whatever) competitors.

 

[macjoshua]

At the same time, I do believe there shouldn’t be a single gatekeeper for software distribution on their software platform that can set their policies and fees at a whim. And I do believe it’s an undesirable situation for competition, consumer and business pricing and access to software.

Operating systems aren’t public domain. When you use them, you’re choosing to abide by the licensing agreement.

I am a software developer, and I understand that there are costs to a service provider to develop, maintain, and host those services. I don’t mind fees to cover those costs. Apple isn’t doing all of that stuff for free, just as I don’t create software for free.

I honestly don’t see more than a few percent of people downloading apps outside of the App Store. I do, however, see sideloading as a great way to make all iOS devices more insecure and malware a daily part of consumers’ lives.

Come to think of it, I guess it’s a good time to start working on an iOS malware detection app.

 

[Aydo2000]

The 70% figure over which doubt has been cast here wasn’t about EPIC. It was for Circuit City. Who, you claimed…

I did note it here. You get notifications of every comment here. It’s a chain of comments that you can’t follow. Do I need to teach how to read and follow comments? It was common practice back than just like it is now. Google and Apple. What’s their rate? 30%. It was the same idea.

SEC filings don’t go beyond 10 years. Not in publicly available information anyway. Jeez. How old are you exactly?

 

[dk001]

…

Come to think of it, I guess it’s a good time to start working on an iOS malware detection app.

If you get one up and running, and if Apple allows it, I would be very interested in what it finds with the current store apps.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I did note it here. You get notifications of every comment here. It’s a chain of comments that you can’t follow. Do I need to teach how to read and follow comments?

It's you, not me who can't follow the chains of comments (though given that you're on holidays in a resort, that's understandable and excusable).

Again:

Are you old enough to remember Circuit City? They used to keep 70% of the software sales simply by putting developer’s CDs on their shelves.

You failed to substantiate that claim at all - instead resorting calling on others to google it for themselves.
Everyone can convince themselves by reading the last three pages of this thread.

SEC filings don’t go beyond 10 years. Not in publicly available information anyway. Jeez. How old are you exactly?

Younger than you, based on your claims.
(What) Does it matter though?

And oh good lord... you really should familiarise yourself with the SEC's EDGAR online tool:
(Hint: remove the "from" date).

I'll even be providing you a direct link. So here you go...
? Apple's annual reports (10-K filings) going back all the way to 1994.

Publicly available (and yes, you can access the actual filings).
Works for other companies as well.
Everybody can convince themselves.

Enjoy your holidays! ?

 

[Aydo2000]

It's you, not me who can't follow the chains of comments (though given that you're on holidays in a resort, that's understandable and excusable).

Again:

You failed to substantiate that claim at all - instead resorting calling on others to google it for themselves.
Everyone can convince themselves by reading the last three pages of this thread.


Younger than you, I guess.
(What) Does it matter though?

And oh good lord... you should really familiarise yourself with the SEC's EDGAR online tool:
Hint: remove the "from" date).

I'll even be providing you a direct link. So here you go...
? Apple's annual reports (10-K filings) going back all the way to 1994.

Publicly available (and yes, you can access the actual filings).
Works for other companies as well.

Enjoy your holidays! ?

Circuit City has

It's you, not me who can't follow the chains of comments (though given that you're on holidays in a resort, that's understandable and excusable).

Again:

You failed to substantiate that claim at all - instead resorting calling on others to google it for themselves.
Everyone can convince themselves by reading the last three pages of this thread.


Younger than you, based on your claims.
(What) Does it matter though?

And oh good lord... you really should familiarise yourself with the SEC's EDGAR online tool:
(Hint: remove the "from" date).

I'll even be providing you a direct link. So here you go...
? Apple's annual reports (10-K filings) going back all the way to 1994.

Publicly available (and yes, you can access the actual filings).
Works for other companies as well.
Everybody can convince themselves.

Enjoy your holidays! ?

Circuit City filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Not every detail can be found in SEC filings for companies that filed for bankruptcy more than 10 years ago. You will need to go to archives for that.

Apple is well and alive. Of curse you will find them all the way back.

Honestly, I didn’t think I will be teaching kids some business lessons. I don’t have a problem with that but you should consider may be you don’t know everything you think you know.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Circuit City filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Not every detail can be found in SEC filings for companies that filed for bankruptcy more than 10 years ago. You will need to go to archives for that.

Apple is well and alive. Of curse you will find them all the way back.

Even though not being "well and alive", the same goes for Circuit City:
Circuit City 10-K filings dating back to 1994

And to preface that: No, I do and did never claim that these filings contain "every detail". (Though I can imagine you'd want to steer the discussion in that direction, given the condescending "how old are you (#249, #367) kids" attitude you've displayed in this discussion and how utterly and demonstrably wrong you've been with your claim about public availability of SEC filings).

But their numbers, as well as gross margin numbers for other, more pure-play software retailers (eg. Egghead) do line up with the figures webkit stated and that I've personally seen for a computer retailers dating back to the late 1990s (nowhere near 70% gross margin on software sales).

Honestly, I didn’t think I will be teaching kids some business lessons.

You really are. I'm really having a blast.
It may just not be the lesson you intended to.

 

[djphat2000]

It honestly baffles me how you’re equating criticising select parts of their business model (or wanting to have them legally regulated or changed) to „hating“ the company and „wanting it to fail“.

Because that is how it seems. Just saying.

Quite the contrary. I do like (most of) their products’ design, usability, reliability - and their stance on user privacy. I want them to succeed.

Does not seem so. That success comes with making money to make that next product. People got to get paid.

At the same time, I do believe there shouldn’t be a single gatekeeper for software distribution on their software platform

This is where you lose all of us that see just this line as making zero sense. You state clearly. "Their" software platform. Cause that is what is is.

that can set their policies and fees at a whim.

YES, this is exactly right. They made it, they can do what they wish of it. And if the people (me you us) don't like it, we can go with another product. But if anyone is paying attention here. They have not increased costs have they? They don't gouge anyone. It's been 30% and 15%. $99 developer fee, and buy a mac to develop on. The only whim here has been to lower the price.

And I do believe it’s an undesirable situation for competition, consumer and business pricing and access to software.

We all must be able to agree here that Apple does not have to allow anyone on their platform right? I mean, they didn't make it for developers, they made it for the rest of the population that wanted an easy to use smart phone. Development on the device is an add on (benefit) for sure, but they did not make it so developers could be happy.

Competition is exactly what Apple faced when they made the iPhone. As to Google with Android. These two companies are more or less the last ones standing. People made a choice and picked these as the winner. So now gov't want to come in and say "hey your too successful and the people don't like it cause we represent the people." Said no people really ever, expect these forums. So we are going to force you to open up. Make it easier for others to compete with you on your platforms. Yeah!!!

And no, the existence of Google and Android doesn’t remedy or alleviate these concerns. Because as a matter of fact, there aren’t many relevant alternative platforms to choose from.

Blame the people of planet earth for that. No gov't can fix this. Just look at Europe today. Almost all of its gas comes from 1 country? Try as they might now, they missed getting that one fixed. How they going to "fix" Google and Apple? I would say gas is more important than a smartphone at this point no? More vital to survival and all that.

If there’s at least half a dozen mobile OS and App Stores (on which I can all get „essential“ apps), then yes, I might agree on having enough competition and choice - and not having to regulate things.

We did, and they all failed. I'm sorry they failed, but they did.
Palm OS - WebOS
Windows CE - Windows Metro (Windows 8 whatever)
Blackberry
Nokia (Symbian)

There are reasons why lawmakers and regulators in developed countries around the world (EU, UK, South Korea, Japan, Australia and, not to forget, the US themselves…) are looking into mobile app distribution practices and planning or pondering introducing new laws against the dominance of these so-called gatekeepers.

Let them try. I wouldn't hang my hat on these people being well enough informed or bright enough to get this right at all. There is an endless list of things these countries have gotten wrong (and I live in the US) for me to believe they or anyone of them will get any of this right. I have meet no one (except on these forums) that gives 2 hoots about this, any of this. No one really gives a turd about how much of a cut Apple or Google takes from sales on the store. Or the fact that there is only one store on Apple and you can figure out how to have more on Google.

From everything I have read on these forums. Most agree that people rarely use 3rd party stores or side load on the most popular platform on earth (Android). But, yet we need to allow it on Apple? Why, when hardly anyone uses it on the other side? It's a waste of time, we all have better things to worry about and get done. Yet this is some how a focus with governments the world over? Really? Dating Apps not getting a fair shake? 30% too high for developers making more than a Million a year? First world problems for sure.

We have Climate Change, War's, Food shortages, water shortages. ****, we have baby formula shortages in the US, and mass killings darn near ever other day. Sky high fuel prices ( I very much understand Europe already paid more than the US, but for us it's redonkulously high). And zero governments are making any of this better. But fix this duopoly please!! Just can't take it anymore. LOL.

And these reasons are not all of them „hating“ Apple or wanting to prop up their „own“ (European or whatever) competitors.

I'm not buying what your selling. If you want a more open platform, buy Android. There are plenty of options in that regard. Apple has always been pretty darn closed. Except during the clone years, and to some extent when they ran on intel. They never licensed Mac OS on x86, and they killed the clones when SJ came back. Heck they stopped using Nvidia GPU's just cause. They don't play nice with others all or most of the time. IF that is not what you want in a company or a product they make. Don't buy them.

 

[dk001]

Do we as users accept a complacent 80% right and ignore the 20% wrong (or needs improvement) from a company or do we call out the company, pushing for improvement?

I’m for pushing.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Operating systems aren’t public domain. When you use them, you’re choosing to abide by the licensing agreement.

Actually... no. In many jurisdictions, and that certainly includes European ones, they aren't enforceable. Unless properly presented when buying the product (and not).

Selling things at points of sale and then subsequently claiming "Oh, you can't actually use them unless you agree to hundred pages of incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo" is akin to a bait & switch.

But let's not conflate operating systems with app distribution. Operating systems are part of the devices - and are paid for with the device. Which is a hugely profitable in itself.

Does not seem so. That success comes with making money to make that next product. People got to get paid.

...except: They aren't making a "next product".
The App Store is pretty much the same as it's always been. They're just getting ever more creative at fleecing customers and developers (can't stream loads of unapproved content but not games, opt-out subscription price increases, etc.)

This is where you lose all of us that see just this line as making zero sense. You state clearly. "Their" software platform

Sure. It is their platform.

It's just that I believe that their rights of doing what they want to do with and on their platform should be (moderately) legally restricted and regulated. Because...
When someone or something grows too big, important and powerful its will be curtailed for the greater good.

I honestly don't think that's too hard to comprehend.

Though the assessment of "too powerful" is admittedly a very subjective one and prone to disagreement.

We all must be able to agree here that Apple does not have to allow anyone on their platform right?(...)
So now gov't want to come in and say "hey your too successful and the people don't like it cause we represent the people." Said no people really ever, expect these forums

Well, I think it can be objectively observed that quite a few jurisdictions seem to be (tentatively) disagreeing with that stance (that Apple doesn't have to allow anyone) at the moment.

It's several jurisdictions that are "coming at" Apple (and Google) more or less at the same time. With powerful lawmakers proposing and working on laws to force them to allow sideloading and/or enable more competition in app distribution and in-app payments.

? I'd honestly be interested in your take on how and why this came to be and is currently happening?

I mean, it can’t just be because of a small minority of nerdy niche forum pundits, can it. And I've also heard the knee-jerk claims that all these lawmakers must have been "bought" and/or hate Apple or US companies. But honestly, with the targets of such regulation being the biggest and most powerful companies in the world, and the US about to pass that law against companies on their own turf and backyard, that’s just not convincing. It‘s unsubstantiated conspiracy-theory level stuff.

 

[ksj1]

Jeez, I can't believe the mis-information in this thread. It appears a number of Epic, Meta, Google and other Apple competitors have pulled out all the stops. Including the level of lobbying of governments the world over. By lobbying I mean campaign contributions if you do what we want. Apparently Apple is not giving out enough to keep the politicians happy.