Apple Says UK App Store Steering Rules Would Be 'Highly Intrusive'

[Compote]

Apple's not being anti-competitive, the U.K and the E.U. simply have nothing to compete with.

That's wrong. What do you think competition means? How did you understand the article? Did you not realise that the developpers who want their own Stores are competing with Apple's App Store?

Next, you seem to think that Europe doesn't inovate in consumers' electronics nor has access to manufacturing in China. We do. There is competition in Europe.

There's competition from Microsoft, from Google, from Huawei, Samsung, SONY, etc.

You're very confused.

Apple is being anti-competitive by forcing everyone to use their App Store. I don't have to use the App Store on my Mac. Why should I on my iPhone?? (Oh, silly me, I don't have to, I live in Europe, I'm protected from monopolies like the App Store's on iPhones..)

 

[BaldiMac]

Not true. Not all profit seeking activity is greedy.

I didn’t say all profit seeking activity is greedy. In fact my point was that the term is often used as a pejorative way to describe profit seeking.

 

[Compote]

Except that makes everyone’s devices less safe and secure. Even those who don’t use those features (or intend to use those features).

For example, right now my mother in law can’t get scammed into sideloading a malicious app onto her iPhone because it’s not possible to sideload. As soon as you open up that ability you’re going to massively increase the rate of scams and malicious apps. And while you may be savvy enough to avoid downloading malicious apps, not all of Apple’s customers are.

There is a reason iOS has orders of magnitude less malware than Android. It isn’t because iOS is better coded, or Apple has better engineers, or Apple users are more sophisticated - it’s because Apple’s restrictions prevent the primary attack vectors from even being possible by prohibiting third party app stores and sideloading.

That shouldn’t get taken away from everyone just because you don’t want to use Android.

Again, not true. I don't use the App Store on my Mac.

Let's entertain your notion for a minute. No, wait, let's not, because that's the law and you're not arguing with the law. If you want to, you go to court. Apple will lose that battle, if only because of the Mac and PC and Android precedents, and because they cannot justify holding a monopoly in OUR countries, because OUR countries do not allow that.

Why is it safe on Mac but not on iPhone? Because they would lose their PC market share if they blocked it on Macs (WHICH THEY ABSOLUTELY TRY TO DO, THEY BLOCK APPS AND SCATTER AND BURY ALL THE TOGGLES IN SETTINGS).

Why is it safe to mirror your iPhone but not your Android? Because they want you to buy an iPhone, not an Android.
Not because it's not safe.

You MIL wouldn't be scammed if she decided to use only the App Store. Also, that's ageist and sexist of you. It's not up to Apple to decide. Walmart doesn't decide that your wallet is only safe when you shop with them. Walmart doesn't lock you inside a room and force you to only spend your money at their stores.

The law doesn't care that gna gna gna Android. The law is telling you to do this and this. You do it. Apple prevents third-party apps sideloading because it hurts their bottom line.

Next, we're not even talking about sideloading, we're talking about paying outside of the Apple Store.
You're not downloading anything when you pay for in-game credit on a web-page, while you're in a game downloaded from the app store.

You're trying to change the suject and flood the zone because you know you're wrong and you know people can tell.

 

[Compote]

I didn’t say all profit seeking activity is greedy. In fact my point was that the term is often used as a pejorative way to describe profit seeking.

It's not about greed. It's about following the law.

 

[MrSnirf]

Except that makes everyone’s devices less safe and secure. Even those who don’t use those features (or intend to use those features).

iOS already has "side loading" capability. Apple intentionally restricts it because it sidesteps their app store payment system. The ability to Install apps from 3rd party sources does not make your device less safe or less secure if you don't use it. The capability is there and your mother in law can be scammed into using it today.

For example, right now my mother in law can’t get scammed into sideloading a malicious app onto her iPhone because it’s not possible to sideload. As soon as you open up that ability you’re going to massively increase the rate of scams and malicious apps. And while you may be savvy enough to avoid downloading malicious apps, most of Apple’s customers aren’t.

Scams that affect your mother in law and i assume she is older are the phone call tech support social engineering scams. 3rd party stores or lack there of does not prevent that.

There is a reason iOS has orders of magnitude less malware than Android. It isn’t because iOS is better coded, or Apple has better engineers, or Apple users are more sophisticated - it’s because Apple’s restrictions prevent the primary attack vectors from even being possible by prohibiting third party app stores and sideloading.

How fleeceware apps have earned over $400 million on Android and iOS

Avast researchers have discovered fleeceware apps with over a billion downloads and over $400 million in revenue on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Learn about the mechanics of these scams as well as how to prevent falling victim to them.

blog.avast.com

A total of 134 fleeceware applications have been identified by Avast on the Apple App Store.

Sensor Tower data estimates a total of 500 million downloads of these applications. It also estimates that the applications have brought in $365 million in revenue in their lifetime.

View the complete list of fleeceware applications on iOS.
Android

A total of 70 fleeceware applications have been identified by Avast on the Google Play Store.

Sensor Tower data estimates a total of 500 million downloads of these applications. It also estimates that the applications have brought in $38.5 million in revenue in their lifetime.

iPhone vs. Android: iPhone users more reckless, less protected online

Lower rates for creating unique passwords, buying items from known websites, and using protection software leave iPhone users at risk to online scams.

www.malwarebytes.com

The measurably unsafe behavior of some iPhone users online comes with unfortunate, measurable consequences. The poor password hygiene, risky buying behavior, and limited antivirus protection are all paired with a higher overall rate of victimization—53% of iPhone users have fallen victim to a scam compared to 48% of Android users.

Apples walled garden does not prevent people from getting scammed on iOS. You were just in a thread where Apple published a scam app and did nothing while their customers got scammed arguing that Apple is not responsible to recompense their customers because security is not 100% guaranteed. Something something "common sense and personal responsibility" was the retort used by some in that thread.

That shouldn’t get taken away from everyone just because you don’t want to use Android.

Your ability to stay in the walled garden remains. You and your mother in law can simply choose not to install apps from 3rd party sources and stay within Apple's restricted system.

 

[AppliedMicro]

“Developers are free to charge what they feel their product is worth”
But not Apple. That’s “wanting too much of the pie.”

Apple - as a developer of apps is - is free to charge any price they want for their apps.
Just like any other developer of apps.

Apple as a store operator is free to charge any price on their store too.
Just like any other store.

Apple as a duopolist platform operator that controls about half of the market (revenue) for something that whole industries depend on? They’ll be regulated. Of course they will - and rightly should be. Neither would we let telecommunications providers charge their customers a commission on their sales without competition.

No, Apple is charging developers for access to a large customer base with pre-loaded credit card data, payment processing, billing, features that benefit customers developers would otherwise not support, and use of Apple’s intellectual property.

…and regulators are making sure that they’re not the only (viable) way of accessing that customer base. That Apple doesn’t have a monopoly of accessing that customer base (which they’d otherwise have over the lifespan of the customer’s hardware purchase and use).

Or as we otherwise call it: competition.

Note that Apple is still able to charge for use of their intellectual property. They’ll just be prevented from “bundling” charging for the use of intellectual property that developers require with payment processing between third parties (third-party developers and consumers).

 

[racerhomie]

Highly intrusive? They want you to allow developers to sell directly to their customers without going through your payment processing system. There is nothing intrusive about that. What is intrusive is a corporation forcing developers to go through them to sell to customers.

I bought your phone now allow me to buy apps where i want and use whatever payment system i want.

Go buy an android phone and install apps from shadyapps.com. The free market has already given you permission to install malware on your phone

 

[1674117]

No, Apple is charging developers for access to a large customer base with pre-loaded credit card data, payment processing, billing, features that benefit customers developers would otherwise not support, and use of Apple’s intellectual property.

Most developers are choosing to pass those fees along to their customers, which is totally their right to do. But let’s not pretend it’s Apple passing that fee onto customers. It’s the greedy developers who want access to Apple’s hard work without paying for it.

You have this entirely backwards. Apple has a large customer base because developers wrote cool apps for their platform. Developers have until now allowed apple to take a cut of their profits on their hard work for no reason at all. Developers are not greedy, they want paying for their work. Apple have already been paid for theirs when you bought a phone.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Well, that's the whole freakin' point, innit?

 

[idrewuk]

‘so developers can pass savings to customers’

Ah yes, because that’ll definitely happen!

 

[theluggage]

I really can’t understand how anyone who feels so strongly about an “open ecosystem” can buy an iPhone.

I mean if an open ecosystem is what you care about, why do you have an iPhone?

Because the only viable alternative (if you want apps for the major services) is Android, and the only thing keeping that remotely “open” is Google being subject to the same global competition laws as Apple. Google have already faced multiple actions by the EU for things like trying to force phone makers to pre-install the Google Apps suite and Google search if they wanted access to the Play store.

 

[playtech1]

Apple, as a rational profit-seeking company, will of course try and maximise what it gets from being one half of the iOS/Android duopoly and I, as a citizen, expect governments to make sure they don't take the p***.

Seems straightforward really.

 

[mazz0]

"Highly intrusive" sounds like the most generic response imaginable to government regulation that a company doesn't like.

 

[polyphenol]

If Apple and developers want me to buy apps, the single best change so many could make is to clarify what they mean by "In-app purchases". In detail.

I hardly ever look for apps these days as I simply can't be arsed to work through everything to see what costs I might be in for.

I particularly detest the ones which proclaim something like "Install this free app..." - and only later do you see the limitations of the free version. Often effectively making it useless.

 

[leonremi]

I’m all for crushing into submission each and every major tech company (US and whatever China controls).

But to me, the absolute priority is to dismantle the social networks starting with X and Meta.

 

[deevey]

How would Apple know this when "Developers in the UK are not currently able to direct customers outside of the App Store"?

It's not difficult to Google the percentage of services that actually reduced their non-app store price vs just increasing their bottom line.

 

[Piplodocus]

"Apple claims there is no evidence that allowing developers to direct users to purchase options outside the ‌App Store‌ would result in savings for customers."

BS! Why is my Youtube subscription noticeably cheaper then after I realised I was being mugged off getting it through the Youtube iOS app, so cancelled it and just got it direct from the website (which is where most of my YT viewing occurs anyway)?

The app store and commission a massive money-spinner for Apple, but is also why the iPad is still largely a consumer-level device as apps are all fischer-price childlike versions compared to desktop pro apps - none of those serious SW companies want to give away 30% of their earnings (unless they can get away with it due to having huge mass-market appeal). Hence the only decent (I presume) music production app for iPad is Logic: made by Apple and a subscription-based model. Hence why I will continue to love the Mac, can accept an iPhone as it's "just a phone" albeit a very nice one, but will make my iPad Pro last as long as possible then never buy another.

 

[mwhite]

Then stay within that restriction. Nobody is asking you to sideload, use 3rd party stores, use 3rd party payment processing. Just stay within those restrictions. However, i should be allowed to go outside if i choose to.

You can go outside if you choose too. Use another platform.

 

[mwhite]

That's wrong. What do you think competition means? How did you understand the article? Did you not realise that the developpers who want their own Stores are competing with Apple's App Store?

Next, you seem to think that Europe doesn't inovate in consumers' electronics nor has access to manufacturing in China. We do. There is competition in Europe.

There's competition from Microsoft, from Google, from Huawei, Samsung, SONY, etc.

You're very confused.

Apple is being anti-competitive by forcing everyone to use their App Store. I don't have to use the App Store on my Mac. Why should I on my iPhone?? (Oh, silly me, I don't have to, I live in Europe, I'm protected from monopolies like the App Store's on iPhones..)

Show me Europe's equivalent of Apple or Google, just for starters.

 

[aidler]

A pattern emerges: Apple is very eager to accommodate any requirements coming from autocratic countries to gain market access as long as it does not substantially affect their revenue. Spying on citizens or a few bribes. Everything goes.
But as soon as a democratic country tries to enforce any regulation to protect its market, it is always bad for security and privacy, and they fight it tooth and nail.
This game is getting old. 🙄

 

[surferfb]

Again, not true. I don't use the App Store on my Mac.

iOS is a different platform serving a different (and orders of magnitude larger) user base that is less sophisticated. It was also designed after learning the lessons of the PC/Mac era, which is why there are significantly fewer instances of malware on iOS than even macOS (let alone windows or android).

Different rules are appropriate for different platforms, particularly when one of them was designed after seeing the issues with the other. The Mac was designed in a different time, without the benefit of things like downloadable software. The iPhone was designed having learned the lessons from the PC era.

The iPhone is also a much larger target than the Mac is. A vulnerability that hit 5% of iPhones would be the equivalent of hitting half of all Macs worldwide. The scale difference alone absolutely justifies stricter rules.

Let's entertain your notion for a minute. No, wait, let's not, because that's the law and you're not arguing with the law. If you want to, you go to court. Apple will lose that battle, if only because of the Mac and PC and Android precedents, and because they cannot justify holding a monopoly in OUR countries, because OUR countries do not allow that.

Apple doesn’t hold a monopoly in any country. And again, I don’t know why you keep bringing “the law” up. I’m not saying Apple doesn’t have to follow the law, or that the countries don’t have the right to pass the laws. I’m saying that the laws are bad, bad for Apple’s customers, Apple is correct for challenging them, and well within their rights to do so.

Why is it safe on Mac but not on iPhone? Because they would lose their PC market share if they blocked it on Macs (WHICH THEY ABSOLUTELY TRY TO DO, THEY BLOCK APPS AND SCATTER AND BURY ALL THE TOGGLES IN SETTINGS).

See above. iOS is a different operating system designed 30 years after Mac and when introduced Apple explicitly said it was designed having learned the lessons from the Mac/PC era.

Back then, people like you screamed closing iOS down like that was going to doom Apple to irrelevance. Apple was idiotic for closing down. Android was going to eat their lunch.

But turns out customers love that model. So now the same people scream that what Apple is doing is so anticompetitive it has to be banned.

Why is it safe to mirror your iPhone but not your Android? Because they want you to buy an iPhone, not an Android.
Not because it's not safe.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about here.

You MIL wouldn't be scammed if she decided to use only the App Store. Also, that's ageist and sexist of you. It's not up to Apple to decide. Walmart doesn't decide that your wallet is only safe when you shop with them. Walmart doesn't lock you inside a room and force you to only spend your money at their stores.

People who intend to only use the PlayStore get tricked into installing from third party sources all the time. It’s a huge reason Android has millions and millions of infections. It’s not “ageist and sexist” to point out that not everyone is a tech nerd who posts on MacRumors.

The law doesn't care that gna gna gna Android. The law is telling you to do this and this. You do it. Apple prevents third-party apps sideloading because it hurts their bottom line.

Apple prevents sideloading because its bad for almost all users. When looking at the ecosystem as large, downsides far outweigh the upsides. As an example: here is this a 2023 survey paper citing McAfee data report 2.34M mobile malware cases, of which only 389 were on iOS. That’s because of sideloading and third party stores. I don’t want that on iOS.

Two things can be true at the same time: it’s better for the vast majority of users and Apple’s bottom line.

Next, we're not even talking about sideloading, we're talking about paying outside of the Apple Store.
You're not downloading anything when you pay for in-game credit on a web-page, while you're in a game downloaded from the app store.

No store on the planet lets manufacturers put “buy cheaper on our website” in big letters on product boxes on their store. I don’t understand why so many here think it’s ok to make Apple do that in their store.

You're trying to change the suject and flood the zone because you know you're wrong and you know people can tell.

You seem to be taking this awfully personally. I have a different opinion than you, which is allowed. I honestly wouldn’t care if every person on MacRumors thought I was wrong. But, given my years of posting about this topic on MacRumors, I know that, at least based on reaction scores, your opinion is held by a very loud minority of people here.

 

[SBlue1]

It’s Apple’s platform, so it should be Apple’s decision how it operates.

There’s plenty of competition if developers or consumers think the price is too high.

So by that thinking Ford should be able to force you to buy Ford brake pads only? LOL! I paid for my iPhone, now let me do with it what I want. Same as with my MacBook, I paid for it so why should Apple dictate where I can buy my software from??

 

[MilaM]

I really can’t understand how anyone who feels so strongly about an “open ecosystem” can buy an iPhone.

I mean if an open ecosystem is what you care about, why do you have an iPhone?

It's either Apple's greed and user hostile decisions, or Googles frivolous selling of user data. I would jump ship if there was a privacy-friendly third alternative.

Yes, I looked into Graphene OS and other similar projects and admire what they have accomplished so far. I'm just not convinced those are mass-market compatible (yet).

 

[macbookj0e]

These regulations are only for certain entities to gain more control. End users never see the savings or benefits that are outlined to get the idea passed in the first place.

 

[surferfb]

iOS already has "side loading" capability. Apple intentionally restricts it because it sidesteps their app store payment system. The ability to Install apps from 3rd party sources does not make your device less safe or less secure if you don't use it. The capability is there and your mother in law can be scammed into using it today.

Scams that affect your mother in law and i assume she is older are the phone call tech support social engineering scams. 3rd party stores or lack there of does not prevent that.

“Other scams exist, so let’s not block another significant vector of scams that infect tens of millions of our competitors’ devices but practically none of ours.”

How fleeceware apps have earned over $400 million on Android and iOS

Avast researchers have discovered fleeceware apps with over a billion downloads and over $400 million in revenue on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Learn about the mechanics of these scams as well as how to prevent falling victim to them.

blog.avast.com

iPhone vs. Android: iPhone users more reckless, less protected online

Lower rates for creating unique passwords, buying items from known websites, and using protection software leave iPhone users at risk to online scams.

www.malwarebytes.com

According to Google's 2026 security blog, Google Play Protect identified 27 million new malicious sideloaded apps through real-time scanning in 2025, more than doubling the 13 million identified in 2024. The system blocked 266 million risky installation attempts and neutralized 872,000 unique high-risk applications.

Sideloaded sources contain 50 times more malware than Google Play per Google's own data cited in the link above.

Why do you want to bring that to iOS?

Apples walled garden does not prevent people from getting scammed on iOS.

No one is arguing the wall garden completely prevents from getting scammed, but it absolutely and unquestionably significantly reduces the number of people who do. See statistics above.

You were just in a thread where Apple published a scam app and did nothing while their customers got scammed arguing that Apple is not responsible to recompense their customers because security is not 100% guaranteed. Something something "common sense and personal responsibility" was the retort used by some in that thread.

I wasn’t arguing Apple wasn’t responsible in that thread. In fact, I said several times they very well may be responsible. What I said was that claiming that Apple absolutely, 100% is responsible is premature given we don’t have all the facts, have only heard from the people suing Apple, and that some of their statements don’t line up if you take a closer look.

Your ability to stay in the walled garden remains. You and your mother in law can simply choose not to install apps from 3rd party sources and stay within Apple's restricted system.

RedHook Android malware can quietly hijack your phone

RedHook Android malware abuses wireless debugging and accessibility permissions to gain shell-level control after victims sideload a malicious APK.

www.foxnews.com

Coming soon to an iPhone near you!

The attack begins with social engineering. Criminals call or message victims while posing as bank employees, government representatives or support agents. They direct people to fake websites that resemble official services or the Google Play Store. However, the app comes from outside Google Play. The victim sideloads an APK, which means installing an Android app from another source.

I’m sure many of those users thought they were only using apps from the Google Play store.