“The way you’re currently doing business? Legally? Well, sorry to say that we’ve designated ‘the legal way you’re doing business’ as illegal. No no, OTHER companies can still do what you’re doing, it’s just you and maybe a couple other companies that can’t. We’re not outlawing the legal thing entirely, that would be devastating! We’re just outlawing YOU doing the legal thing.”
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says UK App Store Steering Rules Would Be 'Highly Intrusive'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only other credible platform is Android.
Google have just announced draconian sideloading restrictions.
Android's new sideloading rules are here, and they come with a 24-hour lock!
Google is fundamentally changing how sideloading works on Android, especially for apps from unverified developers. Here's are the new rules.
www.androidauthority.com
You can still do it but you have to enable developer mode (last I looked that was a 'hidden' feature that required something like rapidly clicking 10 times on the systems settings icon) then answer questions to verify you're not being co-erced, re-boot, then wait 24 hours (!) then re-authenticate...
Hopefully that (esp. the 24 hour cool-off period) would be enough to protect people like @surferfb's mother-in-law from scammers, without totally preventing power users from sideloading - but it pretty much rules out any hope of a sideloaded app or third-party app store being able to compete with the Play store for regular customers.
We'll have to see whether that raises any accusations of anti-competitive behaviour (Google being subject to the same rules as Apple there) - if not there's nothing to stop Apple allowing sideloading with a similar level of... dissuasion.
...not really the point - the "steering" argument is not about European phone/OS companies trying to compete with iPhone or Android, it's about all the other businesses who sell different products and services, and basically have no realistic choice to support both the Apple App store and the Android Play Store.
There's no "free market" if 98% of retail real-estate in the world is owned by one of two huge corporations who impose their rules on every shop.
...also worth noting that - even in the Land of The Free, Apple, Google, Meta etc. have been facing a series of expensive lawsuits over competition issues and access to their platforms, because that's the way the US regulates trade.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
For what it’s worth I think this is a reasonable compromise. From a philosophical perspective I still don’t think the government should be mandating this, and think it is still a worse user experience, but it takes care of most of my concerns about significant negative impact to users.
Apple’s not forcing anything. The developer agrees to the terms when they sign up for the App Store. Don’t sign up and you owe Apple nothing. Personally, I find the terms deplorable and would never agree to them. So, I make my money via other ways that don’t involve paying Apple anything (unless I want to buy things from their retail operation).
For some strange reason, there are people that feel driven to VERY SPECIFICALLY do a thing that they really don’t want to do (apparently) and I’ll never understand why.
Look at anyone charging a commission and they do it as a fee for access to the customer base they’ve grown through their own efforts. If a developer can’t make a profit when the commission provides them 85% CUT? Then, they’re just bad at business… should probably get someone good at business to help them understand their costs vs. their revenue and either charge what’s required for them to make a profit OR, if consumers won’t accept that price… do something else?
If they can’t make a profit in any way, again with an 85% cut, then lucky for them there are hundreds of thousands of ways to make money that don’t involve dealing with Apple at all! If their idea of making money is, “Putting forth little effort and raking in the cash”, there’s probably not a LOT of markets out there they’re going to be successful in, commission or not.
gaximus
macrumors 68030
I think this is a great idea and all store front should have this. I know Walmart and Target will price match, but they need to tell me when a product is cheaper at their competitors.
Sure - the developer has the "choice" not to release their App on iPhone and lose 30-50% of their customer base - and that's assuming they are happy Google's terms for the Play store, in which case the "choice" is do a Web App instead... which is likely to be less functional on a phone than a proper App (oh, and who decides what features are available to browser-based apps? Yup, that's Google and Apple again...).
The "free market" ideology usually boils down to this sort of illusory "choice" - and the only thing that stops anything resembling a "free market" evolving into a zero-choice monopoly is regulation (and the occasional taxpayer-funded bailout every time the free market crashes after going all in on $1000 tulip bulbs, .com startups with underpants gnome business plans, sub-prime mortgages or data centres with no power and water...)
Of course, Apple always has the choice not to do business in the EU or the UK if they don't like the regulations.
All of the European ones get bought by US monopolies and shut down sadly.
Nokia were the largest phone manufacturer in the world. ARM are pretty big in chips and that’s a British company, which makes sense given Britain invented most computer stuff early on including the electronic computer itself at Bletchley (we just didn’t mention it for 50 years!). Much of IBMs innovation was in the UK too.
That would be a fantastic idea and there are services that serve that purpose available now. That's not what the CMA, DMA and court rulings is about. The rule is about developers of an app being able to inform and direct their customers within their own app to alternate payment methods that doesn't add extra Apple 30% tax.
The UK and EU are not forcing anything. Apple agrees to rules set by the country when they sign up to selling products in the country. Personaly i find the CMA and DMA don't go far enough and i want them to go further. Apple doesn't have to sell their products in the UK and EU, no one is forcing them to, they can simply pull out of the entire markets. They can make money in other viable countries.
For some strange reason, there are companies that feel driven to VERY SPECIFICALLY do business in a country that they really don't want to do (apparently) and I'll never understand why.
"Nobody in this thread argued to ignore malware. You're arguing against a position nobody took."
Yet iOS users fall victim to scams more often than Android users, 53% versus 48% per Malwarebytes 2025. Malware count and scam victimization aren't the same metric. Seems Google is doing a good job stopping malware from 3rd party sources.
Last edited:
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
Yeah. It’s a pattern that’s hard to miss once you see it.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Both can be true at the same time. Regulations can be bad for users while Apple still attempts to maximize profits.
Most rational people attempt to maximize their earnings.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Stop making it as if Apple violated laws on day1. Glad that Apple is withholding functionality as needed.
Aren't most of the machines that make Apple Silicon-type chips made in the Netherlands?
surferfb
macrumors 68030
Let’s think through that statistic for a second. Does it really seem reasonable that 53% of iPhone users fall victim to scams regularly? Over half of all iPhone users? And 48% of Android users? I know anecdotes are not data, but doesn’t seem anywhere close to realistic to me.
Let’s look at who commissioned the study. Oh. It’s Malwarebytes - an antivirus company who sells scam protection services.
So under your rules, we can’t trust a study run by the well-known Analysis Group, led by an Economist with a PhD from MIT because it was commissioned by Apple and used data that only Apple had (41 million EU AppStore transactions from approximately 21,000 unique paid apps and in-app purchases representing €403 million in sales), even though it matches everyone’s lived experiences, but we can trust an online survey of 1300 people commissioned by Malwarebytes run by an unnamed “research consultant” claiming that over half of all iPhone users get scammed regularly so we better sign up for their anti-scam service?
Sure, ok.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
Or we could think about it rationally - Apple's options in autocratic countries are yes/no. There's no PR campaign because what the public thinks doesn't matter, no media push because the media is run by the state, no saying "this is bad for our users" because that's literally illegal, so Apple doesn't do it. Apple can't challenge the regulations in court because either that's not a thing, or the judges are controlled by the same people making the decisions. What the state wants, the state gets. So Apple can comply or leave.
In democratic countries, Apple is able to speak freely. They can push back and say the government is wrong when they think it's wrong. They can try to mobilize citizens to reach out to their elected officials. They can sue to try to stop the regulation if they think it runs afoul of laws/constitutions. So they do. Apple fights it, and then complies when its legal and PR options run out.
I'm not going to begrudge anyone for thinking Apple shouldn't do business in autocratic countries, but to make it out like Apple is somehow talking out of both sides of its mouth because it does what is ordered in countries where that's the only option and pushes back in democratic countries where it's acceptable/expected to push back to doesn't seem fair to me.
I mean, even if you disagree with Apple on this, don't you want them pushing back on regulations as much as they can if they think the rules are bad for their users? Or would you rather them go "we think this is a really bad idea, but we're just going to say "thank you sir" and do whatever they say without a peep?".
Last edited:
Stop making it seem like countries aren't allowed to pass new laws as needed to protect citizens from corporate overreach. Glad regulators are fining Apple billions when they break those laws.
Fair, let's use a different data point to check whether 53% is even in the plausible range. Yes, Avast is also a security vendor, so apply the same skepticism you're applying to Malwarebytes. But look at the scale of just one narrow subcategory of scam, fleeceware, and ask if "half of iPhone users get scammed" still sounds unrealistic.
Avast identified 134 fleeceware apps on the Apple App Store alone, with an estimated 500 million downloads and $365 million in lifetime revenue. That's one narrow type of scam (subscription-trap apps), from one research firm's count, and it already accounts for hundreds of millions of downloads. Add phishing texts, tech support calls etc and every other category, not just App Store fleeceware, and 53% stops sounding implausible and starts sounding like the sum of a lot of smaller, well-documented problems. One of which Apple has been sued and settled and are being sued again for publishing a scam app in the safe trusted app store.
Corporations are self serving? Say it ain't so. Its almost like consumers need laws to protect them from self serving corporations. Feel free to disagree with the data as provided.
Under your rule you made up, not mine. You are free to trust or not trust any data provided. Pointing out the correct source of data is not making up a rule.
Apple is welcome to charge whatever fee they want to charge on the App Store, charge whatever fee they want to charge for using their dev kit, charge whatever they want for an iPhone. But I want the ability to install from 3rd party stores if I choose to on my iPhone, you are free to stay within Apple's restrictions, and I'm glad the UK, EU, and other countries are passing laws to make that happen. The walls are coming down, one country at a time.
Last edited:
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Stop making it as if consumers don’t have agency in buying personal tech that best suits their needs. Also stop making it as if this “legislation” benefits consumers.
Glad Apple is withholding functionality as needed.
Stop making it seem as if corporations don't have agency in where they conduct business that best suits their needs. Also stop making it as if these "Apple fees" benefit consumers.
Glad Apple is being fined billions as needed.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Nope. Apple can conduct its business (and as long as they are not in violation of laws that were in effect at the time) and if consumers don’t like them, the product etc, let them use their agency.
Apple is losing less than the consumers who are the pawns.
Yup. A country can pass laws and if corporations don't like them, they can use their agency and conduct their business elsewhere.
Indeed Apple is using consumers as pawns.
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
So does Apple in the EU. But your issue is actually the law and regulations put in place. That is what you are particularly against.
In that stance, it increasingly looks as though your government is telling Apple—and other companies—whom they should buy from and where they should invest. It is even banning certain foreign products, clearing the way for American companies to take their place. Where is the competition in that? How is that not intrusive?
Yet I don’t see you objecting in those cases. Nor do I see Apple mounting the same kind of legal resistance.
Neither Europe nor the United States operates a perfectly free market. But the US protects its domestic industries through sweeping tariffs, import restrictions, tax based subsidies, and pressure on companies to move production and investment onto American soil. So lecturing Europeans about free-market principles rings hollow.
Those tariffs also raise the cost of imported goods and components—costs that are ultimately passed on to American businesses and consumers. They have contributed directly to recent price increases. So their aren't really consumer oriented.
Not only that it imposed billions of dollars in additional costs on Apple, reducing its profit margins and forcing it to absorb those costs, raise prices, reorganize its supply chain—or combine all three.
The point is simple: the US, like every other major economic power, intervenes to protect its own interests. It is disingenuous to invoke free-market principles only when doing so benefits American companies. Whatever credibility you may have had in that regard within this discussion is long gone.
The EU has done none of that to Apple or any other American company and their customers.
Last edited:
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
Ha! This logic reminded me of the South Park Underpants Gnomes. Start with a random statistic… divide by 100… yadda yadda yadda… and voila! 800 million victims!
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Agreed let Apple, Google and meta leave the eu and let the citizenry use yahoo and android.
Indeed the eu is the cause of using consumers as pawns.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
None of what you wrote involves government regulations giving away apples IP to competition for free.
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
It involves government informal and formal regulation of one's property at points at full loss. Intelectual or not. Period.
PS: There is no EU regulation the requires Apple to give away their IP. It's total rhetoric fabrication on your part. As for EU using their citizens as pawns, oh no not the US gov ... in what planet? Even the law is bent at ones advantage. Trump personal wealth tripled since 2024. Not to mention associates.
Last edited: