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 Working to Add Support for Sideloading and Alternate App Stores in Europe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep, between an OS that doesn’t allow side-loading, and one that does.
I’ve repeatedly criticized Apple for not allowing downgrading, but ultimately I make a choice: I’m still using iOS. I don’t like it when people reduce that discussion to “go to Android if you don't like it“ because it eliminates the discussion’s merits, but I have a choice.
I didn’t bother repeating the same arguments people have already made, but I like the convenience of iOS and its security, including the App Store. Side-loading would compromise all of that, like many have said (like I said, I won’t bother repeating), so people do have a choice, like they do now.
you realize people can already do that with a dev license?
They can also use web applets?
and the reason apple hated some companies doing that.
Applications like Facebook are already basically HTML5 wrappers. They could discontinue the app already.
Then force you to use the web applet of it. You click facebook.com in your safari and a link could come up to add it to your desktop as of now without any tricky ****.
also with the dev license method its been done for many years to get around apples restrictions on sideloading and its a method supported by apple already... People have been getting apps from other appstores for ages with NO JAILBREAKING and with little to no real issues of malware.
THen why did anti monopoly courts fine microsoft into holly hell about this?
It was found to be anti competitive and monopolistic by pretty much every court world wide.......
And one of those cases was simply for including their own browser with no way to install another.
Being able to dominate a field and allow competitors then tell the competitors nope you need to leave. is anti competitive and limits user choice.
you are basically saying if apple wanted to remove all other streaming platforms or place unbearable restrictions on them that youd be okay with it.
If you used whats app and apple said nope no more, heres our copy, and so on and so forth. Then apple says you need to pay us 50$ a month to use said services and have no alternative youd be okay with it?
Because apple is restricting what other companies can offer in their own apps when it doesnt use apple's services nor place a burden on apple in any way. Like streaming audiobooks?????
The reality is when you have a monopoly and refuse to let anyone else use your platform when you gain sufficient market share that you can bully other companies it is no longer a good idea. Apple is very greedy you think they wont end up charging you when they force everyone out that they can?
Apple already has market advantages and thats the issue they are now using it on other companies to get rid of them.
Apple doesnt even want you to link to your company website if it offers subscriptions on other platforms while apple shows that their services can be used on other platforms.
apples market share is now so high it can literally bully any other company and get rid of them with a race to the bottom.
The entire idea and reason anti competitive rules came about. Because when a company does what apple is now doing it always ends up with price rping customers in the end as there is now no other choice.
If apple didnt push out other companies and try to get them to shut down or get rid of them as competition we wouldnt even be here with sideloading.
Because, they were doing things like charging OEMs for EVERY windows capable computer they sold, whether it shipped with Windows or not. Apple doesn’t even allow others to make iPhones, so there’s that fairly huge difference. Everything Apple did was on systems actually produced by Apple.
They’ve ALREADY forced out everyone they can. Or, do you see more competition than Android?
So high? You must be thinking about the US only. And, just for me personally, I’d actually have to SEE them doing such a thing (like, you know they saw Microsoft ACTUALLY doing those things, so another difference
) before treating them like they ARE doing it. Something about “innocent before proven guilty”. Then again, maybe it’s just me that thinks it’s unfair to give someone a speeding ticket just because they have a car that is CAPABLE of speeding, not that they’ve actually done it.
Last edited:
Great but your answer in prior was if you want "X" then you have no choice. Use Android.
You are being deliberately "?" obtuse?
You have a choice! vs If you want "A" you have to use Android (no choice)
Not the same.
btw - using both, my Android is every bit as private and secure as my 13 ProMax.
Once again, the two biggest difference between Apple and Microsoft is:
1. Microsoft had 95% market share. Apple has 30% (in the EU).
1. Apple in only controlling their own product. Microsoft was controlling other companies by leveraging it's monopoly to prevent it's partners from pre-installing alternative browsers.
From most of my nerdy friends they want something they can tinker with and customize. They value that over reliabitly and stability. I'm not sure sideloading will fix what they see wrong with iOS but it will be in that direction.
Well they aren't really, when Apple have app store rules that say third parties can't link to or even mention alternative payment methods or sign up processes in their software they aren't just controlling their product.
I have another query for the collective Mac community.
IIRC, it was ruled that in an earlier lawsuit involving Dutch dating apps that Apple is allowed to charge apps 27% even if they use third party payment options, because Apple sees the 30% cut as a platform fee, not a payment processing one.
I had also previously pointed out that in the event that Apple were to allow the side loading of apps, they would in theory still be allowed to charge developers 27% of their app revenue, likely by way of audits of sales receipts that would likely prove to be extremely inconvenient and time consuming for all parties involved, more so the developer to the point where they may deem it not worth their while to side step the App Store in the first place.
Another member refuted this claim, claiming that it was against the terms in the Digital Market Act, but I have not been able to find the corresponding claim to this. Could anyone help locate the relevant clause, if any?
Even as I debate with the other members here about the respective pros and cons of side loading, I can't help but wonder if we are all looking at this from the wrong angle.
If Apple can't fight the legislation, they could still in the very least destroy the number one reason why developers want to get around the App Store - that 30% cut. If developers end up having to pay the same amount of money to Apple either way, then there really is no reason to not stick with the App Store. Not to mention that subscriptions are reduced to 15% after the first year, and developers earning under $1 million get taxed only 15% as well.
And we still don't know what sort of restrictions side loaded apps may be subjected to, and Apple has shown that they are experts in adhering to the letter of law while still being able to skirt around the spirit of it.
Let's treat this as a collective thought exercise. If you were Apple, what's the worse you could do to third party apps installed outside of the App Store to scare users away?
Curious to know what you all think of my points above, or are people unwilling to entertain the possibility that Apple might have a found a way to have their cake and eat it too even the new legislation?
PS: this will be the one and only time I bump my own earlier post. I promise.
Curious to know what you all think of my points above, or are people unwilling to entertain the possibility that Apple might have a found a way to have their cake and eat it too even the new legislation?
PS: this will be the one and only time I bump my own earlier post. I promise.
They are not allowed to prevent third parties from linking to their own sign up and likely can't insist on IAP anymore. Apple know they are going to take the hit here, hence :
If they thought it wouldn't make a difference to revenue why limit it to the EU?
The full DMA doc is at:
The Digital Markets Act: ensuring fair and open digital markets
Discover how the Digital Markets Act ensures large online platforms in the EU behave fairly, and allows new players to enter the market, thus developing a fast evolving digital sector.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
I wonder if this is the future of the iPhone 😖
That's the thing. There are a number of clauses in the DMA which appear to apply to different standalone scenarios, which are getting conflated here. The following points in particular, I still find confusing, and I am wondering if the writers themselves are equally unsure of the exact ramifications still.
So are developers allowed to use third party payment options or not?
And back to the earlier points, there are a number of scenarios.
1) People side load Fortnite and make an in-app purchase. Apple can, in theory at least, still charge Epic 27% of IAPs based on the Dutch dating app ruling, if my interpretation is correct.
2) People download Spotify in the App Store. It doesn't offer an IAP anymore, but can link users to their own website where they can sign up for a Spotify account. This method is the most cumbersome, but would allow Spotify to keep 100% of revenue. Which is what they are already doing now. Nothing's changed, except that Spotify can openly talk about it now. But their market share would have more or less been saturated by this point, so I am dubious as to how beneficial that is at this point.
and this particular clause:
A literal reading suggests that Apple only need allow either side loading or third party app stores, but not both, and it seems that Apple will likely opt for the former. Which means that users can download and install individual apps from another website, but companies like Epic can't offer their own App Store on iOS.
So at the end of the day, the only thing which appears to have changed is that users can now download apps from outside the App Store, but Apple will presumably still find a way to tax said developers and extract revenue from them.
I am also not finding any legislation which would prevent sideloaded apps from being unable to access system-level features like say, iCloud or Apple Pay in the name of security. Apple could also in theory bombard users of such apps with warning pop-ups like what we see with ATT or third party keyboards in a further bid to discourage their usage.
The difference seems to be that Apple will basically have to invest in a lot more manpower and resources just to enforce the status quo (ie: possibly vet third party apps, potentially deal with more customers at the Apple Store who run into hardware issues because of side loaded apps and more importantly, chase developers for receipts so they can charge them that 27%), which is a lot more work than simply keeping everyone in the app store and let iTunes do all the work.
Yes, but the point was the USA does not always lead
The train was invented in the UK.
Apple (as a seller) can't legally deny statutory claims.
As for malfunctions in and due to software itself, they aren't covered by Apple's warranties today either.
The common argument is that some developers may want to take their apps off the App Store and exclusively distribute them themselves, from their own web site or store.
And that they (the people making such arguments) "need" to use those apps. As if they couldn't download a competing app from the App Store.
Last edited:
Then those people should just buy an alternative from the app store or make an alternative and make bank because I bet that except for Fortnite, 99.9% of iOS users won't sideload even if it was permitted.
Because now those of us who got our parents and technology illiterate family and customers to get an iPhone, because it is safe and works, will have another point of failure and troubleshooting that we shouldn’t have to deal with.
Well, among...
1. being forced to use particular apps
2. being forced to download and buy every app from one single merchant and according to its arbitrary rules
3. being allowed and able to download and install apps from other sources
...they obviously think that 3. is the worst problem.