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
Yes, that is clear.
"allow their business users to promote their offer and conclude contracts with their customers outside the gatekeeper’s platform"
Well this would just be the current App Store model by any other name which you have basically accepted here ..
That would be covered by ..
"allow third parties to inter-operate with the gatekeeper’s own services in certain specific situations"
If they put in place egregious measures to discourage people from using non App Store software they would almost certainly be in breach of
"treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform"
Thank you for the replies. I appreciate your taking the time here because I really just don’t have eye for reading legalese.
Will slowly take the time to digest them.
Another random thought (theory crafting is fun) - could Apple require users to use a Mac or PC in order to install third party apps this way? That could be a way to goose sales of Macs if users can’t just download an app directly from a website on their iPhones?
Ie: the more inconvenient it is to sideload an app, the more unlikely people are to do it?
Last edited:
Unless Apple changes APIs. Apple is allowed to have its own source and not expose these at all.
Good point. Very possible. China, India and Russia for sure.
Yup. My company pays a ton to develop software on various platforms. The companies can just charge you for the SDK based on how many units you sell. Not sure why this would be any different.
„The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper“
There‘s no (justified) reason to require a Mac. And most users don’t have one. If Apple won‘t be found to directly violate the above, they will definitely run afoul of the anti-circumvention rules set out in article 13 of the DMA:
„The gatekeeper shall ensure that the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 are fully and effectively complied with.“
„The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.“
👉 Apple can try and require a Mac for installation of third-party apps - and they will eventually be found guilty of noncompliance and fined to the moon.
👉 Whatever creative ways you (or Apple) concoct to hinder installation of third-party apps, the EU and its courts can find them „guilty“ of undermining effective compliance with the regulation. Your suggestion of requiring a Mac will be a slam dunk for regulators.
Apple certainly will honour hardware warranty if Apple is satisfied that the hardware has not been tempered with.
If the user screwed up the OS by installing third party software via "side-loading" Apple can most certainly refuse to support the user, compared to say if a user has issues with iOS now, Apple will support their users. Makes a world of different for the average users.
Apple will definitely account for the expected increase in support from users who "side-load" and this cost will definitely be transferred to the customer buying EU iOS devices.
Sure. If you mess something up by using third-party products, why should, the first-party supplier/manufacturer support that mess?
They‘ll tell you to reset and restore and that‘s it.
I was explicitly referring to denial of (hardware) warranty in my previous post.
The part you quoted simply says that apps should be accessible outside of the App Store. It doesn’t explicitly say they must be available directly through the device itself. Unless I am missing something?
That’s the issue I find with this DMA. It seems to say a lot, for very little. Perhaps that’s the very nature of legal contracts, and the more I dig into it, the less of a deal it seems to be for Apple (relatively to all the fanfare it seems to be getting here about how the walled garden is presumably getting knocked down).
You also seem fairly confident that the DMA is ironclad and there is no way of Apple weaselling its way out of this. I guess time will tell.
Regardless, thank you again for taking the time to respond.
Well, the risk is the the EU will then just insert additional clauses if they don't like what they see.The part you quoted simply says that apps should be accessible outside of the App Store. It doesn’t explicitly say they must be available directly through the device itself. Unless I am missing something?
That’s the issue I find with this DMA. It seems to say a lot, for very little. Perhaps that’s the very nature of legal contracts, and the more I dig into it, the less of a deal it seems to be for Apple (relatively to all the fanfare it seems to be getting here about how the walled garden is presumably getting knocked down).
You also seem fairly confident that the DMA is ironclad and there is no way of Apple weaselling its way out of this. I guess time will tell.
Regardless, thank you again for taking the time to respond.
The vast majority of people will buy your app off the default store because of security and convenience. There’s no reason to make a product for other app stores if it’s already available.
The benefit to you is if your app is something apple refuses to approve. Now you have an alternative App Store to sell your warez.
Last edited:
or as a developer you now have the option of multiple selling points.
See that on Android a good bit.
There’s certainly no requirement for that in the DMA. Apple has no obligation to allow the use of additional APIs for sideloaded apps.
Heck, as far as I can tell, Apple can still review the apps, have security requirements, and charge a platform fee.
As of this moment, there is nothing showing that Apple will intentionally limit APIs used.
That could be construed as a method to restrict sideloading and/or 3rd party app stores.
You probably have to be more specific, since API is a generic terms.
Sure, if Apple allows third party App Stores, the third party App Store providers can build their own store SDKs and publishes the APIs of their SDKs for developers to use to publish their apps to these stores.
These SDKs are still sitting on top of what system APIs and frameworks that iOS/iPad OS provides, and therefore are constrainted by these APIs.
That’s certainly something that sounds made up. I prefer to go by what the law says rather than what “could be construed”.
European government messing with stuff they shouldn't mess with, and it's all about jealousy. We don't have a tech giant here, and that's probably because of the crazy taxes businesses have to pay so it doesn't make sense to be a big business in the EU. Which is very contradictory to them claiming Apple is charging too much (and I'm saying this even though I sincerely believe Apple is charging at least twice as much as it should - 30% is just too much and it's definitely monopolistic behavior, they're right on that). I'll stick to the App Store since everything I need is on there and I have basic social media apps and some utilities.
I don't think sideloading would be a security risk since you'll still manage the data the app has access to as that's built into iOS the same way it is on Android. I think it's OS-level functionality and although Unix-like systems can technically get viruses, they can't get infected to the core like Windows can and on iOS that's even less likely because of other inbuilt protections and privacy considerations.
The real risk is piracy. I want developers whose apps didn't make it in the App Store because of guidelines to have their apps appreciated, but I don't want developers' work stolen. And that's exactly what's going to be happening mostly.
I bet it's going to be implemented as a toggle somewhere deep in the settings and it's going to disable a bunch of stuff Apple users rely on. I expect it to disable all iCloud-related features like Continuity and general sync, iMessage, etc.
I don't think sideloading would be a security risk since you'll still manage the data the app has access to as that's built into iOS the same way it is on Android. I think it's OS-level functionality and although Unix-like systems can technically get viruses, they can't get infected to the core like Windows can and on iOS that's even less likely because of other inbuilt protections and privacy considerations.
The real risk is piracy. I want developers whose apps didn't make it in the App Store because of guidelines to have their apps appreciated, but I don't want developers' work stolen. And that's exactly what's going to be happening mostly.
I bet it's going to be implemented as a toggle somewhere deep in the settings and it's going to disable a bunch of stuff Apple users rely on. I expect it to disable all iCloud-related features like Continuity and general sync, iMessage, etc.
Google forces every Android OEMs to pre-install Google Chrome for their devices to be certified. Yet that has not been deemed anti-competitive at all by any court of laws nor the EU.
Conclusion, none of this is actually for anti-competitive/consumer protection. It's all just a racket to get whoever company with big money that is/was easy to prey on. Microsoft was it back then. Now it's Apple's turn.
Answering the burning questions about Apple’s reported App Store plans
(Shutterstock) Lawsuits, new laws, and proposed regulations have been swirling around Apple and some of its core business practices for years now. But on Tuesday came the first report–from Bl…
sixcolors.com
Quite well reasoned take on this matter.
John Gruber has this to say as well.
Jason Snell: ‘Answering the Burning Questions About Apple’s Reported App Store Plans’
Link to: https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/12/answering-the-burning-questions-about-apples-reported-app-store-plans/
daringfireball.net
It's a bit unclear to me what exact position the person you were replying to holds, and what specific "benefit" you're referring to, but it seems to be along the lines of:
"Apps purchased from third-party app stores by one person should also become available to their family members through Apple's Family Sharing"
Do clarify if that's not what you're talking about. If that is the case you two are making, I'd disagree. From Apple's Family Sharing page:
"Family Sharing lets you and up to five other family members share access to amazing Apple services like Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple News+, Apple Arcade, and Apple Card. Your group can also share iTunes, Apple Books, and App Store purchases, an iCloud storage plan, and a family photo album."
These are services offered by Apple, some of which give developers the option to allow Family Sharing in their products made available through those services. It's a value-add for doing business with Apple. See Darkroom, for example - available on the App Store on iOS, iPadOS and macOS, with Family Sharing. If you take your business to other parties I don't see how Apple would be required to add value to their services, too, outside of an actual business deal between Apple and that third party.
Even now if you purchase something through Steam on macOS, Apple's Family Sharing does not apply to it because Steam is not an Apple service and no business deal exists between them. You do have access to Steam Family Sharing, however, and that feature might extend to an iOS / iPadOS Steam Store if such would become available in the future. Steam does not, however, make purchases on their store available to family members using the Epic Store for example.
Last edited:
Fine so continue in the walled garden, no-one will force you to use a 3rd party store. Easy.