Apple Working to Add Support for Sideloading and Alternate App Stores in Europe

[Kevin Palser]

Emulators are usually the first thing I see mentioned from average users when it comes to sideloading. I’d imagine it’s one of the top use cases (if not THE top use case) for most average users who want sideloading available.

I do have a crazy conspiracy though: I think Nintendo and Apple are in cahoots in some fashion in regard to their opposition to sideloading and emulators. The Delta emulator essentially decimates Nintendo’s $20 and $50 tiers for their online service — as far as retro game accessibility goes.

Perhaps by bringing easy emulation to all platforms, it may force Nintendo’s hand to re-release games that aren’t literally 20+ years-old to their online service. Instead, they squeeze out like one or two decades-old games per month, like a broken peepee, as subscribers anxiously wait underneath to get just a drop of legally-offered Nintendo nostalgia. I’m pretty sure the Wii had a bigger retro catalog than Switch. It’s pathetic, and I think Apple enables them to do it.

I have two emulator apps published on the App Store: ZX81 & Jupiter Ace. My experience is that Apple has no qualms regarding published apps so long as:

• you have permission from the IP rights holders, and...
• the functionality for loading programs is limited to only those embedded with the app itself when submitted to the review team (this is the most limiting point)

The two factors discourage developers. Nintendo is not going to give permission easily. And developers are discouraged from making much effort if the end users are going to complain that they cannot load external ROMs/Tapes.

 

[lxmeta]

happy to finally be able to install software on a device I own.

Funny! I was always able to do so! No jailbreak required. Just a cable and a developer account.
You own it, and you can do what you want! It's just that other stores are not allowed today.

 

[ian87w]

Fine so continue in the walled garden, no-one will force you to use a 3rd party store. Easy.

Incorrect. The fact that sideloading is allowed means it's no longer a walled garden.

 

[Abazigal]

Fine so continue in the walled garden, no-one will force you to use a 3rd party store. Easy.

The comment you were responding to needs more nuance.

Prior to this, it was easy to stay within the walled garden when it was the only place where one could get apps. As such, all developers had to go through the App Store. Setting aside the 30% cut (which is largely a dev issue), there are a number of benefits for the end user. iTunes means that devs never get to see your payment details, and it's easy to manage your subscriptions in one place. There's also ease of payment using biometrics.

You are technically correct in that nobody is forcing me to use a third party App Store or side load an app if I don't want to, but in the chance (however infinitesimally small) that there is an app that is available only via that App Store, then I either have to do without said app, or cave in whereas in the earlier scenario, that app would likely have been made available in the iOS App Store because there's nowhere else to go.

Even if there is a 99.9% chance that devs will continue to support the iOS App Store because that's where the users are, it's still a 0.1% risk I am taking that I never had to contend with before. There is zero benefit to me.

I am fine with the walled garden model because it has all the apps I need, while you welcome sideloading because there are apps you presumably would like to access that aren't available in the App Store. Regardless of the outcome next year, if one of us is to win, then the other will have to lose.

It essentially boils down to each of us wanting to have our cake and eat it too, and I don't think there's any shame in admitting it. We are all selfish like that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

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?

You’re missing that law aren’t always narrowly explicit (though the DMA arguably is quite).

Does the law explicitly say you‘re prohibited from removing the wheel nuts and drain the brake fluid from someone else‘s car? Of course not.

Yet if you secretly do it to your wife‘s boyfriend‘s car at night, you may be found guilty of (attempted) murder or manslaughter.

Law enforcement and jurisprudence will uphold the intent and spirit of the law. And the intent of the DMA is clear.

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

I‘d rather call its anti-circumvention provisions „flexible“ enough.

I won’t be shocked at all of Apple make sideloading as hard, inconvenient and expensive as they can and drag this out in courts. Maybe they’ll cite security concerns measures needed to implement.

But as brazen an attempt as requiring a Mac for installation of iOS apps is basically a textbook attempt at legal circumvention. This „But the law doesn‘t explicitly say so“ won‘t fly.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Incorrect. The fact that sideloading is allowed means it's no longer a walled garden.

The fact that Apple still controls who is allowed to sell which apps on the iOS App Store and/or at least set the rules for doing so means that it’ll it stays a walled garden (the App Store, that is).

 

[ian87w]

The fact that Apple still controls who is allowed to sell which apps on the iOS App Store and/or at least set the rules for doing so means that it’ll it stays a walled garden (the App Store, that is).

A walled garden is a walled garden. Once there are holes, it's no longer a walled garden. By your logic, then Android is also a "walled garden."

 

[AppliedMicro]

but in the chance (however infinitesimally small) that there is an app that is available only via that App Store, then I either have to do without said app, or cave in whereas in the earlier scenario, that app would likely have been made available in the iOS App Store because there's nowhere else to go.

As it currently stands, there are apps that Apple doesn’t allow on the App Store (at least not as intended by their developers). So we have to do without them today. It‘s a give and take.

We‘re trading (some of) the restriction of having apps exclusively the way Apple likes us to have…
…for the freedom to be able to have them as their developers intended us to.

 

[AppliedMicro]

By your logic, then Android is also a "walled garden."

No. But Google’s Play Store is.

 

[ian87w]

No. But Google’s Play store is.

False logic as the defining point of walled garden is the platform, not the store. There's no walled garden if sideloading is possible, plain and simple.

 

[AppliedMicro]

False logic as the defining point of walled garden is the platform, not the store. There's no walled garden if sideloading is possible, plain and simple.

The iOS App Store is a marketplace on which competing app developers can market and sell their apps using a variety of business models.

That makes it (itself) a platform.

And even Apple themselves describe it as a platform: „The App Store gives developers a safe and trusted platform to build, market, and distribute their apps and grow their business around the world.“

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

You’re missing that law aren’t always narrowly explicit (though the DMA arguably is quite).

Does the law explicitly say you‘re prohibited from removing the wheel nuts and drain the brake fluid from someone else‘s car? Of course not.

Yet if you secretly do it to your wife‘s boyfriend‘s car at night, you may be found guilty of (attempted) murder or manslaughter.

Law enforcement and jurisprudence will uphold the intent and spirit of the law. And the intent of the DMA is clear.

Exactly. They would be unwise to try any brazen circumvention as the penalties are heavy, up to 20% of worldwide turnover for repeated infringements.

My guess is Apple have already had an army of lawyers pawing over this and if they thought they had a case they would just flat out refuse to comply.

 

[dk001]

That’s certainly something that sounds made up. I prefer to go by what the law says rather than what “could be construed”.

The law doesn’t state either way and it is an item that Apple uses to disallow an app into the App Store.

 

[dk001]

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.

Isn’t having Android install Chrome like iOS having Safari installed?

 

[AppliedMicro]

That’s certainly something that sounds made up. I prefer to go by what the law says rather than what “could be construed”.

Going by what the law says:

„the gatekeeper shall allow business users (…) free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.“

That said, Apple doesn’t (to my knowledge) provide advanced Wi-Fi or network analysis tools or services.

 

[BaldiMac]

The law doesn’t state either way and it is an item that Apple uses to disallow an app into the App Store.

If the law doesn't say either way, than it's not against the law. This is pretty basic stuff.

 

[dk001]

If the law doesn't say either way, than it's not against the law. This is pretty basic stuff.

And we are back to my original point … with sideloading developers can likely use personal APIs.

 

[BaldiMac]

And we are back to my original point … with sideloading developers can likely use personal APIs.

That wasn't your original point. Your original point was that if Apple chose to limit sideloaded apps to the same APIs as App Store apps, that decision could be "construed" as a violation of the DMA. As you have admitted, the DMA doesn't restrict Apple from doing that.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-working-to-add-support-for-sideloading-and-alternate-app-stores-in-europe.2373448/post-31806831

 

[dk001]

That wasn't your original point. Your original point was that if Apple chose to limit sideloaded apps to the same APIs as App Store apps, that decision could be "construed" as a violation of the DMA. As you have admitted, the DMA doesn't restrict Apple from doing that.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-working-to-add-support-for-sideloading-and-alternate-app-stores-in-europe.2373448/post-31806831

Not what I said.
Currently there are three (basically) types of APIs for iOS apps:
1. Apple core - only Apple has access to these
2. Apple public - these are the APIs that allows dev access
3. Personal APIs - not developed by Apple and as far as I know will disqualify an app today

At this time ”there is nothing showing that Apple will intentionally limit APIs used”.
If Apple limits API access/use it could … basically the gatekeeper forcing the same rules as the app currently has for use. Potentially restrictive behavior.

Currently we don’t know what Apple is going to actually do.

 

[daxmacrog]

nope nope nope. if your app is not in the apple app store i will not be using it

As an app developer, that makes me want to cry, or more like vomit. The App Store is evil. Ask any developer to explain why. Fortunately, most Mac users are sophisticated enough to understand the necessity of being able to install third-party apps without the App Store barrier and would rightly rebel if that capability were lost. There is no reason that iOS and iPadOS apps distributed outside of the App Store can’t still be verified by Apple and 100% sandboxed just as they can be for macOS.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not what I said.
Currently there are three (basically) types of APIs for iOS apps:
1. Apple core - only Apple has access to these
2. Apple public - these are the APIs that allows dev access
3. Personal APIs - not developed by Apple and as far as I know will disqualify an app

At this time ”there is nothing showing that Apple will intentionally limit APIs used”.
If Apple limits API access/use …

Currently we don’t know what Apple is going to actually do.

You left out the part of your post that we were discussing.

In reply to my post where I suggested that the DMA does not prevent Apple from limiting sideloaded apps to the same APIs available to App Store apps, you said that Apple limiting API use "could be construed as a method to restrict sideloading and/or 3rd party app stores." It's right in the post that I linked to.

 

[mrat93]

Nintendo is not going to give permission easily.

Nintendo doesn’t need to give permission though.

And developers are discouraged from making much effort if the end users are going to complain that they cannot load external ROMs/Tapes.

And that’s the case with every commonly-used emulator. Yet, people keep building and expanding emulation. Rule #1 on all emulation forums and whatnot is “no discussion of piracy.” And if your point was for the App Store — then yeah, people will complain because that’s not what 99+% of people use emulators for. And it’s on Apple to remove that restriction.

I don’t see how either point is relevant, no offense. Nintendo doesn’t go after emulators or their devs, as what they are doing is not illegal — as much as they wish they could. They go after piracy sites and tools, if anything.

 

[VictoryHighway]

If I were Apple, I would tell the EU "fine, be that way. We're pulling out." And then when the EU starts complaining that Android is a monopoly (and they will since this is the EU we're talking about here), Apple will have leverage against the EU.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

If I were Apple, I would tell the EU "fine, be that way. We're pulling out." And then when the EU starts complaining that Android is a monopoly (and they will since this is the EU we're talking about here), Apple will have leverage against the EU.

Pull out of a market of 447 million people. Bigger than the US and Canada combined.

 

[I7guy]

Pull out of a market of 447 million people. Bigger than the US and Canada combined.

Adjusted revenue = revenue from operations minus lost revenue from draconian regulations.

Analyze adjusted revenue.