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's Arguments Against Sideloading on iOS: All Your Questions Answered
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A web app still works from day one. Actually, many simple things are doable via web apps nowadays.
As for enterprises, I believe they can install custom company apps via MDM. That also is not an issue here.
The issue is greedy huge companies like Epic who simply want more money and don't want to pay their bills. They made it into a pro-consumer thing for PR purposes.
Sure. That's their business decision. Plenty of apps are not available on Android. Doesn't stop me from using Android as my daily driver. Alternatives will exist in the marketplace.
They all think this way because their app ecosystem already exists, and can afford to be complacent. Now if and when a developer exodus starts picking up movement due to these unattractive terms, and big names apps begin to go away or go web-only, these same people will be like "now wait a minute, that's not what I meant..."
And that is the way to go. Free market forces. Not through regulations or government BS. Let the developers made that business decision.
I give you credit for actually tackling notarization, which even Apple doesn't want to discuss with respect to iOS. I don't agree with your conclusion, but appreciate the posts. I think notorization is a reasonable solution and trade off, and frankly, one they've already made with enterprise certificates on iOS.
Oh come on. Do you read every EULA and ToS out there? Ever since Windows 3.1, consumers have been trained to just click "Next" or "OK" to get through dialog boxes without reading. I just have a friend that literally allow a virus into her PC despite the browser and Windows showing up the warning dialog box. Not because she wanted the virus, but because she just automatically click allow/OK by habit.
And this is made worse on mobile by Amazon, who have been teaching users to sideload their app store on Android without explaining the risks. Epic joined in. Basically we have big corporations who are teaching consumers to do less secure things on their devices.
As the platform owner, it's on Apple to prevent these kind of things, and Apple decided on the walled garden approach. Google went the dialog box warning route. The choices are there.
I agree that there would be more competition in terms of app stores, and there would be a negative to Apple's bottom line, here. The issue for some of us isn't competition, it's the security of our devices being compromised for the sake of more competition.
You don't understand choice, do you.
What you want already existed. iOS is not a sole mobile platform.
If you want a BK Whooper, do you go to McDonalds and demand them to sell you a BK Whooper and tell them it will be more competitive?
I have a choice. I use Android for my daily driver. But I also glad iOS existed as the walled garden variant of mobile platform.
You're assuming the "walled garden" is the product. I don't believe most people who buy iPhones think about or care about this at all, just Apple fans.
Also, let me play devil's advocate and take "choice" to its conclusion: there are now 20 phone platforms to choose from. Sucks, doesn't it? That's why we have limited choice, that's why we have a duopoly, because fragmentation is inconvenient. So that's why we need regulation on these general-use, life-important platforms, because people don't naturally want 20 of them in the name of competition. Kinda like utilities going to your home.
And you're also correct. Most people don't think about it, and guess what, they're fine with it.
So why are people here so gung-ho in wanting to sideload on iOS? Pixel 6 seems to be an awesome phone (I would buy one if Google sold it in my country).
LOL what? Look at Android. Fragmentation at its finest, but that's the beauty of it. Why do you want to regulate that? Do you want government to regulate how OEMs make Android phones?
You don't seem to understand the concept of choice. You seem to be at that extreme end on everything must be regulated to be "competitive." Do you know what competition even mean? When you compete, there are winners and losers. We get to the "duopoly" not because of regulation, but because of competition. The winners are iOS and Android, each with their own approach to a mobile platform.
Look at what your "regulations" do to utilities. You have enron and Comcast. I'm not saying all regulations are bad, but there are times where regulations are not needed.
Regulate is a "hands off" meaning, not a "hands on" like is often painted. Regulation wants you to relinquish your iron-fisted grip and facilitate competition in the app ecosystem. Allow people to purchase Kindle books from the app the same way they can with Apple Books. Allow people to sign up for Spotify for $9.99 just like you can sign up for Apple Music for $9.99 in-app. You're taking the argument to Android (I also stated the duopoly was a natural conclusion of competition, btw) while ignoring there is an entire competitive economy inside of the iPhone people are already entrenched into, just like the utility you have to use to your home and can't easily switch out willy-nilly.
Last edited:
I can purchase Spotify directly outside Apple’s App Store. I paid for YouTube premium without going through Apple, and still enjoy YouTube Music on my iPhone. I can purchase Kindle books just fine on Amazon.com, and I can access that through Safari.
Remember how e-commerce already existed before app stores?
I don’t really understand your argument here.
You don't understand that I just said in-app? You don't see the disparity in the Kindle experience vs the Apple Books experience? Are you serious?
Its not really about agreeing with my conclusion or my view. What I think is that Apple doesn’t want the malicious content getting onto their iPhones because they would need to be responsible for it. Enterprise certificates work completely differently. These Apps are distributed by a company and can only be used by people inside that company. So they aren’t technically for the public. That business is also responsible for its distribution and still has a lot of restrictions on how it can function on the phone and usually can only access company internal materials. You can read about it here. Specifically the paragraph I quoted.
”The Apple Developer Enterprise Program is only for the internal use and distribution of proprietary apps in specific use cases that are not adequately addressed with public apps on the App Store, custom apps through Apple Business Manager or Ad Hoc distribution, or beta testing through TestFlight. Your proprietary app must be developed by you for use on Apple platforms.”
Its similar in idea to side-loading but is not accessable to everyone. Also the underlined part specifically states its for when there is not an adequate option available in the App Store etc.
While you may say ‘see this proves it can be done’ Apple also checks to make sure the company has a Dun & Bradstreet number. When you allow just anyone to use this option it would mean that a shady person could easily make an App that could become an problem. A big company is not likely to take a risk of getting sued by Apple for breaking their policy. Epic Games ring any bells? However a shady individual who has nearly nothing to lose wouldn’t care about getting caught so much.
I’m not saying you have to agree with my view. I’m just saying there are similarities yes but not ones that really play to your argument that it should be allowed because of Enterprise Certificates. Its not like Apple didn’t think that through. Not to mention people were abusing that program and they cracked down on it.
If developers can’t run a business on their 70% from the App Store, then they need to hire a business manager. There are PLENTY of wise business folks that are able to derive profits from far slimmer margins than that. If your app sells $500,000 and you can’t run a business on $350,000, that’s a developer problem, not an Apple problem. Giving a developer that can’t run a business the full $500,000 means they’d blow through that irresponsibly as well and be looking at Apple to subsidize them… rather than make an app that sells well and run their business responsibly.
If Spotify has to pay $3 of their $9.99 to Apple, and $9 to the cutthroat labels that stand firm, tell me how they can make a profit? Oh, I've got an idea, raise it to $12.99! But Apple Music can still charge $9.99? Apple gets the better in-app sign-up experience that Spotify users cannot get in-app? That doesn't seem fair... that almost seems anti-competitive.
Last edited:
can apple allow emulators already, i got them roms just need to officially have emulator on the apple store if not then it’s back to altstore as usual
Well, wouldn’t you think that designing, prototyping, producing an OS and shipping 100+ million iPhones and even more iPads a year is “working”? I mean, it must be harder than anything the developers are doing because I don’t see any developer being successful at it. Or, even trying for that matter.
And, the thing is, it’s even incredibly small on Android as well. There’s a very, very tiny percentage of folks on Android that ever sideload. To the overwhelming majority of folks using smartphones, sideloading just isn’t a thing.