Nah.
They don't get a cut for most of the software people use on the Mac. What makes you think this will be different.
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.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney Teases Fortnite Returning to iOS in 2023 as Legal Battle Continues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nah.
They don't get a cut for most of the software people use on the Mac. What makes you think this will be different.
Yep. You want to side load? Pay a MUCH bigger developer fee and more stricter user privacy agreement. Without charging a lot for the side loading tons of scam apps and scam stores will find it cheap and easy to trick kids to download their malware. All software companies won’t be able to register some shell company offshore and hide the ownership and banking accounts.
If they were one and the same, the EU wouldn’t have bothered making such a distinction in the first place.
I already stated that I'm not saying Apple won't try - or even succeed in - other ways of monetising their platform.
But it likely won't with most of the rather "naive" suggestions I've read on this and previous threads.
Yes - courts don't argue with businesses.
They're making judgments (influenced by others' arguments).
Apple has to allow sideloading and independent distribution (and use) of third-party apps. Period.
Your idea Apple of penalising such developer by "much bigger" fees and onerous requirements is undermining "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."
It also violates the legal requirement to provide fair and non-discriminatory conditions for access to the App Store.
Can I imagine Apple hiking prices of their developer subscriptions in Europe? Yes.
Can I imagine them hiking prices of their iPhones (well... not as if they just didn't already)? Yes.
Can I imagine them finding other ways of monetising their platform and services? Yes.
Would I be surprised if the EU and Apple disagree on implementation and compliance? No.
Would I be surprised if it takes a couple of years for the EU to force Apple to comply? No.
But one thing I'm pretty sure of: The blatant attempts at penalising and discriminating against developers wanting to distribute outside of Apple's service and store won't be tolerated.
They aren't the same.
But I still fail to see your point:
If I can download applications from a third party and Apple shall "allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software application", what's preventing Epic from creating a software download store application?
Sideloaded applications enable the creation of a download store in the form of an application.
Who made you judge and jury? You’re talking authoritatively but it only takes one wave of malware to completely reverse policy in one country and then other countries will let Apple secure their platform.
Or if a dictatorship somewhere forced citizens to side load government spyware apps. Then there would be massive outcry.
I could have done with the "period", yes.
But to answer your question, I've read and quoted the law that will come into force:
"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"
And I don't anyone - whether for or against this law - is disputing that Apple will be designated such a gatekeeper. They've been one of the focal companies in how this law came about.
Law will remain the law.
what if the other countries come up with a a law that makes that what that law says illegal
Fair enough point.
I refer to this article. Especially the part quoted below.
Apple to Allow Outside App Stores in Overhaul Spurred by EU Laws
(Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. is preparing to allow alternative app stores on its iPhones and iPads, part of a sweeping overhaul aimed at complying with strict European Union requirements coming in 2024.Most Read from BloombergMusk Actively Seeking New CEO After Losing Poll, CNBC SaysAmazon Ring...
If sideloaded apps still have to be verified by Apple to some extent, this suggests that Apple could still have vetting rights over what sort of apps are ultimately allowed on your device, be it downloaded via the App Store or sideloaded. If I were Apple, I could make an argument that were third party app stores to be allowed, it would not be possible to verify apps downloaded via those app stores. As such, it is well within my right to not allow an epic App Store to be sideloaded.
It's also been long rumoured that Apple has a "kill switch" feature which they can use to remove apps from one's device, though said feature has reportedly also never been used before. In a worst-case scenario, I imagine Apple could use it to nuke any copies of the Epic App Store from one's iOS device, though that's a nuclear option best reserved for the rare incidence that one sideloads a particularly harmful app, so the chance of Apple using it for such a use case would be pretty low.
The devil is ultimately in the details.
The "primacy ... of European Union (EU) law is based on the idea that where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail."
...or to directly quote the law:
"The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper."
Yes, absolutely!
I think we're much closer to being on the same page there. I can well imagine Apple trying to utilise such security measures to throw wrenches at third-party developers and third-party app store operators. And I would definitely not be surprised if that had to go into regulatory action or before a court.
Apple will have to tread very carefully there.
I think some people here have been harbouring fantasies of: "Oh, we can just keep on doing this - or begin doing that - and it'll really screw evil Sweeney and his epic minions. And we'll stick it to all those other pesky sideloaders and freeloaders!".
Such heavy-handed, brute-force approaches (such as drastically and selectively hiking developer fees - by what? A 100 million percent, below which it likely won't hurt EPIC?) aren't going to fly. Though that's my opinion, not authority speaking.
The "strictly necessary and proportional" wording couldn't make it any clearer (in legalese terms) that the EU will be very restrictive in what gatekeepers like Apple will be allowed and that they're going to watch very carefully over gatekeepers' actions.
I think it'll take Apple a careful and finely-tuned approach to leverage what the DMA still allows them. And a pretty much non-discriminatory one.
Then again, maybe they don't have to, really. Maybe many consumers are lazy and/or prefer their own first-party store for security reasons. They'll lose a couple percent of sales due to pirating or external direct sales. Maybe they'll lower their commissions a bit more to make changing to a different store pointless. And within a few years, it'll be no more than a minor dent in growth trajectory of Apple's App Store and Services?
Last edited:
Why not? I use their APIs and Xcode. Just like if I make an Unreal or Unity game I need to fork over some cash to them, even if I sell on Steam.
Continue to use side load. It adds context to your posts. "Installing software on iOS" offers no context. Apple's App Store or somewhere else? See, now you need to add context with more words. Sideload is one word that makes it clear what you mean.
I really don't understand why people have a hard time grasping this terminology.
There are other IDEs than Xcode.
And Apple doesn't (usually) for use of their APIs today (at least for the ones that they do on today, this will be expressly forbidden by the DMA).
Actions have consequences. Negative actions and harm to populations force lawmakers to change bad decisions and stop taking advice from bad lobbyists. So no, law doesn’t remain the law.
Agreed. All Epic cares for is maximizing profits. THAT IS IT. No savior to all devs everywhere motive. They just want to maximize profits and selling directly does that.
Well then Unity and Unreal should not charge a percentage fee then. That goes against DMA too.
I believe that he/she was referring to the fact that sideloading is just a "newspeak" coined with the intention to suggest that something is frivolous, dangerous or despicable or something. Where in fact it doesn't mean anything else than "installation of apps" that we've had on other operating systems for ages.
Not necessarily. That said, neither am I convinced that this is bad advice or legislation (quite the contrary!) - nor that lawmakers will reverse their decisions on it.
...if they are gatekeepers as defined or designated, yes.
There's a difference between offering a platform for "only" games - and one that thousands of businesses across countless economic sectors depend on. We've had that discussion many times.
How exactly is this supposed to work? Are the developers of iOS APIs expected to work for free? Who now pays their salary if Apple is expected to offer everything for free now? Unless you want iPhones to be $2,000 or Xcode to be a few thousand, SOMETHING has to make up for the "free" offering. Unless you are one of those that companies cannot make money, but that means they cannot pay their employees. Which means housing, electric, internet, gas, food etc ALL must be free because I no longer am getting paid.
Won't third party app stores break the sandbox architecture? How can an app read and update another apps contents without breaking the sandbox? What are people expecting here. This will fundamentally change how iOS works and not in a good way.
They are gatekeepers to developing in Unreal and Unity. Just like the argument that Apple is the gatekeeper for iOS apps. But I can just make my app for Android instead. Likewise I can use MonoGame instead for my game.
Please be active on this forum in a few years and I’ll remind you of your short sightedness and self pride.
not every country in Europe is in the EU
also
German Challenges to EU Supremacy
The prequel to these rule of law developments came, however, not from Warsaw or Budapest but instead from Karlsruhe, the seat of the German Federal Constitutional Court (the Bundesverfassungsgericht, FCC). In a widely anticipated judgment, the FCC challenged the CJEU’s authority
Last edited:
Why should they work for free?
Apple makes lots of money from selling the hardware devices alone (before any sales apps, services or accessories). And not every individual API is monetised or monetisable today either.
While we‘re at it:
How come Apple is freeloading on my European internet provider and when I‘m downloading apps?
Shouldn’t we make a rule or that Apple pay a 30% commission on App Store sales to my internet provider?
No.
You can allow apps to access data outside of the sandbox - you can decline to as well.
The DMA explicitly allows Apple to keep such settings, I believe.
Same way as today. There is no difference to (between third-party „sideloaded“ apps and) apps downloaded from the App Store. Sandbox protections can and will be in place.
No. Sideloading exists today (just only for enterprise. And, de facto, for home tinkerers and bad guys).
Yes. Well, that’s not covered by the regulation, probably.
Neither will be many television sets and their app ecosystems.
And with good reason.
That’s not it. They are a gatekeeper in the overall market for (and especially mobile) software applications. The isn’t target every OS and its app distribution - it‘s just target the very biggest services/platforms that have the most power on the EU‘s internal market as a whole.
Sure
Sure. Let’s be clear: The DMA won‘t apply to non-EEA countries.
Apple can do as they please in other countries, if they so want to segregate their markets.
They don‘t have to allow sideloading and alternative App Stores in the US, UK, South Korea, elsewhere. Well… until those markets follow suit with their own similar legislation sooner or later.
That is not a sandbox. It can access pictures and videos and files, but not another apps contents. Otherwise there would be no sandbox infrastructure set up. Application A cannot add code and update code for Application B.
because its an unnecessary term. I don't sideload software onto my mac even though there is an App Store.. I install software. soon I will be doing the same thing on my iPad and iPhone. (without AltStore hoops)
Last edited: