iOS 17.4 Coming Soon as iPhone App Sideloading Deadline in EU Nears

[blackcrayon]

As a former Apple technician, I would not be looking forward to this change. People would always come in running the Beta OS and complain about the bugs and such, was even worse when they would come in for a hardware repair and we couldn't service the device until it was downgraded. As a customer, very cool and happy to see these changes coming.

Same.

I'd personally like to be able to side load apps (other than compiling/signing them through Xcode).

But I do think this could lead to some pretty nasty security issues for the majority of users. I wonder where the line is drawn on Apple potentially blocking known malware even if it comes from another store, and/or if guards are still in place over apps that try to use private APIs in unexpected ways.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

MacRumors at its best: “There might be a 17.4 beta soon and 17.4 might do something for side-loading, but we don’t actually have any new information, not even rumors. Happily our readers still fall for the clickbaity title.”

17.4 has been in Web analytics for a while, and would lineup perfectly with 16.4, 15.4, 14.4 and 13.4 all releasing around the same March/April time.
Additionally, the digital markets act takes affect in March, and Apple will have to comply.
Not much speculation going on here.

 

[3530025]

Many people really misunderstand what sideloading is and what it brings.

• it will not bring jailbreaking
• it will not compromise security, because apps will keep running in the sandboxed environment like any other apps do, sideloaded apps will not have escalated privileges compared to other apps
• sideloading is there already, in the form of Apple Developer program - for $99 per year
• so this whole thing just means you will not have to pay $99 per year to install custom app. This functionality is already there, just paid.
  • with that in mind - if the argument about security compromise by sideloading would be correct, it would mean the security is already compromised, because the possibility to sideload is already there, just behind $99/year paywall

Seems like many people do not realise the points mentioned.

 

[Hank001]

I only trust the App Store and pre-installed apps. All the pre-installed apps on my Windows PC are completely safe.

Uhm, but what about Windows itself? 😃

 

[nuff_said]

Looking forward to the “here’s what you can do on iPhone in the EU but nowhere else” videos. Hopefully this brings more visibility to the matter and other countries put pressure on Apple to enable sideloading for everyone. Enough is enough.

Also, does this apply for only iPhone? Are iPad and AVP exempt?

If the DMA cites only devices resembling a phone, or specially only calls out phones, then I’m sure Apple will comply with the letter of the law and exclude iPads and AVP. As the article from Macrumors states, “Apple will likely do the minimum required to comply with the Digital Markets Act, which may lead to several limitations and guardrails surrounding third-party app stores and app sideloading on the iPhone.”

For anyone thinking this is utter nonsense, I’m basing my opinion on the lighting-to- USB dongle solution Apple used years ago when the EU wanted USB-C on every device. At that time, Apple also followed the EU’s requirements as minimum as possible.

 

[tomtad]

will this cover the UK? Brexit? I would only trust the App store anyway, to be honest. security is all.

The UK is not in the EU.

So no

 

[Hank001]

The UK is not in the EU.

So no

Instead of skipping the article, he should've read the title 😉

 

[tomtad]

Personally, I actually like the "walled garden" nature of iOS, though I do wish Apple would allow alternate payment systems, though. Yes, you can side-load with Android, but it's not completely a simple process like installing an app in Windows.

It should be something you can turn on or off. A toggle to allow 3rd party apps, a warning when you do it that it's up to you if anything goes wrong and off you go.

The reality is most people would keep it on, Apple would still make a ton of revenue from the App Store and their various services, and it wouldn't antagonise developers. But for some reason Apple doesn't want to go down the easy path and will fight this till the bitter end.

 

[Hank001]

Many people really misunderstand what sideloading is and what it brings.

• sideloading is there already, in the form of Apple Developer program - for $99 per year

That's only needed for uploading it to Apple. One can also just download Xcode, create an app and testfly without paying Apple.

 

[stocklen]

If you don't want to use it then that's totally fine but the whole point is giving customers the choice and not allowing Apple to have so much control. They only have it locked down to protect their ability to make money. Apple's defense is that is risks security which is true to a degree but it's not a high risk. If you download the apps from a trusted source (unless you think Apple is the only one to be trusted lol) then it'll be fine. In all my time sideloading apps on Android, Windows, and Mac it's never been an issue.

I dont disagree but if people are SO desperate for that 'choice' then why did they buy an Apple product in the first place.

The curated App store, to me, is a huge boon. Im not a developer I dont pay to have my wares on the store so as a consumer I dont have that perspective.

Choice will be the key as you say and for those that want to access apps from a non-apple app store then fine - im sure it will be loaded with warnings and perhaps Apple may even choose to refuse service and repairs to phones that have been compromised or bricked as a result of activities of less-than-genuine apps that may or may not appear via these means.

 

[stefanovago]

It’s funny that you had to mention a few EU countries as an example as most Americans don’t know them 😆

 

[till]

My guess is that Apple will still require apps to be signed by a $99/year developer account, which is a totally sensible security measure. It at least lets you revoke the certificate and track down malicious actors after the fact. This is essentially what Microsoft requires if you develop drivers.

I don't think they could legally add any more significant obstacles for developers.

 

[3530025]

That's only needed for uploading it to Apple. One can also just download Xcode, create an app and testfly without paying Apple.

That's only half-true.

Selfsigned apps are limited to three per device and are valid only for 7 days until they need to be re-signed again. Which means it's unusable for any practical use.

 

[podycust]

You can bet the optional to enable it will be hidden away and if you ever find it then it'll have a big scary warning lol

Tbh you need a big scary warning otherwise people would try suing apple when they install malware etc on their iPhone say they didn’t warn them

 

[CharlesShaw]

It’s funny that you had to mention a few EU countries as an example as most Americans don’t know them 😆

I blamed Danny Boyle’s movie, Millions when I got wrong the currency used in Britain.

 

[9059737]

Seems a lot more likely to be a server side change that just allows altstores to be downloaded directly from the App Store.

Only allowing users to download stores from the App Store wouldn't be compliant with the Digital Markets Act, since Apple is required to "allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper" (one of those "relevant core platform services" is the App Store itself).

Apple may only take measures that are strictly necessary, proportionate and duly justified, so they will have a really hard time trying to justify any measures that are very different from the ones they've taken on macOS. Apple even brags about how secure sideloading is on macOS: "Now apps from both the App Store and the internet can be installed worry-free. App Review makes sure each app in the App Store is reviewed before it’s accepted. Gatekeeper on your Mac ensures that all apps from the internet have already been checked by Apple for known malicious code — before you run them the first time. If there’s ever a problem with an app, Apple can quickly stop new installations and even block the app from launching again."

 

[GeoStructural]

iOS is the most locked down OS out there and it's only that way to protect Apple's ability to make money. Every other advanced modern OS allows side loading (including MacOS).

Right on. The amount of people that fail to see that is astonishing, they would believe anything Apple says and would even defend it. That nickname that starts with "i" and continues with a herding animal applies so well to many in here.

 

[Donstil-nl]

They should do everyone a favour and allow sideloading worldwide.

It's not as scary as you think. You don't ever need to use it if you want Apple to protect you but it's nice to have the choice.

Do people only download apps on their Macs through the app store there? lol. If my PC didn't allow "side loading" (which is basically normal installing) then I'd not use it because it'd heavily restrict my use of it.

iOS is the most locked down OS out there and it's only that way to protect Apple's ability to make money. Every other advanced modern OS allows side loading (including MacOS).

Well, in theory, that’s true, but whether it will actually happen in practice remains to be seen. Nothing prevents, for example, Microsoft from creating an alternative store and offering its apps there. If you need one of those apps, you’re suddenly tied to an alternative store, even if you want to stay at the AppStore.

It’s an illusion that it’s better for the consumer; in the long run, the consumer will only suffer. We in the EU still have to realize this. If, for example, there’s a proliferation of app stores in 10 years, no one will benefit. Not to mention your payment data, currently consolidated in a single App Store. If every developer can accept their own store or payment method, they could potentially be scattered everywhere, which is far from desirable for the consumer.

It’s a law devised by policymakers who don’t use iOS at all, and the lobby has used the consumer as an excuse.

 

[3530025]

Well, in theory, that’s true, but whether it will actually happen in practice remains to be seen. Nothing prevents, for example, Microsoft from creating an alternative store and offering its apps there. If you need one of those apps, you’re suddenly tied to an alternative store, even if you didn’t have a choice in the matter.

That's just a projection. Sideloading is possible on both macOS and Android and the thing you're describing is not happening at all.

It’s an illusion that it’s better for the consumer; in the long run, the consumer will only suffer. We in the EU still have to realize this. If, for example, there’s a proliferation of app stores in 10 years, no one will benefit. Not to mention your payment data, currently consolidated in a single App Store. If every developer can accept their own store or payment method, they could potentially be scattered everywhere, which is far from desirable for the consumer.

I really disagree. Having a choice is not an illusion. It is your illusion and projection that there will be multiple app stores commonly and that major apps will not be available through most accessible Apple's AppStore. As said before. Sideloading is possible on both macOS and Android and no significant alternative app stores are there.

Yes, there are some, but it's for really niche end-users (F-Droid) or these App Stores just makes sense (Steam on macOS), because they are focused to specific software (games).

 

[frenchcamp49er]

All this scaremongering about security, it isn't mandatory for users to install other app stores. It's not like Android where the manufacturers and operators preinstall their own app stores.

It will be

 

[hagar]

Im in the UK and quite happy to not get this.

I buy Apple products with my eyes wide open - I understand the App Store 'limitations' but it doesnt affect me one bit and frankly I pay a premium to have the protection that Apple enables.

So.. even if this applied to the UK - im sure this will just be another app store app you can download that then gives access to apps that basically arent available on the main app store.

Let’s hope that EU customers who DONT want this can ignore it and remain with the status quo and im sure this is how Apple will design things going forward.

Why would you not be able to ignore it? Just don’t shop in a third party store in you don’t want to. Done.

But if apps will be cheaper over there, or there’s a much wider choice, people will come.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

Next Apple getting sued by the EU because they refuse to service a device or refund an app when the user downloads from an alternative store.

 

[axcess99]

Assuming I haven't missed any published details on how this will work yet...

Who wants to bet it will be App Stores/Sideloading more in name than the wild wild west/garden of Eden that people were envisioning by all the "side loading" talk?

1. All apps will still need to go through Apple review and be signed/notarized by the developer and Apple for iOS to install/run the app.
2. AppStores will use a new "Apple Authorized AppStore certificate" to cross-sign all app downloads/updates it provides for iOS to install any apps from the portal at all.
3. AppStores still need to track and pay commissions to Apple to avoid their AppStore cert being revoked.

This will just add extra middlemen to the software distribution chain. Maybe a store can introduce more flexible pricing instead of the handful of tiers currently supported. But no new apps that violate current app store review guidelines or entitlements and Apple still can nuke any app or entire app-store source by revoking a certificate for security or violating terms-of-use they set.

Basically, 3rd party AppStores will be a more restricted version of the Enterprise side-loading system they already support.

 

[Samplasion]

They will probably end up charging an additional fee to compile the in Xcode written App to be "exported" and "Apple verified" to offer them in other stores which kind of makes the whole thing as inconvenient as possible

And justifiably be held at stake by all the companies that legitimately use such features.

 

[Christoffee]

Uhm, but what about Windows itself? 😃

XP has never let me down.