But none of those crime rates are related to the sideloading, but rather to the app stores.
So it's still invalid from the argumentation standpoint in the topic I was initially reacting to.
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.
iOS 17.4 Coming Soon as iPhone App Sideloading Deadline in EU Nears
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So it's still invalid from the argumentation standpoint in the topic I was initially reacting to.
It's actually a combination of everything.
Let's look at this article from TheVerge.
Facebook warns 1 million users whose logins were stolen by scam mobile apps
402 malicious apps plagued Apple and Google’s stores.
www.theverge.com
So first, malware is significantly less because of more stringent vetting process by Apple.
Monument Valley Devs Reveal Shocking Mobile Piracy Stats
'Monument Valley' was one of last year's most surprising hits. It's also, sadly, one of the most-pirated mobile titles, as up to 95% of all Android versions are 'unpaid.'
gamerant.com
Second, app developers have shared how they make more money on iOS, and that the incidence of piracy tends to be way higher on android. I believe this is mainly due to Android supporting sideloading in the first place.
Third, the link I shared above detailed how malware was able to find their way onto android phones by way of sideloading, but not for iPhones because said "feature" was unavailable.
The point I am trying to make here is that everything is inter-connected. Apple gets a lot of flak for the supposedly draconian manner in which they run their App Store, but it is also this iron fist that has led to a safe and secure App Store where users trust developers and are therefore more willing to spend on apps. Surely that has to be worth something?
All these sources, you're throwing at me is about malware in the official app store (be it Android or Apple one). These malwares do not commonly come from the sideloading - because sideloading is simply not a common thing. Even on the Android. Regular Android user is not sideloading anything and download apps from the official Google Play Store just like we do on Apple ecosystem.It's actually a combination of everything.
Let's look at this article from TheVerge.
Facebook warns 1 million users whose logins were stolen by scam mobile apps
402 malicious apps plagued Apple and Google’s stores.
This one I totally agree with you. But again, this has nothing to do with sideloading. It only explains why there's more malicious apps on the Google Play Store compared to the Apple App Store.
This is your opinion and I disagree with this. As said before. Sideloading is not that common on the Android at all. Regular Android user does not sideload single app. And sideloading is disabled by default and hidden behind large warning screen.
The reason why developers make more money on iOS is simply because Apple users are more willing to pay for the apps. Apple users have generally more money (to spend) than Android users. Majority of Apple devices sold are a lot more expensive compared to Android - i.e. price per device sold is MUCH higher in the case of Apple than Android device in general. So again, nothing about sideloading there.
Infographic: Apple Users More Willing to Pay for Apps
This chart shows the share of global app downloads and consumer spend by app store.
www.statista.com
Uh and sideloading disrupts this how? Apple can still run safe and secure App Store even after sideloading is out... Or what you're telling me is the moment sideloading is enabled, there will be many malicious apps in the App Store? How and why?
Sideloading will be optional. If you use it - sure, it's your responsibility and surely you can install some malicious app that way. But if you decide to completely ignore it, this optional feature will not affect you at all. Your phone will be as safe as before. No worries there. Don't be so afraid of new features and possibilities. If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that.
Look, I’m pretty much completely in favor of worldwide, publicly accessible app sideloading with proper security measures in place, but the “duopoly” argument is just not really true. Just because nobody else has chosen to really join the race and compete with Android and iOS doesn’t mean that they couldn’t. And if sideloading is a big deal to consumers, they can choose to go with Android which offers that. Nobody’s forcing people to buy iPhones, and people have known for years that when they buy an iPhone they won’t have sideloading. Again, I think sideloading on iOS will mostly be a good thing, but that doesn’t mean people don’t currently have choices.
Either give money to greedy bureaucrats, or give money to greedy unelected corporate leadership. I don’t see one choice being objectively better than the other, thus fail to understand why giving money to megacorp is somehow a better choice.
Maybe learn the definition of the duopoly? Whether someone has chosen to join the race or not does not matter.
Apple and Google definitely has duopoly and it has nothing to do whether someone else can or can not join the market.
If you don't see one choice being objectively better than the other, then you must also fail to understand why giving money to greedy bureaucrats is somehow a better choice. 😂
I'd justify it by saying Apple is benefitting my life more than those greedy bureaucrats in the EU are...
Last edited:
I don’t think you understood my point. Whether or not iOS and Android are a duopoly is irrelevant in my opinion. Arguing people don’t have choices isn’t really true when they do, even with the alleged duopoly. If sideloading is so important to people, they can go with Android which offers that. If people prefer iOS’s pluses like greater security, they can choose that. All offerings have pluses and minuses, and I don’t believe it’s the government’s job to force companies to support services they don’t want to. Android has more UI customization options, should people be arguing iOS users have no choice on customization, and governments should be drafting regulations to force Apple to add more UI customization options? Of course not. I was disagreeing with the idea that “duopoly” equals no consumer choice, when sideloading is one of the main differentiating factors between Android and iOS, and if sideloading is a big deal to people, they can choose to go with Android. And btw, that doesn’t mean I’m not in favor of app sideloading on iOS, I think it will be mostly beneficial if implemented in a secure manner. I just am tired of the argument that pretends people have no choice when they actually do.
Thank you for your money here in the EU. Very uplifting to know that specifically your money ends up right there. 👍
It's easier to understand your attitude towards EU now. But chill, you're going to make it.
Companies could create desktop OS alternatives to Windows in the 1990s and some even existed (Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.) but that didn't mean Microsoft could engage in anticompetitive behavior or the DOJ and EU were wrong to go after them. Companies can create alternatives to Google search (and some already exist), alternatives to Coke and Pepsi (and some already exist), etc. but that doesn't mean MS, Google, Coke, Pepsi, etc. should therefore be allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior. Just because alternatives can or may already exist doesn't negate antitrust laws.
The issue here is that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores on major mobile OS and tablet OS platforms.
Most “antitrust law” falls outside of the scope of proper government action, at least in my opinion as a Constitutionalist American. Government shouldn’t be in the business of telling businesses what services they have to provide, unless they’re clearly offering illegal services that involve theft for example. Telling McDonalds it needs to serve pizza falls outside the scope of proper government authority. Android has more UI customization features than iOS, I don’t think it would be right for government to draft up legislation to force iOS to add more UI customization features either.
I think governments absolutely should have some control over dominant businesses in order to prevent those businesses from being able to wield too much power, control, etc. in their market(s) and give them the ability to potentially block or crush (if appropriate antitrust laws didn't exist) other smaller companies and/or new companies that may try to come along. If regulations didn't exist, it could make it even more difficult and more expensive (and therefore less likely) for competition to come into and exist in a market. That could mean less choices, less innovation, higher prices, etc. for consumers.
Some regulation is justified because it falls within the scope of proper government authority. Others fall outside of their authority, and are matters that should be decided by the free market.
Edit: Case in point, if a bigger business decides to set fire to a smaller competitor’s business, that’s clearly a matter government should get involved in. But if a company isn’t offering a service that another business does, I don’t see that as an issue that government has any place in forcing said company to add services. It would be like government dictating a restaurant’s menu, that’s completely outside the scope of properly exercised government authority in my opinion.
Last edited:
Ok. That's why I said "some control" and "appropriate antitrust laws" in my post.
Regarding the main topic being discussed here, I do think the Apple situation falls under "appropriate" or "justified" regulations as Apple has a dominant position with iOS (along with Android) in the mobile OS market and is stifling app access competition by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores on a major mobile OS (iOS).
- If you’re working for a business then it’s not your call. Many business use enterprise certification to run i house applications on iOS devices that don’t exist in the AppStore. And if you as a person have an issue with it, then you shouldn’t use your private phone when doing corporate work and have a separate device for it.
- The banking apps are just web wrappers, equivalent of using the desktop web browser. Case in point I use BankID on my phone to verify my ID, login to websites and verify transactions etc.
- well that’s the think Apple have a right only within the AppStore, but not outside of it. APIs aren’t copyrighted or licensable. EU have had legal precedent for over a decade. The tools apple provides aren’t necessary to make apps.
- The issue comes that exhaustion of rights comes in to effect when the device is sold to a consumer, and the rights holder loses all control over the device and the explicit copy of code on that device.
- Just how when you purchase a game on steam, it’s been ruled and upheld that it’s no longer steams property but the consumer’s who also have the right to with it as they pleases in the same way if they had purchased a physical goods.
- And as with physical goods you can’t reproduce and manufacture copies to sell
I disagree with that. Any app or app store can just choose not to support iOS and support other systems instead like Android, which actually forms a larger portion of the market than iOS anyways. In my opinion, it would be like arguing that Walmart needs to be forced to sell products from a certain manufacturer, because they’re “stifling” product choices by not offering any brand of product or products that wants to have access to their facilities and customers.
1. That’s exactly my point, in those situations “just don’t use sideloading” isn’t an option.
2. But banks apps also store my log-in biometric data and whatnot, a website doesn’t, unless I trust it to store that info, and I don’t because websites get hacked all the time.
3. And Apple does have the right to collect commissions from developers for access to their tools, their platform, and their customers. And you do need Apple-owned tools and code to write native iOS apps. You can make web apps without using Apple’s tools or software, but any native app uses Apple’s software in one way or other.
Sure, an app store can choose not to support iOS just as Apple can choose not to offer Safari, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, its App Store, etc. for Windows and Android. However, the issue here is that Apple has a dominant position with iOS (along with Android) in the mobile OS market and is stifling app access competition by specifically restricting sideloading and alternative app stores on a major mobile OS (iOS).
That depends on the country. In various countries, iOS has the larger share e.g., according to Statcounter, in Canada iOS has around 60% share, in the U.S. iOS has around 61% share, in Denmark iOS has around 66% share, in Japan iOS has around 67% share, etc. On top of that, average iOS users tend to buy more apps than average Android users.
Regardless, the larger point remains that there are only two major players in mobile OS (iOS and Android) and therefore can justify regulation.
I disagree. First of all, it doesn’t matter, because there are other places where those App Stores can go. They have Android and other options as well. You keep repeating that Apple has a dominant position, but that doesn’t mean it has the only position. Android has a larger percentage of the market globally. Some countries may differ in how the market is split, but Android is a perfectly viable platform for App Stores to use. That would be like arguing “Walmart is a major store chain, so the government should force them to give x brand or products access to Walmart’s facilities and customers.” Or, the said x brand or product could make their own facilities and attract their own customers, instead of trying to leach off of the success of another business…
- And what is the difference if the job asks you to install an app that doesn’t exist on iOS?
- Don’t use side loading is the option for the simple fact the developer doesn’t owe you anything. Ether you remove everyone’s ability to choose something else, or you provide everyone with the ability to choose. There’s no middle ground.
- What horrible bank app stores biometrics? I would never use any such application and strongly recommend you to abandon it.
- Example BankID uses the ability of iPhone to verify that I am who I am. And the bank uses the the government records to verify my identity.
- Essentially it’s a more advanced version of login with appleID
- Apple have the right for their tools
- They don’t own access to iOS consumers
- No you don’t need a single Apple owned tool to write anything for iOS, and the APIs are part of the OS.
- As a simple example, no legal case exists in EU that supports apples claims. And the fact millions upon millions of sold cydia apps over the last 15 years have paid 0$ to Apple in commission fees.
- You might disagree, but consumers have much stronger property/ownership rights in EU than anything in USA.
- Without developers signing a contract there nothing Apple legally can do in requesting a commission.
1. The point is that people just dismissing people with “just don’t use sideloading” aren’t factoring in the fact that some have no choice in the matter, they can’t just choose to not use sideloading because their job requires an app that’s only able to be installed via sideloading.
2. Bank apps have settings for FaceID, TouchID, etc. in the apps in a user settings section. It leverages normal FaceID, so maybe the FaceID data itself isn’t stored in the app, but the buttons for changing those things are in the app.
3. Apple created and owns iOS, so they should have control over access to iOS. As to iOS customers, they can use another OS to access other merchants wares, but iOS is Apple’s property. The internet (broadly) is public property (individual websites are not) and iOS is not. Apple owns the iOS platform, and so should have the right to do with it as they see fit. Other competitors can make their own platforms, or hitch a ride with those who are okay with them setting up shop on their private properties, but Apple isn’t obliged to. In fact, if Apple wanted to only offer Apple-made apps with no App Store, they’d be within their rights to. Distributing apps on Apple’s private property (iOS) is a privilege, not a human right. And since developers want access to Apple’s private property (iOS), Apple is perfectly within their rights to ask for a commission.
5. And again, I’m largely in favor of app sideloading being added to iOS, I think it will generally be an improvement. But I do not agree that governments have the right to force Walmart to host a vendor’s booth in the middle of their facilities and with free access to all the customer draw that Walmart brings in. If Walmart charges a commission, they’re well within their rights to do so.
- Essentially the status quo as it is now
- Settings yes, the data isn’t accessed by the app, but done completely in OS in the Secure Enclave.
- Sure I agree, but that changes when they sell the product to a consumer. It’s not rented, it’s not borrowed, but it’s purchased and ownership is transferred. That’s where apples rights end and the owner starts. Apple owns the services that runs on their server farms that is transferred over the Ethernet cable, but not the phone.
- And I think you’re making a small mistake here. Developers aren’t distributing apps on iOS, it’s hosted on the web and the files are downloaded by the consumers themselves to their phones.
- Apple can’t ask for a commission when they aren’t the commissioner.
- You might say they are licensing, but indefinitely licensing something is just a normal purchase.
- I agree with you. Walmart isn’t forced to host anything in their facility. But the company that sells the “random fruit loops” brand can sell their product in a different store or even directly to consumers without asking walmart. and consumers can go across the street without needing to move to a new neighborhood.
3. Apple never sells iOS to a consumer. You do not own iOS. Apple sells consumers a device, and allows you to use it on your device. You purchase the device, and Apple gives you access to the OS for free, but you do not own iOS. It would be like if Walmart sold you a membership pass to gain access to the building. Just because you have access to everything in Walmart doesn’t mean you own Walmart.
4. So can any app developer. They can sell to customers when they’re not in Apple’s facilities and on their property. They can choose to sell their goods to customers from other neighboring stores that are willing to host them such as Android, Windows, Mac, Linux, Web App, etc. Those neighboring stores have different rules and entirely different business structures, and they may be willing to let them set up a booth on their property. Android is right across the street, and if there’s a product that Android carries that iOS doesn’t people are completely free to shop there instead.
- They do, Apple sells a device containing iOS.
- U.S. law isn’t relevant in EU,
- And nobody have signed any rental contract about iOS before purchasing the iPhone.
- I’m sorry, but it’s apples problem for failing to have a proper contract in place.
- Steam isn’t in apples property, yet they sell Mac games with zero say and influence from Apple… because they don’t have any legal authority to do so
- So why isn’t apple demanding a commission from Cydia developers? Perhaps because they don’t have the legal right to do that and would lose
- Just how Apple lost the legal case on jailbreaking.
1. They don’t. They sell a device with access to iOS. They do not sell you iOS.
2. Apple allows Steam to distribute on the Mac without paying them, but they could block Steam or ask for payment for verification if they so chose.