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

[DrPlantain]

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).

Wait until the companies remove their apps from the App Store and start forcing people to download from external source.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Wait until the companies remove their apps from the App Store and start forcing people to download from external source.

I've got a Mac that is loaded with software downloaded from external sources, its fine. Nobody has died.

 

[webkit]

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.

It absolutely does matter as Apple, one of only two major players in mobile OS, is specifically restricting alternative ways of offering or getting of iOS apps and is stifling app access competition on a major and lucrative segment of the mobile OS market.

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.

I keep repeating it because it is an important factor. As I stated before, just because alternatives can or may already exist doesn't negate antitrust laws nor mean dominant companies should be able to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

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…

That's not really a comparable situation. If Walmart or Target or Best Buy or Staples or Home Depot or Lowe's or Nordstrom or Macy's or Kohl's or JCPenney or...etc. etc. etc. prevent a third party product from being sold in their stores, they aren't blocking out a significant (or necessarily any) portion of the market as the company may still be able to go next door, down the street, across town, etc. to offer it. However, due to their restrictions on sideloading and alternative app stores, Apple would be blocking a company from a significant (varies by country) segment of the market.

 

[webkit]

Wait until the companies remove their apps from the App Store and start forcing people to download from external source.

Why would they? Apple would presumably want to keep the App Store a competitive and viable option, and companies would still want to have a presence there. A more likely scenario would see iOS developers using other options in addition to, not necessarily instead of, the App Store.

 

[Kal Madda]

It absolutely does matter as Apple, one of only two major players in mobile OS, is specifically restricting alternative ways of offering or getting of iOS apps and is stifling app access competition on a major and lucrative segment of the mobile OS market.

I keep repeating it because it is an important factor. As I stated before, just because alternatives can or may already exist doesn't negate antitrust laws nor mean dominant companies should be able to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

That's not really a comparable situation. If Walmart or Target or Best Buy or Staples or Home Depot or Lowe's or Nordstrom or Macy's or Kohl's or JCPenney or...etc. etc. etc. prevent a third party product from being sold in their stores, they aren't blocking out a significant (or necessarily any) portion of the market as the company may still be able to go next door, down the street, across town, etc. to offer it. However, due to their restrictions on sideloading and alternative app stores, Apple would be blocking a company from a significant (varies by country) segment of the market.

It doesn’t matter.

Antitrust laws are usually nothing more than a billy club for socialist-minded governments to pick winners and losers. And big businesses often lobby for certain kinds of antitrust legislation to crush their competitors.

Also, say Lowe’s and Home Depot represent the vast majority of the home improvement store market, then by your logic, government should be in the business of forcing Lowe’s to carry a product they don’t want to, or vice versa. Or maybe the free market should decide, and if Lowe’s doesn’t carry a product, but Home Depot does, then those who want that product will just shop at Home Depot, instead of government intervening to make sure that Lowe’s has to carry that product or offer that service, etc.

 

[jlc1978]

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.

Which is why I think sideloading will strengthen Apple’s hands wrt adding fees to be in the app store for apps that offer payment methods that bypass Apple's. Developers now have choices, just like your WalMart example and thus if they want access to Apple’s customer base they will need to accept Apple’s terms.

 

[Appleman3546]

I wonder if Apple is floating this commission idea on sideloaded apps to get some feedback or reaction prior to actually releasing a beta showing it…if they even release a beta at all on 17.4. Maybe they are waiting to drop it in release on March 4 without a beta in order to give rivals less time to finalize their rival stores. Or it’s possible they know there will be blowback/litigation from charging a commission and that’s why they keep meeting with the EU to see what they can get away with. It is certainly suspicious that they haven’t already released 17.4 beta, they normally release betas pretty quick after the release of the last update.

 

[Kal Madda]

I wonder if Apple is floating this commission idea on sideloaded apps to get some feedback or reaction prior to actually releasing a beta showing it…if they even release a beta at all on 17.4. Maybe they are waiting to drop it in release on March 4 without a beta in order to give rivals less time to finalize their rival stores. Or it’s possible they know there will be blowback/litigation from charging a commission and that’s why they keep meeting with the EU to see what they can get away with. It is certainly suspicious that they haven’t already released 17.4 beta, they normally release betas pretty quick after the release of the last update.

We’ll probably get the iOS 17.4 beta tomorrow or more likely next week. Past year, the 16.4 beta took a week to release, week-long delays aren’t actually that unusual. And I think whatever Apple does won’t be something they’ll get litigated over.

 

[Shirasaki]

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...

Apple provides better life by destroying planets through pointless charger removal stunt, pushing people to buy new devices on a regular basis (albeit less so nowadays), replacing simple useful features with complex difficult to control ones, driving devs nuts by applying double standards on their own rules arbitrarily, and enforce their view on using devices as the view everyone must agree on.

To Me Apple is no different from bureaucratic government officials with the only exception they earn money by customers purchasing items, rather than by collecting fees and taxes.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

1. Unfortunately that’s not what the law says. There’s no such thing as selling access, ether your renting or you’re owning.
2. Nope, they can’t as long as unsigned software can be installed by the user.
3. Just how Apple can’t block https://sidestore.io/ from working

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Which is why I think sideloading will strengthen Apple’s hands wrt adding fees to be in the app store for apps that offer payment methods that bypass Apple's. Developers now have choices, just like your WalMart example and thus if they want access to Apple’s customer base they will need to accept Apple’s terms.

That’s the issue, Apple think they own the access rights to their customers.

They don’t. And developers can have iOS customers without asking permission from Apple

 

[jlc1978]

That’s the issue, Apple think they own the access rights to their customers.

They do, on their App Store.

They don’t. And developers can have iOS customers without asking permission from Apple

However, they can't access the customer base in Apple's App Store without it. That's the crux - it has proven to be very lucrative and will probably be the most desirable one for all except some large companies such as Epic, Spotify or Meta and thus they will wind up still paying Apple. I suspect even Spotify and Epic will want to be on Apple's App Store and complain about new fees Apple imposes on apps such as theirs to make up for lost revenue.

That's why I think allowing competing app stores strengthens Apple's position; the argument they are the only way to reach iOS users goes away. That gives Apple a lot more flexibility in setting fees.

 

[Kal Madda]

1. Unfortunately that’s not what the law says. There’s no such thing as selling access, ether your renting or you’re owning.
2. Nope, they can’t as long as unsigned software can be installed by the user.
3. Just how Apple can’t block https://sidestore.io/ from working

1. Unfortunately the law doesn’t say that every iPhone users owns iOS. You don’t. You have access to it, but you do not own it. Just like I have access to FaceBook, but I do not own it. I can buy a Sam’s Club membership for access to Sam’s Club (it used to be that you couldn’t have access to the building at all if you didn’t have a membership), but having access to Sam’s Club doesn’t give me ownership of Sam’s Club. It’s the same with iOS. There’s a whole page of terms and conditions, and nowhere does Apple say “you own iOS now”. You never own iOS. You own your own files that you generate, and you own the apps that you purchase, but you do not own iOS. And just repeatedly saying the contrary doesn’t make it true.

2. They don’t need to allow unsigned software to be installed. They can choose to restrict sideloaded apps installation to only signed software. That’s already what macOS does, if a software isn’t signed, it will through up a bunch of red flags and imply to the average user that it can’t be installed. Theoretically it can, but it’s very risky to allow unsigned software, and it’s a complicated workaround that requires toggling settings and whatnot. I’d hope Apple would do at least that on iOS for security, but they could go a step further and have no complex workaround at all, which I think would be better for security.

3. Here’s the problem with your argument, Apple absolutely can block installs from certain websites and whatnot. That’s completely within their rights to do, and they’ve done it with known malware software. They could decide, this website looks sketchy, so we won’t accept files installed from it, as I already pointed out, they’ve already done this on macOS. They can’t shut down the website, because Apple doesn’t control the internet, that’s not within their rights to do, but preventing malicious code from installing on their OS is something they absolutely can do. What systems like SideStore do is abuse a system feature tied to Developer Accounts that’s designed for testing a developer’s own apps. So there are no safeguards in that system, because it’s intended use isn’t sideloading other people’s software which could contain malware.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

They do, on their App Store.

Exactly, that is why nobody is talking about developers getting free access to the AppStore. Probably the biggest misconception that is constantly made.

However, they can't access the customer base in Apple's App Store without it. That's the crux - it has proven to be very lucrative and will probably be the most desirable one for all except some large companies such as Epic, Spotify or Meta and thus they will wind up still paying Apple. I suspect even Spotify and Epic will want to be on Apple's App Store and complain about new fees Apple imposes on apps such as theirs to make up for lost revenue.

Perhaps, but nothing stops them from multi homing. Nobody cares if meta or epic have their own store to host their apps, it’s about developers who want to offer something better that can’t be distributed in the AppStore

Steam can start hosting iOS apps in their store and compete extremely well with Apple.

That's why I think allowing competing app stores strengthens Apple's position; the argument they are the only way to reach iOS users goes away. That fives Apple a lot more flexibility in setting fees.

Indeed, but it also makes Apple more susceptible to actual competition. Small open source projects can more easily be developed and provided to users without the need to pay apples developers fee they can’t afford to pay. The internet have millions of excellent software that are made by people for free as passion projects.

 

[Samplasion]

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.

Jobs that require a business app already use Apple's business tools to enable enterprise app installations. It's been that way since forever and enabling sideloading for everybody else only makes the experience cheaper for enterprises. This is a non-issue.

 

[Samplasion]

They don’t. They sell a device with access to iOS.

iOS isn't a service. It's not like Netflix, which sells you access to their hosted movies for a monthly or yearly fee; devices come bundled with a copy of iOS that the user should be able to modify, if they so please. You seem to be confusing the concept/core of iOS with individual copies.

 

[jlc1978]

Exactly, that is why nobody is talking about developers getting free access to the AppStore. Probably the biggest misconception that is constantly made.

Yes, a number of poster seem to think Apple will, or should be, forced to host apps for just the $99 developer fee; I forsee a change in how Apple charges for their App Store.

Perhaps, but nothing stops them from multi homing. Nobody cares if meta or epic have their own store to host their apps, it’s about developers who want to offer something better that can’t be distributed in the AppStore

The challenge will be to get exposure for such apps. Personally, I'd love to be able to run RetroArch on iOS/iPadOS with an external game controller as hat would be an easy way to have a home arcade using an older iPhone rather than trading it in.

Steam can start hosting iOS apps in their store and compete extremely well with Apple.

Steam would be interesting, I wonder how they will handle DRM? Unless they have a way to limit use o a single ID they could become the electronic equivalent of old time Tortuga,

Indeed, but it also makes Apple more susceptible to actual competition. Small open source projects can more easily be developed and provided to users without the need to pay apples developers fee they can’t afford to pay. The internet have millions of excellent software that are made by people for free as passion projects.

While there is a lot of good FOSS, much of it is unknown to most users; which is not going to be solved by sideloading.

 

[jlc1978]

Jobs that require a business app already use Apple's business tools to enable enterprise app installations. It's been that way since forever and enabling sideloading for everybody else only makes the experience cheaper for enterprises. This is a non-issue.

The reason enterprises use mobile device management is not to easily sideload but to retain control of device and be able to wipe/update/etc. them as well as retain ownership of any software bought by the enterprise. Sideloading isn't going to change that; and I suspect many enterprises will want to be able to block it on their devices for security reasons.

 

[Samplasion]

It’s the same with iOS. There’s a whole page of terms and conditions, and nowhere does Apple say “you own iOS now”. You never own iOS.

It's really not. EU law says that OS copies sold as part of a device bundle (ie. a phone with iOS preinstalled) are owned as "non-reproducible" copies by the user. Meaning users can't freely redistribute iOS as that would be violating Apple's IP. But users are absolutely allowed and entitled to modify their own copies of the operating system.

That’s already what macOS does, if a software isn’t signed, it will through up a bunch of red flags and imply to the average user that it can’t be installed. Theoretically it can, but it’s very risky to allow unsigned software, and it’s a complicated workaround that requires toggling settings and whatnot.

Unrelated, to my previous point, but it's so hard to right click > Open an app.

The reason enterprises use mobile device management is not to easily sideload but to retain control of device and be able to wipe/update/etc. them as well as retain ownership of any software bought by the enterprise. Sideloading isn't going to change that.

Totally, but in enterprise contexts MDM can be used to install company-internal apps as long as the enterprise certificate is valid. My point about sideloading was that jobs needing external apps aren't going to be disrupted.

 

[Kal Madda]

Jobs that require a business app already use Apple's business tools to enable enterprise app installations. It's been that way since forever and enabling sideloading for everybody else only makes the experience cheaper for enterprises. This is a non-issue.

Not if businesses choose to not use Apple’s more secure enterprise app installation system, and not if a business decides to use some third-party app that needs sideloaded that isn’t just the company’s software. Case in point, if a service like Zoom or Slack leave the App Store and are only available via sideloading. Then a person is forced to sideload an app. So it is an issue. And again, I’m not saying it’s an issue that means that app sideloading on iOS shouldn’t exist, or will be a bad thing for everyone, but it is a fact that it will potentially force some people who don’t currently have to sideload apps to have to sideload apps.

 

[Samplasion]

Not if businesses choose to not use Apple’s more secure enterprise app installation system

Just a question, what makes Apple's MDM/Enterprise system more secure? Because if the app files themselves are the exact same there won't be any difference for the end user.

Case in point, if a service like Zoom or Slack leave the App Store and are only available via sideloading

Has it ever happened before with that kind of services?

 

[pax-eterna]

And won't all the hackers around the world just LOVE this! Another degradation of the inherent security in the Apple "closed" system.
It's one of the reasons I jumped from Microsoft to Apple!
If this system is fully implemented worldwide, I may just go over to Linux and be done!

 

[Kal Madda]

iOS isn't a service. It's not like Netflix, which sells you access to their hosted movies for a monthly or yearly fee; devices come bundled with a copy of iOS that the user should be able to modify, if they so please. You seem to be confusing the concept/core of iOS with individual copies.

Apple owns the right to control what software installs onto iOS. They could decide to only allow their own apps and nothing else. It would be a stupid business move, but they absolutely could do it. Why? Because they own the platform. Canon’s camera OS doesn’t need to allow Sony apps to install on it. It’s Canon’s OS. Canon can decide to open up their platform to some third-party preset packs, or other similar software. But just because Canon makes a system for adding extra bits of software to their cameras doesn’t mean they have to allow any and all software onto their cameras. They can pick sources they trust to provide software extensions they think will benefit their customers, and then tell any other software to take a hike. The same is true for iOS, the only difference is that governments are using “antitrust” legislation as a billy club to force changes that other big companies such as Epic likely lobbied for. And btw, gaming consoles aren’t drawing this “antitrust” legislation, yet they lock their devices to only games sold from their game stores… PlayStation has every right to restrict software installation to only software from the storefronts of their choice.

 

[webkit]

Antitrust laws are usually nothing more than a billy club for socialist-minded governments to pick winners and losers. And big businesses often lobby for certain kinds of antitrust legislation to crush their competitors.

Antitrust laws are an important way to help protect consumers and small(er) businesses from dominant companies wielding too much power and control on significant portions of a particular market such as Apple does through its sideloading and alternative app store restrictions.

Also, say Lowe’s and Home Depot represent the vast majority of the home improvement store market, then by your logic, government should be in the business of forcing Lowe’s to carry a product they don’t want to, or vice versa. Or maybe the free market should decide, and if Lowe’s doesn’t carry a product, but Home Depot does, then those who want that product will just shop at Home Depot, instead of government intervening to make sure that Lowe’s has to carry that product or offer that service, etc.

Lowe's and Home Depot do not represent the vast majority of the home improvement market as there are many other stores that offer home improvement products including national, regional and local chains as well as independent single store "mom and pop" businesses. If a product is not available at Lowe's or Home Depot, there are still many more places it can be. For iOS users and developers (which account for a significant portion of the mobile OS market), the only option is Apple's App Store. By restricting sideloading and alternative app stores, Apple is stifling competition in a significant portion of the mobile OS market.

 

[Samplasion]

Another degradation of the inherent security in the Apple "closed" system.

iOS security comes in the form of app entitlements and sandboxing. It's going to be fine.

Apple owns the right to control what software installs onto iOS.

They don't. Or, they did, until they released the first version of iPhone OS to the public.

They could decide to only allow their own apps and nothing else.

Same as the above.

It would be a stupid business move

As a dominant player in the mobile market, it wouldn't be just stupid, but outright anticompetitive (and I think illegal as well but it's just my opinion)

Canon’s camera OS doesn’t need to allow Sony apps to install on it.

Because Canon's OS is a closed OS for a specific purposes, plus there are loads of different camera vendors.

But just because Canon makes a system for adding extra bits of software to their cameras doesn’t mean they have to allow any and all software onto their cameras.

It's not just because Apple makes a system for adding extra bits of software to their phones that they are rightly forced to open up. Context is key.

The same is true for iOS

It isn't as per the above.

And btw, gaming consoles aren’t drawing this “antitrust” legislation, yet they lock their devices to only games sold from their game stores

The gaming market is a highly competitive sphere. Besides, there are ways to get around that (jailbreaking and homebrew communities)