iPhone App Sideloading Coming to Users in the EU in First Half of 2024

[I7guy]

And alternative app stores could provide more competition and choices for users and developers, similar to the macOS environment. The answer here is not to maintain an artificial bubble, restrict competition, etc. Allowing more open competition and pushing companies like Apple to innovate by using their wealth, talent and resources to create a "stronger" product and better experience than others for BOTH those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores and those who don't can be a better solution.

Yes obviously it’s legal right as in majority of the world they get to control their ecosystem. Don’t like the functionality, don’t buy the product. The EU had to thread the needle to get this legislation to happen. While some may have the opinion of better competition the opposite is also true. Race to the bottom and dark web.

Apple is preventing iPhone users from being able to "vote with their dollars" by restricting their ability to buy an app through sideloading or alternative app stores.

Don’t buy the product if you do t like the functionality. Vote with your dollars.

 

[Analog Kid]

That’s the thing, you never had your walled garden, it disappeared many years ago. All you need is a “compromised” certificate to install unauthorised apps without apples prior approval. Or you can even buy such certificates if you want to install modified apps such for messenger, twitter, Redditc discord etcView attachment 2311865

You have just been ignorant of its existence in your ignorant bliss. All this legislation effectively does with regards to this is simply preventing Apple from stopping users and businesses to do that on consensual basis.
View attachment 2311866

Hmmm... Compromised cert is all you need... If anything said "this is a good idea, let's do more of it!" it's the use of a compromised cert. Are any globally respected development houses using compromised certificates to get on people's devices? Do the places one is going to get these tweaked apps look in any way shady, perhaps suggesting they're not fully authorized? Can Apple shut it down by revoking the certificate?

"Kids can buy heroin in half a dozen alleyways" isn't an argument for "so let's just make it available in the cafeteria".

Again, if you want fewer safeguards and a more confusing ecosystem, that's fine. It's there, go get it. Having the government tell me I have to live in that system is wrong.

 

[Analog Kid]

AKA you "took" responsibility by giving responsibility to Apple instead. Bravo, well played

Did you independently crash test your car?

 

[webkit]

As you said, people are willing to pay more on apps in the iOS ecosystem than they are in the Android ecosystem, and the iOS ecosystem is being undermined so why would people continue to pay more for those apps? They're losing the benefits of trust they had in iOS, so the value is now reduced.

This is the classic race to the bottom behavior. People focus on falling prices while ignoring that that reflects falling value.

iOS users don't necessarily pay more for apps, they may just buy more on average. Those users will still be able to get their apps from Apple's App Store and the added competition could push Apple to make the App Store more appealing. Getting or selling apps from the App Store could become a better experience for those who choose to do so, not a worse experience. Competition can help push companies to up their game in order to keep or attract customers.

 

[Analog Kid]

I was just suggesting that maybe the reason why people spend more money on iOS has nothing to do with trust they have in Apple's app store.

That's not what you said, you went on about things that have no distinction from Android.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That should be the goal, but the DMA fails at accomplishing that. You can't address a duopoly by giving the company with the dominant share a helping hand. Third-party app stores on iOS (Google Play), alternative browser engines on iOS (Google Chrome) and unvetted app installation (Google Ads) will all benefit Google. Google is even trying to use the DMA to force adoption of their preferred messaging protocol.

A real consumer focused regulation would breakup Google's control of the android market and incentivize real alternatives to Google Play. No more duopoly. Real competition.

But it isn’t focused or even intended for consumers. It’s a market regulation for the interaction of business to consumers connections. Consumers entail private citizens and businesses alike.

And Google can’t enforce other to adopt their messaging protocol under the DMA and EU won’t help them ether.

Google ads, Google play, Google chrome is heavily impacted by the DMA and the DSA.
The duopoly isn’t the issue, alternatives aren’t the problem.

Never have EU said the AppStore must be replaced or a third option must be available. Only that the ability for the market if demand exists to fairly compete and fill that need.

Eu cares that things compete on merits instead of inertia.

 

[webkit]

Yes obviously it’s legal right as in majority of the world they get to control their ecosystem. Don’t like the functionality, don’t buy the product. The EU had to thread the needle to get this legislation to happen. While some may have the opinion of better competition the opposite is also true. Race to the bottom and dark web.

Don’t buy the product if you do t like the functionality. Vote with your dollars.

Again, Apple is preventing iPhone users from being able to "vote with their dollars" by restricting their ability to buy an app through sideloading or alternative app stores.

Also, competition can help push companies to up their game in order to keep or attract customers. It doesn't have to be a race to the bottom at all.

 

[Analog Kid]

iOS users don't necessarily pay more for apps, they may just buy more on average. Those users will still be able to get their apps from Apple's App Store and the added competition could push Apple to make the App Store more appealing. Getting or selling apps from the App Store could become a better experience for those who choose to do so, not a worse experience. Competition can help push companies to up their game in order to keep or attract customers.

Ok, so they buy more in that ecosystem that the EU is now dismantling.

As we've established, they likely won't be able to get all their apps from the AppStore, and there's no indication that when operating in an Android like world they won't behave more like Android buyers and simply not buy as much for as much.

The simplest assumption to make is that when a system is made more like Android that people will behave more like Android users.

 

[Rafterman]

I came from the era of Windows CE, where there were multiple app stores and individual vendors. Everyone had their own licensing method. Some used activation codes. Others used activation servers. What a mess. And you know a lot of software makers will want to skip the Apple fees and sell direct. The Apple store keeps things simple.

While side loading sounds great, it was such a PITA.

 

[Samplasion]

Did you independently crash test your car?

No, but I don't go around saying I regularly do

 

[BaldiMac]

But it isn’t focused or even intended for consumers. It’s a market regulation for the interaction of business to consumers connections. Consumers entail private citizens and businesses alike.

I didn't say it was.

And Google can’t enforce other to adopt their messaging protocol under the DMA and EU won’t help them ether.

Sigh. But they can try to force interoperability with it.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/google-european-telecoms-giants-call-on-eu-to-force-open-imessage.2410274/

The duopoly isn’t the issue, alternatives aren’t the problem.

Like I said, the DMA is focused on the wrong things.

 

[Analog Kid]

No, but I don't go around saying I regularly do

Ok, then I'm not sure what led to your snarky reply...

 

[The Phazer]

Yes obviously it’s legal right as in majority of the world they get to control their ecosystem. Don’t like the functionality, don’t buy the product. The EU had to thread the needle to get this legislation to happen. While some may have the opinion of better competition the opposite is also true. Race to the bottom and dark web.

Don’t buy the product if you do t like the functionality. Vote with your dollars.

The product does active harm to wider society - that's why it cannot be allowed to exist.

Apple's users are not the only people harmed by their anticompetitive behaviour.

 

[Analog Kid]

The product does active harm to wider society - that's why it cannot be allowed to exist.

Apple's users are not the only people harmed by their anticompetitive behaviour.

As much as I appreciate your riding in so gallantly to protect lil 'ol me from the big bad world, I've been quite happy with with the system I've been willingly purchasing and am aware of my rights to change vendors at any time.

 

[Kiwamu]

This is what will happen when sidelining is allowed in the EU:

The vast majority will still use the AppStore because of ease of use and Devs still be there, because they want to be seen by the millions of people in the AppStore.

There will be some tinkerers, there will be some people that will install Apps without thinking twice, but in the end it will all go on for the majority, as if nothing has changed at all.

 

[BaldiMac]

This is what will happen when sidelining is allowed in the EU:

The vast majority will still use the AppStore because of ease of use and Devs still be there, because they want to be seen by the millions of people in the AppStore.

There will be some tinkerers, there will be some people that will install Apps without thinking twice, but in the end it will all go on for the majority, as if nothing has changed at all.

Unless Epic opens their own store and signs a bunch of exclusives. Or Microsoft does the same. Or Netflix.

Or Google Play, so all those Android switchers don’t have to rebuy apps.

 

[The Phazer]

As much as I appreciate your riding in so gallantly to protect lil 'ol me from the big bad world, I've been quite happy with with the system I've been willingly purchasing and am aware of my rights to change vendors at any time.

Try reading what I said again.

You are welcome to make your life worse. The point is that your purchasing decisions with Apple harm people who don't buy iOS devices. That's why software monopolies cannot be allowed to exist, and hardware manufacturers controlling software installation needs to be a criminal offence with multiple year prison sentences.

 

[Analog Kid]

This is what will happen when sidelining is allowed in the EU:

The vast majority will still use the AppStore because of ease of use and Devs still be there, because they want to be seen by the millions of people in the AppStore.

There will be some tinkerers, there will be some people that will install Apps without thinking twice, but in the end it will all go on for the majority, as if nothing has changed at all.

Do you think Meta is going to hang around on the App Store? As soon as they can sidestep Apple's privacy protections, they'll do it.

 

[canadianreader]

I cannot. The walled garden has been dismantled. I can choose to not venture beyond where the walls once were, but that's a very, very different thing.

I tried to take responsibility for what was installed on my device by choosing a system that reduced the time and energy to manage that responsibility. Now that is gone.

You had the illusion of control and security while most top 50 apps are leaky with compromised security and privacy. Example of Facebook privacy card so many apps are doing the same.

 

[Kiwamu]

Do you think Meta is going to hang around on the App Store? As soon as they can sidestep Apple's privacy protections, they'll do it.

And yet they are on the Google Play Store, while every Android can sideload…

 

[Analog Kid]

Try reading what I said again.

Ok, I did. You're trying to save me and the world from the decisions I make. Thank you, but I can climb out of this tree just fine on my own.

You are welcome to make your life worse. The point is that your purchasing decisions with Apple harm people who don't buy iOS devices. That's why software monopolies cannot be allowed to exist,

That's a long stretch to make. There is no monopoly. Apple has barely 30% market share in the EU.

and hardware manufacturers controlling software installation needs to be a criminal offence with multiple year prison sentences.

Wow... You sure it shouldn't be an execution offense, given how it's ruining the whole world and all?

 

[Analog Kid]

And yet they are on the Google Play Store, while every Android can sideload…

What with Google and Meta having such divergent views on privacy and all....

 

[lesnouu]

This is great news for people in countries like Russia, since a lot of banking apps got removed due to sanctions and it’s a pain in the a** to download them on new devices. There is a solution for android with local app stores, but not an easy one for the iOS users

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Do you think Meta is going to hang around on the App Store? As soon as they can sidestep Apple's privacy protections, they'll do it.

I do, because people aren't going to bother installing another App Store to install Facebook and the like. Meta will just lose market share, and a lot of it.

In addition, their apps would still be sandboxed the same as they currently are, regardless of where they came from.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Ahhh, yes, the "limited sideloading lead already lead to limited piracy, so let's open it up to everyone!" argument. Somehow how this makes sense to someone!

The apps shown are free with added functionality not currently available. And a counter point to your issue. I’m just showing that it already was like that and you still have the ability to use the gated garden exclusively.

Oh I didn't know that. Wonder if there are exceptions. Eg. would the developer program fee count?

Well you can still develop apps for iOS without joining the developer program so that’s voluntary
If you want to read the full legal document it’s called Regulation (EU) 2022/1925.
Or Document 32022R1925


Under article 5&6 on point 4 and7,it reads

4. The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.
4. 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…


7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services...

I already responded to your previous comment on this issue. LOL.

Well as that afterwards 😅

And through App Store review. But you knew that.

Sure, but it’s the OS level security that makes sure that privacy is respected by requiring permission or denying access for other information deemed privileged.

Variable pricing schemes involve varying pricing based on user profiles. For example, charge more to someone who recently visited an expensive store. Or logs in from a rich neighborhood.

For example, from one of the biggest companies lobbying to bypass the App Store:

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/new-research-tinders-opaque-unfair-pricing-algorithm-can-charge-users-up-to-five-times-more-for-same-service/

Because it involves more work more confusion and more regret. I prefer the price I'm offered to be the best price.

Well to that I provide you this legal wrench.
Under article 26&28

2. Providers of online platform shall not present advertisements on their interface based on profiling as defined in Article 4, point (4), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 using personal data of the recipient of the service when they are aware with reasonable certainty that the recipient of the service is a minor.
3. Providers of online platforms shall not present advertisements to recipients of the service based on profiling as defined in Article 4, point (4), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 using special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

And this funny point (69)

…providers of online platforms should not present advertisements based on profiling as defined in Article 4, point (4), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, using special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of that Regulation, including by using profiling categories based on those special categories. This prohibition is without prejudice to the obligations applicable to providers of online platforms or any other service provider or advertiser involved in the dissemination of the advertisements under Union law on protection of personal data.

69)

When recipients of the service are presented with advertisements based on targeting techniques optimised to match their interests and potentially appeal to their vulnerabilities, this can have particularly serious negative effects. In certain cases, manipulative techniques can negatively impact entire groups and amplify societal harms, for example by contributing to disinformation campaigns or by discriminating against certain groups. Online platforms are particularly sensitive environments for such practices and they present a higher societal risk. Consequently, providers of online platforms should not present advertisements based on profiling as defined in Article 4, point (4), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, using special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of that Regulation, including by using profiling categories based on those special categories. This prohibition is without prejudice to the obligations applicable to providers of online platforms or any other service provider or advertiser involved in the dissemination of the advertisements under Union law on protection of personal data.