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

[webkit]

Noting your use of "many" rather than "all" or even "most".

It very well could be most or all. Even with sideloading and alternative app store options, I think it's unlikely developers will abandon the App Store anytime soon. It's still going to bring in a lot of traffic/exposure and therefore developers will still want to be there, as well as other places. Do you really feel the App Store is so bad that developers won't continue to use it after alternatives are available?

Nothing saves money for a developer like supporting multiple outlets...

It can save money if the other options are cheaper for them and generate acceptable traffic instead of having to rely 100% on the App Store for iOS business.

Why would wealthier people prefer iOS? Perhaps because of the experience? Wealthier people tend to prefer curated experiences, so with that gone now, so why would you expect people to keep spending as much?

There can be a variety of reasons including Apple’s image of being a more "upscale" or "luxury" brand. Another factor is that Android-based phones are available at lower prices which attract lower income users. It's not necessarily about being a "better" or "worse" experience.

Will they be allowed to? I don't mean this rhetorically. Jobs specifically described the App Store as a way to make the app buying experience easier and more secure for buyers and sellers. Making it easier in the ways they did is now illegal. What's the motivation to try again if the government is just going to find another reason to cut them off at the knees?

Yes, Apple will be allowed to make improvements to its App Store just as they do with other products and services. Their motivation here would be to keep or attract customers (developers and users) as they face potential new competition.

 

[jlc1978]

People angry that Apple won’t make as much money. Poor Apple!

I'm guessing Apple will find ways to make money off of the changes.

People have been doing it for years on Android, Windows, Linux, and MacOS. So why do people need their hand held with iOS??

Apple obviously doesn’t care about sideloading on MacOS but they do on iOS…I wonder why? Because they will lose money.

I hope people who are against sideloading also don’t have a Mac….

The smartphone business model evolved differently than the PC model. No electronic distribution method existed to allow widespread distribution via an App Store; so the traditional distributor -> store model used by other commercial goods was the only real choice. BBS allowed some electronic distribution, but it lacked the reach and didn't handle large simultaneus user inetraction well.

Android, as sorta OSS didn't have one company with total control over the OS although Google comes close. That prevented a fully walled garden model.

Sideloading in and of itself isn't inherently bad, it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. What seemed to be a good idea often has unintended consequences.

One possible impact is a weakening of EU data protection as non-EU developers can more easily bypass any laws and not have to disclose what is collected, unlike current App Store policies. As long as teh developer has no EU connection there isn't much the EU can do.

It's not about freedom. It is literally a money play. I say that as both a Software Developer and happy Apple user.

I agree; it's about a few big companies wanting all the revenue. I suspect this will be an ongoing battle over how it is implemented, and the small developers will be collateral damage. The biggets danger I see is the potential to allow more piracy. Freemium apps don't have that problem but developers who don't use that model may see sales drop.

I remember the heyday of jailbreaking where pirated apps were readily avaiable and developers tried to find was to combat it.

 

[mazz0]

Now why would any developer lower their customer exposure? Why are developers sticking with steam? Even tho epic store takes way smaller fee? Can it be steam is gives more benefits and value for developers and consumers than epic store currently does?

Because they believe the 30% they pay Apple is worth more than the exposure being in the App Store gives them. This won't be true for small developers, but it may well be for larger ones (Google, Adobe, etc).

 

[BaldiMac]

It absolutely did as your points didn’t refute the existing breach of your wallet garden of my original point making this a sliding scale,

I did... twice... you just ignored it to make unrelated points.

and nether did you defend the status quo when I pointed out an existing more secure option employed on Mac.

Weird how I didn't refute an argument that you didn't make about something that doesn't exist.

And the privacy issue you pointed out isn’t prevented currently by Apple, but the cited legal paragraphs would actually impact such practices and make them less invasive.

And Piracy is already illegal and completely irrelevant for the legal uses currently made possible with enterprise certificate’s Apple provide.

Again, "Let's make those problems worse" isn't the winning argument that you think it is.

The world needs to move on, though. Or should we keep using rotary phones because they're better than what came before?

I'd love for a better option to be developed, but regressing to how we used to do it isn't better.

 

[mrochester]

Because they believe the 30% they pay Apple is worth more than the exposure being in the App Store gives them. This won't be true for small developers, but it may well be for larger ones (Google, Adobe, etc).

It’s not just exposure, it’s friction too.

 

[Samplasion]

I'd love for a better option to be developed, but regressing to how we used to do it isn't better.

Not in an absolute sense, but I'd argue anything is better than being locked off of *my* device.

 

[mazz0]

It’s not just exposure, it’s friction too.

Sure, and maybe they'll think it's worth staying in the App Store, but I'm worried they won't, same way you can't rely on finding what you want in the Mac App Store. I don't think it'll be that bad since they're starting from a different place, but I do think it'll move in that direction at least a bit.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not in an absolute sense, but I'd argue anything is better than being locked off of *my* device.

Almost every time someone says something like this the mean that they want emulators and piracy. I wish they'd just say that.

 

[Samplasion]

Almost every time someone says something like this the mean that they want emulators and piracy. I wish they'd just say that.

Actually, I wish I could install the gym tracker app I'm developing without having to compromise on another app and without having my data deleted every 7 days.
But that doesn't sound like something that undermines my point, now does it?

 

[Ethosik]

In before people scream and shout about security or how they won't use it while also praising Apple for MacOS.

macOS is not immune to security issues. It’s just easier to ignore because Windows has more people on it. Windows is just as secure these days.

 

[jlc1978]

It very well could be most or all. Even with sideloading and alternative app store options, I think it's unlikely developers will abandon the App Store anytime soon. It's still going to bring in a lot of traffic/exposure and therefore developers will still want to be there, as well as other places. Do you really feel the App Store is so bad that developers won't continue to use it after alternatives are available?

I agree, and Apple could very well change terms for non-exclusive apps so that developers couldn't use the App Store as a distribution and advertising point while not paying anything to Apple.

It can save money if the other options are cheaper for them and generate acceptable traffic instead of having to rely 100% on the App Store for iOS business.

Acceptable traffic is the key. Does a developer want to track sales and do tax compliance for multiple stores and jurisdictions?

 

[Ethosik]

Fortunately iOS is designed to sandbox and block apps from accessing things that either Apple or the user don't want an app to access, this shouldn't change with sideloading.

Just because something is sandboxed doesn’t mean it’s immune to security issues. I faced issues with various sandbox setups on Windows and even virtual machines leaked vulnerabilities.

 

[Ethosik]

Calling it “sideloading” is already nothing but pure propaganda. It’s installing an app.

Why do people complain so much. Side loading gives context to the conversation. If you just say install, now you are wasting more time adding that missing context of “installing outside Apple’s App Store”. Side loading is one word that includes all that context.

 

[mrochester]

Actually, I wish I could install the gym tracker app I'm developing without having to compromise on another app and without having my data deleted every 7 days.
But that doesn't sound like something that undermines my point, now does it?

It’s better to be honest about what you want to do than hide behind some sort of morale crusade.

 

[Samplasion]

It’s better to be honest about what you want to do than hide behind some sort of morale crusade.

Alright, sure, I'll say it: "I pirate apps. Yar yar."

Doesn't mean I actually do, but whatever makes you happy.

 

[Samplasion]

Just because something is sandboxed doesn’t mean it’s immune to security issues. I faced issues with various sandbox setups on Windows and even virtual machines leaked vulnerabilities.

That kind of falls under Apple's responsibility to keep their customers' systems secure. And I mean, *really* secure, not in a "swept under the rug, no one will see this" kind of way. (Hypothetically speaking, of course)

 

[Ethosik]

In the end, I predict sideloading will be more of a philosophical victory rather than a practical one for two reasons:

1. Sideloading on the Android is almost exclusively for niche apps and expert users, as the majority will go look for apps in the Play Store. I almost certain it will play out like this on iOS, too (sorry to burst your bubble, Spotify and Epic)

2. If Apple indeed rolls this feature out only in the EU, developers will have little incentive to support side loading on their apps.

In summary, I doubt much changes for anyone

Then why is this so important? Why did Apple get taken to court about this and other things? Why is it being demanded in the EU if it’s niche? The reason is it is not. This will be the beginning of the end for both platforms. Once something happens on iOS, Android will follow.

 

[MilaM]

Almost every time someone says something like this the mean that they want emulators and piracy. I wish they'd just say that.

I'm also about to start learning developing apps for my iPhone and iPad in my spare time. The rules around this use case are completely absurd currently. You essentially have to buy the yearly 100 USD developer plan just to keep your apps for more than seven days on your own device. Installing those apps on a friends or relatives phone is even more complicated.

Also, many open source projects don't provide Apps for iOS because the developers don't want to pay the developer fee for a product they never intended to charge money for.

Why the strict rules? Because Apple was afraid this way of distributing apps (build in Xcode, then install on your phone), could become too popular and undermine distribution through the App Store.

 

[jlc1978]

it wont be a flimsy networking restriction, it will be an OS signing certificate, like regionality of dvd's. Super likely to be highlighted in the clause in the user agreement, allowing them to brick the device if tampering is detected.

Nuking would not be a good idea. Perhaps assigning phones sold in the EU a special device ID so that only those devices support side loading and it becomes a cat and mouse game, must like jailbreaking, to enable it elsewhere.

The ID could also geofence what store can be used to purchase apps.

 

[Jagfel]

I am a German. I don’t like the EU constantly telling private businesses what to do.

If people don’t like how apple handles this they should buy an android or whatever else or the EU can come up with their own phone (lol).

20% of global revenue, what a joke.

Exactly my opinion!
My first iPhone was the iPhone 5...I did jailbreak the phone and installed some apps from cydia store, but ONLY because there were not much on the app store!
Nowadays there is so much to choose from in the app store, so no need to sideload any apps for me any more

 

[Ethosik]

I love the attitude on these posts. When we respond and know what’s going to happen (apps will move to third party stores, it’s 100% guaranteed), we are just told to suck it up, vote with our wallet or use a different app. But you guys that want side loading don’t just suck it up and move to Android. It’s the same old same old “my way” attitude.

 

[webkit]

Acceptable traffic is the key. Does a developer want to track sales and do tax compliance for multiple stores and jurisdictions?

I think they will if it means being able to save money and/or gives them more control over the marketing and distribution of their app(s).

 

[MilaM]

When we respond and know what’s going to happen (apps will move to third party stores, it’s 100% guaranteed)

How are you so sure your worst case scenario is going to happen? Is there a precedent you can think of? Or is it just your best guess?

 

[floral]

Good gosh! Trying to find a post here that isn't a reply is like finding a needle in a desert!

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm also about to start learning developing apps for my iPhone and iPad in my spare time. The rules around this use case are completely absurd currently. You essentially have to buy the yearly 100 USD developer plan just to keep your apps for more than seven days on your own device. Installing those apps on a friends or relatives phone is even more complicated.

Also, many open source projects don't provide Apps for iOS because the developers don't want to pay the developer fee for a product they never intended to charge money for.

Why the strict rules? Because Apple was afraid this way of distributing apps (build in Xcode, then install on your phone), could become too popular and undermine distribution through the App Store.

"I don't want to pay for something" isn't a convincing argument to me.