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

[Samplasion]

Seemingly referring to the iphone, you suggest that buyers of the iphone don't own the "device" by which I believe you to mean the hardware.

That’s like the complete opposite of what I’ve been saying.

The rest of the comment misses both my actual point and the point you thought I was making in that it assumes by “ownership” I mean ownership of the code.

Just to be clear, I’m saying that you should be able to at least have the possibility to install third party apps, just like you can scribble on the pages of your favorite book.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I know you are joking but we need to reign p*** in. It’s far too accepting in society today it’s going to destroy us.

You would be surprised. Work are all like "you can't watch that in here"

 

[Abazigal]

I'm just saying they havent left China. They won't leave the EU.

The main difference is that China hasn’t really made any demands of Apple that would significantly impact their bottom line. So Apple doesn’t really have any good reason to want to exist the Chinese market.

 

[votdfak]

It's coming in EU and you cannot do anything about it. LOL

 

[jlc1978]

I used be a big, Palm OS techie back in the 00s and into the mid 10s. How people are geeking out on their Android and iOS devices... I and others used to do for Palm OS devices, and the competing Windows Mobile

The Palm was great. I had an expense App that would take pictures of receipts, let me enter expenses and export the results to a .csv that my employer at the time's expense reporting system could hoover up. Saved me hours of time doing monthly expense reports.

I'd be HAPPY if Apple locked the Mac down like the iPhone is locked down.

The problem is APple would severlyly limit anything they don't like, such as DVD ripping (I am ripping my entire collection and putting it on my server), Virtual Machines, etc.

I know you are joking but we need to reign p*** in. It’s far too accepting in society today it’s going to destroy us.

No matter your opinion on the subject, porn and technology has been intertwined throughout all of mankind. After Thag learned to draw on caves, no doubt he was drawing naughty pictures that his buddies would look at.

 

[MilaM]

The main difference is that China hasn’t really made any demands of Apple that would significantly impact their bottom line. So Apple doesn’t really have any good reason to want to exist the Chinese market.

I'll just leave links to three stories from MacRumors here:

Apple Removes 39,000 Games From China App Store

Apple on Thursday removed nearly 39,000 apps from its Chinese App Store due to the apps lacking an official license from local regulators, reports...

www.macrumors.com

China Tells Apple to Remove Ride-Hailing App Didi Chuxing From App Store for Data Violations

Apple has been informed by China's cyberspace regulator that it must remove the Didi Chuxing ride hailing app from the Chinese App Store...

www.macrumors.com

Apple 'Concerned' About China's New App Store Rules Banning Unregistered Foreign Apps

Apple staff met with Chinese officials in recent months to discuss concerns over new rules that will restrict Apple from offering many foreign apps...

www.macrumors.com

The elephant in the room though is Taiwan. Should the Chinese government decide to invade Taiwan, this would disrupt Apples supply chains in very drastic ways. Think TSMC and probably numerous other suppliers Apple relys on for it's products.

 

[jlc1978]

I've come to trust Apple for the things I need. You're mileage may vary.

But I don't want government dictating things like DVD-R drives, etc.

I do as well, just pointing out there are some very useful tools that would not pass App Store muster. Apple's method to force approval of apps on the Mac works well for me.

 

[MilaM]

IP owners get to determine what is and is not an appropriate use of their IP. But again, this is part of what I don't like about the EU; instead of incentivizing their citizens to innovate and create alternatives, they're trying to change the IP of Apple.

I agree with you in principle that government intervention in markets should be kept minimal to not hamper innovation.

Nevertheless I think this case is different and justifies regulation. Smartphones are so ubiquitous, for many they are the only computing device they own. Everything happens on them. Communication, news consumption, payments, banking, (e-)commerce, travel tickets for public transport, and many government services. I'm sure I left a lot of things out. The gist is you essentially need a smartphone to function in modern society.

Because this technology is so important, the EU decided that acces to this platform needs to be regulated and that the terms of service of one company should not dictate access to this platform. Sideloading apps is just one small part of the regulation, though maybe the most obvious one.

 

[BaldiMac]

I agree with you in principle that government intervention in markets should be kept minimal to not hamper innovation.

Nevertheless I think this case is different and justifies regulation. Smartphones are so ubiquitous, for many they are the only computing device they own. Everything happens on them. Communication, news consumption, payments, banking, (e-)commerce, travel tickets for public transport, and many government services. I'm sure I left a lot of things out. The gist is you essentially need a smartphone to function in modern society.

Because this technology is so important, the EU decided that acces to this platform needs to be regulated and that the terms of service of one company should not dictate access to this platform. Sideloading apps is just one small part of the regulation, though maybe the most obvious one.

If the problem is the ubiquity of the platform, then why not focus on the OS with 70% of the market instead of the one with 30%? Why enact regulations that benefit the company that controls 70%?

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I hate how we’ve been tricked into using the word ‘sideloading’ which suggests it’s something dodgy and dangerous to do. In my day it was called ‘installing’.

On a Mac, it's still just called "installing".

For many software developers, not being able to "sideload", means you simply can't even do your work.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

People keep comparing this to MacOS but don't seem to be smart enough to realize the data on your phone is significantly more sensitive than the data on your MacBook. Health, Payment, Accounts, contacts, etc. Most of this data I believe is stored on device as part of Apple's "Privacy" efforts. You know all those times Craig or Tim said "And it all stays on device so we can't see a thing!". That's what is at stake basically.

Lets not forget the whole reason this issue keeps coming up over and over again is due to the usual: Money

These massive corps don't want to pay Apple's tax because it's in the millions and sometimes billions.

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

And for people who will inevitably say "You don't have to use side loading if you don't want to!"...I find it hard to believe companies won't make whatever the third party App Store version of their iOS/iPadOS app cheaper than on the official App Store. It is quite literally inevitable since it gives them leeway to not be as scrutinized in Apple's privacy efforts 🙂

I've got a truck ton more sensitive data on my Mac than my phone. Perfectly fine with sideloading downloading stuff on my Mac.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

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.

Maybe you should emigrate to the US Anyway, the EU is a democracy, and this is how they work, majority rule.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I guess being able to legislate instead of being able to create is something?
You're employed in a field related to this entire discussion, right?

Not EUs job to create something

I don need to be employed in any of the fields, otherwise do you need a European lawyers degree to argue it? Especially when a U.S lawyer wouldn’t be qualified as the system is completely incompatible

ordoliberal school of thought vs Chicago School

I'd argue that the EU is mostly two countries and that it's not that amazing to pass protectionist regulations that affect foreign businesses to the potential benefit of local ones. They may very well have higher motivations than that, but at the end of the day if they damage a business with this nonsense it won't be a European one.

I've admired the EU up until fairly recently. The EU is a peace initiative more than anything, and it's done ok over the years but I think those benefits are showing they aren't ironclad. I think a lot of their environmental regulations were quite admirable. I think their free movement of people and goods model was a triumph of (social) science over protectionism. I think the 2 nation quality of the EU became painfully evident during the post-2008 financial crisis, and I think they've begun to badly overstep in how they regulate spectrum and now consumer electronics.

All together, I'd probably try to look past recent events and agree with "not perfect but quite good".

in EU It is also noteworthy that while U.S. law exempts certain forms of state action from the reach of antitrust law, by contrast, the activities of public entities in the EU are fully subject to competition law. EU competition law, through Articles 106 and 107, does not exempt state-owned enterprises or state granted privileges from the application of competition law.

Completely true.

First, we need to clarify something you're saying wrong. Seemingly referring to the iphone, you suggest that buyers of the iphone don't own the "device" by which I believe you to mean the hardware. This is simply not true. You own the device, not the software. Software is intellectual property, and the EU has stringent laws protecting Intellectual Property.

So, let's take one European, even if not EU, example (insert your favorite author here: JK Rowling. When I buy a Harry Potter Book, I own the physical book, the pages, binding, cover, etc. That is the hardware of the book. I do not own the written word on the page.

IOS is intellectual property, and you are restricted in its use. Just like the EU restricts use of Intellectual Property.
Really? This is the comment I was referring to:


By device, then, you mean both the hardware and the software?

But that can't make sense, because software is IP, and the EU has pretty strict IP laws. In other words, the EU cares a lot about what you're referring to.

IP owners get to determine what is and is not an appropriate use of their IP. But again, this is part of what I don't like about the EU; instead of incentivizing their citizens to innovate and create alternatives, they're trying to change the IP of Apple.

Books are subject to the principle of territoriality, which means that the protection and enforcement of IP rights are governed by the laws of each country where the book is published or distributed. Software, on the other hand, is subject to the principle of exhaustion.

According to the European Court of Justice (EUCJ) ruling in the case of UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp
EUCJ added that “the rightholder cannot prevent the new acquirer from correcting errors affecting the functioning of the computer program concerned or from adapting that program so that it can be used with his own hardware” [1, p. 4]. Therefore, the original software owner cannot prevent the buyer from reselling or transferring the modified software, as long as the original copy is made unusable by the first buyer.

EU law, if someone has lawful access to your software (e.g. someone you have licensed to use it) they are entitled to study and test the way it functions to figure out (and copy) the ideas and principles underlying the software. In fact, any contractual provision to the contrary is null and void.

According to the European Union Court of Justice (EUCJ), the rightholder cannot prevent the new acquirer from correcting errors affecting the functioning of the computer program concerned or from adapting that program so that it can be used with his own hardware, as long as he does not infringe the exclusive rights of the rightholder. This is stated in the Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs, which reads as follows:

Article 5
Exceptions to the restricted acts

1. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) shall not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.
2. The making of a back-up copy by a person having a right to use the computer program may not be prevented by contract in so far as it is necessary for that use.

The EUCJ has interpreted this article in several cases, such as C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. and C-166/15 Ranks and Vasiļevičs. In these cases, the EUCJ has ruled that the first sale of a copy of a computer program exhausts the distribution right of the rightholder, and that the new acquirer of that copy can benefit from the exceptions of Article 5(1) and (2), as long as he does not make a copy of the program other than the backup copy. The EUCJ has also clarified that the correction of errors and the adaptation of the program to the new hardware are acts of reproduction that fall within the scope of Article 5(1) and (2), and that the rightholder cannot oppose them. However, the EUCJ has also stressed that the new acquirer cannot modify the program in a way that alters its original function or infringes the exclusive rights of the rightholder, such as by creating a new version of the program or by decompiling or reverse engineering it

 

[Admiralbison]

Apple desperate to fear monger

"Privacy & security"

So iOS/iPadOS users can more readily accept the digital prison they are in.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If the problem is the ubiquity of the platform, then why not focus on the OS with 70% of the market instead of the one with 30%? Why enact regulations that benefit the company that controls 70%?

And how do you know they aren’t? Google have been targeted through court and by the legislation.

Didn't answer the question.

I did answer the irrelevant question

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Well you going to a different app would cost you about 0$ if both the apps are free.

While going from the iOS AppStore to the android play store would cost you about 1.000$ for the equivalent iPhone… not really the same customer barriers

 

[Samplasion]

Really? This is the comment I was referring to

Yes, if you read that again you’ll see I was quoting those people who apply US property law to the EU.

The rest of the message still confuses software ownership with owning the particular copy and being able to modify it locally (eg. by installing themes or, in this case, third party apps)

 

[Dade Murphy]

Let the piracy begin. Because, let’s face it, that why most people want this ability, so they can steal from app devs.

The EU thinks they’re winning, charlie sheen thought that as well. Welcome to the sh*tshow, LMMFAO

As far as why you can sideload on a mac but not on an iPhone? If I have to explain that to you, you probably shouldn’t be on a tech site…

 

[wanha]

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.

When it comes to regulation, the EU is usually interested in the principle of things, not so much what happens in practice. It is extremely rare for the EU to think something like this thoroughly through (hello from the EU 👋)

Android has had side loading on it for years now, and all the major apps continue to remain in the official Play store. Why? Because the vast majority of users will look for their apps there and not elsewhere.

In fact, what side loading is mainly used for on Android is to pirate apps and to distribute malware of all sorts.

 

[BanjoDudeAhoy]

Android has had side loading on it for years now, and all the major apps continue to remain in the official Play store. Why? Because the vast majority of users will look for their apps there and not elsewhere.

Also, because in my experience it’s not an obvious setting you need to enable to be allowed to install third party apps.

I’m no longer sure (and can’t check) if you need to become a “developer” on an Android device to be able to do it but that’s at least the way I remember it.

 

[MilaM]

If the problem is the ubiquity of the platform, then why not focus on the OS with 70% of the market instead of the one with 30%? Why enact regulations that benefit the company that controls 70%?

It applies to both platforms equally, as it was said countless times in this thread.

Also, iOS market share understood as actively used devices, not just sales, is likely higher at around 35%. And among politicians and (EU)bureaucrats, the share is probably even higher. They are well paid and can afford to buy iPhones .

 

[Dade Murphy]

I hate how we’ve been tricked into using the word ‘sideloading’ which suggests it’s something dodgy and dangerous to do. In my day it was called ‘installing’.

First off, speak for yourself. No one tricked me into using anything, as it means exactly what it suggests, that you’re installing software from an unsupported source. Nothing dodgy about facts. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[Abazigal]

Let the piracy begin. Because, let’s face it, that why most people want this ability, so they can steal from app devs.

The EU thinks they’re winning, charlie sheen thought that as well. Welcome to the sh*tshow, LMMFAO

As far as why you can sideload on a mac but not on an iPhone? If I have to explain that to you, you probably shouldn’t be on a tech site…

The EU doesn't have to care, because they are not the ones who have to deal with the fallout. Any scams will come under the purview of law enforcement and banks, while it's Apple who takes the reputation hit if and when news of the first user to be tricked into sideloading malware from Facebook ads hits the news.

I would totally do the same thing were I in their shoes, and that doesn't stop me from recognising a farce when I see one.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Let the piracy begin. Because, let’s face it, that why most people want this ability, so they can steal from app devs.

Piracy is a separate issue tho, and an individuals responsibility. Just because people do things illegally doesn’t necessarily mean you should prevent people to use it for legal purposes.

The EU thinks they’re winning, charlie sheen thought that as well. Welcome to the sh*tshow, LMMFAO

As far as why you can sideload on a mac but not on an iPhone? If I have to explain that to you, you probably shouldn’t be on a tech site…

Well you can argue the difference, but the principle of it still is your personal computing device aren’t anymore different just because it’s market as a handheld telecommunication computer.

And EU is winning because it’s their market and their rules.

When it comes to regulation, the EU is usually interested in the principle of things, not so much what happens in practice. It is extremely rare for the EU to think something like this thoroughly through (hello from the EU 👋)

Well it seems kind of important to protect the principle of the thing, no? Like the principle of some rights are more important than the practical implications such as rights and freedoms we believe in?

Android has had side loading on it for years now, and all the major apps continue to remain in the official Play store. Why? Because the vast majority of users will look for their apps there and not elsewhere.

In fact, what side loading is mainly used for on Android is to pirate apps and to distribute malware of all sorts.

The EU doesn't have to care, because they are not the ones who have to deal with the fallout. Any scams will come under the purview of law enforcement and banks, while it's Apple who takes the reputation hit if and when news of the first user to be tricked into sideloading malware from Facebook ads hits the news.

I would totally do the same thing were I in their shoes, and that doesn't stop me from recognising a farce when I see one.

Well do you think it will impact them more than when articles pops up once in awhile about some app containing malware that was distributed through the AppStore?

 

[Abazigal]

Well do you think it will impact them more than when articles pops up once in awhile about some app containing malware that was distributed through the AppStore?

The thing is that the iOS App Store is home to far less scams than the google play store at least, and even then, those apps tend to be relegated to attempting to get users to sign up for expensive subscriptions (which can be monitored and terminated via the app store's subscription tab), plus Apple has the ability to remove them at a moment's notice.

I don't believe anyone can argue that a centrally managed App Store is any less secure than simply allowing users to download any app they want from any source.

Piracy is a separate issue tho, and an individuals responsibility. Just because people do things illegally doesn’t necessarily mean you should prevent people to use it for legal purposes.

I think what often goes unacknowledged in discussions like this are the merits of the iOS App Store. A lot of people like to complain about the 30% cut, but they don't recognise the role the app store plays in growing the overall pie for everybody. It's safe and secure for customers to purchase apps via iTunes (since developers never get our payment details), piracy is less rampant (because you can't sideload), which in turn translates to users buying more apps and more sales for the developer.

Whether Apple's approach is heavy-handed or not, one cannot deny that they have solved a lot of the issues with purchasing things online by greatly reducing the friction, and increasing the trust involved in such transactions from having Apple act as an intermediary. Things like this are rarely ever right or wrong in an absolute sense, but rather, a measure of tradeoffs. How does one decide whether the utility of being able to sideload apps for a small group of more tech-savvy users is worth more than say, the ability to prevent a larger populace of less tech-savvy users from being potentially scammed of their life savings?

Because every response I have seen so far in this (and other similar threads) basically boils down to - that is their problem, not mine. And maybe it's a fair thing to say, because that's the truth. It really isn't your problem, or mine, or anyone else but Apple's.