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

[H2SO4]

You know, apps that sure as hell shouldn't exist as it is just very bad and also illegal. I'm not going to say it here for obvious reasons.

I think so.
But surely these exist for computers that we probable all have and can use?

 

[Zest28]

I think so.
But surely these exist for computers that we probable all have and can use?

An iPhone is different because many websites that you use on a computer are simply apps. And who isn't to say that some of the things from the dark web will make it's way to iOS if Apple has no control over it's apps anymore.

 

[H2SO4]

An iPhone is different because many websites that you use on a computer are simply apps. And who isn't to say that some of the things from the dark web will make it's way to iOS if Apple has no control over it's apps anymore.

Kind of agree with that.

 

[Abazigal]

Blocking all apps the company doesn’t like is not a philosophy

I will say it’s a business strategy that has worked very well for Apple, because people don’t really dislike closed ecosystems.

That’s the thing here - customers are not banging tables and demanding that Apple open up iOS and allow sideloading. It’s all governments and businesses petitioning for this in an attempt to circumvent the App Store for their own benefit.

And maybe that is another dichotomy of business. What’s good for me as a consumer may not be good for businesses like epic, Spotify or some random Dutch dating app, and vice versa.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, principles are certainly important.
And yet, a principle is only as useful as its implementation.

Implement a poorly thought out policy and you end up causing more harm than good in the name of a good principle, but this is where much of the world is these days - too idealistic and not pragmatic enough.

Implementation is hard, but that's where the real payoff lies.

Kind of depends as you might identify something as more harmful than good according to a criteria they aren’t considering at all as relevant or important.

Example in the USA you have the principle that your rights and freedoms are inalienable to you and heavily viewed as Negative rights/obligations
They are rights that require others to refrain from interfering

Positive rights/obligation are rights that require others to provide or do something for the right holder.

Because I read the DMA.

Great! My problem is with certain regulations in the DMA, not other EU regulations and legal actions.

Oh you have? So it doesn’t matter then that google have 7 services that falls under its requirements contrary

Nothing’s (not the company, lol) stopping anyone from adding a better port alongside USB-C. And if a truly better port does come around, then the EU can update its law. It’s a win overall.

Actually in the text if USB-if update the port it will change automatically. And the law have clauses of follow-up studies to se if the law is still needed.

 

[Ctrlos]

That's the thing, on Android and Mac the user has to take care of security and privacy themselves. On iOS and iPadOS, Apple already did this for you.

The point is, the free market has spoken. The iPhone is the best selling smartphone so the consumer prefers to have Apple provide us a safe and secure environment without us having to do it. Else they would be on Android.

Apple has a 30% global market share though which would indicate that more people are happy with the way Google does things? That is exactly the same way Apple does things. I mix in the circles of people who happily rip open the bootloader for their Android device and flash different ROMs all the time and I don't know anyone who has ever contracted any malware. Because I value the camera more than anything I use a Huawei Phone for a lot of the time and this has all sorts of sideloading shenanigans because they were blocked from Google. Still no issues.

Just because Apple says something will be bad doesn't mean it will be. All their decisions are motivated to maintain their bottom line like any other company. Apple don't lock things off to keep customers safe; they do it so they get their delicious cut. Malware still creeps through Apple's automated vetting processes so its not foolproof. They don't want alternate app stores because they will lose money.

Its the lightning debacle all over again. Apple maintained losing Lightning on the iPhone would be bad for consumers (whilst still equipping every other product with USB-C!) and the Apple Defence Force lept into action. Apple then released a phone with USB-C and its their best product in years.

If Android and iOS had app parity in the same way the Mac and PC do then telling someone to buy an Android device would be a legitimate suggestion. But because of pricing and availability Android has mass market share due to $300 handsets and Apple sells to more affluent buyers willing to pay up-front for apps. iOS has a much better premium app market than Android because of the higher incomes, not because of piracy risks.

People should be taking care of device security themselves because it makes them better consumers. We rely on the police to keep the streets safe but you still alarm your property and lock your doors at night.

 

[MilaM]

I will say it’s a business strategy that has worked very well for Apple, because people don’t really dislike closed ecosystems.

But how do you know that everyone who buys Apple is 100% happy with the decision. You have only two choices regarding the operating system. As a consumer I agree with 90% of Apple's decisions regarding design, hardware, software and the business model and only say with 60% of Googles design decisions. I can't influence those decisions, because well, I have no power over a gigantic corporation. I "voted with my $$$" bought Apple, and now they think everything they do 100% perfect. EU lawmakers have looked at the problem, decided that with only two operating systems there is an oligopoly that is hindering competition and tried to devise measured rules that improve the situation. I think they got it mostly right.

 

[Abazigal]

But how do you know that everyone who buys Apple is 100% happy with the decision. You have only two choices regarding the operating system. As a consumer I agree with 90% of Apple's decisions regarding design, hardware, software and the business model and only say with 60% of Googles design decisions. I can't influence those decisions, because well, I have no power over a gigantic corporation. I "voted with my $$$" bought Apple, and now they think everything they do 100% perfect. EU lawmakers have looked at the problem, decided that with only two operating systems there is an oligopoly that is hindering competition and tried to devise measured rules that improve the situation. I think they got it mostly right.

The Epic case basically confirmed my suspicions.

In 2018, Epic tried to skirt around the google play store by releasing its Fortnite game outside the play store. The non-standard way of getting Fortnite onto one's android device included a serious vulnerability that allowed any app on your device to download any type of content in the background, essentially circumventing any security measures your smartphone may have had.

Epic's first Fortnite Installer allowed hackers to download and install anything on your Android phone silently

Google has just publicly disclosed that it discovered an extremely serious vulnerability in Epic's first Fortnite installer for Android that allowed any app on your phone to download ...

www.androidcentral.com

Epic would quickly have to walk back their decision and end up releasing Fortnite in the play store. Of course, this was after Fortnite had been available in the iOS App Store for some time already, and Epic did not attempt any of these shenanigans on iOS because they were physically incapable of getting users to sideload in the first place.

In a case like this, it's hard to root for Epic, and it's difficult to see the benefit to users because there is none. Epic did this entirely to get out of paying Apple and Google their 30% cut of IAPs, at the expense of users' convenience and security. That is not how you fight your battles or attempt to garner goodwill.

The second was when Epic attempted to sue Apple, after Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store for attempting to introduce their own payment system. Back in 2020 (you can go a search), I predicted that there was no way Epic could win their legal battle against Apple, and I was right. Epic knew they were contravening App Store guidelines, and the company was likely hoping that Apple would be swayed by developer (and consumer) opinion and capitulate from the bad PR wrought by Epic’s lawsuit.

Support that ultimately never materialised. Fortnite eventually having to come to the google play store is, to me, proof that consumers don't dislike closed, sandboxed ecosystems because so few bothered attempting to sideload an app as popular as Fortnite. There is little evidence to suggest that app prices would drop by 30% even if the App Store cut went away because IAPs are priced to maximise revenue, and they incur no marginal cost of production.

Third, it's ironic that Epic is fighting to get its App Store on iPhones so they can host apps from other developers and charge them a commission.

So yeah, the lack of support for Epic leads me to believe that consumers generally prefer the concept of a closed App Store, and I believe that the iOS App Store being closed is one integral reason for the iPhone being as popular as it is today. Contrary to the whole "Android is better because it is more open" narrative being pushed out in the 2010s.

And today, where android phone users can get tricked into downloading malware via Facebook ads, I view the ability to sideload as more of a liability, not a strength.

 

[MilaM]

So yeah, the lack of support for Epic leads me to believe that consumers generally prefer the concept of a closed App Store, and I believe that the iOS App Store being closed is one integral reason for the iPhone being as popular as it is today. Contrary to the whole "Android is better because it is more open" narrative being pushed out in the 2010s.

If consumers don't like this behavior by EPIC, they should vote with their dollars and just stop buying their games. There are alternatives from other publishers who are behaving more ethically. Problem solved 😝.

I don't need Apple to make this decision for me. Besides, I think Apple's motives here are everything but selfless. It's pretty evident that In-App-Payments in games (aka loot boxes) are the biggest revenue driver on the App Store. Draw your own conclusions how that influences decisions at Apple HQ.

 

[Abazigal]

If consumers don't like this behavior by EPIC, they should vote with their dollars and just stop buying their games. There are alternatives from other publishers who are behaving more ethically. Problem solved .

I don't need Apple to make this decision for me. Besides, I think Apple's motives here are everything but selfless. It's pretty evident that In-App-Payments in games (aka loot boxes) are the biggest revenue driver on the App Store.

Oh, I don’t pretend that Apple is being altruistic here (they aren’t), but I feel that the closed nature of the iOS App Store is nevertheless to my benefit as a consumer.

I see it as having the best of both worlds. iOS is home to the best apps by virtue of Apple having aggregated the best customers in the world, and I get to enjoy them while benefiting from the protection afforded by the App Store (eg: ATT, Sign in with Apple, iTunes billing, improved managing of subscriptions, some basic level of vetting by Apple, just to name a few).

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because they can expand Google Play to iOS.

Wait? How on earth do you expect google play to expand to iOS?
Zero apps on the play store are able to run on iOS. Zero code, functions and APIs that android apps use can’t work on iOS.

In the same way an application written for the iPhone/ iPad /M3 Macbook applications can’t run or function on windows.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Who's "they"?

Yes, and no. I am a developer but I'm not swimming in money. I don't want to give Apple one hundred dollars a year for the "privilege" of installing apps on my iPhone.

That's, incidentally, why I haven't updated my iPad past iPadOS 14; I have been testing something like 4 or 5 apps at the same time and I don't have to resign them every 7 days.

I also develop open source apps that would include a donation button, rather than paid and/or paywalled apps, though I recognize that's not really sustainable.

(P.S. I still haven't learned the layout of the buttons on this site )

Hmm there’s actually an ability to purchase a spot in enterprise certificates that last a year or longer for a few dollars that you then can use to sign the application you want to test.

I can DM you more details if you want as it’s kind of off topic 😁

 

[Samplasion]

Hmm there’s actually an ability to purchase a spot in enterprise certificates that last a year or longer for a few dollars that you then can use to sign the application you want to test.

I can DM you more details if you want as it’s kind of off topic 😁

Thanks - I have settled on using AltStore to manage my apps, but I really appreciate your offer

 

[BaldiMac]

Oh you have? So it doesn’t matter then that google have 7 services that falls under its requirements contrary

It certainly doesn't matter to the point I was making.

Wait? How on earth do you expect google play to expand to iOS?
Zero apps on the play store are able to run on iOS. Zero code, functions and APIs that android apps use can’t work on iOS.

In the same way an application written for the iPhone/ iPad /M3 Macbook applications can’t run or function on windows.

Hah! I, like anyone that thinks about this for more than two seconds, would expect that if Google Play expanded to iOS, they would sell iOS apps on iOS. How is this a serious question!?!!?

 

[webkit]

The Microsoft case was totally different. Apple does not license iOS and hence the number of independent vendors of which apple is a minority player is important.

Not "totally different" as both involved operating systems and app/software access to those operating systems. Again, the fact that there were many computer makers was irrelevant then just as the fact that there are many cell phone makers is irrelevant now. The bottom line is that Apple is one of only two major players in mobile OS.

 

[webkit]

And there were two major system philosophies to choose from. Now there is one.

I don't see how that improves anything.

The improvements are that it lifts restrictions and allows for more competition. It will give iPhone users more choices in where to buy/acquire apps and iOS app developers more choices in where to market their apps. iPhone users who don't want to sideload or use alternative app stores can still stick with the App Store. iOS app developers who only want to market their apps through the App Store can stick with it as well.

 

[jlc1978]

It's hypocritical for a company to operate one open platform and then one closed one and claim opening it would be a bad thing.

Hardly. They were created in two different eras and as a result markets evolved differently.

Phones and PCs are only 2 different platforms if you've lived in Apple land your entire life and never experienced anything outside the walled garden.

They are two different but complementary systems. Phones are typically used as communication devices via calls, messages, email. Photography is another primary use, as well as some web surfing. PC's overlap in messaging, and Apple's integration of calling and iMessage is a good example of how the devices complement each other; but PCs perform far more and different tasks than phones, from office apps to photo/video/music editing, serious gaming. etc.

The Apple ecosystem is really good but it's also an insidious method of consumer lock-in.

All OS have some degree of locking as switching costs are high after you've used one for a while.

Then don't use them. I don't.
I do agree though, a lot will pull their stuff. Maybe we need to give something a chance and see what the real outcome is?

I doubt it, simply because the App Store will remain the most viable platform for many smaller developers; given its user base. Big ones like Epic, Meta, etc. can because of their user base. Depending on what side loading allows, Meta et. al. may very well be able to hoover a lot more data than they currently can; and I suspect any attempts by Apple to limit what they can get will be met with cries of "Big Bad Apple is being unfair..." by them.

The improvements are that it lifts restrictions and allows for more competition. It will give iPhone users more choices in where to buy/acquire apps and iOS app developers more choices in where to market their apps.

The question is: Will it lower the app costs for consumers? I think the answer is no.

I think smaller developers may wind up worse off as a result of the changes.

iPhone users who don't want to sideload or use alternative app stores can still stick with the App Store. iOS app developers who only want to market their apps through the App Store can stick with it as well.

Smaller developers are unlikely to find competitive app stores with Apple's user base. It doesn't matter if developers leave the App Store for another if users still primarily use Apple's. They have to go to where the customers are; Apple's App Store is pretty much entrenched in iPhone users mind.

I suspect one upshot will be a changing of fee structures to make up for lost revenue. If Apple loses a significant amount of IAP revenue, they may start charging for things like storage, downloads, etc. to make up for the loss. The could require free apps with IAPs to pay a percentage of the total revenue, regardless of purchase type, to Apple for hosting, similarly to how some game engines are licensed.

 

[I7guy]

Not "totally different" as both involved operating systems and app/software access to those operating systems. Again, the fact that there were many computer makers was irrelevant then just as the fact that there are many cell phone makers is irrelevant now. The bottom line is that Apple is one of only two major players in mobile OS.

The Microsoft case was totally different for the reasons I mentioned prior.

 

[I7guy]

You must have missed what was said. Allow me to enlighten you;
If you want a completely closed down OS you should develop one yourself.

Again, let me reiterate, why would I develop something that already exists? I’m not debating the EU threaded the needle to force apple to make certain changes to iOS.

Now, one exists at the moment which goes back to his/her comment, "if you want a completely closed down OS you should develop one yourself", as you have no control oiver what Apple does. The European Union DOES have control of what Apple does in THEIR Market unit.

Yes obviously, apple has to obey local laws. Doesn’t mean said laws are great, good, or ok.

 

[I7guy]

If consumers don't like this behavior by EPIC, they should vote with their dollars and just stop buying their games. There are alternatives from other publishers who are behaving more ethically. Problem solved 😝.

I don't need Apple to make this decision for me. Besides, I think Apple's motives here are everything but selfless. It's pretty evident that In-App-Payments in games (aka loot boxes) are the biggest revenue driver on the App Store. Draw your own conclusions how that influences decisions at Apple HQ.

I agree but there is no obligation to buy an iPhone if one has an issue with anything about the hardware or software. (Not specifically talking about you, but apple has made the decisions on behalf of their customers. That is where the if one doesn’t like apples decisions, there are alternatives comes from)

 

[webkit]

The question is: Will it lower the app costs for consumers? I think the answer is no.

That will depend on how creative app stores, developers, etc. may want to get once the more lucrative iOS market is opened up more and there is more potential competition.

I think smaller developers may wind up worse off as a result of the changes.

Smaller developers are unlikely to find competitive app stores with Apple's user base. It doesn't matter if developers leave the App Store for another if users still primarily use Apple's. They have to go to where the customers are; Apple's App Store is pretty much entrenched in iPhone users mind.

I suspect one upshot will be a changing of fee structures to make up for lost revenue. If Apple loses a significant amount of IAP revenue, they may start charging for things like storage, downloads, etc. to make up for the loss. The could require free apps with IAPs to pay a percentage of the total revenue, regardless of purchase type, to Apple for hosting, similarly to how some game engines are licensed.

Or potential new competition and consumer choices could lead to Apple keeping costs/fees more or less the same or perhaps even lowering some in order to keep developers using the App Store.

 

[I7guy]

That will depend on how creative app stores, developers, etc. may want to get once the more lucrative iOS market is opened up more and there is more potential competition.





Or potential new competition and consumer choices could lead to Apple keeping costs/fees more or less the same or perhaps even lowering some in order to keep developers using the App Store.

The world clamors for more competition via government regulation. It’s great when “competition” doesn’t have to do anything to enter a market and consume someone else’s ip.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

...btw, does anyone know the answer to this...

What if Apple were to develop a fully wireless phone. No port at all. Would that run afoul of the EU's mandate to USB-C since it would likely require a charging station?…

…AND, I've had a lot of frustration with USB on my laptop, what with some USB cables being for charging and data, and some for data only, and some for charging only. I've bought 3 times as many cable as I need because I bought cables that don't do what I need. USB C is a mess.

The "saves waste" arguement is silly. I have a hows full of lightening cables that I'll have to thow away once I buy my next iphone.

Legally they could sell a wireless charging stand that uses a lightning port to their port-less iPhone.
In the legislative it spells out explicitly that only wired devices are covered.
And they didn’t consolidate the data protocol, only the part related to charging. Do you want them to?

And the lightning port would be replaced sooner or later regardless resulting in more waste the longer it keeps lightning, better sooner than later. At least with usb-c the cables are usable if iPhones eventually removed the port.

Exactly this. The EU has just made it next to impossible for a business to even consider making a better port; not only would one have to invest a lot of money, but one would also have to go through the political process of lobbying the EU for a change. So, better to not even consider it.

Well that isn’t true in the slightest, especially with regards to how it is written and how it was updated

• 16 march 2021 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) published standard IEC 62680-1-x:2021
• On 5 September 2022, (IEC)published standard IEC 62680-1-x:2022
  • 14 October 2022, European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) adopted the standard.
• Directive (EU) 2022/2380 (usb c port)
  
  • was formally adopted on 23 November 2022 Containing standard IEC 62680-1-x:2021
• 12 April 2023 the changes was adopted
  
  • Quote: “In light of the above, points 2 and 3 of Part I of Annex Ia need to be amended in order to refer to standards EN IEC 62680-1-2:2022 and EN IEC 62680-1-3:2022 given that they represent the latest scientific and technological progress in the domain of charging interoperability (interface and communication protocol) between radio equipment and its charging devices.”

(9)

It is therefore necessary to harmonise the charging interfaces and charging communication protocols for specific categories or classes of radio equipment that are recharged by means of wired charging. It is also necessary to provide the basis for adaptation to any future scientific and technological progress or market developments, which will be continuously monitored by the Commission

13)

With respect to charging by means other than wired charging, divergent solutions could be developed in the future, which could have negative impacts on interoperability, on consumer convenience and on the environment. Whilst it is premature to impose specific requirements on such solutions at this stage, the Commission should take action towards promoting and harmonising such solutions to avoid future fragmentation of the internal market.

Article 1…

b)

the following paragraph is added: ‘4. Radio equipment falling within the categories or classes specified in Part I of Annex Ia shall be so constructed that it complies with the specifications relating to charging capabilities set out in that Annex for the relevant category or class of radio equipment. With respect to radio equipment capable of being recharged by means of wired charging, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 to amend Part I of Annex Ia in the light of scientific and technological progress or market developments in order to ensure a minimum common interoperability between radio equipment and its charging devices, as well as to improve consumer convenience, to reduce environmental waste and to avoid market fragmentation, by: (a) modifying, adding or removing categories or classes of radio equipment; (b) modifying, adding or removing technical specifications, including references and descriptions, in relation to the charging receptacle(s) and charging communication protocol(s), for each category or class of radio equipment concerned. The Commission shall continuously assess market developments, market fragmentation and technological progress with a view to identifying categories or classes of radio equipment capable of being recharged by means of wired charging for which the inclusion in Part I of Annex Ia would lead to significant consumer convenience and reduction of environmental waste. The Commission shall submit a report on the assessment referred to in the third subparagraph to the European Parliament and to the Council, for the first time by 28 December 2025 and every 5 years thereafter, and shall adopt delegated acts pursuant to the second subparagraph, point (a), accordingly.

Part I

Specifications relating to charging capabilities

1.

The requirements set out in points 2 and 3 of this Part shall apply to the following categories or classes of radio equipment: 1.1. handheld mobile phones; 1.2. tablets; 1.3. digital cameras; 1.4. headphones; 1.5. headsets; 1.6. handheld videogame consoles; 1.7. portable speakers; 1.8. e-readers; 1.9. keyboards; 1.10. mice; 1.11. portable navigation systems; 1.12. earbuds; 1.13. laptops.

2.

In so far as they are capable of being recharged by means of wired charging, the categories or classes of radio equipment referred to in point 1 of this Part shall: 2.1. be equipped with the USB Type-C receptacle, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power – Part 1-3: Common components – USB Type-C® Cable and Connector Specification”, and that receptacle shall remain accessible and operational at all times; 2.2. be capable of being charged with cables which comply with the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power – Part 1-3: Common components – USB Type-C® Cable and Connector Specification”.

3.

In so far as they are capable of being recharged by means of wired charging at voltages higher than 5 Volts, currents higher than 3 Amperes or powers higher than 15 Watts, the categories or classes of radio equipment referred to in point 1 of this Part shall: 3.1. incorporate the USB Power Delivery, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-2:2021 “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power – Part 1-2: Common components – USB Power Delivery specification”; 3.2. ensure that any additional charging protocol allows for the full functionality of the USB Power Delivery referred to in point 3.1, irrespective of the charging device used.

 

[crazytrain]

What if I sell it on another App Store?

Then that depends on the other App store's terms and conditions...

 

[AiPone12mini]

Look China where Apple listens "Winnie Pooh" and blocks users to install apps that is needed for freedom. Funny is to watch who wants Apple stay closed. My stance in sideloading is still same, if you do not like feature then do not use.

This is like a conspiracy, but i suspect Apple itself might release some infected sideload app that damages sideloading reputation then it is good to shine on news that: Look, i told everyone sideloading is dangerous, look.

Best reputable Android vendors has made so good sandboxing that even dangerous apps have hard time doing serious damage. Hardware must be very well tuned with OS then it is immune to lot of dangers.