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

[Analog Kid]

Sure that can be the role of the government and the function of the free market, but that is why I’m trying to emphasise the distinction. Hence why as you emphasis on the consumer, and this isn’t what EU would even consider as relevant

As they view iOS and android as two completely separate and unrelated markets, and that people choose phones, not operating systems.

You say things near each other as though they somehow relate to each other. Nothing about interpreting iOS and Android as completely separate and unrelated markets comes from any of the high minded ideals you're presenting.

Well you are still seeing it as only the consumer as more important, when there many more stacks holders that are also important

you emphasis on the consumer, and this isn’t what EU would even consider as relevant

So if the citizen isn't relevant, to which parties are the EU regulations aimed?

Almost every right listed is a positive right.
Example right to healthcare, education etc is positive as it requires someone have the duty/ obligation to provide it for you.

(I'm not sure what that enormous image was you injected here is, but I don't think it's relevant)

The right to healthcare says nothing about someone having a duty to provide it.

​

Article 35​

​

Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all the Union's policies and activities.​

It only says that people can access health care according to their local laws.

I don't see any obligations imposed on the state or on individuals here, it's just a matter of phrasing. "Everyone has the right of access" is not in any significant way different from "The right of access shall not be infringed".

The distinctions you're drawing seem... specious?

EU don’t have the legal ability to violate the copyrighted IP. Government institutions have to follow the exact same laws as private companies when it comes to copyright and antitrust law.

Only the regulations and standards they write can they do that. And EU doesn’t write these things unless they don’t exist on the private market.

Tell me you at least see the problem here. If IEC regulation whatever said "every radio device must be packaged with 1kg of Swiss made chocolate at the manufacturers expense" or "every third child of families in possession of fewer than 405 Swiss Francs shall be remanded to the Soylent factory" the citizens don't have the right to view that text.

"Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium." Nothing here says "unless it's technically owned by the Swiss". The intent is for people to have access to the documents they are governed by, and they are now governed by IEC 62680-1-2:2022 but do not have the right to access it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You say things near each other as though they somehow relate to each other. Nothing about interpreting iOS and Android as completely separate and unrelated markets comes from any of the high minded ideals you're presenting.

That’s because they are coming from subconscious understanding we have. These ideas are things you learn from your cultural upbringing and isn’t consciously thought about.

So if the citizen isn't relevant, to which parties are the EU regulations aimed?

The market and the participants of it.

(I'm not sure what that enormous image was you injected here is, but I don't think it's relevant)

The picture is from where anti competitive laws can be found.

The right to healthcare says nothing about someone having a duty to provide it.

It does, as you don’t have the right to deny it or refuse to provide it.

It only says that people can access health care according to their local laws.

EU law supersedes local law. And the state have the legal obligation to protect it.

I don't see any obligations imposed on the state or on individuals here, it's just a matter of phrasing. "Everyone has the right of access" is not in any significant way different from "The right of access shall not be infringed".

The distinctions you're drawing seem... specious?

I would say it has enormous implications.
The principles set out in this Article are based on Article 152 of the EC Treaty, now replaced by Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and on Articles 11 and 13 of the European Social Charter. The second sentence of the Article takes over Article 168(1).

Tell me you at least see the problem here. If IEC regulation whatever said "every radio device must be packaged with 1kg of Swiss made chocolate at the manufacturers expense" or "every third child of families in possession of fewer than 405 Swiss Francs shall be remanded to the Soylent factory" the citizens don't have the right to view that text.

Oh yes that would be an absolute nightmare, but also not in the capacity of IEC. Just because something is an IEC standard doesn’t make it a legal requirement
Just how WiFi, Bluetooth, rj45 cables etc etc are all defined as IEEE standards by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers a private company.

standards provide the technical frameworks, metrics and specifications that regulators can reference in legislation. Standards also provide governments with technical references in public tenders, lending confidence that products meet commonly agreed rules that have been developed and accepted by industry and regulators.

They aren’t mandatory

"Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium." Nothing here says "unless it's technically owned by the Swiss". The intent is for people to have access to the documents they are governed by, and they are now governed by IEC 62680-1-2:2022 but do not have the right to access it.

Well it does because IEC,ISO,IEEE standards are referenced and not documents belonging to any EU institution.
2. The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.
3. Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to documents of the Union's institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with this paragraph.
General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents shall be determined by the European Parliament and the Council, by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.
Each institution, body, office or agency shall ensure that its proceedings are transparent and shall elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents, in accordance with the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph.
The Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank shall be subject to this paragraph only when exercising their administrative tasks.
The European Parliament and the Council shall ensure publication of the documents relating to the legislative procedures under the terms laid down by the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph.

 

[Ctrlos]

I can, however, run web apps on my iOS devices because they're web apps and I have a web browser...

Because the web is an open platform!

Regardless of platform someone chooses to use anyone can build a website, sell things through it, use it to write their thoughts on things or any number of situations and anyone can access it, subscribe to it, buy things from it or just read it. Nobody bemoans net neutrality laws except big companies. I imagine you'd have something to say if you could only access an Apple-approved list of websites via an Apple-approved device to even use the internet.

So why not an open platform for applications as well? It is likely that as bandwidth improves and unlimited data plans become cheaper every application will end up as a web-based one anyway.

 

[Jarutais]

As a developer myself I'm quite worried about piracy app stores with cracked versions of App Store apps, like the ones available for Android.

 

[Ctrlos]

As a developer myself I'm quite worried about piracy app stores with cracked versions of App Store apps, like the ones available for Android.

Piracy on Android was largely wiped out by a combination of the freemium model and no developer of premium apps bothering to release anything on Android.

 

[webkit]

That already existed. If you wanted to sell through other app stores you could. If you wanted to buy from other app stores you could. There are a lot of other app stores. If that was important to you as a user or a developer, it existed. No real competition was added.

The issue clearly was that competition in app buying/selling/access was being blocked or stifled on a notable/dominant portion of the mobile OS market by Apple restricting sideloading and alternative app stores on iOS. Antitrust laws are desinged to deal with these types of situations, and it looks like Apple will be appropriately complying in this situation.

Nope, those choices existed in the mobile OS market. This is obvious.

What's obvious is that choices being discussed here did not exist on a notable/dominant portion of the mobile OS market and that's what you seem to be continuing to miss or ignore.

 

[Jarutais]

Piracy on Android was largely wiped out by a combination of the freemium model and no developer of premium apps bothering to release anything on Android.

And the famous "app economy" goes downhill with that. There's a reason why the App Store sells more than double than the Google Play Store...

 

[Ethosik]

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.

To add to this Epic also sued Google. One of their statements were it’s too difficult to side load on Android. So I fully expect things to get far worse on Android too.

 

[Ethosik]

This is an absolutely hilarious argument to try to make. People absolutely do have sensitive info on their Mac machines - unless none of them pay taxes, do work or have any personal/professional documents on them. I mean, the stereotype is they are all lazy, are on benefits, smoke weed and listen to the Beatles and relax with their Macs after all, right?

Also, personally, as a developer: I want the freedom to choose how to package and ship my app - and Apple is the only company actively making it harder for me to do so. I don't care about their PR statements involving the "economic contributions" the App Store has made - it's a stupid argument cause on iOS what choice do you even have besides the App Store?

That statement was written purely to appease shareholders, and people sympathetic to the Orwellian-style late-stage capitalism we currently exist under, where a handful of companies dictate how we conduct ourselves using their devices and services.

I sincerely hope Google gets their act together, realizes their current strategy of monetizing user data just isn't suitable anymore, and all-ins on Android and the hardware ecosystem, so that way Apple may go the way of their predecessor: Blackberry.

No they don’t. I have a separate computer that is NOT set up for iCloud syncing for my taxes and other important items. My work computer does NOT have iCloud sync because it’s a big no no to mix personal and private data. For this very reason. And my computers are heavily scrutinized and maintained due to the fact that I download stuff from websites. I perform hash checks whenever possible on downloaded items. Why do you think that action is so popular?

Generally people don’t have all this stuff syncing. There are way way WAY more iPhones than Mac users. And most iPhone users that have Windows based PCs don’t even have anything Apple installed. Some people don’t even have computers anymore. They do all their banking on their phone and not computers. Taxes are done by third party companies for the most part so it doesn’t even touch iPhone or computers.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You’re only missing something because you don’t bother to read the posts that you respond to. How hard is it to understand that if Google Play were to open on iOS, then it would sell iOS apps.

Okey and what am I missing? Apple can also sell apps on Samsung or Google phones if they want.

Or are you afraid that iOS developers will think the play store is better and will abandon the AppStore?

 

[Jarutais]

I think the main problem is that this whole issue is being pursued by Epic, a giant developer with hundreds of millions to spend in marketing and ads while the small and independent developers rely on the App Store ecosystem alone to make their products findable. If you delude the number of people accessing the App Store or permit people to install cracked versions of freemium/premium apps a lot of those small developers are going to stand in prejudice, while Epic continues making tons of easy money.

 

[BaldiMac]

Okey and what am I missing? Apple can also sell apps on Samsung or Google phones if they want.

Or are you afraid that iOS developers will think the play store is better and will abandon the AppStore?

Congratulations! I'm glad that you finally figured out that it would be possible for Google Play to sell iOS apps on iOS!

If you want to know what else you missed, then simply go back and read the posts in our conversation.

 

[Analog Kid]

Most of the rest of your reply was largely non-answers, but this exchange stands out:

Hence why as you emphasis on the consumer, and this isn’t what EU would even consider as relevant

So if the citizen isn't relevant, to which parties are the EU regulations aimed?

The market and the participants of it.

I find it sad that you don't consider citizen consumers to be participants in the market...

 

[Samplasion]

No they don’t. I have [...]

"I don't therefore nobody does."

 

[Samplasion]

I think the main problem is that this whole issue is being pursued by Epic, a giant developer with hundreds of millions to spend in marketing and ads while the small and independent developers rely on the App Store ecosystem alone to make their products findable. If you delude the number of people accessing the App Store or permit people to install cracked versions of freemium/premium apps a lot of those small developers are going to stand in prejudice, while Epic continues making tons of easy money.

I'm loving the underlying assumption that the App Store is going to immediately crumble as soon as sideloading is available.

 

[Analog Kid]

Regardless of platform someone chooses to use anyone can build a website, sell things through it, use it to write their thoughts on things or any number of situations and anyone can access it, subscribe to it, buy things from it or just read it.

This is not true and you're selectively reading my responses. Some devices can run web apps, which is very far from your assertion that all devices can run any internet service.

I imagine you'd have something to say if you could only access an Apple-approved list of websites via an Apple-approved device to even use the internet.

Maybe, depends on what it was, and "use the internet" is a rather vague term. There are a lot of things that I use the internet for that I'm happy having managed for me.

Only Apple can update the firmware and OS on my devices through a rather sophisticated chain of trust, which I do not want changed.

I'm happy with AirTags only being able to send their data through specific internet services.

I'd prefer a hypothetical Apple car only getting its updates from and sending diagnostics to Apple's servers, and only allowing guidance data from approved sources.

I'm happy with only having Safari as a browser option on iOS (mainly because the world would become Chrome only if that changes) and I'm glad that Apple blocks certain sites Google has flagged as malicious.

So why not an open platform for applications as well? It is likely that as bandwidth improves and unlimited data plans become cheaper every application will end up as a web-based one anyway.

This was what Jobs wanted in the beginning-- nothing installable, only web apps. I don't consider this a likely outcome.

I doubt it ends our argument though-- the debate will simply shift to whether Safari can be the only host for those applications or if we'd be forced to allow Chrome on the device. What local data can Apple restrict those web apps from accessing. Etc...

This is what I mean when I say it's not about devices or competition in portals, it's about competition in the fundamental philosophies of the system.

 

[Analog Kid]

What's obvious is that choices being discussed here did not exist on a notable/dominant portion of the mobile OS market and that's what you seem to be continuing to miss or ignore.

What you're continuing to miss or ignore is that it doesn't matter if they exist on a notable portion of the installed mobile OSes. What matters is what is available in the marketplace to the vast majority of consumers. These choices do exist to the vast majority of consumers in the market, and those consumers made a choice. Apparently a minority of, but still too many, people made a choice the EU overlords disagree with and so that choice is being taken away-- tellingly, if less people liked it then it would apparently be allowed to remain.

Now we have a choice between two of the same thing with only superficial differences. The EU tech conference is becoming this:

Pay attention please... Thank you.
Is next... Android! Very nice....
Is next... iOS! Very nice...

 

[jlc1978]

What I still believe will happen is that Apple will attempt to bill developers for 27% of revenue. I can’t say for certain whether Apple will get away with this, but I am fairly certain they will try.

The idea is to still disincentivise developers from venturing beyond the App Store, since they actually end up pay more this way, not to mention the added burden of reporting and verifying their sales figures to Apple.

Apple could use such things as signing apps, license to use iOS development tools, developer accounts to generate revenue by charging al la carte rather than bundling into one fee. The costs could be a sliding scale based on revenue and with credits for sales on the App Store.

Should Apple get a cut if I sell it on another App Store?

Depends on what services from Apple a developer uses.

They maybe have a chance to recoup costs. But I think they would have a very hard time justifying a 27% fee.

I think fees will be easier to justify as there is now "competition." You don't like Apple's terms? Use one of the many alternative app stores. Not profitable enough? Your choice.

Console makers typically sell the consoles at or close to a loss. It’s an unsaid subsidizing of the console.

Which is irrelevant to what you charge for games or apps.

Let’s also also not forget apps sell iPhones and make Apple money too. Taking 30% from the very people who attract users to your system is heinous. It should be much closer to just a processing fee.

Apple provides a lot of things, beyond merely hosting, and access to a large and profitable base for a lot less than it used to cost to bring a program to market. Developers are getting a good deal for that 30% (or 15%) cut.

No, I said it should be close to a processing fee for exactly that: running the App Store. Not gouging because they can and you’ll accept it

I doubt many app stores will provide teh quantity of services and a profitable user base for much less.

What's the process for immigrating to the EU like (US -> EU) - cause man, I would love to be surrounded by like-minded people at this point. The US is so broken.

Easiest way is to marry an EU citizen.

As a developer myself I'm quite worried about piracy app stores with cracked versions of App Store apps, like the ones available for Android.

The yards are already laying the keels. Be prepared to go freemium and hear posters complain about subscriptions and how they will never use your program again.

Seriously, Android developers use premium because a pay once model simply isn't viable with piracy for most apps. Epic and Spotify will do fine, smaller developers are in for rough seas...

 

[MilaM]

These choices do exist to the vast majority of consumers in the market, and those consumers made a choice.

In my experience most smartphone users would roll their eyes reading this discussion. They don't care about how the App Store works, if it's curated or not, or who earns money when they buy items in their favorite game. iPhones are popular because of how they are perceived (luxury item, status symbol) and the way they work (hardware, software). What we are talking about here is interesting for developers, and they in fact do complain a lot about Apples rules and some about the fees. I think your argument that this law is taking choices away from consumers is very weak.

I happen to care about privacy and prefer not to own a phone from an advertising company, but even that is a rather rare motivation in my experience.

 

[MilaM]

I think fees will be easier to justify as there is now "competition." You don't like Apple's terms? Use one of the many alternative app stores. Not profitable enough? Your choice.

They will fight for the status quo for sure. But not because of the thousands of small developers. They care more about the big revenues from games and content sales/subscriptions I think.

I'm hoping for an alternative maybe more curated app store from and for indie software shops with more reasonable fees. Something like Setapp but with better integration into the OS.

 

[webkit]

What you're continuing to miss or ignore is that it doesn't matter if they exist on a notable portion of the installed mobile OSes. What matters is what is available in the marketplace to the vast majority of consumers. These choices do exist to the vast majority of consumers in the market, and those consumers made a choice. Apparently a minority of, but still too many, people made a choice the EU overlords disagree with and so that choice is being taken away-- tellingly, if less people liked it then it would apparently be allowed to remain.

Now we have a choice between two of the same thing with only superficial differences. The EU tech conference is becoming this:

Pay attention please... Thank you.
Is next... Android! Very nice....
Is next... iOS! Very nice...

It absolutely does matter as that is largely how antitrust laws are designed to work. When a company/product controls a "notable/dominate" portion of a market (e.g., mobile OS, tablet OS, etc.) and engages in "anticompetitive behavior" (e.g., restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.) antitrust laws can kick in.

Allowing sideloading and alternative app stores on iOS and iPadOS opens up competition in app buying/selling/access in the mobile OS and tablet OS markets which is what the law is designed to do here. It does that while still allowing iOS and iPadOS users to choose not to sideload and/or not use alternative app stores. It still also allows developers of iOS and iPadOS apps to use the App Store.

 

[crazytrain]

Should Apple get a cut if I sell it on another App Store?

Sorry, I don't really understand the question. If Apple have nothing to do with the other store, why would they get a cut? If it sells through Apple's store, they should get a cut. If it sells on another store, then whoever runs that should get a cut

 

[SmugMaverick]

You lost all integrity when you said that bit about Fortnite!

Where we dropping boys!!!

 

[I7guy]

Except that now Tesla wants to deny consumers their right to re-sale their own Cybertruck to someone else. Apparently it's such an awful vehicle, that management fears second-hand prices will ruin its value impression. Now the EU must tackle the next US corporation. Great! 🤨

Scalping in the US is illegal and that is what some buyers of the Cybertruck are doing.

 

[Samplasion]

Scalping in the US is illegal and that is what some buyers of the Cybertruck are doing.

It should be up to the market regulators to enforce that, not the individual companies. Especially when it could be used to kill the second-hand market