It's disingenuous to think the current system is the kind of sideloading people need. True sideloading would allow me, them and other developers to have their apps on their phones for an unspecified amount of time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leaked EU Document Could Spell Major Changes for App Store, Messages, FaceTime, Browsers, and Siri
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can. Just pay for the Developer enrollment. It's your phone, but Apple's software. And the Developer enrollment pays for 1 year of unlocking the developer permissions to using their software libraries.
I have all sorts of apps on my phone that can't go in the App store (mostly emulators, open source stuff from GitHub, broken prototype apps, and stupid unfinished games, etc.)
Why should I pay Apple 99€/year just to be able to sideload apps for a year? The dev program isn’t even intended for sideloading. It’s just an entry fee to the app store
Yes, and the fact that they lock you into their walled garden is what started this draft.
Being locked in a walled garden is what a lot of people want. Many people have lived with the windows and android way of doing things for a long time and want something better than what they are able to offer. These regulations force apple to operate the same way as android. It’s a net loss of choice for consumers.
These regulations satisfy business interests at the expense of consumer interests. I suspect the long term outcome will be good for businesses and bad for consumers. I suspect we will see increased fraud, decreased privacy, higher costs and generally a worse consumer user experience.
Last edited:
If anything, it's more choice. You can choose to stay in the garden, or you can exit it and use other stores, sideload apps etc.
Consumer interests are satisfied. I don't see how being able to use another browser engine or app store would be detrimental. Indeed, if you think so, you're free to keep using Safari and the App Store. Also, how can those regulations increase fraud and decrease privacy? If all it takes for iOS to become not secure, it must mean it wasn't very secure in the first place.
You can’t choose to stay in the garden. The presence of other stores or the ability to sideload eliminates the walled garden.
Once these regulations are in force, no one will be able to choose an iPhone that works as it currently does. That choice will have been regulated away.
But then this is why I think consumers will end up being worse off long term. We just can’t be allowed to have nice things, but it was good while it lasted.
The ability to sideload is technically already present, it's just artificially limited by Apple. App stores are opt-in (I don't see Android phones coming bundled with aptoide). I'm sure the walled garden will be fine.
Also I don't know how many people you say choose iPhone *because* of the walled garden but it's a very small percentage considering the number of iPhones sold
Where do you get that statistic from?
I suspect once consumers see the outcome of these regulations they'll be demanding they be revoked.
I don't need a statistic to figure out most people aren't aware of the walled garden
Nor do I need a statistic to figure out that most people are aware of the walled garden. So unless either of us come up with some actual figures, we are at loggerheads with our opinions.
Fair enough
Most people won't notice anything changed. I think most "noise" will come from customers in the US who demand that a regulation in the EU be reverted
If most people won't notice anything changed, the regulations failed and should be revoked.
If you have regulations that are designed to fundamentally change the relationship between consumers, Apple and developers but consumers don't notice any change, the regulations have failed to do what they set out to do. And if you believe that now, why do you support these regulations?
That's in direct contrast with your previous statement that customers will demand for the regulation to be revoked. So, if changing the system radically is a failure, and keeping it as-is but compliant with the regulations is a failure, how can it succeed?
Beside, the success of regulations such as these isn't measured by how many people notice a change.
My assumption is consumers will notice a difference for the worse, which indicates the regulations have failed.
Your assumption is consumers will not notice a difference, which indicates the regulations have failed.
The scenario we are missing is consumers notice a difference for the better, but neither you or I are advocating that.
So the upshot is we all seem to be in agreement that consumers won't notice anything better, won't notice anything at all, or may notice something worse. And you are supporting that why???
I didn't say all consumers won't notice. I'm saying many people who aren't tech-savvy won't notice. If you know how to sideload, know how to install appstores etc. then you don't fall into that category. If you're reading my messages as "this regulation must not be approved" then you are mistaken
But those consumers don't have iOS devices because they've bought android for those features. This is the whole point, trying to enforce the android model onto iOS that iOS users have already rejected!
Source?
Those consumers probably have everything else in the Apple ecosystem, why should they buy Android? Knowing how to do something (in this case sideloading) doesn't preclude not doing it.
If side loading is important to a consumer, they will have bought android. If side loading is not important to a consumer, they will have bought iOS or android. Therefore it is safe to assume that iOS users do not find side loading an important consideration. The consumer market has therefore decided that they want both the android and iOS model. These regulations get rid of the iOS model meaning a consumer can no longer choose that model.
Who buys a phone solely based on the ability to sideload? Or, who buys a phone based on the lack of ability to sideload?
There are many iOS users who would be more than happy to sideload and have iOS. For example: developers.
"But they have the dev certificate!" Not everyone does, so why do they have to be left out?
There is no "iOS model." That's just "installing apps from the preinstalled app store and nothing else." You can do that on Android as well, is it safe to say those who want the "iOS model" should move to Android?
The ability to side load is but one of many considerations when purchasing a smartphone. If it is not an important enough consideration for you to pick android, it seems a bit churlish to demand that iOS support that feature without consulting with all of the existing iOS users as to whether they want that or not. Like I said, it's the 'to hell with what anyone else wants, as long as I get what I want' mentality.
Typical American/Trumpian individualism that is so pervasive these days.
I could say the same thing about keeping iOS closed at all costs.
It's the "I demand that iOS be closed at all costs because the remote thought of someone using a different browser engine or app store makes me lose sleep at night" mentality that those who oppose these regulations display. As I said, you can still be in the walled garden while others don't, so I don't see why everyone must be limited this way.
Bold of you to assume I'm either American or Trumpian
Last edited:
There's nothing churlish about keeping iOS as it is. That is the status quo. Consumers are very satisfied with that.
Your demand for changes because YOU want them, without consideration for what people who have already bought those devices want, is the imposition of your view on others.
YOU have already been able to choose between a platform that does allow sideloading and a one that doesn't. You are now advocating to take that choice away from consumers. It's like being grateful to be able to choose to have an abortion but then supporting the decision to remove that choice from others. It's nothing but hypocrisy. Let people make their own choice, don't impose your will on others.
Don't worry yourself, I'm not losing any sleep over this. But it is disappointing to see action taken that will harm consumers. Nothing about these regulations suggests to me consumers will see any benefit; the main beneficiaries are developers.
Last edited:
The fact something is the status quo doesn't make it ok.
Let's look at the same issue from another point of view.
All browsers on iOS must use the Webkit rendering engine, making them effectively just reskins of Safari. Now, Apple doesn't allow different engines on the App Store. I don't have a choice. An action must be taken. But two solutions exist, namely sideloading and alternative app stores. It's you who wants to take the choice away from me.
And it's not just browsers. It's that every app on my device must follow some strange set of arbitrary rules imposed by Apple. These regulations will satisfy consumers.
I'm not taking any choice away from you. You bought an iOS device KNOWING you could not use another browser engine. No change has been made to iOS to prevent you using it today the same way you did 2,3,4 years ago.
You are advocating for ADDITIONAL choice because that's what you want, but for you to get ADDITIONAL choice you have to take away a choice from another set of consumers.
This is why you and these regulations are facing a backlash because you are imposing your will on others.
Like I said, the outcome will be worse for consumers.
By advocating for these regulations to be revoked you are.
You can say that about me but what about everyone else? And does it make my argument invalid? Don't think so.
If your choice is the walled garden then I told you multiple times that nothing will change for you. If your "choice" is the lack of choice for other people then I don't know what to say other than too bad.