Report: Sideloading in Europe Will Still Involve App Review and Fees

[mrochester]

Nobody is taking Apple's ownership away from them, that's overly dramatic.

There's of course limits to what you can do, but I struggle to see how Apple would argue that a law that would basically force them to bring the way they operate iOS in line with the way they operate their other major platform (the Mac) would be "draconian" or particularly "punitive."

Less profitable, sure. Unwelcome meddling from their point of view, absolutely. But draconian? Not really.

I think they’d argue that they don’t want to operate iOS like they operate macOS, and I see nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn’t Apple be able to decide to operate iOS in a different way to macOS? Why does everything need to operate like legacy operating systems? Why can’t we do things in different or new ways?

I’ve seen people argue here that Apple is preventing game streaming from being a viable business model because they don’t let game streaming service apps in the App Store. Yet here we are talking about making laws to prevent Apple’s business model for iOS.

 

[d686546s]

I think they’d argue that they don’t want to operate iOS like they operate macOS, and I see nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn’t Apple be able to decide to operate iOS in a different way to macOS? Why does everything need to operate like legacy operating systems? Why can’t we do things in different or new ways?

They can operate their platforms however they want with the applicable laws.

If a jurisdiction decides that this gives too much power to the platform provider and leads to unwanted outcomes they can take a policy decision that they don't want business models that operate a platform in the way Apple wants to operate iOS.

 

[mrochester]

If a jurisdiction decides that this gives too much power to the platform provider and leads to unwanted outcomes they can take a policy decision that they don't want business models that operate a platform in the way Apple wants to operate iOS.

So we take away control from consumers and give it to regulators, who aren’t operating in the consumers best interests.

 

[flashy-cat]

Fortunately you're not in the majority https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/30/britons-brexit-bad-uk-poll-eu-finances-nhs

Brexit was and is complete failure for multitude of reasons.

Fortunately we left whether you like it or not 👍

 

[bsolar]

So we take away control from consumers and give it to regulators, who aren’t operating in the consumers best interests.

That's a matter of opinion. In my opinion they do.

 

[ric22]

‘Sideloading’ just means to be able to install apps from different sources. I don't think it means anything about what apps are approved to be installed or how much commission/fees Apple charges as the platform owner.

I think you're also missing the intent of the law if you think sideloading still involves following the app store's policies and fees.

 

[makitango]

I think they’d argue that they don’t want to operate iOS like they operate macOS, and I see nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn’t Apple be able to decide to operate iOS in a different way to macOS? Why does everything need to operate like legacy operating systems? Why can’t we do things in different or new ways?

I’ve seen people argue here that Apple is preventing game streaming from being a viable business model because they don’t let game streaming service apps in the App Store. Yet here we are talking about making laws to prevent Apple’s business model for iOS.

They can do whatever they want, just not on the property of others whose rights are ensured by the country or region where they reside and Apple agreed to uphold when they registered there.

So we take away control from consumers and give it to regulators, who aren’t operating in the consumers best interests.

Proof? There is not a single news outlet (not even the ones owned by gatekeepers) making headlines of people being against the move.

Fortunately we left whether you like it or not 👍

Or unfortunately. According to polls done on citizens, the latter.

 

[ric22]

If the purpose of the law is different to what the law says, the law needs changing. Apple shouldn’t be doing anything beyond what the law requires them to do.

Many laws could be better written. When a law is deliberately evaded on grounds of ambiguous wording the wording will change, or they'll just point out that the "spirit of the law" was obviously evaded.

 

[d686546s]

So we take away control from consumers and give it to regulators, who aren’t operating in the consumers best interests.

Not really.

First, consumers still have the same choice as now to only buy apps and services sold on the App Store, even if "sideloading" -- or installing as we used to call it before we had to invent a new term to somehow make it seem like a dangerous and nefarious activity -- becomes a thing.

Second, I don't know why so many people struggle so much with the idea of legislation and regulation in the digital space. No company is free to sell and no consumer is free to buy products that don't comply with the laws, rules and regulations set by elected representatives and government officials. Where is all this pearl clutching coming from?

Third, what's in the consumer's "best interest" is a whole other topic of discussion that on MR magically always aligns with what is the most profitable for Apple. That being said, Apple's model certainly has benefits for consumers, but it also removes choice, prevents them from accessing certain services and, in some cases, may lock them in.

There's also wider considerations that will have an impact on consumers that aren't immediately measurable and obvious, such as the competitiveness of their jurisdiction or whether two dominant platforms could prevent the emergence of a local alternative from which they could benefit, either directly through lower prices or because it makes something available to them that Apple doesn't offer in their country. Consumers are also just people who may want to start a business that currently can't compete with Apple.

This is all well covered ground and I suspect we will approach this topic very differently. That's fine.

 

[makitango]

I think you're also missing the intent of the law if you think sideloading still involves following the app store's policies and fees.

I also think that knowingly defying the intent of the law is encompassed somewhere along the lines and subject to legal action.
I really need to get my popcorn ready for 7 March.

 

[makitango]

Not really.

First, consumers still have the same choice as now to only buy apps and services sold on the App Store, even if "sideloading" -- or installing as we used to call it before we had to invent a new term to somehow make it seem like a dangerous and nefarious activity -- becomes a thing.

Second, I don't know why so many people struggle so much with the idea of legislation and regulation in the digital space. No company is free to sell and no consumer is free to buy products that don't comply with the laws, rules and regulations set by elected representatives and government officials. Where is all this pearl clutching coming from?

Third, what's in the consumer's "best interest" is a whole other topic of discussion that on MR magically always aligns with what is the most profitable for Apple. That being said, Apple's model certainly has benefits for consumers, but it also removes choice, prevents them from accessing certain services and, in some cases, may lock them in.

There's also wider considerations that will have an impact on consumers that aren't immediately measurable and obvious, such as the competitiveness of their jurisdiction or whether two dominant platforms could prevent the emergence of a local alternative from which they could benefit, either directly through lower prices or because it makes something available to them that Apple doesn't offer in their country. Consumers are also just people who may want to start a business that currently can't compete with Apple.

This is all well covered ground and I suspect we will approach this topic very differently. That's fine.

There's also no check here as to who the users backing Apple are, or to make sure they are not affiliated, or owning stocks. If they are owning stocks, then there's already self-financial bias involved. If they're employed by Apple to influence social media platforms, it's their job. I wouldn't even rule out Phil Schiller lurking out here, I think his "Apple can't innovate anymore my a$$" comment is a direct sway to MR forums at the time.

 

[ric22]

I think they’d argue that they don’t want to operate iOS like they operate macOS, and I see nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn’t Apple be able to decide to operate iOS in a different way to macOS? Why does everything need to operate like legacy operating systems? Why can’t we do things in different or new ways?

I’ve seen people argue here that Apple is preventing game streaming from being a viable business model because they don’t let game streaming service apps in the App Store. Yet here we are talking about making laws to prevent Apple’s business model for iOS.

They became one of the two gatekeepers, along with Google. We can't let the two of them hold an untouchable duopoly over the world, however much we like their products.

 

[ric22]

Fortunately we left whether you like it or not 👍

Fortunately? Even the Brits that voted to leave seem to realise it was a mistake, looking at polls. It would be reversed by a wide majority too, if the public had their say again. I'm not offering my opinion either way, just the reaction of the public.

 

[MilaM]

It's about defending the concept of free market, not about defending the corporation.

There are no truly free markets. Look at how Apple and other corporations can hinder competition with various intellectual property rights. Once we abolish copyright, patents, trademarks, and similar artificial rights for corporations, then we can start discussing free markets.

There needs to be a balance between corporations and consumers. And this is what this law is about.

 

[makitango]

Fortunately? Even the Brits that voted to leave seem to realise it was a mistake, looking at polls. It would be reversed by a wide majority too, if the public had their say again. I'm not offering my opinion either way, just the reaction of the public.

Yeah, it's like breaking up the US. Some people saw benefits but none of the disadvantages which also were not exactly advertised or educated in the same fashion.

 

[vipergts2207]

Advertising only works and is profitable when people see the add .

Pretty sure I’ve never once bought something because of a YouTube sponsorship and I don’t see that changing. Advertising only works if you’re interested in being sold something.

 

[vipergts2207]

I don't consider Apple sacred in any way. But I will defend that business has the right to choose its margin. There are laws that dictate what isn't a legal lending rate (therefore limiting margin). No one supporting the free market wants to have government decide, what is and inst reasonable margin. The business will pay the consequences if others choose to deliver services at a lower marking and their customers flee.

Apple isn’t just setting their margins. They’re acting as a player and a referee by taking a 30% cut from direct competitors. As for the rest of it, most people don’t subscribe to your libertarian fantasy that would end with a decimated environment and a handful of corporations owning everything.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Except Apple doesn’t host anything and the EU will fine it to no end on worldwide revenue until it complies. Apple can flex all it wants but in the end it is just a company and can’t ignore the Law.

Apple Developer Program - Apple Developer

Join the Apple Developer Program to reach customers around the world on the App Store for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV, Apple Vision Pro, and Apple Watch.

developer.apple.com

Distribute apps worldwide.​

The App Store makes it easy for users in 175 regions to discover and download your apps, games, and extensions across Apple platforms. Apple handles worldwide payment processing, offers unlimited hosting and bandwidth — even for free apps, verifies user accounts, and much more to empower you to scale your app distribution. With Apple Business Manager and Apple School Manager, you can offer your app in volume or custom apps only to organizations you specify. You can even choose to distribute your Mac apps outside the Mac App Store using your Developer ID certificate and Apple’s notarization process, which reassures users that you're a trusted developer.

 

[vipergts2207]

It is a company’s choice to price. The fact that the console makers decided to dump the product into the market does no more justify their 30% than anything else. It may be a good sound bite but it is irrelevant. You are basically saying that if Apple had dumped the iPhone into the market in 2007 with the aim to “make it up” somewhere else (wireless fees, partnerships, eventual App Store fees, whatever) then there would be no room to complain about the App Store fees. That is BS. Apple sold at a premium as they knew what they had. And they did it at a time they were nit really strong enough to pull it off either.

I’m sure I’m not the only person who wouldn’t take issue with Apple’s business model if they sold their hardware at a loss and made it up through the App Store. Reasonable people know companies have to make money somehow. What they don’t like is feeling fleeced or seeing a company act in nefarious ways. I’d love to pay two thirds the price for an iPhone.

 

[vipergts2207]

You deliberately twisted what I said, and you know it.

HarmonyOS is “largely irrelevant” - your words - in parts of the world. Similarly, iOS is “largely irrelevant” in parts of the world.

This all boils down to the fact that you don’t want to consider HarmonyOS a “relevant” option. Hate to break it to you, but China accounts for nearly 20% of the global population. If something is relevant in China, it has an impact. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend all you want.

Different markets exist. Harmony OS is non-existent in the EU where this law applies. Understandably, the EU isn’t going to regulate their market based on what’s happening in China.

 

[vipergts2207]

Regulators can’t just do whatever they like. They can try and tighten laws up or make them more draconian but that can be legally challenged, especially if the laws are particularly punitive. Apple owns iOS, laws can’t just be created and enacted to take that ownership and control away from them.

Stop with the hyperbole, nobody is taking their ownership away. Just because you own something doesn’t mean you can do anything you want with it.

 

[vipergts2207]

I think they’d argue that they don’t want to operate iOS like they operate macOS, and I see nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn’t Apple be able to decide to operate iOS in a different way to macOS? Why does everything need to operate like legacy operating systems? Why can’t we do things in different or new ways?

I’ve seen people argue here that Apple is preventing game streaming from being a viable business model because they don’t let game streaming service apps in the App Store. Yet here we are talking about making laws to prevent Apple’s business model for iOS.

Because the EU has not only the right, but the responsibility to regulate their market. The EU sees what Apple (and others) is doing as having a negative impact on their market.

 

[sehns]

And app reviews will cost $500 each and take 6 months and usually be rejected 😂

 

[Motawa]

I'm not ruling out that Apple is in here.

So people or companies violating the law impresses you and makes them earn your respect?

They also have a choice and wait and get an iOS that follows the law which allows them to exercise their right of owning and controlling what's on their device.

They don't have to. It's part of the free market for them to choose how much, or if anything, they want to give back to the customer.
Apple could request 31-100% on the App Store and I wouldn't care because competition will settle in.

The US is not the only nation in the world.

My grandma clicks "no" because she lets the popup be read to her, and she clicks no on everything she sees including legitimate interest, much to my surprise.
She's not fluent in tech things but she understands a simple context like having a choice. She thinks that her phone number will be sold on the internet which is quite similar to what's actually happening.

The contract also needs to follow domestic law. If it doesn't, that passage is void.

As seen by the developer fee through each year, it is evident that this is not the case. Developing was free before the $99 yearly sub.

Join or die is not how things work in a democracy, not even in capitalism.

Others want it and have the right to it. It is bypassed by the user, not by a random program.

If the contract says that I void all my human rights, does that go into effect? No, it doesn't because any part of the contract is void if it's not legal where I live and where they sold it with a part number registered to that economic region.

If this is about the App Store and not iOS itself, then the law supports your point. Otherwise, it doesn't.

This is about democracy. It means that if the number of voices from the population are higher than the ones from the company, the company is overruled in their argument that it is for the benefit of the user.

Or maybe they aren't and just the platform needs an adjustment. That's why there are politics. No one needs anyone to leave their country to make it better for everyone.

This. And it's also more like an Apple Store being in a city and selling Apple stuff and third party things and other stores selling them, too, and other goods. Those other goods' acquisition prices were decided by the seller, not the shop who bought them, and also not by Apple because they didn't make that third-party product.

They had this lawsuit in the US and have since removed the infringing feature on currently sold watches. If you look into the case you'll see that Apple did some pretty nasty things which partially amount to industry espionage, and it's very clear why the judge ruled against Apple here.

We don't and won't and also we won't need that because terminal access would allow us to disable security itself. This is not what sideloading and a free market is about.

The EU got the hammer.

Also, @ender78, you are generating a post for each quote and post dozen responses within a few minutes, which lowers visibility of actually different opinions here. It would be nice if you could stop that.

holy **** bro you need to get a job lmao

 

[transmaster]

The one issue above everything else that bothers me is the punitive get the "yanks" nature of all of this. Spotify is an example. Based in Sweden its subscription base as of Q3 2023 was 226 million premium subscribers worldwide. Apple Music has somewhere between 88, and 100 million subscribers. Yet it is Spotify that is the aggrieved party wanting to use Apple's App platform for little or no cost. I have had people in Sweden ban me for mentioning I had Apple Music like I was cavorting with the devil. The side loading is side issue if I am paying for it via Apple Pay I still have complete control of the subscription. It is control of the subscription monies that is the issue for me.