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

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Don't buy an iPhone if it doesn't satisfy you, in a free market you vote with your money, that's what competition is for? Get Android and "pay developers directly". Oh wait, almost no one is buying anything on Android and just pirates all those APKs. Google Play is two times bigger than Appstore but has one third of Appstore's revenue.

We can write and feel whatever we want, but the law is already set... Apple is going to comply with it... and if that law is amended to close loopholes... Apple will comply with the amendments.

We can feel outrage. We can detest GOV getting involved in business. We can spin "just buy Android" till we drop... but the law is set... Apple will comply... and if the compliance doesn't respect the intent of the law- which is likely the spirit of this law- amendments will be added to it and Apple will comply with those.

This goes only one way. History shows 100% of the time that the outcome is always the same.

If we doubt it this time, just stand by and watch it unfold first hand. Or read historical scenarios in which big companies had towards 100% control of the supply side of any market... and find an example- even ONE- where when GOV decided to break that lock, the corp managed to maintain its full lock anyway.

 

[bsolar]

The regulation does allow for Gatekeepers to retain some control to ensure safety but only as long as the gatekeeper can demonstrate the controlling measures are strictly necessary and proportionate.

It's obvious Apple would try to enforce the strictest controls possible just as it's obvious the regulator would not let Apple do whatever they want and would veto any unjustified control scheme.

The relevant regulation:

The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

 

[spazzcat]

I guarantee you they do not.

They get a huge margin on their service contracts and geek squad. I'd be shocked if they made 10% on hardware, I'd suspect it's closer to 5% on most of it.

You are thinking net, I am talking gross.

 

[MacBuddyz]

and then quit china, and russia, and middle east, and oh wait, did the apple stock tanked by 80%?
no, they cant quit any big market.

Paradox, but when Apple pulls out, market share in the country is increasing.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

Its standard markup in all retail.

Stop repeating this lie.

There is no standard margin in retail. Sure, some high end boutique stores may get 30%. But grocery store typical margins are 1% - 3%.

 

[gnipgnop]

Anti-steering is like telling you, the kettle maker, that you aren’t allowed to put a link to your website on the packaging of the kettle. I don’t think Costco would be thrilled with your packaging having a big sign saying “BUY THIS KETTLE CHEAPER AT OUR WEBSITE” but Apple is going far, far beyond that. If that was the rule, people wouldn’t be immediately taking Apple back to court over their implementation.

Do smartphone users need to be told that app companies have web sites or a social media presence?

 

[MacBuddyz]

We can write and feel whatever we want, but the law is already set... Apple is going to comply with it...

I'm getting strong USSR vibes.

and find an example- even ONE- where when GOV decided to break that lock, the corp managed to maintain its full lock anyway

Easy, Microsoft.

 

[spazzcat]

Stop repeating this lie.

There is no standard margin in retail. Sure, some high end boutique stores may get 30%. But grocery store typical margins are 1% - 3%.

3% gross markup wouldn't even cover their rent.

 

[MacBuddyz]

Stop repeating this lie.

There is no standard margin in retail. Sure, some high end boutique stores may get 30%. But grocery store typical margins are 1% - 3%.

So how much is EU VAT?

 

[casperes1996]

As I said direct to customer bypassing g all checks and balances should be banned by law - not enabled by law.

Why? If the product is breaking laws like privacy laws or what not feel free to go after the product. But why limit distribution mechanisms and encourage monopolies?

 

[augustrushrox]

Not sure what all the surprise is here. This was about being able to sideload. Ok here you go. Absolutely nothing says Apple can’t get paid for hosting companies products. Apple will still get its 100% deserved commission/reimbursement for its platform hosting expenses.

Except Apple wouldn't be hosting apps not on the App Store. That's kind of the entire point of allowing normal installs.

 

[mightysashiman]

So before long, users will end up having half a dozen 3rd party App Stores installed on their iPhone? Genius. Slow clap for the EU power brokers and anyone else who thought this was ever a good idea.

What is the issue with a device having several app store apps installed? How is that different to being able to buy the same product at different physical / online shops and some products rather in a shop thant another ? It's a matter of choice and competition. Pretty sure you don't buy (I hope anyway for your financial health, unless you are so dirty rich you don't give a f) all your stuff from the same shop, but rather do a little due diligence to fish out where the best price is available. You US people are all about the capitalistic dogma, but somehow end up supporting the worst it has to offer and refute its few sane core principles. It's quite mindboggling really.

 

[jvchappy]

Apple should severely limit what API's side-loaded apps can access- like ML tools or other optimizations. If the companies don't want to pay Apple, they shouldn't be able to benefit from Apple's innovation.

 

[MLVC]

So how much is EU VAT?

There is no EU VAT.

 

[generationrex]

That's how it works in any type of retail. The consumer needs to educate themselves in regards to the products they want to buy. It's like Amazon...you can't assume the price you see on Amazon is the best deal. You need to look elsewhere, either online or in physical stores in order to assess what the best price may be.

Except that's not how it works in retail. As an example, If I want to purchase a treadmill. In retail, I can shop around and look for options of where to buy. In Apple's world, I can't shop around for apps. I HAVE to buy from Apple.

And no retail store prevents the treadmill manufacturer from letting people know they can subscribe to an online exercise service, they don't take a cut of that subscription in perpetuity, or stop the manufacturer from letting me know I buy accessories from their website (even if those same accessories may be available at the store).

Yes, the consumer needs to educate themselves, but Apple's restrictions limit consumer's options and the ability of a developer to inform the customer about their options. Apple is right fully entitled to a cut of sales for what they provide. But they have taken their platform and market position as an opportunity to impose overly restrictive rules that negatively impact both developers and consumers.

 

[gnipgnop]

Pretty sure you don't buy (I hope anyway for your financial health, unless you are so dirty rich you don't give a f) all your stuff from the same shop, but rather do a little due diligence to fish out where the best price is available.

Multiple shops = desktop/laptop. Desktop/laptop = higher software prices than mobile. That's the Catch-22 in regards to what the EU is saying: there is no software platform that has lower prices than mobile.

 

[MacBuddyz]

What is the issue with a device having several app store apps installed? How is that different to being able to buy the same product at different physical / online shops and some products rather in a shop thant another ? It's a matter of choice and competition. Pretty sure you don't buy (I hope anyway for your financial health, unless you are so dirty rich you don't give a f) all your stuff from the same shop, but rather do a little due diligence to fish out where the best price is available. You US people are all about the capitalistic dogma, but somehow end up supporting the worst it has to offer and refute its few sane core principles. It's quite mindboggling really.

"Choice", "competition", "capitalistic dogma".

Does anyone here have enough testosterone to just admit he wants to be able to pirate everything like on Android.

 

[gnipgnop]

Except that's not how it works in retail. As an example, If I want to purchase a treadmill. In retail, I can shop around and look for options of where to buy. In Apple's world, I can't shop around for apps. I HAVE to buy from Apple.

Nobody has to buy from Apple. That's how Netflix/Spotify/Kindle have apps that are downloaded from the App Store but don't involve any kind of purchase inside the app. The customer pays for the subscriptions/products on the internet.

 

[SmugMaverick]

They really are a monopoly at this point, they think they can do as they please and bully everyone.

Last few years under Timmy has been horrific for lies, greed, arrogance, bullying and cheap cuts.

It still blows my mind that people defend this trillion dollar mafia like they're family when they should be questioning this greedy behaviour.

 

[MacBuddyz]

as an opportunity to impose overly restrictive rules that negatively impact both developers and consumers

I'm yet to see a real dev with actual profiting app in Appstore who wants sideloading.

 

[3530025]

"Choice", "competition", "capitalistic dogma".

Does anyone here have enough testosterone to just admit he wants to be able to pirate everything like on Android.

It's quite shortsighted to believe everyone who awaits sideloading is waiting for pirating...

There's many apps Apple denied from being in the App Store - be it proper alternative internet browsers (Firefox) or emulators or simply YouTube app with SponsorBlock integration. All completely legitimate apps, no piracy.

 

[Antoniosmalakia]

When I used to download an application for my Mac, it would open with no limitations, but now they tend not to open/need verification or just get put in the bin, and it's infuriating.

I don't need Apple to decide for me.

But on my iPhone? I don't know. I've never missed the ability to download what I want because they've always had strict control, apart from that one time I used a jailbreak.

On a device protected with "secure enclaves", I'm not sure if I'd worry about it if we were more free.

 

[robgreene]

Nope. Spotify were not expecting to advertise their promotional pricing in the App Store listing.
Apple was telling people they couldn't link or mention their own payment systems or promotional pricing in their own software. In the App itself.

Wrong again.

What Spotify is doing is actually even worse than what I originally suggested. They're asking Costco to let them "sell" BOXES of Kettles in their stores... FOR FREE. Then, when you get home and open the kettle box, there's nothing inside but a message saying "here's where you can buy our kettles for less than what you'd have to pay at Costco."

They want all the BENEFITS of App Store ecosystem product visibility, without having to pay for it.

Shady, shady, shady.

 

[k1121j]

Pretty much what the App Store is now: fees, reviews, full control.

And if you were hoping for App Store freedom, sorry, Apple will never let that happen on their platform.

Not willingly

 

[MacBuddyz]

It's quite shortsighted to believe everyone who awaits sideloading is waiting for pirating...

There's many apps Apple denied from being in the App Store - be it proper alternative internet browsers (Firefox) or emulators or simply YouTube app with SponsorBlock integration. All completely legitimate apps, no piracy.

So you want to pirate Youtube