Sideloading Bill Would Allow 'Malware, Scams and Data-Exploitation to Proliferate,' Says Apple

[JM]

I already have to spend enough time helping my family with their tech devices. I can’t imagine what would happen if this closed system opened up.

Yeah can your imagine a scammy advertisement on the web to “download this easy retirement financial planner app!”, and then you have to explain to grandpa why his bank account is drained because he gave all his account info to an app he downloaded from some place other than the AppStore?

(Assuming, here, that the AppStore would catch and wouldn’t allow a scam app like that.)

 

[FHoff]

I hope if this goes through Apple denies all warranty when things go badly.

 

[JM]

Many would agree with you as well but the thing is Apple is not being entirely honest with it's customer base as to the reasons why they are pushing the 'threat to security' angle so strongly. You do realise that if sideloading gets the go ahead Apple stands to lose billions of $$$ in app store revenue because all the apps that have in-app purchases have no choice but to use apples payment system which is where apple get's it 15% and 30% commission from, would be able to move to a sideloading server that does not ask for commission on in-app purchases, just a yearly hosting fee meaning the app developer would get 100% of the in-app purchase fee.

This therefore is a massive incentive for Apple not to allow sideloading and thus put the fear into people that their devices security would be at huge risk.

It can be both things at the same time: losing revenue, and a threat to people’s digital well-being for a variety of things.

 

[gregmancuso]

Doesn't matter. Apple is still under the scrutiny of FTC. Apple is clearly abusing excessive control to disrupt how consumers use their device, tying Safari browser updates with OS updates, forcing 3rd party browsers to use Apple WebKit engine instead of their own (major antitrust violation), etc. They've been busted before for eBook collusion that harms consumers.

Yes Apple is under FTC oversight as are all companies.

But your points don't stand up to that scrutiny:

1. "Apple is clearly abusing excessive control to disrupt how consumers use their device..." How so? Mandating a single install vector that is currently pretty well locked down? Opening other install vectors WILL result in additional attack vectors. It is the same argument against a "government only backdoor" to encryption. There is no door that will only have one key. And neither side loading nor alternate app stores would eliminate the right for Apple to charge platform fees or restrict APIs and services to only App Store apps.
2. "...tying Safari browser updates with OS updates..." This has already been identified as an issue and is being changed.
3. "...forcing 3rd party browsers to use Apple WebKit engine instead of their own (major antitrust violation)..." First, how is this a major antitrust violation? This has been the case since day one of iOS. There are no restrictions to browser companies to make and market a browser on iOS. They are limited to using the WebKit rendering engine and for good reason. Some of the competing engines may be quicker. But those competing engines also allow a lot more local control than Apple allows. There are good reasons to arbitrary code execution within a browser. Would you expect OS.js to be allowed, for example?

 

[vipergts2207]

I hope if this goes through Apple denies all warranty when things go badly.

I mean that's already how warranties work so..

 

[icanhazmac]

Still no one offering an argument on how alt-stores and alt-payment systems are pro-consumer experience.

Right now I have, and highly value, one stop shopping for apps, payments, subscriptions and customer service.

Alt-stores will fragment the marketplace as store operators vie for exclusive content. So no more one stop shopping, no more single point to restore your purchases from when you get a new phone or need to reset. Oooops, when I bought "angry birds" it was on the Apple App store, now its not, where is it? Over at Epic, crap I hate Epic.

Example: I just got a new M1 MBP, had to visit adobe, realvnc, malwarebytes and steam. Thankfully the other apps I use are in the MacOS store but what a drag visiting all the other places! I would really prefer that all apps for the Mac had a presence in the Mac app store but I certainly won't ask for that to be legislated into existence.

As listed in my Post #126 alt-stores bring alt-payment processors, I value and trust the Apple payment system far more than I trust the random, no-name processors that I find being used at MacOS devs or Windows devs. Again a negative customer experience when your apps devs payment processors get hacked.

How does the consumer benefit when alt-stores remove the requirement to show what data you are collecting in a way that can be understood by the general public? My guess is individual devs or alt-stores will quickly remove the scorecards that Apple requires.

How does the consumer benefit from the legislated destruction of the ONLY marketplace like this? Some of us bought into this ecosystem on purpose and want it to stay this way. If you want hardware freedom there is a place for you... android.

 

[I7guy]

It’s means it’s not a good defense to say we need to have the apps tore locked down to ensure security and safety,

This is the very definition of "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

while the evidence show we don’t have ether and can likely expect the same situation if side loading is allowed.

The evidence shows that it is impossible to keep malware out of the app store 100%. But it's a reasoned and educated guess that allowing apps in via a side-door will only increase the problem.

The biggest reason is likely solely a revenue reason with respect to their internal mails showing i dire state with rampant fraudulent applications sloping through undetected with users blindly trusting everything on the store.

I'll focus on the word "likely" as these are all opinions anyway.

 

[I7guy]

Still no one offering an argument on how alt-stores and alt-payment systems are pro-consumer experience.

Right now I have, and highly value, one stop shopping for apps, payments, subscriptions and customer service.

Alt-stores will fragment the marketplace as store operators vie for exclusive content. So no more one stop shopping, no more single point to restore your purchases from when you get a new phone or need to reset. Oooops, when I bought "angry birds" it was on the Apple App store, now its not, where is it? Over at Epic, crap I hate Epic.

As listed in my Post #126 alt-stores bring alt-payment processors, I value and trust the Apple payment system far more than I trust the random, no-name processors that I find being used at MacOS devs or Windows devs. Again a negative customer experience when your apps devs payment processors get hacked.

How does the consumer benefit from the legislated destruction of the ONLY marketplace like this? Some of us bought into this ecosystem on purpose and want it to stay this way. If you want hardware freedom there is a place for you... android.

How does the consumer benefit when alt-stores remove the requirement to show what data you are collecting in a way that can be understood by the general public? My guess is individual devs or alt-stores will quickly remove the scorecards that Apple requires.

The consumer will not benefit. Alt-stores, imo, will contribute to a race to the bottom. A few MR posters will be appeased that 1) they can side-load and 2) the government has shut-down some supposed anti-trust aspect of the app stores operation.

Much of the criticism leveled at the app store today will be multiplied with the introduction of alt-stores.

 

[I7guy]

Many would agree with you as well but the thing is Apple is not being entirely honest with it's customer base as to the reasons why they are pushing the 'threat to security' angle so strongly. You do realise that if sideloading gets the go ahead Apple stands to lose billions of $$$ in app store revenue because all the apps that have in-app purchases have no choice but to use apples payment system which is where apple get's it 15% and 30% commission from, would be able to move to a sideloading server that does not ask for commission on in-app purchases, just a yearly hosting fee meaning the app developer would get 100% of the in-app purchase fee.

This therefore is a massive incentive for Apple not to allow sideloading and thus put the fear into people that their devices security would be at huge risk.

There is also massive incentive for Apple to be on the right side of their position of security on this. That they could be right and the experience of the app store could be totally degraded.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Doesn't matter. Apple is still under the scrutiny of FTC. Apple is clearly abusing excessive control to disrupt how consumers use their device, tying Safari browser updates with OS updates, forcing 3rd party browsers to use Apple WebKit engine instead of their own (major antitrust violation), etc. They've been busted before for eBook collusion that harms consumers.

In regard to WebKit exclusivity, I think Apple has a very strong case for integrating it into the OS and banning other engines. Safari on iPhone not only predates the App Store- it was actually touted as one of the iPhone’s unique selling points (an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator)!

 

[laptech]

Still no one offering an argument on how alt-stores and alt-payment systems are pro-consumer experience.

Right now I have, and highly value, one stop shopping for apps, payments, subscriptions and customer service.

Alt-stores will fragment the marketplace as store operators vie for exclusive content. So no more one stop shopping, no more single point to restore your purchases from when you get a new phone or need to reset. Oooops, when I bought "angry birds" it was on the Apple App store, now its not, where is it? Over at Epic, crap I hate Epic.

Example: I just got a new M1 MBP, had to visit adobe, realvnc, malwarebytes and steam. Thankfully the other apps I use are in the MacOS store but what a drag visiting all the other places!

As listed in my Post #126 alt-stores bring alt-payment processors, I value and trust the Apple payment system far more than I trust the random, no-name processors that I find being used at MacOS devs or Windows devs. Again a negative customer experience when your apps devs payment processors get hacked.

How does the consumer benefit when alt-stores remove the requirement to show what data you are collecting in a way that can be understood by the general public? My guess is individual devs or alt-stores will quickly remove the scorecards that Apple requires.

How does the consumer benefit from the legislated destruction of the ONLY marketplace like this? Some of us bought into this ecosystem on purpose and want it to stay this way. If you want hardware freedom there is a place for you... android.

Whether it would work like this or not but one of the biggest pro-consumer points for having alt-stores for sideloading is that the store could promote a specific type of app thus an alt-store could be more exclusive to a specific type of app or groups of apps. At the moment everything is lumped into one store and all I have to go on when searching through pages of apps is the reviews of the app. An alt-store that is app specific could have review articles written about the latest app or an app that is considered popular and could download the app there and then instead of having to go to the apple app store, sign in, find the app and then install it, too much hassle in my opinion. I just want to read about certain apps, for example science apps or engineering apps, read review articles about an app, check out user reviews and then click install, no searching involved, no having to sign in to apple account, easy peasy

Basically how I want alt-stores to be is how ZDNET do their downloads site. They review the program, give it a ZDNET rating and provide a download link either from the program makers offical site or from ZDNET's own server, easy peasy

 

[boss.king]

Still no one offering an argument on how alt-stores and alt-payment systems are pro-consumer experience.

Right now I have, and highly value, one stop shopping for apps, payments, subscriptions and customer service.

Alt-stores will fragment the marketplace as store operators vie for exclusive content. So no more one stop shopping, no more single point to restore your purchases from when you get a new phone or need to reset. Oooops, when I bought "angry birds" it was on the Apple App store, now its not, where is it? Over at Epic, crap I hate Epic.

Example: I just got a new M1 MBP, had to visit adobe, realvnc, malwarebytes and steam. Thankfully the other apps I use are in the MacOS store but what a drag visiting all the other places! I would really prefer that all apps for the Mac had a presence in the Mac app store but I certainly won't ask for that to be legislated into existence.

As listed in my Post #126 alt-stores bring alt-payment processors, I value and trust the Apple payment system far more than I trust the random, no-name processors that I find being used at MacOS devs or Windows devs. Again a negative customer experience when your apps devs payment processors get hacked.

How does the consumer benefit when alt-stores remove the requirement to show what data you are collecting in a way that can be understood by the general public? My guess is individual devs or alt-stores will quickly remove the scorecards that Apple requires.

How does the consumer benefit from the legislated destruction of the ONLY marketplace like this? Some of us bought into this ecosystem on purpose and want it to stay this way. If you want hardware freedom there is a place for you... android.

You've really committed to that slippery slope. Nothing about this bill would lead to the destruction of the app store. You wouldn't even be forced to shop elsewhere (because I promise that almost no rational dev would pull their app from the store completely).

What you'd get is the option to access things that previously were simply not an option, e.g. game streaming apps.

As a consumer, you benefit from more choice and more competition (and before you even try to say it, no, more choice isn't somehow less choice).

 

[alex2792]

Anyone who thinks that Apple will be able to maintain their App Store monopoly for much longer must be living in some alternate reality. They’re being sued or subjected to antitrust investigation on petty much weekly basis nowadays. Time to wake up and smell the coffee instead of the koolaid.

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

This being Apple they will likely find a way to charge customers $10 to open up sideloading on their iPhones. This would stop malware in its tracks but allow those of us who want to do it the option.

 

[I7guy]

Anyone who thinks that Apple will be able to maintain their App Store monopoly for much longer must be living in some alternate reality. They’re being sued or subjected to antitrust investigation on petty much weekly basis nowadays. Time to wake up and smell the coffee instead of the koolaid.

Apple is going to go down fighting as much as they can.

 

[alex2792]

Apple is going to go down fighting as much as they can.

At this point they may as well flush money down the toilet since their team of highly overpaid lawyers won’t save them.

 

[gregmancuso]

The strongest (legal) argument against Apple's App Store monopoly is that it's anti-competitive. Developers have no choice over how to distribute their apps, and Apple's (up to) 30% cut is probably much higher than it would be in a competitive market.

Not arguing the merits of the percentage but let's think about your point for a minute. Also, I have yet to see any legal reasoning that Apple can be a monopoly of itself. And being the sole gatekeeper of software installs does not rise to the level of anticompetitive behavior as all have level playing field and Apple has not abused developers with undue or rising fees. If anything, fees and policies have relaxed in the last 14 years.

Let's use the 30% fee for argument's sake. My pulled-out-my-butt breakdown of the fee:

1. 4% - Credit card transaction processing
2. 2% - Tax accounting and reporting
3. 5% - App Store platform fees (operations, review, customer service, etc)
4. 19% - iOS / iCloud platform fees (API development and support, iCloud services such as CloudKit, etc.)

Sideloading or alternate App Stores only eliminate up to 11% of the fees by this breakdown. So, what is the option? Alternate stores don't get access to any but the most basic support? No Metal? No CloudKit? What? Apple will still likely charge platform fees of some amount anyway as they would be legally entitled to just like any other platform vendor (Android, Xbox, Nintendo, etc.).

So:

1. 4% transaction fees shift from developer paying Apple to developer paying MC / Visa / AmEx / Square.
2. 7% operations and accounting fees shift from developer paying Apple to developer hiring resources (or paying an outsourced vendor) to accomplish internally.
3. Third-Party will charge a commission of some unknown amount. Looking at Epic with what they did when the poked Apple at the start of this, they will still charge 15% or so.

Developer now goes from paying 30% commission on sales to Apple deducted from their check with next to no overhead on their part to spending as much or more now paying multiple vendors, internal resources, and may still have Apple fees to pay.

While you can "side load" on Mac much the same applies. Not all API and services are available to a Mac app not installed via the App Store.

Lastly. None of this helps the consumer. Little of it helps any but the largest of development houses. All consumers will suffer by increased targeting by bad actors as there are now more vectors, quality of software and privacy will suffer, consumers will pay more as developers still need to make their base margins.

 

[Cosmosent]

Anyone who thinks that Apple will be able to maintain their App Store monopoly for much longer must be living in some alternate reality. They’re being sued or subjected to antitrust investigation on petty much weekly basis nowadays. Time to wake up and smell the coffee instead of the koolaid.

To me, I think the catalyst could come from the Apple Board ... just look how fast Tim Cook has been aging the past few years ! ... if they want Tim to stick around for a few more years AND be pro-active, they will need to step-up to the table.

Most of the complaints against Apple would go away if they dropped their cut to 10% for ALL transactions across the Board.

Doesn't solve the problem that Apple suppresses third-party App Innovation for their own benefit, OR that Apple's App Store is dominated by Apps for the Young & the Dumb, & as such, isn't a good fit for (most) Adults, but it gets things moving in the right direction ...

 

[alex2792]

To me, I think the catalyst could come from the Apple Board ... just look how fast Tim Cook has been aging the past few years ! ... if they want Tim to stick around for a few more years AND be pro-active, they will need to step-up to the table.

Most of the complaints against Apple would go away if they dropped their cut to 10% for ALL transactions across the Board.

Doesn't solve the problem that Apple suppresses third-party App Innovation for their own benefit, OR that Apple's App Store is dominated by Apps for the Young & the Dumb, & as such, isn't a good fit for Adults, but it gets things moving in the right direction ...

That’s not good enough, they must stop blocking legitimate apps for streaming services, emulation and torrent clients.

 

[I7guy]

At this point they may as well flush money down the toilet since their team of highly overpaid lawyers won’t save them.

That is exactly what they are doing. But it's out of my hands and yours. So we'll see where this goes. If anybody knows where this will end up, please do let us know.

 

[icanhazmac]

You've really committed to that slippery slope. Nothing about this bill would lead to the destruction of the app store. You wouldn't even be forced to shop elsewhere (because I promise that almost no rational dev would pull their app from the store completely).

Because all Mac apps are in the MacOS app store right? Big name apps will be fought over by alt stores for exclusivity, it will happen.

Furthermore the vulnarability of alt-payment processors is no joke. Why anyone would want to have 10-20 random payment processors instead of 1 (and one large enough, well known name like Apple) is beyond comprehension.

 

[NightFox]

https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf

I think some might question the objectivity of your source there

 

[vipergts2207]

Because all Mac apps are in the MacOS app store right? Big name apps will be fought over by alt stores for exclusivity, it will happen.

Furthermore the vulnarability of alt-payment processors is no joke. Why anyone would want to have 10-20 random payment processors instead of 1 (and one large enough, well known name like Apple) is beyond comprehension.

It's not like I or most people shop at only one store or eat at one restaurant. I also don't plan on buying apps from shady devs. Am I supposed to be worried when I buy stuff from Sony or Steam or anywhere else? And if something does happen, I call my credit company, report the fraud, and get a new credit card. It seems some folks here are more susceptible to irrational fear than others.

 

[boss.king]

Because all Mac apps are in the MacOS app store right? Big name apps will be fought over by alt stores for exclusivity, it will happen.

False equivalency. The Mac App Store is a relatively new addition to MacOS, it was never (and I'd argue still isn't) the first place the majority of people think to go for Mac software. That's not the case with iOS.

Furthermore the vulnarability of alt-payment processors is no joke. Why anyone would want to have 10-20 random payment processors instead of 1 (and one large enough, well known name like Apple) is beyond comprehension.

It really isn't that big of a deal. Believe it or not, most of the purchases I make online are not through one of Apple's stores and the world isn't crashing down around me. And hey, you could probably even keep using Apple Pay for your purchases if you insist on having them be some part of every transaction you make.

 

[alex2792]

It's not like I or most people shop at only one store or eat at one restaurant. I also don't plan on buying apps from shady devs. Am I supposed to be worried when I buy stuff from Sony or Steam or anywhere else? And if something does happen, I call my credit company, report the fraud, and get a new credit card. It seems some folks here are more susceptible to irrational fear than others.

Exactly, and Apple true believers who want to pay more for the same apps and services are free to continue using the App Store. Seems like a win win to me.