That could well be. Crazy thing here is that sideload vs no-sideload has been pretty much the only solution mentioned. There are other ways this could play out.
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.
Sideloading Bill Would Allow 'Malware, Scams and Data-Exploitation to Proliferate,' Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That could well be. Crazy thing here is that sideload vs no-sideload has been pretty much the only solution mentioned. There are other ways this could play out.
Well considering this article's headline includes the words "Sideloading Bill" that's probably why we're talking about sideloading so much.
But yes... I'd love to hear some other options.
Well considering this article's headline includes the words "Sideloading Bill" that's probably why we're talking about sideloading so much.
But yes... I'd love to hear some other options.
Headlines…. Gotta luv ‘em!
I also suspect there are differing definitions of sideloading here.
I know my son bought the version with the disc access. He is always worried about storage.
Ah yeah then from a consumer perspective, used games, target, Walmart wherever it is sold he can get it. But from a developer perspective, you still need to pay Sony licensing fees.
There are only a handful of Playstation exclusives I like so I am not too concerned about space.
I’m not the op. I’m not limiting anything to anything. But comparisons don’t work unless they’re in a level playing field.
You can’t say, ‘oh I got my ps1 disks where ever I wanted to’ when talking about a digital only product 20 odd years later.
It’s not the same thing. Now. A digital only ps5 is comparable. So, let’s compare that and see.
What’s funny about their comment is, I can name a group way more toxic.
Thank you for the opportunity.
You got to that part. I think it’s important users understand that they have options to pay safely and adopt safe practices while maintaining commerce diversity. Meaning that such safety is not confined only to the all or nothing nature of digital App Stores.
The digital medium should follow the physical medium. When you go to a restaurant a machine is presented that is certified by the financial system and in certain countries like in the EU, governments, to operate for such purposes. The same should be applied when dealing with the digital. Users should be conscious on what machine they put they “digital” cards / info on.
I fail to understand why in some countries the government does not regulate digital payments towards safety. I bet for the same reason why they seam to have difficulties in regulating App Stores.
Don’t know about you but I started using Amazon because I sometimes found products not offered in physical stores nearby. Check if they charge Apple for selling apps on iPhones distributed and sold by them. No, they charge fee for the sale of the iPhone, that is it.
Yes. Wallmart charges for the sale of things they sell and distribute. Some sell shelve space … others Shops may actually buy inventory before sale. Physical stores don’t have a referral system in place due difficulties of technical implementation.
Please do not miss represent the quote … some might consider it insulting after all the work of trying to explain it as clearly as possible. No its not correct. Read it again, please.
I think you went though all lot of trouble describing Apple efforts and spent minimal words describing Wallmart and Amazon investments. Also you mentioned Epic … read my post again about it. Its quite clear.
In sum, I believe the App Store distributes and sells software programs nothing else. Paying up front or IAP does not change the nature of the sale. Much like everyone else … if the agreed is that the supplier gets a 70% cut of the end price with a minimum baseline that is what it is. That would of course include games that Epic publishes.
Now IAP mandatory cuts over things that do not sell or distribute, no I think they should not even require their own IAP for those. But still of course charge / fee for hosting and distributing the App in those cases. If the dev wants to use the App Store referral service, payment processing and billing charge fees for that … it should be a choice given the principle… not a mandate ... much like some other App Store do. How much is for hosting and distributing the software program only leaving everything else optional? If a devs needs App Store referrals what are the fees? If the dev needs App Store billing what are those? Payment processing?
You see, by being transparent what is the fee for each parcial, businesses can make informed decisions. It might be that the system is a good software program distribution service but not a good referral system for the particular business. They might even find, all things considered, 15%/30% is not such a bad deal. Who knows. At the core is the only way distribute software programs to 50% of Americans pockets … it’s a cheap endouver … that is whybthe orofit margins are so high …compare with Amazon.
Anyway, the conversation is long. Will see how this will go.
Cheers.
Last edited:
To me it's the same. Both are digital products just packaged differently.
Update: was looking in Amazon and noticed many of the PS5 games are physical only while PC and XBox are available both in physical and digital format. Same game.
Looks like it is a Sony issue.
Last edited:
Oh it’s very relevant.
The most important issue on appeal was whether the
“Where a copy of computer software is supplied to a principal’s customers electronically, and not on any tangible medium, does it constitute “goods”
and
“Where computer software is supplied to a principal’s customers by way of the grant to the customer of a perpetual licence to use a copy of the computer software, does that constitute a “sale of goods”
In relation to “goods”, the CJEU referred to its caselaw that indicated the term meant “products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions”. It followed that software fell within this definition, and that this was the case irrespective of whether it is supplied on a tangible medium or by electronic download.
In relation to “sale”, the CJEU applied the commonly accepted definition of “an agreement by which a person, in return for payment, transfers to another person his rights of ownership in an item of tangible or intangible property belonging to him.”
The CJEU further noted that the downloading of a copy of a computer program and the conclusion of a user licence agreement for that copy, although two operations, must be viewed as an indivisible whole for the purposes of legal classification. As such “the supply, in return for payment of a fee, of computer software to a customer by electronic means where that supply is accompanied by the grant of a perpetual licence to use that software can be covered by the concept of ‘sale of goods’
This means IAP is indistinguishable from purchase of any goods because the terms aren’t legally distinguished. Especially considering you make a purchase and not renting or leasing.
I spent years sideloading stuff on jailbroken iPhone & iPads. Not once did I get infected with malware, viruses, or any of the other scare tactics that Apple's trying to pull off. Plus, Apple liberally "borrowed" quite a few of the apps, features & developers from the jailbreak community, which are now part of iOS.
App curation and code reviews can be done on any app store; it's not exclusive to Apple.
App curation and code reviews can be done on any app store; it's not exclusive to Apple.
Last edited:
It's their product that they present to developers as a development platform (and make money outta).
If piracy was rampant (then like Sega with the Dreamcast), profits would dip and it'd be less attractive to developers.
You own a product. They make the product and set the rules. If you don't like the rules you can go buy a Librem 5 or something.
Well hopefully Apple Pay will become adopted, and solve this conundrum. But then again payment solutions are heavily regulated in EU and holds the same standard so I don’t see a problem.
Because they sell Cheap goods. Still no commission on apps tho
Well that’s the same for any payment layer. Stripe, PayPal, MasterCard, visa, American Express( rare in EU), Apple Pay etc
Well outside of malls who takes a commission, cellular companies and online stores such as amazon etc
Absolutely not, they have a right to ask, but should not demand it. It should be an option. Just as apple login is in other apps next to using Facebook or twitter etc.
but I 100% think they have a right to ask for a cut of the initial purchase
Consumers use their IAPs and Epic makes 100% in their solution and 100% of the responsibility
Or
Consumers use apples IAPs and both Epic and Apple make money (70/30) with zero precent of the responsibility
Consumers make IAPs and Epic makes 100% in their solution
Or
Consumers make IAPs and both Epic and Apple make money (70/30)
Nothing says they can’t take out a service fee, delivery fee, shelf space fees or even purchase the product directly and sell it with a markup, retailer sell things at a loss all the time to lure customers to purchase lucrative products. Apple choose to allow free apps, and camas well chose to go break even or lose money to sell more iPhones.
The thing is there is no difference between physical and digital market places. Both have costs. And in the end of the day Apple as everyone else distribute goods that are supplied by other companies/developers. And they as everyone else takes a cut as reseller of digital programs.
The problem is apple didn’t distribute the Subscription, they didn’t sell that extra life, they didn’t do anything for the virtual gold to be purchased.
Apple should never be allowed to mandate their IAP solution as th only option.
BUT if the dev wants to use the App Store referral service, payment system and billing charging and pat 30% fees for that … it should be a choice given the principle… not a mandate.
But if developers want to use their own system they should be able to without giving apple a cut. Just a free apps earning money from adds don’t pay apple anything for the add revenue.
But apple can obviously take payment for every download, updating the app etc etc
They could call it service fee and delivery fee even to cover all the cost for free apps, or they could use apple’s system instead of their own. It could perhaps be cheaper and more convenient to use apple’s system.
To be honest, if It’s my property, then Frankly their rules don’t mean squat. Because I must have missed when I started renting/leasing my property and it became “their” product
In all seriousness, I won't be surprised if there's a future where iPhones are transitioned to a fully subscription offering. No buying them outright -- perhaps a "one time fee" + required monthly subscription.
Won't surprise me one single bit.
Apple is ALL in -- I mean ALL in -- on making everything a recurring revenue situation.
So apple should give their ip away? Don’t think that will happen. See dating apps in the Netherlands.
It shouldn’t surprise you either. That’s already how a good percentage of people get their phones, only via a 3rd party carrier instead. It’s hardly a new concept, at least in my part of the world. Apple already offer a similar first party solution in some countries.
Well this is pretty f*cking obvious to anyone not living under a rock. This has been happening to Windows since the existence of the internet, so around 25 years at least. Malware is still alive and kicking.
Yet stupid legislators still pretend it's "for the customer". Yeah right. No one's life will be better except for the corporate execs at those app developer companies. And stupid users still applaud for having "a choice". A choice in what? What do you want from your friggin' device, really? Go get a Raspberry Pi if you want to "hack around", and leave our locked down iOS alone. I want it stay that way, that's why I chose the platform in the first place.
Yet stupid legislators still pretend it's "for the customer". Yeah right. No one's life will be better except for the corporate execs at those app developer companies. And stupid users still applaud for having "a choice". A choice in what? What do you want from your friggin' device, really? Go get a Raspberry Pi if you want to "hack around", and leave our locked down iOS alone. I want it stay that way, that's why I chose the platform in the first place.
No joke, I completely forgot about physical discs and cartridges. We haven't bought a DVD (movie or game) in over 18 years or a physical game cartridge ever (for these platforms). For consoles that do still support those, I think it still stands that you need a developer kit from Nintendo or Sony or even Microsoft, and you still need to pay them a commission (those two combined are prohibitively expensive compared to Apple), but you'd also need to pay Walmart or whomever else that allocated shelf space. Ultimately, I think the cost of distribution especially for Nintendo is so much higher than Apple or Android platforms.
For digital distribution, I can't find a way to get our own indie games on the Switch or avoid Nintendo's app stores. I don't see the same for Sony either. Microsoft seems to have a more indie developer friendly program, but I haven't allocated enough time to be 100% certain of any. Bottom line is that at the moment, all of them appear to have a "monopoly" on distribution. I did find that to get outside of all of those competing "monopolies", I could distribute to the new steam handheld... buuuuut.... there again, I'd have to distribute through the Steam store, which according to this current, increasingly loose definition of "monopoly" is also a monopoly. So, the most open platform remains PCs.
Anyhow, my point is that every one of these companies have spent tremendous resources and money on developing platforms, tools, and services for distributing apps/games to the platforms/hardware. It has always been part of their business model. If we're to apply a ruling against Apple, it seems reasonable to apply a ruling against the entire industry, all industries. So, back to my original point. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. Can we legislate that companies must invest in, design, and develop more open systems to enable competitors to interface and distribute with those platforms? To me, it's more than just about App Stores and side-loading. These are deeply entangled, and circumventing normal, planned, designed distribution systems means actually designing and developing ways to do so (in both low-level software, but increasingly so due to security chips, at the hardware level as well), creating said sandboxes or whatever other operations and interfaces that are needed. That's likely no small investment, but it's also a poor investment from the companies' perspectives.
Thinking about this more. I agree. There is the consumer perspective and the developer perspective. Developers want to maximize their income, by-pass middlemen. From the consumer perspective, one is thinking, "I have lots of options for where I can buy these apps and games". The reality is that for even the Switch and Playstation, you're still buying from Nintendo and Sony, you're just paying an additional middleman fee at GameStop or Walmart who already paid Nintendo and Sony, which is further cutting into developers profits. If Nintendo developed ways for anyone to install games, by-pass their App Store, then you could buy straight from the developer, they'd get 100% of the proceeds, and you'd likely pay less. I just don't see why Nintendo, Sony, or Apple would do that.... unless we want to pay 10X, 100X more for the hardware or whatever number it would take to forego the commissions.
Last edited:
Completely ignorant.
It's not the "sideloading" part that's not safe, obviously. It's the unfiltered cr@p from the alternate stores that won't be "exceptionally safe".
Apple doesn’t give it away. They could simply ask for a service fee, delivery fee, hosting fee, support fees to every free app.
Developers should be able to choose to use apple’s IAP system or their own
My kids love PC games. There isn't even really a concept of side-loading here. They're completely open. They like that they can get mods from anywhere, even mod the games themselves. Lots of cool stuff. There are definite benefits to more open systems, but they also get viruses and malware, which I hate. I've come to the conclusion that there is no true sandboxing. Every interface, every API, is a vector of attack, and unscrupulous developers find and use them. So, we have systems that we know are ultimately going to be junked, and then we have systems we use for work and school. Our iOS devices so far have had no viruses or malware, ever.
I'm glad I don't need to run anti-virus software on my iOS devices. If side-loading becomes a thing, I hope that no clever ways of deceiving users into enabling it will be created.