To clarify, Apple will need to be sure that all access to the core of iOS is locked out of other App Stores ability to access. If a developer uses an API or something that goes against App Store guidelines, Apple keeps it off the store. Apple will not have that control anymore so the current lockdown on iOS will need to be tighter. That will also be the developers incentive to stay on the Apple App Store, having more API access.
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.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Another Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s not underdetermined. Apple allows unsigned apps to run on macOS with a warning. It would be the same model as macOS.
I could get behind this simply for security reasons. Don't let untrusted apps access sensitive APIs like location, contacts, etc. since they will probably try to siphon off your data. I doubt this would stand up in the courts though.
And that would be fine - just like it is on macOS.
Do you guys realize you BOUGHT your phones?
Apple does not own them to this level.
I'm fine with that
I say it would be "underdetermined" because the rules for iOS might end up being slightly different and acceptable to regulators.
There is much less of a good case for fully non code signed apps, assuming Apple behaves and doesn't unfairly deny signings. (like denying for commercial reasons vs security ones)
I'm not worried about that.
They have been great on this point on macOS
And the iPhone will go down the crapper as Apple lowers investment in its ecosystem. Better sell your shares now.
API and data access stuff is not related to their App Store, but iOS design and guidelines itself.
None of that would change with sourcing Apps from other locations.
It's just like how Macs are in the toilet and dying fast since Apple isn't the only source of Apps for macOS
(oh wait... Mac sales are BOOMING)
Hope you also vote in the primaries, because this issue is very bipartisan, as evidenced by the vote.
I would, but there are about a dozen other issues more important to me than this one.
The analogy might make sense if Apple and the devs on the App Store were direct competitors.
Last edited:
It passed 20-2 out of committee, meaning 9 (81%) of Republicans voted for it. I'd start lowering your expectations if I were you.
Some other companies with BOOMING business: Epic, Spotify, Microsoft, Tinder....getting the picture?
Those working outside of the App Store are still going to pay per download. They need Apple for the tools and the new licensing for these developers will be different.
It’s kind of moot for Apple as most users won’t go outside of the App Store especially when they find out they have to pay third parties and give up yet more personal info.
I am in the industry and have zero interest in side loading. The App Store allows me to download and use an App with the confidence I’m not be surveilled, compromised or otherwise being taken advantage of.
It’s kind of moot for Apple as most users won’t go outside of the App Store especially when they find out they have to pay third parties and give up yet more personal info.
I am in the industry and have zero interest in side loading. The App Store allows me to download and use an App with the confidence I’m not be surveilled, compromised or otherwise being taken advantage of.
Republicans typically vote in total lockstep, so 81% is actually the sign of weakness.
In a single sentence, you proved the point of the person to whom you were replying: most people arguing against this have no clue how any of this actually works. Sideloaded apps can certainly be code-signed — all that means is that a signature is attached to the application binary which the system can check to ensure that the binary has not been modified from the state in which it was signed by the developer. Apple already almost requires this on macOS, with a little workaround available for those who need it.
Apple could certainly choose to require all non-App Store apps on iOS be signed with a valid Apple Developer certificate in order to run, even without the workaround available on macOS. I'd also support their requiring notarization for non-App Store apps — combined, this gives users the freedom to run software that nanny Apple says is bad for them while also providing Apple with a kill switch on known malicious apps.
The point of sideloading, by and large, is bypassing App Review and thereby nonsensical restrictions on what apps are allowed on iOS that often have nothing to do with privacy and security and rather everything to do with Apple's bottom line.
There are really four reasons why Apple wants to control app distribution: 1. revenue for the apps themselves through app-store fees, 2. revenue from content made available by apps (e.g. Kindle books), 3. security by vetting the submitted app packages, 4. preventing unwanted (by Apple) apps (emulators, browsers, state-censored content, adult content, illegal content, etc.).
#2 and #4 are generally not in the user’s interest, becaue it limits what you can do with your device (e.g. running a Gameboy emulator) and decreases usability (e.g. you can’t buy Kindle books on-device). #3 is in the user’s interest of course, but could largely be solved on-device (sandboxing and malware registries). The problem is that Apple is not willing to give up on #2 and #4 (for #4, they could limit the restrictions to just checking for illegal apps), although they could still have #1 and #3.
#2 and #4 are generally not in the user’s interest, becaue it limits what you can do with your device (e.g. running a Gameboy emulator) and decreases usability (e.g. you can’t buy Kindle books on-device). #3 is in the user’s interest of course, but could largely be solved on-device (sandboxing and malware registries). The problem is that Apple is not willing to give up on #2 and #4 (for #4, they could limit the restrictions to just checking for illegal apps), although they could still have #1 and #3.
"The Senate passed a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure plan Tuesday, a huge step for Democrats as they try to push President Joe Biden’s sweeping economic agenda through Congress. The legislation, which includes $550 billion in new funding for transportation, broadband and utilities, got through in a 69-30 vote, as 19 Republicans joined all 50 Democrats."
Oof. Much like infrastructure, this is a highly bipartisan issue.
Senate passes $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, sending key part of Biden's economic agenda to the House
Senate passage of the infrastructure bill is a major step for Democrats as they try to push through a sprawling economic agenda.
You're implying that simply because Apple's Mac business is doing well then people shouldn't worry about their concerns. I'm pointing out that all the companies that are playing the victim when it comes to the App Store have BOOMING business of their own, so your implication should apply to them as well. Why should anyone be concerned about Epic's complaints? Surely they're doing really well and it doesn't matter, right?
The real reason is the NTSB has an issue with EVs being manufactured with trailer hitches. Something about they don’t want the battery to get punctured, which doesn’t seem to be a concern in Europe where they are allowed. (I hope they solve this hang up before electric pickup trucks come on the maket) I went though the same thing with my Cayenne Hybrid. I ended up just buying a hitch assembly and wiring harness from a regular Cayenne of the same year, put in a few hours of light work and called it a day. If a Nissan Leaf owner wanted to tow something, they could “side-load” one of several third-party aftermarket hitch assemblies for under $400 made specifically for their car.
I know this is a divergence from your point on analogies which is valid, but I invested a lot in personal research on the subject and just wanted to share
Last edited:
I’m not proving anything. What you’re saying is the hope, not the reality. We would hope that sideloading mirrors macOS, although on macOS you are still free to install what you like. Just look at the circus show of sideloading on Android. You can install literally anything, but with a warning prompt. But even if apps are code-signed, Apple will not be reviewing these apps as they would had they gone through the App Store process.
Is this bill so consumers would save money by companies avoiding the 15-30% App Store surcharge?
Hahahahahahhahahahah you really think companies will pass those savings onto consumers lololol
What a stupid bill. As if there isn’t more pressing issues to work on right now. Sheesh
Hahahahahahhahahahah you really think companies will pass those savings onto consumers lololol
What a stupid bill. As if there isn’t more pressing issues to work on right now. Sheesh