If Apple is forced to allow competing App Stores on its platform, they will be forced to fire people to cut costs and survive…. and that means less software development, more bugs, less customer sat.
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.
Upcoming EU Sideloading Bill Would 'Cripple the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Expect, Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple is forced to allow competing App Stores on its platform, they will be forced to fire people to cut costs and survive…. and that means less software development, more bugs, less customer sat.
If Apple makes less profit from one side of its business, it has to cut costs in other areas in order to maintain and grow profits. If growth and profits disappears, so does all the growth potential of Apple’s stock value.
So it’s important for ordinary punters to understand, less profits means less product innovation, less engineers, most bugs and lower customer sat.
Those are high paying jobs in other countries, which is why so many people there are desperate to be hired in the roles.
Or, they will just need to compete and offer a superior product. Even with a 50% cut in profit will still keep apple in a healthy profit margin. If apple made zero profits they would still have reserves to run for 20 years.
Or just have a lower profit margin. If apple loses AppStore revenue, it will not affect them in a meaningful way. Just slow their growth. Or they increase the price of something else if they think it will work.
Less profit doesn’t equate that at all. When you’re in the red then that’s what happens. Apple isn’t anywhere close to be in the red.
Who do you people keep insisting on repeating this? You’ve been told a million times why this won’t happen.
But that's ignoring my point. I said, "Until an app you need becomes only available via sideloading". One particular app that you cannot get unless you sideload. A particular app is not a set of different apps; there's no replacement for this one app.
Example: My bank's app. I can't just go and get the Halifax app from Apple's App Store and expect to do stuff I need to do on my Barclays account.
Apple managed to create massive innovation back in the mid-2000’s with significantly less resources and profit than they have nowadays.
It means they could kill the store all together. The store was created and continually investing in to make profit. Apple is a business, not a government agency, so if that profit center is compromised they have an obligation to their shareholders to invest their money elsewhere.
This is how the App Store dies and the hundreds of thousands of developers around the world forfeit their opportunity to have access to Apple’s proprietary APIs. They have already laid the groundwork for a model that makes Apps a direct partnership with Apple and falls under a single subscription for lots of apps. The first was Arcade that I believe is the foundation for a real console style gaming competitor. They have also been expanding Apple One that could easily expand to include 3rd party partnerships that the are protected from greedy companies
Do you think if this is enacted and sideloading becomes mandated that threat actors are going to limit their scope to just those people who enabled sideloading on their phones??
Hell no. With an attack surface that large, they're going to try their damndest to hit as many people as they can. It may not work at first, or everytime, but in this instance, it will only take one successful attempt to create a firestorm......
This will happen in Europe. You don’t have to worry about being able to sideload if you’re in the US - it won’t work.
I don’t doubt the risk increases for everyone if they allow for sideloading, but from what I understand much of the security comes from iOS, not the App Store, so I imagine we’d have a model like the mac, which isn’t exactly on fire with malware atm.
Sideloading is a term someone invented to make it sound like something we're not supposed to be allowed to do on our own devices. The actual term is just "installing apps", you can throw in "unknown sources" somewhere in the description if it makes you feel good I guess.
And I have several Android devices, I can tell you I only have a few apps installed outside of Play Store, and they are generally just open source apps installed from F-Droid instead.
But when it comes to iOS the App Store rules are so restrictive that the kind of apps I would be installing are just regular apps allowed on the Play Store normally to be honest, things like terminal emulators, browsers with extension support (Apple did this on their own now I guess so it's less needed now for me than it was a year ago), maybe some emulators for nostalgia, and open source apps like Kodi, etc.
I remember in the early days of iPhoneOS jailbreaks there was an app that could turn the iPhone 2G into a USB stick that I could use to boot other machines with, if that's still technically possible on iPhones without jailbreaking that would be AMAZINGLY useful to me, I would buy iPhones with much larger storage so I could keep a few Linux and Windows images on it at all times and not have to find and wipe a slow USB stick every time I wanted to boot Linux on some machine.
Now you'll say why don't I just carry my Android devices for this utility? The answer is I don't like Android, I much prefer the simple and polished nature of iOS over access to niche utilities like the above. If this EU bill becomes law then perhaps I won't have to choose between a pleasant UX and utility in the future, I can have my iPhone, keep installing apps from the App Store for the most part, but install those niche apps Apple don't deem worthy of their seal of approval outside the App Store.
Are you arguing for or against an unregulated AppStore? Are you also saying companies can re-brand the things as a “gaming system” and bypass these regulations?
If these regulations go through I imagine everyone(Amazon, Apple, etc) will just work around them. Amazon Kindle(and other Android tablets) might have it worse than Apple since Amazon has the added problem of supporting people on custom boot-loaders after this…
If this law only applies to devices with cellular connections I’m guessing Apple will start selling an iPod with an expansion slot. People in the EU will have to buy a “cellular module” to put in the iPod.
I can see the argument that Apple would be losing out on profits from allowing Sideloading, but I don't think it would necessarily open the floodgates in terms of everyone installing their apps from alternative sources either. On Android (where sideloading is surprisingly easy), the majority of sideloaded apps are from instances where people need or want an app that isn't available in the app store. Most users just want to install their apps through the easiest method available, and won't really trouble themselves with the effort of sideloading if the App is already available in the App Store.
Apple's concern is probably much more in line with the payment processing. If sideloading becomes easy, it could risk incentivizing some developers to simply take their apps off the store and to force users to sideload them instead. The majority of app developers likely won't do this (losing exposure from the App Store would cause a massive drop in sales). But there are some high-profile cases where this has happened on Android just in the last year, and very publicly so. So I can understand Apple's concern in this area, and it's a valid one in some respects.
I'd argue a lot of that can be solved simply by making sideloading a process that is a little more technical than just downloading it from another website. If sideloading requires time and effort to set up, it would disincentivize the masses of app developers from simply yanking their apps from the store to skirt commissions. They would lose too many sales for it to be worthwhile.
Apple's concern is probably much more in line with the payment processing. If sideloading becomes easy, it could risk incentivizing some developers to simply take their apps off the store and to force users to sideload them instead. The majority of app developers likely won't do this (losing exposure from the App Store would cause a massive drop in sales). But there are some high-profile cases where this has happened on Android just in the last year, and very publicly so. So I can understand Apple's concern in this area, and it's a valid one in some respects.
I'd argue a lot of that can be solved simply by making sideloading a process that is a little more technical than just downloading it from another website. If sideloading requires time and effort to set up, it would disincentivize the masses of app developers from simply yanking their apps from the store to skirt commissions. They would lose too many sales for it to be worthwhile.
I'm of the opinion it's not so dissimilar. All are devices made by manufactures that "only" support 1 digital store on their platform. Not to mention, you can also buy these consoles (not all) without media drives. So completely digital download only. All charge fee's to be on the store. All are in full control (gatekeepers) of their market.
And forever, none of this was an issue. So if they want to make new rules to break this. It has to be across the board. Otherwise, you will have Apple fight this in court. And rightfully so. Congress can write laws, but the courts are there to uphold them or not when challenged.
Or, a popular Chinese-backed wildly popular game that became popular on the main official store suddenly decides to only be installable via side-loading. Suddenly millions of kids are side-loading the game on their parent’s work phones.
**For those of you who don’t realize; this is exactly what happened with Fortnight on Android
You forget to describe the consequences for iOS users: they don't have the sideloading capability, thus they cannot play Fortnite at all on iOS. If for them Fortnite is a must, it means iOS for them stops being an option.
Yay! Stopping people from making bad decisions is a feature not a bug.
The discussion was about applications an user deems they need. I question why an user would deem they need Fortnite, but that's not the point.
The point is, the consequence of an user not being able to use an app they need on iOS is not that they stop using the app: is that they stop using iOS.
But the story doesn't end there, does it? The part you left out is that it didn't work all that well and that Fortnite is back in the Play Store.
The most likely outcome of Apple allowing sideloading is that very little changes for the vast majority of users who want to limit themselves to the App Store. A few companies might try to circumvent it, but market forces and a consumer base accustomed to the App Store model would force them back.
Overall it would still be a benefit because it would open a path for those apps that Apple doesn't want in the official store for whatever reason.
The point I was making maybe obtusely is that there are devices out there with the functionality that people want.
They must surely weigh this up with their purchase and decide that Apples policies whether they agree or not, is worth the trade off for what they get in return.
Personally, I like the simplicity of iOS, and it’s single store, payment method, customer service, etc. I don’t buy into the security benefits, but equally I don’t believe it should be treated like a desktop OS either.
For me, the big differentiator between iOS and Android is the walled garden vs open and customisable. Currently I’ve moved away from apple devices for a variety of reasons, with the exception being iPad and iPhone.
Regardless of what happens with the App Store. The iPad still has no real competitor.
But if iOS opens up, then for me at least (and maybe others) that opens up consideration to android devices when you lose the major differentiator, and there are devices from Samsung for example which are of equal build quality.
So I’m not sure I’d stick with apple without the walled garden. But I’m not too invested either way. I’ll buy the device which suits me best.
Don’t want privacy of iPhone to reduce. Will be interesting to see what Apple does if they are forced to allow side loading.
On the flipside I know several people who say they won't buy Apple devices because of the walled garden.
Personally in this particular aspect I don't believe there should be a "differentiator", a device that's allowed to download new functionality must not make distinctions on where that functionality is downloaded from, that's up to me as the owner to decide.
The App Store itself is the walled garden you like, and it isn't going away. Yeah it may get some competition if this goes through, and maybe that will cause Apple to lower their take a bit. Honestly I doubt it, I think absolutely nothing will change except people like me will be able to install niche open source apps on our iPhones through an iOS equivalent of F-Droid.