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
It may but not the way you think it will.They won't need to. Sideloading is coming to iOS devices in the EU
2. I am unable to come up with anything substantial outside of definite security/privacy/malware items. Most of the apps I sideload on ANdroid are apps Google has stopped allowing with no real explanation.
3. There are easy ways around this if Apple wants.
Assuming sideloading is a thing for iOS, we have no real clue on what Apple's solution would look like. Perhaps we should refrain from espousing “The Sky is Falling!!” Rhetoric until we find this out.
Simple: There's (only) two relevant operating systems in the marketplace. And given that duopoly, one company should not be available to determine availability of third-party apps and functionality on their whim alone.
Such duopolies are almost never a good thing for competition or consumers. And neither for innovation (at least once the underlying market has reached some maturity. Which it has for mobile OS/apps).
The arbitrary restrictions on game streaming apps - that only serve to anticompetitively protect Apple's bottom line to the detriment of consumers - is good enough an example why Apple should be reined in, forced to open up, regulated, fined and sued until they give in.
It will likely take some months, probably years of legal action and a final court decision to stop Apple from ignoring and circumventing the law.
Last edited:
Not so simple as shown in the US. This gatekeeper stuff is just EU nonsense, unfortunately taking companies IP and treating it like a public utility. Hopefully, the EU will get exactly what it asked for...and it may not be pretty.
Broad generalization.
Innovation has been running rampant. What you call innovation is basically forcing requirements (through government legislation) down a companies throat.
See above for definition of innovation.
Or they will comply with the law, but you may not get the desired effect.
How so? Aren't the European "gatekeepers" just the equivalent to "covered companies" under the (U.S.) Open App Markets Act?
No, game streaming apps are an innovation on their own merit.
And it's Apple that are forcing anti-innovation requirements down developers' throats (through their app store rules).
To stifle such innovation from and protect their own gaming revenue streams.
That's not at all true.
If you're going to be absolutist, here's what really will happen - security becomes the end-user problem: you either care or you don't. Most people who sideload know exactly what they're installing. Others do not. But if you take the route of removing end-users from being mindful of security, then there's no point to training, or warning, and yes, you probably should have a store and no sideloading because there wouldn't be any way to protect against for an ignorant user.
That's why Android / Windows / and even MacOS users find store-absolutist policies "insulting", because sure, I know what I install on my device. Why is the OS limiting me? And for profit?
The general principle that you do not want to ever remove security training from end users is absolutely true. Making users ignorant of basic security needs is a Bad Thing, even if you don't sideload. You already have to teach them about impersonation and social engineering hacks. Computer security has no shortcuts.
Eh, it's my opinion.
Streaming games have been around a while. What you are calling innovation here, is my opinion, that you are supporting your requirements through government intervention. Not vote with your $$$.
Disagree. The only innovation coming down the pike is malware, scamware, loss of revenue for developers, porn apps, vape apps, general deterioration of the IOS ecosystem. If that is your definition of innovation, then I agree.
Yes, it's their platform.
Exactly. Why should I vote with my wallet and forgo the otherwise excellent iOS devices, when I can have my cake and eat it too (iOS - but with more choices and freedom in apps)?
It's not only to my personal benefit but also to the benefit of many consumers and smaller businesses, especially in light of the power and market share Apple and Google combined have in mobile apps. And the fact that there's similar regulatory and legislative efforts in developed economies around the globe (EU, US, JP, KR, AU) shows that my position is shared by many.
And slowly but surely "we" are going to win this.
What's the issue with porn and vaping?
They're legal, and both quite large business markets.
Why shouldn't apps reflect that and exist for that too?
It's kind of ironic, how you're so against intervention by government authority...
...yet judging from your repeated mentioning of porn and vapes, you clearly seem to support the idea that there should be an authority (a patron or "big brother", if you will) that judges what's good or bad - and makes and enforces rules to deny people access to what's "bad" for them. An authority that makes decisions for people instead of the people (users) themselves.
You just seem happy to delegate such authority to billion-dollar megacorporations like Apple rather than democratically elected governments.
And you may be surprised at how Apple implements "sideloading" and "alternative app stores" in such a way the ecosystem does not get dragged downhill. But that's why I don't support this type of nanny legislation, when excellent platforms such as android have everything you already need and want.
I disagree.
I disagree with this also.
Sure, the sun could be a super-nova, I suppose, but eventually it will happen.
There is a bigger picture to be seen.
Sure and there is a downside of having these types of apps on a phone where children can get to them.
Because the creator who also owns the intellectual property of the app store doesn't want it.
No, I'm clearly for it, when my life, finances, safety and other matters the federal and government should be involved step in to the the job they should be doing.
They are just two examples of apps (and I don't care how big the business is).
Yes. I believe there is over-reach by government, all too often.
I expect Apple to make this as slow, restrictive, cumbersome and expensive to developers and end user alike as they can, in trying undermine the intention of this regulation. I fully expect this to take "iterative" regulatory and legal action (as we've seen with the ACM in the Netherlands).
So no, I don't think I will be surprised.
We’ll if the law is unclear then apple will implement what it believes to be in compliance.I expect Apple to make this as slow, restrictive, cumbersome and expensive to developers and end user alike as they can, in trying undermine the intention of this regulation. I fully expect this to take "iterative" regulatory and legal action (as we've seen with the ACM in the Netherlands).
So no, I don't think I will be surprised.
I am from EU. And in most cases I support the decisions they make. But this is just ridiculous. I stand against this requirement. EU has no business telling Apple what to do with their product. EU can go f*@#$ themselves.
It feels like EU is pissed at Apple that they are using their own game to reduce taxes paid. However at the same time EU is just ignoring all other players avoiding taxes via Netherlands and other countries. Don't hate the player if your own rules suck. Oh and what about the cocaine hub that is becoming Belgium and Netherlands? I guess it is fine, better focus on some stupid policies.
It feels like EU is pissed at Apple that they are using their own game to reduce taxes paid. However at the same time EU is just ignoring all other players avoiding taxes via Netherlands and other countries. Don't hate the player if your own rules suck. Oh and what about the cocaine hub that is becoming Belgium and Netherlands? I guess it is fine, better focus on some stupid policies.
Why are people so against having the choice to use you iPhone the way you want. I want to be able to customize my iPhone. I have done it for years safely with a jailbreak.
There’s absolutely no reason that an enduser can’t make their own decisions.
There’s absolutely no reason that an enduser can’t make their own decisions.
Would you like your phone to be able to repeatedly AirBomb everybody in your train carriage with a dodgy photo? Would you like to be able to hijack the modem to fire off radio signals, bypassing the phone's CE certification? Would you like the opportunity to step around all the safety mechanisms that Apple have implemented in your phone? And, if so, would you be happy if Apple subsequently told you to take a hike? Would you like the ability to sniff on all RFID communications to spy on ApplePay communication?
These random opportunities occurred to me after just a moment's thought. I imagine there are many more ways you could mess up your phone if you were given carte-blanche rights to take full control.
Well, what are you using your iPhone for?
WhatsApp? Should Apple be free to revoke their App Store listing tomorrow, cause, hell, it’s their product?
Ban your local bike-share app, cause they aren’t willing to pay 50% commission to Apple?
Oh, I forgot you’re are a farmer and don’t like the Netherlands, so you probably don’t use a bike.
How about Apple charge 30€/year per banking relationship for the privilege of doing online banking with an app on your phone?
If it violates their TOS, sure. Similar to what Epic did. Right?
50% commission? Where?
I don't know...do they? So Apple should get a piece of mobile banking? It's a good idea, but digital goods aren't exchanged by depositing a check.
Let's suppose there were only two phone carriers in your country and one decided that only Nokia phones were allowed on their network and the other decided that only Motorola phones were allowed on their network, you’d be ok with that? I doubt it. Antitrust laws and regulations are meant to prevent scenarios like this from happening.
Allowing companies with dominant positions to do whatever they want opens the door for them to control the market too much which can lead to higher prices, stifled competition and innovation, etc.
No, no, just because they can. Maybe they want to prop up their own iMessage service and charge a subscription for that ("also included in Apple One") or something.
I mean, it's their platform and IP, they can do whatever they want, can't they?
Well, maybe they'll introduce a new 50% commission rate for any subscriptions tomoroww.
I mean, it's their platform and IP, they can do whatever they want, can't they?
Why not? After all, they're providing a secure platform that allows for biometric authentication to banking apps.
Why shouldn't Apple be compensated for that?
And... it's their platform and IP, they can charge whatever they want, can't they?
Sure, I guess this isn't a zero percent probability.
That's a very broad brush to paint a can-do picture with. Anything and everything? Nope. Some things.
I guess they could try and see how it lands.
Anything and everything?
Whose making the rules here? Or as a shareholder are you trying to give feedback to Apple. feedback@apple.com
We'll they certainly can charge what they want for phones, watches, airpods, macs etc.
That's what many people - probably also you - have been saying (that Apple should be allowed to).
To be clear, Apple doesn't currently do these things.
I'm just making them up for argument's sake.
But you should be careful what you wish for, is what they say...
The ones who are making such statements, that governments shouldn't have any say and not interfere with Apple's business whatsoever, they should think things through. Ask yourselves what it means.
Admittedly, the DMA is legislation that is somewhat "proactive" and "anticipatory" of violations. Maybe you think that the current state of affairs is perfectly fine and government should only reactively intervene if and when Apple twists the screws much more on users/developers.
But most people will have a threshold above which they feel businesses should not be able to do as they please.
Hmmm. Never had the issue and jail broke for 10 yrs plus. No reason that would happen …. Never did.
I customized so many features.
Doom and gloom scenario. Jeez
So because there are those that don't agree with this legislation, the hyperbolic suggestion is that any and everything should go? Okay then.
Yes, we know.
We'll it depends if you are wishing for great things or terrible things.
Less say is not the same as no say. Focusing the regulation is not the same as no regulation. Regulations to enable society to function, borders to be protected, our health, food, and finances have to be there. Regulating an app store imo, does not.
Yes, I have a philosophical issue with these laws.
Yes, most people will have a threshold that society can't do as it pleases. What is that threshold and who are these people? Because it seems there are two types of people, one who wants big government and more control and those who want small government and less control.
Our health, food and finances (and, I want to add mobility) is increasingly managed and access through apps.
I don't think I'm being hyperbolic.
We've had multiple threads on the question, as I'm sure you know. And many users/posts have voiced their opinion for or against this legislation. The ones against mostly going along the lines "Their platform, their IP, their say. Government has no business in this. Period." Hardly ever have a I read a more balanced or nuanced take.