Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

michaelprescott

Suspended
Original poster
Aug 5, 2010
116
167
I followed the Epic fiasco for a little while. They started off wanting to avoid paying Apple for distribution, and bent their pitch to suggest that Apple was taking too large of a cut. Nevermind that years ago they also wanted something like 25% for using their Unreal Engine, and have lost some ground so they adjusted their business model. Competition is good. Apple also adjusted and now provides a platform where independent developers can distribute for I think around 15% till they make something like $1,000,000. I still remember when platforms like Nintendo, Xbox, and Playstation were too cost prohibitive for small developers. I think they are still relatively expensive platforms, especially for cost of entry, startup. On the other hand, Apple made things more accessible, iOS startup costs are almost zero, and then only 15% till you make a million bucks.

BUT, all of that is something different from side loading. That is, Epic wants to avoid paying for distribution, more so, they want alternate ways to steer people to a plethora of other payment gateways, right? Even that sucks from an end-user perspective. If there is anything disputable in my costs regarding iOS apps, I have one place to go, and get it resolved in a snap. But this side loading thing, what exactly is it? Every game and app I've put on my iOS devices does just what I want, and for the most part, I trust them. What am I, an end-user, going to gain from having to open up my phone to grant more access? Why?

My experience on PCs is very different. I can install something as base as device drivers these days, and they side load a bunch of background services, game launchers, and all sorts of startup apps that tend to splash my system with advertisements till I've meticulously silenced them, but even then, it's not a guarantee they're all squashed. They still choke down the system and periodically we have to clean it all, start all over. It also opens up the system so that updates can completely replace the intended app, install key stroke loggers, malware, spyware, trackers, and all sorts of other nasty things. I've about 0% trust in unfettered PCs. All of that in mind, I can't recall ever having a poor experience with consoles like Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, or any iOS devices.

So, assuming Epic gets part of what they want, the ability to circumvent the apple payment system, what does a law do for consumers, that would permit developers to side load, to give them a backdoor, unfettered, unchecked, unrestrained access to the filesystem and hardware? What exactly is Epic trying to get with having such a law passed for their benefit?

Also, I can't imagine a law that says, "And Apple must allow side-loading on iOS", so if this law gets passed, does that mean that Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft must also allow unfettered access to their platforms?

Anyhow, can someone clarify exactly what side loading is going to do for consumers? I sure do not want the PC experience on my phone, but if the backdoor is opened, the interface is created for one big developer, it'll certainly mean every other one will follow.
 
Last edited:
It's about money. As you said, Apple has a commission that can vary between 15% and 30% of the revenus collected through the App Store. Epic Games is asking for side loading primarily because they wouldn't have to pay the commission to Apple, and the distribution cost of an app on iOS would be close to zero.

But it's not only about that. Apple is know to have strict rules on the App Store, and developers have to comply to them if they want their apps to stay on it (think about privacy labels, apple payment system, certain contents that are prohibited, etc). Sideloading gives more liberty to developers, because they don't have to comply to all these rules for their apps to be distributed, and Apple could not do anything to force them to do so. From an Epic Games perspective, other than the payment system or the commission, think about the App Store rules that prevent a gaming streaming service to add or update games without a separate review process from Apple. I understand why Apple wants to keep a tight control, but I can also see why these rules are a burden for developers.

Now, regarding side loading, there's no doubt that the security of the user could be more at risk, but there is still some nuances to put there. First, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people will stay almost exclusively on the App Store, and they will look for side loading only if a specific app they really need is only available from here (presumably from a known and trusted developper). But as you said, once this backdoor is opened, we will probably see a shift with big developers moving their apps away from the App Store, so people may have to look more and more for sideloading. Second, iOS is a way more controlled software than what you'll find on any PC. Even side loaded apps will not have direct access to the data of the user, the system will prevent it to access to the localisation, camera, mic, etc. without the explicit user consent. Third, if Apple is forced to allow side loading, I'm pretty sure they will do all they could to limit or control it. Sideloading is allowed on macOS, but if you download from an unidentified developer, there are some extra steps and validation before the app can be opened. I presume that similar security features or pop-ups would be implemented in iOS.

So, you could see how that is both beneficial and detrimental for the consumer. Some will say that side loading allows for more choice and arguably more competitive pricing without the Apple commission, and probably more developers that want to port apps to iOS. On the other end, for the better and the worst, apple will not be able anymore to enforce its App Store rules, and the consistency in security, UI design language or integration with other iOS software features could be affected. There are compromises in any of those two stances.
 
It's about money. As you said, Apple has a commission that can vary between 15% and 30% of the revenus collected through the App Store. Epic Games is asking for side loading primarily because they wouldn't have to pay the commission to Apple, and the distribution cost of an app on iOS would be close to zero.

But it's not only about that. Apple is know to have strict rules on the App Store, and developers have to comply to them if they want their apps to stay on it (think about privacy labels, apple payment system, certain contents that are prohibited, etc). Sideloading gives more liberty to developers, because they don't have to comply to all these rules for their apps to be distributed, and Apple could not do anything to force them to do so. From an Epic Games perspective, other than the payment system or the commission, think about the App Store rules that prevent a gaming streaming service to add or update games without a separate review process from Apple. I understand why Apple wants to keep a tight control, but I can also see why these rules are a burden for developers.

Now, regarding side loading, there's no doubt that the security of the user could be more at risk, but there is still some nuances to put there. First, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people will stay almost exclusively on the App Store, and they will look for side loading only if a specific app they really need is only available from here (presumably from a known and trusted developper). But as you said, once this backdoor is opened, we will probably see a shift with big developers moving their apps away from the App Store, so people may have to look more and more for sideloading. Second, iOS is a way more controlled software than what you'll find on any PC. Even side loaded apps will not have direct access to the data of the user, the system will prevent it to access to the localisation, camera, mic, etc. without the explicit user consent. Third, if Apple is forced to allow side loading, I'm pretty sure they will do all they could to limit or control it. Sideloading is allowed on macOS, but if you download from an unidentified developer, there are some extra steps and validation before the app can be opened. I presume that similar security features or pop-ups would be implemented in iOS.

So, you could see how that is both beneficial and detrimental for the consumer. Some will say that side loading allows for more choice and arguably more competitive pricing without the Apple commission, and probably more developers that want to port apps to iOS. On the other end, for the better and the worst, apple will not be able anymore to enforce its App Store rules, and the consistency in security, UI design language or integration with other iOS software features could be affected. There are compromises in any of those two stances.
Thanks for the details. I wonder if it would quickly degrade to a point where every single developer proclaims the only way they can or want to distribute their app is via side-loading. To run next versions, you'd need to unblock whatever security is enabled without side-loading. I can see a very quick slide once the door is open. One major player like Epic gets a foot in the door, establishes a pattern of usage, proclaims an additional revenue stream from data scraping, device tracking, in-app purhases, side subscriptions or whatever it is that side-loading offers, and then every single developer will follow, and then we have a PC type experience on our phones and iPads. At that point, once it even becomes possible, I can't see why any developers would not make use of it. One is fettered, more secure in some way, and the other is not, and provides something extra (money I suppose) for the developers. This doesn't sound great from a user perspective, but does sound great from a developer perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fwmireault
On a Mac I rarely use the App Store. On the other hand I am not downloading a lot of new apps and if I am I am reading about it first and it is for a very specific purpose. On PC it is an entirely different matter. I never use the Microsoft store, or whatever it is called. I use various apps to load games, mainly Epic, Steam and Origins. Epic is great because of the free games they give away. I have gotten some amazing and very fun games for free. The big ones that come to mind are the Batman games that were out for the PS4, the Assassins creed game that was set in London. These would be the big triple A games, think there were a few other Lego games that I simply got because it was free. I have huge library of free games from giveaways that I have added to my account that I think I may be interested someday, and hey why not it is free. This side loading offers so much that I would never want to be limited to one service, at least for gaming. Generally I prefer the old school way of getting an app direct from the website of the developer, those are generally professional apps though for work, not something I would go through Apple or Microsoft for.
 
My experience on PCs is very different. I can install something as base as device drivers these days, and they side load a bunch of background services, game launchers, and all sorts of startup apps that tend to splash my system with advertisements till I've meticulously silenced them, but even then, it's not a guarantee they're all squashed. They still choke down the system and periodically we have to clean it all, start all over. It also opens up the system so that updates can completely replace the intended app, install key stroke loggers, malware, spyware, trackers, and all sorts of other nasty things. I've about 0% trust in unfettered PCs. All of that in mind, I can't recall ever having a poor experience with consoles like Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, or any iOS devices.
Sounds like you are not being careful enough when installing programs.
 
Sounds like you are not being careful enough when installing programs.
So true. You can't be careful enough when working with PCs, which is my point. If a law comes out requiring that Apple opens the flood gate to side-loading on their platforms, I can't imagine the law will be tailored specifically for Apple. It would mean Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo Switch, Vive, Quest, and others would need to permit side-loading as well. It's a hassle I don't mind tolerate for PC gaming, but when I buy other platforms and consoles, I like that there are appropriate guards and vetting in place that spare me from such hassles.
 
Let’s be clear Epic are scumbags who just don’t want to pay. Even if Apple did allow side loading Epic would still moan that their apps should still be on the App Store and wouldn’t want to pay. Look what they did on the android platform. Launched Fortnite outside of the play store and had to be downloaded from their website and hence didn’t have to pay a penny to Google. After a while they decided they could get more users if they made it available on the play store. This would mean they would be willing to pay their cut to Google right? Wrong because they pulled the same stunt as they did with Apple where they were allowing users to bypass google payments and having them pay everything directly to Epic. So what they want is their apps and their own AppStore on the Apple AppStore and not have to pay anything.
 
Ask epic to open up the unreal asset store and such services, you'll see the real face of the beast by then.
 
Epic wants to reap the benefits of the Apple ecosystem without paying. I hope Fortnite is banned from the iOS App Store forever.

Ultimately, I think Epic wants their own Epic store on the Home Screen of all iPhones and leech off of Apple's ecosystem.
 
Last edited:
Epic wants to reap the benefits of the Apple ecosystem without paying. I hope Fortnite is banned from the iOS App Store forever.

Ultimately, I think Epic wants their own Epic store on the Home Screen of all iPhones and leech off of Apple's ecosystem.
This is quite obvious. However, the have fooled a good amount of people. I for one, will hate if the iPhone has it's walled garden eliminated because that is the OS I bought into. I don't want no EU regulation dictating different. The choice for alternate OS is Android. Leave it at that.
 
This is quite obvious. However, the have fooled a good amount of people. I for one, will hate if the iPhone has it's walled garden eliminated because that is the OS I bought into. I don't want no EU regulation dictating different. The choice for alternate OS is Android. Leave it at that.
Why would it matter to you? You don't have to side load anything or add anything you don't want. I personally don't care either way and like you I would stick to the Apple eco system just from a security stand point, but opening things up is not a bad thing and with the way Apple is these days I am in favour of them having less control.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.