App Store to Be 'Split in Two' Ahead of EU iPhone Sideloading Deadline

[DanTheMan827]

It won’t be optional. How many big name developers have their apps on the Mac App store? Could you use a Mac without sideloading anything? It would be pretty difficult

The Mac App Store came after everyone was already “sideloading”, and it came with considerable limitations on top of the forced 30%.

Developers couldn’t just bring their app over to the Mac App Store without potentially making considerable changes to how it functioned.

iOS on the other hand will still retain the same security model used currently for apps from the App Store… the only thing apps will be able to do outside of the App Store is things that aren’t allowed by the policies imposed by it. Many of which are rather ridiculous.

 

[DanTheMan827]

As if being the family IT support person wasn't already enough of a challenge.

Real IT doesn’t let the users install whatever they want… if you don’t want them to sideload, install a profile on their phone to disable it.

If they come back with complaints, tell them they can start paying you to fix issues if they want full control.

 

[ninecows]

Because you can’t shop anywhere else but the App Store.

The analogy would be that you can only shop at Walmart, and you can’t shop anywhere else.

You’re at the mercy of what Walmart decides to charge, and what products they decide to allow to be sold.

Looking at things that way, it’s completely unreasonable, but that’s exactly what Apple is doing with the App Store… the one source for obtaining software for the entire iOS market

No. You choose to go into Walmart and then you expect them to sell other stuff that maybe only their competitors have.

 

[DanTheMan827]

Does this mean there will be sideloading on the Mac soon?
Oh, wait...

You’re joking, but I would love to be able to sideload any iOS app into macOS again.

Minecraft for iOS ran absolutely perfectly, but Apple took away the ability for users to sideload ipa files and now there’s no way to run Minecraft bedrock on macOS whatsoever despite it only being something limited by Apple’s own policies.

 

[SanderEvers]

Just don’t make use of the feature!

No one is forcing you to sideload anything.

Except when important App developers remove their Apps from the App Store. Something that HAPPENED on PC with some games being removed from Steam before them appearing on the Epic Game Store.

This legislation gives the App developer a choice to switch from the privacy first and safe App Store to a third party store that may be unsafe and may not be privacy focused.
This legislation does not protect the user. This legislation does not give the user any choice. It's not meant to give you a choice. It's meant to take your choice for a privacy first closed system away!

If I wanted an open system, I WOULD HAVE PURCHASED AN ANDROID!!

 

[DanTheMan827]

No. You choose to go into Walmart and then you expect them to sell other stuff that maybe only their competitors have.

No, I go into Walmart, and if they don’t have what I want I go to another store that does.

iOS literally only has the App Store… where’s the competition?

 

[ninecows]

The walled garden isn’t why most people bought the iPhone… they bought the iPhone because it integrates extremely well with every other Apple product

Just checking: Are you referring to the results of some major survey or just making up statistics that matches your worldview?

 

[ninecows]

No, I go into Walmart, and if they don’t have what I want I go to another store that does.

iOS literally only has the App Store… where’s the competition?

Android. It’s not that hard is it?

 

[DanTheMan827]

I hope Apple implements a different color bubble for iMessage users who have side-loaded apps.

It's about security people!!!!!!!

I want to know that the phone I'm communicating with could be compromised.

What does it matter if the iPhone you’re communicating with is compromised? It doesn’t open you up to any more risk than simply being on the internet.

I mean, should Apple give different colors to macOS users too? They have much more control over their system that iOS users could ever dream of…

Stop trying to scare people into thinking sideloading is a bad thing.

 

[DanTheMan827]

Wonder if something like making side loading available for just the SE or regular non-Pro models would be a potential workaround?

That way if people want side loading they can get it in the less popular models.

It’s a requirement across the board, including on the Apple TV, Apple Watch, iPhone, and iPad if Apple doesn’t succeed with their argument of having “5 different App Stores”

Here’s hoping the EU has the common sense to see that Apple is lying.

 

[DanTheMan827]

Android. It’s not that hard is it?

Android is an entirely different market with a very costly barrier to entry.

Imagine if you could only shop at Walmart if you drove Jeep, but in order to shop at Target, you had to drive a Ford…

Most people would not be able to change the place they shop at because this barrier is so large. The EU sees that this is a problem with smartphones, and this is their solution. Rather than force people to buy different phones to get to the different stores, they just remove the limitation entirely.

Now, if Google wants to bring the Play Store to iOS, they’ll be able to, just like Apple has had the option of bringing their services to Android from the beginning.

It opens up competition, and competition is a good thing.

It enables the user to make the choice rather than have it made for them by the gatekeeper who only cares about making themselves more money.

 

[DanTheMan827]

The risk is developers pull or stop updating their App Store version and try to force you use their side loading version.

If that’s honestly an issue, it just means Apple will have to improve the App Store to justify the fees, or to lower them to remain competitive.

If developers are only paying the fees because they’re forced to, that really doesn’t look good for the App Store… you pay to be on something because of the value provided, not because it’s your only option.

 

[AppliedMicro]

. So Apple could creat a Third party "silo" where other appstores and their apps exist and they could have almost NO access to Apple's software or ecosytem

They could… but wise foresight the EU forbids that as a way of undermining compliance with their Digital Markets Act.

 

[DanTheMan827]

That will not happen as the only way to be discovered will be the 1st party store. With the exception of a few zealots and cheapskates very few people will venture outside of the store because it is too easy to use.

In the end the developers are going to pay Apple either by being in the store or a licensing fee for accessing iOS. I expect per download just like all of the game platforms. No one rides for free.

Developers already pay a fee to access iOS… this only removes the exclusivity of the App Store.

It’s $99 yearly to access the tools for code signing apps for iOS. The license fee for them.

I mean, they could raise the prices, but developers will only pay so much before they just say no to iOS entirely or antitrust regulators come in and force them to provide access and documentation to the OS APIs free of charge like the US did to Microsoft.

I could be mistaken, but this might actually already be part of the DMA…

 

[DanTheMan827]

You may own the hardware, but you do not own the software, you own a license to use the software and developer states how you can use it in the license.

Yes, and regulators have the power to force companies to license things in certain ways if they’re acting anticompetitively.

The U.S. forced Microsoft to make available with documentation APIs for Windows development… for free.

It doesn’t mean they can’t keep selling their own development tools, but it does mean that other companies can also make their own development tools.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Except when important App developers remove their Apps from the App Store.

You're not forced to sideload then - just use other apps (that are still available on the store).

Can't use alternative apps? Well, that sucks, doesn't it? Imagine how much worse it would be if there are no stores at all that carry your desired app - possibly because a monopoly store has chosen not to distribute it?

This legislation gives the App developer a choice to switch from the privacy first and safe App Store to a third party store that may be unsafe and may not be privacy focused.

Why would you want to download, install and use such an app in the first place, when its developer is totally unconcerned about the safety and privacy of their customers?

This legislation does not protect the user. This legislation does not give the user any choice. It's not meant to give you a choice. It's meant to take your choice for a privacy first closed system away!

Yes, it does give choice.
It provides the choice of where you want to download/buy your apps (or in-app services) from.
Apple - or the developer directly. Or a third-party store, possibly.

 

[DanTheMan827]

Only if the developer chooses to make their app price fall. They could keep it the same or raise it even higher than it was when it was in the App Store. It's their "art." They can charge whatever they want for it. The potential loser here is Apple in getting cut out of first in line for 30% right off the top.

If developer values the relationship with Apple enough to keep selling in the App Store, they keep allowing Apple to be first at taking that big cut. If developer doesn't value that relationship to trade 30% for it anymore, they can opt to pull the app and sell it direct so that THEY get to take that 30% for themselves... or some lessor amount if THEY opt to charge less for the app.

OR, dev could leave it in the store AND offer it direct. They'll make more money on the latter for customers willing to buy direct from them and less money on the former because Apple gets first cut of each sale. I've purchased many apps direct from app developers over the years for my Mac... some of which have also been for sale in the Apple Mac App Store. There was no real consequence for me either way but I like that the developer made more money for their app that I use. Apple is not exactly going to be destroyed by losing a little of that universal 30% cut of every app.

If I'm Apple or if I prioritize being a shareholder over being a consumer, I HATE this... because I know that all of the spin that's been spun for the last few years is about to be shown to be much ado about nothing. All of the EU will not be hacked. All EU iDevices will not be bricked. All EU iDevices will not be loaded with viruses. All EU bank accounts will not be emptied. Etc. Much like how the new iPhone would be a lint magnet, with a wobbly port and broken tongues galore turned out to be NOTHING, this too will turn out to be nothing like the fear hype that is slung around.

And once it is proven in a region as big as the EU to be better for consumers, there is rumor for the same consumer benefits to spread to other regions where other consumers may want the same benefits.

If in doubt, stand by and anyone can see for themselves. The EU will continue to exist and prosper, etc as any other region. They'll just have more ways to use their iDevices than the rest of us... and more options to buy select apps than the rest of us. And good for them!

They could also keep it on both with a 30% markup on the App Store to recoup the fee charged by Apple.

You set your price so that you make a certain amount of money, and if the user wants to pay more to get the product at one place vs. another, then so be it… you’re getting the same amount from both places, so what does it matter?

 

[DanTheMan827]

You understand this is becuase individual business were free to enter into mutually beneficial agreements, on their own, without being forced to do so by the government. Right?

If Walmart were the only chain of stores available in an entire state, you can bet they’d be forced to behave differently… just like how Apple is being forced to behave differently.

Think Different.

 

[DanTheMan827]

Yeah well I want a V12 Volkswagen but it isn't possible. Maybe I should sue VW?

There’s nothing stopping you from buying another VW and replacing the engine…

You also have the option of many different manufacturers who do make a V12, so…

You aren’t forced into buying from a single car company, but you absolutely are forced into buying from the App Store, and unlike the VW, you can’t just put a different one in

 

[DanTheMan827]

I was really hoping they’d allow sideloading everywhere :/

I wonder if I use a VPN from my internal network routing (so the phone doesnt know) with an EU endpoint and temporarily change my location settings if I can temp unlock sideloading whenever I want to put something on

If you also have a GPS signal transmitter able to spoof your physical location, I don’t see why you couldn’t…

But most people don’t have that equipment just laying around, and you can bet that Apple won’t just check your location based on the networks you’re connected to… unfortunately.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Wonder how that will work for people like me that have an US iCloud account but a German AppleID for the Store

I wouldn’t be surprised if the EU hadn’t thought situations like this out fully.

 

[DanTheMan827]

Should you be able to tweak the firmware so that your cellular modem generates phone-blocking signals?

You should be able to do anything not otherwise permitted by existing regulations.

Signal jamming is in fact a violating of regulations, so no… you shouldn’t be allowed to do that. But you should absolutely be allowed to completely wipe your storage and install something else on the phone if you want to. Including a jailbroken copy of iOS.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They could also keep it on both with a 30% markup on the App Store to recoup the fee charged by Apple.

This is the part I'm not so sure about:

Does the DMA require Apple to carry everyone's and anyone's app? Don't think so.
In which case I can totally anticipate Apple deciding (not publicly, of course):

Once a developer offers their app from their own website or a third-party, we'll boot them from our own store - to take away that developers income stream and set an example to deter others from offering their apps elsewhere.

(Which would also "confirm" the opinion of quite a few on this thread: "See, I told y'all! It was only a billion dollar lobbying effort. Only the biggest billion dollar companies like MS or Epic that will make you sideload. No small developer wants to!")

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Interesting way to look at it. It would not be the first time a major company fought something only to have it work out great for them in the end anyways, or at worst, have no ill effect at all.

I think that would be the ideal ending.

It can’t possibly end up worse for Apple. Even if they provide the ability to use another store, we already know from Android that few ever use it. And, for the few million that switcch to iPhone because they can now download a vape app from outside the store, they’re not going to JUST use that vape app. They’re going to buy apps from on AND off the store and the more apps they buy the more they’re in the ecosystem.

The likelihood that Google gets bored of supporting Android within the next seven years just jumped.

 

[GermanSuplex]

It can’t possibly end up worse for Apple. Even if they provide the ability to use another store, we already know from Android that few ever use it. And, for the few million that switcch to iPhone because they can now download a vape app from outside the store, they’re not going to JUST use that vape app. They’re going to buy apps from on AND off the store and the more apps they buy the more they’re in the ecosystem.

The likelihood that Google gets bored of supporting Android within the next seven years just jumped.

Not a bad view of things, honestly - very well could be case.