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

[OneBar]

Cydia can be disallowed on the AppStore, but Apple can’t prevent it from being installed.

Cydia as a source for illegal applications/software could be disallowed as an app store because of the illegal content.

Can’t say they are not playing nice with macOS with the exception of releasing their valve games on the ARM architecture.

Almost every Mac game is on steam compared the Macappstore.

Well we're talking mac versus iOS now. Releasing valve games on ARM and not M would be anticompetitive behavior according to everything I've seen on these forums.

It’s unacceptable by policy, iOS wouldn’t prevent it from loading as long as it’s within the sandbox.

I mean unacceptable legally.

Would say it’s useful code to list applications your interested in so you don’t forget.

Well it would be a little easier if I can just refine the search criteria. In the store, in the older days it wanted.

Again the refining process happens during the research. I only go on the App Store to download what I've chosen. App Store, any of them, aren't going to give me the amount of detail I want prior to getting an app.
Lists can be kept on your phone 🤷

Well in the past you could do that with iTunes, but that functionality was removed many years ago.

Yeah because FID is more secure and all your financials are linked to your Apple device. You'd have to probably input payment details as well as a passcode to purchase off of an Apple or iCloud linked account.

 

[I7guy]

And many consumers want the choice as well.

Got proof? The billlions of iPhone users want side loading and alternative app stores?

Allowing sidelaoding and alternative app stores can give BOTH iOS and iPadOS developers AND users the choices they want.

No less choice.

 

[I7guy]

It is competition in the sense that it's not impossible that, in your scenario, if AppX store wasn't allowed to exist then neither would Photo App B, thus making the App Store the deciding factor in deciding whether an app can be sold altogether.

They aren't.

They are. But some don’t want to see that.
- race to the bottom for copycat apps
- playing where’s Waldo with apps pulled from apples iOS app store
- increase in malware, scamware and phish ware as apps don’t have a review process and app stores can be formulated by anybody.

 

[webkit]

And smartphone manufacturers are stifling competition in the mobile OS and ecosystem market by refusing to compete, and app developers stifle competition in the mobile OS and ecosystem market by refusing to make their apps available across all platforms. These are all problems that need regulations to address.

Some may not be adding/creating competition but they're not necessarily stifling competition. If they were stifling competition, they would be actively doing things to block/prevent the possible creation of new competition. That's a bit different.

I suspect most users do not want alternative app stores. How it works should be what MOST users want, not what a MINORITY of users want.

How it should work is to allow more choices instead of limiting choices as Apple does by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores.

 

[Samplasion]

So your assumption is that alternative app stores will offer apps that don’t appear in the original App Store? Do we have any evidence thatll be the case?

You assume every app will be in every store. If anyone should provide evidence of anything, it's you. But we have evidence of the contrary: see F-Droid, which has a different standard of acceptance.

 

[OneBar]

People seem to forget that Android is not an all encompassing OS. There is the Samsung version, Sony version, OnePlus version, etc….
The problem with the App Store is the tight restriction that Apple has, allowing only what it wants, removing or denying others, sometimes arbitrarily.

I cannot agree with most of what you state as it is narrow focused or/and assumes what Apple’s solution will be. They may only allow alt stores and no other types of “side loading” like you can do on most versions of Android.

I mean it is an all encompassing OS for Android devices. Samsung or Son or whoever just puts a GUI skin on top of it. It's all still the same OS under that skin.
That tight restriction is what makes Apple's App Store appealing. If I wanted the Wild West of technology, where anything goes, I'd get on Android. The option is there. Making Apple do the same thing actually removes options.
I haven't really assumed anything about what Apple's solution will be. As I've said several times, we'll see with the EU. Although I did predict that they'd make sideloading regional and was poopoo'd for saying so.

Yes, exactly. You can remove the Apple app but cannot define a new default leaving that portion unfuntioning or erroring. Btw - for a lot of these, it doesn’t remove the app, just your devices access to it. That is a function Apple should fix; allow defining alternative defaults.

Yep! The EU is going to be the experiment. Be interesting to see the play back and forth betwixt Apple and the EU…

What do you mean you cannot define a new default? For what in particular? Because I don't use any of the stock iOS apps aside from Camera and have defaults in their places.

 

[OneBar]

It is competition in the sense that it's not impossible that, in your scenario, if AppX store wasn't allowed to exist then neither would Photo App B, thus making the App Store the deciding factor in deciding whether an app can be sold altogether.

Why wouldn't Photo App B not already be on Apple's App Store then? Probably because it violates TOS or other? They don't too often disallow an app just because.

 

[OneBar]

Options create the competition that is severely lacking in major segments of the mobile and table OS markets by Apple's restrictions on sideloading and alternative app stores. Again, Apple is stifling competition by its restrictions on sideloading and alternative app stores on major mobile and tablet OS marketplaces.

If the competition doesn't already exist on the current platform, it isn't going to exist because there's a new platform. If your app is good, then what platform it is on shouldn't matter; you'll compete. If you're not already competing then you're not going to.

 

[webkit]

This is about reigning in apple by defying a market place with two operating system instead of hundreds of competitors.

This is about trying to reign in dominant players who stifle competition in their markets, as Apple does by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores on iOS and iPadOS.

 

[webkit]

Got proof? The billlions of iPhone users want side loading and alternative app stores?

Who said it was billions?

The "proof" is comments from people on forums like this one and others who say they want alternatives to Apple’s App Store. The “proof” is users sideloading and using alternative app stores on other OS platforms that actually allow competition to exist.

No less choice.

No, more choice.

 

[Samplasion]

This is about reigning in apple by defying a market place with two operating system instead of hundreds of competitors.

Apple has the largest share of sales across all smartphone vendors in Europe. Thanks for bringing that up. The majority player acting uncompetitively must be regulated.

Cydia as a source for illegal applications/software could be disallowed as an app store because of the illegal content.

Cydia is nothing more than a storefront for third-party sources. Can you provide a source (either a Cydia source or an actual source) for Cydia having illegal apps? (And by whose definitions are those alleged apps illegal anyway?)

Got proof? The billlions of iPhone users want side loading and alternative app stores?

Got proof? The billions of iPhone users who want nothing to do with competitive prices and potentially well-made apps outside of Apple's control?

- race to the bottom for copycat apps

Which we have in the current App Store.

- playing where’s Waldo with apps pulled from apples iOS app store

Which could be pulled for unreasonable or stupid reasons.

- increase in malware, scamware and phish ware as apps don’t have a review process and app stores can be formulated by anybody.

This is pure speculation. Also, I thought it was undeniably hard to create and maintain an app store, what happened to that?

That tight restriction is what makes Apple's App Store appealing

To whom?

Making Apple do the same thing actually removes options.

This just in: adding options removes options.

Because I don't use any of the stock iOS apps aside from Camera and have defaults in their places.

You don't have defaults, you have replacements. If you click a mailto: link, you open up Mail, not Spark. If you tap a phone number, you open up the stock Phone app. And so on and so forth.

Why wouldn't Photo App B not already be on Apple's App Store then?

Possibly because Photo App B's developer can't afford or doesn't want to pay the $100/year developer fee.

Probably because it violates TOS or other?

"it violates the App Store TOS" is a better wording, but even then, it's not certain.

They don't too often disallow an app just because.

There are dozens of such threads on the Internet.

If the competition doesn't already exist on the current platform, it isn't going to exist because there's a new platform

Do you have a source for such a wild statement?

If your app is good, then what platform it is on shouldn't matter;

Unless the developer of the platform decided that your app violates an esoteric requirement (or is already developing an in-house alternative anyway)

Edit: part of the comment was cut by mistake.

 

[webkit]

If the competition doesn't already exist on the current platform, it isn't going to exist because there's a new platform. If your app is good, then what platform it is on shouldn't matter; you'll compete. If you're not already competing then you're not going to.

iOS and iPadOS app access competition doesn't exist because Apple's is preventing it from existing by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores on major mobile OS and tablet OS markets. Again, Apple is stifling competition.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Japan has joined the chat, in 1943.

How'd that work out for them? Oh yeah, I remember.

US: *drops nuke*
Japan: We'll surrender under certain circumstances
US: *drops another nuke*

war over.

 

[I7guy]

Apple has the largest share of sales across all smartphone vendors in Europe. Thanks for bringing that up. The majority player acting uncompetitively must be regulated.

I actually disagree that apple is acting uncompetitivly. And, yes it is popular platform because people like their hardware and software closed system.

Cydia is nothing more than a storefront for third-party sources. Can you provide a source (either a Cydia source or an actual source) for Cydia having illegal apps? (And by whose definitions are those alleged apps illegal anyway?)


Got proof? The billions of iPhone users who want nothing to do with competitive prices and potentially well-made apps outside of Apple's control?

Which we have in the current App Store.

Which could be pulled for unreasonable or stupid reasons.

This is pure speculation. Also, I thought it was undeniably hard to create and maintain an app store, what happened to that?


To whom?

This just in: adding options removes options.

You don't have defaults, you have replacements. If you click a mailto: link, you open up Mail, not Spark. If you tap a phone number, you open up the stock Phone app. And so on and so forth.

Possibly because Photo App B's developer can't afford or doesn't want to pay the $100/year developer fee.

"it violates the App Store TOS" is a better wording, but even then, it's not certain.

There are dozens of such threads on the Internet.

Do you have a source for such a wild statement?

Unless the developer of the platform decided that your app violates an esoteric requirement (or is already developing an in-house alternative anyway)

Edit: part of the comment was cut by mistake.

 

[I7guy]

Who said it was billions?

The majority gets what it wants. And in this case few are asking for it, imo.

The "proof" is comments from people on forums like this one and others who say they want alternatives to Apple’s App Store. The “proof” is users sideloading and using alternative app stores on other OS platforms that actually allow competition to exist.

The proof is ten comments from a fan site? Ok.

No, more choice.

No, less choice.

 

[I7guy]

This is about trying to reign in dominant players who stifle competition in their markets, as Apple does by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores on iOS and iPadOS.

This is about reigning in apple, where there has been no finding of anti-competitive behavior. It’s about a to be worsened user experience. More malware, scamware and phishware.

 

[Samplasion]

where there has been no finding of anti-competitive behavior.

Not even one?

It’s about a to be worsened user experience.

I trust Apple's designer team.

More malware, scamware and phishware.

Says you.

 

[dk001]

You assume every app will be in every store. If anyone should provide evidence of anything, it's you. But we have evidence of the contrary: see F-Droid, which has a different standard of acceptance.

One thing I suspect we will see is apps that use personal APIs. Something Apple does not allow.

 

[dk001]

I mean it is an all encompassing OS for Android devices. Samsung or Son or whoever just puts a GUI skin on top of it. It's all still the same OS under that skin.
That tight restriction is what makes Apple's App Store appealing. If I wanted the Wild West of technology, where anything goes, I'd get on Android. The option is there. Making Apple do the same thing actually removes options.
I haven't really assumed anything about what Apple's solution will be. As I've said several times, we'll see with the EU. Although I did predict that they'd make sideloading regional and was poopoo'd for saying so.

No one is saying that Apple has to become Android. Matter of fact, that is ludicrous. Especially when the models of hardware offered are rigidly limited.

What do you mean you cannot define a new default? For what in particular? Because I don't use any of the stock iOS apps aside from Camera and have defaults in their places.

If I delete Calendar, or Mail, or Maps, or Messages, or Camera, or…. I have no ability the redefine the app called by the OS when that function is called for.

 

[Samplasion]

One thing I suspect we will see is apps that use personal APIs. Something Apple does not allow.

Yeah, they don't. But whether that's logical depends on the API itself. Remember when, at the height of the pandemic, it turned out that Zoom had been granted permission to use a private entitlement in order to access the camera feed in split-view? Hopefully that won't fly once this goes into effect.
Besides, I don't know how much sense Apple having access to "prohibited methods" in their code has. For many functions it's logical, for example those that deal with their own servers or with low-level stuff on the device. But I suspect they've been using this excuse in order to limit competition when it comes to internal services.

 

[dk001]

”Why wouldn't Photo App B not already be on Apple's App Store then?”
Possibly because Photo App B's developer can't afford or doesn't want to pay the $100/year developer fee.

Or what I have run into; the allowed Public APIs are limited and Personal APIs are not allowed in the apps store. Nor is access to Apple’s core APIs which only their apps are allowed access.

Update: saw your reply up above after I posted this

 

[BaldiMac]

If I delete Calendar, or Mail, or Maps, or Messages, or Camera, or…. I have no ability the redefine the app called by the OS when that function is called for.

You can set default mail and browser apps.

 

[I7guy]

Not even one?

Does that really counts?

I trust Apple's designer team.

Yes to innovate. Not to be forced to provide a public service for their up.

Says you.

Yep, thought it was clear it was MY opinion. Not going to be all rainbows and unicorns, imo.

 

[Samplasion]

Does that really counts?

Why wouldn't it?

Yes to innovate. Not to be forced to provide a public service for their up.

I trust the Apple team to come up with a nice UX for their OS. That's it.

 

[BaldiMac]

Why wouldn't it?

Because you linked to investigations and accusations and not court findings?

Not to say that there hasn't been any findings, because their certainly are. Japanese and Dutch cases if I remember correctly. But my point would be that the DMA isn't a response to actual court findings. It skips due process and imposes regulations justified by accusations.