Apple's hypocrisy with app "sideloading"

[singularity0993]

The apps must still be signed by Apple if you want to install them, which means Apple still controls what you can install and what you cannot. And they continue to use such control to collect commissions. Nothing really changed.

EU probably won’t be foolish enough to recognize this as sideloading. Wonder how they are going to deal with Apple’s malicious compliance.

 

[Luis Ortega]

Hefty fines may help Apple see the light.

 

[Dust-by-Monday]

The apps must still be signed by Apple if you want to install them, which means Apple still controls what you can install and what you cannot. And they continue to use such control to collect commissions. Nothing really changed.

EU probably won’t be foolish enough to recognize this as sideloading. Wonder how they are going to deal with Apple’s malicious compliance.

Apple is within their right to protect their customers from harmful software. Was anyone really expecting a jailbreak-like experience? I don't think so.

 

[zorinlynx]

Apple is within their right to protect their customers from harmful software. Was anyone really expecting a jailbreak-like experience? I don't think so.

They can do that without requiring app approval.

Remember, you can sideload RIGHT NOW. It's called "free provisioning" and is intended so developers can try out their code without needing an official paid developer account. But it has heavy restrictions like only being able to install a few apps and having to re-sign them after a week.

All they have to do is remove restrictions on free provisioning so an unlimited number of apps can be installed and so that they don't expire. End users still have to approve the developer's certificate, so you still have protection against malware being loaded without the user knowing. They just want to keep control over the platform.

 

[one more]

Apple is within their right to protect their customers from harmful software. Was anyone really expecting a jailbreak-like experience? I don't think so.

No, but we were expecting a macOS-like experience, where we can still install an app at our own risk after Apple’s warning. And I guess we are getting something quite similar with alternative app stores, or not?

 

[zorinlynx]

No, but we were expecting a macOS-like experience, where we can still install an app at our own risk after Apple’s warning. And I guess we are getting something quite similar with alternative app stores, or not?

It's not about preventing malware. It's about retaining control.

Apple is desperately holding onto the control they have over iOS devices. They know that once they relinquish that control, it's gone forever. They will fight this until the end.

People are deluded into thinking it's because they want to protect us from malware or scammers or whatnot, but that's just the *excuse* they make. Notice how this is the first EU directive they follow that they only (half-assed) follow in the EU, because they want to give up as little of that control as possible. Hopefully the EU realizes what they're doing, and tells them "no you have to open it up for real, none of this approval and charging core fees nonsense."

 

[Dust-by-Monday]

It's not about preventing malware. It's about retaining control.

Apple is desperately holding onto the control they have over iOS devices. They know that once they relinquish that control, it's gone forever. They will fight this until the end.

People are deluded into thinking it's because they want to protect us from malware or scammers or whatnot, but that's just the *excuse* they make. Notice how this is the first EU directive they follow that they only (half-assed) follow in the EU, because they want to give up as little of that control as possible. Hopefully the EU realizes what they're doing, and tells them "no you have to open it up for real, none of this approval and charging core fees nonsense."

Like it or not, it's their OS and their hardware. They can and will control what people do with it. If you don't like it there are other options out there. I'd like to keep garbage off my iPhone.

 

[singularity0993]

Like it or not, it's their OS and their hardware. They can and will control what people do with it. If you don't like it there are other options out there. I'd like to keep garbage off my iPhone.

Certainly you can choose not to sideload even if Apple allows it.

 

[Dust-by-Monday]

Certainly you can choose not to sideload even if Apple allows it.

So there's no way someone can't be tricked into sideloading?

 

[MRxROBOT]

So there's no way someone can't be tricked into sideloading?

You can't be serious? Your argument is, I may be tricked...
Use common sense. We've had "side loading" on our Macs since inception and I've never had an issue.

 

[one more]

So there's no way someone can't be tricked into sideloading?

If you have a Mac, you must be familiar with Apple’a warning popups, asking us to confirm if we really want to install this piece of software downloaded from such and such. Prior to that, however, we need to explicitly allow installation of unknown third-party apps in Settings > Security on our Macs.

 

[zorinlynx]

If you have a Mac, you must be familiar with Apple’a warning popups, asking us to confirm if we really want to install this piece of software downloaded from such and such. Prior to that, however, we need to explicitly allow installation of unknown third-party apps in Settings > Security on our Macs.

And it's the same with sideloaded apps on iOS. You have to specifically go into settings and enable apps from that developer.

All the mechanisms are already in place to allow sideloading. Apple is just holding back the app signing certificates.

So there's no way someone can't be tricked into sideloading?

You'd have to trick them into installing the app, then going into settings and enabling apps from the "bad guy" developer.

Seriously, at this point anyone who goes through all that deserves what they get.

And the thing is, EVEN IF you go through all that, the app still runs in is sandbox, and won't have access to your data unless you allow it. The amount of damage a rogue app can do is quite limited by the OS.

 

[contacos]

Like it or not, it's their OS and their hardware. They can and will control what people do with it. If you don't like it there are other options out there. I'd like to keep garbage off my iPhone.

Europe doesn’t work like that. I can’t even toss out glass bottles between 12 and 3 pm because it potentially makes too much noise during the official „quiet hours“ and I live in Berlin!

 

[kvozel]

Like it or not, it's their OS and their hardware. They can and will control what people do with it. If you don't like it there are other options out there. I'd like to keep garbage off my iPhone.

It's not their hardware, it's mine. I bought it and I should be allowed to do anything with it.

 

[Mackan]

It's been so unclear what what the rules would be for alterantive app stores and side loading, but reading Apple's implementation, it seems EU must have failed in their writing their law.

Sideloading should of course work like on Android, with no strings attached. And this should work on iPad as well. This has turned out like quite a joke so far. A lot of waiting for nothing.

 

[redheeler]

The apps must still be signed by Apple if you want to install them, which means Apple still controls what you can install and what you cannot. And they continue to use such control to collect commissions. Nothing really changed.

EU probably won’t be foolish enough to recognize this as sideloading. Wonder how they are going to deal with Apple’s malicious compliance.

That’s not much of a problem and has been working fine on MacOS for years. The problem is the junk technology fee which doesn’t exist on MacOS - I hope the EU opens non-compliance proceedings against Apple and forces the fee, plus any other additional revenue-sharing requirements for notarization to be removed.

There should also be a way for free and open-source apps to not have to pay the yearly developer fee, since these apps do not generate any source of revenue that could reimburse developers for the fee. That’s been a problem on MacOS as well (although it’s still possible to run non-signed apps on MacOS, Apple has done lots to make it difficult / discourage users from doing so). Charging for-profit companies and closed-source app developers the yearly fee is perfectly reasonable.

 

[singularity0993]

That’s not much of a problem and has been working fine on MacOS for years. The problem is the junk technology fee which doesn’t exist on MacOS

You probably didn’t realize that forced notarization is the only way Apple can enforce various junk fees on the platform.

macOS don’t have junk fees simply because Apple can do nothing if developers refuse to pay. They can’t even file lawsuits because the fees themselves are illegal.

 

[mrochester]

It's been so unclear what what the rules would be for alterantive app stores and side loading, but reading Apple's implementation, it seems EU must have failed in their writing their law.

Sideloading should of course work like on Android, with no strings attached. And this should work on iPad as well. This has turned out like quite a joke so far. A lot of waiting for nothing.

I think part of the issue is people misunderstanding the intention of the DMA. The DMA is not written for a consumer audience, it is written for a business audience.

People saw that Apple must allow apps to be installed from alternative sources and thinking the DMA was written for consumers assumed that meant a consumer would be able to install apps themselves simply by downloading an app from a website. The actual intent of the DMA is to allow another business to setup an App Store on the iPhone to sell apps to consumers, because the DMA is written to take power away from Apple and give that power to another business. The DMA is not written to take power away from Apple and give that power to consumers. The benefit/downside for consumers is the potential need to install and use multiple app stores to get all the apps they want.

 

[Mackan]

The benefit/downside for consumers is the potential need to install and use multiple app stores to get all the apps they want.

Well, this last part does not seem to work out in the end. We will hardly get all apps we want if someone else is involved in controlling fees and what apps are allowed to be installed.

 

[Basic75]

Apple is within their right to protect their customers from harmful software.

Why should that trump my right to install DOS and NES emulators on an iPad that I own?

 

[Basic75]

I'd like to keep garbage off my iPhone.

Why does that mean that nobody else should be allowed to install garbage applications that Apple believes its customers are too stupid for, or shouldn't need because it doesn't fit into their idea of what a user should be doing, like spending money on mobile crap games instead of using a DOS and NES emulator for the classics?

 

[j26]

I'm sick of the term "side-loading". It has negative connotations, like there's something shady about it.

Direct install or First Party Installation are more appropriate terms.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Like it or not, it's their OS and their hardware. They can and will control what people do with it. If you don't like it there are other options out there. I'd like to keep garbage off my iPhone.

It's their software, but it's my hardware. I'm not leasing it from Apple and I'm not making payments.

 

[mode11]

Apple is entitled to protect its property, while at the same time customers who feel they aren’t getting enough value out of apples hardware, software and services, have competition aplenty to choose from. Android

FTFY

 

[Basic75]

have competition aplenty to choose from

From where I'm standing there are only two viable smartphone operating systems.