iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations

[utkans]

I would personally almost never sideload an app out of security concerns, except for other store apps like Microsoft's Xbox Market or Play Store, but it is good that the option is available for those who wish to do so. What's more appealing to me that Apple might (or will, seemingly) open up more of its private APIs and services to third party developers. I want to use a real Chrome on my iPhone, not a skin on top of Safari, or set default apps for other apps. I would so wish to ditch Apple's Phone app for something more useful, or set ChatGPT as main assistant instead of Siri.

 

[Realityck]

Any app that is pushed out of the Apple App Store will probably not stay on my phone. I think it’s more their loss than mine really.

Yet if you are using MacOS and rely on gatekeeper/real time security that would never be a concern. Just look at how different we judge what’s being installed based on a OS security implementation? iOS needs to do better then this be so much of a concern. It’s doable, and hopefully equates to user concerns then what iOS 16 provides.

 

[Shirasaki]

It sounds like you've "completely fallen into" the EU trap thinking they know best what is good for Apple's customers.

As customer, I appreciate the "walled garden" experience (with all its well known compromises) for its convenience and ease of use. If I didn't appreciate it, I would have bought an Android phone instead!

Users in the end are NOT going to benefit at all. They will get the same apps and services as before and pay the same prices as before. What will be different is that instead of paying 30% to Apple, you'll be paying 30% to Epic. Do you think that's a good move? Would you rather give more money to the company that makes devices that YOU love (because hey, you have an iPhone too, right?) or give that money to Google, Microsoft, Epic, Amazon etc?

Think of it like this: zero actual benefits for the users, Google makes more money and most important of all, you get a federated App Store and payment processing system environment in which users have to go through whatever hoop Google, Microsoft, Epic, Amazon etc decide you have to go through to use their software.

Is that a good thing? Because to me, it sounds like a nightmare.

To even say I fall into “EU trap” shows you a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

1. EU doesn’t know what’s good for Apple’s customers, but they don’t have to, because even within Apple customers there are folks who support sideloading. EU has to pick a side and they pick sideloading side. Simple as that.

2. Walled garden experience is not built for you. It’s just you find walled garden experience good. And, convenience and ease of use has nothing to do with walled garden. It’s about UI/UX design, Human Interface, psychology and more. A good software doesn’t need to limit how user uses it, so does a good platform. Walled garden is there simply because Apple can reap all the benefits while middle fingering anyone who is against them.

3. Why allowing sideloading has to have something to do with benefiting customers? And why do you think they will get the same apps and services? Unless you have insider information involving senior Apple executives decision making progress, no one can say certain what will happen. We are all guessing.

4. Why for some bizarre reason paying that 30% commission fee to Apple is morally better than paying it to Microsoft, Epic, Amazon, Google or others? I give money to someone who can provide the service/product I need. Nothing more. It just doesn‘t feel right to emotionally attach to a company that cares nothing more than the money in your wallet.

5. Again, why somehow Google makes more money? I don’t get it. And what’s the consequences of federated App Store? If Google Play Store is still the most dominant source of android app download (outside of China), despite supporting rooting etc from day 1, that means customers all enjoy least friction shopping and payment experience. How on earth sideloading gonna change that? Apple will still maintain their tight integration of their system top to bottom regardless, and sideloading ain’t gonna matter either way.

Tunnel vision is bad, bro. Apple ONLY cares about money. If Apple can earn $15T in the next 24 hours by removing population on the planet, Apple will do it.

 

[Abazigal]

It sounds like you've "completely fallen into" the EU trap thinking they know best what is good for Apple's customers.

They don't.

US antitrust law looks at harm to consumers caused by monopolies, whereas the EU tends to focus more on harm done to businesses, hence the different focus. It's also no coincidence that the companies behind the two most popular smartphone OSes in the world are both American, which is why the EU can afford to attack them directly because they don't have to be afraid of stepping on the wrong toes.

This move is not designed to benefit the end user primarily.

 

[Abazigal]

Game consoles are designed for just that: Games, with occasional streaming services. That's it. You're not doing your taxes on a game console, you're not creating spreadsheets on a game console, you're not using social media apps on a game console. Game consoles are also a highly competitive market, versus smartphone operating systems that are a duopoly between Apple's iOS and Google's Android.

But what's stopping Microsoft from release office apps for the xbox? Any limitation here is purely self-imposed, based on an arbitrary definition of what a gaming console should and should not do.

Not only that, but game consoles are sold at a loss so the 30% cut is actually necessary since game, DLC, and service subscription sales is how game consoles make their money. Apple doesn't sell their iPhones and iPads at a loss, they make the majority of their revenue on hardware sales, so the 30% cut is not as justified.

Could these gaming companies then be charged for dumping, since they are knowingly selling their hardware at a loss or break-even point?

Personally, I don't see what is wrong with Apple choosing to have their cake and eat it too, by selling both their hardware at a handsome margin, and collecting 30% of all app proceeds.

 

[amartinez1660]

or it risks fines of as much as 20 percent of its global revenue if the EU laws are violated.

I find this a bit insane, not to mention overreaching. What am I missing?

A cluster of countries under a single umbrella group decides to come up with some rules for some digital business done inside their zone. Alright, fair.

But if said rules aren’t met (which any bureaucrat not cash-sweetened enough can at any time can decide it wasn’t met): suddenly the metrics for calculating the fines isn’t said geo zone but an amount that takes into account all commerce done everywhere, even unrelated to “App Store” (services, hardware sales and even the bank side of things with the new Apple Card savings).
Starting from South America, to central america, North America, all of Africa, all of Asia, the Australian zone pals and let’s end at Japan.

If nine other random countries decide to do the same, they would be asking together for 200% of their global business

I’m getting a touch of “I want your money so badly that I will come up with as many weirdo fines thingies as possible” smell.

 

[amartinez1660]

Game consoles and smartphones/tablets are completely separate markets with different functions​

Game consoles are designed for just that: Games, with occasional streaming services. That's it. You're not doing your taxes on a game console, you're not creating spreadsheets on a game console, you're not using social media apps on a game console. Game consoles are also a highly competitive market, versus smartphone operating systems that are a duopoly between Apple's iOS and Google's Android.

Let me offer a bit of what comes to mind. Take it as you will.
1.a: People complain that an iPad should be exactly as a Mac and have macOS. That “it’s apple fault because it has basically the same capable hardware”. Suddenly, “it wasn’t designed for that in mind” doesn’t fly here. Which is totally understandable.
1.b: But why give the others a pass? What’s stopping Xbox and Sony from using their 100% equivalent hardware to any other customer PC to be able to install and use their systems as any other computer? You could totally do your taxes on an Xbox if only Microsoft unblocked their already existing windows OS inside them. The current limitations are totally fake.

2. Game consoles: “but they sell at a loss”
If I decide to start a car dealership business, at a loss, does that mean that I get to have special treatment for being such a terrible entrepreneur/businessman?
The reason they started selling at a loss was to try to choke the others out of competition (which is on legal dangerous terrain). They got themselves into this, continuing at a loss is their choice.
And the “duopoly pricing” isn’t really a factor, you can buy a $100 Android phone and a $2000+ one.
Apple tends to not budge on this, selling a product at a loss? No way, no business = no product.
Nintendo tends to not budge on this either, they let the others fight it out, cheap out on hardware and offer value elsewhere (games that customers want to buy at the price they want to pay to play).

Ultimately, I don’t really care that it’s like that, my favorite console is actually the Switch: easy to pick, resume from sleep actually works, I don’t care that it doesn’t let me install excel or that it doesn’t have an RTX-something. My favorite tablet is an iPad Pro, does wonders for what it’s made for. My favorite PC is a Mac Studio.

What I care to point is that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[JonathanX64]

1.b: But why give the others a pass? What’s stopping Xbox and Sony from using their 100% equivalent hardware to any other customer PC to be able to install and use their systems as any other computer? You could totally do your taxes on an Xbox if only Microsoft unblocked their already existing windows OS inside them. The current limitations are totally fake.

Not really, by the way. Xbox runs a custom OS built for custom hardware; same with any other console. They're not PCs (like Steam Deck is).

 

[djphat2000]

I don’t understand how sideloading can lead to malware - uncontrolled data tracking and whatnot, sure, probably… but malware? How is it going to alter the operating system? as it is, apps are heavily sandboxed in iOS. They also need explicit permissions to access most things outside of that sandbox, and those are usually “read only” permissions. I don’t see how this would suddenly change just because the app comes from a different source. You may be allowed to install “alternative apps” but iOS isn’t going to allow them to do anything an app from the App Store couldn’t do from a technical standpoint.

If you can write for iOS without any checks on how that software will work. You will end up with malware from some of these apps. No different than when EPIC changed server side, how Fortnite can charge around the AppStore.
Apple couldn't revoke that universally anymore if you got an App outside its' store.

All the app would have to do is ask you for persmission to do "something". You allow it, and done. Any vulnerability found (think zero day), could be used by a malware app to take over your phone. Similar to a JailBreak but, you wouldn't know about it till it was way too late.

You would also be opened up to drive by downloads. Click a link, and your browser would just download a payload in the background and maybe sometime later prompt you for access to say your camera app or photos, contacts etc..
Apple would then have to include some kind of malware protection like they do on MacOS. But now it's going to run on your phone. With something like 1/7th the battery size.

The iPhone would instantly be a sought after target. Since it is popular, and most users wouldn't even know about this new "feature". Lots of users update right away to the newest release of iOS.
I fully expect there to be issues after release.

 

[NagasakiGG]

Tbh, I couldn't care less. I think most of the people (ab)using this side load feature will be the ones who then spam YouTube videos on how to get App XYZ for free...

 

[dk001]

There would be another vector for attack. Consider a maliciously crafted website that can silently sideload an app that is then persistent, has no icon or indication that it is installed (or masquerades as some sort of iOS service like “Updater” etc). I’m sure there’s already malware that can do some pretty wild things but sideloading just lowers the bar and makes it even easier. Not to mention the “official” apps that are coming like Facebook or TikTok that will offer more “features” but will also no longer be limited to Apple’s restrictions and standards. The good news are stores such as Microsoft Game Pass for better gaming, but the cons outweigh the pros in my opinion.

Thanks for the reply. I am struggling with seeing detail in the con statement. Appears to be more of a supposition than any kind of factual opinion. Still valid.

My thoughts align with your except for the overall impact - after some initial growing pains I suspect it will be on par with Android. Android has more penetration in 3rd world where this is more likely while iOS is more of a single target vs many targets. Email and text provides a bigger target these days independent of OS. Either way it will be interesting to see what actually occurs. I’m definitely not in the doom and gloom camp.

Actually, rolling out in the EU first (kind of phased) will allow some of the gotcha’s to be addressed before a global (likely) rollout.

 

[webkit]

It sounds like you've "completely fallen into" the EU trap thinking they know best what is good for Apple's customers.

As customer, I appreciate the "walled garden" experience (with all its well known compromises) for its convenience and ease of use. If I didn't appreciate it, I would have bought an Android phone instead!

Users in the end are NOT going to benefit at all. They will get the same apps and services as before and pay the same prices as before. What will be different is that instead of paying 30% to Apple, you'll be paying 30% to Epic. Do you think that's a good move? Would you rather give more money to the company that makes devices that YOU love (because hey, you have an iPhone too, right?) or give that money to Google, Microsoft, Epic, Amazon etc?

Think of it like this: zero actual benefits for the users, Google makes more money and most important of all, you get a federated App Store and payment processing system environment in which users have to go through whatever hoop Google, Microsoft, Epic, Amazon etc decide you have to go through to use their software.

Is that a good thing? Because to me, it sounds like a nightmare.

Competition, choice and options can definitely be a good thing and may encourage Apple to make their App Store even better and more appealing to customers (developers and users). It could also force Apple to make iOS even better and more secure for handling sideloading.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

But what's stopping Microsoft from release office apps for the xbox? Any limitation here is purely self-imposed, based on an arbitrary definition of what a gaming console should and should not do.

Technically it is already on Xbox through the Edge browser

Yes, you can use Office on the Xbox Series X|S with a mouse and keyboard

We don't know why you'd do it, but you can indeed use Microsoft Office on Xbox consoles through the new Edge browser.

www.windowscentral.com

Could these gaming companies then be charged for dumping, since they are knowingly selling their hardware at a loss or break-even point?

Personally, I don't see what is wrong with Apple choosing to have their cake and eat it too, by selling both their hardware at a handsome margin, and collecting 30% of all app proceeds.

There was a point a game console could do more than just games and be used as a full computer: The PlayStation 3 used to have a feature called OtherOS where you could dualboot Linux onto the PS3 and use it as a supercomputer. The United States Air Force used to have a supercomputer cluster made up of 1,760 PS3s

Now the reason the PS3 had the OtherOS feature in the first place was because of the hardware in it: the Cell Broadband Engine, a special PowerPC processor made in conjunction with IBM and Sony that made server and supercomputer functions a breeze, to the point Folding@Home was ported to the PS3. However, PS3s bought as servers didn't make Sony money, but made them lose billions a year since PS3s were overengineered and expensive to make. Remember when the fat PS3 launched it's MSRP was $599 (which is $900 nowadays adjusting for inflation,) a price that is still meme'd on to this day. They needed game and bluray sales to make that money back so the feature was removed in 2010 (which later resulted in a class action lawsuit that didn't settle until 2016)

And that is why game consoles do not have desktop modes and traditional PC functionality, after the mess OtherOS caused. Now the iPhone and iPad aren't sold at a loss, App Store and subscription sales are only a piece of Apple's pie (pun intended.) The majority of their revenue profits are always hardware sales, so even if theoretically people stopped using the App Store, they'd still make a stupid amount of money from each year's iPhone refresh. And that's only in theory, because in practice from years of Android most will stick to an App Store with their mobile devices since it's more easy and convenient than just downloading and installing an APK. At least with sideloading in iOS 17 those who want it like me will have the option and be able to run the software they want that Apple doesn't allow.

 

[webkit]

So when I side load to to Nintendo , Sony and Xbox hardware then ?

Those companies/products don't have restrictions on where you can acquire games like Apple has on where you can get apps for iOS.

 

[djphat2000]

This is complete BS. You’re confusing Apple-imposed App Store restrictions with a full-on system exploit/jailbreak.

What was formally an exploit will now be a feature. Of which, Apple will have to try and maintain a balance of allow anything and prevent known bad things.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

So when I side load to to Nintendo , Sony and Xbox hardware then ?

You already can. Microsoft allows sideloading on the Xbox via Dev Mode. It's why the console hasn't been jailbroken since Microsoft lets us run whatever we want in a sandbox.

 

[duffman9000]

I’ve said this many times I can tell you exactly what’s going to happen this year at WWDC. To make anything for Apple devices you need to be an Apple Developer which has traditionally been $99 a year. Now it will be a subscription that will be a percentage of revenue you make as a company as a whole. You don’t wanna pay you have no way to develop for Apple. Small guys not making much money won’t pay much to be developers. The big guys will pay more than ever before. Just wait.

I’ve thought the same about a subscription model. But the EU will probably whine about how third parties have the right to develop for iOS (for free of course).

 

[djphat2000]

As Android has proven that's not the case. Apps that left the Google Play Store see a lot less traffic than apps that are on the Google Play Store. Case in point: Fortnite. Very few downloaded the Fortnite APK from Epic's website which is why Epic had to reluctantly get Play Store approval

So any app that pulls out of the App Store once sideloading goes live would be committing corporate suicide.

Then what is the point of all of all of this then?

 

[nt5672]

I won’t be sideloading anything onto my iPhone

Sideloading is going to be the only way to get any privacy. So good luck with that.

 

[Ethosik]

Do you understand how the current 3rd party environment works in the Android world?
Apparently you either do not or are deliberately spinning it.

I do. I can make any android app and place the APL on my website. No review from Google. Hint. I currently do this to my app.

 

[duffman9000]

You already can. Microsoft allows sideloading on the Xbox via Dev Mode. It's why the console hasn't been jailbroken since Microsoft lets us run whatever we want in a sandbox.

I have not seen sideloading on Xbox for some years now. I don’t know if it’s still the same as I remember. Apple could do that and make it uncomfortable to use sideloading too. Having to reboot into developer mode (and preventing retail apps from running in developer mode is annoying), but that sounds exactly what Apple would do.

 

[Ethosik]

There would be another vector for attack. Consider a maliciously crafted website that can silently sideload an app that is then persistent, has no icon or indication that it is installed (or masquerades as some sort of iOS service like “Updater” etc). I’m sure there’s already malware that can do some pretty wild things but sideloading just lowers the bar and makes it even easier. Not to mention the “official” apps that are coming like Facebook or TikTok that will offer more “features” but will also no longer be limited to Apple’s restrictions and standards. The good news are stores such as Microsoft Game Pass for better gaming, but the cons outweigh the pros in my opinion.

Thank you. It’s so frustrating and amusing to see responses like “what’s your proof it will make things worse!!!???” Why is it so difficult to understand?

 

[Ethosik]

The policy is iOS and it allowing or disallowing code to be executed at the OS level, outside of the app framework.
If malware is to be executed, only Apple is to blame. Have you never read the part of „security fixes and speed improvements“ part of any app or OS update? That is what this is about because they don‘t even trust their own app review team.

And again, sideloading exists for almost any device that has been handed out by a capable company to their employee.

But. Malware already exists. Which people love to point out here. That already means the app model isn’t perfect and has flaws. So it’s going to turn a garden hose into a fire hose. Going to make it much faster and much more than before.

 

[Unami]

Personally, I don't see what is wrong with Apple choosing to have their cake and eat it too, by selling both their hardware at a handsome margin, and collecting 30% of all app proceeds.

IIRC there was something about having your cake and eating it too. Ah, right, there is no such thing as a free cake-lunch.

 

[Unami]

You do realise that nobody forces customers to buy iPhones, right? As an Apple customer, I deliberately chose the "walled garden" experience because for me it has way more benefits than drawbacks.

Other people are free to act differently and if they want the freedom to install whatever they want on a phone, they can get one from a countless list of Android phone makers.

You've been brainwashed into thinking Apple has no competition.

I want my phone to stay the way it is. I don't want to download apps from the web. I don't want to put my credit card information on a thousand different websites. I don't want to manage my subscriptions in five different places. I don't want to install junk App Stores from Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, Epic just to get their software and services.

I want one App Store. I don't want to deal with multiple registrations, multiple payment processing systems, and multiple sources of junk just to get the apps and services I want.

Let me have what I want. If you don't like it, buy a Samsung phone and enjoy all the "benefits" of being free to install apps from whatever source you want.

Still, I like apple's hardware eco-system AND would like more freedom when it comes to software. As an apple customer I bite the bullet and live with the wallet garden - but I'd rather not - because for me it has more drawbacks than benefits. Let me have what I want?