iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations

[djphat2000]

Who’s checking App Store? You may say Apple, but I‘d argue not to the level you hope for. As for the best of your interest? Nah. Apple never had and will never have your best interest in mind. To believe otherwise is just naive.

Then we are not talking about the same things here. I say, Apple as everyone else would say the same. Because that is part of what they do. The degree of watching every application certainly has its faults. But, Apple "is" watching the AppStore. You can't prove to me or anyone else that any Third party is going to watch another third party app (if they are not the same vendor) to any where near the same degree Apple watches the AppStore an those 3rd party apps within it. The interest do not align themselves as well.

And why Apple has to vehemently and furiously defend walled garden if android user favours Google play Store over third party store most of the time anyways? Profit and bottom line is going to be the only, or at least the leading reason, regardless of what statement Apple releases to this issue.

Because if you don't want the Walled garden you don't have to be on Apple's platform. Apple isn't the only mobile deice maker or operating system on a mobile device. They are for "their" devices, but you can choose google. You're not seeing that you're taking away "my" choice to have a phone the way Apple provides. Fanboy or not, it's my choice. You have a choice to not purchase the Apple product AND get what you asking for from another vendor. Of which I nor anyone else is stopping you from doing.

I can say no because departmental store and/or grocery store has more things to cover than a bunch of high-density server racks, some server rooms and a flurry of network cables. Ok maybe also engineers working to keep those servers running. And price going down? Apple never reduces prices for the general public for exchange rate differences. Not to mention Apple never even give us a general idea how costly it is to run a datacenter for them.

Rent space in a Data Center isn't exactly cheap. That's just for the space, and up to (predefined) KiloWattPerHour cost. It could be cheaper than a corner store bodega rent price with power included. But, it's not free. And yes, Apples cut went from 30% to 15% for those making under $1million per year (Developers). So, it's a price cut. Also, free apps don't pay ANYTHING to be on the store.

Unless the said contract is non-binding and is found invalid due to terms breaching the law.

Yeah, I understand. So long as it isn't breaking any government laws.

Third party apps have already poses significant risks on their own Without sideloading. I just don’t understand why sideloading somehow shows the increased risks, and automatically inherit the characteristics of less checks and balances than Apple’s counterpart.

Because you can't currently side-load on iPhone. Which will change to you "can" side-load. It will open up another vector to attack. One that was closed, and watched by the somewhat consent Apple AppStore. To, whomever and whatever comes with their App Store, and their rules to get apps to your device. OR by tricking you, the user to install something without knowing it. All possible when you can install something without a gatekeeper.

All sounds like apple propaganda designed to instil fear and hatred into users so they go against Sideloading blindly with no idea exactly what sideloading can be on iOS.

Anyone that has a regular computer understands what side-loading is. Can you understand that until now (with these new laws) that the iPhone did NOT have side-loading. And we are all very used to going to 1 store to get any application we need/want. that will change, and MANY people will not understand the full nature of said "feature". Continue with their normal lives and click on things on their phone intentionally or un. And possibly end up worse for it?

SMS? That thing has been compromised to death at this rate. Hardly matters either way. NFC? Bluetooth? Wifi networks? Again, Apple has successfully make you fear sideloading for no reason at all.

It's not unjustified.

Make what easier?

Getting hacked

And what the hell do you mean “only 1 known way in”?

1 AppStore at present. One way to install applications.

Ever heard about zero day exploits?

All the time.

Sure, “basic” methods might not work today, but I don’t even know what’s your interpretation of “basic”.

Easy means to break in to a device. I'd rather those doors be closed as best as possible to avoid getting hacked the easy way. At least they have to have a malware app that is on the Appstore and gets missed by Apple. Then for me to click an email attachment and get something installed to do bad things on my device. Just getting the low hanging fruit.

Besides, the idea of decentralisation has been floating around for years now, fearing megacorp is having way too much power, and App Store model is the exact opposite of that. By supporting App Store, are you supporting monopoly as well?

Google Play on Android. Third Party AppStores, on Android. Side-loading, On Android. There are those that still use flip-phones (no appstore's). Should we kick them off those devices on to a smartphone?

Oh bro. Apple has done decent jobs preventing you from installing something bad. Not allowing it is just one of many ways that can happen. And, “we know it’s bad so we are protecting you” sounds very much like an overly protective parent trying to shield his/her kids from any perceived danger, whether it is real or not. Idk bro. Breaking the law by doing such is a stretch. But dictating what user can and cannot do is not good either.

They sold a device, and I bought it knowing what I was getting for my money. If I didn't like what they offered. I didn't have to buy it. If I wanted Android, I would have bough an Android. If I wanted everything you're looking to have Apple do. I could have bought a device that looks almost exactly like an iPhone, and a skinned Android OS that looks almost like iOS. And been happy. But, no. You want iOS to be Android. Apple gets to dictate the product THEY make. You get to dictate buying it or not. It's pretty simple.

Apple propaganda in full swing. They either can’t or won’t prove otherwise.

This proves no point.

And I also have every right to do the exact same to you.

You have no right to do anything to me. Nor do I to you.

At this point I don’t really want to explain the whole switch cost and opportunity cost anymore.

What cost? You buy another brands device the same time you would have updated your existing device. You move over your pictures, contacts, email, documents. Install all the same applications and you're off to the races. Don't blame Apple or Google for your software purchases. Blame the software vendor for not making it cross-licensed.
But, I am pretty sure Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, financial, social, and office applications will work perfectly without any additional cost on any device you choose to use.

Simply put, switching may not be an option for many people, and they want to get more out of their iOS devices.

Take all the time you need. The longer they wait the better of a device(s) they will have to choose from.

It can be anything? Decades of accumulated data? Family member overwhelmingly uses iOS devices? Work restrictions? Tight integration with their workflow? Why it is so hard to understand “switching” is not an option for everyone?

Neither is forcing these software changes in iOS.
And I get what you mean by this. Don't think I don't. But, those folks most likely (more likely that not) don't care about side-loading. And if it really is that much of a lift to go from iOS device A to Android device Z. You can always purchase the Android (whatever brand you prefer), and move over to it piece at a time. The old iOS device doesn't just die the day you make a new phone purchase. Start with the important stuff like making calls on the new phone. And work your way down until you got everything you need on the new device.

I have been using windows and macOS for quite a few years and I just take advantage of what they are good at. Tho, I still use Windows a bit more.

I'm an IT professional with 23 years of experience. I used Mac since system 7. Microsoft since DOS 5 and up from Windows 3.1, 95, NT, on up to Win2k22 and Win11. I'm a mac user first, but Microsoft pays the bills.

 

[dk001]

From what I'm reading here. Many more don't.

That is the illusion.
The percentage most quote represents strictly "side loading" and totally ignore 3rd party (OEM) app stores.
These in Android come preinstalled instead of having to install. Usually.

 

[dk001]

Who do you talk to when a sideloaded app busts CarPlay?

Step 1: Unlink your phone
Step 2: Contact the developer and your car mfg if Car Play comes with the vehicle.

ex: have an S23 Ultra and I have several side loaded apps. I had an issue with Car Play, contacted my Ford dealer. They (Ford) told me how to check things and all checked out okay. Turned out to be a Setting issue on my device. have to admit they were pretty helpful.

All is good now.

btw - I have had an iOS update break Car play more than a few times.

 

[LowKeyed]

Just don’t buy Apple if you don’t want the App Store.
Forcing a company to do the opposite of what it stands for is just madness.
If you want Sideloading, buy Android.

I will never understand why this is so hard for people to comprehend.

Apple is not secretive about how they have designed their products to get content and applications. I've never heard an Apple Store employee tell someone they can get apps from anywhere and just install them. It is and has always been a major advertising feature of the platform that it is closed. Apple has never run from the term "Walled Garden", they embrace it.

For all the people who keep saying. "If you don't like sideloading, then don't do it." how are you so oblivious the same statement being applied to Apple products "If you don't like walled gardens, don't buy Apple products." So why do I care if side loading is there if I'm not going to do it? I'd prefer Apple spend its time and money making more products and features that I do want and not engineering solutions for things that neither Apple or I want. If it were a company decision to based on consumer demand or internal strategic objectives, then I'd accept it. But this is something else. This is a legislative body making a product design decision for a company that has a record and giving the bulk of it's customer an experience for which they are willing to pay a premium. If this was something that the bulk of Apple's customers wanted, there would be no need for the regulation.

It certainly isn't like Apple is the only option for smart phones or tablets. Apple has competitors who are more than happy to support you loading whatever the hell you like. Please don't fool yourself, the support is the only thing that matters here. To the best of my knowledge, Apple has no legal authority to keep you from doing whatever you want to an Apple made device after you buy it. This includes jail breaking, side loading, putting them in blenders, and anything else you do. What this regulation does is force Apple to take at least some of the responsibility for those things.

I love consumer choice and think it drives innovation and encourages companies to take risk and offer new and cool things. This regulation does not create or support consumer choice. It does the absolute opposite, it removes an option from the market place that I dearly love. I want a closed and locked down platform. I'm willing to accept all the negatives that come with the choice. However, the EU has decided what is best for me and is forcing the provider of the thing that I stupidly thought I wanted until through there infinite and perfect wisdom have chosen for me an experience that more closely resemble the other products that have been available in the market for years, effectively eliminating my (the consumer's) choice.

I've focused my rant here on Apple, but the same would be true for any company. Forcing Tesla to make ICE vehicles because a small portion of it's customers like pumping petrol would be just as insane.

 

[LowKeyed]

You get the problem and illustrate it perfectly.

You build a competitive advantage (this isn't a monopoly) and a government gets to take it away.

Add to their forcing USBc - which I would like apple to do but forcing them to do it I don't. What if they had decided back when that all phones had to accept USB-a (or whatever the fat one is called.)

If you cheer the government forcing businesses to do things one day you may find the pigs standing on their feet.

I think it was in 2009 that the EU proposed and failed to pass some rules (I think they were non-binding) that would have standardized on Micro-USB. I remember thinking it was a dumb idea then. If I recall correctly it had at least some support from most of the manufacturers, including Apple.

I think officially the new legislation has some verbage about updating the standard as "new technology becomes available", I just don't see that being a easy path that doesn't create the same problems the standardized port is suppose to solve.

 

[LowKeyed]

For those who are saying it’s a bad idea, no one is forcing you to side load apps. So far everything I want is on the App Store so I am not worried either way. If that changes so be it

I keep reading that statement "No one is forcing you to sideload apps." It is 100% correct. But, I've never been required by law to purchase an Apple product, if this is happening somewhere please let me know, cause that would be interesting news.

Prior to this rule/legislation there was no "force" being applied anywhere with regards to side loading. Now, a company that has marketed itself on a closed platform and has thrived in providing that platform to consumers is being "forced" to support it. Where is the "force" coming from? Is it from droves of Apple customer who have never picketed Apple stores demanding this option or from the millions of letters that have never been written threatening to leave the platform if they don't allow side loading? No, this is not a consumer driven initiative. This is not a grass roots campaign pushed by a plurality of Apple customers who have been ignored by the company.

 

[duffman9000]

Sure, you want to pay to replace my top of the line phone, the Homepods, my iPad, my Macs, etc? That is why I said ecosystem. You basically responded to my point by the same thing you said before.

Do what I did. Once your devices are EOL re-evaluate your purchases. You already messed up once by ignoring the fact you can’t do whatever you want on iOS devices (did you not see the memo?). If you continue to buy more Apple devices knowing full well the restrictive nature then that’s on you person.

 

[Ctrlos]

So something the least amount of people do on the most popular platform. We should force apple to allow?
And it's not going to be limited as it is on Android. The EU wants FULL ON access, no restrictions. No walls, no boarders (just like the EU! Ha!).

There's also no borders between the US states who might think they're one big country but are more of a collective of different 'nationalities' than they realise!

Apple has copied as much from Google as Google has from Apple; what's one more?

I still see a lot of opinion (which people are entitled to) but no cohesive argument as to why sideloading is the devil. If we are really looking at things iOS has actually had jailbreaking and sideloading for longer than Android has actually existed as an OS! As on Android though it remains an option but an option few people ever use.

 

[duffman9000]

It can be anything? Decades of accumulated data? Family member overwhelmingly uses iOS devices? Work restrictions? Tight integration with their workflow? Why it is so hard to understand “switching” is not an option for everyone?

You’re just scared to switch. People have been switching platforms for decades. Think of the people who have switched from Windows to MacOS and their world didn’t end.

 

[makitango]

You will never really ride a bike unless you take off the training wheels, the same goes for iOS.

People here say "then don't buy Apple products" but Apple products besides the iToys have been born with sideloading and good security. People have been productive and their devices were powerful because of it, and not despite of it.

This legislation is not about how Apple is supposed to use its product (App Store), but to prevent them from preventing others to install the software of their choice insteade of the choice of Apple.

You can always use a condom and restrict yourself to the App Store, but don't tell your neighbor that they can't have sex without it and suggesting them to move to another flat where it is not decried by its neighbors while they already have the best walls where they live.

 

[robbietop]

That sentence doesn’t make sense.
An App Store application doesn’t encrypt the OS more than what it already is.

If that were true, it would be a highly dangerous security paradigm. Government can’t step in soon enough with laws forcing them to change it and harden security. And cease to purchase any devices, too.

But the statement is wrong. Sideloading of unapproved apps exists today (by way of enterprise certificates). And yet, sideloaded apps have restricted access capabilities. The system still protects me from, say, the employer that made install them on my BYOD device, sniffing around.

Metaphors might help here. See, enterprise side loading does not affect the massive majority of iOS devices. It's maybe 3%.

See, my house didn't need a stairway and a door leading into my second story bedroom straight from the street, and it didn't need a door with no lock. See, when you can just waltz into my bedroom through an unlocked door, it kind of defeats the purpose of the front door with a lock.

Yes, it makes it easier for me to get to my bed from the street. Yes, I can decorate it with colorful paint and a nice big neon sign saying "free stuff inside". Yes, it will be my stairs and door, and you are more than welcome to come sleep in my bed, especially when I am around. I prefer random strangers just climbing into my bed, keeps me "on my toes".

See, the App Store is a door into the iOS ecosystem. A Front Door, if you will. With a GIANT padlock called "The App Review Team". What they do is filter out malware, scams, deadbeat devs with no effort Safari clones, and porn.

Since side loading is done through the App Store development process via Test Flight and Xcode, any app that runs in iOS through this method will not infect other devices. If someone wants their home left wide open, that's on them.

But imagine we could shift this metaphor to the immune system. If you're still reading at this point and haven't rolled your eyes out of your head like dice in a board game, then let's imagine the App Store is also akin to a N-95 Mask.

Sure, it may let the occasional germ in, but it can filter mucho mucho more than say your mouth or nose.

"But RobbieTop, there's an immune system!! Anti-Virus does work!"

"Yes!!! But, it's hilarious that for a decade and a half iOS has not needed an Anti-Virus!!"

"Oh yeah!! How are you sure something bad is gonna happen???? Hmmmmmm???"

2003 - Summer of Worms
2008 to Present - Android System Security
2007 to Present - iOS no needy Anti-Virus

Sure, you can install any and all apps onto your phone now! That's great for you.
But now there is a method where iOS has opened. And you can't put the cat back in the bag from whence it came.

Also, other than emulators, what do we need a Third Party App Store for anyways? Fortnite? TikTok if it gets banned?

"Devs want to make more money from their hard work!"

LOL, yeah, let's get them setup on a Third Party App Store with maybe 5-10 million users active at any one time.

Totally will make more money there than the Apple App Store with 2 BILLION active users.

As someone who knows so much about hardening security, how does fragmentation of App Stores solve the commission problem and keep iOS secure?

How?

Please enlighten me how Windows and Android are so successful at making people money with multiple means of installing apps? Sure, Windows because it's an open desktop paradigm.

Android? LOL, Apple has over double the revenue of the Google Play Store, and how much money is actually being made in the Third Party App Stores by those devs who just can't fork over 15% commission for the PRIVILEGE of reaching that many users all at once with little to no advertising budget???????????????????????QUESTIONMARK???????

 

[robbietop]

Such a wall of nonsense. If a badly coded app generates a kernel panic, then you‘re dealing with a grandpa OS which had a two-digit number of heart attacks. In other words, that OS would be a joke and unfit for daily use. Thankfully you‘re wrong.

The sideloading works flawlessly both on macOS and on Android, and on iOS you wonMt even be able to install unsigned software, so bad players won‘t even be able to cater to you.

The only difference this brings is that not only employees can sideload apps from their employer, but also customers can download apps from trusted developers.

OK MR CODER....

How are the Third Party App Stores gonna stop poorly written apps from being on their store?
Are they gonna hire an App Review Team? Those people have to make money.
Gonna have to buy server space. Costs money.
Gonna have to maintain those servers, expensive engineering techs gotta make money.
Have to advertise that App Store.....marketing costs money.
Secure the Third Party App Store from DDOS attacks, Verisign costs ALOT OF MONEY.
Have bandwidth to deliver Apps quickly to customers, because 5G/Wifi is fast, but Server Side has to be fast too. COSTS MUCHO DOLLARS.

How do you afford to pay for an App Store? Commission. 15% might do it.

And that's before we get to side loading, which Apple could just allow and neuter the entire argument. Side Loading keeps everything Ad-Hoc and allows people to install what they want without compromising the entire ecosystem.

The problem is not side loading, that's the Trojan Horse argument that gets government the ability to piggyback on infected apps in a Third Party App Store to continue spying on you, something they have been unable to do with Apple's Silo approach.

Is this a wall of nonsense to you?

 

[robbietop]

Wow… third party store automatically becomes a backdoor. Somehow apple App Store is clean and holy, flawless, absolute and just. This is some egregious stuff to praise this so-called App Store that I bet some would chill.

Ever heard of Change? Nothing lasts forever. Time has changed, so should App Store. Sadly, I don’t see any sign of you having a shred Of understanding of why Apple has to keep App Store tightly shut as-is today. Everything you say in that extract are from Apple.

Read again. I say “don’t target device as much as targeting humans”, meaning infecting device is not as high of a priority as it was before. Why? All humans are compromised by design.

You mentioned revoke in your post, dude?

I don’t care how Apple calls it. They effectively take away 30% of developers revenue. Plain and simple.

Fortnite break the rules that Apple being the sole dictator drafts? Sure yes, but then what? Contracts are being broken all the time. Are you suggesting Apple’s terms and conditions is above the law? Or Apple somehow has special authority on dictating how developer should live their life? By intentionally breaking the contract, Epic sheds a bit of light on how Apple treats their developers. Yes, Apple has punished them, but then what?

What on earth are you talking about? iOS code may be tighter than Android in terms of the base system, but that doesn’t matter if malware targets third party apps BEFORE sideloading and take advantage of humans. If you are not aware, talented hackers will not just try to waste their time targeting iOS unless a profit can be made out of it. But that doesn’t mean iOS is more secure because of that. Heck, we general public don’t even have any idea how many flaws FBI/CIA have access to or can obtain access from certain companies. All without the need to sideload.

Yes, you can diligently refuse to sideload and convince people near you to not sideload, but that’s about it, and your iOS device is just as vulnerable with or without sideloading. The whole point is, iOS is already bad in so many ways as-is and folks have been venting their frustration about why Apple intentionally keep certain features off their device for bizarre reasons (T9 dialling, worse volume limiter feature for example). If you are happy for iOS today, might as well cherish it while it lasts anyway.

I won’t repeat again but want to point out two things:
1. iPhone HAS become a de-facto general purpose computer for many folks, regardless of its original design intention. They don’t care how you think iPhone should be. So do I.
2. Walled garden must be destroyed to truly force Apple to compete with other service providers on their platform, which isn’t 100% theirs anyway since I bet they are using tons of open source projects code, many of which are licensed differently than Apple‘s own proprietary code.

Yeah, now an app can go to a Third Party App Store with hidden code. Or are they gonna be as stringent as Apple?

Taking away revenue from developers? Are you insane? The dev wants access to 2 billion users without having to market or advertise or pay the store to use their shelf? So, Samsung should not have to pay Target or Walmart a commission for putting THEIR TV in that store?

Say, I want to put a giant billboard for my business in your front yard for free with no input from you. Is that ok? I am making money off of your property for free with no input or payment to you?

And Apps won't have to target humans....in the Apple App Store, which neuters your entire argument. Why do we need a Third Party App Store? Why can't Apple just allow side loading? Only infects your device, voids your warranty, and compromises only you. None of us will even be possibly targeted because we're all still getting our Apps from a stringent App Store Review team.

But we need change. We're all bored out of our minds.

 

[dk001]

Metaphors might help here. See, enterprise side loading does not affect the massive majority of iOS devices. It's maybe 3%.

See, my house didn't need a stairway and a door leading into my second story bedroom straight from the street, and it didn't need a door with no lock. See, when you can just waltz into my bedroom through an unlocked door, it kind of defeats the purpose of the front door with a lock.

Yes, it makes it easier for me to get to my bed from the street. Yes, I can decorate it with colorful paint and a nice big neon sign saying "free stuff inside". Yes, it will be my stairs and door, and you are more than welcome to come sleep in my bed, especially when I am around. I prefer random strangers just climbing into my bed, keeps me "on my toes".

See, the App Store is a door into the iOS ecosystem. A Front Door, if you will. With a GIANT padlock called "The App Review Team". What they do is filter out malware, scams, deadbeat devs with no effort Safari clones, and porn.

Since side loading is done through the App Store development process via Test Flight and Xcode, any app that runs in iOS through this method will not infect other devices. If someone wants their home left wide open, that's on them.

But imagine we could shift this metaphor to the immune system. If you're still reading at this point and haven't rolled your eyes out of your head like dice in a board game, then let's imagine the App Store is also akin to a N-95 Mask.

Sure, it may let the occasional germ in, but it can filter mucho mucho more than say your mouth or nose.

"But RobbieTop, there's an immune system!! Anti-Virus does work!"

"Yes!!! But, it's hilarious that for a decade and a half iOS has not needed an Anti-Virus!!"

"Oh yeah!! How are you sure something bad is gonna happen???? Hmmmmmm???"

2003 - Summer of Worms
2008 to Present - Android System Security
2007 to Present - iOS no needy Anti-Virus

Sure, you can install any and all apps onto your phone now! That's great for you.
But now there is a method where iOS has opened. And you can't put the cat back in the bag from whence it came.

Also, other than emulators, what do we need a Third Party App Store for anyways? Fortnite? TikTok if it gets banned?

"Devs want to make more money from their hard work!"

LOL, yeah, let's get them setup on a Third Party App Store with maybe 5-10 million users active at any one time.

Totally will make more money there than the Apple App Store with 2 BILLION active users.

As someone who knows so much about hardening security, how does fragmentation of App Stores solve the commission problem and keep iOS secure?

How?

Please enlighten me how Windows and Android are so successful at making people money with multiple means of installing apps? Sure, Windows because it's an open desktop paradigm.

Android? LOL, Apple has over double the revenue of the Google Play Store, and how much money is actually being made in the Third Party App Stores by those devs who just can't fork over 15% commission for the PRIVILEGE of reaching that many users all at once with little to no advertising budget???????????????????????QUESTIONMARK???????

Let’s clear up a couple of misconceptions on side-loading.
Side loading is not just ”let’s side load an app”. It can be an app, a 3rd party App Store, a manufacturers App Store, a business App Store like Amazon or Windows or even a function. If it doesn’t come from the Play Store or App Store, it is “side loaded”.

Many Android apps are both in the Play Store and available from a developer or 3rd party store. I have run into a number that if you side load, Google wants you to redownload from the Play Store if you try updating that route. Some 3rd Party App Stores asks if you want to use your Google account for Play Store tie in or not.

I have found that many apps in the Android world are cheaper than the same app on iOS. Seldom see anything more expensive.

There are shady areas where it is beyond wild and not really safe. These get vetted and noted pretty quick.

For Apple side-loading, this involves the side-loading of both apps and 3rd party app stores. Unless Apple allows these 3rd Party App Stores to be downloaded from the Apple App Store. Likely not the best idea.

On Android, side loading is not just side loaded apps. As in the Apple scenario, the same applies - apps and 3rd party app stores. Except, a number of 3rd party (OEM) app stores are preloaded (no side loading needed). If you add up all side-loading plus 3rd Party OEM app stores I bet you end up with a decent number. I would guess north of 50% (IMO).

It’s a lot more than just “side load an app or virus or malware or …”. This is something that most here, especially the naysayers or doom and gloom folks, miss.

 

[makitango]

Metaphors might help here. See, enterprise side loading does not affect the massive majority of iOS devices. It's maybe 3%.

See, my house didn't need a stairway and a door leading into my second story bedroom straight from the street, and it didn't need a door with no lock. See, when you can just waltz into my bedroom through an unlocked door, it kind of defeats the purpose of the front door with a lock.

Yes, it makes it easier for me to get to my bed from the street. Yes, I can decorate it with colorful paint and a nice big neon sign saying "free stuff inside". Yes, it will be my stairs and door, and you are more than welcome to come sleep in my bed, especially when I am around. I prefer random strangers just climbing into my bed, keeps me "on my toes".

See, the App Store is a door into the iOS ecosystem. A Front Door, if you will. With a GIANT padlock called "The App Review Team". What they do is filter out malware, scams, deadbeat devs with no effort Safari clones, and porn.

Since side loading is done through the App Store development process via Test Flight and Xcode, any app that runs in iOS through this method will not infect other devices. If someone wants their home left wide open, that's on them.

But imagine we could shift this metaphor to the immune system. If you're still reading at this point and haven't rolled your eyes out of your head like dice in a board game, then let's imagine the App Store is also akin to a N-95 Mask.

Sure, it may let the occasional germ in, but it can filter mucho mucho more than say your mouth or nose.

"But RobbieTop, there's an immune system!! Anti-Virus does work!"

"Yes!!! But, it's hilarious that for a decade and a half iOS has not needed an Anti-Virus!!"

"Oh yeah!! How are you sure something bad is gonna happen???? Hmmmmmm???"

2003 - Summer of Worms
2008 to Present - Android System Security
2007 to Present - iOS no needy Anti-Virus

Sure, you can install any and all apps onto your phone now! That's great for you.
But now there is a method where iOS has opened. And you can't put the cat back in the bag from whence it came.

Also, other than emulators, what do we need a Third Party App Store for anyways? Fortnite? TikTok if it gets banned?

"Devs want to make more money from their hard work!"

LOL, yeah, let's get them setup on a Third Party App Store with maybe 5-10 million users active at any one time.

Totally will make more money there than the Apple App Store with 2 BILLION active users.

As someone who knows so much about hardening security, how does fragmentation of App Stores solve the commission problem and keep iOS secure?

How?

Please enlighten me how Windows and Android are so successful at making people money with multiple means of installing apps? Sure, Windows because it's an open desktop paradigm.

Android? LOL, Apple has over double the revenue of the Google Play Store, and how much money is actually being made in the Third Party App Stores by those devs who just can't fork over 15% commission for the PRIVILEGE of reaching that many users all at once with little to no advertising budget???????????????????????QUESTIONMARK???????

Terrible metaphor. What is more the case is that someone in the house is talented in bakery and wants to to get groceries, yet the the house maiden stops them, goes out herself to buy them cooking ingredients instead, and arguing that this is better and healthier anyways. A hand maiden with her mouth full of cake raising the finger and lecturing the other, that is.

The App Review team does not filter any malware. They do a quick virus check which is already done by Xcode already as the folks have no coding knowledge. They are there to review content, not code.

The metaphor with the immune system is also funny because an immune system is only potent when being kept in check and practice. And you also forget that such masks make it harder to breathe. We are not to be chained to a baby chair and never exercise, nor do our devices.

You also keep talking about TikTok but hide the fact that this will only affect the EU-sourced devices, so if TikTok gets banned from the US, it will get banned with no way around it (other than opening the website and maybe install the web app).

Your childish use of question marks underlines the lack of serious subtext within your post, and trying to draw attention away from the fact that this is an opt-in mechanism, not an opt-out one. Not one that your oh-so stupid grandpa will find, not to mention him knowing where to look for an app on the internet to find, and to install it.

OK MR CODER....

How are the Third Party App Stores gonna stop poorly written apps from being on their store?
Are they gonna hire an App Review Team? Those people have to make money.
Gonna have to buy server space. Costs money.
Gonna have to maintain those servers, expensive engineering techs gotta make money.
Have to advertise that App Store.....marketing costs money.
Secure the Third Party App Store from DDOS attacks, Verisign costs ALOT OF MONEY.
Have bandwidth to deliver Apps quickly to customers, because 5G/Wifi is fast, but Server Side has to be fast too. COSTS MUCHO DOLLARS.

How do you afford to pay for an App Store? Commission. 15% might do it.

And that's before we get to side loading, which Apple could just allow and neuter the entire argument. Side Loading keeps everything Ad-Hoc and allows people to install what they want without compromising the entire ecosystem.

The problem is not side loading, that's the Trojan Horse argument that gets government the ability to piggyback on infected apps in a Third Party App Store to continue spying on you, something they have been unable to do with Apple's Silo approach.

Is this a wall of nonsense to you?

No first or third party app store will stop devs from putting out bad code, welcome to reality.

If some devs need server space, then they haven't interacted with servers for the first time. This is not your nephew getting his first NAS to tinker with.

Said companies already have server technicians, and know about scalability. Said engineers will jsut add server #367 to the list. No need to hype it up as rocket science. If they had not had already DDoS resistance, then they already did not do their job.
Bandwidth does cost money, yes, but it's not like buying gas in Europe.

It remains a wall of nonsense to me because if there's a Trojan horse, it already existed before sideloading. You can only run code that the OS allows to be run, simple as that.

Ever heard about Flurry code? It is a tracking plugin that 95% of all apps on the glorified App Store used for a very long time, tracking your very activity and transmitting all the possible device info to advertising servers, all while Apple was boasting with privacy ads.
Or all those apps saving your clipboards and sending them to ad servers for years, only until some researcher (of course, not Apple) was looking into it, and then Apple addressed it in the next major update (was not even looked at like an urgent enough issue).

I don't have to be a coder to know that I, as a consumer and/or privacy/security-concerned user, get *nothing* from the App Store review team. So I will gladly give the Apple tax to the developer instead.

 

[jlc1978]

People here say "then don't buy Apple products" but Apple products besides the iToys have been born with sideloading and good security. People have been productive and their devices were powerful because of it, and not despite of it.

People have a choice as to what they buy.

Taking away revenue from developers? Are you insane? The dev wants access to 2 billion users without having to market or advertise or pay the store to use their shelf? So, Samsung should not have to pay Target or Walmart a commission for putting THEIR TV in that store?

Exactly. Apple's markup is much lower than what it used to cost to bring an application to market, has much broader reach, and a user base that buys products.

As I said before, the whole issues is a few big companies want free access to the App Store, and apple will find ways to prevent that. In the end, the smaller devs will be hurt.

I suspect one fallout of sideloading will be piracy, with app stores dedicate to that, which will hurt smaller devs of things like games that often have short windows to make money. Of course, devs can make the games free to download and subscription based.

It will be interesting to see how Apple does sideloading. They could modify Test Flight and make it a revenue stream for them; while allowing sideloading.

I have found that many apps in the Android world are cheaper than the same app on iOS. Seldom see anything more expensive.

Part of that is because of piracy problems developers need to use other ways, such as subscriptions or ads, to make money. iOS' model makes pay once more viable.


Here is an interesting article about the challenges developing for Android.

 

[dk001]

…



Part of that is because of piracy problems developers need to use other ways, such as subscriptions or ads, to make money. iOS' model makes pay once more viable.


Here is an interesting article about the challenges developing for Android.

Decent article but a few years out of date. This was before the changes at both Apple and Google.

For the cost impact, do you have anything that backs this up? Only things I found on this are a bit old.

 

[robco74]

As others have pointed out, you can sideload and install third-party app stores on Android. However, none of these have really taken off. Epic tried direct download for Fortnite, but the hoops and warnings to end users meant that many felt uncomfortable installing it. Amazon and Samsung have alternate stores, but have gained little traction outside their own userbase. Even on the PC, the EGS has to rely on giveaways, but their client is widely panned as being buggy.

Given this, if sideloading and third-party stores fail to take off and provide adequate "competition" (in the EU's view) to Apple and Google, would the EU then take additional steps? Would there be a store selection screen, like the Android Choice Screen for search? How many choice screens will a device need? Browser? Music provider? Podcast provider? Video content provider? Or will they just demand Apple and Google block their stores from the EU altogether if alternatives don't take off?

 

[dk001]

As others have pointed out, you can sideload and install third-party app stores on Android. However, none of these have really taken off. Epic tried direct download for Fortnite, but the hoops and warnings to end users meant that many felt uncomfortable installing it. Amazon and Samsung have alternate stores, but have gained little traction outside their own userbase. Even on the PC, the EGS has to rely on giveaways, but their client is widely panned as being buggy.

Given this, if sideloading and third-party stores fail to take off and provide adequate "competition" (in the EU's view) to Apple and Google, would the EU then take additional steps? Would there be a store selection screen, like the Android Choice Screen for search? How many choice screens will a device need? Browser? Music provider? Podcast provider? Video content provider? Or will they just demand Apple and Google block their stores from the EU altogether if alternatives don't take off?

When I looked at this originally, one aspect I noted, and most look at this way, it is iOS vs Android. But is that really accurate? For the EU (currently) and likely other areas (US and ...) this makes sense. From a use perspective it doesn't. Google vs Apple sounds clean but it is more OS/OEM default stores. So while the OnePlus Store may not be big in numbers, OnePlus users use it. From what I can see, these numbers are not, a mistake in my view, not included in "side load" stats. It makes it look like they never have "taken off" in the Android world however in the OEM world ...

 

[Shirasaki]

You’re just scared to switch. People have been switching platforms for decades. Think of the people who have switched from Windows to MacOS and their world didn’t end.

I see. Your comment corroborate the point that there is no sign of understanding of opportunistic costs and migration costs. Yes people switching platforms from time to time, but nothing comes without cost. I bet you have little to no idea how much time and effort those folks have gone through to switch platforms.

Yeah, now an app can go to a Third Party App Store with hidden code. Or are they gonna be as stringent as Apple?

Taking away revenue from developers? Are you insane? The dev wants access to 2 billion users without having to market or advertise or pay the store to use their shelf? So, Samsung should not have to pay Target or Walmart a commission for putting THEIR TV in that store?

Say, I want to put a giant billboard for my business in your front yard for free with no input from you. Is that ok? I am making money off of your property for free with no input or payment to you?

And Apps won't have to target humans....in the Apple App Store, which neuters your entire argument. Why do we need a Third Party App Store? Why can't Apple just allow side loading? Only infects your device, voids your warranty, and compromises only you. None of us will even be possibly targeted because we're all still getting our Apps from a stringent App Store Review team.

But we need change. We're all bored out of our minds.

The blatant assumption of third party App Store automatically will have weaker screening policy for applications submitted to their store amazes me, despite no third party App Store ever existed on iOS yet.

Apple taking a cut means less money on developers. Plain and Simple. And I stress the point that NO ONE says Apple should provide free service to developers. Your black and white argument regarding taking away revenue from developers shows a lack of understanding of the complexity of this issue. What those developer wants is less than 30%. Yes, Apple has adapted to 15% for lower turnover businesses, but thats AFTER Epic v Apple legal saga.

I don’t care how many metaphors you can put up. Equate “less commission“ to “zero commission” is just wrong, yet I see this way too often and you will not be the last to hold that flawed belief.

Why Apps won‘t have to target humans? I ask you this question: who’s going to use those bloody apps developer spent time and money to develop? Robots? AI? Or a Monkey? Gambling apps and mobile games stimulating gambling behavior has been around for years, and quite a number of people got their lives destroyed because of that, such as overspending on lootboxes In mobile games. If those apps are not targeting humans, I don’t know why they develop those apps in the first place.

You are talking about review team? There are humans doing manual review as well, and they have no obligation to assess the long term impact of those apps to an individual or even the society. I don’t know the detailed guideline of how they assess the app, but making sure app works the way they intended to be definitely is one of them. And then what? After the review is done, review team will move to the next one.

I suggest you to take a closer look at App Store terms of service to understand what Apple stands. The only thing I agree with you is we need some changes.

 

[dk001]

I see. Your comment corroborate the point that there is no sign of understanding of opportunistic costs and migration costs. Yes people switching platforms from time to time, but nothing comes without cost. I bet you have little to no idea how much time and effort those folks have gone through to switch platforms.

As a multi OS user, wherever possible I choose apps that can be leveraged across OSs. This generally works for most of the more expensive items. (Adobe, MSOffice, Proton, etc...) That seriously helps defray the software cost. Same applies to peripherals. (BT items, WiFi connect items, printers, monitors, etc...). Without doing this, swapping from say iOS to Android would be cost prohibitive.

The blatant assumption of third party App Store automatically will have weaker screening policy for applications submitted to their store amazes me, despite no third party App Store ever existed on iOS yet.

Apple taking a cut means less money on developers. Plain and Simple. And I stress the point that NO ONE says Apple should provide free service to developers. Your black and white argument regarding taking away revenue from developers shows a lack of understanding of the complexity of this issue. What those developer wants is less than 30%. Yes, Apple has adapted to 15% for lower turnover businesses, but thats AFTER Epic v Apple legal saga.

I don’t care how many metaphors you can put up. Equate “less commission“ to “zero commission” is just wrong, yet I see this way too often and you will not be the last to hold that flawed belief.

Why Apps won‘t have to target humans? I ask you this question: who’s going to use those bloody apps developer spent time and money to develop? Robots? AI? Or a Monkey? Gambling apps and mobile games stimulating gambling behavior has been around for years, and quite a number of people got their lives destroyed because of that, such as overspending on lootboxes In mobile games. If those apps are not targeting humans, I don’t know why they develop those apps in the first place.

You are talking about review team? There are humans doing manual review as well, and they have no obligation to assess the long term impact of those apps to an individual or even the society. I don’t know the detailed guideline of how they assess the app, but making sure app works the way they intended to be definitely is one of them. And then what? After the review is done, review team will move to the next one.

I suggest you to take a closer look at App Store terms of service to understand what Apple stands. The only thing I agree with you is we need some changes.

I would also add the current Apple review team does not perform an in-depth code review. Unless blatant, much of this is based on the honor system. Yet Apple markets it as a marketing "we catch it all" play.

btw - this holds true for Apple apps. Matter of fact, I doubt their is an app review process that looks at these outside of the Apple devs. Honor system - chuckle.

 

[duffman9000]

I see. Your comment corroborate the point that there is no sign of understanding of opportunistic costs and migration costs. Yes people switching platforms from time to time, but nothing comes without cost. I bet you have little to no idea how much time and effort those folks have gone through to switch platforms.

If you expect to use the same devices your entire life then maybe you should adjust your expectations. Meanwhile, the rest of the world can adjust to changes.

 

[duffman9000]

As a multi OS user, wherever possible I choose apps that can be leveraged across OSs. This generally works for most of the more expensive items. (Adobe, MSOffice, Proton, etc...) That seriously helps defray the software cost. Same applies to peripherals. (BT items, WiFi connect items, printers, monitors, etc...). Without doing this, swapping from say iOS to Android would be cost prohibitive.



I would also add the current Apple review team does not perform an in-depth code review. Unless blatant, much of this is based on the honor system. Yet Apple markets it as a marketing "we catch it all" play.

btw - this holds true for Apple apps. Matter of fact, I doubt their is an app review process that looks at these outside of the Apple devs. Honor system - chuckle.

Show us where Apple says “we catch it all”.

 

[Shirasaki]

If you expect to use the same devices your entire life then maybe you should adjust your expectations. Meanwhile, the rest of the world can adjust to changes.

What are you Even talking about at this stage? What do you mean I expect to use the Same device for my entire Life? How’s that related to switching to another platform? Heck, even if I want to use the same device, anything inside of it ages and break down, and I will be forced to use a new device anyways.
Sigh.

 

[robco74]

When I looked at this originally, one aspect I noted, and most look at this way, it is iOS vs Android. But is that really accurate? For the EU (currently) and likely other areas (US and ...) this makes sense. From a use perspective it doesn't. Google vs Apple sounds clean but it is more OS/OEM default stores. So while the OnePlus Store may not be big in numbers, OnePlus users use it. From what I can see, these numbers are not, a mistake in my view, not included in "side load" stats. It makes it look like they never have "taken off" in the Android world however in the OEM world ...

Right, but according to current Android licensing, most OEMs are required to install the Google Play Store, and other Google apps on their devices. How many OnePlus users make purchases from the OnePlus store rather than the Play Store? Or the Samsung Store? Samsung has also tried to supplant Google Assistant with Bixby, but how many users choose it? My question boils down to, is opportunity enough, or is the EU looking for specific outcomes?

The cost of doing business in the EU is already higher aside from regulations. What other steps is the EU taking to help nascent tech companies in the EU to compete, or offer solutions that the EU would be more happy with? I'm fine with US hegemony being on the decline. But if the EU wants to reduce reliance on US tech, they need to start cultivating homegrown options for consumer tech, as they do with military tech.