iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations

[transmaster]

Side load personal assistant.
General>Settings>change Siri to GPT

‎ChatGPT

‎Introducing ChatGPT for iOS: OpenAI’s latest advancements at your fingertips. This official app is free, syncs your history across devices, and brings you the latest from OpenAI, including the new image generator. With ChatGPT in your pocket, you’ll find: · Image generation–Generate original...

apps.apple.com

 

[transmaster]

I am trying to get used to loading outside App's on the Mac Studio. I am not to happy with the sideload thing myself but it is not a jaring change from my Windows Machines.

 

[djphat2000]

Where is hubris beyond your empty accusation? No one loses anything because no one is required to install anything outside of the App Store. As we already know from macOS, installing from outside sources is difficult, let alone unsigned code (which no "grandma" is able to do). Obviously it won't be made easier on iOS.
If any to-be-protected US citizen wants to do this, they have to import an EU model.

You are talking about it by distracting from what it really is. A stop to Apple forcing us to use the App Store to get apps, simple as that.
They can have their glorious App Store on it all they want, but others have a right, too. Apple has no right to hide apps from users, at least here in the EU. The digital world is also bigger than app "stores".
As an example, if you want to lock down macOS, you cannot do so without installing Little Snitch. Even if there was a MAS version, it could not do its job and protect the user.

Maybe you should open your eyes and read actual articles about developers getting their app reviews denied until they got media coverage documenting their cases. The whole app review system is flawed and has been from the start, and is only in place as moral police. It has no security check competences and only executes policy metrics.
Also, a customer is a human and hence human rights (and if you read carefully, I wrote customer human rights - but you intentionally removed that, didn't you?). Not global, but national (and in this case, EU-wide).
And again, no one is talking about anyone forcing a customer to buy something. We are talking about a company not being allowed to force people to endure illegal concepts on whatever they sell no matter if they are okay with it or not. I could enjoy getting my fingers chopped off, doesn't mean it should be allowed or considered cool just becuase TC likes it.

The device was not abiding laws or else MS would not have been forced to ease the access to other browser options besides IE. All the digital laws were created even before the App Store to prevent monpolistic nature, and Apple just went ahead with it and profited from the fact that people were unaware of its nature.

It is currently not legal, it is only a grace period for illegal products. Do your research.
And again, you are not the one to define what alternatives are for us. That is for each person to decide. My alternative and best possible product is iOS after being compliant under EU law, which has been bolstered to rule out any outlaws by closing any legal lapses that might give Apple room to argue that the App Store is something different here.

Factually, the apps which I sideloaded could not breathe on iOS before, so my comparison is sound.

I have the right to buy the product which abides to laws, and I do. Don't tell me to buy or not buy anything, it's my choice. Same as it's Apple's choice to abide and stay or not to abide and leave.
And I have the right to petition anything, same as Apple does. We have the right to kick companies out if they play foul. Apple did.

I don't have to believe anything. The numbers are in, and we voted for that both with our constitutional votes and representative action underscored with independent polls and statistics, and petitions from citizens independent from that.
People in the EU can be happy that the governments decided for the people and not for the company.

If people would just do as you suggest, we would not improve anything and would still make fire with rocks. Your example about Ukraine couldn't be more wrong because many would like to leave, but can't. Many would like to fight, but can't either. Many people have things and people to care for, which is a dependency. And it is a known fact that switching is hard as well, because of dependencies and barriers.
You can also quit your job to find a better one, or you can make yours better by fighting for worker rights. Apple themselves would have never raised their retail staff's salaries in I believe it was 2012/2013 unless it was made public and it shamed shareholders and the public, same with other things that happened to their workforce, like how they forced covid-infected people to come to work and then infected a whole team just to sell more iPhones, and hunting down the people who spoke publicly about it.
This is all about Apple's greed infringing on multiple affronts from health, fair salaries, competition & manipulation/monopolism, and more. Your liked company is nothing to be proud of or to admire.

So how do you justify owning many of their products? The goal is to contribute as less as possible to that consumerism, ideally zero. Apple has the choice to do it elsewhere, yet they opt not to because child labour is profitable. Your white knight in shining armor who is trying to sell you basically the same product every year anew.

If a business has a moral code, it is expected to follow it. If they don't, it's just empty PR.
You can follow down their supply chain with "recycling" partners like Brightstar.
The recycled material is stuff like aluminium from bent phones' back etc, which, if Apple didn't reuse for their own, the end of the trash/recycle chain would have recycled for someone else to reuse. Everything that can be recycled, will be recycled if people and companies follow the laws and put it in the right trash can.

Apple itself is not, but their implementation of the App Store on iOS is, because it's the only source for apps for the whole device, and developers and apps which don't fall into Apple's grace are locked out, independently from the user's intent to install them on their device. If it was a leased device, sure, but not okay for an owned one.
Whether that comparison is sound is for each recipient to decide, and for me, yours does not as Android vs iOS doesn't either. You can compare Linux distros with each other, and Android versions from different manufacturers.

And this competition will now also take place on iOS which will enable innovation.

It is easy. Grind as little as possible off the planet's limited resources and provide an as big as possible upgrade, and not this metered bean-counting mess. We don't need a new device with +1 incremental "upgrades" every year.

It's a normal law made by normal people following the normal wishes of normal people.

You choose to buy something or not. It's that simple.
People have choice. Your view of there not being another alternative is false.
You don't like Android, and that is fine. But, it is an option that already allows what the EU wants Apple to do.

 

[makitango]

Let’s be honest, this is about providing alternative app-store opportunities for companies that make apps who lose a lot of revenue to Apple’s 30% cut of gross app revenue. My bet would be Steam and Epic would be the first companies to open alternative app stores asking for a lower cut, aiming at Apple’s bulk of the App Store revenues made from gaming. Its fair and competitive, Apple’s walled garden is an unfair barrier to competition.

There will probably be other market segments where big players will try and get a slice of the pie. Porn, gambling (where it isn’t regulated), and so on. The base human desires. It will be a case of buyer beware.

I would agree for the most part but the most vital software (on the Mac) is not even available on the MAS, such as Little Snitch. And software like DasiyDisk or Slack are less functional in their MAS versions. Plus, a lot of software also just gets removed, and some of them you can't even redownload even if you purchased them.
Some devs republish the same app in the App Store or outside of it, and Apple does sh** about it. And that's one of my key gripes: Apple cares little about customers. They only "care" when the care nets them money. If I already paid for an app and it vanishes, Apple doesn't lose anything so they don't do anything.
The alternative stores will of course make an appearance but it is not them I'm interested in.

You choose to buy something or not. It's that simple.
People have choice. Your view of there not being another alternative is false.
You don't like Android, and that is fine. But, it is an option that already allows what the EU wants Apple to do.

Not sure how this simple concept cannot be computed by you, but again: An alternative is defined as an alternative not by you, but by everyone themselves. Or else, when you're in a critical condition, I could just donate you my blood type a when you're type b, since both types are blood.
If you look for alternatives for anything on the internet, different websites present you different alternatives because, surprise, they all have different opinions. Which is what you are calling an alternative is, just an opinion. So it is your view which is false, but you already know that, don't you? You're just here to do your job which is being in Apple's social media squad.
I think your employer is giving you instructions to talk it down because Apple doesn't want this law expanded to other markets, like the US.

 

[djphat2000]

Not sure how this simple concept cannot be computed by you, but again: An alternative is defined as an alternative not by you, but by everyone themselves. Or else, when you're in a critical condition, I could just donate you my blood type a when you're type b, since both types are blood.
If you look for alternatives for anything on the internet, different websites present you different alternatives because, surprise, they all have different opinions. Which is what you are calling an alternative is, just an opinion. So it is your view which is false, but you already know that, don't you? You're just here to do your job which is being in Apple's social media squad.
I think your employer is giving you instructions to talk it down because Apple doesn't want this law expanded to other markets, like the US.

So you make it up as you go along then. Whatever. It's an alternative to Android. Android is an alternative to iOS. You can pick/buy which you prefer. These are facts not opinions or some rubbish from Apple. If Apple did not exist in the EU at all, your only alternative is Android and there would be nothing you could say other than "We want Apple in the EU so we can belittle them!". I mean Apple is so good at banning apps they don't like. Why not ban a whole country or region of countries!

The argument is still the same. Just like Microsoft is an alternative to MacOS and it an alternative to Linux. MacOS does not run on standard PC hardware (without hacking it). No one is forcing Apple to write it for the standard PC. No one is forcing Apple to support it on a standard PC. Nor is anyone forcing Microsoft to support M1/2 nor Linux.
Possible or not, feasible or not, worth it or not aside. No one should be forced to do something they don't want to do (so long as the product they sell is legal). Doesn't matter how you view it or word it. A business has a choice in how they conduct that business. If Apple does not want to be compatible or to work with any developer or "store", they should not be forced to do so. You as a consumer picks the product that best suits you. If Apple's doesn't, you don't pick it. And in a world where there is another choice/alternative/option. You are not stuck picking the monopoly.

My bakery doesn't have the right to setup shop inside your grocery store which also sells baked goods(or not!). If the two stores doesn't want to. Nor is anyone forcing that to happen. If they choose to such as when Apple is operating a store within Best Buy, they don't have to by any rules or laws other than their own business choices.
Can we force Microsoft to create more games for MacOS or iOS? Is that something that too can be regulated by governments? Can we force Sony to sell their exclusive games to their rival platforms? Or open up a store within Xbox and within Nintendo and any combination between them. So there is more competition and innovation? Oh that's right. You can purchase a disk at a local store and go round the built in store of each platform. Well on Apple's platform you can create a WebApp. And totally bypass the AppStore and it's easier than side loading. It's so easy it's scary, as if someone like Apple created it. You can charge the customer whatever you want via that means, zero dollars to Apple. And one of the biggest companies in the world is using it for their cloud game streaming (Microsoft).

Your illusion of no choice or alternative or option to Apple's platform is a complete fabrication (IMHO).

 

[djphat2000]

Let’s be honest, this is about providing alternative app-store opportunities for companies that make apps who lose a lot of revenue to Apple’s 30% cut of gross app revenue. My bet would be Steam and Epic would be the first companies to open alternative app stores asking for a lower cut, aiming at Apple’s bulk of the App Store revenues made from gaming. Its fair and competitive, Apple’s walled garden is an unfair barrier to competition.

It isn't, you have Android. And they can already bypass the 30%, its called WebApps.

I ask, where is the hoard of games on macOS from these companies? You can install whatever you want (even malware if you so choose) on macOS. Yet all these developers can't seem to get on board with selling more games on the mac when they can do so much easier. As a macOS user I have to now own an Xbox, Playstation, Switch, and or a PC to get all the games I want access to. Apple's walled garden is not a barrier to anything. These developers just want it cheaper. That's it. Not even saying they don't have a right to want it cheaper. But let's not pretend your or my gaming life will be magically better if they saved anything of that 30% (full price cut, it can be lower). They still have to develop for it, and there still has to be a market for it enough to justify the investment/time/energy/whatever. EPIC wants to turn a profit just like Apple does.

There will probably be other market segments where big players will try and get a slice of the pie. Porn, gambling (where it isn’t regulated), and so on. The base human desires. It will be a case of buyer beware.

These are areas Apple doesn't cater to/with/for. They don't want any association with it. Same as other companies in the world. If anyone needs to wants such things you have a web browser. They could create a web app, or you can use another device that just doesn't care one way or another about those types of apps.

 

[makitango]

So you make it up as you go along then. Whatever. It's an alternative to Android. Android is an alternative to iOS. You can pick/buy which you prefer. These are facts not opinions or some rubbish from Apple.

Again. It's not an alternative just because you say so. It's just ignorant to hear another opinion and to move it to the side because it doesn't suit yours (or your employer's). Android is a different operating system, and what they have in common is that they are operating systems and work on mobile, true. But that does not make them alternatives to one another. I hope you don't have to work with people who have other opinions or else there might not be so many who would like to talk to you if you just sh**talk down on them.

The argument is still the same. Just like Microsoft is an alternative to MacOS and it an alternative to Linux. MacOS does not run on standard PC hardware (without hacking it). No one is forcing Apple to write it for the standard PC. No one is forcing Apple to support it on a standard PC. Nor is anyone forcing Microsoft to support M1/2 nor Linux.

Same again, you don't get to decide what is considered to be an alternative for people other than you. And here again, no one if forcing Apple or anyone else to offer their OS on any given hardware. But if they do, this OS needs to follow basic rules, and that includes users having the choice of where to download apps from. The manufacturer has no right to deny users their rights.

If Apple does not want to be compatible or to work with any developer or "store", they should not be forced to do so. You as a consumer picks the product that best suits you. If Apple's doesn't, you don't pick it. And in a world where there is another choice/alternative/option. You are not stuck picking the monopoly.

Apple is not forced to do anything, unless they want to do things in someone else's domain. Then they gotta follow the laws. And starting this fall, they will if they want to continue grinding our economic zone. And I am not stuck with the monopoly anymore, as millions of other people. The monopoly was the App Store and it will only remain a monopoly outside of the EU.
We will have the better product because of choices.

My bakery doesn't have the right to setup shop inside your grocery store which also sells baked goods(or not!). If the two stores doesn't want to. Nor is anyone forcing that to happen. If they choose to such as when Apple is operating a store within Best Buy, they don't have to by any rules or laws other than their own business choices.

Another flawed example. You are talking about a shop inside a shop, this law is once again about the freedom to sell wares outside of another shop. If said shop wants to prevent that, there is an antitrust issue right there. We solved that and you are lagging behind.
And you didn't even understand the BestBuy comparison because BestBuy is a shop, just like the App Store.

Can we force Microsoft to create more games for MacOS or iOS? Is that something that too can be regulated by governments? Can we force Sony to sell their exclusive games to their rival platforms? Or open up a store within Xbox and within Nintendo and any combination between them. So there is more competition and innovation? Oh that's right. You can purchase a disk at a local store and go round the built in store of each platform. Well on Apple's platform you can create a WebApp. And totally bypass the AppStore and it's easier than side loading. It's so easy it's scary, as if someone like Apple created it.

You are a tryhard with your attempts to bring up the idea like we are forcing Apple to create content on any foreign platform, well we are not. We are just saying that if they want our money, they gotta remove the monopoly string of their OS which is the App Store, and let users choose their content by themselves. No work needed as sideloading already exists with enterprise certificates, which however make up for a lot of money.
And if you think a webapp is an app, you're solely mistaken. It's a simple website in a Safari wrapper with the sole difference that the UI elements are gone, and you get a little more MB cache with different cookie expiration dates.
Yeah right, it's so scary to unlock your phone and open Safari.

Your illusion of no choice or alternative or option to Apple's platform is a complete fabrication (IMHO).

It's not an illusion. One person alone understanding why something is not an alternative is already enough to disqualify two products from being alternatives for one another. You would probably be this funny person in the family who, after two have divorced, suggests their divorcee to just go and marry the next personthey see because they match the gender of their old divorcee's and being single.

It isn't, you have Android. And they can already bypass the 30%, its called WebApps.

Here you go again, comparing apples to oranges. Web apps are websites, no native code. You are probably also confusing JavaScript with Java just becuase they sound alike, and are both programming languages.

I ask, where is the hoard of games on macOS from these companies? You can install whatever you want (even malware if you so choose) on macOS. Yet all these developers can't seem to get on board with selling more games on the mac when they can do so much easier. As a macOS user I have to now own an Xbox, Playstation, Switch, and or a PC to get all the games I want access to. Apple's walled garden is not a barrier to anything. These developers just want it cheaper. That's it. Not even saying they don't have a right to want it cheaper. But let's not pretend your or my gaming life will be magically better if they saved anything of that 30% (full price cut, it can be lower). They still have to develop for it, and there still has to be a market for it enough to justify the investment/time/energy/whatever. EPIC wants to turn a profit just like Apple does.

Do you have any idea how much resources it costs to write native code a second time just for another platform, and that platform not hosting the prime demographic of serious gamers? Yet you still have more AAA titles on the Mac than on iOS because, surprise, they can have Steam. They can have any other store. They can offer the download directly without any store interfering and stealing revenue. Apple's walled garden is a natural barrier to that.
Of course Epic wants to turn a profit here, if I were them I would want that, too. They played foul with going against the guidelines while acting like a stubborn child within the App Store premises, and paid for that in full.
However, Apple is playing foul with the OS itself, coming along with ever new excuses how the human would be in danger if they would be as free as on the Mac. Wake up, man. No one here believes your stuff. Maybe your 1-2 coworkers who are also here to cover your shift.

 

[inuragon]

So it's cool when apple takes customers choice away, got it.

 

[Abazigal]

So it's cool when apple takes customers choice away, got it.

Not having the choice to install malware isn’t necessarily a bad thing in the larger scheme of things.

Woman who scanned QR code with malware lost $20k to bubble tea survey scam while she was sleeping

Downloading apps from dubious sites that can lead to malware being installed onto victims’ mobile phones. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

iOS, by design, does not give its users enough rope to hang themselves with, and this is in line with what the judge in the epic trial ruled. That trading freedom (to sideload apps) in exchange for security and convenience constituted a reasonable trade off.

I think it’s about time people started acknowledging the risks involved with sideloading, rather than brush them off simply and pretending there are zero downsides whatsoever because they represent an inconvenient truth that does not support their argument any.

 

[inuragon]

I think it’s about time people started acknowledging the risks involved with sideloading, rather than brush them off simply and pretending there are zero downsides whatsoever because they represent an inconvenient truth that does not support their argument any.

Don't remember seeing any people pretend there's no risks.
But anyways i was talking about the logic exclusivity back when apple bought emagic and screwed over all windows logic users. (Missed that there were more replies after that, my bad)

 

[dk001]

Not having the choice to install malware isn’t necessarily a bad thing in the larger scheme of things.

Woman who scanned QR code with malware lost $20k to bubble tea survey scam while she was sleeping

Downloading apps from dubious sites that can lead to malware being installed onto victims’ mobile phones. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

iOS, by design, does not give its users enough rope to hang themselves with, and this is in line with what the judge in the epic trial ruled. That trading freedom (to sideload apps) in exchange for security and convenience constituted a reasonable trade off.

I think it’s about time people started acknowledging the risks involved with sideloading, rather than brush them off simply and pretending there are zero downsides whatsoever because they represent an inconvenient truth that does not support their argument any.

I, as many others, would rather have that option. Give me the rope and let me do with it what I will.
Been doing that on all my other devices and OSs.

 

[djphat2000]

Again. It's not an alternative just because you say so. It's just ignorant to hear another opinion and to move it to the side because it doesn't suit yours (or your employer's). Android is a different operating system, and what they have in common is that they are operating systems and work on mobile, true. But that does not make them alternatives to one another. I hope you don't have to work with people who have other opinions or else there might not be so many who would like to talk to you if you just sh**talk down on them.

How is it not an alternative? They both run applications on a mobile device, make calls, send text messages, browse the internet, check email, take pictures, play music, play games...... Is macOS not an alternative to Windows, or Linux, or Unix?

Same again, you don't get to decide what is considered to be an alternative for people other than you. And here again, no one if forcing Apple or anyone else to offer their OS on any given hardware. But if they do, this OS needs to follow basic rules, and that includes users having the choice of where to download apps from. The manufacturer has no right to deny users their rights.

That's the rule for it being an alternative? The user having a choice to download apps from? You're hanging this whole argument of choice on the ability to download an app? So, for that here.. WebApp on iOS WORKS as an alternative means. Problem solved.

Apple is not forced to do anything, unless they want to do things in someone else's domain. Then they gotta follow the laws.

Agreed.

And starting this fall, they will if they want to continue grinding our economic zone.

Very glad we agree on timelines now.

And I am not stuck with the monopoly anymore, as millions of other people. The monopoly was the App Store and it will only remain a monopoly outside of the EU.

A monopoly if you discount the WebApp route. A monopoly if you discount the fact that Android exists as an alternative to iOS, which also allows the things you want. And is the larger of the two mobile phone options in the EU.
This boils down to the EU not wanting to see a closed system that also makes more than a specified amount of money. Regardless if there are alternatives. Regardless if it is hurting or helping the consumer or developers. IF the EU said Ok these new rules come into affect if you make "more" than the current 2022 profits/sales within the EU. I might have been a little more OK with it. Still not fair in my view but, not totally forcing Apple's hand.

My solution would be that the EU allow Apple to continue to sell "AS IS" the current model. With a revenue cap of 2022 levels "unless" they either:
1) Open up the existing platform as currently described. Or face fines on revenue above 2022 level of say 50%. Not world wide revenue, but revenue within the EU only.

2) Create the alternative product that "IS" open as we require. You can even use Android OS and hardware.
The second option allows the current iPhone model to exist "while" providing a cross platform "open" alternative by either a new iOS (fork or otherwise rebrand) or using existing Android OS (even the same/similar or "new" hardware) that is compatible with each other, and run the same Apple provided apps (so iMessage works on both, iCloud integration, etc).

Let Apple create a product that "suits" the EU, AND keep their existing alternative platform without sacrificing security on the existing and allowing open choice of app distribution and installation. Without charging them a fine on revenue the EU has no business with.

Provide a reasonable timeline for this to be completed by.

We will have the better product because of choices.

You will have a product alright.

Another flawed example. You are talking about a shop inside a shop, this law is once again about the freedom to sell wares outside of another shop.

Within the iPhone iOS platform. It's a shop within a shop.

If said shop wants to prevent that, there is an antitrust issue right there. We solved that and you are lagging behind.

Solved what? You force other shops within shops? Remind me to not want to invest in the EU markets.

And you didn't even understand the BestBuy comparison because BestBuy is a shop, just like the App Store.

Yes it is a shop. Apple & Best Buy allow each other to exist within the same store of Best Buy. They are not forced to exist within the same store.

You are a tryhard with your attempts to bring up the idea like we are forcing Apple to create content on any foreign platform, well we are not.

Ok so there is only the risk of fines and such. But not force.

We are just saying that if they want our money, they gotta remove the monopoly string of their OS which is the App Store, and let users choose their content by themselves. No work needed as sideloading already exists with enterprise certificates, which however make up for a lot of money.

With the risks associated with that.
I would argue Apple got the money from the EU without having to do this in the first place. If they want "more" of it, then maybe produce a product that the EU wants of their own free will. Let the markets decide if the EU way is the way forward. Let Apple fail because more people in the EU have decided it's not the product for them. Either Apple adjusts or they fail within the region.

And if you think a webapp is an app, you're solely mistaken. It's a simple website in a Safari wrapper with the sole difference that the UI elements are gone, and you get a little more MB cache with different cookie expiration dates.
Yeah right, it's so scary to unlock your phone and open Safari.

It's a means to the ends. And it works.

It's not an illusion. One person alone understanding why something is not an alternative is already enough to disqualify two products from being alternatives for one another. You would probably be this funny person in the family who, after two have divorced, suggests their divorcee to just go and marry the next personthey see because they match the gender of their old divorcee's and being single.

They could choose to or not. They could even pick another gender too. It's not like there was only one other person on planet earth they could hook up with. If the marriage wasn't working out with the first person. It's not like they can take out what they didn't like and or add more of what they do in the same person. Like adding a new store into Apples iPhone. You breakup, and move on. Or not.

Here you go again, comparing apples to oranges. Web apps are websites, no native code. You are probably also confusing JavaScript with Java just becuase they sound alike, and are both programming languages.

It was there from the start of the iPhone and exists today. Don't like it, buy and Android.

Do you have any idea how much resources it costs to write native code a second time just for another platform, and that platform not hosting the prime demographic of serious gamers?

Don't make your problem my problem. There are plenty of cross platform games. It always has and always will depend on how much they can make developing those games for the other platforms. Or if they are exclusive or not. If EPIC can make one game on macOS and iOS they can certainly make all games they produce on it as well. Same goes for Microsoft or EA or Activision etc. They have the tools and the talent to do so. Is it worth the effort on the platform? Are there serious gamers on macOS or iOS?

Yet you still have more AAA titles on the Mac than on iOS because, surprise, they can have Steam. They can have any other store. They can offer the download directly without any store interfering and stealing revenue. Apple's walled garden is a natural barrier to that.

I would tend to agree with this, but part of it is due to power of the device. iPhones are great, but it's a handled. Mac's are better. More GPU and CPU power. We on the mac still don't have MANY of the AAA games that the PC enjoys. But, if you streaming your games. Then you have full access to whatever those hosting companies provide.

Of course Epic wants to turn a profit here, if I were them I would want that, too.

Great, we understand each other. Again!

They played foul with going against the guidelines while acting like a stubborn child within the App Store premises, and paid for that in full.

And in doing so, I believe that judge let it be known that Apple wasn't monopoly.

However, Apple is playing foul with the OS itself, coming along with ever new excuses how the human would be in danger if they would be as free as on the Mac. Wake up, man. No one here believes your stuff. Maybe you're 1-2 coworkers who are also here to cover your shift.

That judge didn't agree with that statement either.
I do agree that Apple should allow 3rd party app developers to contact the customer about their products and means of which to pay for said apps if they exist outside of the AppStore. Via email or other means outside of the app and App Store.

 

[makitango]

How is it not an alternative? They both run applications on a mobile device, make calls, send text messages, browse the internet, check email, take pictures, play music, play games...... Is macOS not an alternative to Windows, or Linux, or Unix?

An alternative is something where the sum of what you're looking for is matching. The sum is not matching nothing that you say will change it because we already found the conflicting areas where the mismatch exists.

That's the rule for it being an alternative? The user having a choice to download apps from? You're hanging this whole argument of choice on the ability to download an app? So, for that here.. WebApp on iOS WORKS as an alternative means. Problem solved.

Webapps do not work because it's a website, not an app. Or can you read your fancy local VPN traffic with your website or use hundreds of megabytes offline? Do you get push notifications?
There are thousands of things that you cannot do with a website but with a native app. The problem is not solved, but you already knew that, didn't you?

A monopoly if you discount the WebApp route. A monopoly if you discount the fact that Android exists as an alternative to iOS, which also allows the things you want. And is the larger of the two mobile phone options in the EU.
This boils down to the EU not wanting to see a closed system that also makes more than a specified amount of money. Regardless if there are alternatives. Regardless if it is hurting or helping the consumer or developers. IF the EU said Ok these new rules come into affect if you make "more" than the current 2022 profits/sales within the EU. I might have been a little more OK with it. Still not fair in my view but, not totally forcing Apple's hand.

Webapp ist just a website. Android is no alternative because it's a wholly different operating system for different devices.

My solution would be that the EU allow Apple to continue to sell "AS IS" the current model. With a revenue cap of 2022 levels "unless" they either:
1) Open up the existing platform as currently described. Or face fines on revenue above 2022 level of say 50%. Not world wide revenue, but revenue within the EU only.

Your "solution" is another violation of EU law that enables competition and free choice amongst users and developers because you have one model that complies and one which doesn't. Just because you do some legal things doesn't mean that you're allowed to continue illegal practices.

Let Apple create a product that "suits" the EU, AND keep their existing alternative platform without sacrificing security on the existing and allowing open choice of app distribution and installation. Without charging them a fine on revenue the EU has no business with.

The only sacrifice to security is Apple's lax handling of zero-day exploits and their negligience of bug reports. Anything that Apple doesn't want executed on their OS, they can disallow on the OS level. Requires Apple however to shift resources from emojis to QA. I know, it hurts.

You will have a product alright.

I have the same product except that it can do more if I wish so.

Within the iPhone iOS platform. It's a shop within a shop.

iOS is not a shop, don't act like it is. If you "uninstall" the App Store, have you uninstalled iOS?
You can use your iPhone without ever downloading anything.

Ok so there is only the risk of fines and such. But not force.

Apple will also not be fined not to create content. Are you high?

With the risks associated with that.
I would argue Apple got the money from the EU without having to do this in the first place. If they want "more" of it, then maybe produce a product that the EU wants of their own free will. Let the markets decide if the EU way is the way forward. Let Apple fail because more people in the EU have decided it's not the product for them. Either Apple adjusts or they fail within the region.

We already let democracy decide, which is better than markets because people's voice is more important than their wallet. This is about consumer rights and competition and everyone having the same access to it. Rich developers, poor developers. Rich citizens, poor citizens. Everyone.

It's a means to the ends. And it works.

It does not work. Thousands of very baseline functions starting from notifications, seamless offline usage to native functions don't work. Which is also why iOS is such an embarrassing statement to things like coding.

They could choose to or not. They could even pick another gender too. It's not like there was only one other person on planet earth they could hook up with. If the marriage wasn't working out with the first person. It's not like they can take out what they didn't like and or add more of what they do in the same person. Like adding a new store into Apples iPhone. You breakup, and move on. Or not.

You already got the point but ignored it. You disrespect all what iOS is and can do. We already picked iOS and the only alternative to the current iOS is the next iOS, which is the same but with more capabilities.

It was there from the start of the iPhone and exists today. Don't like it, buy and Android.

We don't have to buy anything, we just wait until September. I will support the developers directly, I don't have to reward Apple for not listening to their users by putting some money in the App Store, hell no.

Don't make your problem my problem. There are plenty of cross platform games. It always has and always will depend on how much they can make developing those games for the other platforms. Or if they are exclusive or not. If EPIC can make one game on macOS and iOS they can certainly make all games they produce on it as well. Same goes for Microsoft or EA or Activision etc. They have the tools and the talent to do so. Is it worth the effort on the platform? Are there serious gamers on macOS or iOS?

It is not my problem, it is the problem of devs. As compared to you, I care for people putting work to it.
Just because Apple treats some okay and some not doesn't mean the ones who are being treated okay get to say that the company's behaviour is okay. Hint: It is not.

I would tend to agree with this, but part of it is due to power of the device. iPhones are great, but it's a handled. Mac's are better. More GPU and CPU power. We on the mac still don't have MANY of the AAA games that the PC enjoys. But, if you streaming your games. Then you have full access to whatever those hosting companies provide.

A lot of AAA games have been natively ported to iOS using the best Metal API practices from Feral interactive. There were games like Tropico, Total War, GRID, and more. Tropico didn't even run hot while a simple Angry Birds did. The hardware is capable enough.

Great, we understand each other. Again!

I never doubted that we do. The difference is you spreading propaganda about people not wanting that and it being bad for people to exercise their free will.

And in doing so, I believe that judge let it be known that Apple wasn't monopoly.

Apple has no monopoly in their own store, they do have one on the platform itself, which however is not the body of this legal battle. The legal battle was about Apple's behaviour in their own store, and Apple can do, for the most part, whatever they want in it. The judge said that a framework for how to behave outside of the App Store can be worked on, but it's different, and Epic has no way of winning in the lawsuit that they brought up because their misbehaviour is just what it is, a misbehaviour.
Another problem was that Epic was exploiting the fact that there is no one at Apple who is scanning the code of any app for what it actually does and violated the App Store's T&Cs.

I do not respect Epic. Their behaviour, imo, was childish at best. And they hid behind the argument of competition and consumer choice. They used same propaganda tools like Apple and you are using, trying to hide their true intentions behind a nice-sounding argument which is actually not what this is about, and does not even apply. But still sounds nice and kool-aid.

 

[sulpfiction]

Good news! No more Uncle's Sam tax on everything.

Exactly what tax are you referring to? The fee paid by devs to Apple? Or that devs charge more to the end user to help offset the fee?

Personally I think it’s horrible news. Don’t get me wrong, there are people who need and will actually benefit from it, and for them it’s great! But those people represent a very small percentage of iPhone users. It’s the ones that don’t need it, have no clue and support it for no other reason other than their choice, their freedom, etc. etc. These are the people that will suffer the most and unfortunately represent a much, much larger percentage of users. The same people who click every “you just won $5,000” link on their PC’s.

 

[djphat2000]

An alternative is something where the sum of what you're looking for is matching. The sum is not matching nothing that you say will change it because we already found the conflicting areas where the mismatch exists.

Nothing? Really nothing? Ok.
I was already writing up something for the rest. I cut it, as I'm done with this. You believe what you want and I'll keep believing what I want. The EU will have what it asks for.

 

[ph@nt0m]

THEY DIDNT DO IT!

 

[inuragon]

THEY DIDNT DO IT!

It’s still just a beta, give it some time.

 

[makitango]

THEY DIDNT DO IT!

They will in due time. They want the money from the market.

 

[dk001]

They will in due time. They want the money from the market.

This is likely something that won't be seen till launch day.
Be surprising if we saw it in betas at all anywhere.

 

[makitango]

This is likely something that won't be seen till launch day.
Be surprising if we saw it in betas at all anywhere.

Yeah, Apple has no interest in promoting this even in the slightest, for sure.

 

[F27]

Yeah, Apple has no interest in promoting this even in the slightest, for sure.

I can imagine they won’t even list it as a feature when it drops. It will just appear buried somewhere in the settings. The EU law doesn’t require making a song and dance about it!

Personally I can’t wait to have free choice to do what I want with my device. I will be the judge on what is often cynically labelled “malware”.

 

[transmaster]

It was somewhat strange when I went macOS and was able to load apps outside of the Mac App Store. Because of the many years I have had with the Windows OS it was always ask around before you loaded anything. There are enough anti spy/malware utilities to mostly keep you safe. I have alway liked the safety of the closed App store. I am not thinking of myself it is the totally computer illiterate. What Apple could do is have a scanning subroutine to look at side loaded Apps for malware and block them from loading if any is found. I have had this on my Windows machines for many years.

 

[adib]

The European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA), which went into effect on November 1, 2022, requires "gatekeeper" companies to open up their services and platforms to other companies and developers.

Apple could simply expand its Enterprise Distribution feature to jurisdictions that mandate sideloading. Hence, the EU (and other governments) will manage any additional "side-loaded" applications similar to how enterprises manage their respective in-house side-loaded applications. Thus, the EU will need to curate those apps, perform app reviews, and be responsible for the "privacy and security" of those side-loaded applications.

Thus, any "alt-store" will be government-run.

 

[caleeb7309]

Apple in iOS 17 will for the first time allow iPhone users to download apps hosted outside of its official App Store, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.

Otherwise known as sideloading, the change would allow customers to download apps without needing to use the App Store, which would mean developers wouldn't need to pay Apple's 15 to 30 percent fees.

The European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA), which went into effect on November 1, 2022, requires "gatekeeper" companies to open up their services and platforms to other companies and developers.

The DMA will have a big impact on Apple's platforms, and it could result in Apple making major changes to the ‌App Store‌, Messages, FaceTime, Siri, and more. Apple is planning to implement sideloading support to comply with the new European regulations by next year, according to Gurman.

Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues. However, Apple must comply with the DMA or it risks fines of as much as 20 percent of its global revenue if the EU laws are violated.

In a December 2022 report Gurman said Apple was considering implementing security requirements such as verification, a process that it could charge a fee for in lieu of collecting money from app sales. Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to be safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App Store.

If other countries introduce similar legislation, alternate app stores could expand beyond the European Union. The United States, for example, is considering legislation that would require Apple to allow sideloading.

Article Link: iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations

I really like that idea as long as it's safe. I've been sideloading apps using my Mac for a long time. I'm not sure if it's gonna work for me because I live in the US

 

[Ben Chapleski]

Sideload as many apps that can profit off your life choices and social media interactions. The one upside I can see is to be able to sideload an AI that'll work better than Siri.

I just want to be able to sideload Kodi without the 7 day expiry the device has right now