And I have already repeatedly said that what I said has nothing to do with how frequent or infrequent it happens, simply that it happens. Again, another attempt to reframe my position when I have repeatedly clarified my position.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The relevant question here is, if they're doing it in the context of regulation of digital products and services and their sellers/operators.
We're discussing a certain context here - and it's not agrochemical products.
I edited #1,075 for better clarity on what I was trying to say. I admit, I phrased it poorly, but I wasn’t saying that the EU is corrupt on average, but that 1 good non-corrupt action wouldn’t be evidence that the EU is on average non-corrupt, which was the argument that the other commenter was trying to make.
To me, they clearly seem to be favoring Spotify, an EU company. I’d say that’s one way that this is happening. The only reason I brought up agrochemical products was as a reference to a situation where the EU acted in a corrupt way, and placated the highest bidder. It was actually one of the things I had in mind when I wrote my original comment about them placating the highest bidder. I don’t know that they are doing the same in this situation, but I very much suspect they are. Sadly, I don’t think there’s a good way to know for certain if they are or not without a whistleblower coming forward or something. But let’s just say, I think the “arguments” they’re making in Spotify’s favor seem very self-serving. Apple has created a platform that has heavily contributed to Spotify’s success. Apple is perfectly right in collecting a commission on sales in their App Store. No software company is entitled to free access to Apple’s platform. Just like game consoles collect commissions on game sales. Why? Because the game console companies provide the platform. Apple has boosted Spotify’s success. As I said in my original comment, I don’t trust the EU on just about anything.
Last edited:
We haven't had free markets for quite some time (e.g., antitrust laws). However, wholly unregulated markets are economic, environmental, and social suicide.
Whom cares. You didn't say it was opinion, you just stated it.
I was wondering how far you were going to pull the rope before hanging yourself with it.
Now, I may be an edge case but we got a contract, (as part of a larger one), on behalf of a French energy company to do some work in London that qualified for EU funding.
We, (which includes the main contractor), were NOT the highest or lowest bidder. There is more that goes into these bids than price.
Your statement was false. QED✔︎
The only kinds of things the government should be interfering with are when companies violate laws such as killing customers with poison advertised as something else, etc. Most antitrust laws are just there for the government to mold the market to it’s liking, and shouldn’t exist in my opinion.
You are free to have that opinion, but i'm pretty sure there are good factual reasons to why your opinion is bad, and that's why no actual experts follow it.
I did say it was my opinion, repeatedly. And you’re making no sense. I’ve never even thought about hanging myself. 🤔. And again, one case where they didn’t placate the highest bidder doesn’t equal they never placate the highest bidder, so you still haven’t made any meaningful case against what I said. My statement still stands, the EU placates the highest bidder. There’s publicly available evidence that it’s happened. The only way that my statement doesn’t stand is if you’re going to try to claim that the EU never placates the highest bidder. This is, of course, an untenable position, because we know they have.
"placates the highest bidder" means they do it currently, so unless you can prove that the correct thing to say is "placated the highest bidder", considering you used the word average when you didn't mean average i am not surprised to see you make such mistake.
There are actual experts who do agree with my opinion. Just saying “no ‘actual’ experts agree with you” isn’t a compelling argument, it’s a claim you can’t possibly prove or support, because you don’t know of every ‘actual expert’ who exists, let alone, what all of the nuances of their opinions on such matters are. And who determines who an ‘actual expert’ is? You? And what makes them an ‘actual expert’ vs a ‘fake expert’? People with degrees? Economists? Expert political commentators? Politicians? Because there are people in all of those categories that agree with me. You have every right to your opinion as well, but your claim that “no ‘actual’ experts agree” with my opinion is meaningless and unprovable.
They have done so in recent history. Are you seriously going to try to tell me that the EU never placates the highest bidder today, even though the system hasn’t really gained any additional transparency, accountability, or checks and balances, the EU government continues to take more authority it shouldn’t have (like telling companies what products they must sell), and lobbying is still a bustling business in the EU? And to clarify, I would say the same of my own government, this isn’t a slight towards the EU or anything, in my country, lobbying is also an issue, government is corrupt here as well, and placates to the highest bidder here as well.
I totally agree that the EU DMA (in its current form) benefits Spotify more than Apple. It's also obvious that Spotify has been one of the leading enterprises in asking for and and supporting this legislation.
That doesn't mean that the EU did Spotify's bidding.
The other probably most prominent proponents (such as the ones in the Coalition for App Fairness) are Match Group and Epic games - both U.S. companies.
Claiming the EU DMA was passed mainly for Spotify would be as preposterous as denying that it benefits Spotify more than Apple.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
Somewhat probably they sometimes do.
The answer to the question is irrelevant - and even if it did in any particular regulation, that doesn't mean that it did too with regards to the DMA or their competition regulation.
Also, who says or knows who the "highest bidder" is? For all I know, Apple "could bid", that is command more money, taxes (and probably employees being employed) in the EU than Spotify does.
Last edited:
If anything, these are ultra-libertarian economists on the very fringe of economic sciences. They carry little to no political weight in Europe.
It's debatable if there's too much (or, conversely, not enough) government and political interference with free markets. But experts agreeing with and voicing your "The only kinds of things the government should be interfering with..." statement above are not a real-world thing in Europe, outside of "ivory tower" academia.
Monopolies, duopolies and lack of competition in certain markets lead to rent-seeking and bad for society and the economy. And there's examples that have proven that.
There's also successful legislation that has proven government interference is good and to the benefit of merchants and consumers - such as the EU interchange regulation on card payment fees.
And no software company or platform operator should be able to leverage their monopoly/duopoly to unilaterally impose a (quasi-) tax on every transaction in markets as important to society and the greater economy as digital payments or mobile apps on smartphones.
Just like card payment fees, transactions costs on mobile app transactions should be determined not unilaterally - but competitively. Unilateral price (commission) setting power makes for inefficient markets that have almost everyone else pay more - except the gatekeepers raking in their rents.
Governments absolutely should step in such cases and - if necessary - regulate prices and access to such platforms/networks.
Last edited:
The way this whole back and forth began in the first place was because someone was apparently unhappy with me expressing my opinion that the EU placates the highest bidder and is corrupt. I don’t know beyond the shadow of a doubt that that is what happened in this case with the DMA, but I highly suspect that it is. And besides, I believe regardless, the EU government is acting way outside of its proper jurisdiction of authority. In my view, government should never be in the business of telling businesses what products or services they must sell.
I live in the US, not the EU, so I can’t speak to experts in the EU, but here in the US, there are many experts who agree with my perspective of the proper scope of government authority. And Apple is hardly a monopoly. Android has a majority of the market. If app sideloading is something that customers are interested in, they can pick Android or Linux. Most people who know about iPhone know that they don’t support app sideloading. Many people choose iPhone specifically for that reason, because of the added security that iPhones provide over the other choices. Customers aren’t forced into buying an iPhone.
So no, I believe it is far outside of the jurisdiction of proper government authority for governments to dictate what services or products a private business must sell. How is removing the option to have a secure platform without that back door to security beneficial for those who specifically bought the iPhone because it didn’t support sideloading? It doesn’t, now they just don’t have that option.
Ultimately, I will never agree with you that government should be dictating what products/services a business
must sell. And I’m tired of hearing the “monopoly/duopoly” arguments, because it isn’t a monopoly. Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone. People make the choice to buy an iPhone.
Apple has a monopoly on app distribution for iOS devices to consumers - and a quasi duopoly with Google for mobile as a whole. Mobile operating systems and applications for them are clearly distinguishable markets. If Microsoft requires all Windows apps to be signed and distributed through their Microsoft Store tomorrow, that doesn't mean they don't have a monopoly on a market.
They aren't forced into buying iPhones - but they don't specifically buy them for not supporting third-party app sources.
They can just as well buy an Android phone and limit themselves to downloading apps from the Play Store.
...and iPhones aren't really regulated by the DMA. Only their software is. And people are basically forced to buy (into) one of the two OS: iOS or Android. As well as the App Store or the Play Store.
Very simple: It's simply not true. It's a myth.
iOS has supported sideloading for over a decade - the "back door" has existed all along. That's what matters from a technical standpoint of security.
They still do: If they don't like (or trust it), they can simply choose not to use it.
Sideloading has been technically possible for a decade. The only thing that changes that is more developers can use it for distribution to consumers and more apps will be available this way in the EU.
Last edited:
A. That’s like saying that “Walmart has a monopoly on products distributed in Walmart stores”. That makes no sense. Nobody has to shop at Walmart. Nobody has to shop at Apple. Walmart chooses what products they offer to their clientele with their platform, Apple does the same.
B. I personally know many people who have stated that as a reason for buying an iPhone. And “just limit yourself to buying apps from the Play Store” doesn’t patch the security hole that malware can take advantage of.
C. The more secure software on iPhones is why many people choose to buy iPhones over Android phones. And the EU is regulating the features of the OS that make it more secure than the Wild West that is Android. I am clearly talking about iOS, I have no idea where you thought I was talking about iPhone hardware…
D. It is true, there are many people in these forums even who have said this is one of the reasons they chose iPhone, because they didn’t have to worry about security holes that sideloading opens up. Just claiming it’s a myth doesn’t make it so…
E. Developer tools for testing their own apps are not the same as sideloading on devices owned by the general public. So no, it hasn’t existed. Not in this implementation. And not with more appeal to target these new weaknesses now that scammers can look forward to targeting many more consumer devices rather than only a few developers who are usually more tech savvy and harder to trick anyways.
Last edited:
A. You're comparing Apples to Orange.
Apple and iPhones aren't Walmart.
Why? There's about zero cost and effort to switch from Walmart to any other supermarket or grocery store - because you haven't bought into a platform with hundreds or thousands of dollars for hardware devices, dozens of hours to learn and get used to the user interface and software.
Besides, there's many more (nationally relevant) grocery store or supermarket chains than Walmart.
If Walmart and another (one) competitor X
1) were commanding as much market share in supermarkets and grocery stores
2) were charging only nearly as high commissions or margins and
3) were conducting their business in a similarly controlling and anticompetitive way
as iOS and Android or Google and Apple do for mobile operating systems and apps, you can bet that U.S. would have long taken antitrust action against them and/or broken them apart.
B. There is no new security hole.
C. You were saying "because it isn’t a monopoly. Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone. People make the choice to buy an iPhone." in #1,119. That isn't an argument that Apple doesn't have a monopoly and/or together with Google a duopoly. If two car brands control 98% or so of the market, they also a duopoly - even though people aren't forced to buy cars.
D. "they didn’t have to worry about security holes that sideloading opens up"
👉 Again: Sideloading does not open any security holes. It's been possible for more than a decade. In the end, you gotta trust the apps you install.
Last edited:
I wasn't in any way referring to developer tools for in-house testing of their apps.
Yes it has. You don't know what you're talking about.
You've been able to
- take your iPhone out of your pocket
- download a custom enterprise app from a simple website (that your employer or some dodgy east asian alternative app store operator may have set up)
- trust the developer in settings (Apple helpfully explain how to do it)
- and the app is installed and usable
- without enrolling into an MDM or beta testing program
- and without needing a developer account/subscription either
"It’s as simple to download an entire new illicit app store for your iPhone as following this link in the Hong Kong-based company’s Twitter profile — which has more than 170,000 followers — and tapping a button on a mobile webpage. From there, you’re asked to give TutuApp permission to install an enterprise certificate"
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/20/...-ios-apps-developer-enterprise-program-misuse
Again: Download from a website, trust the developer (once), and the app is installed and can be used.
👉 It's literally the same principle as sideloading the Apple Music app on your Android phone.
Or as we (on macOS or Windows) call it: Installing an app.
There's no question that this will see broader use and have broader appeal to users, now that users Apple has to provide such certificates for signing of apps to trustworthy competing stores and third-party developers, too. Instead of just corporations that they made to contractually promise not to distribute apps to external end users.
The bottom line is this:
iOS devices have been able (out of the box and for many years) to download (from a simple website), install and run apps that were not reviewed by Apple. Without requiring a Mac, without requiring a developer account/subscription, without enrolling into MDM or beta programs.
👉 So where's the new security hole opened up? That's nonsense - particularly if you limit yourself to only downloading apps from Apple. You can still limit yourself from downloading from exclusively from the Apple App Store and not trust other third-party app stores.
Last edited:
A. It’s not apples to oranges. They’re both private business offering products to consumers. People are just as “forced” to shop at Walmart as they are to shop at Apple. And switching between iOS and other platforms isn’t that difficult. Plenty of people use mixed devices, Android for this, Apple for that, and Microsoft for something else, and so on. So no, nobody is just wringing their hands, not knowing what to do, because their Apple’s slave and can’t choose to go with another option…
B. Wow, I guess since you said it, it must be true… But many tech experts and analysts have written pieces that disagree with your take.
C. They aren’t a monopoly. A monopoly is “exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action, exclusive possession or control, or a commodity controlled by one party” (Merriam Webster’s Dictionary). They do not have exclusive control or ownership of the smartphone market. They don’t even have most of the market share. So no, not a monopoly.
D. Again, I’m glad that you just saying it doesn’t open security holes makes it so, but many tech analysts and experts disagree with your assessment. And this implementation of sideloading has not existed for decades. It’s new, and it opens new levels of risk. A separate system has existed for allowing developers to test their own apps, but this has very low risk because A. Developers are not worried about their own apps containing malware, and B. Hackers and fraudsters weren’t as likely or incentivized to exploit these weaknesses to target a limited pool of people using these tools aka developers. With all EU users now being vulnerable, hackers and fraudsters will have more incentive to use these weaknesses and trick people into installing malware on their devices. Or potentially covertly load malware in the background. But again, it’s a good thing that you know every possible weakness of the system, and know for a fact that no new security gaps have been opened by these changes… 🤦🏼♂️
Since you're a fan of the "many people" argument yourself: Many people find it difficult and/or laborious. Most people do not own or use two phones with different operating systems (unless their employer "forces" them to).
🤣
That's been (at least) the second time today in this thread. that you're merely appealing to the authority of unnamed "experts" rather than making a factual argument. You didn't even provide a single reference or link. Come on!
Thank you for proving my point. For practical purposes Apple (used to) control the supply (distribution) of iOS apps to iPhone users.
And this is again, a system that is not intended for average users, and is not as likely to be exploited because it’s designed for internal business software distribution, not average end users to install Super Mario Cart from we’retotallynotscammy.com. You even admitted, you have to go into Settings and trust a specific developer and only that developer (which is supposed to be your company software developer) and then you can access company software. It’s a totally different use case and demographic that is using this system, and again, is not the same as everyone being able to be targeted more readily.
It's intended to be usable by average users (among employees).
It was, yes.
But there's no meaningful technical difference "in implementation" (as you said it yourself) to this:
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/16/ios-17-5-app-web-downloads-eu/
That's why there's no new security hole or "back door" (as you called it) opened up "in implementation."
The use cases and demographic that can enjoy the benefits of it will be expanded, yes.
But then as now, you still have to trust developers and the apps you're using.
As you said it yourself so nicely: "Nobody is forced".
That also goes for sideloading of apps and alternative app stores.
Also, Apple still reserves the right to review applications offered for sideloading to consumers.
Last edited:
A. And many people only shop at one grocery store, so I guess Walmart has a monopoly on groceries. Or perhaps customers can decide what matters to them, and if app sideloading is one of those things that matter to them, they can decide to buy something other than an iPhone.
B. And where are your sources? You’ve made some rather big claims such as “there are no new security holes”, yet have not cited any sources for these claims. If it would make you feel better, I can look for the links to the several articles talking about the new risks and threats users will face.
C. And Walmart controls the distribution of products in Walmart stores to their customers, just like Apple controls the distribution of products on their platform to their customers, so I guess Walmart has a monopoly on Walmart products??? This argument makes no sense. Nobody is forced to buy an Apple device that uses Apple’s platform, just as no one is forced to darken Walmart’s door and purchase the products they offer.