Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Mac seems to be doing just fine without that requirement.
Still the way iOS and iPadOS is locked down is different then MacOS so it has to be modified or extended using the current iOS 16 or IPadOS 16 security with what additional security iOS 17 and iPadOS 17 add. This has been likely worked on for many months ever since Apple has been called out about this.
 
You do have a point there. I am not sure if iOS (or Apple) will be able to make a distinction between an app and an App Store app. What I think might happen is that the software being used to sideload apps will also be what allows Apple to monitor what apps are being installed this way and perhaps blocked as needed. I won't pretend to understand how Apple might accomplish such a task, but I assume preventing other App Store apps from being installed on iOS would be one of Apple's top priorities.
I don't think the EU regulation allows Apple to block alternative app stores other than for strict and specific security reasons. In principle, all the automated technical checks that Apple performs during the app approval process could also be performed on-device for sideloaded apps, and doing so would still be valid under the EU regulation, in my understanding, because that would just be a universal restriction of the OS that is applied to all apps, whether sideloaded or not.
 
You do have a point there. I am not sure if iOS (or Apple) will be able to make a distinction between an app and an App Store app. What I think might happen is that the software being used to sideload apps will also be what allows Apple to monitor what apps are being installed this way and perhaps blocked as needed. I won't pretend to understand how Apple might accomplish such a task, but I assume preventing other App Store apps from being installed on iOS would be one of Apple's top priorities.
From skimming the DMA regulation docs, (could be wrong because of a legal wording); Apple is not legally permitted to do this, DMA disallows the platform owner from blocking the user's choice to install whatever app and app store they want.
 
The Mac seems to be doing just fine without that requirement.
That's what gets me about all the people complaining.

iOS allowing sideloading would just be going back to how pretty much all computing platforms were like pre-2008. You can install whatever software you like and you are responsible for the security of your system.

Apple can put out guidelines for people to follow to be more secure, just like they do already with Macs. We haven't seen a massive security crisis with Macs; pretty much all Mac compromises are because the user deliberately bypassed multiple security measures to install shady software.

If you put up big signs warning users about the dangers of installing untrusted software, and users still do so and get compromised, it's on them, not Apple. Plus iOS has robust sandboxing; even a malicious app won't be able to much damage outside its own silo.

"Walled garden" computing is a relatively new phenomenon and I'd like to see it go away and never visited again.
 
I don't get it. Why would I want to side load apps that have not been vetted by Apple. Plus this is a free market, Apple has a popular platform why would they have to comply with supporting other vendors to access their platform?
Apples IOS platform is not a public service platform where we could demand this but built by a successful company.
Now if developers could not upload apps for free provided they would't charge end users then I could see the business case for this. But that Apple takes a cut for people using it to make money on their apps I don't see a problem with.

If EU want to regulate something it should be how much, i.e. what is a "fair" percentage for Apple to charge of the price the developer sets.
 
So, would sideloading mean apps could offer extra functionality currently 'not allowed' by Apple? Such as Facebook Messenger chat heads?

Or would they effectively be the same apps just on downloaded from somewhere different?
I don't think it will allow much extra functionality on the technical level. It's mostly just lifting Apple's restrictions regarding content, payment processing, and "virtualization" (web browsers, emulators).
 
If I were Apple, you would have to hook up your iPhone to your Mac to sideload apps. Those apps would also need to be signed just like they do on the Mac. They could do an update to iTunes on Windows to do the same. Sideloaded apps would be managed on your computer, not the device.
 
Me too, although I'm concerned some app developers might make sideloading the only way to get their apps on your phone like they do with Mac apps (e.g. 1Password 8, Firefox, etc)
For Firefox (with its own browser engine), this will be a necessity, because Apple doesn't allow third-party browser engines in its app store. At the same time, that's one of the major benefits that sideloading will bring. Apple could in principle counteract this by loosening their app store policies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula
1) Apple will allow sideloading but not third party app stores (there's this clause in the DMA which, as per a strict reading, states that Apple has to allow sideloading or app stores, which one can argue implies that Apple is not obligated to support both)
You’re reading it wrong. Also, there’s no reason App Stores couldn’t be sideloaded, if the Apps themselves just need to be sideloaded.
2) Installing an app from elsewhere is likely not going to be as straightforward as flipping a switch and downloading an apk file from a website. Users might also be peppered with scary warning signs like the one we get when trying to enable third party keyboards. Might one even be required to have a Mac in order to sideload apps? Even requiring users to make a full backup of their device on iTunes first might prove enough of a deterrent for most people because of the inconvenience involved.
This is addressed by the Anti-circumvention clause:

“The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.”

“The gatekeeper shall not degrade the conditions or quality of any of the core platform services provided to business users or end users who avail themselves of the rights or choices laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7, or make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making, or free choice via the structure, design, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof.”


Making users jump through hoops as you suggest - such as the requirement for a Mac - will certainly be deemed a circumvention behaviour. Especially where Apple’s own App Store doesn’t require tethering to a PC or Mac.
3) Apple may consider it justified to withhold certain features or privileges from users who choose to side load. Features like iCloud may be disabled, or Applecare+ may even get voided in more extreme cases.
I believe that article 6, no. 7 on interoperability will apply.
Also, again, see anti-circumvention clauses..

The gatekeeper shall not degrade the conditions or quality of any of the core platform services provided to business users or end users…”
4) Apple may attempt to collect their 27% cut of revenue from sales of sideloaded apps, and make the process extremely laborious for developers by requiring them to produce sales receipts. Of course this won't have an impact on free apps, but it would be another roadblock for developers attempting to circumvent the app store in order to avoid paying Apple their cut (such as Epic), as well as dissuade smaller developers who may not have the resources to ensure compliance.
“The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”

I read this as allowing developers to conclude contracts outside of Apple’s services.

👉 Either way, I suppose Apple’s and the EU commissions interpretations of compliance will differ on the specifics. I wouldn’t be surprised differences of interpretation go to court eventually and dragged on for a few years.
 
If I were Apple, you would have to hook up your iPhone to your Mac to sideload apps. Those apps would also need to be signed just like they do on the Mac. They could do an update to iTunes on Windows to do the same. Sideloaded apps would be managed on your computer, not the device.
It is not permitted by DMA. It must be allowed by the OS on the device.

As per the post above, which is from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?toc=OJ:L:2022:265:TOC&uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2022.265.01.0001.01.ENG

> The gatekeeper shall not degrade the conditions or quality of any of the core platform services provided to business users or end users who avail themselves of the rights or choices laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7, or make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making, or free choice via the structure, design, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof.”
 
From skimming the DMA regulation docs, (could be wrong because of a legal wording); Apple is not legally permitted to do this, DMA disallows the platform owner from blocking the user's choice to install whatever app and app store they want.
There is this clause in the digital markets act.
In order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, it should be possible for the gatekeeper concerned to implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system.
I don't know how much wriggle room it gives Apple though, and well, I profess I am not a lawyer by training either.😛
 
...
It's about choice, folks. If you want the walled garden you are free to stick with the App Store. But I for one look forward to the expanded choices soon to become available.

Exactly. And the EU's move will reduce choice and overall security. Companies will abandon the the App store and so we won't have the choice of using it. Instead, we will have to go for outside untrustworthy sources. Also, I'd like to know how this will affect Apple's warranties...

What the EU should have done is to say to Apple. "OK - one of your selling points is security and a 'walled garden' based on the App Store. Well, now you are going to have to guarantee the security of those apps in the App Store, and earn your fees from users and developers."
 
  • Like
Reactions: retroneo
iOS allowing sideloading would just be going back to how pretty much all computing platforms were like pre-2008. You can install whatever software you like and you are responsible for the security of your system.
But is this really the best way of doing things, or are we simply falling back on the "it has always been done this way, therefore nothing should change" argument?
 
They could never abandon iOS because of this because, you know, there are no other mobile platforms to jump to...
Well, Apple has a very robust MDM where you can actually turn off certain features. So, I can when and if this happens, turn it off on every device in my family and of course our CTO has already given me the all clear to shut it down on all corporate iOS/iPadOS devices the second it happens before we do our next OS update in the fall.

Corporate employees with devices from the company have already been notified that Third Party App Stores will not be available if the feature ever appears. There was only one guy who complained.
 
You aren’t forced to use apps that require side loading.
Correct.

I just may want to.
And legislation will provide that opportunity to me.
And that’s good for competition.

Exactly. And the EU's move will reduce choice
You got that just wrong.
It will increase choice.

By allowing apps that Apple doesn’t like cause they may interfere with their own business.
And cheaper prices off the App Store.

The only choice that will be reduced is your “choice” to be restricted and be forced to buy from a monopoly vendor.

In other words: your choice of enslaving yourself (to put it pointedly)
 
Last edited:
Well, Apple has a very robust MDM where you can actually turn off certain features. So, I can when and if this happens, turn it off on every device in my family and of course our CTO has already given me the all clear to shut it down on all corporate iOS/iPadOS devices the second it happens before we do our next OS update in the fall.

Corporate employees with devices from the company have already been notified that Third Party App Stores will not be available if the feature ever appears. There was only one guy who complained.

Not to mention the same thing applies to every other platform. We use MDM to lock down the Macs and can restrict what apps can be installed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Verified Whiskey
But is this really the best way of doing things, or are we simply falling back on the "it has always been done this way, therefore nothing should change" argument?

Yes it is the best way of doing things. Phones were at the time the next generation of computing when the iPhone was introduced, and for many they use their phone more than a traditional laptop or desktop. A single company should not be controlling what software we can put on our phones.

We paid for the phone, so we deserve everything that is on the god damn phone.

Honestly I hate the term sideloading. In the past the term sideloading didn't even exist. We just called it "installing software." But then Apple and Google come and coin the term sideloading to gaslight us into making it sound taboo to dare to install any software not in their stores.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.