Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You’re assuming that Apple would not be aware of setting permissions to harden iOS or IPadOS installation. Very early on corporate IT or government IT had procedures they followed. I doubt Apple would just allow any method to be used for side loading if it didn’t involve gatekeeper along with runtime protection to prevent unsigned software from execution.


Because of this, Apple provides layers of protection to help ensure that apps are free of known malware and haven’t been tampered with. Additional protections enforce that access from apps to user data is carefully mediated. These security controls provide a stable, secure platform for apps, enabling thousands of developers to deliver hundreds of thousands of apps for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS—all without impacting system integrity. And users can access these apps on their Apple devices without undue fear of viruses, malware, or unauthorized attacks.

On iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch, all apps are obtained from the App Store—and all apps are sandboxed—to provide the tightest controls.
Yes, I am aware.

 
…until you have to because the app you want to install isn’t available in the App Store anymore. Because the dev doesn’t want to pay the fees. The App Store is about to become as barren as the Mac App Store in a few years.
Yep. I lean to the left, but this is crass government interference with a service I happen to like as is. This is perhaps the one time since 2016 that I am glad the UK is not in the EU. Hopefully the sideloading Wild West won't come to the UK for some time.
 
Correct.

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


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
What about when the app dev decides to not host their app on the App Store anymore because they don’t want to pay the fines, and instead have access to iOS for free? And only offer it side loaded? Where is my “choice” then?
 
Yes, I am aware.

If that is the case why decide the implementation is not acceptable before the technical details? Let corporations evaluate before labeling it impossible to implement for intranet usage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula
I still have no idea how this is legal. I could see 20% of revenue made from EU customers and territories, but global? Seems like a major overreach to me.
Valid point.

That said, they should be used to legal overreach from the country they‘re based in (the U.S.).

What about when the app dev decides to not host their app on the App Store anymore because they don’t want to pay the fines, and instead have access to iOS for free? And only offer it side loaded? Where is my “choice” then?
You still get to download, install and use their app.

So what’s the problem?
 
There is no one just sitting around waiting to make money outside the Apple App Store, other than Epic and they're even dumber than the EU

What about Microsoft? They wanted a native Xbox Cloud app for iOS, but Apple rejected it, so because of this Xbox Cloud is only available natively on Android.

Or how about the retro game emulator developers like Dolphin? Their mobile clients are only available on Android since Apple will not let them onto the App Store.

Or how about Google and Mozilla so they can be able to have non Webkit versions of Chrome and FireFox on iOS and iPadOS, with plugin support?

Or how about virtual machine developers? You can't run VMs on iPadOS because Apple does not allow them, only allowing you to remote access VMs but not run guest VMs on the iPad itself despite the fact the iPad Airs and Pros are using the same god damn chips a Mac does so they're more than capable of running VMs!
 
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.

One counterpoint I can think of are gaming consoles. Nobody bats an eyelid at Nintendo or Sony taking 30% of game proceeds from developers, or that console exclusives exist or that the only way to get games onto it are via the App Store or discs, meaning there isn’t a way for game developers to get around that 30% cut either (at least, not one that I am aware of).

And I believe this model has been around even before the concept of the iOS App Store?
 
Valid point.

That said, they should be used to legal overreach from the country they‘re based in (the U.S.).


You still get to download and use their app.

So what’s the problem?
There are some (many?) who prefer to have Apple restrict what apps are available to them. I can understand that... even though I don't agree with it.

As much as I personally would prefer the walls of Apple's walled garden to be dropped, I think there is a benefit to having an alternative to Android that is different. Options and alternatives are good things.

If someone wants a digital overseer to limit what they can get and protect them from dangerous apps, then Apple is it. If someone wants a bit more freedom, then Android is it.

I occasionally flip between Android and iOS... depending upon the hardware and software available at the time that I need/want more than what I currently have at the time.
 
I still think App Store should reduce its cost for developers. 15 to 30% is quite high when considering that the App store as it currently stands really benefits the Apple ecosystem (thus benefiting Apple) and should be as pain-free as possible for developers to use. A nominal fee is reasonable, but 30% really does not seem called for especially when having a robust App store experience only ends up benefiting the iPhone/iPad ecosystem, and creates or maintains user loyalty, etc.

In a sense, it seems like some of the displeasure with the App store experience has been a result of Apple shooting themselves in the foot for being greedy and overly demanding.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: robco74 and strongy
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula
...

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
With all due respect, if companies abandon the App Store, my choices will be reduced from curated apps to apps that could be doing anything. My work requires security and my personal preference is for security. Consumers always had a choice - they could have used Android (you know, the OS that has 72% of the mobile OS market) or other mobile OS's that allowed sideloading. If companies don't abandon the App Store, then you might be right about choice. But they will, and this decision just makes iOS the same as Android. Where is the choice if there is no diversity of options?

And what will we get from this? Porn apps, hate apps, disinformation apps, malware, ... Anti-Western intelligence services and criminal gangs must be rubbing their hands with glee.
 
#1 sideloaded app will be an OpenSource app that blocks YouTube ads. Not sure what everyone is scared of, some devs need this ability and others want it to have more freedom of apps, if you dont want it, dont do it. Its not forced on anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula
I hope EU forces them to allow sideloading without any stupid warnings or setting changes.

Also, no draconian requirement of signed apps.

I want to be able to download the latest "security update" to my banking app from the SMS I just got from some Russian number.

You people don’t really understand that this is bad for 99,99% of people out there. Your mom, or any normal consumer, doesn’t need to be able download emulators, pirated apps, or other crap.

I really hope this is implemented the Mac way, but without the possibility to download unsigned apps.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: robco74 and VulchR
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).
yeah, but couldn’t a “third-party App Store” be… Literally anything?
As long as it’s got apps you can buy and download, it’s an App Store.
Even if it’s just a website you download them from, it’s still an App Store.
And Apple can’t really block websites…
So if epic wants their App Store, they could easily just say “ download everything from the store tab on our website” and what’s Apple gonna say?
 
There are some (many?) who prefer to have Apple restrict what apps are available to them. I can understand that... even though I don't agree with it.
As much as I personally would prefer the walls of Apple's walled garden to be dropped, I think there is a benefit to having an alternative to Android that is different. Options and alternatives are good things.
I understand it, too.
And I don’t agree with it either.

There’s a reason for that:
They‘ve failed again and again at keeping obvious scam, phishing or copycat apps from the store.

They justify their restrictions with privacy concerns and making it a big selling point in their iPhone ads - while failing to ensure the privacy, security and compliance they‘re advertising to customers.

With all due respect, if companies abandon the App Store, my choices will be reduced from curated apps to apps that could be doing anything. My work requires security and my personal preference is for security.
They can’t be doing anything - cause a sandboxing operating system will - or at least should - stop them.
You don’t get real security from exclusivity of distribution - especially in light of all the apps that Apple has admitted to the App Store.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.