I love how you jump from side-loading apps to totalitarian mind control. It’s a slippery slope.
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.
Japan Preparing EU-Style Law to Force Apple to Allow App Sideloading and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Doesn’t stop them from repairing Macs that can sideload or, you know as it used to be called, install software.
once again this fan site has propagated false allegations. EU in Japan on the same side of this allegation highly doubtful this will ever happen. so much bullshxx So much hatred what else is new in this messed up world.
Cry me a river when a side loaded app plays havoc on the phones resources. No thanks.
I go further to say people shouldn’t rely on Apple for sideloading at all (not just fixes when things go wrong). Customers already can sideload by jailbreaking if it’s that important to them, and that should be their right since they bought the phone. Apple however isn’t obligated to serve up sideloading on a silver platter for those few customers who want that. Other than techy tinkerers, it’s mostly developers who want sideloading.
A warranty only covers hardware anyway. But if malicious software damages the hardware, then why should Apple pay for that? Apple could potentially flash a device and restore it, but like I said earlier. If a million people do this, what obligation would Apple have for this? It's a pretty selfish attitude for people to want to take risks and expect someone else to bear the cost of that risk.
I just dont get how entire countries feel like they can control corporate companies to mandate silly rules ... if this is the case, why not go after cheap android phone makers to put better processors in their phones? or more memory? or make your phone upgradeable for longer? why only go after the richer companies? At the end of the day, let the deal be, yes, we will support side loading, and all the expenses associated with development, and execution and maintenance with these services will be the sole responsibility of the countries requesting them, and this includes warranties when the phone bugs out !
Cannot have it both ways.
On one hand, they wanted to ensure no one change the games.
On the other hand, they wanted to ensure people are allowed to change how iOS works.
There are only two smartphone ecosystems. One locks you in and the other one sells your data. So both have to be stopped by governments. Then you have a real choice. And of course there should be more than two ecosystems.
No one is enacting regulation to allow for more than 2 ecosystems to exist.
Sometimes an oligopoly forms itself and that is bad for the customer. Google got into that came quite unfairly, because they used their ad profits to develop Android, give it away for free and then collect even more user data. Usually anti-competition laws prohibit such a behaviour.
Sometimes monopolies form themselves because of a critical mass. That happened with Ebay for example. The more customers use Ebay, the less sense does it make for new customers to use any other platform than Ebay. So the governments have to make sure that such a company does not misuse its monopoly.
I agree, but I don’t see regulators enacting laws to allow that competition to emerge.
Tizen and KaiOS are available as well. People can still choose. However, realistically, there is a reason there are only 2 'major' OS choices and it comes down to manufacturers being too lazy to develop their own. Android is an effective monopoly for non Apple manufacturers. And it’s a choice these manufacturers openly make. They reap the benefits of stealing/using your data. Side loading is not the answer for 2 operating systems, it’s having a choice of operating systems.
This includes both corporations and governments. Apple is clearly no exception.
Ok. By this logic, Coca Cola would’ve just added boatloads of sugar to their drinks “because of customer demand”, or factories produce food with toxic compounds that tastes good. Customers surely will vote with their wallet, I believe.
Remind you. This change happens rather recently and when App Store was in its inception, the cut was 30% across the board to everyone, big or small.
That is very difficult for smartphone ecosystems, because there is is really hard to reach the critical mass. Even Microsoft started its own OS for smartphone, but you can't force app developers to create apps for an OS that is only used by a few people.
Sometimes those big companies can't buy there rivals, but they can still buy out their employees. Microsoft did that with Netscape for example. A convenient way to get rid of a rival. Of course you can't force people at Netscape to continue working on the browser.
There seems to be a big difference in the thinking of the US and the EU. The EU is more focused on the consumer, while the US focuses on the companies. Food safety is an example. In the US companies can add new ingredients to food unless they are proven harmful. In the EU it is the other way around. First a company has to prove that something is NOT harmful. Then it can be added to food. As a result fried bought in Europe bought at McDonald's have hardly any of those extra ingredients, while in the US fries contain a lot of stuff most people can't even pronounce.
Medicine is another example. The US have that giant opioid crisis because so much harmful stuff is available in the US without the need of a subscription. It seems profits of the pharmaceutical companies are more important than saving people from addiction. In Europe we even limit how much can be charged for certain pharmaceutics. So while one does of chemo therapy costs $46,000 in the US, it is just a tiny fraction of that in Europe.
Sideloading actually gives consumers more choice, because they now have the choice to sideload or to continue using only Apple's App Store. At the same time the EU restricts how much data companies can collect. So in the end the consumer might have the choice between two good options instead of having to choose the lesser of two evils.
We also needed the EU to make sure that you can keep your phone number, if you switch your phone provider. Of course you can still get a new number if you want, but it is much more convenient that you can keep your own. That strengthens competition. Not sure how the laws are in the US.
I don't like that the primary computer of the majority of US teenagers is a locked down device. Many of today's most talented programmers learned by tinkering with their computers when they were young.
I’m not sure the choice is really much of a choice tbh. Apple Store or pay someone else for possibly, but likely not the same app. I had a choice years ago on the Mac to side load a CD ripping App (obviously no longer relevant) and the Mac App Store version was effectively a 'lite' version. But they were different. So you won’t get the same thing. That kind of behaviour could also be seen as anti competitive.
I'm in Australia where you can absolutely port over your phone number. It’s been mandatory for probably 15 years if you wanted to do it. And there are zero fees attached to it.
It’ll be an illusion of choice to the consumer without actually providing any benefit. It’s the developers that’ll benefit as they pocket whatever cost savings they can make.
It's such a difficult and expensive market to break into that multiple trillion+ dollar companies have tried to enter it (Microsoft, Amazon) and completely failed. Meta is almost worth a trillion dollars, and hasn't been able develop an alternate OS for their VR systems.
That’s why we need some regulations, to make it easier to compete. Something like making it illegal to use advertising revenue to fund products outside of the advertising product itself, for instance.
They shouldn't. Nobody here is saying they should.
But software didn't cause my MacBook's screen to delaminate, or butterfly keyboards to fail.
How would that work? Can you give me an example of a hypothetical regulation that could possibly accomplish this?
Something like making it illegal to use advertising revenue to fund products outside of the advertising product itself, for instance.
The government also enforces patent and copyright laws that protect Apple's innovations, by telling other companies what to do. Should they not do that?