Japan Preparing EU-Style Law to Force Apple to Allow App Sideloading and More

[Jensend]

We need to be mindful of the potential of this, with the introduction of the likes of the proposed CBDCs, this has the ability to ensure that freedoms are restricted - spend too much on water, beer, gas, food in a day, and that's it, nothing more for you till tomorrow / next week / year.... say something wrong to someone and you can't spend your hard earn money for a week...

Give a friend $10, and you could be taxed on that, or even buy a friend a beer in the local bar.

The whole thing stinks, and is nothing more than those at the EU/WEF/UN/FED to gain more and more world domination for their families.

The AppStore has been reliable and fine for years - people haven't been complaining from what I can see - so why the sudden desire to change it?

I suspect that this is the real reason behind why the EU and Japan are looking at this, as it would allow them the ability to load in an app that would allow them to track and monitor anybody using the device - we know how the EU are already trying to block end-to-end encryption, and also iCloud Relay - they hate not knowing what people are doing.

The same will happen here - this is a step in the direction of ensuring tracking and control of the people will become a realty.

That is just a hunch, I would like to think that it will always be fine - but in my cynical old age I have come to see that anything the governments enforce companies to do, only leads to more and more tracking and control of the people.

I fail to see how making an OS more open gives the government more control. If it comes to the point where the government can force an app on users of an open OS, it means that the government is already much more oppressive than a government that could force a company like Apple to include a tracking app.

So, for example, you buy a Honda. You replace the operating system with one you 'prefer' and Honda should honour the warranty. Right…

If the issue couldn't plausibly have been caused by the new operating system, yes, they should.

As for the "Apple decides what apps you can install" that's a good thing. There's so much trash/scams/etc that get submitted to the App Store and Apple weeds out that garbage. Would you trust the App Store if half the apps you downloaded were scams?

Apple's App store has a lot more scams than Windows' biggest app store, Steam. When I want something in Steam, I can type its name in and it comes up. On the Apple App store, I get a bunch of SEO garbage and ads listed first.

as they have Biden in their pocket.

You mean the guy that allowed the Apple Watch ban to go into effect?

What I don't agree with is if I have money to spend, that some bureaucrat is going to tell me what I can spend it on.

It's called freedom.

Should you have the freedom to spend money on a device that infringes Apple's patents, copyrights, trademarks?

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?

I wouldn't mind some kind of regulation that forced a minimum software support period.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

It can become a problem if a company uses one monopoly to create more monopolies or at least powerful competitors in other areas. Google did that several times and Apple might try the same. For example if they really decide to built a car, they can use their monetary power to first buy any car company they want and then hire the best talent from other car companies. A worst case scenario would be that in two decades from now 70% of all cars in the US will be Apple Cars.

Google, Apple, Meta and Microsoft have so much money that they buy tons of startups all the time to make sure that the next big thing will not happen outside of them. So many people have great ideas and get seduced by a seven or eight figure cheque by one of those companies, because that is more money than they have ever dreamed of. In the end some of those bought startups will make billions for the large company and increase their market power.

I still remember when Keyhole was new in 2005. Back then it was a paid service. Then Google bought it and called it Google Earth. Of course they invested a lot of money in it and made it much better, but at the same time they used it to collect even more data and become an even more powerful player in the ad market. Same with YoutTube. I wish Keyhole and YouTube were still independent companies. I wish that would also be true for WhatsApp and Instagram. Why on earth did regulators allow a social network to buy another social network and a messaging platform?

 

[AppliedMicro]

I’m a consumer, and I don’t feel harmed in any way. Apple isn’t forcing their ecosystem on me — I chose them

I chose iOS for my mobile operating system (over Android, with no other viable alternatives). And Apple is forcing their ecosystem on me.

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 has repeatedly prevented jailbreaking - which was reasonable from a security perspective.
Governments will give users the right to install software from third-party sources.

A warranty only covers hardware anyway. But if malicious software damages the hardware, then why should Apple pay for that?

Agree - Apple should not be liable to cover damages from third-party software.
They should make their hardware products safe to use third-party software.
Also, there is history of decades of Mac (or PC) hardware with very few hardware damages caused by malicious software.

 

[mrochester]

I chose iOS for my mobile operating system (over Android, with no other viable alternatives). And Apple is forcing their ecosystem on me.


Apple has repeatedly prevented jailbreaking - which was reasonable from a security perspective.
Governments will give users the right to install software from third-party sources.


Agree - Apple should not be liable to cover damages from third-party software.
They should make their hardware products safe to use third-party software.
Also, there is history of decades of Mac (or PC) hardware with very few hardware damages caused by malicious software.

The OS and ecosystem are one and the same.

 

[AppliedMicro]

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?

They are beginning to do, with legislation for right to repair, replaceable batteries, duty of care over the lifecycle (e.g. software updates).

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,

Sideloading already exists today with enterprise certificates. Apple just doesn’t allow their use for end-user distribution of apps. As for the hosting, developers will gladly provide that themselves. So there aren’t many expenses to bear.

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

No - it also comes down to lack of third-party software support. A mobile phone OS without high-quality native apps is dead in the water (except on feature phones - but these have a negligible market share in advanced economies).

Microsoft tried, they did develop Windows Phone / Windows Mobile - but had to withdraw from the market.

 

[subjonas]

Apple has repeatedly prevented jailbreaking - which was reasonable from a security perspective.
Governments will give users the right to install software from third-party sources.

I should say, it should be consumers’ legal right to try to jailbreak, ie. a consumer should be able to do anything they want with something after they bought it, short of causing harm to the company or other users.

I don’t think installing software from third parties should be a right. Seems like government overreach to me.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The OS and ecosystem are one and the same.

They are not.

I can use my phone without signing up for Apple‘s App Store. Or Apple Music.
I can also install apps („sideload“) from outside the App Store as well. No jailbreaking required.

Apple just doesn’t allow the latter for commercial distribution of third-party software to end users (me), as they do on macOS.

 

[mrochester]

They are not.

I can use my phone without signing up for Apple‘s App Store. Or Apple Music.
I can also install apps („sideload“) from outside the App Store as well. No jailbreaking required.

Apple just doesn’t allow the latter for distribution of third-party software to end users (me), as they do on macOS.

I think they are.

 

[steve09090]

No - it also comes down to lack of third-party software support. A mobile phone OS without high-quality native apps is dead in the water (except on feature phones - but these have a negligible market share in advanced economies).

Microsoft tried, they did develop Windows Phone / Windows Mobile - but had to withdraw from the market.

Well, yes. Just because Microsoft weren’t able to produce a decent eco system shouldn't stop others.

Either way, if it’s a duopoly, or outside of Apple, a monopoly, that benefits no one other than Google. Having side loading will have no effect on Googles ad revenue, but will effect their $1B profit each month on the Play store.

Having side loading on the iPhone will probably effect about the same for Apple but will cause a huge issue for app safety. No thanks. I’m happy to give Apple my money because I enjoy a closed system away from the evil of Google.

 

[mrochester]

Well, yes. Just because Microsoft weren’t able to produce a decent eco system shouldn't stop others.

Either way, if it’s a duopoly, or outside of Apple, a monopoly, that benefits no one other than Google. Having side loading will have no effect on Googles ad revenue, but will effect their $1B profit each month on the Play store.

Having side loading on the iPhone will probably effect about the same for Apple but will cause a huge issue for app safety. No thanks. I’m happy to give Apple my money because I enjoy a closed system away from the evil of Google.

Microsoft's efforts were actively sabotaged by google too, which should have been illegal.

 

[Radon87000]

Allowing sideloading on iPhones will not have any effect in Apple at all because the vast majority of iPhone users are not phone enthusiasts. They just want a reliable phone which lasts all day, takes good photos and enjoys good software support.

Even if Apple were to allow sideloading, given the nature of their user base, it won't have any impact.

People like me who like to tinker with their phones and enjoy open standards moved on to Android a long time ago.

And honestly even on Android, with Samsung's Good Lock module, I haven't felt the need to root or download external apps in a long time now.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Except that Ford doesn't dominate their market nearly to the degree that Apple dominates the mobile OS and tablet OS markets. In Japan, Apple has around 68% of the mobile OS market and 75% of the tablet OS market according to Statcounter. Antitrust laws are designed to regulate companies with "dominant" positions in particular markets who are engaging in "anticompetitive" behavior.

Forcing sideloading won't change that. It might even make Apple's market share go up!

Then Apple will still be "dominating" the Japanese market.

If open is good and walled gardens are bad... then won't forcing Apple to be more open only help them? Make them stronger?

There are many people who would never buy an iPhone because it's too closed and limited. They prefer Android's openness.

But with those limitations removed... Apple could finally be an option for them.

Then Apple could be 75% or 80% of the Japanese market!

 

[steve09090]

If open is good and walled gardens are bad... then won't forcing Apple to be more open only help them? Make them stronger?

There are many people who would never buy an iPhone because it's too closed and limited. They prefer Android's openness.

au contraire. I personally prefer the walled garden. I use my iPhone 15 Pro as a camera, a phone, a message device, for internet based information (through various apps), homekit

I don’t need to open myself up to have my data used more than I have to.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I personally prefer the walled garden. I use my iPhone 15 Pro as a camera, a phone, a message device, for internet based information (through various apps), homekit

Fully agree. And personally I never feel "trapped" with Apple.

I just think it's funny when people demand that governments "open up" Apple... when it might actually make Apple more popular with consumers. Apple already has almost 70% of the market in Japan... imagine if they had more!

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

😊

 

[steve09090]

Fully agree. And personally I never feel "trapped" with Apple.

I just think it's funny when people demand that governments "open up" Apple... when it might actually make Apple more popular with consumers. Apple already has almost 70% of the market in Japan... imagine if they had more!

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

😊

Totally. I agree that elected governments have a responsibility to act in the interest of its people. Australian Govt is looking into privacy with TikTok and might consider bans. U.S. has placed bans on Apple selling watches due to patent issues, yet has forced Tesla to open up the way people charge their EV's. Obviously the EU has forced all device manufacturers to use USB C as a standard.

Anyone would think governments are trying to run this place.

 

[ozaz]

No one is enacting regulation to allow for more than 2 ecosystems to exist.

The trend toward regulations to enhance interoperability could in theory make it more likely for a 3rd significant ecosystem to emerge.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The trend toward regulations to enhance interoperability could in theory make it more likely for a 3rd significant ecosystem to emerge.

I can understand interoperability between messaging apps... but entire ecosystems?

What will regulators do? Force iOS apps and Android apps to be compatible with a 3rd ecosystem?

🤔

 

[webkit]

Forcing sideloading won't change that. It might even make Apple's market share go up!

Then Apple will still be "dominating" the Japanese market.

If open is good and walled gardens are bad... then won't forcing Apple to be more open only help them? Make them stronger?

There are many people who would never buy an iPhone because it's too closed and limited. They prefer Android's openness.

But with those limitations removed... Apple could finally be an option for them.

Then Apple could be 75% or 80% of the Japanese market!

The purpose in this case is really more about trying to open up competition on major/dominant mobile and tablet OS platforms when it comes to things like app access. This includes allowing for alternative ways (via sideloading and alternative app stores) for users to access/buy apps and developers to offer/sell apps. It's not necessarily about trying to weaken Apple or knock down its OS market shares.

 

[ChrisA]

So the EU and Japan will also force their manufacturing companies to share their tech to enable anyone to do whatever they want to their products and maintain warranty over it?

Yes. That is the problem with manufacturing, in the end, you sell the product and then you don't own it anymore. Your customer owns it.

The customer expects it to work as intended for some number of years.

Warranty generally excludes unreasonable modifications or physical damage. Paying a third party and not via Apple is hardly unreasonable. Apple has zero problem with this on Macs.

Apple's cut costs the consumer by about 30%. You pay more for all apps because Apple adds that tax. Avoiding the tax should not be a warranty issue.

 

[QuarterSwede]

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.

They shouldn’t but that doesn’t mean that they should void any warranty if unauthorized software is installed. They should just do what they always have, if software is found to be the cause of the hardware failure then it’s voided.

 

[Gasu E.]

So the EU and Japan will also force their manufacturing companies to share their tech to enable anyone to do whatever they want to their products and maintain warranty over it?

Apple isn't be forced to "share their tech to enable anyone to do whatever they want to their products and maintain warranty over it". For example, under any law, physically modifying the internals of Apple products still would void the warranty. The only modifications being "forced" are in the application loading space, and are very narrow and specific.

 

[steve09090]

Yes. That is the problem with manufacturing, in the end, you sell the product and then you don't own it anymore. Your customer owns it.

The customer expects it to work as intended for some number of years.

Warranty generally excludes unreasonable modifications or physical damage. Paying a third party and not via Apple is hardly unreasonable. Apple has zero problem with this on Macs.

Apple's cut costs the consumer by about 30%. You pay more for all apps because Apple adds that tax. Avoiding the tax should not be a warranty issue.

I mainly agree, however.

Companies often provide a different package/app for what is supposed to be the same app on the Mac App Store. Who can guarantee that the app sideloaded is not full of data stealing code, unlike the app which is verified by Apple.

Apple‘s cut is the same cut as everyone else’s, and for the majority it is only 15% not 30%.

They shouldn’t but that doesn’t mean that they should void any warranty if unauthorized software is installed. They should just do what they always have, if software is found to be the cause of the hardware failure then it’s voided.

I agree 100%

 

[steve09090]

Apple isn't be forced to "share their tech to enable anyone to do whatever they want to their products and maintain warranty over it". For example, under any law, physically modifying the internals of Apple products still would void the warranty. The only modifications being "forced" are in the application loading space, and are very narrow and specific.

By tech, I’m talking about software/firmware. Should the EU force Audi to open its Software App Store for side loading apps?

As of summer 2023, Audi is bringing a store for apps to selected models with the third-generation modular infotainment toolkit (MIB 3). With the embedding of the store, which was jointly developed with Volkswagen subsidiary CARIAD, customers can directly and intuitively access popular third-party apps through the Multimedia Interface (MMI) by means of a data link in the vehicle​

​

Should they be forced to allow side loading of these apps?

And this is why I have a problem with manufacturers being able to directly do whatever they want with their apps.

According to Mozilla research, popular global brands — including BMW, Ford, Toyota, Tesla, Kia, and Subaru — can collect deeply personal data such as sexual activity, immigration status, race, facial expressions, weight, health and genetic information, and where you drive.​

And this includes Japanese and EU car manufacturers.

 

[ozaz]

I can understand interoperability between messaging apps... but entire ecosystems?

What will regulators do? Force iOS apps and Android apps to be compatible with a 3rd ecosystem?

🤔

I think regulation around messaging platform interoperability on it's own is a big deal. Hardly anyone is going to consider a different OS unless they can communicate with others through the gatekeeper messaging platforms. Requiring these platforms to facilitate 3rd party interoperation means access to those gatekeeper platforms on a new OS isn't dependent on the gatekeeper platform making an app for the new OS.

I'm unclear on the full scope of new interoperability requirements (thinking mainly of EU DMA here) although I think the scope might be wider than just messaging apps?? But I don't think interoperability requirements mean so-called gatekeeper platforms must make first party apps for specific ecosystems.

 

[webkit]

U.S. has placed bans on Apple selling watches due to patent issues, yet has forced Tesla to open up the way people charge their EV's

I wouldn't say Tesla was "forced" to open up the way people charge their EVs. If anything, it was a win for them as the plug-style long used on their cars is the new North American standard. It’s other companies that would potentially have to adapt.

As far as opening up its charging network, according to Tesla's website that has always been their ambition:
"It's always been our ambition to open the Supercharger network to non-Tesla EVs, and by doing so, encourage more drivers to go electric."