I am sure if you can think about it you can figure out why those things aren’t the same. But let me walk you through it just in case. If people like the way apple has designed the App Store then complaints about it are rightly met with - don’t change the App Store you change. But if apple is forced to change the App Store then they don’t want it. They consistently agree with apples vision of the App Store.
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.
New EU Law Could Force Apple to Allow Other App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No one is stopping a customer from doing whatever they want with their device. The customer can do what they like. But why should Apple be forced to help them? You realize every single change the EU (or people like you) demand costs time and money right? It diverts resources from other projects? And it interferes with Apple being able to add features people actually want?
It’s real simple and has been all along. It boggles my mind people like you can’t comprehend it. No one is stopping you from buying an Android phone and side loading to your hearts content. Literally no one. You can already do the things you are demanding Apple be forced to allow and all you have to do is buy a cheaper phone! Oh no! The horror!
The EU is making an idiotic decision to interfere in an area they have absolutely no clue about. If this garbage goes through hope Apple spends their resources complying in the most excruciatingly painful way possible or just selling iPhones without these features in the EU and letting customers know the reason they can’t buy apps or chat on their phone is the EUs idiotic policies.
iMessage is not Messages (which hosts SMS texting). Also, there is no way for any chat app to do SMS texting on iOS since there‘s no API for that provided by Apple.
I'm strongly in favor of this. So called "side-loaded" apps were the norm on the Mac for years and are still popular (and reasonably secure with the combination of some user diligence and Apple-provided safeguards). There is a real benefit to developers who want to avoid the very high fee payable to Apple for each app, to users who might benefit from the resulting lower prices and increased competition, and an even clearer benefit to users looking for features not permitted by Apple under the current system. Many Mac apps fall into this category, and have been extremely useful in extending the Mac's capabilities in ways Apple probably never contemplated.
For those wanting the best-possible security (which will be many), just stick with the App Store.
For those wanting the best-possible security (which will be many), just stick with the App Store.
How will this impact consoles? Will the Switch need to offer alternatives or sideloading. Will that kill their business model?
Will Fortnite have to support alternative sources of costumes sold by others?
If everything is a platform that needs to be “open” we are going to break a lot of stuff.
Will Fortnite have to support alternative sources of costumes sold by others?
If everything is a platform that needs to be “open” we are going to break a lot of stuff.
LOLOL. The fact that there are two options and one of those options lets you do the things like side loading and using alternate app stores proves regulation isn’t needed. Androids existence and success proves your point is merit less. Go buy an Android. No one is stopping you.
The Zoom client for Mac is a great example of just how badly that can go wrong. They’ve been caught punching holes in all sorts of macOS security features just to avoid an extra click, which of course got actively exploited.
The approach might be simple but the results could be catastrophic for iPhone sales in EU countries. Customers in Europe have already been complaining about higher iPhone prices and calling Apple greedy, etc. and those increases were due to currency value changes.
EU passing the law on USB-C was just a way to create a precedent of shifting/creating other policies consumer electronics in general.
Apple may start getting creative and find loopholes, which I approve.
Apple may start getting creative and find loopholes, which I approve.
Fair enough. I just don't think that's a significant number of developers. IIRC, only around 1.5% of developers paid the 30%. Between ads, subscriptions, and the small developer program, I think any opportunity for developers to save money on alternative app stores for anyone other than the biggest developers is limited. The decrease in exposure would probably be more significant than the small revenue bump per sale.
All in all, this is an extremely poorly thought out law, that won't have any benefit for all but a small percentage of consumers. The sideloading/app store provisions will allow billion dollar business like Epic to steal some control and revenue from Apple. The messaging provisions will be destructive by hampering e2e encryption and allowing a proliferation of spam since users will no longer be verified by the major services.
These rules will not benefit the end user, but the individual app owners. They will sell the app for the same price but the other stores take less of a cut.
Always cute when people who don’t understand economics tell us how they love it but somehow it fails because it doesn’t produce the outcome they want. If I don’t get whatI want right now…it’s a market failure and the govt should “fix”.
Of course the govt doesn’t fix things in a clean manner they pass laws heavily influenced by lobbies, written by lobbyists and people who don’t understand and often break as much as they fix. And then after the govt screws it up the same people appear to tell us how “markets failed”.
Having one choice (Android) is not necessarily enough. Having alternative desktop operating systems in the 1990s wasn't enough choice and lead to a government lawsuit against Microsoft.
Beisdes, these EU regulations won't prevent iPhone customers from still choosing not to sideload or still choosing not to use alternative app stores. It is expanding choices, not taking away choices.
If app devs can side load then they may pull out of App Store to avoid fees and to gain more data on users privacy. And now as users they have to lower the privacy and security to use those apps if none others exist that match their needs. And also if phone gets bricked or anything goes wrong customers are certain to blame app and no the apps they are side loading or any vulnerabilities that emerge because of it. People choose apple over android because often of that security and privacy otherwise they could just use android.
I just hope that doesn't happen on Macs too, they are taunted as more secure than Windows machines... Oh, wait...
Well if the app you use migrate to the new store….
1. How can we “stick with the App Store” when apps we have to use can choose to avoid it? Simple, we can’t.
2. The more openings you create in any system the more potential security holes there are. It doesn’t matter if I never use side loading, the fact it exists creates potential threats.
3. Apple having to divert resources to projects it doesnt want to do in the first place and support these unwanted features means less resources spent in other areas such as security and new features.
4. You’re saying those of us who prefer the iPhone approach should have no options. Only people who like Android style should. You’re taking away choice.
5. Macs are less secure than iPhones. Just because they have better security than PCs doesn’t mean it’s equal to what iOS offers.
Meanwhile to echo your final line:
For those wanting side loading and alternate app stores…they can get that now just by using an Android device. Why is that so hard to understand.
A gov't having this much power to involve themselves into every aspect of a business or its people is not good in the long run.
if you think that you will get any sort of discount you are forgetting that the companies will still be forced to pay other people that 30% and more for the services that were covered by apple
I could see Apple doing this. Most people in Europe use WhatsApp anyway. Apple doesn't like being told what to do.
So forcing people to buy a phone with an operating system by the most evil company the world has ever seen really is an option?
Laws are there to keep the number of options for people high. Imagine a restaurant would not allow black people. Then you would probably argue that there are still enough options for black people where they could eat. That is not how it should work though. Instead all restaurants should be open for all colours. And all operating systems should be open for all apps.
Imagine there is something you do not like in your country and people then said "Then just move to another country!". Wouldn't it much better if the thing you do not like (like high crime for example) would change in your country?
Apple could choose to exit the market in Europe. 3rd parties could service iPhones. Trust me, those that want iPhones will still buy them via the grey market.
I do not see Apple complying with EU mandates unless it suits them (going USB C for iPhone). Side loading and iMessage interoperability is a no go.
No one is forced to purchase Apple products; but the EU and others want to force policy changes on the people who have willingly stepped into Apple's walled garden.
That's the perplexing thing here. If Apple were the sole provider of phones, tablets, messaging, etc, then sure. But they aren't.
People are free to quit Apple's products and services anytime they wish.
That's the perplexing thing here. If Apple were the sole provider of phones, tablets, messaging, etc, then sure. But they aren't.
People are free to quit Apple's products and services anytime they wish.