See also this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1483621402188169216/
It sounds like people will be able to install apps not from the official App Store in the same vein as Android. This gentleman above on Twitter is opposed to it (big tech money talks, which probably drives his motives), with his reasoning being that people will get viruses unless big benevolent Apple is able to control their lives for them and restrict them to their store. Well, if people want to be safe, let them use their own brains and stick to the App Store.
Or perhaps Apple could use a setting to restrict side-loading by default unless the user enables it? Microsoft and others have gotten major flack from regulatory bodies for the same things that Apple has gotten away with for years so why should Apple be given a pass? If people want to stay safe, they do not need big benevolent Apple telling them what to do. They simply leave sideloading off and not leave the safety net of the Apple Store… or they use common sense about what sideloaded apps and third party app stores they install. Last I checked, people who use AltStore on non-jailbroken iOS and iPadOS devices have not gotten any viruses.
So the talking head in the Twitter thread above is clearly big tech talking, not the developers. Microsoft has gotten major flack from the EU and others for engaging in similar anti-competitive practices before so why should Apple be treated any differently and given a pass? I personally am all for the disintegration of the Apple App Store monopoly. Finally, it may actually be happening and better late than never!
No need to fear. Nothing will pass Congress any time soon.
At the risk of sounding cynical, here’s a typical pattern for US Congressional process (absent natural disaster/terrorist attack):
- Some staffer (recent college grad) starts making a noise about “people are mad about ________”
- The constituent services director in the member’s office looks over the emails and tweets to see if the issue is hot
- The legislative affairs director in the member’s office decides whether taking a position will get the member more time on TV
- The fundraising director looks at which industries are in the district, and which side of the issue will raise more money
- If 2 - 4 agree, they go to the member and propose a plan
- The member checks with party leadership/White House to make sure the position will win brownie points
- A position is announced
- If TV time and donations pick up, it gets more effort
- If the party likes it, several bills will get proposed
- If fundraising is really big (plus lobbying attention), the issue will be kept alive for a couple of years (as long as big money is coming in)
- Big industry players will start making contributions, funding “learning” junkets for members, hiring former Congressional staffers, making contributions to the “right charities,” adding board members who have influence with the member
- If a bill starts moving, industry players will tweak around the edges of the issue to see if the member/public/media lose interest
- If the pollsters start telling the party the issue matters enough to swing seats, a bill may get passed
Several points in this process may become cycles. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Hard to tell where the “side-loading” issue is in the process. You saw M$ flip on the right to repair stuff to get ahead of it on their own terms and hopefully take the heat out of the issue. Data privacy is a great example of “the American People” being hot about an issue, industry players leaning in for the status quo, and after many years still no new US federal legislation/regulation.
6 Likes
You are kind, sir. Thank you
2 Likes
It looks like the wheels are turning slowly in some countries already, anyway:
The Netherlands Starts Fining Apple for In-App Payment Violations - Thurrott.com
Meanwhile, the “Developers” Alliance (probably somehow getting backing from Apple-connected interests to curtail the U.S. bill) has been doing an Internet ad blitz and sharing this article that makes out that the loss of the App Store will be a catastrophic blow to developers. I have read this article that is the gist of their argument, but they cunningly speak in high-level generalities and make it sound worse than it is or toe the line of half-truths and misdirection.
For example, consider this weak argument:
While supermarkets and big-box stores would continue to substitute in-house brands for successful 3rd party products (at a higher mark-up than app stores), the same practice would not be allowed by today’s platforms that compete with them.
Above all, the argument contained in their analogy above instantly cancels itself out when they employ the plural form of store: store***s. Man, how I would love to have app stores*** on my Apple device and not be restricted to a single app store! That is the point, folks! This analogy totally ignores the fact that I, as a customer, can choose any store from a number of stores I wish and that I am not boxed into just Apple’s App Store. As the resident of Apple-landia, am I supposed to get shop at other stores if Apple refuses for me as a resident of their ecosystem to not shop at any other store. The person who wrote this is clearly in lala-land and is not a serious developer, because that is not the rationale I have been hearing.
Finally, the Bill says platforms cannot restrict end users from installing, uninstalling, or changing default settings and services .
Isn’t this the point so users can default to other apps outside of the default ones and this so app developers outside of Apple can even have a chance? Consider the Apple web browser situation. Microsoft got nailed big time for what they did to Netscape. Apple, on the other hand, has successfully made every other browser a second-class citizen to their own. They finally have allowed selecting a default web browser outside of the default one… but only after years earlier banning other competing browser engines, making their competitors now simply reskins of Safari when they enforced using the WebKit libraries.
iOS Engine Choice In Depth - Infrequently Noted
Apple’s actions effectively killed other up-and-coming, promising alternatives including notably Puffin, which offered server accelerated browsing and even Adobe Flash rendering. Meanwhile, the few surviving competitors get second-hand news about new features like extension support and to my knowledge, these competitors are not yet allowed to add even Safari’s browser extensions to their browsers like Safari can, so making them a distant second in features.
If Microsoft did even half of these things to give themselves a leg up against their competitors, they would instantly be thrown under the scrutinizing eye of regulatory bodies. But because Apple argues it is for “security” and “trust us,” they can get away with it and then pretend to rectify it with half-baked solutions. And then we have these “developers” trying to explain away these infractions with problems that do not even exist or are minimal at best.
Guarantee you there’s an Apple funded consultant/cut-out thrice removed “helping” draft this piece. Next will come the “astro-turfing.” If
'grass-roots" is the genuine and spontaneous uprising of concerned folk, “astro-turfing” is outrage or concern manufactured by consultants and marketing teams in a manner to look almost as if it were genuine grass-roots.
2 Likes
Exactly. Suffice it to say, the replies that I saw to the published Facebook ad (among the many they are floating online) bitterly received it.
There are a bunch of Apple fanboys saying this will destroy their precious security. No one is forcing them to download off-store and venture outside of the kiddy pool while the big boys hit the sandy beach to surf. It is an option for only those who are willing to take the risks. It is kind of hilarious to watch them having a meltdown on Mac Rumors right now and all the mental gymnastics they are going through to explain why they don’t want others to have an option that they will never be forced to used.
I like the idea, it’s way past due. If your company is valued at €75 billion or above then you have to meet EU gatekeeper criteria.
Gatekeepers Will Have To:
- Ensure that users have the right to unsubscribe from core platform services under similar conditions to subscription.
- For the the most important software (e.g. web browsers), not require this software by default upon installation of the operating system.
- Ensure the interoperability of their instant messaging services’ basic functionalities.
- Allow app developers fair access to the supplementary functionalities of smartphones (e.g. NFC chip).
- Give sellers access to their marketing or advertising performance data on the platform.
- Inform the European Commission of their acquisitions and mergers.
But They Can No Longer:
- Rank their own products or services higher than those of others (self-preferencing).
- Reuse private data collected during a service for the purposes of another service.
- Establish unfair conditions for business users.
- Pre-install certain software applications.
- Require app developers to use certain services (e.g. payment systems or identity providers) in order to be listed in app stores.
The fines and penalties look pretty serious as it is - and they are aimed at Apple / Windows / Google etc etc.
2 Likes
This is not US related, but can I just say how happy I am how the looming release of sideloading in the EU is bringing out sanity among Apple fans even in the typically mad-as-a-hatter MacRumors’ comment section?
I’m still thinking this through, but I can’t avoid a sense of “be careful what you wish for…”
As the current only “viable” example is Android shows… why many of our customers that have adopted/embraced the iPhone, won’t do the same for Android, specifically Samsung, who with Knox has, an arguably more manageable approach, or at least one closer to Windows
1 Like
Hard pass. Nope. Then I’ll go on wishing and looking forward to the first annual celebration of European Apple Independence Day, thanks. Thank you EU for bringing everyone there the freedom to explore the big wide world outside of the padded wall happy land of Apple-traz. Thank you for allowing everyone like me to give a big flat no to the folks afraid of choice. And literally no one is forcing users to stop living in the Shangri-La of the App Store and their prison paradise. It merely brings options to the table for those who want the flexibility and freedom to install apps from developers who don’t want to pay their $99 Apple tax. Besides, no one was pointing a gun to the user’s head when they chose to buy an iPhone or an Android smartphone. Likewise, no one is twisting the user’s arm to download outside of the carefully curated confines of the App Store either. If someone blatantly like a buffoon ignores the big bold warnings just as there are ad infinitum on a pack of cigarettes or a piping hot cup of coffee, the number they do on their device is totally on them—stupid is as stupid does. I would suspect they’ve already done much stupider things in life like pump diesel into their gas tank or dump a lump of salt into their morning cup of joe.
1 Like
You’d have done well in the French Royalty back in the day. “Let them eat cake!” 
Seriously though, my concerns are not only in protecting the masses, but users like us, not because we need it directly, but because we still all deal with what you’d likely call “the unwashed masses”.
And I see almost daily what a relatively unregulated marketplace/platform like Android can bring.
At one of our larger customers (large OEM manufacturing) the number one source of malware, phishing etc. is their Android phones especially via the mechanism of sharing files or links.
Yes it’s a valid argument that they should do more/better to educate their users, but that has practical limits as well as knock on effects too. In other words, if you tighten up too much, that just encourages some to go outside the system, endangering themselves along the way.
So to be clear, I’m far from a complete fan of the Apple app store system. They often make arbitrary or even byzantine decisions on what apps do an don’t get in. In fact fairly recently one of our revised custom apps was rejected 8 times before it was approved and TLDR what finally got it approved isn’t 100% clear to our own developers.
I’m also 100% on board that Apple gets far too large a cut of the revenue on Apps. I’d even argue that they shouldn’t get any, or perhaps a percent or two at most. I mean after all the benefits to having a wide range of apps directly benefits Apple anyway via iPhone/iPad sales.
The TLDR is that your arguments remind me of some that argue that we don’t need traffic, drug or marketplace laws at all as “it will self regulate and sort itself out” But history shows repeatedly that people will exploit any advantage and others get hurt.
In other words I do believe that we as a society need at least some “rules of the road” to protect us all in aggregate.
2 Likes
I am the first to agree that we need regulation over traffic, drugs, and the marketplace. Your argument conflates things of “life or death” severity to something of a general mere “annoyance” severity. In reality, the status of installing apps outside of the App Store is shifting from “impossible” to “optional” and not “by default.” Additionally, Apple isn’t the government nor are they elected to represent them so what they consider required for safety is not necessarily reasonable or necessary and should have oversight especially when it restricts user control over their devices’ fullest capabilities. On the other hand, the EU regulatory bodies are duly appointed representatives of the European people and their concerns, interests, and, yes, safety and they are there to ensure safety and freedom are both respected. Regardless of how this ends, consumers will decide the winners and losers through their governments. Likewise, users are ultimately free to “vote by the dollar” for the product that they find safest for them by purchasing Android or Apple. Lastly, we have yet to see how sideloading will work on Apple devices. If the “unlocked” mode is hidden enough from end users and with enough safeguards in place to simply and bold tell the user, it will be enough to protect them when they use their ability to reason–or not–and choose to act responsibly.
1 Like
Can I just say, I’m so glad we can have these structured exchanges on a somewhat contentious issue, where both side can build multi-faceted arguments.
Try doing this on other comments sections and either nobody will bother to read your post completely (TLDR syndrome) or you’ll be quickly downvoted/swarmed into oblivion.
So please hash on! I enjoy reading both sides and I think these debates will be instructive for many Apple users here, once the floodgates open for 3rd-party app stores/repos.
1 Like
It wasn’t my intent to imply that something like app market regulations are equal in impact especially when traffic laws (or lack thereof) directly can cost human lives.
It was simply applying an easily understandable analogy that while you yourself may not be equating them, I often hear in other places such as the tech blogs where people do.
And if anything, I’m more of the bent of believing in regulation as a last resort when the market can’t/won’t sort it out themselves (phishing scams come to mind).
Plus I would point out my repeated objections/concerns with things like the USBC mandate in the EU which you support, but to me comes across as regulation to win votes, but has arguable tangible aggregate benefits to the overall markets. eg. one of the arguments made is that it will reduce e-waste but in at least the near term actually increased it in the UK as consumers buying new devices had to buy new chargers and cables (the be careful what you wish for point).
I additionally object to it as it often has the real-world effect of stifling innovation, which hurts us all. And that history of effect goes all the way back to things like the decision to go with AC power versus DC power though DC (100% done to benefit Thomas Edison and his investors and supporters) though it was shown even at the time to be safer and now DC is easier and more economical to deploy/scale/make safer.
Similarly the push to standardize telecommunications led to the monolith monopoly that was the original AT&T (which as an aside, my father had a small, but fundamental part in causing the ultimate breakup of).
So the TLDR of all this is that I’m not a pro regulation, or for that matter anti-regulation guy either, but simply believe that it is sometimes necessary for the greater good and that duly elected government is the best albeit imperfect method for doing that.
And to tie this all back to Apple’s app store original discussion, Apple’s app store, as imperfect, flawed and biased (it most certainly benefits Apple above all others) is STILL better than the chaos of Android and likely end in the same result with “competing” apps stores for IOS.
In other words I’d rather see all this effort turned towards fixing/reforming both Apple and Googles app stores as that to me seems will have direct tangible and immediate benefits.
PS: Already a long post, but I agree with @Marty that by far one of the best features of our little forum is that we can have informed, thoughtful, and importantly respectful discussions on topics like these. Something which you @Hifihedgehog have wonderfully created and facilitated here.
1 Like
I appreciate your wide take on this, and I would agree legislation is a blunt instrument too slow to wield with precision, which is why we need the nimbleness of private enterprise.
However, there is no realistic balancing force except legislation against the modern goliaths of private enterprise. As you pointed out, sometimes it will not just “all work out”; people can’t vote effectively with their wallets, because that is an even less precise means of sending a message than legislation.
So rather than taking legislation as a last resort, why not accept it as a natural part of a functional economy? Companies build walled gardens, that’s accepted; sometimes those walled gardens outlive their benefit to the public. Lightning was an example.
As for closed app stores, it’s not as clear, but I think Apple ecosystem is sufficiently mature and dominant that some balance is needed in terms market control. Allowing side-loading is the simplest way of achieving this.
1 Like