10 ms·

Just allow people to put their devices in a mode that allows side loading or let people load their own signing keys. The fact Apple keeps such a tight grip on h

by anfilt 5y ago

Just allow people to put their devices in a mode that allows side loading or let people load their own signing keys. The fact Apple keeps such a tight grip on hardware they don't even own needs to be cracked down on.

i_like_apis 5y ago
I love that they don't allow side-loading. Long live the walled garden. (I mean this non-sarcastically)
- netr0ute 5y ago
  Ironic
- anfilt 5y ago
  You really like the idea of a company controlling property you own after you bought it??? Like if its optional don’t change the defaults. The issue is starting from the boot-rom and up apple is effectively using cryptography to retain the property right of exclusion when it comes to what code can run on that ARM cpu. Effectively you have to ask apple for approval of any code that will run on your own hardware. If they sign the code they allow it run if they don’t its excluded from running. If you have to keep asking a 3rd party to do something with something you bought you don't fully own it. The thing is normally a seller wishing to retain some rights to real or tangible property would normally require a legal contract between the buyer. Here however apple is using cryptography to bypass traditional legal means. You can buy an iPhone, iPad without signing any contract. Yet this effectively retained control of the hardware still exists. You can’t just buy the hardware and throw linux or android on it short of finding a weakness in how code is loaded.
  - School-Cotton 5y ago
    > You really like the idea of a company controlling property you own after you bought it??? If I didn’t, I wouldn’t buy an iPhone. What’s the problem?
    - immibis 5y ago
      Vendor lock-in
  - i_like_apis 5y ago
    > You really like the idea of a company controlling property you own after you bought it??? > right of exclusion when it comes to what code can run on that ARM cpu Yes I like it for the phone. The walled garden has very little malware and has high quality apps. I am never pestered to install crapware or malware and I don't have to be paranoid about it. You can still run your own development software on these machines, and software distributed in controlled channels outside of the store. The controls are reasonably convenient and necessary to keep unwanted software out. Compare it to Android Play Store or much worse the Galaxy store situation. The grass is much greener in the walled garden. For the Mac, it's a different story, you can and should be able to run whatever you want on it. But iPhone as a product is a well tended garden (controlled but quite wide and powerful) and I can appreciate that.
    - anfilt 5y ago
      If its optional dont enable it/use it. I would be more concerned with companies using extralegal means to effectively infringe your property rights...
      - cuddlybacon 5y ago
        Then shady apps will include instructions on how to bypass the security mechanisms. You already see this in Windows where game hacks (or just really shitty game mod sites) often request you disable security features to ensure they don't interfere with the hack.
        keleftheriou 5y ago
        This is a big misconception. Sideloading doesn’t imply that app isolation (sandboxing) is also going away, nor does it imply that any app would ever be able to trick the user into running it with escalated privileges (sudo/root) as is the case on most computers. We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
      - i_like_apis 5y ago
- throwaway14356 5y ago
  i like the otwelian angle. side loading, as if you've done something naughty. we could use it for other things like side loading "your" garage or your fridge
- cuddlybacon 5y ago
  I really hope that if Apple is ever forced to open up their devices, that it takes the form of allowing other app stores and not allowing side-loading. If side loading is allowed the amount of tech support I'll have to provide my family will skyrocket.
  - ikt 5y ago
    how big is your family that an option an overwhelming majority of android users don't touch or even know about is going to skyrocket your support levels? i don't even want to think about the level of intelligence you're suggesting your family has that they will go above and beyond the average person in deliberately breaking their own phones.
  - arepublicadoceu 5y ago
    > I really hope that if Apple is ever forced to open up their devices, that it takes the form of allowing other app stores and not allowing side-loading. > If side loading is allowed the amount of tech support I'll have to provide my family will skyrocket. I mean, if apple ever allow sideloading I suspect it will be behind a 10 feet wall warning and obscure multiple clicks on settings, similar to how google does it. I also suspect that my family will be divided into two camps: oblivious to the existence of sideloading or technical enough that won't need my tech support.
  - keleftheriou 5y ago
    Sideloading doesn’t imply that app isolation (sandboxing) is also going away, nor does it imply that any app would ever be able to trick the user into running it with escalated privileges (sudo/root) as is the case on most computers. We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
  - curt15 5y ago
    Do none of your family members already use desktop computers?
    - 5y ago
- Underphil 5y ago
  Curious take, this. Allowing side-loading would only have a net positive impact on those who desire it, and zero impact on you who wants the walled garden. So why the opposition?
  - elondaits 5y ago
    Not necessarily true. Some companies (Epic?) might choose to distribute apps exclusively via sideloading… and you can’t always choose not to install an app (e.g. WhatsApp is sadly essential in my country for work, social life, ordering food and even getting COVID vaccines, since the government uses it to hand appointments)
    - anfilt 5y ago
      Epic tried it on android but the law of defaults are strong. Too much friction for an average user but at least on most android devices users can enable developer mode or even root if they want. So google here is not trampling over device owner’s property rights.
    - mdoms 5y ago
      But right now Epic doesn't (can't) distribute on the main app store. So either way you're not using it.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    This is true only if you presume social engineering is impossible.
    - keleftheriou 5y ago
      But sideloading doesn’t imply that app isolation (sandboxing) is also going away, nor does it imply that any app would ever be able to trick the user into running it with escalated privileges (sudo/root) as is the case on most computers. We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
- post_break 5y ago
  If that's the case you should only use iOS devices for everything. No macbook pro, no PC. It's so easy to think the walled garden is great when you can just jump out of it when you need to do actual work or run an app Apple has deemed unfit for the appstore.
  - i_like_apis 5y ago
    I love it for the phone. Obviously Macbook is a different product, with different use cases. You can and should run whatever you like on Macbook. They are both well-tended gardens of different types for different uses. Much higher walls on the phone is a great feature IMO.
    - post_break 5y ago
      Then why can’t I run whatever I want on my phone? The logic here makes zero sense. A computer is a computer whether it fits in your pocket or sits on a desk.
      - fingerlocks 5y ago
        > Then why can’t I run whatever I want on my phone? You can, legally. You have that right. You can legally jailbreak a supported iPhone in 10 minutes and sideload all day or lldb attach to whatever you want. Nobody will stop you. But Apple doesn't want to support an open platform. That's their right. They don't want it to part of their ecosystem, their brand, or provide the avalanche of non-negligible support costs. The distinction here is important and rarely addressed in these discussion.
        folkrav 5y ago
        > Nobody will stop you. I mean, Apple blocked countless jailbreaks as of today. It's AFAIK also against their ToS, therefore means they legally try to make it so you don't jailbreak. Can you _really_? Sounds more like a gray area they simply cannot control, but they're definitely trying their hardest to do so...
- rezonant 5y ago
friedman23 5y ago
Stop calling it side loading. It's installing it and we've been doing it for as long as personal computers have existed.
- anfilt 5y ago
  Fair point, made me think for a second. Sadly these locked down devices which infringe on our property rights have even started changing language =( when it comes to software.
  - oneplane 5y ago
    But it's not some americanised rights issue, you can still just install whatever you want outside of the App Store. It's not like I'm installing Sublime Text or stuff from JetBrains from the store or something like that. Perhaps you're just scoping it to the mobile tables and phones, those are indeed locked down but I don't mind it, they are appliances to me and I want the manufacturer to be 100% responsible for it, 100% of the time.
    - sneak 5y ago
      Some macOS APIs that apps use (such as Wireguard) will only work if they are distributed via the App Store and notarized by Apple. You cannot install a working Wireguard on macOS outside of the App Store.
      - oneplane 5y ago
        You can, but it will work in userspace and be a bit slower was well as use utun instead of NetworkExtensions.
    - anfilt 5y ago
      Yes my scope is mainly tablets and phones, but still applies to other devices with locked down boot-ROMs or boot loaders where the device has no means for the owner to disable it or load their own signing keys. The right I am talking about is primarily the right of exclusion and its not just an American concept plenty of other countries have similar concepts or even the same name, but of course the exact details will vary from one legal system to an other. Effectively apple retains the right of exclusion via extralegal means by using cryptography. Apple can unilaterally decide to exclude software from devices they don't own by not signing it. If you wrote some software yourself for instance you would also still have to ask apple to sign it which they only will do under certain conditions. Essentially if you have to keep having to ask a 3rd party to do something with something you “own” you don’t fully own it. Why it’s extralegal is that normally a seller would require a buyer to agree to a contract to retain some rights over real or tangible property. Instead apple is using cryptography to effectively retain some property rights despite the buyer never signing a contract agree-ing to this arrangement.
enos_feedler 5y ago
You might think its the hardware Apple keeps a tight grip on, but it is actually their reputation and brand. The Apple logo doesn't disappear when you buy it. And your ability to talk about it or have other people observing people complaining about virii etc and associate that with their "Apple Phone" doesn't go away once you decide to purchase the iPhone. So in some sense, Apple still does own something and deserve to make decisions to protect their business and brand. A classic response here is: if you don't like it go somewhere else. There are other phones where companies don't care so much and therefore don't hold such a tight grip.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  If you don't like the tires Ford sells, you shouldn't drive a Ford. You can always buy a Toyota. See how ridiculous that sounds?
  - enos_feedler 5y ago
    nope. What exactly are the "tires" in the iPhone analogy here? I would consider tires to be more like bluetooth headphones, which are entirely replaceable on the phone.
- can16358p 5y ago
  This! I see many people blaming Apple's stance (surely Apple has LOTS to blame, but not this one) on App Store/walled garden policy, but without it the whole ecosystem would turn to a mess. Not for the geeky audience of HN Here, but for the rest 99.99% of the world which probably matters more from a brand awareness perspective.
  - keleftheriou 5y ago
    Turn to a mess how exactly? Can you elaborate your concern?
    - can16358p 5y ago
      Become something like Android. I'm not talking about someone who knows what they are doing like the audience here. I'm talking about the regular people installing all the crapware onto their devices without knowing what they are doing.
can16358p 5y ago
Don't we already have it? Not exactly this way and not super convenient but we can install any app to our own devices via Xcode? It's intended for developers/tech savvy people, but I think it's right on spot: if average non tech savvy people could easily download any app it'd be like opening a new expired can of worms. The reputation of iPhone platform in terms of reliability and security would plummet and the brand would be affected negatively. Apple wouldn't want that. Even if it negatively affects me too, I get their point and have to agree with their stance.
- keleftheriou 5y ago
  What can of works are you referring to exactly? Can you elaborate on your concern?
  - can16358p 5y ago
    Turning the platform to something like Windows or Android (not how power users use, but how non tech savvy uses)
ksec 5y ago
I have an easier option, allow one click install of Web Apps. Which are Apps in WebView with additional features such as push notification. And the Icon on the HomeScreen will have a blue or green edge shadow to show this is an HTML5 apps ( As Steve Jobs used to call it ) There is a whole class of Apps that doesn't or shouldn't need Apple's approval. And are mostly reader apps or web page with some interactivity. From Ordering in a restaurant to Reading comics, or as simply as watching Netflix. Keep the Gaming and "Software" on the App Store if they want it that way.
- ThatPlayer 5y ago
  That would require Safari to actually keep up with standards. In my eyes, they deliberately don't implement features so that you can't compete with a native (and therefore Apple App Store) app. I can't even send a notification to the iOS Safari, something everyone else has implemented. And Apple themselves implement on desktop Safari. https://caniuse.com/notifications https://caniuse.com/notifications
  - ksec 5y ago
    Yes, and some of them they are working on. While others are not tuned on for iOS Safari. I think this is a much easier fix that their App Store problem though. They just need specific Webkit features only available inside these HTML5 Apps ( And not within Safari browser for whatever reason they have ). Fully Sandboxed, and zero / refined or control access to phonebook or photos. Instead they made App Clips. While being useful, they are still the holding the ultimate power for access to Apple customers.
NmAmDa 5y ago
If you have a developer account you can do that. There are even services which provides signing services (which is problematic I know) but still there is ability (not easy and cost money) to sideload apps.
tomjen3 5y ago
That would be a good solution. Allow people to load their own certs, but make it no easier than it is today. That way large companies can't skip out on the app store (and Apples privacy requirements) and nerds can do what we want with our phones.
astkaasa 5y ago
Check AltServer
pojntfx 5y ago
Apple will be legally forced by the EU to allow sideloading thanks to the digital markets act which passed late last year: https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-parliaments-key-committee-adopts-digital-markets-act/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-parliaments...

by anfilt 5y ago

i_like_apis 5y ago

I love that they don't allow side-loading. Long live the walled garden. (I mean this non-sarcastically)

netr0ute 5y ago
Ironic
anfilt 5y ago
You really like the idea of a company controlling property you own after you bought it??? Like if its optional don’t change the defaults. The issue is starting from the boot-rom and up apple is effectively using cryptography to retain the property right of exclusion when it comes to what code can run on that ARM cpu. Effectively you have to ask apple for approval of any code that will run on your own hardware. If they sign the code they allow it run if they don’t its excluded from running. If you have to keep asking a 3rd party to do something with something you bought you don't fully own it. The thing is normally a seller wishing to retain some rights to real or tangible property would normally require a legal contract between the buyer. Here however apple is using cryptography to bypass traditional legal means. You can buy an iPhone, iPad without signing any contract. Yet this effectively retained control of the hardware still exists. You can’t just buy the hardware and throw linux or android on it short of finding a weakness in how code is loaded.
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  > You really like the idea of a company controlling property you own after you bought it??? If I didn’t, I wouldn’t buy an iPhone. What’s the problem?
  - immibis 5y ago
    Vendor lock-in
- i_like_apis 5y ago
  > You really like the idea of a company controlling property you own after you bought it??? > right of exclusion when it comes to what code can run on that ARM cpu Yes I like it for the phone. The walled garden has very little malware and has high quality apps. I am never pestered to install crapware or malware and I don't have to be paranoid about it. You can still run your own development software on these machines, and software distributed in controlled channels outside of the store. The controls are reasonably convenient and necessary to keep unwanted software out. Compare it to Android Play Store or much worse the Galaxy store situation. The grass is much greener in the walled garden. For the Mac, it's a different story, you can and should be able to run whatever you want on it. But iPhone as a product is a well tended garden (controlled but quite wide and powerful) and I can appreciate that.
  - anfilt 5y ago
    If its optional dont enable it/use it. I would be more concerned with companies using extralegal means to effectively infringe your property rights...
    - cuddlybacon 5y ago
      Then shady apps will include instructions on how to bypass the security mechanisms. You already see this in Windows where game hacks (or just really shitty game mod sites) often request you disable security features to ensure they don't interfere with the hack.
      - keleftheriou 5y ago
        This is a big misconception. Sideloading doesn’t imply that app isolation (sandboxing) is also going away, nor does it imply that any app would ever be able to trick the user into running it with escalated privileges (sudo/root) as is the case on most computers. We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
    - i_like_apis 5y ago
throwaway14356 5y ago
i like the otwelian angle. side loading, as if you've done something naughty. we could use it for other things like side loading "your" garage or your fridge
cuddlybacon 5y ago
I really hope that if Apple is ever forced to open up their devices, that it takes the form of allowing other app stores and not allowing side-loading. If side loading is allowed the amount of tech support I'll have to provide my family will skyrocket.
- ikt 5y ago
  how big is your family that an option an overwhelming majority of android users don't touch or even know about is going to skyrocket your support levels? i don't even want to think about the level of intelligence you're suggesting your family has that they will go above and beyond the average person in deliberately breaking their own phones.
- arepublicadoceu 5y ago
  > I really hope that if Apple is ever forced to open up their devices, that it takes the form of allowing other app stores and not allowing side-loading. > If side loading is allowed the amount of tech support I'll have to provide my family will skyrocket. I mean, if apple ever allow sideloading I suspect it will be behind a 10 feet wall warning and obscure multiple clicks on settings, similar to how google does it. I also suspect that my family will be divided into two camps: oblivious to the existence of sideloading or technical enough that won't need my tech support.
- keleftheriou 5y ago
  Sideloading doesn’t imply that app isolation (sandboxing) is also going away, nor does it imply that any app would ever be able to trick the user into running it with escalated privileges (sudo/root) as is the case on most computers. We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
- curt15 5y ago
  Do none of your family members already use desktop computers?
  - 5y ago
Underphil 5y ago
Curious take, this. Allowing side-loading would only have a net positive impact on those who desire it, and zero impact on you who wants the walled garden. So why the opposition?
- elondaits 5y ago
  Not necessarily true. Some companies (Epic?) might choose to distribute apps exclusively via sideloading… and you can’t always choose not to install an app (e.g. WhatsApp is sadly essential in my country for work, social life, ordering food and even getting COVID vaccines, since the government uses it to hand appointments)
  - anfilt 5y ago
    Epic tried it on android but the law of defaults are strong. Too much friction for an average user but at least on most android devices users can enable developer mode or even root if they want. So google here is not trampling over device owner’s property rights.
  - mdoms 5y ago
    But right now Epic doesn't (can't) distribute on the main app store. So either way you're not using it.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  This is true only if you presume social engineering is impossible.
  - keleftheriou 5y ago
    But sideloading doesn’t imply that app isolation (sandboxing) is also going away, nor does it imply that any app would ever be able to trick the user into running it with escalated privileges (sudo/root) as is the case on most computers. We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
post_break 5y ago
If that's the case you should only use iOS devices for everything. No macbook pro, no PC. It's so easy to think the walled garden is great when you can just jump out of it when you need to do actual work or run an app Apple has deemed unfit for the appstore.
- i_like_apis 5y ago
  I love it for the phone. Obviously Macbook is a different product, with different use cases. You can and should run whatever you like on Macbook. They are both well-tended gardens of different types for different uses. Much higher walls on the phone is a great feature IMO.
  - post_break 5y ago
    Then why can’t I run whatever I want on my phone? The logic here makes zero sense. A computer is a computer whether it fits in your pocket or sits on a desk.
    - fingerlocks 5y ago
      > Then why can’t I run whatever I want on my phone? You can, legally. You have that right. You can legally jailbreak a supported iPhone in 10 minutes and sideload all day or lldb attach to whatever you want. Nobody will stop you. But Apple doesn't want to support an open platform. That's their right. They don't want it to part of their ecosystem, their brand, or provide the avalanche of non-negligible support costs. The distinction here is important and rarely addressed in these discussion.
      - folkrav 5y ago
        > Nobody will stop you. I mean, Apple blocked countless jailbreaks as of today. It's AFAIK also against their ToS, therefore means they legally try to make it so you don't jailbreak. Can you _really_? Sounds more like a gray area they simply cannot control, but they're definitely trying their hardest to do so...
rezonant 5y ago

friedman23 5y ago

Stop calling it side loading. It's installing it and we've been doing it for as long as personal computers have existed.

anfilt 5y ago
Fair point, made me think for a second. Sadly these locked down devices which infringe on our property rights have even started changing language =( when it comes to software.
- oneplane 5y ago
  But it's not some americanised rights issue, you can still just install whatever you want outside of the App Store. It's not like I'm installing Sublime Text or stuff from JetBrains from the store or something like that. Perhaps you're just scoping it to the mobile tables and phones, those are indeed locked down but I don't mind it, they are appliances to me and I want the manufacturer to be 100% responsible for it, 100% of the time.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Some macOS APIs that apps use (such as Wireguard) will only work if they are distributed via the App Store and notarized by Apple. You cannot install a working Wireguard on macOS outside of the App Store.
    - oneplane 5y ago
      You can, but it will work in userspace and be a bit slower was well as use utun instead of NetworkExtensions.
  - anfilt 5y ago
    Yes my scope is mainly tablets and phones, but still applies to other devices with locked down boot-ROMs or boot loaders where the device has no means for the owner to disable it or load their own signing keys. The right I am talking about is primarily the right of exclusion and its not just an American concept plenty of other countries have similar concepts or even the same name, but of course the exact details will vary from one legal system to an other. Effectively apple retains the right of exclusion via extralegal means by using cryptography. Apple can unilaterally decide to exclude software from devices they don't own by not signing it. If you wrote some software yourself for instance you would also still have to ask apple to sign it which they only will do under certain conditions. Essentially if you have to keep having to ask a 3rd party to do something with something you “own” you don’t fully own it. Why it’s extralegal is that normally a seller would require a buyer to agree to a contract to retain some rights over real or tangible property. Instead apple is using cryptography to effectively retain some property rights despite the buyer never signing a contract agree-ing to this arrangement.

enos_feedler 5y ago

You might think its the hardware Apple keeps a tight grip on, but it is actually their reputation and brand. The Apple logo doesn't disappear when you buy it. And your ability to talk about it or have other people observing people complaining about virii etc and associate that with their "Apple Phone" doesn't go away once you decide to purchase the iPhone. So in some sense, Apple still does own something and deserve to make decisions to protect their business and brand. A classic response here is: if you don't like it go somewhere else. There are other phones where companies don't care so much and therefore don't hold such a tight grip.

vorpalhex 5y ago
If you don't like the tires Ford sells, you shouldn't drive a Ford. You can always buy a Toyota. See how ridiculous that sounds?
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  nope. What exactly are the "tires" in the iPhone analogy here? I would consider tires to be more like bluetooth headphones, which are entirely replaceable on the phone.
can16358p 5y ago
This! I see many people blaming Apple's stance (surely Apple has LOTS to blame, but not this one) on App Store/walled garden policy, but without it the whole ecosystem would turn to a mess. Not for the geeky audience of HN Here, but for the rest 99.99% of the world which probably matters more from a brand awareness perspective.
- keleftheriou 5y ago
  Turn to a mess how exactly? Can you elaborate your concern?
  - can16358p 5y ago
    Become something like Android. I'm not talking about someone who knows what they are doing like the audience here. I'm talking about the regular people installing all the crapware onto their devices without knowing what they are doing.

can16358p 5y ago

Don't we already have it? Not exactly this way and not super convenient but we can install any app to our own devices via Xcode? It's intended for developers/tech savvy people, but I think it's right on spot: if average non tech savvy people could easily download any app it'd be like opening a new expired can of worms. The reputation of iPhone platform in terms of reliability and security would plummet and the brand would be affected negatively. Apple wouldn't want that. Even if it negatively affects me too, I get their point and have to agree with their stance.

keleftheriou 5y ago
What can of works are you referring to exactly? Can you elaborate on your concern?
- can16358p 5y ago
  Turning the platform to something like Windows or Android (not how power users use, but how non tech savvy uses)

ksec 5y ago

I have an easier option, allow one click install of Web Apps. Which are Apps in WebView with additional features such as push notification. And the Icon on the HomeScreen will have a blue or green edge shadow to show this is an HTML5 apps ( As Steve Jobs used to call it ) There is a whole class of Apps that doesn't or shouldn't need Apple's approval. And are mostly reader apps or web page with some interactivity. From Ordering in a restaurant to Reading comics, or as simply as watching Netflix. Keep the Gaming and "Software" on the App Store if they want it that way.

ThatPlayer 5y ago
That would require Safari to actually keep up with standards. In my eyes, they deliberately don't implement features so that you can't compete with a native (and therefore Apple App Store) app. I can't even send a notification to the iOS Safari, something everyone else has implemented. And Apple themselves implement on desktop Safari. https://caniuse.com/notifications https://caniuse.com/notifications
- ksec 5y ago
  Yes, and some of them they are working on. While others are not tuned on for iOS Safari. I think this is a much easier fix that their App Store problem though. They just need specific Webkit features only available inside these HTML5 Apps ( And not within Safari browser for whatever reason they have ). Fully Sandboxed, and zero / refined or control access to phonebook or photos. Instead they made App Clips. While being useful, they are still the holding the ultimate power for access to Apple customers.

NmAmDa 5y ago

If you have a developer account you can do that. There are even services which provides signing services (which is problematic I know) but still there is ability (not easy and cost money) to sideload apps.

tomjen3 5y ago

That would be a good solution. Allow people to load their own certs, but make it no easier than it is today. That way large companies can't skip out on the app store (and Apples privacy requirements) and nerds can do what we want with our phones.

astkaasa 5y ago

Check AltServer

pojntfx 5y ago

Apple will be legally forced by the EU to allow sideloading thanks to the digital markets act which passed late last year: https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-parliaments-key-committee-adopts-digital-markets-act/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-parliaments...