29 ms·

Apple forced to allow sideloading and 3rd-party app stores under new EU law

99 points by jklp 5y ago

dm319 5y ago
Good to see the general purpose computer in your pocket being recognised as one.
- olliej 5y ago
  No talk of extending it to cover consoles though, despite them also being general purpose
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    What general purposes do game consoles serve, other than being multimedia centers? Do users use the browser and other internet features on consoles extensively? Can you make payments, hail a ride, order food with them? Can you contact emergency services with them? Can they save your literal life?
    - car_analogy 5y ago
      Exactly. They are general purpose computers, artificially crippled by their manufacturer, to prevent their (supposed) owner from using their full potential.
      - lwansbrough 5y ago
        This is a silly argument. Nobody is checking their bank account on their Xbox. We can acknowledge that iPhones are needlessly closed platforms while also acknowledging that there are legitimate purpose-built computers in various form factors (gaming consoles being a good example.)
        car_analogy 5y ago
        That is exactly the point. There is nothing inherent in an Xbox that prevents it from running a web browser. Only our collective acceptance of the practice of denying users control of their devices, and letting these arbitrary restrictions contribute to e-waste.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        To be fair, if one supports the Right to Repair, one should probably also support the legalizing of mod chips.
        Dah00n 5y ago
        Then the same argument covers a cars computer.
        paulryanrogers 5y ago
        Computers controlling the car's movement should be isolated and ideally certified as fit to control large and dangerous vehicles. Media computers could be subject to the same side loading regulations since compromise should only impact non-critical functions.
        olliej 5y ago
        Because they can't? People were making a lot of noise about Sony retroactively removing functionality not too long ago. But even if we accept the bogus argument that a console (a behemoth CPU with 100s of watts of power available) is not a general purpose system, that's not relevant: Why should a company have to go through Sony or Microsoft's stores to buy games for their console? What makes consoles somehow different from phones? - I would put money on the primary apps people buy from the App Store being games? Claiming the Sony/MS make a loss on console sales isn't relevant either - firstly because they're charging ~30% on games with an average sale price in the region of $60 they make up that "loss" very quickly, secondly neither company expends significant (any?) resources developing features for their consoles once they've been sold (vs. Apple that is still providing major updates and functionality to devices 5 years after they stopped being sold)
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      The PS2 was good enough to run Linux. The Xbox One and Series X run Windows 10 under the hood.
      - ohgodplsno 5y ago
        For a very specific definition of Windows 10. It is extremely stripped down and with a wildly different set of APIs in many places, it's just that it supports D3D and XAML
    - ciupicri 5y ago
      What general purposes do phones serve, other than making and receiving _audio_ calls?
      - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
        Smartphones are general-purpose devices not just in potential but in practice. I think we're beyond pretending that they are just phones.
      - aaomidi 5y ago
        Phones can (even right now, with the limitations placed by Apple, Google) do everything a computer can. Capacity limits apply, but the general activities that a laptop/pc can do, a phone can as well.
  - paxys 5y ago
    Game consoles are very far from general purpose.
    - olliej 5y ago
      So are phones?
      - paxys 5y ago
        Not really. Most of the planet uses a smartphone as their primary (and sometimes only) computing device. As time goes on there are fewer and fewer use cases that still require a full desktop environment and OS.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    I personally wish they did. However, I think consoles have always been "consume media" devices in peoples minds. Maybe with steam deck (assuming it can get any level of popularity that xbox/ps have) we might see attitudes shift towards them. A lot of these lawmakers are unaware of the exact internals of these devices. Phones can do everything realistically. Manage your bank accounts, pay your taxes, find jobs, make calls, consume media. Heck they can do more than your average laptop/computer - and this is self-evident for lawmakers. The same can not (yet) be said for consoles. Anyway, I do hope we take more of these steps in the future. At the very least it reduces ewaste.
mattl 5y ago
"Apple would be forced to allow sideloading and third-party app stores under new EU law"
wdb 5y ago
Then I hope Apple allows an option to enable an opt out for these third party stores
- olliej 5y ago
  The problem is when some critical app forces you to use their store. I hope at the very least apple can mandate that the additional app stores enforce the same privacy and safety rules, or would the EU consider that allowing people to not be spied on be to much of an infringement of the rights of business?
  - lizardactivist 5y ago
    Apple ecosystem isn't the bastion of privacy and security you think it is.
    - olliej 5y ago
      It's better than android's. And yeah, it isn't perfect, but actively making it less secure isn't going make it better
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    As I mentioned elsewhere, it’s debatable whether or not the other tech giants are really going to bother creating another app store, and then force users to migrate there. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 Such a move is basically mutually assured destruction- they would be taking their critical app off the official Apple App Store, and in doing so inviting huge customer backlash. Besides the negative press, at least a fraction of users will not migrate over- both HN power users technical and ideological enough to reject entering a user data harvesting shady app store, and the less technically adept users who can’t figure out how to enable such a store. Not to mention, everyone who is sick and tired of having to manage yet another user account forced upon them by a tech giant. It’s guaranteed that not 100% of existing users would transition, and even if it’s not a huge amount, it would be upsetting the apple cart and damaging the brand. There’s more considerations beyond that I mentioned previously- the difficulties of these companies now having to create their own parallel iOS app ecosystems- again, ask Facebook how their own platform’s app community is faring these days, let alone every smartphone app market that isn’t iOS or Android. And it’s debatable that these tech giants can even successfully create a sufficiently compelling alternate app market from a product or business perspective. It feels like all of the giants are at a point where they’re engaged in side projects- cloud gaming, Clubhouse clones, Snapchat stories clones, Libra- that don’t really have staying power, as far as new products go. Creating a parasitic clone iOS App Store would yet be another boondoggle, and committing to it, as I mention, is MAD- Apple loses their apps, and these companies are forever tied to having to maintain and work on their 3rd party app stores. In fact, one can easily imagine a Meta pulling back and resubmitting Facebook, Instagram, etc. back to the official App Store after initially removing them. And it’s incredibly easy to imagine Google resigning an iOS Play Store to the Google Graveyard before you can say Stadia. Smartphone software has been around a decade now. I don’t think it’s so easy to woo users over with your own carbon copy that offers nothing. Not to mention, perhaps these companies might invite regulator antitrust attention as well if they keep truly “critical apps” away from the official App Store. There’s a lot of possible implications. I think the prospect of tech giant data-harvesting third party iOS app stores is a fascinating prospect that hasn’t been examined in detail. Too often it’s used as a bogeyman, “Facebook will take away their app and track you!” against sideloading. The reality is probably more complex that that, and I would argue that opening iOS to alternate app marketplaces and sideloading might actually increase business opportunities and vectors of positive innovation for Apple. But that’s the subject of another comment.
im_nullable 5y ago
Apple will soon require 3rd party app stores to remit 27% of all revenue.
- olliej 5y ago
  If not the stores themselves, then presumably the apps will have to pay. I’d also hope that the store are required to enforce the same security protections as the main App Store. I don’t want buying an app to now come with the risk of uncancellable subscriptions, gross invasion of privacy, malware, etc
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Presumably, they could just treat iOS like macOS, where there already is a notarization system that covers apps distributed outside of the Mac App store. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... Also, people forget that iOS itself has many security protections built into the platform itself that go beyond App Store review. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125
    - metadat 5y ago
      Fascinating read, especially https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-the-first-time-ever-android-0days-cost-more-than-ios-exploits/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-t...
- _abox 5y ago
  How can they? If you can sideload they have no way to enforce this.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    “Not via the App Store” != “Without Apple Approval” Side loading will likely still require a business agreement with Apple and “App Review” to get a cert that allows your app to run.
jurschreuder 5y ago
I hope some healthy competition will make app development on Apple easier. Submitting to the AppStore is often half of the development time for a simple app, the user experience is terrible. Xcode sucks and they force you to use it. Just let us use third party tools it's better for your own platform also. Just let us make iPhone apps in VIM, like civilized people. Maybe webapps will also now finally get proper support like Android, you just know the platform could be way better if they did not force you past their toll booth, even for free apps.
eps 5y ago
The best bit is that the proposal requires devices to support the original app store AND side-loading. Which is exactly what Apple doesn't want, because of (a) Fortnite / alt payment options (b) Facebook / privacy restrictions bypass, i.e. the loss of revenue and the loss of credibility as a (sort of) privacy-oriented platform. So I am sure they will fight to at least make it an OR.
- _abox 5y ago
  They still control the OS so they can probably still do a lot to avoid privacy issues. Just by locking down their APIs and sandboxing properly. The EU is not asking for a jailbreak/root. Just side loading. Also it could lead to a much better ecosystem of open-source apps like there is with F-Droid on Android. It'll take some time to develop but I really love many F-Droid apps over their commercial alternatives. Apps are so much more efficient if they just do what they need to do and don't bother with all the spying and ads. It could also finally enable other browsers on iOS for real!
- ls15 5y ago
  > So I am sure they will fight to at least make it an OR. I am not sure about this. Who would buy an iphone with the intention to sideload apps if it does not let them install all the apps that the iphone is famous for at the same time? Microsoft allowed users to still use IE (and Office and everything else) after they have been forced to offer other browsers. I envision a scenario, where you buy a new iphone and selecting/configuring appstores is part of the setup process and can be changed later. As many as you want, just like you would add repos in a package manager. We would not allow our shopping bags to limit our possible sources of groceries to one specific supermarket chain.
  - yywwbbn 5y ago
    Considering that never happened on Android I think it’s even less likely in Apple’s case. Unless the EU explicitly requires Apple to show window allowing the user to pick the app stores he wants to use like they sid with web browsers
olliej 5y ago
So it sounds like it requires Apple to give away its IP at no cost. This is no different from (for example) requiring the linux kernel devs, or the fsf to allow people to use their IP without complying with the GPL.
- Anunayj 5y ago
  No? This is more like Apple telling a car company to allow any gas instead of only "apple approved gas" which is marked up by 30% in price. It doesn't mean that any company can just copy that car and put their label on it.
  - olliej 5y ago
    So you think apple should charge for software updates then?
    - polski-g 5y ago
      Samsung is charging for updates after N years by simply not releasing updates for older phones
      - olliej 5y ago
        Where N is frequently zero, if not out of date w/o updates at time of sale.
    - simfree 5y ago
      Apple and Microsoft charge for upgrades on computers, but not for security updates. Cross-subsidization is obscuring the true cost of a good and not permitting consumer choice, many people don't want UI revamps and feature rewrites bundled with basic security updates, with the cost hidden in the fees charged to App Store developers and never disclosed to the customer.
      - olliej 5y ago
        What are you talking about? Apple doesn’t charge for OS updates, yet provides years of support for all its devices. The alternative is charging for updates, or going the android route and selling out users while while also not providing any updates. Google can give away android because Android is stalkerware that feeds their ad revenue.
xdxfw 5y ago
They should force apple and android manufacturers to add 1 button to jailbreak and root. Rooting is much more useful than that warranty
- Anunayj 5y ago
  Frankly I think the current root/jailbreak situation on android is fine, I feel like there should atleast be a some technical barrier to that power.
  - nulld3v 5y ago
    I'll be happy after they get rid of Samsung Knox and put more restrictions on who can use the SafetyNet API.
    - Anunayj 5y ago
      Oh yeah Samsung Devices are weird.. I think they even have a different fastboot implementation. But I do not think that represents "stock" android?
- MerelyMortal 5y ago
  In the U.S., rooting does not void the warranty unless the manufacturer can prove the rooting itself caused physical damage. Just having a blanket policy of rooting = voided warranty is illegal because of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
tqkxzugoaupvwqr 5y ago
“Sideloading” is the perfect word to frame the behavior of downloading apps in a negative light or as an illicit activity. No-one has ever talked of sideloading an app on macOS – because sideloading is simply downloading an app from the Internet as we have known it from the very beginning of the Internet. I still cannot believe most people adopted this word as part of this discussion and keep using it, helping Apple’s narrative. Stop using “sideloading”, use “downloading from the Internet”!
- throwmeariver1 5y ago
  sideloading was never a term used in any official documentation or communication the term was coined by the android community. we have to pick our own nose for that one.
  - opan 5y ago
    On Android it specifically refers to installing something on your phone via your computer with the adb sideload command. If you just download and install an apk on the phone itself, it's not sideloading. For this reason it wouldn't make sense to use the term for installing anything on a PC.
  - johnwalkr 5y ago
    It’s older than that, I remember using it to describe loading mp3s to iPods without using iTunes.
- Tozen 5y ago
  Very good point.
- PolygonSheep 5y ago
  I never though "sideloading" had a negative connotation in the Android world. It always felt neutral to me. Kind of a "you can do this if you want but you're on your own if it's malicious". It also made a distinction between apps acquired from the Play Store and apps you loaded yourself from outside of it.
efitz 5y ago
The desire to collect rent drives so many nasty behaviors in companies. At its core, this is a discussion about rent seeking. Apple and Google lust after their 30% cut, which is outrageous and would not be long tolerated in any other business arrangement. They keep the gravy train going because of gatekeeping. “I want to root/mod my device” and “right to repair” are interesting but orthogonal arguments. Those arguments are about “what does it mean to own a thing”. I am glad the EU is doing this but I despair that Apple and Google will still avoid this in the US. Personally, I’m mostly happy with the App Store except their bans based on political POV (disguised as content violations). I’m much more unhappy with the content stores on mobile devices; I want to set Amazon as my book store and buy within the Kindle app. Ed s/list/lust/g stupid autocorrect
- vlovich123 5y ago
  What’s the typical margin in physical retail stores, particularly with respect to software (eg video games)? It’s hard to find. All the things I found are about profit margins not what the price breakdown is at the point of checkout. I think 30% has been ridiculously high although I don’t know what a fairer margin is. For what it’s worth Apple has managed to maintain a 30% profit margin (not just sales) on the hardware they sell which is unheard of in the consumer electronics industry (everyone else is struggling to just barely make money in phones and mostly losing while others are taking a much more modest cut in other categories). Partly it’s branding. Partly it’s savvy business practices. Partly it’s immoral business practices.
  - efitz 5y ago
    I don’t know about markups but in most industries businesses would envy a 10% profit margin.
    - vlovich123 5y ago
      Finally found something [1]. > When setting your wholesale price, first multiply your cost of goods by two. This will ensure your wholesale profit margin is at least 50%. Profit margin is the gross profit a retailer earns when an item is sold. Apparel retail brands typically aim for a 30% to 50% wholesale profit margin, while direct-to-consumer retailers aim for a profit margin of 55% to 65%. (A margin is sometimes also referred to as “markup percentage.”) So 50% is about normal for retail goods. Yes yes. They have physical merchandise they need to manage. Apple has engineers they need to pay to do their virtual distribution. Maybe 30% is excessive. Certainly that they're the only store and hold a monopoly on the things they allow people to do on their platform is probably fueling that margin to be higher than it should. However, if we look at Steam[2] and other console manufacturers, we see similar 30% markups. Maybe everyone is just copying Apple's lead here as "customers will swallow this". Or maybe Apple figured out a good virtual store distribution model and this is the markup needed for a sustainable thriving business. [1] https://www.shopify.com/retail/product-pricing-for-wholesale-and-retail https://www.shopify.com/retail/product-pricing-for-wholesale... [2] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
danielscrubs 5y ago
I’m not as optimistic as you guys. What I think we will get is a fragmented mess, with the app store that allows the most stealing of data winning. WeChat is a good example where on Android they require access to your whole contact list to even start but on iOS this is not the case because Apple don’t allow it. Competition is going to make this things worse not better. Once you have competition that uses dark patterns (ui), those guys earn more money and can drown out the marketing the “good guys” do. Look at New York Times unsubscription over the phone and others. I see some apps moving between app stores to chase the money, not the “best for the user”-award.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  I don’t see the other giants being sufficiently motivated to, nor having the ability to execute, lasting competitive 3rd party app stores. Maybe if it was a decade ago. It not that they don’t have the resources or technical capabilities to it, but I don’t think they have the product ability to excel on the platform of a competitor, in this case Apple. And consumers are just sick of having to manage more accounts. They’re not going to have the patience to let iOS fragmemt like the streaming space has. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
- mihaaly 5y ago
  I believe it is more like having an option. Having more freedeom. And as with other aspects of life freedom comes with increased responsibility. Those want things to be curated for and told to them, and - hopefully - remain on the 'safe' side, with the added convenience that others - hopefuly - doing a good job in elminating risks, doing this hard task for them for their convenience, could still stick to Apple's services. But I assume even those will benefit if Apple has to compete with alternative sources of services. Myself I feel the Apple app store is somewhat inadequate and clumsy to use both for consumers and suppliers. Me and some others around me have this view that it could be done better. Especially the process of publishing your work. It remains a bumpy ride as there is no incentive for them to spend on improving it, people have no other choice than doing it the way Apple dictates, no alternatives. Even as consumer navigating the store it feels pretty much directed into a particular direction others want us to go. Hopefully those not thinking about using alternative choices will benefit too from the opening up of the infrastructure.
otterley 5y ago
Misleading headline: this law has not been voted upon yet and is not effective today. It is currently proposed legislation, not law.
vivegi 5y ago
I don't really care for the app stores. Just make Safari support web standards better. And give a decent Add to Home Screen functionality from the browser.
marviio 5y ago
I'm principally for allowing side-loading, but in this era of surveillance capitalism it might be a net negative for non-tech savvy iOS users. Facebook will leave the Appstore to circumvent Apple's privacy policies. God knows what they will do to users installing Facebook or Instagram.

99 points by jklp 5y ago

dm319 5y ago

Good to see the general purpose computer in your pocket being recognised as one.

olliej 5y ago
No talk of extending it to cover consoles though, despite them also being general purpose
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  What general purposes do game consoles serve, other than being multimedia centers? Do users use the browser and other internet features on consoles extensively? Can you make payments, hail a ride, order food with them? Can you contact emergency services with them? Can they save your literal life?
  - car_analogy 5y ago
    Exactly. They are general purpose computers, artificially crippled by their manufacturer, to prevent their (supposed) owner from using their full potential.
    - lwansbrough 5y ago
      This is a silly argument. Nobody is checking their bank account on their Xbox. We can acknowledge that iPhones are needlessly closed platforms while also acknowledging that there are legitimate purpose-built computers in various form factors (gaming consoles being a good example.)
      - car_analogy 5y ago
        That is exactly the point. There is nothing inherent in an Xbox that prevents it from running a web browser. Only our collective acceptance of the practice of denying users control of their devices, and letting these arbitrary restrictions contribute to e-waste.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        To be fair, if one supports the Right to Repair, one should probably also support the legalizing of mod chips.
        Dah00n 5y ago
        Then the same argument covers a cars computer.
        paulryanrogers 5y ago
        Computers controlling the car's movement should be isolated and ideally certified as fit to control large and dangerous vehicles. Media computers could be subject to the same side loading regulations since compromise should only impact non-critical functions.
      - olliej 5y ago
        Because they can't? People were making a lot of noise about Sony retroactively removing functionality not too long ago. But even if we accept the bogus argument that a console (a behemoth CPU with 100s of watts of power available) is not a general purpose system, that's not relevant: Why should a company have to go through Sony or Microsoft's stores to buy games for their console? What makes consoles somehow different from phones? - I would put money on the primary apps people buy from the App Store being games? Claiming the Sony/MS make a loss on console sales isn't relevant either - firstly because they're charging ~30% on games with an average sale price in the region of $60 they make up that "loss" very quickly, secondly neither company expends significant (any?) resources developing features for their consoles once they've been sold (vs. Apple that is still providing major updates and functionality to devices 5 years after they stopped being sold)
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    The PS2 was good enough to run Linux. The Xbox One and Series X run Windows 10 under the hood.
    - ohgodplsno 5y ago
      For a very specific definition of Windows 10. It is extremely stripped down and with a wildly different set of APIs in many places, it's just that it supports D3D and XAML
  - ciupicri 5y ago
    What general purposes do phones serve, other than making and receiving _audio_ calls?
    - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
      Smartphones are general-purpose devices not just in potential but in practice. I think we're beyond pretending that they are just phones.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      Phones can (even right now, with the limitations placed by Apple, Google) do everything a computer can. Capacity limits apply, but the general activities that a laptop/pc can do, a phone can as well.
- paxys 5y ago
  Game consoles are very far from general purpose.
  - olliej 5y ago
    So are phones?
    - paxys 5y ago
      Not really. Most of the planet uses a smartphone as their primary (and sometimes only) computing device. As time goes on there are fewer and fewer use cases that still require a full desktop environment and OS.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  I personally wish they did. However, I think consoles have always been "consume media" devices in peoples minds. Maybe with steam deck (assuming it can get any level of popularity that xbox/ps have) we might see attitudes shift towards them. A lot of these lawmakers are unaware of the exact internals of these devices. Phones can do everything realistically. Manage your bank accounts, pay your taxes, find jobs, make calls, consume media. Heck they can do more than your average laptop/computer - and this is self-evident for lawmakers. The same can not (yet) be said for consoles. Anyway, I do hope we take more of these steps in the future. At the very least it reduces ewaste.

mattl 5y ago

"Apple would be forced to allow sideloading and third-party app stores under new EU law"

wdb 5y ago

Then I hope Apple allows an option to enable an opt out for these third party stores

olliej 5y ago
The problem is when some critical app forces you to use their store. I hope at the very least apple can mandate that the additional app stores enforce the same privacy and safety rules, or would the EU consider that allowing people to not be spied on be to much of an infringement of the rights of business?
- lizardactivist 5y ago
  Apple ecosystem isn't the bastion of privacy and security you think it is.
  - olliej 5y ago
    It's better than android's. And yeah, it isn't perfect, but actively making it less secure isn't going make it better
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  As I mentioned elsewhere, it’s debatable whether or not the other tech giants are really going to bother creating another app store, and then force users to migrate there. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 Such a move is basically mutually assured destruction- they would be taking their critical app off the official Apple App Store, and in doing so inviting huge customer backlash. Besides the negative press, at least a fraction of users will not migrate over- both HN power users technical and ideological enough to reject entering a user data harvesting shady app store, and the less technically adept users who can’t figure out how to enable such a store. Not to mention, everyone who is sick and tired of having to manage yet another user account forced upon them by a tech giant. It’s guaranteed that not 100% of existing users would transition, and even if it’s not a huge amount, it would be upsetting the apple cart and damaging the brand. There’s more considerations beyond that I mentioned previously- the difficulties of these companies now having to create their own parallel iOS app ecosystems- again, ask Facebook how their own platform’s app community is faring these days, let alone every smartphone app market that isn’t iOS or Android. And it’s debatable that these tech giants can even successfully create a sufficiently compelling alternate app market from a product or business perspective. It feels like all of the giants are at a point where they’re engaged in side projects- cloud gaming, Clubhouse clones, Snapchat stories clones, Libra- that don’t really have staying power, as far as new products go. Creating a parasitic clone iOS App Store would yet be another boondoggle, and committing to it, as I mention, is MAD- Apple loses their apps, and these companies are forever tied to having to maintain and work on their 3rd party app stores. In fact, one can easily imagine a Meta pulling back and resubmitting Facebook, Instagram, etc. back to the official App Store after initially removing them. And it’s incredibly easy to imagine Google resigning an iOS Play Store to the Google Graveyard before you can say Stadia. Smartphone software has been around a decade now. I don’t think it’s so easy to woo users over with your own carbon copy that offers nothing. Not to mention, perhaps these companies might invite regulator antitrust attention as well if they keep truly “critical apps” away from the official App Store. There’s a lot of possible implications. I think the prospect of tech giant data-harvesting third party iOS app stores is a fascinating prospect that hasn’t been examined in detail. Too often it’s used as a bogeyman, “Facebook will take away their app and track you!” against sideloading. The reality is probably more complex that that, and I would argue that opening iOS to alternate app marketplaces and sideloading might actually increase business opportunities and vectors of positive innovation for Apple. But that’s the subject of another comment.

im_nullable 5y ago

Apple will soon require 3rd party app stores to remit 27% of all revenue.

olliej 5y ago
If not the stores themselves, then presumably the apps will have to pay. I’d also hope that the store are required to enforce the same security protections as the main App Store. I don’t want buying an app to now come with the risk of uncancellable subscriptions, gross invasion of privacy, malware, etc
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Presumably, they could just treat iOS like macOS, where there already is a notarization system that covers apps distributed outside of the Mac App store. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... Also, people forget that iOS itself has many security protections built into the platform itself that go beyond App Store review. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125
  - metadat 5y ago
    Fascinating read, especially https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-the-first-time-ever-android-0days-cost-more-than-ios-exploits/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-t...
_abox 5y ago
How can they? If you can sideload they have no way to enforce this.
- Spivak 5y ago
  “Not via the App Store” != “Without Apple Approval” Side loading will likely still require a business agreement with Apple and “App Review” to get a cert that allows your app to run.

jurschreuder 5y ago

I hope some healthy competition will make app development on Apple easier. Submitting to the AppStore is often half of the development time for a simple app, the user experience is terrible. Xcode sucks and they force you to use it. Just let us use third party tools it's better for your own platform also. Just let us make iPhone apps in VIM, like civilized people. Maybe webapps will also now finally get proper support like Android, you just know the platform could be way better if they did not force you past their toll booth, even for free apps.

eps 5y ago

The best bit is that the proposal requires devices to support the original app store AND side-loading. Which is exactly what Apple doesn't want, because of (a) Fortnite / alt payment options (b) Facebook / privacy restrictions bypass, i.e. the loss of revenue and the loss of credibility as a (sort of) privacy-oriented platform. So I am sure they will fight to at least make it an OR.

_abox 5y ago
They still control the OS so they can probably still do a lot to avoid privacy issues. Just by locking down their APIs and sandboxing properly. The EU is not asking for a jailbreak/root. Just side loading. Also it could lead to a much better ecosystem of open-source apps like there is with F-Droid on Android. It'll take some time to develop but I really love many F-Droid apps over their commercial alternatives. Apps are so much more efficient if they just do what they need to do and don't bother with all the spying and ads. It could also finally enable other browsers on iOS for real!
ls15 5y ago
> So I am sure they will fight to at least make it an OR. I am not sure about this. Who would buy an iphone with the intention to sideload apps if it does not let them install all the apps that the iphone is famous for at the same time? Microsoft allowed users to still use IE (and Office and everything else) after they have been forced to offer other browsers. I envision a scenario, where you buy a new iphone and selecting/configuring appstores is part of the setup process and can be changed later. As many as you want, just like you would add repos in a package manager. We would not allow our shopping bags to limit our possible sources of groceries to one specific supermarket chain.
- yywwbbn 5y ago
  Considering that never happened on Android I think it’s even less likely in Apple’s case. Unless the EU explicitly requires Apple to show window allowing the user to pick the app stores he wants to use like they sid with web browsers

olliej 5y ago

So it sounds like it requires Apple to give away its IP at no cost. This is no different from (for example) requiring the linux kernel devs, or the fsf to allow people to use their IP without complying with the GPL.

Anunayj 5y ago
No? This is more like Apple telling a car company to allow any gas instead of only "apple approved gas" which is marked up by 30% in price. It doesn't mean that any company can just copy that car and put their label on it.
- olliej 5y ago
  So you think apple should charge for software updates then?
  - polski-g 5y ago
    Samsung is charging for updates after N years by simply not releasing updates for older phones
    - olliej 5y ago
      Where N is frequently zero, if not out of date w/o updates at time of sale.
  - simfree 5y ago
    Apple and Microsoft charge for upgrades on computers, but not for security updates. Cross-subsidization is obscuring the true cost of a good and not permitting consumer choice, many people don't want UI revamps and feature rewrites bundled with basic security updates, with the cost hidden in the fees charged to App Store developers and never disclosed to the customer.
    - olliej 5y ago
      What are you talking about? Apple doesn’t charge for OS updates, yet provides years of support for all its devices. The alternative is charging for updates, or going the android route and selling out users while while also not providing any updates. Google can give away android because Android is stalkerware that feeds their ad revenue.

xdxfw 5y ago

They should force apple and android manufacturers to add 1 button to jailbreak and root. Rooting is much more useful than that warranty

Anunayj 5y ago
Frankly I think the current root/jailbreak situation on android is fine, I feel like there should atleast be a some technical barrier to that power.
- nulld3v 5y ago
  I'll be happy after they get rid of Samsung Knox and put more restrictions on who can use the SafetyNet API.
  - Anunayj 5y ago
    Oh yeah Samsung Devices are weird.. I think they even have a different fastboot implementation. But I do not think that represents "stock" android?
MerelyMortal 5y ago
In the U.S., rooting does not void the warranty unless the manufacturer can prove the rooting itself caused physical damage. Just having a blanket policy of rooting = voided warranty is illegal because of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 5y ago

“Sideloading” is the perfect word to frame the behavior of downloading apps in a negative light or as an illicit activity. No-one has ever talked of sideloading an app on macOS – because sideloading is simply downloading an app from the Internet as we have known it from the very beginning of the Internet. I still cannot believe most people adopted this word as part of this discussion and keep using it, helping Apple’s narrative. Stop using “sideloading”, use “downloading from the Internet”!

throwmeariver1 5y ago
sideloading was never a term used in any official documentation or communication the term was coined by the android community. we have to pick our own nose for that one.
- opan 5y ago
  On Android it specifically refers to installing something on your phone via your computer with the adb sideload command. If you just download and install an apk on the phone itself, it's not sideloading. For this reason it wouldn't make sense to use the term for installing anything on a PC.
- johnwalkr 5y ago
  It’s older than that, I remember using it to describe loading mp3s to iPods without using iTunes.
Tozen 5y ago
Very good point.
PolygonSheep 5y ago
I never though "sideloading" had a negative connotation in the Android world. It always felt neutral to me. Kind of a "you can do this if you want but you're on your own if it's malicious". It also made a distinction between apps acquired from the Play Store and apps you loaded yourself from outside of it.

efitz 5y ago

The desire to collect rent drives so many nasty behaviors in companies. At its core, this is a discussion about rent seeking. Apple and Google lust after their 30% cut, which is outrageous and would not be long tolerated in any other business arrangement. They keep the gravy train going because of gatekeeping. “I want to root/mod my device” and “right to repair” are interesting but orthogonal arguments. Those arguments are about “what does it mean to own a thing”. I am glad the EU is doing this but I despair that Apple and Google will still avoid this in the US. Personally, I’m mostly happy with the App Store except their bans based on political POV (disguised as content violations). I’m much more unhappy with the content stores on mobile devices; I want to set Amazon as my book store and buy within the Kindle app. Ed s/list/lust/g stupid autocorrect

vlovich123 5y ago
What’s the typical margin in physical retail stores, particularly with respect to software (eg video games)? It’s hard to find. All the things I found are about profit margins not what the price breakdown is at the point of checkout. I think 30% has been ridiculously high although I don’t know what a fairer margin is. For what it’s worth Apple has managed to maintain a 30% profit margin (not just sales) on the hardware they sell which is unheard of in the consumer electronics industry (everyone else is struggling to just barely make money in phones and mostly losing while others are taking a much more modest cut in other categories). Partly it’s branding. Partly it’s savvy business practices. Partly it’s immoral business practices.
- efitz 5y ago
  I don’t know about markups but in most industries businesses would envy a 10% profit margin.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    Finally found something [1]. > When setting your wholesale price, first multiply your cost of goods by two. This will ensure your wholesale profit margin is at least 50%. Profit margin is the gross profit a retailer earns when an item is sold. Apparel retail brands typically aim for a 30% to 50% wholesale profit margin, while direct-to-consumer retailers aim for a profit margin of 55% to 65%. (A margin is sometimes also referred to as “markup percentage.”) So 50% is about normal for retail goods. Yes yes. They have physical merchandise they need to manage. Apple has engineers they need to pay to do their virtual distribution. Maybe 30% is excessive. Certainly that they're the only store and hold a monopoly on the things they allow people to do on their platform is probably fueling that margin to be higher than it should. However, if we look at Steam[2] and other console manufacturers, we see similar 30% markups. Maybe everyone is just copying Apple's lead here as "customers will swallow this". Or maybe Apple figured out a good virtual store distribution model and this is the markup needed for a sustainable thriving business. [1] https://www.shopify.com/retail/product-pricing-for-wholesale-and-retail https://www.shopify.com/retail/product-pricing-for-wholesale... [2] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

danielscrubs 5y ago

I’m not as optimistic as you guys. What I think we will get is a fragmented mess, with the app store that allows the most stealing of data winning. WeChat is a good example where on Android they require access to your whole contact list to even start but on iOS this is not the case because Apple don’t allow it. Competition is going to make this things worse not better. Once you have competition that uses dark patterns (ui), those guys earn more money and can drown out the marketing the “good guys” do. Look at New York Times unsubscription over the phone and others. I see some apps moving between app stores to chase the money, not the “best for the user”-award.

Apocryphon 5y ago
I don’t see the other giants being sufficiently motivated to, nor having the ability to execute, lasting competitive 3rd party app stores. Maybe if it was a decade ago. It not that they don’t have the resources or technical capabilities to it, but I don’t think they have the product ability to excel on the platform of a competitor, in this case Apple. And consumers are just sick of having to manage more accounts. They’re not going to have the patience to let iOS fragmemt like the streaming space has. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
mihaaly 5y ago
I believe it is more like having an option. Having more freedeom. And as with other aspects of life freedom comes with increased responsibility. Those want things to be curated for and told to them, and - hopefully - remain on the 'safe' side, with the added convenience that others - hopefuly - doing a good job in elminating risks, doing this hard task for them for their convenience, could still stick to Apple's services. But I assume even those will benefit if Apple has to compete with alternative sources of services. Myself I feel the Apple app store is somewhat inadequate and clumsy to use both for consumers and suppliers. Me and some others around me have this view that it could be done better. Especially the process of publishing your work. It remains a bumpy ride as there is no incentive for them to spend on improving it, people have no other choice than doing it the way Apple dictates, no alternatives. Even as consumer navigating the store it feels pretty much directed into a particular direction others want us to go. Hopefully those not thinking about using alternative choices will benefit too from the opening up of the infrastructure.

otterley 5y ago

Misleading headline: this law has not been voted upon yet and is not effective today. It is currently proposed legislation, not law.

vivegi 5y ago

I don't really care for the app stores. Just make Safari support web standards better. And give a decent Add to Home Screen functionality from the browser.

marviio 5y ago

I'm principally for allowing side-loading, but in this era of surveillance capitalism it might be a net negative for non-tech savvy iOS users. Facebook will leave the Appstore to circumvent Apple's privacy policies. God knows what they will do to users installing Facebook or Instagram.