9 ms·

That's fine, just stay on the default settings then. I agree in principle, but I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular ap

That's fine, just stay on the default settings then. I agree in principle, but I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. (Something gross like Facebook starting an app store.) Or course, this is mostly a result of Apple being greedy. If they had acted like a good steward of the platform rather than trying to extract a lot of money from developers, we probably wouldn't be here.

roblabla 4y ago
Then don't use this particular app? This already exists today: A lot of apps are android-only, or jailbreak-only. In the same sense, tomorrow we'll likely have amazon-store-only apps. In practice I doubt many apps will use a third-party appstore. Apple has a lot of leeway in how they will implement the regulation - they can make it painful enough to use a third-party store that most popular apps will want to keep using the primary app store to get maximum reach. Just like how almost every android app is on the google play store - despite sideloading being a thing since forever.
- est31 4y ago
  The issue is what if you have to use a specific app to access some service or community. And then that app requesting access to your location data and your address book even though there is no point in it requesting either. Sure you can deny but if you do it, the app will refuse service. It can only be solved by the app store requiring that users denying access won't result in the app refusing to work, or only the features will refuse to work that actually need that data. "just don't install the app" won't work in many, many cases.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > The issue is what if you have to use a specific app to access some service or community. Such compulsions are the real problem. In a free society, nobody should be compelled to have a phone at all, let alone install software on one. Government services in particular should never be gated in this way. If no compulsion exists, then there is no problem with people having the choice to use any appstore they wish. If by 'have to' you mean something along the lines of "My brother keeps badgering me to install WhatsApp" then the answer is to simply say "No." Real example. He texts me instead.
    - warkdarrior 4y ago
      In US I have not seen any government services that are available only via mobile devices. Most online government services are accessible via a website, and one can go to a public library to use a (non-mobile) computer there.
    - est31 4y ago
      It's thankfully not mandated by governments. However, often there is social pressure to obtain a given app. E.g. when a friend group is all on snapchat and they organize outings via the group chat. Do you want to be left out of that discussion and only be informed by one person from that group who forwards the decision when and where to go to you?
      - hammyhavoc 4y ago
        Sounds like you need better friends.
  - laggyluke 4y ago
    Ideally OS should give you a way to feed such evil apps some fake / spoofed data. I believe a rooted Android used to allow something like that, not sure if that still works nowadays.
    - est31 4y ago
      The app might be able to detect the pattern generated by the fake data generator and refuse to work in that instance. E.g. apple's approximate location feature often puts you into the city center at a very specific location. It's trivial to detect devices that are always at that precise location and only move around in discrete steps between those points. This can lead to an arms race where the OS creates increasingly advanced/realistic fake data, and apps get increasingly sophisticated logic. So I'm not a fan of solving this the technical way. A policy is way better, but you need to be able to enforce it.
      - laggyluke 4y ago
        Why not both? Sure, it'll lead to arms race like you describe on one side, but let's say 99% of the apps won't even engage in that arms race if the fake data is generic enough to cause a high number of false positives (blocking someone who's not actually faking the data). Then, we can focus on the remaining 1% of worst offenders to actually enforce the policy.
  - yoavm 4y ago
    But this doesn't really happen on Android now. Even though I can sideload apps and use different app stores, my bank never told me to get their app from Shady Store and the public transport company didn't ask me to you F-Droid. The official app store is still _the_ place you find apps in, you're just _also_ free to wander on your on.
    - est31 4y ago
      The most famous example of an app choosing not to be on the play store is Fortnite. Google even had to add a feature to their play store search to show a message that Fortnite is not available, so that people don't get desperate and install one of the many scams. Fortnite did this because they didn't want to pay the Google tax, but other apps might do it because they want to spy on users more. The danger exists.
  - ThatPlayer 4y ago
    We can always use Apple's favorite defense on why they don't have an app store monopoly: use your browser. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok etc. all still work via the browser. I don't know a single one that doesn't (though I could be wrong)
    - thefounder 4y ago
      And the browser sucks on purpose for app development/distribution.
    - krzyk 4y ago
      > use your browser Yeah, but I can't I can use only Safari engine, and I would like to use Firefox one.
- derefr 4y ago
  Yeah, but for the apps that are on iOS devices, Apple is effectively currently standing in the position of "the lawyer who writes a 4000 page contract to de-risk the wish they're making with the evil wish-granting genie", so that we don't have to. Apple forces apps on their store to obey certain restrictions that make life better (less tracked, especially) for consumers; and those restrictions are begrudgingly accepted by the developers, because there's no other way for the dev to access the iOS user-base. As soon as those devs can avoid Apple's restrictions and deliver their apps directly to users with the "intended" experience, they will. Personally, I like neutered-evil-genie apps, and will be sad to lose them (i.e. have them turn into unfettered-evil-genie apps, which I won't use.)
  - easton 4y ago
    Isn't the answer for Apple to provide operating-system level restrictions to apps (regardless of source) that make it so the only way any application on the system can access the identifier is by permission from the user? I wouldn't be surprised if this is how it works right now anyway, just because an app is deployed by an enterprise developer doesn't mean it should be able to bypass the app tracking transparency prompt. Or does the EU law prevent them from having private APIs/system components period? It seems like many people are making the assumption that this means that every single sideloaded app will be able to bypass all of the privacy/security features on the device, and I don't see why that would be. My understanding is that this is for "fairness", which would mean that apps that are sideloaded would have the same level of access as those on the App Store, meaning they use the same APIs that trigger the same prompts.
    - derefr 4y ago
      No, because this isn't about OS-level identifiers; it's about things like e.g. applications working together to track you by passing permacookies through Shared Containers; or about apps that ask for microphone privileges then listening for ultrasound beacons in retail stores to determine their location. These are the sorts of prohibited behaviors that can be heuristically recognized by technical means (e.g. static analysis), but where any such recognition would necessarily result result in tons of false positives; and so those issues, when raised, must be passed to a team of human auditors for determination. This is, by-and-large, why App Store submissions — even for updates — still require that human-auditor step. They're always watching for those seemingly-minor "this app got sold to someone evil" updates that slip in spyware — the kind you see often with Chrome Extensions.
- elzbardico 4y ago
  Then YOU don't use this particular brand of smartphone?
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  I think they have to make side loading a painful developer only endeavor. Other wise you can end up like the streaming situation where people are just giving up with all the subscriptions and just pirating everything.
  - thefounder 4y ago
    Pirating should be a breath of fresh air on mobile. Maybe the streaming services will finally start providing more value.(i.e shared catalog)
- highwaylights 4y ago
  Ultimately I think the only person this benefits is Tim Sweeney, as he gets the Epic store on iOS/Android/Playstation/Xbox. Realistically this just drives people into a different walled garden. One that is device-vendor agnostic, but a walled garden nonetheless - in that your purchases are tied to Epic. This law could have been so much better, but now it just trades one problem for a bunch of new ones (some even worse than what it's trying to solve). One thing that might have been nice - making allowances in the law for centralised certification authorities with fixed tariffs, so that Apple still checks the builds as it does now for the App Store, but then the builds can be released elsewhere (as the signatures will match). For this they could charge a fee, which could be capped in the law at a percentage of the sale price (and obviously much lower than 30%). This way iOS/Android could still have guaranteed protection, for which Apple/Google's costs are covered, but the user would have freedom to get their software from wherever. The problem is that hardline free software advocates would still complain about this, insisting that the certification authority be scrapped. iOS and Android are now Windows, and it's going to be a mess.
  - selfhoster11 4y ago
    You underestimate the blessing that is an app store that's free of bullshit policies restricting what you can and cannot publish. With F-Droid on Android, I used to have access to apps like NewPipe that Google would never even consider carrying on their app store, but - because I had a third party store, that wasn't a problem. Now that I have an iPhone, I miss NewPipe greatly. But with this law, I might be able to get something like it in a few months without jailbreaking.
    - highwaylights 4y ago
      Not underestimating it at all, it has value. Unfortunately it undermines so much of the security model in other areas that both platforms will rapidly become malware swamps.
- alsetmusic 4y ago
  > Then don't use this particular app? And when your employer / school / insurance provider / other requires it, what then?
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    A dedicated phone for work/school that operate BYOD schemes? VM?
mattnewton 4y ago
> you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. (Something gross like Facebook starting an app store.) As apposed to today where you can’t get it at all if apple and the app disagree about anything? I know you are thinking of another large enough player you don’t trust as much forcing their store as the only avenue for an app, but it’s hard to imagine how that wouldn’t provide large incentives for a smaller party to make a competitor on the official store.
- microtonal 4y ago
  As apposed to today where you can’t get it at all if apple and the app disagree about anything? Since there is only one app store for iPhones, almost every app vendor is willing to conform to Apple's guidelines (which are often pro-privacy and protect the user). Otherwise they lose out on a significant market share with a lot of spending power. smaller party to make a competitor on the official store Sure, they will pop up. But Facebook, Microsoft, and Google will start iOS app stores and app developers will go to their app stores because of network effects.
  - tristan957 4y ago
    > Since there is only one app store for iPhones, almost every app vendor is willing to conform to Apple's guidelines (which are often pro-privacy and protect the user). Otherwise they lose out on a significant market share with a lot of spending power. You've just described why these changes are good. I feel like the word "willing" in your statement is carrying a lot of weight. Apple forces developers to publish from Apple devices, spend $100 a year for a developer account, give up 15-30% of any revenue generated from that app, use WebKit, etc. That is not at all what I describe as restrictions that lead to "willing" app vendors.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    > But Facebook, Microsoft, and Google will start iOS app stores and app developers will go to their app stores because of network effects. They might try, but it would be a lot harder than you imagine.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Any of this is already possible on MacOS, Windows, and Android. It's not actually so wild as you're making it out to be. Just ignore the software merchants you don't want to affiliate with. I don't like Valve, so I don't install their 'appstore' Steam. That means I can't buy games that are only sold on Steam. Big whoop, it's a consequence I accept of a decision I am free to make or reconsider. Life goes on.
- fyzix 4y ago
  There's no precedent for this because you don't see this happen in Android en mass
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Yeah, even the ones run by major tech players- the Amazon and Samsung Android app stores, are really just there to serve their own devices. They don't contain any exclusive apps that are forcing Android users off of the Play Store for.
- summerlight 4y ago
  This doesn't happen on Android, so don't worry too much about it. I can bet my 2 cents on that 99% of users will only use app stores even after this regulation and Apple has a power to make it happen. Of course Apple will need to spend some of its energy on suppressing real competition but that's not what customers need to worry about...
MrStonedOne 4y ago
onion2k 4y ago
if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust This will be a problem but the solution is not to transfer your freedom to choose to Apple and just let them decide which third party apps you are allowed to use. In some cases that will mean making a hard choice between accepting the risk of using the third party app store, or accepting that you won't be able to use certain apps. The benefits are significant though - your device will actually be under your control. You will be able to do all the things Apple prevent now.
- s3r3nity 4y ago
  > In some cases that will mean making a hard choice between accepting the risk of using the third party app store, or accepting that you won't be able to use certain apps. You already have that choice today: I can buy into the walled-garden, or go to Android and side-load to my heart's content. Clearly the market has chosen the preferred route. (I personally am also in the camp of preferring the simple, locked-down approach for my family that Apple has created.)
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > Clearly the market has chosen the preferred route Indeed - iOS trails Android in Europe. With this law in effect, perhaps more Europeans will choose to buy iPhones
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > You already have that choice today: I can buy into the walled-garden, or go to Android and side-load to my heart's content. So if Google decided to force this policy onto Android phones, you would support the EU introducing this legislation to bring back the option of side-loading? Or would you want the legislation to only apply to Android phones, and not Apple devices?
    - thefounder 4y ago
      Give the Europeans the choice to own their device and install whatever they want!
MichaelCollins 4y ago
I have never needed to install an app from Facebook, and never have. Amazon has an appstore; I have never been forced to install it or anything from it. Should the day come when people are actually forced to use any facebook app or appstore, that compulsion is the problem that needs to be corrected. The problem isn't having the option to install a facebook app; the compulsion is the problem.
yieldcrv 4y ago
Apple could make a greater incentive to use their approval Competition
koyote 4y ago
> but I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust I often hear this argument but Android has had third-party app-stores and 'side-loadable apps' since day one and I can't think of a single major app that needs its own app-store.
- com2kid 4y ago
  More than one semi-legit app asks you to install the APK on its own. There are also app stores on Android that basically push lots of scamware targeted at kids. We aren't the target audience so we aren't going to see much of these going ons.
- vanillaicesquad 4y ago
  Pornhub
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Fortnite has the Epic Games app. It's only the biggest video game in the world.
  - musicale 4y ago
    > the biggest video game in the world My bet is on Microsoft Solitaire. :-) Though Minecraft is supposedly still at 170 million monthly active players vs. 80M or less for Fortnite. Not necessarily up to date but interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-played_video_games_by_player_count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-played_video_game...
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      Wasn't meant literally, but sure. It's a big enough deal that it having its own store app is potentially something to take note of.
nine_k 4y ago
- Third-parry app stores exist, the app in question is available on one of them. You have a choice: install it, or ignore it and stay fully under Apple's aegis, as before. - The app in question does not exist because the only existing app store run by Apple rejects it. Tough luck, no choice, but you still can stay safe. Don't you agree that the latter situation is a strict subset of the former? Also, if I were Apple, I would implement a one-click return to "safe defaults", and a prominent badge to tell Apple's software and setting from third-party.
xdennis 4y ago
> I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. This works both ways. Some people want to use iOS exclusive apps but can't justify buying an iPhone because of how restrictive it is. This act alleviates that.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
simion314 4y ago
>I agree in principle, but I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. (Something gross like Facebook starting an app store.) You have Android as a real world experiment, go ask an Android users to search the Facebook Messenger app on Google Play store and you will see it is there, FB did not forced Android users to install the app by side loading it and FB did not created their own app store for their apps. What could happen though is you would get fair prices, say an app/Game would be 30% cheaper if you buy it directly from the developer and not from an intermediary, though I did not see this happening on PC (getting a better deal if I buy directly, I am wondering what causes this)
- d12bb 4y ago
  We did not see this as being in an app store actually has value: these 30% cover server/traffic for downloading, billing, discoverability, ease of use in getting the app, little marketing (getting featured). For lots of developers, this seems to be worth whatever the market in question asks for.
luplex 4y ago
I'd much rather have lawmakers set standards on which apps are legal than appstores.
bayindirh 4y ago
You can't believe how jolting people and/or companies make them change for the better. Maybe this is the kick we needed for the companies to start innovating and "Think Different"? I use MacBooks and iPhone, and I love their current form, but they are victim of their own success at one point, like how Intel just dragged its feet to just keep the performance gap enough to keep the lead. Maybe this can help us to see a better, more exciting Apple and tech ecosystem, no? The last battery lawsuit brought us "Battery health" menu, and this is immensely useful, even if it only reads a couple flags and shows us what the iOS is doing.
norman784 4y ago
Don't quote me on this, but there was some discussions early this year about dominant platforms (I didn't read what does cover this Act, but) need to provide API to allow users to use third party alternatives, like Facebook, WhatsApp, iMessage, etc, so you could now have an app like Adium again where you have all your chats. So in theory this will be not an issue.
highwaylights 4y ago
This will immediately happen, and is the intent of the law. Direct downloads from websites isn't far off - I wouldn't be surprised if we very rapidly get to a place of each-app-is-it's-own-store for the purposes of complying with the law so you can freely download apps from websites. It'll be Windows all over again, with all that implies.
krzyk 4y ago
> if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust This sounds like iPhone user argument. In Android world you can have multiple app stores, but if you want your app to be used you must be on Google one, because it has the most eyes. Facebook didn't create their own app store. Custom App stores are fringe apps, with exceptions of f-droid which is source of open source apps and many prefer it to google play (and apps are frequently on both stores) and maybe samsung/amazon ones because they are preinstalled on some devices.
s3p 4y ago
>Or course, this is mostly a result of Apple being greedy. If they had acted like a good steward of the platform rather than trying to extract a lot of money from developers, we probably wouldn't be here I don't think so. Another comment was mentioning how some desktop apps are built to install ONLY from a certain marketplace (eg Steam) so you can't install them from anywhere else. It could easily happen on iOS.
rnk 4y ago
I think you missed the point of the new restrictions. Stopping those practices that are harmful to users is a good thing. Ending endless spying, aka corporate surveillance, that can be a good thing. When Apple made their changes, Apple conceptually blocked any new facebook app that spys on you, because you can't install it. If there's a future facebook store that has the only facebook app (because facebook won't agree to that more limited apple ad/surveillance world capability), you'd have freedom to install that app because of european rules described here - but you wouldn't necessarily be better off by having more spying.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  European (and other) regulators are concerned about tech data collection. It’s an issue that’s not necessarily orthogonal to this development. If Meta wanted to try their luck at putting their apps on an exclusive Facebook app store, such a platform would be subject to regulator scrutiny as well, and would be an even more convenient target for investigation.

roblabla 4y ago

Then don't use this particular app? This already exists today: A lot of apps are android-only, or jailbreak-only. In the same sense, tomorrow we'll likely have amazon-store-only apps. In practice I doubt many apps will use a third-party appstore. Apple has a lot of leeway in how they will implement the regulation - they can make it painful enough to use a third-party store that most popular apps will want to keep using the primary app store to get maximum reach. Just like how almost every android app is on the google play store - despite sideloading being a thing since forever.

est31 4y ago
The issue is what if you have to use a specific app to access some service or community. And then that app requesting access to your location data and your address book even though there is no point in it requesting either. Sure you can deny but if you do it, the app will refuse service. It can only be solved by the app store requiring that users denying access won't result in the app refusing to work, or only the features will refuse to work that actually need that data. "just don't install the app" won't work in many, many cases.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > The issue is what if you have to use a specific app to access some service or community. Such compulsions are the real problem. In a free society, nobody should be compelled to have a phone at all, let alone install software on one. Government services in particular should never be gated in this way. If no compulsion exists, then there is no problem with people having the choice to use any appstore they wish. If by 'have to' you mean something along the lines of "My brother keeps badgering me to install WhatsApp" then the answer is to simply say "No." Real example. He texts me instead.
  - warkdarrior 4y ago
    In US I have not seen any government services that are available only via mobile devices. Most online government services are accessible via a website, and one can go to a public library to use a (non-mobile) computer there.
  - est31 4y ago
    It's thankfully not mandated by governments. However, often there is social pressure to obtain a given app. E.g. when a friend group is all on snapchat and they organize outings via the group chat. Do you want to be left out of that discussion and only be informed by one person from that group who forwards the decision when and where to go to you?
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      Sounds like you need better friends.
- laggyluke 4y ago
  Ideally OS should give you a way to feed such evil apps some fake / spoofed data. I believe a rooted Android used to allow something like that, not sure if that still works nowadays.
  - est31 4y ago
    The app might be able to detect the pattern generated by the fake data generator and refuse to work in that instance. E.g. apple's approximate location feature often puts you into the city center at a very specific location. It's trivial to detect devices that are always at that precise location and only move around in discrete steps between those points. This can lead to an arms race where the OS creates increasingly advanced/realistic fake data, and apps get increasingly sophisticated logic. So I'm not a fan of solving this the technical way. A policy is way better, but you need to be able to enforce it.
    - laggyluke 4y ago
      Why not both? Sure, it'll lead to arms race like you describe on one side, but let's say 99% of the apps won't even engage in that arms race if the fake data is generic enough to cause a high number of false positives (blocking someone who's not actually faking the data). Then, we can focus on the remaining 1% of worst offenders to actually enforce the policy.
- yoavm 4y ago
  But this doesn't really happen on Android now. Even though I can sideload apps and use different app stores, my bank never told me to get their app from Shady Store and the public transport company didn't ask me to you F-Droid. The official app store is still _the_ place you find apps in, you're just _also_ free to wander on your on.
  - est31 4y ago
    The most famous example of an app choosing not to be on the play store is Fortnite. Google even had to add a feature to their play store search to show a message that Fortnite is not available, so that people don't get desperate and install one of the many scams. Fortnite did this because they didn't want to pay the Google tax, but other apps might do it because they want to spy on users more. The danger exists.
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  We can always use Apple's favorite defense on why they don't have an app store monopoly: use your browser. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok etc. all still work via the browser. I don't know a single one that doesn't (though I could be wrong)
  - thefounder 4y ago
    And the browser sucks on purpose for app development/distribution.
  - krzyk 4y ago
    > use your browser Yeah, but I can't I can use only Safari engine, and I would like to use Firefox one.
derefr 4y ago
Yeah, but for the apps that are on iOS devices, Apple is effectively currently standing in the position of "the lawyer who writes a 4000 page contract to de-risk the wish they're making with the evil wish-granting genie", so that we don't have to. Apple forces apps on their store to obey certain restrictions that make life better (less tracked, especially) for consumers; and those restrictions are begrudgingly accepted by the developers, because there's no other way for the dev to access the iOS user-base. As soon as those devs can avoid Apple's restrictions and deliver their apps directly to users with the "intended" experience, they will. Personally, I like neutered-evil-genie apps, and will be sad to lose them (i.e. have them turn into unfettered-evil-genie apps, which I won't use.)
- easton 4y ago
  Isn't the answer for Apple to provide operating-system level restrictions to apps (regardless of source) that make it so the only way any application on the system can access the identifier is by permission from the user? I wouldn't be surprised if this is how it works right now anyway, just because an app is deployed by an enterprise developer doesn't mean it should be able to bypass the app tracking transparency prompt. Or does the EU law prevent them from having private APIs/system components period? It seems like many people are making the assumption that this means that every single sideloaded app will be able to bypass all of the privacy/security features on the device, and I don't see why that would be. My understanding is that this is for "fairness", which would mean that apps that are sideloaded would have the same level of access as those on the App Store, meaning they use the same APIs that trigger the same prompts.
  - derefr 4y ago
    No, because this isn't about OS-level identifiers; it's about things like e.g. applications working together to track you by passing permacookies through Shared Containers; or about apps that ask for microphone privileges then listening for ultrasound beacons in retail stores to determine their location. These are the sorts of prohibited behaviors that can be heuristically recognized by technical means (e.g. static analysis), but where any such recognition would necessarily result result in tons of false positives; and so those issues, when raised, must be passed to a team of human auditors for determination. This is, by-and-large, why App Store submissions — even for updates — still require that human-auditor step. They're always watching for those seemingly-minor "this app got sold to someone evil" updates that slip in spyware — the kind you see often with Chrome Extensions.
elzbardico 4y ago
Then YOU don't use this particular brand of smartphone?
2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
I think they have to make side loading a painful developer only endeavor. Other wise you can end up like the streaming situation where people are just giving up with all the subscriptions and just pirating everything.
- thefounder 4y ago
  Pirating should be a breath of fresh air on mobile. Maybe the streaming services will finally start providing more value.(i.e shared catalog)
highwaylights 4y ago
Ultimately I think the only person this benefits is Tim Sweeney, as he gets the Epic store on iOS/Android/Playstation/Xbox. Realistically this just drives people into a different walled garden. One that is device-vendor agnostic, but a walled garden nonetheless - in that your purchases are tied to Epic. This law could have been so much better, but now it just trades one problem for a bunch of new ones (some even worse than what it's trying to solve). One thing that might have been nice - making allowances in the law for centralised certification authorities with fixed tariffs, so that Apple still checks the builds as it does now for the App Store, but then the builds can be released elsewhere (as the signatures will match). For this they could charge a fee, which could be capped in the law at a percentage of the sale price (and obviously much lower than 30%). This way iOS/Android could still have guaranteed protection, for which Apple/Google's costs are covered, but the user would have freedom to get their software from wherever. The problem is that hardline free software advocates would still complain about this, insisting that the certification authority be scrapped. iOS and Android are now Windows, and it's going to be a mess.
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  You underestimate the blessing that is an app store that's free of bullshit policies restricting what you can and cannot publish. With F-Droid on Android, I used to have access to apps like NewPipe that Google would never even consider carrying on their app store, but - because I had a third party store, that wasn't a problem. Now that I have an iPhone, I miss NewPipe greatly. But with this law, I might be able to get something like it in a few months without jailbreaking.
  - highwaylights 4y ago
    Not underestimating it at all, it has value. Unfortunately it undermines so much of the security model in other areas that both platforms will rapidly become malware swamps.
alsetmusic 4y ago
> Then don't use this particular app? And when your employer / school / insurance provider / other requires it, what then?
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  A dedicated phone for work/school that operate BYOD schemes? VM?

mattnewton 4y ago

> you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. (Something gross like Facebook starting an app store.) As apposed to today where you can’t get it at all if apple and the app disagree about anything? I know you are thinking of another large enough player you don’t trust as much forcing their store as the only avenue for an app, but it’s hard to imagine how that wouldn’t provide large incentives for a smaller party to make a competitor on the official store.

microtonal 4y ago
As apposed to today where you can’t get it at all if apple and the app disagree about anything? Since there is only one app store for iPhones, almost every app vendor is willing to conform to Apple's guidelines (which are often pro-privacy and protect the user). Otherwise they lose out on a significant market share with a lot of spending power. smaller party to make a competitor on the official store Sure, they will pop up. But Facebook, Microsoft, and Google will start iOS app stores and app developers will go to their app stores because of network effects.
- tristan957 4y ago
  > Since there is only one app store for iPhones, almost every app vendor is willing to conform to Apple's guidelines (which are often pro-privacy and protect the user). Otherwise they lose out on a significant market share with a lot of spending power. You've just described why these changes are good. I feel like the word "willing" in your statement is carrying a lot of weight. Apple forces developers to publish from Apple devices, spend $100 a year for a developer account, give up 15-30% of any revenue generated from that app, use WebKit, etc. That is not at all what I describe as restrictions that lead to "willing" app vendors.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  > But Facebook, Microsoft, and Google will start iOS app stores and app developers will go to their app stores because of network effects. They might try, but it would be a lot harder than you imagine.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Any of this is already possible on MacOS, Windows, and Android. It's not actually so wild as you're making it out to be. Just ignore the software merchants you don't want to affiliate with. I don't like Valve, so I don't install their 'appstore' Steam. That means I can't buy games that are only sold on Steam. Big whoop, it's a consequence I accept of a decision I am free to make or reconsider. Life goes on.
fyzix 4y ago
There's no precedent for this because you don't see this happen in Android en mass
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Yeah, even the ones run by major tech players- the Amazon and Samsung Android app stores, are really just there to serve their own devices. They don't contain any exclusive apps that are forcing Android users off of the Play Store for.
summerlight 4y ago
This doesn't happen on Android, so don't worry too much about it. I can bet my 2 cents on that 99% of users will only use app stores even after this regulation and Apple has a power to make it happen. Of course Apple will need to spend some of its energy on suppressing real competition but that's not what customers need to worry about...

MrStonedOne 4y ago

onion2k 4y ago

if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust This will be a problem but the solution is not to transfer your freedom to choose to Apple and just let them decide which third party apps you are allowed to use. In some cases that will mean making a hard choice between accepting the risk of using the third party app store, or accepting that you won't be able to use certain apps. The benefits are significant though - your device will actually be under your control. You will be able to do all the things Apple prevent now.

s3r3nity 4y ago
> In some cases that will mean making a hard choice between accepting the risk of using the third party app store, or accepting that you won't be able to use certain apps. You already have that choice today: I can buy into the walled-garden, or go to Android and side-load to my heart's content. Clearly the market has chosen the preferred route. (I personally am also in the camp of preferring the simple, locked-down approach for my family that Apple has created.)
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > Clearly the market has chosen the preferred route Indeed - iOS trails Android in Europe. With this law in effect, perhaps more Europeans will choose to buy iPhones
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > You already have that choice today: I can buy into the walled-garden, or go to Android and side-load to my heart's content. So if Google decided to force this policy onto Android phones, you would support the EU introducing this legislation to bring back the option of side-loading? Or would you want the legislation to only apply to Android phones, and not Apple devices?
  - thefounder 4y ago
    Give the Europeans the choice to own their device and install whatever they want!

MichaelCollins 4y ago

I have never needed to install an app from Facebook, and never have. Amazon has an appstore; I have never been forced to install it or anything from it. Should the day come when people are actually forced to use any facebook app or appstore, that compulsion is the problem that needs to be corrected. The problem isn't having the option to install a facebook app; the compulsion is the problem.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Apple could make a greater incentive to use their approval Competition

koyote 4y ago

> but I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust I often hear this argument but Android has had third-party app-stores and 'side-loadable apps' since day one and I can't think of a single major app that needs its own app-store.

com2kid 4y ago
More than one semi-legit app asks you to install the APK on its own. There are also app stores on Android that basically push lots of scamware targeted at kids. We aren't the target audience so we aren't going to see much of these going ons.
vanillaicesquad 4y ago
Pornhub
hammyhavoc 4y ago
Fortnite has the Epic Games app. It's only the biggest video game in the world.
- musicale 4y ago
  > the biggest video game in the world My bet is on Microsoft Solitaire. :-) Though Minecraft is supposedly still at 170 million monthly active players vs. 80M or less for Fortnite. Not necessarily up to date but interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-played_video_games_by_player_count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-played_video_game...
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Wasn't meant literally, but sure. It's a big enough deal that it having its own store app is potentially something to take note of.

nine_k 4y ago

- Third-parry app stores exist, the app in question is available on one of them. You have a choice: install it, or ignore it and stay fully under Apple's aegis, as before. - The app in question does not exist because the only existing app store run by Apple rejects it. Tough luck, no choice, but you still can stay safe. Don't you agree that the latter situation is a strict subset of the former? Also, if I were Apple, I would implement a one-click return to "safe defaults", and a prominent badge to tell Apple's software and setting from third-party.

xdennis 4y ago

> I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. This works both ways. Some people want to use iOS exclusive apps but can't justify buying an iPhone because of how restrictive it is. This act alleviates that.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

simion314 4y ago

>I agree in principle, but I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. (Something gross like Facebook starting an app store.) You have Android as a real world experiment, go ask an Android users to search the Facebook Messenger app on Google Play store and you will see it is there, FB did not forced Android users to install the app by side loading it and FB did not created their own app store for their apps. What could happen though is you would get fair prices, say an app/Game would be 30% cheaper if you buy it directly from the developer and not from an intermediary, though I did not see this happening on PC (getting a better deal if I buy directly, I am wondering what causes this)

d12bb 4y ago
We did not see this as being in an app store actually has value: these 30% cover server/traffic for downloading, billing, discoverability, ease of use in getting the app, little marketing (getting featured). For lots of developers, this seems to be worth whatever the market in question asks for.

luplex 4y ago

I'd much rather have lawmakers set standards on which apps are legal than appstores.

bayindirh 4y ago

You can't believe how jolting people and/or companies make them change for the better. Maybe this is the kick we needed for the companies to start innovating and "Think Different"? I use MacBooks and iPhone, and I love their current form, but they are victim of their own success at one point, like how Intel just dragged its feet to just keep the performance gap enough to keep the lead. Maybe this can help us to see a better, more exciting Apple and tech ecosystem, no? The last battery lawsuit brought us "Battery health" menu, and this is immensely useful, even if it only reads a couple flags and shows us what the iOS is doing.

norman784 4y ago

Don't quote me on this, but there was some discussions early this year about dominant platforms (I didn't read what does cover this Act, but) need to provide API to allow users to use third party alternatives, like Facebook, WhatsApp, iMessage, etc, so you could now have an app like Adium again where you have all your chats. So in theory this will be not an issue.

highwaylights 4y ago

This will immediately happen, and is the intent of the law. Direct downloads from websites isn't far off - I wouldn't be surprised if we very rapidly get to a place of each-app-is-it's-own-store for the purposes of complying with the law so you can freely download apps from websites. It'll be Windows all over again, with all that implies.

krzyk 4y ago

> if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust This sounds like iPhone user argument. In Android world you can have multiple app stores, but if you want your app to be used you must be on Google one, because it has the most eyes. Facebook didn't create their own app store. Custom App stores are fringe apps, with exceptions of f-droid which is source of open source apps and many prefer it to google play (and apps are frequently on both stores) and maybe samsung/amazon ones because they are preinstalled on some devices.

s3p 4y ago

>Or course, this is mostly a result of Apple being greedy. If they had acted like a good steward of the platform rather than trying to extract a lot of money from developers, we probably wouldn't be here I don't think so. Another comment was mentioning how some desktop apps are built to install ONLY from a certain marketplace (eg Steam) so you can't install them from anywhere else. It could easily happen on iOS.

rnk 4y ago

I think you missed the point of the new restrictions. Stopping those practices that are harmful to users is a good thing. Ending endless spying, aka corporate surveillance, that can be a good thing. When Apple made their changes, Apple conceptually blocked any new facebook app that spys on you, because you can't install it. If there's a future facebook store that has the only facebook app (because facebook won't agree to that more limited apple ad/surveillance world capability), you'd have freedom to install that app because of european rules described here - but you wouldn't necessarily be better off by having more spying.

Apocryphon 4y ago
European (and other) regulators are concerned about tech data collection. It’s an issue that’s not necessarily orthogonal to this development. If Meta wanted to try their luck at putting their apps on an exclusive Facebook app store, such a platform would be subject to regulator scrutiny as well, and would be an even more convenient target for investigation.