19 ms·

Apple to allow outside app stores in overhaul spurred by EU laws

696 points by MBCook 4y ago

gigatexal 4y ago
Hmm had no idea the EU market still had enough weight to throw around to be relevant.
- ben_w 4y ago
  If it hadn’t been for Brexit, the EU market would be an “which exchange rate do you prefer?” away from being the equal of the USA. And the UK’s economy is something like California in this analogy, and they basically follow the same rules anyway despite all the noise about wanting to be different.
  - gigatexal 4y ago
    Yeah. I wonder if we will see another vote for them to rejoin in the future. They are surely hypocrites though as Scotland was denied independence by the UK high court.
paulkre 4y ago
I hope this means Apple will improve PWA support soon.
andy_ppp 4y ago
If this happens how will the 15-30% Apple tax work? It seems excessive to me but what is the likely outcome here, a reduction in costs maybe or some crippling of Apps in external stores?
intunderflow 4y ago
No paywall: https://archive.vn/LfPUw https://archive.vn/LfPUw
CrypticShift 4y ago
You can say whatever you like about the EU (corruption anyone?), but at the very least, they are countering Big Tech. Just that idea of effective balance of force is a positive signal to me.
- flykespice 4y ago
  While I want monopoly companies to screw themselves. I don't like EU attitude to want to rule over foreign companies arbitrarily, it's a call to the colonial times when Europe wanted to make the world follow their rule and serve them.
  - albertopv 4y ago
    Ironic, considering US companies must provide their data to US gov even for non US persons or clients, and that's why Google and MS services are deemed illegal in many EU countries. BTW, no foreign company is forced to operate in Europe.
  - m3drano 4y ago
    These companies may not serve the European market. It's not mandatory.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      More importantly, it doesn't say: "You CANNOT serve the European market if you don't do x, y, and z globally." It just says what you have to do for European users.
  - jjevanoorschot 4y ago
    > I don't like EU attitude to want to rule over foreign companies arbitrarily The EU wants to regulate its own internal market. Companies can choose to be active in that market.
  - drooopy 4y ago
    The EU government is simply laying the ground rules as to how businesses should operate inside the EU single market. They're not forcing Apple to change its business practices anywhere else in the world, as far as I understand. And Apple is free to leave the European market, if they do not like those conditions. Personally, as a consumer, I welcome this. And I hope that they don't just end at Apple. Google and Microsoft oughta be next.
TillE 4y ago
> To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Such apps also may need to be verified by Apple I'm sure they'll at least require notarization with their $99/year developer program, in line with macOS, where it's an increasingly enormous pain to run unsigned apps.
- zizee 4y ago
  And the review process will cost €1 per line of code.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    One line of code that points to an external source :)
  - joenathanone 4y ago
    Just don't use line breaks.
    - iLoveOncall 4y ago
      Breaking news: Apple switches to Python as language to build applications for iOS.
      - saagarjha 4y ago
        eval exists :)
  - zizee 4y ago
    I know it is contrary to HN guidelines to discuss comment votes, but this is weirdly my most downvoted comment of all time. In almost 13 years of commentating I have never had a comment receive -4 points before.
    - mike_hearn 4y ago
Despegar 4y ago
>To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Such apps also may need to be verified by Apple — a process that could carry a fee. Developers are about to get a surprise about what they're actually paying for. This is the problem with believing their own talking points about "paying 30% for payment processing." So now they'll be paying for actual third-party payment processing, as well as lawyers and accountants to ensure they're complying with Apple's royalty agreements to license their technology.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  If it's bad enough, they'll switch back to using Apple's store, and it'll be a wash; but, we won't know until competition exists
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  It's very likely, they've tried playing the same games with other jurisdictions, "sure, you can use your own payment processor, and still pay us 27%", but it's very unlikely those tricks will hold up to further legal actions. Fighting monopolies is hard, but the penalties scale up the more games these companies play. They know it too, but all of the **holes running these companies are worried about is cashing out their bonuses and retiring before the regulations finally get things to where they should be.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Surely the people running Apple could have retired a long time ago.
  - Despegar 4y ago
    These laws don't expropriate Apple's intellectual property. Apple will always be able to license it for something.
    - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
      They can charge whatever they want for the phone. They can't levy monopoly fees on every successive purchase.
nerdjon 4y ago
Honestly this is going to have 1 or 3 outcomes: 1. Nothing is going to change and I will continue to use my phone as it was before because the App Store is still the primary driver. 2. I will be forced to use third party stores because critical apps are no longer distributed through the App Store. 3. I will just be using my phone less and less. The EU, Developers, and Many here continue to forget that the reason many of us use an iPhone is because of the walled garden. If I wanted an open platform I would switch to Android and mod the hell out of it. I don't want that. I want the precautions that Apple has in place to make it so developers can't employ dark patterns to keep me as a paying subscriber. To mine the data on my phone for their profit. With one or 2 clicks of a button I can cancel any subscription I want that I did through the App Store. I also get alerts when anything yearly is about to charge (from Apple) or when things are about to cost more than they used to. Instead of hoping that we just wouldn't see the alert like too many sites do. People keep saying that this is about choice, which frankly... is bull. This is about choice for the developer not the consumer. Most consumers don't care, but developers will jump ship to another App Store if they can start doing all of the negative practices that they are not allowed to do on the App Store. Especially if they are big enough, Seriously think that Facebook won't try to have their own App Store? Considering what they have gotten up to very recently. We already have enough developers purposefully trying to deceive users right before they get the prompt about allowing the app to track. Anyone... please tell me how this actually benefits ME as a consumer and not developers? Edit: Instead of replying to each one I am going to just post here. Many of you are saying Android does not have this issue. But unless I am mistaken Epic Games did exactly this? Also unless I am mistaken, many of the consumer protecting restrictions are not on android. Especially around subscriptions and billing issues. I know google is cracking down on it, but from what I understand it is not as universally in place. So developers don't have the incentives to move to another App Store on Android like they do on iOS (again benefiting developers while hurting me as a consumer) Edit: I am going to make one last point here. I spend a fair amount of money on App Store subscriptions. (or buying apps but that is sadly not as popular anymore). I do this because I don't worry about singing up to try something, knowing that I can very easily cancel it. I don't even have to talk to the company. This leads me to signing up for apps that I would never have considered paying for if it was through a traditional website that would make me jump through who the hell knows what hoops to cancel. They complain about the 30% cut, but from me. It is you get 70% or I give my money to someone else. I cannot imagine I am the only one that does this.
drewg123 4y ago
The funny thing is, it may help their sales. I'll buy 3 Apple TVs and 1 iPad just as soon as I can load apps of my choice.
- jws 4y ago
  So the first 1.8 million apps plus the ability to use the free development environment to compile and load any program you want (necessarily open source) on your devices wasn't enough? I suppose there are people just itching to install closed source mystery code from unaccountable entities. Unfortunately most of them are the friends and family for whom I am first line technical support. I'm not looking forward to the change. I'm willing to wait for the details, but at this moment, I am not a fan of unaccountable stores.
  - everfree 4y ago
    > the ability to use the free development environment to compile and load any program you want You can load any app you want, but it disappears after 3 days. Then you have to load it again. To keep the app on your phone, you need to load it onto your phone again every 3 days using your computer. It's obviously set up for developer testing, not for someone trying to actually get use out of an app on their phone.
    - jws 4y ago
      Not true [see edit below, retraction]. The apps I write and load onto my own devices outside the store stay on my devices until I get a new device. I think there might be a profile that has an expiration of one to three years, but in practice that never goes off for me. I either add a feature or get a new device before that goes off. Edit: Ok, "true depending". If you are a registered developer then your apps last a year. If you are unregistered then you get one week, which would be a total pain in the ass.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        Are you trying to say that a free development environment that you can install in order to compile and load any program you want for three days isn't enough?
teruakohatu 4y ago
So still no sideloading, Apple still has to sign apps (a barrier for free open source apps) and could even charge royalties.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  Pretty sure the EU will smack that one down...
  - judge2020 4y ago
    License fees to deploy to iOS?
- cm2187 4y ago
  That I find is the most annoying. Apple pretending "to protect me against myself", unless I give them hundred of dollars every year.
  - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
    > Apple pretending "to protect me against myself", I find this to be a feature. Please protect me against "myself" (sometimes I'm tired, sometimes drunk - and dark patterns around the web can get to me too).
    - Siira 4y ago
      That’s a you problem. I have never needed such protection. Perhaps don’t do drugs so that you don’t need to demand chaining everyone.
      - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
        > I have never needed such protection lol > That’s a you problem. Isn’t it actually a you problem? I have a painpoint. The company I want to do business with is a company willing to solve my painpoint for me for some money. Im willing to pay them and the ecosystem to solve it for me. You have a painpoint. The company you want to do business with doesn’t want to solve it for you, for any amount of money. You want to force the company to solve your painpoint at my expense. Seems very much like you have problems, and you’re making your problem into a me problem?
mrtksn 4y ago
I'm fan of the Apple's AppStore model, I like it and think it works great and Apple's commission is a nonissue for the most use cases(it's issue only in low margin trades), however I'm afraid that Apple's control over the device risks governments making Apple their police. Apple limiting AirDrop in China is a very bad sign of what might happen if the rest of the world follows China's totalitarian path. Even in the US, which was supposed to be the land of the free, there are talks about banning apps. That's the primary reason I want side-loading.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  I for one believe in the principle that I paid to own the device and that entails loading whatever I damn well please on to it from whichever front, side, or backside I see fit!
  - cmdli 4y ago
    Are you allowed to buy into a walled garden where developers can’t force you to sideload apps to use their apps? That’s what I want to do, but it seems the EU is making that illegal. It seems that users who value freedom can buy Android, and users who value security can buy Apple, but the second option is going away.
    - CleverLikeAnOx 4y ago
      Can't you choose to only use apps on Apple's app store?
      - jkcorrea 4y ago
        I believe the implication is there will now be less incentive for app developers to ship for App Store when they can get 80% of the way there with 0% of the “hoops” to jump through (I.e. Apple guidelines)
    - IIAOPSW 4y ago
      No one is forcing you to use any app, let alone developers. Without this becoming a rant, what fraction of that "security" is protecting you from nothing more than apps that didn't pay the Apple tax. You must admit, the narrative that only approved apps are "good"/"safe" is insanely self serving and conveniently hard to falsify.
wyldfire 4y ago
I'm excited for the opportunity to use Open Source software on an iPhone. I might reconsider some of my objections to using iPhones. EDIT: I see now that while it's more possible than it was before, it may still be a bit unlikely for this to grow if Apple still must sign the apps.
danaris 4y ago
Now, I'm not going to say this is impossible; it sounds like it's just the kind of needle-threading that Apple would prefer in this sort of situation. But...what's the source here? So far as I could see, the article didn't even credit anonymous sources. It just states all these things as bare facts. And I haven't seen any other reporting on this (yet) that doesn't simply link back to this Bloomberg article. And just as a reminder, this is from Bloomberg—the outlet that publishes the "Big Hack" story that proved to be completely false [0], without issuing any form of retraction, correction, or apology. Again, it's entirely possible that this will prove to be true. But I have absolutely no confidence in Bloomberg on stories of this kind, and don't intend to get worked up over the possibility of Apple allowing outside app stores until and unless it gets some kind of independent reporting. [0] https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
- solarkraft 4y ago
  Thanks for the reminder about the article that turned Bloomberg into a joke. But do note that the author is Mark Gurman, a fairly prolific Apple analyst. I suppose he implies that he has anonymous sources.
rootusrootus 4y ago
I'm generally okay with the AppStore but I do think it goes too far in some cases. E.g. Amazon kindle books.
stale2002 4y ago
Oh hey, will to look at that. The law is actually suceeding in forcing Apple to change its behavior and allows alternative apps. I remember arguing with so many people here on HN about this. People were actually trying to pretend like Apple was going to get around the law, or have it overturned, or pull out from the EU, or some other nonsense. But, if you weren't completely biased, you'd know that of course Apple was going to lose this fight. They will be forced to follow the law like everyone else.
Raphou 4y ago
We can take a look at the Samsung Store or Roblox, and take lessons from it. Samsung's store is incredibly bad in UX, and noise. I hate the monopoly and monopoly fees that come with the Apple store. The take away is the amount of money and work Apple has put to provide a clean and homogeneous interface throughout their store. An alternative market would need that, else consumers' interests won't be served.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  Samsung Store is actually an example for the regulation. Samsung Store is more like Apple Store on Samsung phones. Every Samsung user is happy that they can use Google's store as an alternative.
solarkraft 4y ago
> Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Such apps also may need to be verified by Apple — a process that could carry a fee. So ... can they do that? It's pretty safe that if it's allowed, they'll do it.
- etchalon 4y ago
  Based on the regulations, yes. The regulations do not require Apple allow third-party stores without a cost/fee. Only that they allow them. Apple's within their right to say, "OK, but that third-party owes us 30% of their revenue."
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jonplackett 4y ago
I don’t really want to use a 3rd party AppStore, but I’m glad they will now exist. What I hope is that competition makes apple up their game a bit on the AppStore. 1) I hope they fix search. AppStore search is a joke, just awful. 2) Their 20% cut is too high If they’re competing with 3rd parties I can see both these getting fixed ASAP, whereas currently they have no motivation.
- cmdli 4y ago
  I don't want to fearmonger too much, but you may not have a choice in using 3rd party App Stores, assuming you use popular apps like Facebook or Instagram. The large tech companies may remove their apps from the original App Store and only use third parties that allow them to do the ad tracking they want to do.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    I think the threat of Meta forcing users to migrate to a hypothetical 3rd party app store is overblown- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 Now, they might try to entice users with deals and such (sort of like Epic's gung ho free games discounts on their gaming platform against Steam), but I highly doubt they'd pull their apps from the official App Store. Too much risk of blowback.
  - mechanical_bear 4y ago
    Your terms are acceptable.
theCrowing 4y ago
Can't wait to not use my banking apps or MDM stuff anymore because my device could be compromised because I installed something from a third party store... edit: it's a jab against apple that they will introduce restrictions like that. lmao
- geoah 4y ago
  Then don't. You have the option, but no one is forcing you. Giving people more options is not a bad thing, you should trust everyone to make their decisions.
- filchermcurr 4y ago
  There's a pretty simple solution: Don't install applications from a third-party store. This change doesn't mean the Apple store is going away. It's reasonable to assume that you'll be able to continue using your device as you always have without worry.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
I'm curious how Apple is going to limit this functionality to Europe. Will it just be iPhones sold in Europe? What about older iPhones then? Can I import a European iPhone to American shores? Will it be just detected region? If so, what happens if I fly from Europe to America for a week? Does it apply to all EU Citizens regardless of where they live, like GDPR? If so, how is that enforced for EU citizens living in the US, or dual-citizens? What about iPhone users without an Apple ID stating their location? Can Apple be sued if they inadvertently cut some European users off? In which case, if they are forced to play it safe, how will they prevent sideloading in America? If they discover they can't prevent sideloading in America effectively, then what?
no_wizard 4y ago
>The laws apply to technology companies with market valuations of at least €75 billion ($80 billion) and a minimum of 45 million monthly users within the EU. Wonder if they considered (or maybe are considering) how to on paper split up in such a way they no longer meet this threshold
manchmalscott 4y ago
> Some engineers working on the plan also see it as distraction from typical day-to-day development of future features, according to the people. Am I supposed to feel bad for the poor engineers, unfairly distracted from their typical work of,,,reducing my rights as a user?
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Truly tragic that the genius minds behind Dynamic Island are having their time wasted with all this work on 'user empowerment' and 'regulatory compliance'.
  - cmdli 4y ago
    Users aren’t being empowered, developers are. Users will have to use whatever App Store the developer chooses, and they wont have any extra choice.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      The status quo was Apple monopolizing that power, I'd much prefer for it to be distributed among other developers. If the process for installing Fortnite or Facebook becomes too painful, users will stop using it. As long as Apple's store is the best-in-the-business, they have nothing to worry about. Now they just need to compete.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
m463 4y ago
I want to be able to load my own apps. I do not want to ask apple for permission.
- stevedewald 4y ago
  You already can. You just can’t sell them to other people on Apple’s platform.
  - alden5 4y ago
    they disappear after a week and i can only have 3, i'd have to pay $99/year to have unlimited apps and sign for a year
  - tomashubelbauer 4y ago
    To my knowledge you can either side-load na app from Xcode using the free developer account, but the signing certificate will expire in 7 days, or you can pay 100 USD to Apple and use a personal team to be able to side-load apps whose signing certificate is valid for a year. And you are limited to 5 apps only. Is this incorrect? The only reason I care about this legislation is because I want to side-load an app or multiple apps and don't have to worry about making an Apple Developer account or worry about signing certificates at all. In fact, I'd like to be able to build and compile an app on Linux, in CI, download a file and just drop it on my phone and run as an app. No accounts (like Apple Developer), no payments. Is this possible today?
fxtentacle 4y ago
Yay :) Maybe soon I can finally purchase an iPhone SE again. I love the form factor and the hardware, but I hate buying my own prison.
eecc 4y ago
Well, let’s see how long it takes for FB, WhatsApp, Snapchat to migrate to alt-store. The nag screens and the the tug-of-war and victim playing over user data access. Apple must play its hand carefully, or it’ll be IE toolbars all over
- smoldesu 4y ago
  It doesn't really seem to be a problem on MacOS.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    There's tens of millions of Mac users and hundreds of millions of iOS users. There's literally an order of magnitude difference in the size of the user base. It will be a problem on iOS because the user base is large and lucrative.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      There's billions of Android devices and billions of Windows PCs. They made it work.
  - SalimoS 4y ago
    I'm sure your parent won't want to install the facebook app so they can talk to family oversee but now i'm already imagining fb app will be from alt-store with all the tracking reactivated and yes i don't use fb/have the app but try to explain in to elders/no tech people
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      If you're concerned about that, you shouldn't let them use Facebook in the first place. Hell, if tracking is your concern then they probably shouldn't be using a smartphone at all. If Facebook truly does use this as the opportunity to ruin their UX, then maybe your parents switch to Signal or iMessage.
      - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
eddof13 4y ago
Come on Telegram uncensored!
olliecornelia 4y ago
As a developer: neat As a user and family tech support: this fucking sucks
neonate 4y ago
https://archive.ph/UzUwI https://archive.ph/UzUwI
politician 4y ago
Prediction: None of this will be available to folks in the US.
segadreamcast 4y ago
babl-yc 4y ago
How would this legislation impact game consoles? Sony has a market cap of $100B and Microsoft is clearly above the €75 billion euro market cap discussed. Perhaps incorrectly, I don't see that market needing this legislation. The consoles themselves are sold on razor thin margins and rely on game sales to generate profit. Game consoles are also more of an "entertainment" device vs a general use mobile computer.
- Whatarethese 4y ago
  I view consoles as the same way I do phones. A single store to purchase goods is anti consumer. I can see someone taking them to court since the only way to buy games locally on your Xbox, Playstation, or Switch is through the first party stores.
  - gernb 4y ago
    Is it though? What if the price to buy a playstation went to $1200 because that was the only way it's affordable for Sony if they can't subsidize it with a restricted store. So now the consumer can side load but they can't afford the device in the first place. I'm just pulling a price out of thin air but I don't think it's quite a simple as "single store = anti consumer" It's similar to carrier locked phones. They'll give you the phone for a 1/10th it's list price if you sign up for 2yrs of service. Is that anti-consumer? Vs forcing the consumer to pay full price up front?
    - babl-yc 4y ago
      I was curious what the added price on a $400 console would be if Sony couldn't guarantee a cut of game revenue, so here's some napkin math. Avg 9.6 games sold per console [1] * $70 game * 30% take rate [2] =~ $200 additional. Current pricing: $400 + $70/game Restructured pricing: $600 + $49/game So it's more costs upfront, but not insanely more expensive. It would certainly change marketing and incentives though, if Sony made more money by selling consoles than continuing to extend the lifecycle of the current generation. [1] https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/01/ps4_has_a_very_high_software_attach_rate_average_player_owns_around_ten_games https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/01/ps4_has_a_very_high_... [2] https://hypebeast.com/2022/8/sony-playstation-digital-games-pricing-lawsuit https://hypebeast.com/2022/8/sony-playstation-digital-games-...
jensgk 4y ago
I like the current Apple model very much. I do not need to think safety or security when I buy apps from Apple App store. Also I like that all apps including Spotify, Netflix, and all other big apps are available from the same place. Apps are updated automatically, and many of my subscriptions are handled in the same place. For us users these are good features, that are worth the small premium.
- mechanical_bear 4y ago
  This won’t change that for you (or most users). It will allow power users more control.
  - cmdli 4y ago
    I could be wrong about this, but it seems like it would change for most users since Facebook/Google/Amazon/etc have a big incentive to push third party App Stores: ad tracking. Apple currently limits it, so I would not be surprised at all if suddenly all of grandmas and grandpas favorite apps are now “third party only”.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Moot point, Apple's own App Store currently impliments ad tracking pretty much exactly how the Play Store does it: https://searchads.apple.com/ https://searchads.apple.com/
  - jensgk 4y ago
    If Netflix decides to open their own store, and Spotify will open another, etc. it will be much more inconvenient for me.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mechanical_bear 4y ago
      That is not going to happen. It will create too much friction for users.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gernb 4y ago
I'm going to predict that all the stores will fail. The only one that might succeed would be a Steam store but I don't suspect Valve has any interest in being a store for free to $0.99 games. But hey, it would be nice if bought some game on Steam that meant I got access to Mac/Linux/Windows/Androidn/iOS versions
- smoldesu 4y ago
  It's doubtful that an Open Source F-Droid style repository would fail. Apple is already setting things up to be as unprofitable as possible, but stores that don't concern themselves with turning a profit will probably work just fine.
  - gernb 4y ago
    Maybe "fail" was the wrong word. What I meant to say is I suspect no store will get a large percent of the market where I define large as > 10% AFAIK, no android 3rd party store has been successful by that definition.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Hard to say, the Play Store has been fairly lax WRT allowing third-party browser engines, Free Software and emulators. If the floodgates open on iOS, there might be considerable demand for apps that Apple has traditionally tried stopping.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      And that's perfectly fine. Niche users and power users deserve to be catered to as well.
    - Aulig 4y ago
      3rd party stores on Android are disadvantaged in some ways, e.g. no automati app updates. That makes things quite annoying for the user.
      - 4y ago
stephc_int13 4y ago
Apple has been notoriously developer-unfriendly for decades, but that has been especially true during the last one. At some point the chickens come home to roost. This is a (baby) step in the right direction but the Apple/Google duopoly still has way too much power.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Er, what? I’ve been coding since I was 5 or so (C64); my first desktop computer was a Performa 5200, where I had to spend pocket money on Metrowerks CodeWarrior Student Edition (68k only, no PPC, the pro version was way beyond my 15 year old self’s budget) and get the official Apple books out of the library in order to learn C. ResEdit was magnificent, for the era, and given away on magazine cover CDs. Then Apple switched to OS X, and Xcode became cheap, then free. The 30% that everyone’s been moaning about for the last 5 years was, when it was first announced, a fantastic improvement. ObjC and Swift may have felt like Apple reinventing the wheel when they could’ve just used C++, but C++ is still an option for developers, and one I’ve used in an iOS project at a previous employer. How exactly is Apple supposed to be developer-unfriendly?
  - stephc_int13 4y ago
    - XCode is widely considered to be one of the most annoying and buggy IDE. - The code signing process for iOS used to be an absolute nightmare, it was improved and streamlined over the years but still a pain - A large part of the tech stack is Apple specific (ObjC, Swift, Metal) - They tend to progressively drop support of cross-platform tech like OpenGL and C++ (some new APIs are Switft only and they will continue to force adoption) - The App Store support for devs is extremely opaque - They push very hard to enforce "guidelines" that they don't hesitate to break It is part of the Apple culture, Steve Jobs was a product guy and he was brilliant, but he never really enjoyed the idea of other companies/devs doing things with his toys. The iOS SDK was launched only to stop people from jailbreaking their iPhone to get access. The initial goal was web apps only. Jobs also had a profound disdain for games and this is what started the Apple culture.
    - 4y ago
slg 4y ago
Choice isn't always great for the end user. Remember when you wanted to stream a movie and could just go to Netflix? Now today you need to subscribe to Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, etc. if you want everything. I worry that this move can lead to that. This change isn't only about choice for the end user. It gives developers choice too. Those developers have their own incentives that are generally less aligned with the end user than Apple. Odds are this shifts the iOS experience from just needing the Apple App Store to needing the Amazon Store, the Epic Games Store, the Google Store, etc. Some of those stores (probably all of them) are going to have a weaker approach to security and privacy than Apple had. Right now I have Apple fighting for my privacy on iOS against companies like Google and Facebook. Will that still happen when Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp are only available from the Facebook store?
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
- nine_k 4y ago
  You don't miss choice when you don't need it. If everything you ever wanted to watch was on Netflix, great! But if something was not there, you were out of luck. Now you have more of a chance, maybe at a greater expense. Same applies to music. Apple's App Store is rather notorious for its bans on particular kinds of apps. Not only anything adult-oriented, but also stuff more important for some of us, like a different browser engine, or a programming environment, to say nothing about different payment options without the 30% cut. Choice is not always easiest to the user, and iOS's original value proposition is that it removes much of the choice and makes things easy, so that they just work™ and include all you may ever need™. Good thing if this apples to you; you just need not make any changes to the way you're already using your iOS device. (This is unrelated to whether state bodies forcing commercial entities do certain things is a good or a bad thing; as any power tool, it can be used for either, and always remains inherently dangerous.)
  - slg 4y ago
    >Choice is not always easiest to the user, and iOS's original value proposition is that it removes much of the choice and makes things easy, so that they just work™ and include all you may ever need™. Good thing if this apples to you; you just need not make any changes to the way you're already using your iOS device. But this now removes the choice for the end user who likes the it just works™ experience because the developers with power like Meta will likely force it on us. It is reducing Apple's power, but it is empowering Meta, Google, Amazon, and other big tech companies who are seemingly even less likely to act in the end user's best interest than Apple. If you were one of the users who wanted the choice of adult content or a different browser, you always had the choice to use Android.
wiseowise 4y ago
What about the most important part - allowing third party browser engine? I want to have full blown Firefox with proper resolution on YouTube and no ads.
- kaba0 4y ago
  Not sure how they go around Apple’s restrictions, but Orion can run both Chrome and Firefox extensions. (Not affiliated, just use it; though not as the default)
- rektide 4y ago
  I was momentarily excited for this possibility but not in a million years is Apple going to relax their "no interpretter code" restraints. Worth mentioning that the big MV3 change in WebExtensions is also banning interpetted code. Dynamic behavior is illegal in 2023, static code only, by corporate mandate.
- ubercow13 4y ago
  From TFA: >Currently, third-party web browsers, including ones like Chrome from Alphabet Inc.’s Google, are required to use WebKit, Apple’s Safari browsing engine. Under the plan to meet the new law, Apple is considering removing that mandate.
skyde 4y ago
tldr: the company’s changes are designed initially to just go into effect in Europe for iOS 17
asdff 4y ago
The article doesn't name them by name, but does this include stores like Cydia?
ouid 4y ago
Am i going to be able to have addons in firefox?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
themagician 4y ago
Honestly, Apple could simply do exactly what they do for macOS now. The two are close enough to a merge at the architectural level that it would not be difficult. macOS is one step away from removing the ability to install unsigned software by default. If you want to run unsigned software or extensions you will have to boot into a recovery console and change the security model. The warning dialogs will be enough to discourage most use. Things like ApplePay and iCloud may be disabled depending how far you reduce security, but you'll be able to do whatever you want. I think it be a great solution to have a more uniform solution across all devices and platforms. It would create a boom in the hacker community, while still keeping >99.99% of users running from sealed system snapshots.
- slg 4y ago
  What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." App developers have a lot more influence on mobile devices than they do on desktop OSes. This change would shift even more power to those large developers. You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    > What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. However, what I do like is that if I want to download some other client for Instagram from F-Droid for example, I can, unlike in the Apple App Store. Currently I use one that blocks apps, enhances image quality on upload and download, etc. Not really possible on iOS.
    - slg 4y ago
      >Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. Maybe not yet specifically with Meta, but it absolutely does happen. Fortnite is the most obvious example.
rcarmo 4y ago
I just want to be able to run my own apps without having to re-sign them all the time.
slimebot80 4y ago
I imagine these apps would need a smaller sandbox and less integrations Apple wont want to spend too much time supporting third party systems
computer23 4y ago
Despite being a long-time Apple user, I just purchased an Android tablet the other day, in a large part because iPads are so locked down and controlled by Apple. This decision will make me strongly consider returning it and getting an iPad instead. iPads leave Android tablets in the dust in terms of performance, although I do like the microsd card slot on Android. Of course, it could take years for Apple to reluctantly implement the change.
- dougmwne 4y ago
  Truth. I hung onto Android for many years for that little shred of more choice, mostly the ability to install APKs. But Apple’s stability and user experience runs laps around Android and it’s extremely hard to justify not going with iPhone. Now I would have 0 reason.
- OhioMan2943 4y ago
  Apple has said that they are implementing this change as a part of iOS 17 in 2023, before the EU 2024 deadline. If they miss the deadline they can be fined 20% of their global revenue, which is quite the incentive.
LeicaLatte 4y ago
Thanks Epic, EU!
meindnoch 4y ago
Apple will 100% require notarization. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if installing anything from a third-party AppStore would disable a bunch of sensitive functionality, like ApplePay, FaceID, Find My, etc. with a nice alert that says: "Sorry, your device might be compromised due to unsafe apps. In order to use ApplePay / FaceID / etc. you need to restore your phone to factory settings first. Would you like to continue?".
- judge2020 4y ago
  But even being jailbroken doesn't affect Apple Pay, their own Apple Card service, or FairPlay[0] (which is the most surprising to me). Maybe it's sent as a heuristic / weak fraud signal for Apple Pay, but no functionality is removed in the OS, so I don't see why a notarization-approved third party app would trigger any other broken functionality. 0: https://developer.apple.com/streaming/fps/ https://developer.apple.com/streaming/fps/
  - vermilingua 4y ago
    Or maybe a large part of the jailbreak process is blocking Apple from detecting that a device is jailbroken.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      No, even regular apps have a multitude of tools they can use to detect a jailbroken state, given that there are paid jailbreak tweaks that hide the jailbroken status from apps. Even then, there are complaints about mobile apps like Pokémon Go, Pokémon Unite, and some bank apps[0] still detecting your jailbreak. Most likely Apple just doesn't see it as a threat/doesn't want to draw attention to the practice. 0: https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/m5p7ae/comment/gr15mom/ https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/m5p7ae/comment/g...
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  The "unsafe app" thing may be against the new law. The text of the law is "The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products [...] at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper" Keyword being conditions. Having a third-party app store disable a bunch of functionality would be different conditions than a first-party app store.
robocat 4y ago
> The laws apply to technology companies with market valuations of at least €75 billion ($80 billion) Why didn’t the EU apply it to the top XXX companies by market capitalisation? Or is the intent that the law should cover more companies over time due to monetary inflation?
- hollerith 4y ago
  If a matter goes to court, it is easier to prove that the defendant's capitalization is over €75 billion than to prove that it is in the top XXX companies because the latter involves determining the capitalization of all companies that might have a cap in the top XXX.
jupp0r 4y ago
Finally, can't wait to get browsers with proper extensions on my phone.
jmull 4y ago
FI-NAL-LEE! This is the solution that makes sense. The problem was never the Apple app store restrictions, changes, review-process, etc. It was that no one had a choice about it... not devs and not users. * Apple can try to impose their idea of "safe", "quality" apps (or whatever it is they are trying to accomplish) in their store. * other stores can have their own rules. * users can get apps from the store they want.
roody15 4y ago
Will be interesting to see if Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox can now create a true browser on iOS and not just a skin slapped on top of mobile safari.
- jmoak3 4y ago
  Yes!!! This is going to be so good for iPhone.
roody15 4y ago
Not sure how this will go over if they allow this in Europe but not the US. Will be interesting.
skeaker 4y ago
I think this is great and fully support the change, given that loading your own applications has worked pretty great as the baseline for basically every personal computer since the dawn of computing. As an aside, I'll always be amused by how much hype is generated whenever Apple adds something that has existed for decades to their systems. When they finally put an SD card slot on their devices thirty years from now I expect this site to go down due to high traffic and for hell to freeze over.
gigel82 4y ago
I'll believe it when I see it.
fold3 4y ago
The main things that keeps me on Android is the usb-c port and f-droid. I'm glad this is coming.
qualudeheart 4y ago
Woooooooo hoooooooo
SilverBirch 4y ago
I just think this level of fine-grained intervention into a single company's business model is absurd. The reason Apple is in this market dominant position is because they've done something great, and the intervention appears to be foreign governments intervening into executive decisions about Apple's business model. Honestly, I look at these plans as an Apple customer and think "Oh great, the EU is going to tie Apple up in stupid, unproductive exercises that's going to make my experience worse.". Not only am I pissed off that I'm going to be paying a premium for an Apple device so they can employ a bunch of engineers to build a bunch of EU mandated features I'll never use and will probably make my device less safe, I'm pissed off that the EU is wasting their time with this bullshit when there are real problems in the world to deal with - problems the EU isn't doing a great job of dealing with.
MagicMoonlight 4y ago
God this is going to be shit. >You want to use Waze, Translate, Maps or anything else owned by Google? Download the Play Store now! We've blocked Youtube from being used in Safari for your safety. Please download Chrome from the Play Store to continue. >Would you like to use Whatsapp, Messenger, Facebook? Download the Metaverse now. >Would you like to use Signal? Download the scamcoin app store now.
CM30 4y ago
Good, if you own a device like an iPhone or iPad, you should be able to do whatever you like with it, not be restricted to whatever Apple thinks is appropriate to run there. Kinda makes me want to see the same thing applied to other forms of tech with app stores and limitations on what users can install too, like smart TVs, games consoles, smart watches, etc. If you own a device, you should be allowed to install what you want on it, original creators be damned.
chadlavi 4y ago
In this thread: a lot of angry Android users complaining about the way a phone they don't have and don't want anyway works.
yc-kraln 4y ago
In related news, Kraln to consider buying an iPhone for the first time. Kudos where it's due.

696 points by MBCook 4y ago

gigatexal 4y ago

Hmm had no idea the EU market still had enough weight to throw around to be relevant.

ben_w 4y ago
If it hadn’t been for Brexit, the EU market would be an “which exchange rate do you prefer?” away from being the equal of the USA. And the UK’s economy is something like California in this analogy, and they basically follow the same rules anyway despite all the noise about wanting to be different.
- gigatexal 4y ago
  Yeah. I wonder if we will see another vote for them to rejoin in the future. They are surely hypocrites though as Scotland was denied independence by the UK high court.

paulkre 4y ago

I hope this means Apple will improve PWA support soon.

andy_ppp 4y ago

If this happens how will the 15-30% Apple tax work? It seems excessive to me but what is the likely outcome here, a reduction in costs maybe or some crippling of Apps in external stores?

intunderflow 4y ago

No paywall: https://archive.vn/LfPUw https://archive.vn/LfPUw

CrypticShift 4y ago

You can say whatever you like about the EU (corruption anyone?), but at the very least, they are countering Big Tech. Just that idea of effective balance of force is a positive signal to me.

flykespice 4y ago
While I want monopoly companies to screw themselves. I don't like EU attitude to want to rule over foreign companies arbitrarily, it's a call to the colonial times when Europe wanted to make the world follow their rule and serve them.
- albertopv 4y ago
  Ironic, considering US companies must provide their data to US gov even for non US persons or clients, and that's why Google and MS services are deemed illegal in many EU countries. BTW, no foreign company is forced to operate in Europe.
- m3drano 4y ago
  These companies may not serve the European market. It's not mandatory.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    More importantly, it doesn't say: "You CANNOT serve the European market if you don't do x, y, and z globally." It just says what you have to do for European users.
- jjevanoorschot 4y ago
  > I don't like EU attitude to want to rule over foreign companies arbitrarily The EU wants to regulate its own internal market. Companies can choose to be active in that market.
- drooopy 4y ago
  The EU government is simply laying the ground rules as to how businesses should operate inside the EU single market. They're not forcing Apple to change its business practices anywhere else in the world, as far as I understand. And Apple is free to leave the European market, if they do not like those conditions. Personally, as a consumer, I welcome this. And I hope that they don't just end at Apple. Google and Microsoft oughta be next.

TillE 4y ago

> To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Such apps also may need to be verified by Apple I'm sure they'll at least require notarization with their $99/year developer program, in line with macOS, where it's an increasingly enormous pain to run unsigned apps.

zizee 4y ago
And the review process will cost €1 per line of code.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  One line of code that points to an external source :)
- joenathanone 4y ago
  Just don't use line breaks.
  - iLoveOncall 4y ago
    Breaking news: Apple switches to Python as language to build applications for iOS.
    - saagarjha 4y ago
      eval exists :)
- zizee 4y ago
  I know it is contrary to HN guidelines to discuss comment votes, but this is weirdly my most downvoted comment of all time. In almost 13 years of commentating I have never had a comment receive -4 points before.
  - mike_hearn 4y ago

Despegar 4y ago

>To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Such apps also may need to be verified by Apple — a process that could carry a fee. Developers are about to get a surprise about what they're actually paying for. This is the problem with believing their own talking points about "paying 30% for payment processing." So now they'll be paying for actual third-party payment processing, as well as lawyers and accountants to ensure they're complying with Apple's royalty agreements to license their technology.

t-writescode 4y ago
If it's bad enough, they'll switch back to using Apple's store, and it'll be a wash; but, we won't know until competition exists
ocdtrekkie 4y ago
It's very likely, they've tried playing the same games with other jurisdictions, "sure, you can use your own payment processor, and still pay us 27%", but it's very unlikely those tricks will hold up to further legal actions. Fighting monopolies is hard, but the penalties scale up the more games these companies play. They know it too, but all of the **holes running these companies are worried about is cashing out their bonuses and retiring before the regulations finally get things to where they should be.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Surely the people running Apple could have retired a long time ago.
- Despegar 4y ago
  These laws don't expropriate Apple's intellectual property. Apple will always be able to license it for something.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    They can charge whatever they want for the phone. They can't levy monopoly fees on every successive purchase.

nerdjon 4y ago

Honestly this is going to have 1 or 3 outcomes: 1. Nothing is going to change and I will continue to use my phone as it was before because the App Store is still the primary driver. 2. I will be forced to use third party stores because critical apps are no longer distributed through the App Store. 3. I will just be using my phone less and less. The EU, Developers, and Many here continue to forget that the reason many of us use an iPhone is because of the walled garden. If I wanted an open platform I would switch to Android and mod the hell out of it. I don't want that. I want the precautions that Apple has in place to make it so developers can't employ dark patterns to keep me as a paying subscriber. To mine the data on my phone for their profit. With one or 2 clicks of a button I can cancel any subscription I want that I did through the App Store. I also get alerts when anything yearly is about to charge (from Apple) or when things are about to cost more than they used to. Instead of hoping that we just wouldn't see the alert like too many sites do. People keep saying that this is about choice, which frankly... is bull. This is about choice for the developer not the consumer. Most consumers don't care, but developers will jump ship to another App Store if they can start doing all of the negative practices that they are not allowed to do on the App Store. Especially if they are big enough, Seriously think that Facebook won't try to have their own App Store? Considering what they have gotten up to very recently. We already have enough developers purposefully trying to deceive users right before they get the prompt about allowing the app to track. Anyone... please tell me how this actually benefits ME as a consumer and not developers? Edit: Instead of replying to each one I am going to just post here. Many of you are saying Android does not have this issue. But unless I am mistaken Epic Games did exactly this? Also unless I am mistaken, many of the consumer protecting restrictions are not on android. Especially around subscriptions and billing issues. I know google is cracking down on it, but from what I understand it is not as universally in place. So developers don't have the incentives to move to another App Store on Android like they do on iOS (again benefiting developers while hurting me as a consumer) Edit: I am going to make one last point here. I spend a fair amount of money on App Store subscriptions. (or buying apps but that is sadly not as popular anymore). I do this because I don't worry about singing up to try something, knowing that I can very easily cancel it. I don't even have to talk to the company. This leads me to signing up for apps that I would never have considered paying for if it was through a traditional website that would make me jump through who the hell knows what hoops to cancel. They complain about the 30% cut, but from me. It is you get 70% or I give my money to someone else. I cannot imagine I am the only one that does this.

drewg123 4y ago

The funny thing is, it may help their sales. I'll buy 3 Apple TVs and 1 iPad just as soon as I can load apps of my choice.

jws 4y ago
So the first 1.8 million apps plus the ability to use the free development environment to compile and load any program you want (necessarily open source) on your devices wasn't enough? I suppose there are people just itching to install closed source mystery code from unaccountable entities. Unfortunately most of them are the friends and family for whom I am first line technical support. I'm not looking forward to the change. I'm willing to wait for the details, but at this moment, I am not a fan of unaccountable stores.
- everfree 4y ago
  > the ability to use the free development environment to compile and load any program you want You can load any app you want, but it disappears after 3 days. Then you have to load it again. To keep the app on your phone, you need to load it onto your phone again every 3 days using your computer. It's obviously set up for developer testing, not for someone trying to actually get use out of an app on their phone.
  - jws 4y ago
    Not true [see edit below, retraction]. The apps I write and load onto my own devices outside the store stay on my devices until I get a new device. I think there might be a profile that has an expiration of one to three years, but in practice that never goes off for me. I either add a feature or get a new device before that goes off. Edit: Ok, "true depending". If you are a registered developer then your apps last a year. If you are unregistered then you get one week, which would be a total pain in the ass.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Are you trying to say that a free development environment that you can install in order to compile and load any program you want for three days isn't enough?

teruakohatu 4y ago

So still no sideloading, Apple still has to sign apps (a barrier for free open source apps) and could even charge royalties.

Mikeb85 4y ago
Pretty sure the EU will smack that one down...
- judge2020 4y ago
  License fees to deploy to iOS?
cm2187 4y ago
That I find is the most annoying. Apple pretending "to protect me against myself", unless I give them hundred of dollars every year.
- yazaddaruvala 4y ago
  > Apple pretending "to protect me against myself", I find this to be a feature. Please protect me against "myself" (sometimes I'm tired, sometimes drunk - and dark patterns around the web can get to me too).
  - Siira 4y ago
    That’s a you problem. I have never needed such protection. Perhaps don’t do drugs so that you don’t need to demand chaining everyone.
    - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
      > I have never needed such protection lol > That’s a you problem. Isn’t it actually a you problem? I have a painpoint. The company I want to do business with is a company willing to solve my painpoint for me for some money. Im willing to pay them and the ecosystem to solve it for me. You have a painpoint. The company you want to do business with doesn’t want to solve it for you, for any amount of money. You want to force the company to solve your painpoint at my expense. Seems very much like you have problems, and you’re making your problem into a me problem?

mrtksn 4y ago

I'm fan of the Apple's AppStore model, I like it and think it works great and Apple's commission is a nonissue for the most use cases(it's issue only in low margin trades), however I'm afraid that Apple's control over the device risks governments making Apple their police. Apple limiting AirDrop in China is a very bad sign of what might happen if the rest of the world follows China's totalitarian path. Even in the US, which was supposed to be the land of the free, there are talks about banning apps. That's the primary reason I want side-loading.

IIAOPSW 4y ago
I for one believe in the principle that I paid to own the device and that entails loading whatever I damn well please on to it from whichever front, side, or backside I see fit!
- cmdli 4y ago
  Are you allowed to buy into a walled garden where developers can’t force you to sideload apps to use their apps? That’s what I want to do, but it seems the EU is making that illegal. It seems that users who value freedom can buy Android, and users who value security can buy Apple, but the second option is going away.
  - CleverLikeAnOx 4y ago
    Can't you choose to only use apps on Apple's app store?
    - jkcorrea 4y ago
      I believe the implication is there will now be less incentive for app developers to ship for App Store when they can get 80% of the way there with 0% of the “hoops” to jump through (I.e. Apple guidelines)
  - IIAOPSW 4y ago
    No one is forcing you to use any app, let alone developers. Without this becoming a rant, what fraction of that "security" is protecting you from nothing more than apps that didn't pay the Apple tax. You must admit, the narrative that only approved apps are "good"/"safe" is insanely self serving and conveniently hard to falsify.

wyldfire 4y ago

I'm excited for the opportunity to use Open Source software on an iPhone. I might reconsider some of my objections to using iPhones. EDIT: I see now that while it's more possible than it was before, it may still be a bit unlikely for this to grow if Apple still must sign the apps.

danaris 4y ago

Now, I'm not going to say this is impossible; it sounds like it's just the kind of needle-threading that Apple would prefer in this sort of situation. But...what's the source here? So far as I could see, the article didn't even credit anonymous sources. It just states all these things as bare facts. And I haven't seen any other reporting on this (yet) that doesn't simply link back to this Bloomberg article. And just as a reminder, this is from Bloomberg—the outlet that publishes the "Big Hack" story that proved to be completely false [0], without issuing any form of retraction, correction, or apology. Again, it's entirely possible that this will prove to be true. But I have absolutely no confidence in Bloomberg on stories of this kind, and don't intend to get worked up over the possibility of Apple allowing outside app stores until and unless it gets some kind of independent reporting. [0] https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack

solarkraft 4y ago
Thanks for the reminder about the article that turned Bloomberg into a joke. But do note that the author is Mark Gurman, a fairly prolific Apple analyst. I suppose he implies that he has anonymous sources.

rootusrootus 4y ago

I'm generally okay with the AppStore but I do think it goes too far in some cases. E.g. Amazon kindle books.

stale2002 4y ago

Oh hey, will to look at that. The law is actually suceeding in forcing Apple to change its behavior and allows alternative apps. I remember arguing with so many people here on HN about this. People were actually trying to pretend like Apple was going to get around the law, or have it overturned, or pull out from the EU, or some other nonsense. But, if you weren't completely biased, you'd know that of course Apple was going to lose this fight. They will be forced to follow the law like everyone else.

Raphou 4y ago

We can take a look at the Samsung Store or Roblox, and take lessons from it. Samsung's store is incredibly bad in UX, and noise. I hate the monopoly and monopoly fees that come with the Apple store. The take away is the amount of money and work Apple has put to provide a clean and homogeneous interface throughout their store. An alternative market would need that, else consumers' interests won't be served.

lostmsu 4y ago
Samsung Store is actually an example for the regulation. Samsung Store is more like Apple Store on Samsung phones. Every Samsung user is happy that they can use Google's store as an alternative.

solarkraft 4y ago

> Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Such apps also may need to be verified by Apple — a process that could carry a fee. So ... can they do that? It's pretty safe that if it's allowed, they'll do it.

etchalon 4y ago
Based on the regulations, yes. The regulations do not require Apple allow third-party stores without a cost/fee. Only that they allow them. Apple's within their right to say, "OK, but that third-party owes us 30% of their revenue."

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jonplackett 4y ago

I don’t really want to use a 3rd party AppStore, but I’m glad they will now exist. What I hope is that competition makes apple up their game a bit on the AppStore. 1) I hope they fix search. AppStore search is a joke, just awful. 2) Their 20% cut is too high If they’re competing with 3rd parties I can see both these getting fixed ASAP, whereas currently they have no motivation.

cmdli 4y ago
I don't want to fearmonger too much, but you may not have a choice in using 3rd party App Stores, assuming you use popular apps like Facebook or Instagram. The large tech companies may remove their apps from the original App Store and only use third parties that allow them to do the ad tracking they want to do.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  I think the threat of Meta forcing users to migrate to a hypothetical 3rd party app store is overblown- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 Now, they might try to entice users with deals and such (sort of like Epic's gung ho free games discounts on their gaming platform against Steam), but I highly doubt they'd pull their apps from the official App Store. Too much risk of blowback.
- mechanical_bear 4y ago
  Your terms are acceptable.

theCrowing 4y ago

Can't wait to not use my banking apps or MDM stuff anymore because my device could be compromised because I installed something from a third party store... edit: it's a jab against apple that they will introduce restrictions like that. lmao

geoah 4y ago
Then don't. You have the option, but no one is forcing you. Giving people more options is not a bad thing, you should trust everyone to make their decisions.
filchermcurr 4y ago
There's a pretty simple solution: Don't install applications from a third-party store. This change doesn't mean the Apple store is going away. It's reasonable to assume that you'll be able to continue using your device as you always have without worry.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

I'm curious how Apple is going to limit this functionality to Europe. Will it just be iPhones sold in Europe? What about older iPhones then? Can I import a European iPhone to American shores? Will it be just detected region? If so, what happens if I fly from Europe to America for a week? Does it apply to all EU Citizens regardless of where they live, like GDPR? If so, how is that enforced for EU citizens living in the US, or dual-citizens? What about iPhone users without an Apple ID stating their location? Can Apple be sued if they inadvertently cut some European users off? In which case, if they are forced to play it safe, how will they prevent sideloading in America? If they discover they can't prevent sideloading in America effectively, then what?

no_wizard 4y ago

>The laws apply to technology companies with market valuations of at least €75 billion ($80 billion) and a minimum of 45 million monthly users within the EU. Wonder if they considered (or maybe are considering) how to on paper split up in such a way they no longer meet this threshold

manchmalscott 4y ago

> Some engineers working on the plan also see it as distraction from typical day-to-day development of future features, according to the people. Am I supposed to feel bad for the poor engineers, unfairly distracted from their typical work of,,,reducing my rights as a user?

smoldesu 4y ago
Truly tragic that the genius minds behind Dynamic Island are having their time wasted with all this work on 'user empowerment' and 'regulatory compliance'.
- cmdli 4y ago
  Users aren’t being empowered, developers are. Users will have to use whatever App Store the developer chooses, and they wont have any extra choice.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    The status quo was Apple monopolizing that power, I'd much prefer for it to be distributed among other developers. If the process for installing Fortnite or Facebook becomes too painful, users will stop using it. As long as Apple's store is the best-in-the-business, they have nothing to worry about. Now they just need to compete.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

m463 4y ago

I want to be able to load my own apps. I do not want to ask apple for permission.

stevedewald 4y ago
You already can. You just can’t sell them to other people on Apple’s platform.
- alden5 4y ago
  they disappear after a week and i can only have 3, i'd have to pay $99/year to have unlimited apps and sign for a year
- tomashubelbauer 4y ago
  To my knowledge you can either side-load na app from Xcode using the free developer account, but the signing certificate will expire in 7 days, or you can pay 100 USD to Apple and use a personal team to be able to side-load apps whose signing certificate is valid for a year. And you are limited to 5 apps only. Is this incorrect? The only reason I care about this legislation is because I want to side-load an app or multiple apps and don't have to worry about making an Apple Developer account or worry about signing certificates at all. In fact, I'd like to be able to build and compile an app on Linux, in CI, download a file and just drop it on my phone and run as an app. No accounts (like Apple Developer), no payments. Is this possible today?

fxtentacle 4y ago

Yay :) Maybe soon I can finally purchase an iPhone SE again. I love the form factor and the hardware, but I hate buying my own prison.

eecc 4y ago

Well, let’s see how long it takes for FB, WhatsApp, Snapchat to migrate to alt-store. The nag screens and the the tug-of-war and victim playing over user data access. Apple must play its hand carefully, or it’ll be IE toolbars all over

smoldesu 4y ago
It doesn't really seem to be a problem on MacOS.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  There's tens of millions of Mac users and hundreds of millions of iOS users. There's literally an order of magnitude difference in the size of the user base. It will be a problem on iOS because the user base is large and lucrative.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    There's billions of Android devices and billions of Windows PCs. They made it work.
- SalimoS 4y ago
  I'm sure your parent won't want to install the facebook app so they can talk to family oversee but now i'm already imagining fb app will be from alt-store with all the tracking reactivated and yes i don't use fb/have the app but try to explain in to elders/no tech people
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    If you're concerned about that, you shouldn't let them use Facebook in the first place. Hell, if tracking is your concern then they probably shouldn't be using a smartphone at all. If Facebook truly does use this as the opportunity to ruin their UX, then maybe your parents switch to Signal or iMessage.
    - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

eddof13 4y ago

Come on Telegram uncensored!

olliecornelia 4y ago

As a developer: neat As a user and family tech support: this fucking sucks

neonate 4y ago

https://archive.ph/UzUwI https://archive.ph/UzUwI

politician 4y ago

Prediction: None of this will be available to folks in the US.

segadreamcast 4y ago

babl-yc 4y ago

How would this legislation impact game consoles? Sony has a market cap of $100B and Microsoft is clearly above the €75 billion euro market cap discussed. Perhaps incorrectly, I don't see that market needing this legislation. The consoles themselves are sold on razor thin margins and rely on game sales to generate profit. Game consoles are also more of an "entertainment" device vs a general use mobile computer.

Whatarethese 4y ago
I view consoles as the same way I do phones. A single store to purchase goods is anti consumer. I can see someone taking them to court since the only way to buy games locally on your Xbox, Playstation, or Switch is through the first party stores.
- gernb 4y ago
  Is it though? What if the price to buy a playstation went to $1200 because that was the only way it's affordable for Sony if they can't subsidize it with a restricted store. So now the consumer can side load but they can't afford the device in the first place. I'm just pulling a price out of thin air but I don't think it's quite a simple as "single store = anti consumer" It's similar to carrier locked phones. They'll give you the phone for a 1/10th it's list price if you sign up for 2yrs of service. Is that anti-consumer? Vs forcing the consumer to pay full price up front?
  - babl-yc 4y ago
    I was curious what the added price on a $400 console would be if Sony couldn't guarantee a cut of game revenue, so here's some napkin math. Avg 9.6 games sold per console [1] * $70 game * 30% take rate [2] =~ $200 additional. Current pricing: $400 + $70/game Restructured pricing: $600 + $49/game So it's more costs upfront, but not insanely more expensive. It would certainly change marketing and incentives though, if Sony made more money by selling consoles than continuing to extend the lifecycle of the current generation. [1] https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/01/ps4_has_a_very_high_software_attach_rate_average_player_owns_around_ten_games https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/01/ps4_has_a_very_high_... [2] https://hypebeast.com/2022/8/sony-playstation-digital-games-pricing-lawsuit https://hypebeast.com/2022/8/sony-playstation-digital-games-...

jensgk 4y ago

I like the current Apple model very much. I do not need to think safety or security when I buy apps from Apple App store. Also I like that all apps including Spotify, Netflix, and all other big apps are available from the same place. Apps are updated automatically, and many of my subscriptions are handled in the same place. For us users these are good features, that are worth the small premium.

mechanical_bear 4y ago
This won’t change that for you (or most users). It will allow power users more control.
- cmdli 4y ago
  I could be wrong about this, but it seems like it would change for most users since Facebook/Google/Amazon/etc have a big incentive to push third party App Stores: ad tracking. Apple currently limits it, so I would not be surprised at all if suddenly all of grandmas and grandpas favorite apps are now “third party only”.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Moot point, Apple's own App Store currently impliments ad tracking pretty much exactly how the Play Store does it: https://searchads.apple.com/ https://searchads.apple.com/
- jensgk 4y ago
  If Netflix decides to open their own store, and Spotify will open another, etc. it will be much more inconvenient for me.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mechanical_bear 4y ago
    That is not going to happen. It will create too much friction for users.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gernb 4y ago

I'm going to predict that all the stores will fail. The only one that might succeed would be a Steam store but I don't suspect Valve has any interest in being a store for free to $0.99 games. But hey, it would be nice if bought some game on Steam that meant I got access to Mac/Linux/Windows/Androidn/iOS versions

smoldesu 4y ago
It's doubtful that an Open Source F-Droid style repository would fail. Apple is already setting things up to be as unprofitable as possible, but stores that don't concern themselves with turning a profit will probably work just fine.
- gernb 4y ago
  Maybe "fail" was the wrong word. What I meant to say is I suspect no store will get a large percent of the market where I define large as > 10% AFAIK, no android 3rd party store has been successful by that definition.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Hard to say, the Play Store has been fairly lax WRT allowing third-party browser engines, Free Software and emulators. If the floodgates open on iOS, there might be considerable demand for apps that Apple has traditionally tried stopping.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    And that's perfectly fine. Niche users and power users deserve to be catered to as well.
  - Aulig 4y ago
    3rd party stores on Android are disadvantaged in some ways, e.g. no automati app updates. That makes things quite annoying for the user.
    - 4y ago

stephc_int13 4y ago

Apple has been notoriously developer-unfriendly for decades, but that has been especially true during the last one. At some point the chickens come home to roost. This is a (baby) step in the right direction but the Apple/Google duopoly still has way too much power.

ben_w 4y ago
Er, what? I’ve been coding since I was 5 or so (C64); my first desktop computer was a Performa 5200, where I had to spend pocket money on Metrowerks CodeWarrior Student Edition (68k only, no PPC, the pro version was way beyond my 15 year old self’s budget) and get the official Apple books out of the library in order to learn C. ResEdit was magnificent, for the era, and given away on magazine cover CDs. Then Apple switched to OS X, and Xcode became cheap, then free. The 30% that everyone’s been moaning about for the last 5 years was, when it was first announced, a fantastic improvement. ObjC and Swift may have felt like Apple reinventing the wheel when they could’ve just used C++, but C++ is still an option for developers, and one I’ve used in an iOS project at a previous employer. How exactly is Apple supposed to be developer-unfriendly?
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  - XCode is widely considered to be one of the most annoying and buggy IDE. - The code signing process for iOS used to be an absolute nightmare, it was improved and streamlined over the years but still a pain - A large part of the tech stack is Apple specific (ObjC, Swift, Metal) - They tend to progressively drop support of cross-platform tech like OpenGL and C++ (some new APIs are Switft only and they will continue to force adoption) - The App Store support for devs is extremely opaque - They push very hard to enforce "guidelines" that they don't hesitate to break It is part of the Apple culture, Steve Jobs was a product guy and he was brilliant, but he never really enjoyed the idea of other companies/devs doing things with his toys. The iOS SDK was launched only to stop people from jailbreaking their iPhone to get access. The initial goal was web apps only. Jobs also had a profound disdain for games and this is what started the Apple culture.
  - 4y ago

slg 4y ago

Choice isn't always great for the end user. Remember when you wanted to stream a movie and could just go to Netflix? Now today you need to subscribe to Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, etc. if you want everything. I worry that this move can lead to that. This change isn't only about choice for the end user. It gives developers choice too. Those developers have their own incentives that are generally less aligned with the end user than Apple. Odds are this shifts the iOS experience from just needing the Apple App Store to needing the Amazon Store, the Epic Games Store, the Google Store, etc. Some of those stores (probably all of them) are going to have a weaker approach to security and privacy than Apple had. Right now I have Apple fighting for my privacy on iOS against companies like Google and Facebook. Will that still happen when Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp are only available from the Facebook store?

sieabahlpark 4y ago
nine_k 4y ago
You don't miss choice when you don't need it. If everything you ever wanted to watch was on Netflix, great! But if something was not there, you were out of luck. Now you have more of a chance, maybe at a greater expense. Same applies to music. Apple's App Store is rather notorious for its bans on particular kinds of apps. Not only anything adult-oriented, but also stuff more important for some of us, like a different browser engine, or a programming environment, to say nothing about different payment options without the 30% cut. Choice is not always easiest to the user, and iOS's original value proposition is that it removes much of the choice and makes things easy, so that they just work™ and include all you may ever need™. Good thing if this apples to you; you just need not make any changes to the way you're already using your iOS device. (This is unrelated to whether state bodies forcing commercial entities do certain things is a good or a bad thing; as any power tool, it can be used for either, and always remains inherently dangerous.)
- slg 4y ago
  >Choice is not always easiest to the user, and iOS's original value proposition is that it removes much of the choice and makes things easy, so that they just work™ and include all you may ever need™. Good thing if this apples to you; you just need not make any changes to the way you're already using your iOS device. But this now removes the choice for the end user who likes the it just works™ experience because the developers with power like Meta will likely force it on us. It is reducing Apple's power, but it is empowering Meta, Google, Amazon, and other big tech companies who are seemingly even less likely to act in the end user's best interest than Apple. If you were one of the users who wanted the choice of adult content or a different browser, you always had the choice to use Android.

wiseowise 4y ago

What about the most important part - allowing third party browser engine? I want to have full blown Firefox with proper resolution on YouTube and no ads.

kaba0 4y ago
Not sure how they go around Apple’s restrictions, but Orion can run both Chrome and Firefox extensions. (Not affiliated, just use it; though not as the default)
rektide 4y ago
I was momentarily excited for this possibility but not in a million years is Apple going to relax their "no interpretter code" restraints. Worth mentioning that the big MV3 change in WebExtensions is also banning interpetted code. Dynamic behavior is illegal in 2023, static code only, by corporate mandate.
ubercow13 4y ago
From TFA: >Currently, third-party web browsers, including ones like Chrome from Alphabet Inc.’s Google, are required to use WebKit, Apple’s Safari browsing engine. Under the plan to meet the new law, Apple is considering removing that mandate.

skyde 4y ago

tldr: the company’s changes are designed initially to just go into effect in Europe for iOS 17

asdff 4y ago

The article doesn't name them by name, but does this include stores like Cydia?

ouid 4y ago

Am i going to be able to have addons in firefox?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

themagician 4y ago

Honestly, Apple could simply do exactly what they do for macOS now. The two are close enough to a merge at the architectural level that it would not be difficult. macOS is one step away from removing the ability to install unsigned software by default. If you want to run unsigned software or extensions you will have to boot into a recovery console and change the security model. The warning dialogs will be enough to discourage most use. Things like ApplePay and iCloud may be disabled depending how far you reduce security, but you'll be able to do whatever you want. I think it be a great solution to have a more uniform solution across all devices and platforms. It would create a boom in the hacker community, while still keeping >99.99% of users running from sealed system snapshots.

slg 4y ago
What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." App developers have a lot more influence on mobile devices than they do on desktop OSes. This change would shift even more power to those large developers. You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  > What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. However, what I do like is that if I want to download some other client for Instagram from F-Droid for example, I can, unlike in the Apple App Store. Currently I use one that blocks apps, enhances image quality on upload and download, etc. Not really possible on iOS.
  - slg 4y ago
    >Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. Maybe not yet specifically with Meta, but it absolutely does happen. Fortnite is the most obvious example.

rcarmo 4y ago

I just want to be able to run my own apps without having to re-sign them all the time.

slimebot80 4y ago

I imagine these apps would need a smaller sandbox and less integrations Apple wont want to spend too much time supporting third party systems

computer23 4y ago

Despite being a long-time Apple user, I just purchased an Android tablet the other day, in a large part because iPads are so locked down and controlled by Apple. This decision will make me strongly consider returning it and getting an iPad instead. iPads leave Android tablets in the dust in terms of performance, although I do like the microsd card slot on Android. Of course, it could take years for Apple to reluctantly implement the change.

dougmwne 4y ago
Truth. I hung onto Android for many years for that little shred of more choice, mostly the ability to install APKs. But Apple’s stability and user experience runs laps around Android and it’s extremely hard to justify not going with iPhone. Now I would have 0 reason.
OhioMan2943 4y ago
Apple has said that they are implementing this change as a part of iOS 17 in 2023, before the EU 2024 deadline. If they miss the deadline they can be fined 20% of their global revenue, which is quite the incentive.

LeicaLatte 4y ago

Thanks Epic, EU!

meindnoch 4y ago

Apple will 100% require notarization. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if installing anything from a third-party AppStore would disable a bunch of sensitive functionality, like ApplePay, FaceID, Find My, etc. with a nice alert that says: "Sorry, your device might be compromised due to unsafe apps. In order to use ApplePay / FaceID / etc. you need to restore your phone to factory settings first. Would you like to continue?".

judge2020 4y ago
But even being jailbroken doesn't affect Apple Pay, their own Apple Card service, or FairPlay[0] (which is the most surprising to me). Maybe it's sent as a heuristic / weak fraud signal for Apple Pay, but no functionality is removed in the OS, so I don't see why a notarization-approved third party app would trigger any other broken functionality. 0: https://developer.apple.com/streaming/fps/ https://developer.apple.com/streaming/fps/
- vermilingua 4y ago
  Or maybe a large part of the jailbreak process is blocking Apple from detecting that a device is jailbroken.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    No, even regular apps have a multitude of tools they can use to detect a jailbroken state, given that there are paid jailbreak tweaks that hide the jailbroken status from apps. Even then, there are complaints about mobile apps like Pokémon Go, Pokémon Unite, and some bank apps[0] still detecting your jailbreak. Most likely Apple just doesn't see it as a threat/doesn't want to draw attention to the practice. 0: https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/m5p7ae/comment/gr15mom/ https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/m5p7ae/comment/g...
ThatPlayer 4y ago
The "unsafe app" thing may be against the new law. The text of the law is "The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products [...] at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper" Keyword being conditions. Having a third-party app store disable a bunch of functionality would be different conditions than a first-party app store.

robocat 4y ago

> The laws apply to technology companies with market valuations of at least €75 billion ($80 billion) Why didn’t the EU apply it to the top XXX companies by market capitalisation? Or is the intent that the law should cover more companies over time due to monetary inflation?

hollerith 4y ago
If a matter goes to court, it is easier to prove that the defendant's capitalization is over €75 billion than to prove that it is in the top XXX companies because the latter involves determining the capitalization of all companies that might have a cap in the top XXX.

jupp0r 4y ago

Finally, can't wait to get browsers with proper extensions on my phone.

jmull 4y ago

FI-NAL-LEE! This is the solution that makes sense. The problem was never the Apple app store restrictions, changes, review-process, etc. It was that no one had a choice about it... not devs and not users. * Apple can try to impose their idea of "safe", "quality" apps (or whatever it is they are trying to accomplish) in their store. * other stores can have their own rules. * users can get apps from the store they want.

roody15 4y ago

Will be interesting to see if Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox can now create a true browser on iOS and not just a skin slapped on top of mobile safari.

jmoak3 4y ago
Yes!!! This is going to be so good for iPhone.

roody15 4y ago

Not sure how this will go over if they allow this in Europe but not the US. Will be interesting.

skeaker 4y ago

I think this is great and fully support the change, given that loading your own applications has worked pretty great as the baseline for basically every personal computer since the dawn of computing. As an aside, I'll always be amused by how much hype is generated whenever Apple adds something that has existed for decades to their systems. When they finally put an SD card slot on their devices thirty years from now I expect this site to go down due to high traffic and for hell to freeze over.

gigel82 4y ago

I'll believe it when I see it.

fold3 4y ago

The main things that keeps me on Android is the usb-c port and f-droid. I'm glad this is coming.

qualudeheart 4y ago

Woooooooo hoooooooo

SilverBirch 4y ago

I just think this level of fine-grained intervention into a single company's business model is absurd. The reason Apple is in this market dominant position is because they've done something great, and the intervention appears to be foreign governments intervening into executive decisions about Apple's business model. Honestly, I look at these plans as an Apple customer and think "Oh great, the EU is going to tie Apple up in stupid, unproductive exercises that's going to make my experience worse.". Not only am I pissed off that I'm going to be paying a premium for an Apple device so they can employ a bunch of engineers to build a bunch of EU mandated features I'll never use and will probably make my device less safe, I'm pissed off that the EU is wasting their time with this bullshit when there are real problems in the world to deal with - problems the EU isn't doing a great job of dealing with.

MagicMoonlight 4y ago

God this is going to be shit. >You want to use Waze, Translate, Maps or anything else owned by Google? Download the Play Store now! We've blocked Youtube from being used in Safari for your safety. Please download Chrome from the Play Store to continue. >Would you like to use Whatsapp, Messenger, Facebook? Download the Metaverse now. >Would you like to use Signal? Download the scamcoin app store now.

CM30 4y ago

Good, if you own a device like an iPhone or iPad, you should be able to do whatever you like with it, not be restricted to whatever Apple thinks is appropriate to run there. Kinda makes me want to see the same thing applied to other forms of tech with app stores and limitations on what users can install too, like smart TVs, games consoles, smart watches, etc. If you own a device, you should be allowed to install what you want on it, original creators be damned.

chadlavi 4y ago

In this thread: a lot of angry Android users complaining about the way a phone they don't have and don't want anyway works.

yc-kraln 4y ago

In related news, Kraln to consider buying an iPhone for the first time. Kudos where it's due.