4 ms·

Duh? The EU has no jurisdiction over the US. So there will be no legal need for Apple to allow it here. Just like they don’t allow alternate payment methods fo

by MBCook 4y ago

Duh? The EU has no jurisdiction over the US. So there will be no legal need for Apple to allow it here. Just like they don’t allow alternate payment methods for dating apps in the US like some other countries required and Apple had to comply with. The App Store is too critical to the way Apple sees things, they’re not going to just say “oh well”. I bet things are only open for EU residents with EU purchased phones. Buy an EU phone and activate with a US account? Bet it’s locked. Also expect them to make hay over any security/scam issues with 3rd party stores/side loading. Something WILL happen and when reporters ask Apple they’ll be more than happy to point out how great the App Store is suggest users stick to it and blame bad regulations for making EU users less safe.

afavour 4y ago
It’s absolutely not as simple as “duh”. Not giving users a feature they want because it’s in your business interests to deny it is a difficult PR move, to put it mildly. Not to mention such a disparity in feature between different regions is pretty huge.
- heffer 4y ago
  > Not to mention such a disparity in feature between different regions is pretty huge. And at the same time not at all that uncommon. If you are in a market outside of the US I'm certain you will have experienced this first hand more than once. I have.
- MBCook 4y ago
  > Not giving users a feature they want because it’s in your business interests to deny it is a difficult PR move, to put it mildly. They’ve managed it for 15 years so far. It may be crumbling, but this isn’t a new restriction or something that wasn’t possible in the past.
josephcsible 4y ago
> there will be no legal need for Apple to allow it here. The point is that since Apple had to do the work to allow sideloading at all, most if not all of the lies they came up with for why they can't allow it for everyone won't work anymore.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  I don’t believe they ever claimed that it was not possible. The position has always been that it is a compromise in security controls. The counter position to that has never been that it is not a compromise in security controls. I only hope they continue to sell devices that don’t allow it, because that’s what I would choose every time, unless that choice is taken away from me.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Why do you think it's ever better to have a device that doesn't ever allow sideloading apps, over one that lets you, the owner, decide whether or not to allow sideloading apps?
    - jessekv 4y ago
      Not GP, and fully agree that having the option for side-loading would be a largely positive thing for users and the software community. But one counterargument goes like this: When you relax the rules, larger players will be able to leverage them against individual users. For example, Meta would be able to release MetaStore, the app with exclusive distribution rights to Meta apps. Now you need a facebook account to install whatsapp. Not sure its sustainable, however.
      - mcsniff 4y ago
        Meta can currently gate WhatsApp behind logging in with a Facebook account, but they don't; it will alienate users who use it because it doesn't require a Facebook account
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      Because these restrictions on iOS are legitimately valuable security controls. Apple decides what functionality is exposed to applications, decides who is allowed to publish applications, screens the applications they do publish, and ensures that I have the ability to consent to the permissions they are required to explicitly and in clear language request. I can safely install any application I want off the App Store, and barely put any thought into the security implications of doing so. The only thing I have to consider is whether I want to grant the publisher the permissions they’re requesting. If Apple created a methodology for circumventing this process, all of a sudden it is something that I have to worry about, and it creates an attack surface that I’d rather not have to consider. It also weakens my ability to demand these standards from publishers. If a publisher has the ability to say “this app is only available outside the walled garden”, then they may refuse to publish it via the system that is designed to ensure my interests are upheld. If the Apple curated experience happened to curtail the way I wished to use my device, then I would have more to think about. But it doesn’t, I can do everything on my iPhone that I want to do. I do have sympathy for the developers who sometimes find themselves stuck in a Kafkaesque review process. But I consider my own interests to be much more important than theirs. I have very little sympathy for the businesses who object to the revenue model. Apple’s system asserts my interests as a consumer above interests of business who frequently engage in anti-consumer behaviour. I don’t care if they have to pay to access me as a customer, this is something I’m intentionally opting into as an Apple user. The only time I do object to Apple’s curation, is when they use it in a way that I view as prioritising some other agenda above my interests. Such as when Apple pulls and app, or refuses to publish one, for reasons such as it containing “objectionable” content. I view this entirely as them subverting my interests. If that started to interfere with they way I wanted to use my device, I would start to consider an alternative. But so far it hasn’t.
kaba0 4y ago
Take a look at the “Brussels effect”. The only reason it doesn’t apply in this case is that software changes are easy to made — but Apple might still have to eventually let it go even in the US, if for example people like it enough.
- MBCook 4y ago
  Right. Apple was likely to go USB-C soon on the iPhone anyway, but the EU rule may have pushed it up. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to make two physical versions over the charge port so all iPhones are (allegedly) going USB-C. They only made things different when they absolutely had two, like the radios. But software featured are really easy to differentiate in different countries. The big risk, and I agree with you, is that this will prove that sideloading isn't the great evil they’ve been portraying and they’ll be forced to offer it in additional places by more laws until it becomes easier to just give it to everyone.

by MBCook 4y ago

afavour 4y ago

It’s absolutely not as simple as “duh”. Not giving users a feature they want because it’s in your business interests to deny it is a difficult PR move, to put it mildly. Not to mention such a disparity in feature between different regions is pretty huge.

heffer 4y ago
> Not to mention such a disparity in feature between different regions is pretty huge. And at the same time not at all that uncommon. If you are in a market outside of the US I'm certain you will have experienced this first hand more than once. I have.
MBCook 4y ago
> Not giving users a feature they want because it’s in your business interests to deny it is a difficult PR move, to put it mildly. They’ve managed it for 15 years so far. It may be crumbling, but this isn’t a new restriction or something that wasn’t possible in the past.

josephcsible 4y ago

> there will be no legal need for Apple to allow it here. The point is that since Apple had to do the work to allow sideloading at all, most if not all of the lies they came up with for why they can't allow it for everyone won't work anymore.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
I don’t believe they ever claimed that it was not possible. The position has always been that it is a compromise in security controls. The counter position to that has never been that it is not a compromise in security controls. I only hope they continue to sell devices that don’t allow it, because that’s what I would choose every time, unless that choice is taken away from me.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Why do you think it's ever better to have a device that doesn't ever allow sideloading apps, over one that lets you, the owner, decide whether or not to allow sideloading apps?
  - jessekv 4y ago
    Not GP, and fully agree that having the option for side-loading would be a largely positive thing for users and the software community. But one counterargument goes like this: When you relax the rules, larger players will be able to leverage them against individual users. For example, Meta would be able to release MetaStore, the app with exclusive distribution rights to Meta apps. Now you need a facebook account to install whatsapp. Not sure its sustainable, however.
    - mcsniff 4y ago
      Meta can currently gate WhatsApp behind logging in with a Facebook account, but they don't; it will alienate users who use it because it doesn't require a Facebook account
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    Because these restrictions on iOS are legitimately valuable security controls. Apple decides what functionality is exposed to applications, decides who is allowed to publish applications, screens the applications they do publish, and ensures that I have the ability to consent to the permissions they are required to explicitly and in clear language request. I can safely install any application I want off the App Store, and barely put any thought into the security implications of doing so. The only thing I have to consider is whether I want to grant the publisher the permissions they’re requesting. If Apple created a methodology for circumventing this process, all of a sudden it is something that I have to worry about, and it creates an attack surface that I’d rather not have to consider. It also weakens my ability to demand these standards from publishers. If a publisher has the ability to say “this app is only available outside the walled garden”, then they may refuse to publish it via the system that is designed to ensure my interests are upheld. If the Apple curated experience happened to curtail the way I wished to use my device, then I would have more to think about. But it doesn’t, I can do everything on my iPhone that I want to do. I do have sympathy for the developers who sometimes find themselves stuck in a Kafkaesque review process. But I consider my own interests to be much more important than theirs. I have very little sympathy for the businesses who object to the revenue model. Apple’s system asserts my interests as a consumer above interests of business who frequently engage in anti-consumer behaviour. I don’t care if they have to pay to access me as a customer, this is something I’m intentionally opting into as an Apple user. The only time I do object to Apple’s curation, is when they use it in a way that I view as prioritising some other agenda above my interests. Such as when Apple pulls and app, or refuses to publish one, for reasons such as it containing “objectionable” content. I view this entirely as them subverting my interests. If that started to interfere with they way I wanted to use my device, I would start to consider an alternative. But so far it hasn’t.

kaba0 4y ago

Take a look at the “Brussels effect”. The only reason it doesn’t apply in this case is that software changes are easy to made — but Apple might still have to eventually let it go even in the US, if for example people like it enough.

MBCook 4y ago
Right. Apple was likely to go USB-C soon on the iPhone anyway, but the EU rule may have pushed it up. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to make two physical versions over the charge port so all iPhones are (allegedly) going USB-C. They only made things different when they absolutely had two, like the radios. But software featured are really easy to differentiate in different countries. The big risk, and I agree with you, is that this will prove that sideloading isn't the great evil they’ve been portraying and they’ll be forced to offer it in additional places by more laws until it becomes easier to just give it to everyone.