5 ms·

Getting started as an alternative app marketplace in the European Union

51 points by consumer451 3y ago

consumer451 3y ago
It looks like the first one to get approved is an enterprise marketplace by Mobivention. https://app-marketplace.eu/?lang=en https://app-marketplace.eu/?lang=en
Almondsetat 3y ago
Until you will be able to install an alternative marketplace without an Apple account (a la browser-downloaded F-Droid .apk) I cannot find a purpose to this, especially since you cannot publish the same app on multiple marketplaces
- consumer451 3y ago
  On the one hand, I see the appeal of getting away from a gatekeeper like Apple telling me what I can, and can't do, on my own device. On the other hand, it would be very cool to also be able to avoid companies like DJI forcing sideloading of their heavily obfuscated app [0], as is currently the deal on Android. Is there a way to accomplish both? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39438842 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39438842
  - duxup 3y ago
    That’s my concern too. I don’t like the situation with Apple, but I also am concerned about the ability for alternatives to be … a net positive for the user. Understandably we think of some good examples of folks acting in good faith but a lot of the people offering apps… won’t.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Proper sandboxing and effective security permissions. Third party code is inherently still a black box, especially when the bulk of the would be attacker's code is running on a server and never goes through Apple's review process. There is no way to tell the difference between an app that uploads all of a user's contacts to do a one time search, and one that backhauls and stores all those contacts for later nefarious purposes. (I believe) Apple came up with a rule to directly prohibit mass uploads to address this specific thing, but the cat and mouse dynamic remains. Ultimately users need to be able to deny apps permissions, based on what an app needs to do and how much a user wants to trust a company (by default, very little). Permissions need to be implemented such that apps are unaware they're being denied so they're unable to coerce users into enabling them. For example, "location access" needs to have the option of returning a virtual location that was set from a map.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - creativeSlumber 3y ago
    > On the other hand, it would be very cool to also be able to avoid companies like DJI forcing sideloading of their heavily obfuscated app [0], as is currently the deal on Android. > Is there a way to accomplish both? I think so, but this sounds like a different problem. The problem here is a app that is required to operate a device bought by a EU consumer. EU can have additional regulations on such apps that are required for using all the capabilities of a purchased device that focuses on security and data governance.
- mk89 3y ago
  I disagree. The purpose should be (1) no need for app developers to pay 30% to Apple, (2) bypassing whatever Apple claims to be mandatory (e.g., notarization, etc) to run on their, sorry, your device. None of this is currently possible. They pretended to have tackled some of it, but in reality it's gonna create just some very niche marketplace and say "hey look, you see, we made it possible". This is one of the biggest vendor lockins existing (for an app developer). Big companies won't spend several billion $ just to make you download their free app (and let's not forget that reinstalling or updates count as a new download).
thih9 3y ago
In App Store I like the extra integrations with the apple ecosystem: the history of all downloads, or single place to manage all subscriptions; apple pay and sign in with apple are convenient too. I want the alternative marketplaces to be that - an extra option that expands what users can do with their devices. I wouldn’t want popular companies like Adobe, EA, Microsoft, taking their products to their own marketplaces while offering inferior UX.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  I kind of half expect this might be the (terrible) end game here: If you want App A, you have to download Publisher X’s crappy store and buy it there, then if you want App B, you need Publisher Y’s store, and then for App C, it’s publisher Z’s store. Yuck!
  - rplnt 3y ago
    That's windows and games. Truly a PITA. And the worst thing is the rich companies can just bribe their way into people's computers by offering their games for free. EA and Epic are both guilty of this and I won't install that just on principle alone. That being said, maybe if there was a good sandboxing, ot wouldn't be so bad?
    - consp 3y ago
      > That's windows and games. Truly a PITA. And the worst thing is the rich companies can just bribe their way into people's computers by offering their games for free. EA and Epic are both guilty of this and I won't install that just on principle alone. I have returned my last two game purchases on steam because they didn't launch into the game but an alternative login. I will no longer accept that. I'll chose another game and I wish many more will do that but I'm not hopeful.
      - quickslowdown 3y ago
        Gamers are the least principled bunch of users I've come across. They screech & moan about shit they hate in games, and then turn around and buy the next carbon copy clone of Call of Duty, EA's games with thousands of dollars of DLC, the shiny new limited time microtransaction sword that costs $3,000. If gamers had any kind of principle, they'd do what you're doing and show their disdain for these practices by not buying the game. But they just can't help themselves. The diminishing dopamine hits are just too difficult to resist, and so they just keep putting money into these awful schemes that are ruining the industry, making sure to cry and whine as they pull their credit card back out to really show the company how unhappy they are to continue buying the shit they put out.
sergioisidoro 3y ago
> Do either of the following: (1) Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit in the amount of €1,000,000 from a financial institution (...) (2) be a member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for two continuous years or more, and have an app that had more than one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior calendar year. Ok, so that's a no for startups.
- k8sToGo 3y ago
  Why would a startup need their own store?
  - consp 3y ago
    Why can a startup not provide one or become one?
    - Osiris 3y ago
      For what reason does Apple need a million dollar bond for someone to release an App Store? They don’t for regular apps. What’s the difference?
      - kyriakos 3y ago
        Clearly to ensure not everyone opens a store just to publish their single app that would otherwise not make it on the app store due to its content. The same reason they won't allow stores that only host first party apps. Both of these rules are made to stop this. Either apple found a clever way to comply to DMA without actually doing so or we'll soon be hearing from EU and apple will backtrack as it did with PWAs and Epic account.
        leereeves 3y ago
        > to publish their single app that would otherwise not make it on the app store Isn't publishing apps that wouldn't make it on the App Store the whole reason for alternatives? Apple's still looking for a way to undermine the DMA.
lagt_t 3y ago
Still not compliant with DMA.
- kyriakos 3y ago
  Let's see if EU commission does anything. I'd assume they'd already known about apple plans before law went into effect
  - LelouBil 3y ago
    Yeah, but I guess before the law went into effect, they could only politely say "that will not be allowed". Now they can sanction
js4ever 3y ago
It's look like Apple used all dark patterns you can imagine to make this as crap as possible. I really hope EU will force them to act better.
- sircastor 3y ago
  What dark patterns are you thinking of here? I usually think of dark patterns as tricks that companies use to guide users to make a particular decision. Such as making the undesired link text smaller or harder to find. While I don’t think Apple is doing what most people wanted them to do (just allow users to install alternative stores or sidelod apps), I think they’re being quite transparent here.
  - js4ever 3y ago
    They made a lot of efforts to make this useless. Requiring $1M to start a marketplace, making it hard for the customers to use it, trying to comply with the law but in very bad faith.
fuu_dev 3y ago
> Marketplace developers will need to pay €0.50 for each first annual install of their marketplace app. First annual installs included in your Apple Developer Program membership can’t be used for marketplace apps. Apple really makes you pay for it.
- notso411 3y ago
  [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
franczesko 3y ago
EU needs to address this as it is still gatekeeping.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tsoswr 3y ago
[dead]
hcks 3y ago
I can’t wait to have to install 30 different app stores to keep installed the apps I currently have
- pquki4 3y ago
  That's not going to happen, for the same reason there aren't 30 different mobile operating systems to choose from when you buy a phone
bhelkey 3y ago
> Agree to provide and publish terms...and accept apps that meet those terms. Marketplaces cannot offer only their own apps and cannot offer (per my reading) a curated list of apps. Apps must be able to apply and, if they meet the terms, must be accepted. > €0.50 for [annual] install Essentially, marketplaces cannot offer free apps unless they are nonprofits in which case they cannot offer paid apps. Basically, no marketplace can compete by offering both paid and free apps. > A “First Annual Install” is the first time in a twelve-month period that an Apple account (Apple ID or Managed Apple ID) installs Your Application on iOS Users will be required to use an Apple ID to use third party marketplaces.
kyriakos 3y ago
If as a start up I want to sideload my apps on my users devices, that's still not possible correct? I have to find an alternative market to publish the app through?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

51 points by consumer451 3y ago

It looks like the first one to get approved is an enterprise marketplace by Mobivention. https://app-marketplace.eu/?lang=en https://app-marketplace.eu/?lang=en

Almondsetat 3y ago

Until you will be able to install an alternative marketplace without an Apple account (a la browser-downloaded F-Droid .apk) I cannot find a purpose to this, especially since you cannot publish the same app on multiple marketplaces

consumer451 3y ago
On the one hand, I see the appeal of getting away from a gatekeeper like Apple telling me what I can, and can't do, on my own device. On the other hand, it would be very cool to also be able to avoid companies like DJI forcing sideloading of their heavily obfuscated app [0], as is currently the deal on Android. Is there a way to accomplish both? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39438842 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39438842
- duxup 3y ago
  That’s my concern too. I don’t like the situation with Apple, but I also am concerned about the ability for alternatives to be … a net positive for the user. Understandably we think of some good examples of folks acting in good faith but a lot of the people offering apps… won’t.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Proper sandboxing and effective security permissions. Third party code is inherently still a black box, especially when the bulk of the would be attacker's code is running on a server and never goes through Apple's review process. There is no way to tell the difference between an app that uploads all of a user's contacts to do a one time search, and one that backhauls and stores all those contacts for later nefarious purposes. (I believe) Apple came up with a rule to directly prohibit mass uploads to address this specific thing, but the cat and mouse dynamic remains. Ultimately users need to be able to deny apps permissions, based on what an app needs to do and how much a user wants to trust a company (by default, very little). Permissions need to be implemented such that apps are unaware they're being denied so they're unable to coerce users into enabling them. For example, "location access" needs to have the option of returning a virtual location that was set from a map.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- creativeSlumber 3y ago
  > On the other hand, it would be very cool to also be able to avoid companies like DJI forcing sideloading of their heavily obfuscated app [0], as is currently the deal on Android. > Is there a way to accomplish both? I think so, but this sounds like a different problem. The problem here is a app that is required to operate a device bought by a EU consumer. EU can have additional regulations on such apps that are required for using all the capabilities of a purchased device that focuses on security and data governance.
mk89 3y ago
I disagree. The purpose should be (1) no need for app developers to pay 30% to Apple, (2) bypassing whatever Apple claims to be mandatory (e.g., notarization, etc) to run on their, sorry, your device. None of this is currently possible. They pretended to have tackled some of it, but in reality it's gonna create just some very niche marketplace and say "hey look, you see, we made it possible". This is one of the biggest vendor lockins existing (for an app developer). Big companies won't spend several billion $ just to make you download their free app (and let's not forget that reinstalling or updates count as a new download).

thih9 3y ago

In App Store I like the extra integrations with the apple ecosystem: the history of all downloads, or single place to manage all subscriptions; apple pay and sign in with apple are convenient too. I want the alternative marketplaces to be that - an extra option that expands what users can do with their devices. I wouldn’t want popular companies like Adobe, EA, Microsoft, taking their products to their own marketplaces while offering inferior UX.

ryandrake 3y ago
I kind of half expect this might be the (terrible) end game here: If you want App A, you have to download Publisher X’s crappy store and buy it there, then if you want App B, you need Publisher Y’s store, and then for App C, it’s publisher Z’s store. Yuck!
- rplnt 3y ago
  That's windows and games. Truly a PITA. And the worst thing is the rich companies can just bribe their way into people's computers by offering their games for free. EA and Epic are both guilty of this and I won't install that just on principle alone. That being said, maybe if there was a good sandboxing, ot wouldn't be so bad?
  - consp 3y ago
    > That's windows and games. Truly a PITA. And the worst thing is the rich companies can just bribe their way into people's computers by offering their games for free. EA and Epic are both guilty of this and I won't install that just on principle alone. I have returned my last two game purchases on steam because they didn't launch into the game but an alternative login. I will no longer accept that. I'll chose another game and I wish many more will do that but I'm not hopeful.
    - quickslowdown 3y ago
      Gamers are the least principled bunch of users I've come across. They screech & moan about shit they hate in games, and then turn around and buy the next carbon copy clone of Call of Duty, EA's games with thousands of dollars of DLC, the shiny new limited time microtransaction sword that costs $3,000. If gamers had any kind of principle, they'd do what you're doing and show their disdain for these practices by not buying the game. But they just can't help themselves. The diminishing dopamine hits are just too difficult to resist, and so they just keep putting money into these awful schemes that are ruining the industry, making sure to cry and whine as they pull their credit card back out to really show the company how unhappy they are to continue buying the shit they put out.

sergioisidoro 3y ago

> Do either of the following: (1) Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit in the amount of €1,000,000 from a financial institution (...) (2) be a member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for two continuous years or more, and have an app that had more than one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior calendar year. Ok, so that's a no for startups.

k8sToGo 3y ago
Why would a startup need their own store?
- consp 3y ago
  Why can a startup not provide one or become one?
  - Osiris 3y ago
    For what reason does Apple need a million dollar bond for someone to release an App Store? They don’t for regular apps. What’s the difference?
    - kyriakos 3y ago
      Clearly to ensure not everyone opens a store just to publish their single app that would otherwise not make it on the app store due to its content. The same reason they won't allow stores that only host first party apps. Both of these rules are made to stop this. Either apple found a clever way to comply to DMA without actually doing so or we'll soon be hearing from EU and apple will backtrack as it did with PWAs and Epic account.
      - leereeves 3y ago
        > to publish their single app that would otherwise not make it on the app store Isn't publishing apps that wouldn't make it on the App Store the whole reason for alternatives? Apple's still looking for a way to undermine the DMA.

lagt_t 3y ago

Still not compliant with DMA.

kyriakos 3y ago
Let's see if EU commission does anything. I'd assume they'd already known about apple plans before law went into effect
- LelouBil 3y ago
  Yeah, but I guess before the law went into effect, they could only politely say "that will not be allowed". Now they can sanction

js4ever 3y ago

It's look like Apple used all dark patterns you can imagine to make this as crap as possible. I really hope EU will force them to act better.

sircastor 3y ago
What dark patterns are you thinking of here? I usually think of dark patterns as tricks that companies use to guide users to make a particular decision. Such as making the undesired link text smaller or harder to find. While I don’t think Apple is doing what most people wanted them to do (just allow users to install alternative stores or sidelod apps), I think they’re being quite transparent here.
- js4ever 3y ago
  They made a lot of efforts to make this useless. Requiring $1M to start a marketplace, making it hard for the customers to use it, trying to comply with the law but in very bad faith.

fuu_dev 3y ago

> Marketplace developers will need to pay €0.50 for each first annual install of their marketplace app. First annual installs included in your Apple Developer Program membership can’t be used for marketplace apps. Apple really makes you pay for it.

notso411 3y ago
[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

franczesko 3y ago

EU needs to address this as it is still gatekeeping.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tsoswr 3y ago

[dead]

hcks 3y ago

I can’t wait to have to install 30 different app stores to keep installed the apps I currently have

pquki4 3y ago
That's not going to happen, for the same reason there aren't 30 different mobile operating systems to choose from when you buy a phone

bhelkey 3y ago

> Agree to provide and publish terms...and accept apps that meet those terms. Marketplaces cannot offer only their own apps and cannot offer (per my reading) a curated list of apps. Apps must be able to apply and, if they meet the terms, must be accepted. > €0.50 for [annual] install Essentially, marketplaces cannot offer free apps unless they are nonprofits in which case they cannot offer paid apps. Basically, no marketplace can compete by offering both paid and free apps. > A “First Annual Install” is the first time in a twelve-month period that an Apple account (Apple ID or Managed Apple ID) installs Your Application on iOS Users will be required to use an Apple ID to use third party marketplaces.

kyriakos 3y ago

If as a start up I want to sideload my apps on my users devices, that's still not possible correct? I have to find an alternative market to publish the app through?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]