13 ms·

iOS 26.2 to allow third-party app stores in Japan ahead of regulatory deadline

347 points by tosh 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hypeatei 1y ago
Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? I really don't understand how you could remain so stubborn as a company that a system of complex rules across regions is preferable to just making it open and getting with the times. I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google announcement w.r.t. code signing but it's still too walled off for me. They need to open up access to third party stores and third party browser engines. EDIT: yes I understand that we live in a capitalist system that is maximizing profit. My argument is that long term they're going to lose this battle seeing as the EU and Japan have already forced them to play ball. There are two options: remain stagnant and collect app store rent as long as possible or learn to be competitive in this new environment.
- asimovfan 1y ago
  Do you 'really not understand' that they only want to maximize profit?
  - SXX 1y ago
    Not only want, but this is what they must do in interest of shareholders.
- misnome 1y ago
  Presumably they did a cost/benefit analysis and think it is more profitable this way?
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    I mean, sure, but it's most likely a myopic analysis trying to keep earnings looking good for next quarter. My personal feeling is that, after seeing the winds shifting, you would figure out how to operate in an open garden and start pivoting now rather than resisting it at every corner.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - mdhb 1y ago
    Only in a quarter to quarter sense. I’ll never give them another cent. I’ve watched large numbers of people go from fans to haters in the last five years especially. I also think at just a fundamental technical level their moat is quickly disappearing.
- rckt 1y ago
  They all will try to gatekeep as much as they can. Google's move made this pretty obvious. They don't need free market and open platform. This is something for some nerdy enthusiasts. Funny that all the new device that are being released lately, like Sidephone or Light Phone; they all do the same thing. And not only they lock you into their OSes, but they even restrict the software that you are allowed to use.
- latexr 1y ago
  > Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? By this point it seems pretty clear that they will, at least while Tim Cook is in charge. Other higher ups, specifically Phil Schiller, knew this was a bad idea but were overruled. https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-concerns-app-store-fee/ https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-co...
- ndiddy 1y ago
  The current system gives Apple a 30% cut of every transaction that happens on iOS. Did you really think they'd voluntarily give that up just to be nice?
- cbg0 1y ago
  Apple makes over $10B from App Store commissions in the US alone, why would they reduce their profits unless forced to do so?
  - latexr 1y ago
    Because doing so would have generated goodwill, which would have lead to a stronger brand and more money in the long term. Instead, they shot themselves in the foot and put themselves in a situation where the launch of a new product (Vision Pro) was an embarrassing and utter failure with lacklustre support from third-parties.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - lopis 1y ago
      You don't need goodwill when you have captured the market.
      - latexr 1y ago
        They haven’t captured every market (again, Vision Pro), and the ones they have they are losing power in.
    - arkitct 1y ago
      It is a shame that people want to believe that companies are or will be good. Or that they should even be given "human" expectations. Companies are not people and should not be afforded being treated as such. A companies function, especially if it is a publically-traded company is to continuously provide greater return for investors, so say the majority of prospectus. What we the people, regardless of country, need to start doing is holding the company heads to account, perhaps if the threat of execution (is China right here?) could "make" the company/people good? Something needs to be done before everything we have and "are" as a human will be, is a subscription to life.
      - 1y ago
- fundatus 1y ago
  Yeah, the fragmentation that is caused by Apple's behaviour is insane. You can set a different email client globally, but a different default Messages or Maps app? That only works in some regions. In-App payments? You can now basically do whatever you want in the US, in the EU you can opt-in into a different regime, in other regions it's staying the same but who knows for how long. By fighting this everywhere they're basically losing control over the outcomes and will end up with lot's of different regulations everywhere. Instead of doing the sensible thing and opening up their platform before they're being forced to do so.
  - dwaite 1y ago
    Four points: 1. Apple potentially loses giving ground to regulators before the regulators ask for something. They don't want to allow alternative app stores and then have a regulator say they are also not allowed to mandate royalties for digital good/service sales in their own store. Apple is likely nudging regulators to go a particular way, but is effectively trying to barter. 2. Likewise, individual regulatory bodies solving the issues they see in different ways has and will continue to create complexity in app developers, in some cases meaning their app needs different business models in different countries to take advantage of the individual regulated changes. That is a consequence of regulators pushing Apple to themselves have different business models to fund the App Store in different countries. 3. If Apple doesn't want a feature to be used or thinks the feature is actively harmful, they aren't going to encourage its use by making it available in jurisdictions where it isn't required. 4. Some of these features (such as default maps app) are semi-baked and without industry consensus, but rolled out because they were required for regulatory timelines. I can emphasize with not wanting to roll out broken features where you aren't being required to.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      The ground is already lost. Apple can't prove that their monopoly is worthwhile, and none of their detractors are willing to renege. The "issues they see in different ways" ultimately boils down to one objectionable product (the App Store) that Apple is unwilling to part with. Apple can fix this issue without excess complexity. They are the ones demanding fragmentation and disparity as a result, allowing alternative app storefronts has always been a one-size-fits-all solution.
- junaru 1y ago
  > They need to open up access to third party stores and third party browser engines. Here in EU they did allow third party stores and all we got were shovelware sites with subscriptions. It added even more friction an shadiness to acquiring apps. We need to sop pretending iOS third party stores are anything like what we envisioned them to be. They are not f-droid or anything even half as good. Apple complies with this impotent law because the law changes absolutely nothing for end user.
  - fukka42 1y ago
    > Here in EU they did allow third party stores Hardly. They did everything they could to make it completely pointless. Your apps still need to be blessed by apple and you still need to pay them. It's embarrassing the EU is allowing this sham.
    - junaru 1y ago
      Exactly. The law achieved nothing yet its being championed overseas as 'move to the right direction' and 'progress'.
      - fukka42 1y ago
        All it did was embolden Google to start locking down as well.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  > Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? Is Apple going to kill the golden goose unless it is literally forced to? Of course not. Apple, together with Google, get a cut of 15% to 30% of all mobile app revenue. They have the entire market captured. They will only give that up when they're forced to.
  - TulliusCicero 1y ago
    Google has allowed alternate app stores for a long time though. Just being the default is good enough to capture a lot of revenue.
    - heavyset_go 1y ago
      It's more than just defaults, Google puts up several road blocks for app stores and its most recent developer doxxing policy breaks F-Droid. Alternate app stores are 2nd class citizens on Android, and gated behind several scary warnings and layers of settings pages. Then there's the fact that the biggest alternative app store on Android is about to be made defunct by Google's new policy.
- the_gipsy 1y ago
  Is Apple really going to leave all that money on the table until obligated? No.
- gregoriol 1y ago
  Tim Cook must go: he failed at preserving their gatekeeping, and failed at opening it in an honorable manner.
- arrozconcosas 1y ago
  There are end user benefits to apples approach too, due to better governance and control over what apps are available. Governments also have incentive to maximize their power and are not benevolent actors in this scheme.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- TechRemarker 1y ago
  On the other hand if long ago they backed down and lowered fees and allowed more control, aside from the potential security and privacy concerns that could negatively affect the brand, companies would have just then wanted more. As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. So not saying all Apple’s choices and timing were right or best, but giving up previously wouldn’t have prevented all of this but rather just lowered the bar and making it easier for companies and countries to make it easier to lower it even further.
  - myko 1y ago
    > As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. I agree with this assuming what Epic Games wants is to be able to distribute their software themselves without Apple being in the loop
  - isodev 1y ago
    > aside from the potential security and privacy concerns I make apps both as an indie and during my day job. The App Store review doesn’t do anything to protect the privacy or security of iPhone users. Most of the review is focused on ensuring Apple doesn’t get sued and that you as a developer don’t try to advertise something Apple doesn’t like. The whole idea that the App Store is safer is a marketing thing.
    - bzzzt 1y ago
      Ok, what do you make of this then? https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712 https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712 While not perfect, they claim to do security checks and verify some privacy choices. So they do something at least. As a consumer I can see value in Apple forcing itself in an arbiter role for app payments so they can step in when I have a conflict with an app developer.
      - isodev 1y ago
        All this is rehashed common sense - what you as a seller of software probably will do anyway to appear legitimate. No part of the review process stops someone from circumventing any of those rules - all you need is for the app to behave during review. Every technical safeguard is part of the operating system anyway, so that’s what’s really protecting you and it will still protect you when you install an app from another source. Just like computers have worked since forever.
- eptcyka 1y ago
  Even if alternative app stores are opened up, there are enough limitations that severely impede the device for me as is. You can't use a VPN and at the same time do service discovery on your local network, for instance. For some services, anyway.
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  Cigarette companies do this everywhere And they’re just the most visible Everything banned in the US is still offered as soon as you step across a border, every gross visual warning mandated in those countries is not implemented in the US
- fainpul 1y ago
  > I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google announcement w.r.t. code signing You might want to get informed about the hurdles Apple puts in your way first.
  - IncreasePosts 1y ago
    Android will still be able to install apps via ADB, even if the worst rumors are true about the restriction that will be enforced. If Apple allowed installation via some command line utility, that would be a radical opening of the platform.
- 45764986 1y ago
  What incentive does Apple have to comply in advance? Every government wants to have their stamp on it, trying to build ahead of the specifications risks building something that is not compliant.
BenFranklin100 1y ago
[flagged]
- gdulli 1y ago
  The people who want to prostrate themselves for tech giant "security" paternalism can still use the first-party app store. The people who don't want to give up freedom for security should have the choice not to do so.
- xandrius 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bzzzt 1y ago
    If your social network is only available on a store not respecting your privacy and it's normalized people install stuff from there it's a loss for you since you don't have the option for the app that's compliant with Apple's privacy rules. Either you give in to more privacy violations or you give up being able to speak to part of your social network easily.
    - jobs_throwaway 1y ago
      A lot of crying to say "there will be another option beyond the first party store". If you don't want those apps, don't get them. Imposing your choices on everyone else is not the solution.
      - bzzzt 1y ago
        No, those apps should be regulated far more than Apple is because they cause much more damage than purely economical. But for the time being I don't mind Apple chipping away at their privacy invading competitors.
- postalrat 1y ago
  Helping tens of thousands and developers sounds like a good trade.
IgorPartola 1y ago
Apple is a hardware company with proprietary CPUs and such. They have such a moat that if they open sourced their entire OS stack today nobody would be able to do anything with it except by buying their hardware. But the issue with the app stores is the app fees. Those must be lucrative enough to want to keep that gate for themselves.
- microtonal 1y ago
  They have such a moat that if they open sourced their entire OS stack today nobody would be able to do anything with it except by buying their hardware. That doesn't make much sense, XNU and the layers above it are very portable, they went PowerPC -> x86 -> x86_64 -> ARM64 after all. They also supported multiple different GPUs in the Intel era. If the entire OS stack was open sourced today, we would have forks running on standard Intel/AMD CPUs in a week. They wouldn't have the same optimized power management, etc. But I think it would have a good chance of wiping out desktop Linux within a brief period. macOS/iOS are part of the moat.
  - bzzzt 1y ago
    If the entire stack would be open sourced there would be ports, but would there be a market for macOS devices without the optimized power management and device integration Apple offers now? I'm still hoping some other integrated software/hardware company will stand up and offer the same attention to detail as Apple did. Instead of that everybody's actively enshittifying their own products and complaining Apple is earning so much...
    - evilduck 1y ago
      Companies have tried to sell Hackintoshes before. There was a market before Apple silicon. There is still some demand it's just nigh impossible to build a modern fully compatible system. I doubt a knockoff MBP would happen initially but it would absolutely encroach on the Mac Mini.
    - Apocryphon 1y ago
      For the original Macintosh operating system, surprisingly a good amount of demand: https://youtu.be/P7vvdXzcrFM https://youtu.be/P7vvdXzcrFM
solarkraft 1y ago
Are there any regions in which they’re not allowed to enforce notarization? Since that effectively preserves their gatekeeper status. Even a lot of the App Store guidelines still apply to notarization.
- zoobab 1y ago
  Notarization means they still have a say on which app is allowed to run or not. This goes against the spirit of the DMA, which was supposed to 'open up' 3rd party stores. The European Commission does not seem to care atm that Apple is still the gatekeeper.
  - microtonal 1y ago
    The European Commission does not seem to care atm that Apple is still the gatekeeper. I think the European Commission is threading the needle, trying to find a path to uphold the DMA/DSA while not provoking another tariff war.
    - bzzzt 1y ago
      I think they prefer to have Apple accountable for everything that happens on Apple devices too. You can't pressure Apple into removing an app when they have to give up the only option to enforce that.
    - ChocolateGod 1y ago
      > I think the European Commission is threading the needle, trying to find a path to uphold the DMA/DSA while not provoking another tariff war. The EC is also under a lot of internal pressure from member states to calm down on the regulation, as it's considered one reason why Europe is such a bad place to do a tech startup right now.
      - user_7832 1y ago
        > The EC is also under a lot of internal pressure from member states to calm down on the regulation, as it's considered one reason why Europe is such a bad place to do a tech startup right now. Turns out then using private data for ads (Google) and acting like a middleman (Apple) are apparently lucrative and worth money? (This isn't a critique to you OP or your comment, but rather a commentary on the 21st century.)
r_singh 1y ago
The next decade looks like tech vs. governments everywhere. From the article, it seems Apple won’t roll this out worldwide unless forced. As a user I like Apple’s App Store for security personally, but I wonder how multiple app stores turn out in other regions. I see the EU already allows alternative app marketplaces — has anyone used one and can share their experience?
- isodev 1y ago
  Apple complied but maliciously in the EU making it very difficult and very expensive to offer apps on alt stores. They also made sure to add scary warnings so one can never offer a normal onboarding flow. > Apple’s App Store for security The App Store doesn’t do anything to protect you in that sense. It’s easy to circumvent and these days it’s cheaper to just buy an iOS exploit than go through the trouble of making a shady app.
  - alpinisme 1y ago
    > It’s easy to circumvent and these days it’s cheaper to just buy an iOS exploit than go through the trouble of making a shady app. But why is that easier? And is it inevitably so or a result of the fact that the boundaries of the one place to install apps from is aggressively policed?
  - r_singh 1y ago
    > The App Store doesn't do anything to product you in that sense. It's easy to circumvent... Interesting, their marketing has customers believe otherwise, so I wouldn't have thought that as a noob in cybersecurity. I've submitted an app to the iOS App Store in the past, and the process is tedious and doesn't seem superficial (unlike the Play Store process, which was completely autonomous at the time), so that's another reason why I wouldn't have thought it.
    - q3k 1y ago
      The review doesn't guard against malicious code. You can slip through anything you want, just don't trigger the functionality during review and you're golden. People have been doing that for private framework calls since forever. The protection is in the permission system and sandboxing, which is active regardless of the source of the code.
tempodox 1y ago
There has to be a catch. Apple would never give in without malicious compliance to the hilt.
qqxufo 1y ago
[flagged]
- nolok 1y ago
  To go one step beyond, here a simple way to view it that doesn't trigger the usual "it's a one store per app bonanza issue" : would a steam store work and be properly usable ? I use steam because it's one major "app" store (though on desktop) that is very large, not based on specific ethics nor to a specific manufacturer nor OS developper
  - radley 1y ago
    > would a steam store work and be properly usable I think there would be a few different models. Epic, of course, would lead as a gaming store, but I could easily see competition between Epic and Steam for this space. But there could also be other audience-focused stores as well, such as for creative professionals, like we had prior to iPhones. Then there's also suite apps that will maintain their own stores as well. Just because Apple locked down the entirety of the mobile app world for 20 years, and told us we didn't want alternatives, doesn't mean it won't happen. If anything, it's evidence to the contrary.
  - layer8 1y ago
    One problem is that Apple still requires that they notarize each single app on alternative app stores, and reserve the right to refuse apps for security reasons, so a large third-party app store would still be handicapped compared to an independent operation like Steam.
  - seszett 1y ago
    > the usual "it's a one store per app bonanza issue" What do you mean "usual"? Android had always had app stores without too many restrictions (though for a long time it was complicated to have auto updates) and it's never been a problem. On which platform did this happen?
- encom 1y ago
  You know Apple is going to do the bare minimum required to avoid lawsuits or government regulation. It will be as miserable is possible. And now Google and Apple will converge at that point.
yupyupyups 1y ago
Here is a joke for you all. How do you keep a floor clean? Tell MacRumors it's Tim Cook's boot. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ios-26-2-to-allow-third-party-app-stores-in-japan-ahead-of-regulatory-deadline.2470522/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ios-26-2-to-allow-third...
- emchammer 1y ago
  Tim Cook has shown everybody what he is good at. It’s not running a user-first computer company. It’s time for him to be shown the door. Can’t even scroll right in the text editor. Trillion-dollar company.
  - runjake 1y ago
    The stockholders have something different to say about that. He's been a cash cow for them and that's how the game is played. It's really hard to be a publicly-traded corporation and user-first. Those goals are often at odds with each other.
    - LadyCailin 1y ago
      > It's really hard to be a publicly-traded corporation and user-first. You aren’t wrong, but I hate that you aren’t. It’s a shame there is so little regulation and that things are getting more and more expensive and complex to initially develop, that there just isn’t really a free market anymore for many important things.
      - runjake 1y ago
        I hate that I'm not, too. Particularly since the 1980s, I feel like we've veered too far toward obtaining maximum profit at the expense of true innovation and developing products that truly serve the customer.
        warkdarrior 1y ago
        The cows don't get a say in how they are milked.
ryandrake 1y ago
I don't really want multiple app stores all over my device. A world where if you want an application, you first need to install each developer's "store app" is a step backwards. Look at what happened on Windows. I can't just install Fortnite. No, I have to get the "Epic Games Store" and then use that to install and launch it. A lot of other games also have their own "launcher" now, too which is just a thinly veiled store that you have to launch before you run what you really want. I just want to take the iOS equivalent of an EXE or APK, load it onto the phone, and be done with it. I don't want fucking stores all over the place.
- fundatus 1y ago
  This is technically possible in the EU (through web distribution[1] of Apps), but intentionally made impossible to actually use by Apple. They require the developer to have had an Apple Developer account for at least 2 years and at least one App with more than 1m annunal downloads in the App Store. [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  > I can't just install Fortnite. You couldn't install it at all on iOS for 4 years. To your point, you were fine with that, you'll be fine with forgoing anything that's not in Apple's AppStore.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    I'm not much of an iOS gamer, but I also wasn't a big fan of the corporate pissing match between the two companies. There was no technical reason Epic couldn't compile Fortnite for iOS--they just wanted to put their "store" in the way. Which is what I'm really against: I don't want crapware stores all over my device as a prerequisite for installing software.
    - dadoum 1y ago
      No they didn't. As a matter of fact Fortnite has not only been put on the Epic Games Store on iOS, but they are also supporting it on Alt Store. They just disliked that Apple forbade them from using their own payment infrastructure to bypass their fees and policy.
rs186 1y ago
I remember the time when Macrumor comment section was full of opinions like "The EU is being unreasonable and that's why EU is so behind in tech" "Why not create your own operating system" blah blah. How the table has turned.
- betaby 1y ago
  Still, 'Why not create your own operating system'?
  - westmeal 1y ago
    Terry a davis did and look what happened to him.
  - u_sama 1y ago
    Linux??? KDE was German
    - betaby 1y ago
      Sailfish OS.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      Outside of OS: StarOffice. The libreoffice executable is still called soffice.
- layer8 1y ago
  Those comments are still plentiful on MacRumors.
cmxch 1y ago
Now to have it everywhere, not just in specific spaces or Apple approved “independent app stores”.
Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
Pardon me if this is a basic question but surprised I couldn't find more details regarding it. What prevents an end user to either buy a japanese vpn and use that to connect to the app store. I doubt that a vpn running itself inside an ios phone itself would work out of the box but what about if its running at a router level or lets say I use a vpn on another phone and use it to create a hotspot to connect to in an ios phone. Don't things like these basically allow these rules to effectively break the ios monopoly. Or think about it this way, lets say I go to japan and install an third party app store and then go back to some other country, would the 3rd party app store still work? I am also wondering about what mechanism can be used which can make a third party store work in the first place, I know of IOS jailbreaks so would it be similar to it, how would they detect that its in "japan" Or would these work at a hardware level? That a phone sold in japan would have such features, if that would be the case, I would assume it would increase the values of such phones. I would appreciate it if people could tell me more about what's the case and answer my questions.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- blibble 1y ago
  there's an entire daemon dedicated to making sure you're not trying to bypass apple's business model, using every phone sensor possible just a VPN alone won't fool it
  - jsheard 1y ago
    Yeah, they use (from highest to lowest weight) your last reported GPS location, the country codes of nearby cell towers, the country codes of nearby WiFi networks, and the origin country of your SIM/eSIM. Possibly more besides, but at least those.
- layer8 1y ago
  If it’s like for other region-locked features, you’ll need a Japanese Apple account (formerly Apple ID), which likely means a Japanese payment method and/or billing address, and you need to set your iPhone region to Japan. Furthermore, whatever Apple uses for geolocation (it will include mobile cell and wifi metadata) needs to not indicate a location outside of Japan most of the time. A VPN doesn’t cut it.
Aloyjahat 1y ago
[flagged]
Phelinofist 1y ago
Is there an update on the malicious compliance from Apple in the EU?
Lammy 1y ago
This is one of the funniest headlines I've seen in a while RE: “ahead of regulatory deadline”, because deadline is the new year. Citation: https://www.jftc.go.jp/file/240612EN3.pdf https://www.jftc.go.jp/file/240612EN3.pdf (June 2024) “Effective date — The Act shall come into force on the date to be set forth by a Cabinet order within one and a half years after the date of the promulgation of this Act” Only Incredible Amazing Awesome Apple could manage to ship this change in a year and a half and totally weren't waiting for the last possible moment.
- warkdarrior 1y ago
  > This is one of the funniest headlines I've seen in a while RE: “ahead of regulatory deadline”, because deadline is the new year. So you are saying that headline is funny because it is correct?
  - Lammy 1y ago
    No, it's funny because of the way they feel the need to glaze Apple over doing something Apple are required to do. Very transparent way to avoid writing a headline that is entirely negative about the company these people base their identity around. It really doesn't bear mentioning at all that they will beat the deadline by, like, a week at most. If anything it should be mentioned in the opposite way, calling out that Apple took as long as possible as an obvious way to spite the requirement, with the week-or-so wiggle room being a buffer in case of a disastrously bad release that might need to be recalled for some reason.
    - Clent 1y ago
      You went with a cynical view of the situation and that view got you upset. That's interesting.
    - rbits 1y ago
      I read the headline that way. As in Apple is doing it because there's a deadline ahead.
mcswell 1y ago
No word on being able to turn off "transparency" (really translucent), as opposed to muting it. Until then, I'm staying on 18.
modeless 1y ago
Now that Google has agreed to better support third party stores worldwide in the Epic settlement, the writing is on the wall. It's only a matter of time before Apple is forced to support third party stores in the US and I predict they will change their policy worldwide at that time.
- munk-a 1y ago
  Maybe another solid gold statue to the administration could make that pesky lawsuit go away, though. I'm hoping that shift doesn't come into effect until 2028 to avoid it being mangled or declawed entirely.
k3nx 1y ago
Here's a thought experiment. (you may need to ignore reality for a moment or think alternate universe) Let's say Apple changed the requirements to have an app "pass" the app store rules. Allowed developers a lower fee for "free" applications, including OSS ones. (It would be nice if this was $0 if the developer was intending to make $0 just to make your platform better, etc.) Charged a 10% fee to be hosted on the app store instead of 30% (ignore any other fee minutia here, I understand making sure taxes are paid in other countries, etc. I don't expect them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts) Allow businesses to make revenue without going through Apple. (yes, the year is past 1998, we can all do this now) I'm ignoring legality for the most part. I also understand there's a provision "for children safety", but that's never really been "for children safety", but some other form of control because children figure out how to bypass it before grownups do. (sorry I'm jaded. I have children that have figured it out). Would an alternate store even be needed at this point? How much financial loss do they have due to the other app stores vs the 30% fee difference? Where I come from 10% is greater than 0%. What about folks making money outside of Apple platforms? Yes, it happens, strange to think otherwise. Downloading apps? The whole thing is sandboxed, with provisions... how is app store review different here? If I have to say "yes", allow shady apps to access my contacts, does it matter where the app came from? I don't think third party app stores is the problem. Let people install what they want, and charge less to do so. Change the App Store to show "This hasn't been blessed by Apple", like the Firefox extension store does. Let me install an app I wrote/built without expiring in a week, etc. You could have something like Gatekeeper that says "hey, are you sure you want to run this?". Or, if it's the same self signed cert on my computer and my phone just let me do it. It still protects your user base (I can't imagine the support calls), without stopping folks that "know what I'm doing". You'd have a walled garden for those that want it, but a nice footpath for those that don't. It doesn't have to be on or off, it can be both. I'm thinking Apple has much more to lose here. I'd bet in the billions. A perspective shift could have avoided this. Think different :)
t1234s 1y ago
Would 3rd party app stores for iOS allow alternative browser engines (firefox on iOS) or would apps still be limited to using safari
- giobox 1y ago
  It seems Apple have added support for shipping alternate browser engines in the EU, and could in theory be sold using Apple's own store there, as well as third party ones: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/ https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi... FWIW, it does look like Apple have made it pretty hard to qualify to ship one though! To best of my knowledge, no one has actually shipped one yet in the EU. > https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban-persists-even-under-the-dma/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban...

347 points by tosh 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? I really don't understand how you could remain so stubborn as a company that a system of complex rules across regions is preferable to just making it open and getting with the times. I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google announcement w.r.t. code signing but it's still too walled off for me. They need to open up access to third party stores and third party browser engines. EDIT: yes I understand that we live in a capitalist system that is maximizing profit. My argument is that long term they're going to lose this battle seeing as the EU and Japan have already forced them to play ball. There are two options: remain stagnant and collect app store rent as long as possible or learn to be competitive in this new environment.

asimovfan 1y ago
Do you 'really not understand' that they only want to maximize profit?
- SXX 1y ago
  Not only want, but this is what they must do in interest of shareholders.
misnome 1y ago
Presumably they did a cost/benefit analysis and think it is more profitable this way?
- hypeatei 1y ago
  I mean, sure, but it's most likely a myopic analysis trying to keep earnings looking good for next quarter. My personal feeling is that, after seeing the winds shifting, you would figure out how to operate in an open garden and start pivoting now rather than resisting it at every corner.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- mdhb 1y ago
  Only in a quarter to quarter sense. I’ll never give them another cent. I’ve watched large numbers of people go from fans to haters in the last five years especially. I also think at just a fundamental technical level their moat is quickly disappearing.
rckt 1y ago
They all will try to gatekeep as much as they can. Google's move made this pretty obvious. They don't need free market and open platform. This is something for some nerdy enthusiasts. Funny that all the new device that are being released lately, like Sidephone or Light Phone; they all do the same thing. And not only they lock you into their OSes, but they even restrict the software that you are allowed to use.
latexr 1y ago
> Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? By this point it seems pretty clear that they will, at least while Tim Cook is in charge. Other higher ups, specifically Phil Schiller, knew this was a bad idea but were overruled. https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-concerns-app-store-fee/ https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-co...
ndiddy 1y ago
The current system gives Apple a 30% cut of every transaction that happens on iOS. Did you really think they'd voluntarily give that up just to be nice?
cbg0 1y ago
Apple makes over $10B from App Store commissions in the US alone, why would they reduce their profits unless forced to do so?
- latexr 1y ago
  Because doing so would have generated goodwill, which would have lead to a stronger brand and more money in the long term. Instead, they shot themselves in the foot and put themselves in a situation where the launch of a new product (Vision Pro) was an embarrassing and utter failure with lacklustre support from third-parties.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - lopis 1y ago
    You don't need goodwill when you have captured the market.
    - latexr 1y ago
      They haven’t captured every market (again, Vision Pro), and the ones they have they are losing power in.
  - arkitct 1y ago
    It is a shame that people want to believe that companies are or will be good. Or that they should even be given "human" expectations. Companies are not people and should not be afforded being treated as such. A companies function, especially if it is a publically-traded company is to continuously provide greater return for investors, so say the majority of prospectus. What we the people, regardless of country, need to start doing is holding the company heads to account, perhaps if the threat of execution (is China right here?) could "make" the company/people good? Something needs to be done before everything we have and "are" as a human will be, is a subscription to life.
    - 1y ago
fundatus 1y ago
Yeah, the fragmentation that is caused by Apple's behaviour is insane. You can set a different email client globally, but a different default Messages or Maps app? That only works in some regions. In-App payments? You can now basically do whatever you want in the US, in the EU you can opt-in into a different regime, in other regions it's staying the same but who knows for how long. By fighting this everywhere they're basically losing control over the outcomes and will end up with lot's of different regulations everywhere. Instead of doing the sensible thing and opening up their platform before they're being forced to do so.
- dwaite 1y ago
  Four points: 1. Apple potentially loses giving ground to regulators before the regulators ask for something. They don't want to allow alternative app stores and then have a regulator say they are also not allowed to mandate royalties for digital good/service sales in their own store. Apple is likely nudging regulators to go a particular way, but is effectively trying to barter. 2. Likewise, individual regulatory bodies solving the issues they see in different ways has and will continue to create complexity in app developers, in some cases meaning their app needs different business models in different countries to take advantage of the individual regulated changes. That is a consequence of regulators pushing Apple to themselves have different business models to fund the App Store in different countries. 3. If Apple doesn't want a feature to be used or thinks the feature is actively harmful, they aren't going to encourage its use by making it available in jurisdictions where it isn't required. 4. Some of these features (such as default maps app) are semi-baked and without industry consensus, but rolled out because they were required for regulatory timelines. I can emphasize with not wanting to roll out broken features where you aren't being required to.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    The ground is already lost. Apple can't prove that their monopoly is worthwhile, and none of their detractors are willing to renege. The "issues they see in different ways" ultimately boils down to one objectionable product (the App Store) that Apple is unwilling to part with. Apple can fix this issue without excess complexity. They are the ones demanding fragmentation and disparity as a result, allowing alternative app storefronts has always been a one-size-fits-all solution.
junaru 1y ago
> They need to open up access to third party stores and third party browser engines. Here in EU they did allow third party stores and all we got were shovelware sites with subscriptions. It added even more friction an shadiness to acquiring apps. We need to sop pretending iOS third party stores are anything like what we envisioned them to be. They are not f-droid or anything even half as good. Apple complies with this impotent law because the law changes absolutely nothing for end user.
- fukka42 1y ago
  > Here in EU they did allow third party stores Hardly. They did everything they could to make it completely pointless. Your apps still need to be blessed by apple and you still need to pay them. It's embarrassing the EU is allowing this sham.
  - junaru 1y ago
    Exactly. The law achieved nothing yet its being championed overseas as 'move to the right direction' and 'progress'.
    - fukka42 1y ago
      All it did was embolden Google to start locking down as well.
heavyset_go 1y ago
> Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? Is Apple going to kill the golden goose unless it is literally forced to? Of course not. Apple, together with Google, get a cut of 15% to 30% of all mobile app revenue. They have the entire market captured. They will only give that up when they're forced to.
- TulliusCicero 1y ago
  Google has allowed alternate app stores for a long time though. Just being the default is good enough to capture a lot of revenue.
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    It's more than just defaults, Google puts up several road blocks for app stores and its most recent developer doxxing policy breaks F-Droid. Alternate app stores are 2nd class citizens on Android, and gated behind several scary warnings and layers of settings pages. Then there's the fact that the biggest alternative app store on Android is about to be made defunct by Google's new policy.
the_gipsy 1y ago
Is Apple really going to leave all that money on the table until obligated? No.
gregoriol 1y ago
Tim Cook must go: he failed at preserving their gatekeeping, and failed at opening it in an honorable manner.
arrozconcosas 1y ago
There are end user benefits to apples approach too, due to better governance and control over what apps are available. Governments also have incentive to maximize their power and are not benevolent actors in this scheme.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TechRemarker 1y ago
On the other hand if long ago they backed down and lowered fees and allowed more control, aside from the potential security and privacy concerns that could negatively affect the brand, companies would have just then wanted more. As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. So not saying all Apple’s choices and timing were right or best, but giving up previously wouldn’t have prevented all of this but rather just lowered the bar and making it easier for companies and countries to make it easier to lower it even further.
- myko 1y ago
  > As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. I agree with this assuming what Epic Games wants is to be able to distribute their software themselves without Apple being in the loop
- isodev 1y ago
  > aside from the potential security and privacy concerns I make apps both as an indie and during my day job. The App Store review doesn’t do anything to protect the privacy or security of iPhone users. Most of the review is focused on ensuring Apple doesn’t get sued and that you as a developer don’t try to advertise something Apple doesn’t like. The whole idea that the App Store is safer is a marketing thing.
  - bzzzt 1y ago
    Ok, what do you make of this then? https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712 https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712 While not perfect, they claim to do security checks and verify some privacy choices. So they do something at least. As a consumer I can see value in Apple forcing itself in an arbiter role for app payments so they can step in when I have a conflict with an app developer.
    - isodev 1y ago
      All this is rehashed common sense - what you as a seller of software probably will do anyway to appear legitimate. No part of the review process stops someone from circumventing any of those rules - all you need is for the app to behave during review. Every technical safeguard is part of the operating system anyway, so that’s what’s really protecting you and it will still protect you when you install an app from another source. Just like computers have worked since forever.
eptcyka 1y ago
Even if alternative app stores are opened up, there are enough limitations that severely impede the device for me as is. You can't use a VPN and at the same time do service discovery on your local network, for instance. For some services, anyway.
yieldcrv 1y ago
Cigarette companies do this everywhere And they’re just the most visible Everything banned in the US is still offered as soon as you step across a border, every gross visual warning mandated in those countries is not implemented in the US
fainpul 1y ago
> I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google announcement w.r.t. code signing You might want to get informed about the hurdles Apple puts in your way first.
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  Android will still be able to install apps via ADB, even if the worst rumors are true about the restriction that will be enforced. If Apple allowed installation via some command line utility, that would be a radical opening of the platform.
45764986 1y ago
What incentive does Apple have to comply in advance? Every government wants to have their stamp on it, trying to build ahead of the specifications risks building something that is not compliant.

BenFranklin100 1y ago

[flagged]

gdulli 1y ago
The people who want to prostrate themselves for tech giant "security" paternalism can still use the first-party app store. The people who don't want to give up freedom for security should have the choice not to do so.
xandrius 1y ago
[flagged]
- bzzzt 1y ago
  If your social network is only available on a store not respecting your privacy and it's normalized people install stuff from there it's a loss for you since you don't have the option for the app that's compliant with Apple's privacy rules. Either you give in to more privacy violations or you give up being able to speak to part of your social network easily.
  - jobs_throwaway 1y ago
    A lot of crying to say "there will be another option beyond the first party store". If you don't want those apps, don't get them. Imposing your choices on everyone else is not the solution.
    - bzzzt 1y ago
      No, those apps should be regulated far more than Apple is because they cause much more damage than purely economical. But for the time being I don't mind Apple chipping away at their privacy invading competitors.
postalrat 1y ago
Helping tens of thousands and developers sounds like a good trade.

IgorPartola 1y ago

Apple is a hardware company with proprietary CPUs and such. They have such a moat that if they open sourced their entire OS stack today nobody would be able to do anything with it except by buying their hardware. But the issue with the app stores is the app fees. Those must be lucrative enough to want to keep that gate for themselves.

microtonal 1y ago
They have such a moat that if they open sourced their entire OS stack today nobody would be able to do anything with it except by buying their hardware. That doesn't make much sense, XNU and the layers above it are very portable, they went PowerPC -> x86 -> x86_64 -> ARM64 after all. They also supported multiple different GPUs in the Intel era. If the entire OS stack was open sourced today, we would have forks running on standard Intel/AMD CPUs in a week. They wouldn't have the same optimized power management, etc. But I think it would have a good chance of wiping out desktop Linux within a brief period. macOS/iOS are part of the moat.
- bzzzt 1y ago
  If the entire stack would be open sourced there would be ports, but would there be a market for macOS devices without the optimized power management and device integration Apple offers now? I'm still hoping some other integrated software/hardware company will stand up and offer the same attention to detail as Apple did. Instead of that everybody's actively enshittifying their own products and complaining Apple is earning so much...
  - evilduck 1y ago
    Companies have tried to sell Hackintoshes before. There was a market before Apple silicon. There is still some demand it's just nigh impossible to build a modern fully compatible system. I doubt a knockoff MBP would happen initially but it would absolutely encroach on the Mac Mini.
  - Apocryphon 1y ago
    For the original Macintosh operating system, surprisingly a good amount of demand: https://youtu.be/P7vvdXzcrFM https://youtu.be/P7vvdXzcrFM

solarkraft 1y ago

Are there any regions in which they’re not allowed to enforce notarization? Since that effectively preserves their gatekeeper status. Even a lot of the App Store guidelines still apply to notarization.

zoobab 1y ago
Notarization means they still have a say on which app is allowed to run or not. This goes against the spirit of the DMA, which was supposed to 'open up' 3rd party stores. The European Commission does not seem to care atm that Apple is still the gatekeeper.
- microtonal 1y ago
  The European Commission does not seem to care atm that Apple is still the gatekeeper. I think the European Commission is threading the needle, trying to find a path to uphold the DMA/DSA while not provoking another tariff war.
  - bzzzt 1y ago
    I think they prefer to have Apple accountable for everything that happens on Apple devices too. You can't pressure Apple into removing an app when they have to give up the only option to enforce that.
  - ChocolateGod 1y ago
    > I think the European Commission is threading the needle, trying to find a path to uphold the DMA/DSA while not provoking another tariff war. The EC is also under a lot of internal pressure from member states to calm down on the regulation, as it's considered one reason why Europe is such a bad place to do a tech startup right now.
    - user_7832 1y ago
      > The EC is also under a lot of internal pressure from member states to calm down on the regulation, as it's considered one reason why Europe is such a bad place to do a tech startup right now. Turns out then using private data for ads (Google) and acting like a middleman (Apple) are apparently lucrative and worth money? (This isn't a critique to you OP or your comment, but rather a commentary on the 21st century.)

r_singh 1y ago

The next decade looks like tech vs. governments everywhere. From the article, it seems Apple won’t roll this out worldwide unless forced. As a user I like Apple’s App Store for security personally, but I wonder how multiple app stores turn out in other regions. I see the EU already allows alternative app marketplaces — has anyone used one and can share their experience?

isodev 1y ago
Apple complied but maliciously in the EU making it very difficult and very expensive to offer apps on alt stores. They also made sure to add scary warnings so one can never offer a normal onboarding flow. > Apple’s App Store for security The App Store doesn’t do anything to protect you in that sense. It’s easy to circumvent and these days it’s cheaper to just buy an iOS exploit than go through the trouble of making a shady app.
- alpinisme 1y ago
  > It’s easy to circumvent and these days it’s cheaper to just buy an iOS exploit than go through the trouble of making a shady app. But why is that easier? And is it inevitably so or a result of the fact that the boundaries of the one place to install apps from is aggressively policed?
- r_singh 1y ago
  > The App Store doesn't do anything to product you in that sense. It's easy to circumvent... Interesting, their marketing has customers believe otherwise, so I wouldn't have thought that as a noob in cybersecurity. I've submitted an app to the iOS App Store in the past, and the process is tedious and doesn't seem superficial (unlike the Play Store process, which was completely autonomous at the time), so that's another reason why I wouldn't have thought it.
  - q3k 1y ago
    The review doesn't guard against malicious code. You can slip through anything you want, just don't trigger the functionality during review and you're golden. People have been doing that for private framework calls since forever. The protection is in the permission system and sandboxing, which is active regardless of the source of the code.

tempodox 1y ago

There has to be a catch. Apple would never give in without malicious compliance to the hilt.

qqxufo 1y ago

[flagged]

nolok 1y ago
To go one step beyond, here a simple way to view it that doesn't trigger the usual "it's a one store per app bonanza issue" : would a steam store work and be properly usable ? I use steam because it's one major "app" store (though on desktop) that is very large, not based on specific ethics nor to a specific manufacturer nor OS developper
- radley 1y ago
  > would a steam store work and be properly usable I think there would be a few different models. Epic, of course, would lead as a gaming store, but I could easily see competition between Epic and Steam for this space. But there could also be other audience-focused stores as well, such as for creative professionals, like we had prior to iPhones. Then there's also suite apps that will maintain their own stores as well. Just because Apple locked down the entirety of the mobile app world for 20 years, and told us we didn't want alternatives, doesn't mean it won't happen. If anything, it's evidence to the contrary.
- layer8 1y ago
  One problem is that Apple still requires that they notarize each single app on alternative app stores, and reserve the right to refuse apps for security reasons, so a large third-party app store would still be handicapped compared to an independent operation like Steam.
- seszett 1y ago
  > the usual "it's a one store per app bonanza issue" What do you mean "usual"? Android had always had app stores without too many restrictions (though for a long time it was complicated to have auto updates) and it's never been a problem. On which platform did this happen?
encom 1y ago
You know Apple is going to do the bare minimum required to avoid lawsuits or government regulation. It will be as miserable is possible. And now Google and Apple will converge at that point.

yupyupyups 1y ago

Here is a joke for you all. How do you keep a floor clean? Tell MacRumors it's Tim Cook's boot. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ios-26-2-to-allow-third-party-app-stores-in-japan-ahead-of-regulatory-deadline.2470522/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ios-26-2-to-allow-third...

emchammer 1y ago
Tim Cook has shown everybody what he is good at. It’s not running a user-first computer company. It’s time for him to be shown the door. Can’t even scroll right in the text editor. Trillion-dollar company.
- runjake 1y ago
  The stockholders have something different to say about that. He's been a cash cow for them and that's how the game is played. It's really hard to be a publicly-traded corporation and user-first. Those goals are often at odds with each other.
  - LadyCailin 1y ago
    > It's really hard to be a publicly-traded corporation and user-first. You aren’t wrong, but I hate that you aren’t. It’s a shame there is so little regulation and that things are getting more and more expensive and complex to initially develop, that there just isn’t really a free market anymore for many important things.
    - runjake 1y ago
      I hate that I'm not, too. Particularly since the 1980s, I feel like we've veered too far toward obtaining maximum profit at the expense of true innovation and developing products that truly serve the customer.
      - warkdarrior 1y ago
        The cows don't get a say in how they are milked.

ryandrake 1y ago

I don't really want multiple app stores all over my device. A world where if you want an application, you first need to install each developer's "store app" is a step backwards. Look at what happened on Windows. I can't just install Fortnite. No, I have to get the "Epic Games Store" and then use that to install and launch it. A lot of other games also have their own "launcher" now, too which is just a thinly veiled store that you have to launch before you run what you really want. I just want to take the iOS equivalent of an EXE or APK, load it onto the phone, and be done with it. I don't want fucking stores all over the place.

fundatus 1y ago
This is technically possible in the EU (through web distribution[1] of Apps), but intentionally made impossible to actually use by Apple. They require the developer to have had an Apple Developer account for at least 2 years and at least one App with more than 1m annunal downloads in the App Store. [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/
makeitdouble 1y ago
> I can't just install Fortnite. You couldn't install it at all on iOS for 4 years. To your point, you were fine with that, you'll be fine with forgoing anything that's not in Apple's AppStore.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  I'm not much of an iOS gamer, but I also wasn't a big fan of the corporate pissing match between the two companies. There was no technical reason Epic couldn't compile Fortnite for iOS--they just wanted to put their "store" in the way. Which is what I'm really against: I don't want crapware stores all over my device as a prerequisite for installing software.
  - dadoum 1y ago
    No they didn't. As a matter of fact Fortnite has not only been put on the Epic Games Store on iOS, but they are also supporting it on Alt Store. They just disliked that Apple forbade them from using their own payment infrastructure to bypass their fees and policy.

rs186 1y ago

I remember the time when Macrumor comment section was full of opinions like "The EU is being unreasonable and that's why EU is so behind in tech" "Why not create your own operating system" blah blah. How the table has turned.

betaby 1y ago
Still, 'Why not create your own operating system'?
- westmeal 1y ago
  Terry a davis did and look what happened to him.
- u_sama 1y ago
  Linux??? KDE was German
  - betaby 1y ago
    Sailfish OS.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Outside of OS: StarOffice. The libreoffice executable is still called soffice.
layer8 1y ago
Those comments are still plentiful on MacRumors.

cmxch 1y ago

Now to have it everywhere, not just in specific spaces or Apple approved “independent app stores”.

Imustaskforhelp 1y ago

Pardon me if this is a basic question but surprised I couldn't find more details regarding it. What prevents an end user to either buy a japanese vpn and use that to connect to the app store. I doubt that a vpn running itself inside an ios phone itself would work out of the box but what about if its running at a router level or lets say I use a vpn on another phone and use it to create a hotspot to connect to in an ios phone. Don't things like these basically allow these rules to effectively break the ios monopoly. Or think about it this way, lets say I go to japan and install an third party app store and then go back to some other country, would the 3rd party app store still work? I am also wondering about what mechanism can be used which can make a third party store work in the first place, I know of IOS jailbreaks so would it be similar to it, how would they detect that its in "japan" Or would these work at a hardware level? That a phone sold in japan would have such features, if that would be the case, I would assume it would increase the values of such phones. I would appreciate it if people could tell me more about what's the case and answer my questions.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
blibble 1y ago
there's an entire daemon dedicated to making sure you're not trying to bypass apple's business model, using every phone sensor possible just a VPN alone won't fool it
- jsheard 1y ago
  Yeah, they use (from highest to lowest weight) your last reported GPS location, the country codes of nearby cell towers, the country codes of nearby WiFi networks, and the origin country of your SIM/eSIM. Possibly more besides, but at least those.
layer8 1y ago
If it’s like for other region-locked features, you’ll need a Japanese Apple account (formerly Apple ID), which likely means a Japanese payment method and/or billing address, and you need to set your iPhone region to Japan. Furthermore, whatever Apple uses for geolocation (it will include mobile cell and wifi metadata) needs to not indicate a location outside of Japan most of the time. A VPN doesn’t cut it.

Aloyjahat 1y ago

[flagged]

Phelinofist 1y ago

Is there an update on the malicious compliance from Apple in the EU?

Lammy 1y ago

This is one of the funniest headlines I've seen in a while RE: “ahead of regulatory deadline”, because deadline is the new year. Citation: https://www.jftc.go.jp/file/240612EN3.pdf https://www.jftc.go.jp/file/240612EN3.pdf (June 2024) “Effective date — The Act shall come into force on the date to be set forth by a Cabinet order within one and a half years after the date of the promulgation of this Act” Only Incredible Amazing Awesome Apple could manage to ship this change in a year and a half and totally weren't waiting for the last possible moment.

warkdarrior 1y ago
> This is one of the funniest headlines I've seen in a while RE: “ahead of regulatory deadline”, because deadline is the new year. So you are saying that headline is funny because it is correct?
- Lammy 1y ago
  No, it's funny because of the way they feel the need to glaze Apple over doing something Apple are required to do. Very transparent way to avoid writing a headline that is entirely negative about the company these people base their identity around. It really doesn't bear mentioning at all that they will beat the deadline by, like, a week at most. If anything it should be mentioned in the opposite way, calling out that Apple took as long as possible as an obvious way to spite the requirement, with the week-or-so wiggle room being a buffer in case of a disastrously bad release that might need to be recalled for some reason.
  - Clent 1y ago
    You went with a cynical view of the situation and that view got you upset. That's interesting.
  - rbits 1y ago
    I read the headline that way. As in Apple is doing it because there's a deadline ahead.

mcswell 1y ago

No word on being able to turn off "transparency" (really translucent), as opposed to muting it. Until then, I'm staying on 18.

modeless 1y ago

Now that Google has agreed to better support third party stores worldwide in the Epic settlement, the writing is on the wall. It's only a matter of time before Apple is forced to support third party stores in the US and I predict they will change their policy worldwide at that time.

munk-a 1y ago
Maybe another solid gold statue to the administration could make that pesky lawsuit go away, though. I'm hoping that shift doesn't come into effect until 2028 to avoid it being mangled or declawed entirely.

k3nx 1y ago

Here's a thought experiment. (you may need to ignore reality for a moment or think alternate universe) Let's say Apple changed the requirements to have an app "pass" the app store rules. Allowed developers a lower fee for "free" applications, including OSS ones. (It would be nice if this was $0 if the developer was intending to make $0 just to make your platform better, etc.) Charged a 10% fee to be hosted on the app store instead of 30% (ignore any other fee minutia here, I understand making sure taxes are paid in other countries, etc. I don't expect them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts) Allow businesses to make revenue without going through Apple. (yes, the year is past 1998, we can all do this now) I'm ignoring legality for the most part. I also understand there's a provision "for children safety", but that's never really been "for children safety", but some other form of control because children figure out how to bypass it before grownups do. (sorry I'm jaded. I have children that have figured it out). Would an alternate store even be needed at this point? How much financial loss do they have due to the other app stores vs the 30% fee difference? Where I come from 10% is greater than 0%. What about folks making money outside of Apple platforms? Yes, it happens, strange to think otherwise. Downloading apps? The whole thing is sandboxed, with provisions... how is app store review different here? If I have to say "yes", allow shady apps to access my contacts, does it matter where the app came from? I don't think third party app stores is the problem. Let people install what they want, and charge less to do so. Change the App Store to show "This hasn't been blessed by Apple", like the Firefox extension store does. Let me install an app I wrote/built without expiring in a week, etc. You could have something like Gatekeeper that says "hey, are you sure you want to run this?". Or, if it's the same self signed cert on my computer and my phone just let me do it. It still protects your user base (I can't imagine the support calls), without stopping folks that "know what I'm doing". You'd have a walled garden for those that want it, but a nice footpath for those that don't. It doesn't have to be on or off, it can be both. I'm thinking Apple has much more to lose here. I'd bet in the billions. A perspective shift could have avoided this. Think different :)

t1234s 1y ago

Would 3rd party app stores for iOS allow alternative browser engines (firefox on iOS) or would apps still be limited to using safari

giobox 1y ago
It seems Apple have added support for shipping alternate browser engines in the EU, and could in theory be sold using Apple's own store there, as well as third party ones: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/ https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi... FWIW, it does look like Apple have made it pretty hard to qualify to ship one though! To best of my knowledge, no one has actually shipped one yet in the EU. > https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban-persists-even-under-the-dma/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban...