The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.
Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc.
In effect not much changes: I e.g. have a Netflix subscription since long before the AppStore. I never paid for it through the AppStore, Netflix’ app is free to download, and I can still log into my account and use all paid features without Apple getting a dime.
Given that this was long an option without Apple making a fuss about it, I don’t expect massive changes. Probably app developers can show a link to a web site where people can sign up for services, rather than relying on people figuring it out on their own. Not exactly a big deal.
Allowing sideloading would have been overdue. While I agree Apple should be able to decide what App it wants to associate with its brand in a branded AppStore (e.g. no porn), they should not have the right to decide what uses users put their devices to, after they paid squarely and fairly for them. But without sideloading, Apple’s brand decisions become decisions on what users my do with their devices, and THAT needs to stop.
I don’t want side loading allowed for this one reason. Because of the way it is right now, I’m in complete control of what apps that are available get installed on my iPhone. Apps that I know have been vetted as secure and not doing anything that is contrary to what I want my device used for.
If side loading is ever allowed, this is what will happen. Governments with less than an exemplary track record for rights will get the back door that they want for iOS.
You visit their country and they could force you to installing tracking or spyware onto your device and there is nothing that you nor Apple could do to stop it.
Basically fighting to be able to install some worthless game on your phone would open up Pandora’s box to being forced to install other things. Things that can report on you when you use other apps that are banned in your country like Twitter or Telegram or track your whereabouts. They could say all they want that they don’t but you’d have no way to validate if they are speaking the truth. Apple’s curation process stops all that.
Why do you think allowing side loading means removing user control of app installation? They're pretty different things.
Different but very related from my point of view. The Apple App Store apps have a level of security that is important to me for such a personal device. You won’t find apps that can monitor if you use other apps, you won’t have apps that are using APIs that they are not supposed to be. An app says that they don’t do certain things and Apple has the ability to look at the code and validate that this is the truth.
Side loaded apps will have none of these guarantees. So I hear you’re point, then just don’t side load any apps that you’re not comfortable with, and you would be right, I wouldn’t do that and nor would anyone else that shares these views, but having the ability to side load apps possible would open the doors for those in power to cohere or legislate that you do it. I see border crossings as a great place for this to be able to happen and without having for them to resort to using things like Pegasus Spyware. Individuals could be forced to install these open spyware products that could be designed to send authorities to your last location the moment you uninstalled it.
Yes, for those of us in most free societies this might never happen, but those in authoritarian society this won’t be an option.
It’s more about being able to control what doesn’t go on our devices and having the backup of Apple to prevent being forced to do it. I’m using Apple as an extra level of security to secure my device and protect my universal human rights. It’s way easier to refuse it if is not there on the App Store and thus not able to install. Opening side loading possibilities will put many individuals in situations that they may not be able to refuse on their own.
The judge ruled that app developers can link to external payment processes, but explicitly also ruled Apple is still entitled to its contractually agreed commissions (e.g. 30%) regardless of using an external payment process. So that “free” app with an external subscription won’t save the developer any money. It only creates a friction point for a consumer to subscribe.
The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.
Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc.
In effect not much changes: I e.g. have a Netflix subscription since long before the AppStore. I never paid for it through the AppStore, Netflix’ app is free to download, and I can still log into my account and use all paid features without Apple getting a dime.
Given that this was long an option without Apple making a fuss about it, I don’t expect massive changes. Probably app developers can show a link to a web site where people can sign up for services, rather than relying on people figuring it out on their own. Not exactly a big deal.
Allowing sideloading would have been overdue. While I agree Apple should be able to decide what App it wants to associate with its brand in a branded AppStore (e.g. no porn), they should not have the right to decide what uses users put their devices to, after they paid squarely and fairly for them. But without sideloading, Apple’s brand decisions become decisions on what users my do with their devices, and THAT needs to stop.
I don’t want side loading allowed for this one reason. Because of the way it is right now, I’m in complete control of what apps that are available get installed on my iPhone. Apps that I know have been vetted as secure and not doing anything that is contrary to what I want my device used for.
If side loading is ever allowed, this is what will happen. Governments with less than an exemplary track record for rights will get the back door that they want for iOS.
You visit their country and they could force you to installing tracking or spyware onto your device and there is nothing that you nor Apple could do to stop it.
Basically fighting to be able to install some worthless game on your phone would open up Pandora’s box to being forced to install other things. Things that can report on you when you use other apps that are banned in your country like Twitter or Telegram or track your whereabouts. They could say all they want that they don’t but you’d have no way to validate if they are speaking the truth. Apple’s curation process stops all that.
Why do you think allowing side loading means removing user control of app installation? They're pretty different things.
Different but very related from my point of view. The Apple App Store apps have a level of security that is important to me for such a personal device. You won’t find apps that can monitor if you use other apps, you won’t have apps that are using APIs that they are not supposed to be. An app says that they don’t do certain things and Apple has the ability to look at the code and validate that this is the truth.
Side loaded apps will have none of these guarantees. So I hear you’re point, then just don’t side load any apps that you’re not comfortable with, and you would be right, I wouldn’t do that and nor would anyone else that shares these views, but having the ability to side load apps possible would open the doors for those in power to cohere or legislate that you do it. I see border crossings as a great place for this to be able to happen and without having for them to resort to using things like Pegasus Spyware. Individuals could be forced to install these open spyware products that could be designed to send authorities to your last location the moment you uninstalled it.
Yes, for those of us in most free societies this might never happen, but those in authoritarian society this won’t be an option.
It’s more about being able to control what doesn’t go on our devices and having the backup of Apple to prevent being forced to do it. I’m using Apple as an extra level of security to secure my device and protect my universal human rights. It’s way easier to refuse it if is not there on the App Store and thus not able to install. Opening side loading possibilities will put many individuals in situations that they may not be able to refuse on their own.
What’s to prevent an authoritarian government to legislate that all iPhones crossing into their borders must have a certain app installed right now?
There are already laws about mandatory apps at point of sale in Russia if I recall correctly. I don’t see that side loading changes all that much, the user has the same control and the authoritarian governments have the same powers.
Hell they could mandate that you jailbreak your phone if they wanted to.
The judge ruled that app developers can link to external payment processes, but explicitly also ruled Apple is still entitled to its contractually agreed commissions (e.g. 30%) regardless of using an external payment process. So that “free” app with an external subscription won’t save the developer any money. It only creates a friction point for a consumer to subscribe.
Pretty sure this isn’t true at all. The judgement was about anti-steering, i.e. developers will be able to put a link to their website where an account can be created, purchases made and subscriptions managed. Apple to date has had a rule that those links were not allowed in-app, but they have never made a 30% claim on those transactions.
Comments
Hell they could mandate that you jailbreak your phone if they wanted to.