I've never heard a single consumer say they wanted more app stores on the iPhone. Only mega million dollar companies who want to make more profit themselves. Why do politicians keep trying to "fix" something that isn't broken, which will actually ruin the iPhone ecosystem? As a small developer adding more app stores is my worst nightmare.
I've never heard a single consumer say they wanted more app stores on the iPhone. Only mega million dollar companies who want to make more profit themselves. Why do politicians keep trying to "fix" something that isn't broken, which will actually ruin the iPhone ecosystem? As a small developer adding more app stores is my worst nightmare.
Have you ever heard a single iPhone purchaser be told that the only store that can be used is the Apple App Store and that Apple would take its cut out of every transaction?
I've said it many a time. If Apple made certain elements clear at purchase, a lot of its 'abuse of dominant position' problems might actually go away.
I'm sure Apple has considered this too.
Why don't you think they've ever come out and made the limitations crystal clear at purchase and require consumers to sign off on them?
It sure seems that forced sideloading is going to happen eventually. I guess we will just see what happens. I suspect it won’t end up being as big a deal, both good and bad, as people think.
I agree. Who cares if there’s side-loading. If that’s something what people want to do let ‘em. I won’t be.
One problem with the Apple App Store is that you cannot rate any house app like all other apps. That’s unfair. If there’s a chance, I’d give iTunes app ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ star while the Music app ⭐️.
It sure seems that forced sideloading is going to happen eventually. I guess we will just see what happens. I suspect it won’t end up being as big a deal, both good and bad, as people think.
I agree. Who cares if there’s side-loading. If that’s something what people want to do let ‘em. I won’t be.
Apple should care, because me and the people I influence will stop buying iOS devices if iOS devices allow that. Will side-loading app stores have the same App Privacy information as apps on the Apple App Store have? No. Can you guarantee that apps will be available on the Apple App Store if they are available on other stores? No, you can't, and that means iOS will become a garbage dump.
It sure seems that forced sideloading is going to happen eventually. I guess we will just see what happens. I suspect it won’t end up being as big a deal, both good and bad, as people think.
I agree. Who cares if there’s side-loading. If that’s something what people want to do let ‘em. I won’t be.
Apple should care, because me and the people I influence will stop buying iOS devices if iOS devices allow that. Will side-loading app stores have the same App Privacy information as apps on the Apple App Store have? No. Can you guarantee that apps will be available on the Apple App Store if they are available on other stores? No, you can't, and that means iOS will become a garbage dump.
Who cares. HAHA, why would *I* guarantee App Store apps. Anyone that installS a side-load app gets what they deserve, but who are *YOU* to stop them. LOL. I pity the people under your “influence”.
It sure seems that forced sideloading is going to happen eventually. I guess we will just see what happens. I suspect it won’t end up being as big a deal, both good and bad, as people think.
I agree. Who cares if there’s side-loading. If that’s something what people want to do let ‘em. I won’t be.
Apple should care, because me and the people I influence will stop buying iOS devices if iOS devices allow that. Will side-loading app stores have the same App Privacy information as apps on the Apple App Store have? No. Can you guarantee that apps will be available on the Apple App Store if they are available on other stores? No, you can't, and that means iOS will become a garbage dump.
So what're you gonna do? Tell everyone to use a Nokia 3310?
It sure seems that forced sideloading is going to happen eventually. I guess we will just see what happens. I suspect it won’t end up being as big a deal, both good and bad, as people think.
It will turn out like video and music streaming, there will be no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, Apple got where they are by designing great products, of course having two of the best CEO's and a great staff doesn't hurt.
I've never heard a single consumer say they wanted more app stores on the iPhone. Only mega million dollar companies who want to make more profit themselves. Why do politicians keep trying to "fix" something that isn't broken, which will actually ruin the iPhone ecosystem? As a small developer adding more app stores is my worst nightmare.
Have you ever heard a single iPhone purchaser be told that the only store that can be used is the Apple App Store and that Apple would take its cut out of every transaction?
I've said it many a time. If Apple made certain elements clear at purchase, a lot of its 'abuse of dominant position' problems might actually go away.
I'm sure Apple has considered this too.
Why don't you think they've ever come out and made the limitations crystal clear at purchase and require consumers to sign off on them?
Give it a rest. Not being told doesn't mean that they didn't know. Maybe back in 2012. Right now, over 80% of the people purchasing a new iPhone are at least on their second iPhone. (and 12% of them owned an Android phone before purchasing an iPhone and more than likely already know the main differences in features between the two mobile OS's.) How can they not know that the Apple App Store is the only app store on an iPhone? And need to be told. Are consumers in the EU that tech challenged that they need their government hold their hands when purchasing tech devices, even after owning such devices for years?
Don't you think that if only having one app store on their iPhone was a deal killer, that they would not buy a second one when it's time to upgrade to a newer phone?
How about the return window. Here in the US, one can return a newly purchase undamaged iPhone for a full refund within 2 weeks (might be longer in the EU). This even after opening it and using it for 13 days. If having more than one app store was that important in their purchase, then they should have found out about an iPhone only having one app store, in the return window and gotten a full refund.
And you are mistaken. The EU commission with their DMA is about the competition. The DMA is not about protecting any consumers rights. The DMA is about forcing "gatekeepers" to give rival EU competitors a better chance to compete against them. Even if it might cost consumers some of their rights. The EU commission DMA don't care about consumers not knowing before purchases, that Apple iPhones only have one app store. Not one bit. They only care that EU companies are having a hard time competing with "gatekeepers" and they need to take affirmative action to force "gatekeepers" to do what it takes to help their competitors, in the name of "fairness" and "leveling" the playing field.
If the EU was concern about EU consumers not knowing that there is only one app store on iOS devices (before purchase), why don't they just mandate that Apple must make it clear on their packaging (that the Apple App Store is the only app store available on this device). Instead of trying to pass regulations to force Apple to allow more than one app store on iOS (just because Apple didn't inform any buyers that there is only one app store in iOS)? So to appease the 5% or so EU consumers that might not have known that iPhones only had one app store (because no one told them), they going to force Apple to allow more than one app store, even though 95% knew (about the one app store), didn't care, bought the iPhone anyway and have no complaints. If this were the case, what kind of "Mickey Mouse" politicians do you have running your government over there? But I have to admit, we have some of the "Looney Tunes" politicians here, running our government, that for sure, will give them a run for their money.
It's not the Apple users that are charged "Apple's cut" on a purchase from the Apple App Store. It's the developers that have to pay a commission on their sales. If anything, it's the developer that should be informing their buyers that any commission that was paid to Apple (to be in the Apple App Store) is included in the price of the app. When you buy a game disc for your Xbox, is anyone informing you that Microsoft will be receiving a small percentage of what you paid for the disc in the form of the developer having to pay Microsoft a licensing fee to make a game disc for an Xbox? It's the game developers selling the disc that needs to know, not the consumers buying the disc.
I've never heard a single consumer say they wanted more app stores on the iPhone. Only mega million dollar companies who want to make more profit themselves. Why do politicians keep trying to "fix" something that isn't broken, which will actually ruin the iPhone ecosystem? As a small developer adding more app stores is my worst nightmare.
Have you ever heard a single iPhone purchaser be told that the only store that can be used is the Apple App Store and that Apple would take its cut out of every transaction?
I've said it many a time. If Apple made certain elements clear at purchase, a lot of its 'abuse of dominant position' problems might actually go away.
I'm sure Apple has considered this too.
Why don't you think they've ever come out and made the limitations crystal clear at purchase and require consumers to sign off on them?
Give it a rest. Not being told doesn't mean that they didn't know. Maybe back in 2012. Right now, over 80% of the people purchasing a new iPhone are at least on their second iPhone. (and 12% of them owned an Android phone before purchasing an iPhone and more than likely already know the main differences in features between the two mobile OS's.) How can they not know that the Apple App Store is the only app store on an iPhone? And need to be told. Are consumers in the EU that tech challenged that they need their government hold their hands when purchasing tech devices, even after owning such devices for years?
Don't you think that if only having one app store on their iPhone was a deal killer, that they would not buy a second one when it's time to upgrade to a newer phone?
How about the return window. Here in the US, one can return a newly purchase undamaged iPhone for a full refund within 2 weeks (might be longer in the EU). This even after opening it and using it for 13 days. If having more than one app store was that important in their purchase, then they should have found out about an iPhone only having one app store, in the return window and gotten a full refund.
And you are mistaken. The EU commission with their DMA is about the competition. The DMA is not about protecting any consumers rights. The DMA is about forcing "gatekeepers" to give rival EU competitors a better chance to compete against them. Even if it might cost consumers some of their rights. The EU commission DMA don't care about consumers not knowing before purchases, that Apple iPhones only have one app store. Not one bit. They only care that EU companies are having a hard time competing with "gatekeepers" and they need to take affirmative action to force "gatekeepers" to do what it takes to help their competitors, in the name of "fairness" and "leveling" the playing field.
If the EU was concern about EU consumers not knowing that there is only one app store on iOS devices (before purchase), why don't they just mandate that Apple must make it clear on their packaging (that the Apple App Store is the only app store available on this device). Instead of trying to pass regulations to force Apple to allow more than one app store on iOS (just because Apple didn't inform any buyers that there is only one app store in iOS)? So to appease the 5% or so EU consumers that might not have known that iPhones only had one app store (because no one told them), they going to force Apple to allow more than one app store, even though 95% knew (about the one app store), didn't care, bought the iPhone anyway and have no complaints. If this were the case, what kind of "Mickey Mouse" politicians do you have running your government over there? But I have to admit, we have some of the "Looney Tunes" politicians here, running our government, that for sure, will give them a run for their money.
It's not the Apple users that are charged "Apple's cut" on a purchase from the Apple App Store. It's the developers that have to pay a commission on their sales. If anything, it's the developer that should be informing their buyers that any commission that was paid to Apple (to be in the Apple App Store) is included in the price of the app. When you buy a game disc for your Xbox, is anyone informing you that Microsoft will be receiving a small percentage of what you paid for the disc in the form of the developer having to pay Microsoft a licensing fee to make a game disc for an Xbox? It's the game developers selling the disc that needs to know, not the consumers buying the disc.
Absolute nonsense.
"Not being told doesn't mean they didn't know"
OK, but that was my entire point because being told does mean they know.
Do you see that?
Now. Why did I bring it up?
Years ago the Spanish banking habit of establishing floor clauses on mortgage contracts was escalated to the EU Court of Justice.
The floor clauses were headline news for years before this and were very clearly laid out in the clauses of the mortgage deeds.
The court ruled that the clauses were legal but the banking system still found itself having to pay billions of euros back to customers. Why? Because the court argued that the presence of the clause wasn't enough. It had to be clearly communicated to clients. The banks couldn't prove that.
This is similar to accepting an EULA. The details are there but there is no guarantee that users actually understand them.
So, as a possible means of skirting the problem of abuse of dominant position, Apple could be clear on it at purchase and explicitly inform users of the restrictions they would face.
Would it work? That's impossible to know but it would very probably make its case stronger (remember the floor clauses were not deemed illegal for the 'abuse' they represented).
My point was also why Apple would never choose that route.
But you are claim that most users are already aware of the limitations. In that case they would simply sign off on them. Right? Nothing they didn't already know.
I said it was nonsense because the vast majority of iPhone users have never even considered the issue. How can they be aware of it. I ask a lot of iPhone users this very question.
I have no idea why you bring up consumer rights or the DMA/DSA.
It didn't mention them. I gave a counterpoint to the OP to expose a flaw in what was said.
It’s pretty clear what they want to do: force opening up to third party stores is the opening salvo. Obviously next step is coming up with their own store where they can collect tax directly, and finally outlaw use of any other app store, including Apple’s, once theirs is up and running. It has nothing to do with “opening up markets” or “fostering competition to benefit the customer” let’s call it what it is, a government crying because they see a massive revenue stream escape their grip, and trying everything they can to get a cut of the action.
It’s pretty clear what they want to do: force opening up to third party stores is the opening salvo. Obviously next step is coming up with their own store where they can collect tax directly, and finally outlaw use of any other app store, including Apple’s, once theirs is up and running.
Who is "they"? If you say the Government of Japan will be opening an AppStore and outlawing all others, the claim sounds bonkers!
Name almost any major country, and allowing 3rd party app stores is either already underway, or being actively investigated, or under consideration. IMO 5 years from now, it will be commonplace and no longer even a question whether it is allowable.
It’s pretty clear what they want to do: force opening up to third party stores is the opening salvo. Obviously next step is coming up with their own store where they can collect tax directly, and finally outlaw use of any other app store, including Apple’s, once theirs is up and running.
Who is "they"? If you say the Government of Japan will be opening an AppStore and outlawing all others, the claim sounds bonkers!
Name almost any major country, and allowing 3rd party app stores is either already underway, or being actively investigated, or under consideration. IMO 5 years from now, it will be commonplace and no longer even a question whether it is allowable.
And like streaming no money will be made except by the big company stores, most of the smaller stores will die off.
If no money is made the streaming service will probably stop.
I agree that there are probably too many players in the market and consolidation will be the result. I've said that ever since Apple decided to jump in.
Consolidation is happening now so it is market forces at work. But for market forces to work correctly, competition has to exist.
If consolidation leads to a dominant player, steps will be taken to try and prevent it from abusing its position.
Obviously App store competition needs the wrinkles ironed out (for Google etc) and in the case of Apple, competing stores need to exist.
It’s pretty clear what they want to do: force opening up to third party stores is the opening salvo. Obviously next step is coming up with their own store where they can collect tax directly, and finally outlaw use of any other app store, including Apple’s, once theirs is up and running.
Who is "they"? If you say the Government of Japan will be opening an AppStore and outlawing all others, the claim sounds bonkers!
Name almost any major country, and allowing 3rd party app stores is either already underway, or being actively investigated, or under consideration. IMO 5 years from now, it will be commonplace and no longer even a question whether it is allowable.
And like streaming no money will be made except by the big company stores, most of the smaller stores will die off.
Presumably, there is data available to the effect of how many Android OS smartphone consumers actually side load apps, and how frequently, but I surely haven't been able to find it via Google Search.
IMHO, consumers aren't going to be all that interested in side loading, but sure, alternate apps stores want a piece of the action.
Presumably, there is data available to the effect of how many Android OS smartphone consumers actually side load apps, and how frequently, but I surely haven't been able to find it via Google Search.
IMHO, consumers aren't going to be all that interested in side loading, but sure, alternate apps stores want a piece of the action.
Presumably, there is data available to the effect of how many Android OS smartphone consumers actually side load apps, and how frequently, but I surely haven't been able to find it via Google Search.
IMHO, consumers aren't going to be all that interested in side loading, but sure, alternate apps stores want a piece of the action.
Risk vs reward seems pretty high for side loading, vs App or Play Store.
Regarding sideloaded apps, it's been a couple of years since I've seen it reported, but this is from one of my old saved links:
"Wandera reports that 5.8% of iOS and 1.1% of Android devices had at least one sideloaded app. For iOS, that’s up from the 3.4% of devices in 2018 that had at least one sideloaded app, with this growth potentially due to the increased presence of BYOD deployments. Meanwhile, the percentage of Android apps having at least one sideloaded app is very low and at odds with Zimperium's data which says 48% of Android devices were found to have at least one, compared to 3% of iOS devices. Quite a difference from Wandera’s data, with Zimperium noting that for their customers, “users are the admins of mobile endpoints,” where they have the ability to download apps themselves without requiring an admin’s permission." So I suppose it depends on where your device is managed, and how it's used, whether the owner has any side-loaded apps.
So what to do about those who stray outside the official first-party stores? Should they be left to fend for themselves as punishment for going against the company's wishes?
While it's probably not widely known here at AI, Google has long had safety protections built into Google Android which help guard all users whether they sideloaded an app from a 3rd party or got it from official Google Play. Over the past few weeks, that protection mechanism has been upgraded with more capabilities. https://security.googleblog.com/2023/10/enhanced-google-play-protect-real-time.html
I don't know of any reason Apple could not do the same with iOS. Of course, Google doesn't include Chinese users since the company's OS is nonexistent there. I don't think Apple would have that same issue, being omnipresent in their marketplace, but perhaps there is some subtle code/OS difference between iOS in China and iOS for the rest of the world.
Presumably, there is data available to the effect of how many Android OS smartphone consumers actually side load apps, and how frequently, but I surely haven't been able to find it via Google Search.
IMHO, consumers aren't going to be all that interested in side loading, but sure, alternate apps stores want a piece of the action.
Risk vs reward seems pretty high for side loading, vs App or Play Store.
I 'sideload' occasionally but only when an app isn't available from an official App Store.
I do not consider installing via an App Store (offering certified/signed apps) as sideloading.
I have two sets of mobile services on my phone (GMS and HMS). Play Store and App Gallery.
The 'risk vs reward' doesn't have to be any different from the Apple AppStore.
It is perfectly reasonable for a third party App Store to offer better protections than other stores.
Not to mention direct downloads from developers of trusted sites.
That sounds great, but which entities curate the "better protections" and "trusted stores", because there will certainly be plenty of developers, stores, and payments systems that will not meet standards of the App and Play Stores, and those standards are very, very, high.
But sure, side loading is required of any app that is not available on the App or Play store.
Presumably, there is data available to the effect of how many Android OS smartphone consumers actually side load apps, and how frequently, but I surely haven't been able to find it via Google Search.
IMHO, consumers aren't going to be all that interested in side loading, but sure, alternate apps stores want a piece of the action.
Risk vs reward seems pretty high for side loading, vs App or Play Store.
Epic had their own store on Android it failed and then they sued Google and Apple. Epic's foot traffic (clicks vanished and so did sells), what happens to the foot traffic of Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Meta, and Spotify with their AppStore's if 90% of the developers stay in the Apple Appstore, the Apple store will be the best stocked store because most of the competitors to the big five will stay home. Also your own store means you are not in Apples store you are on your own with a smaller share of clicks..
Also Apple will start to charge the real cost of the infrastructure they have built, which so far has hidden from developers.
Comments
I've said it many a time. If Apple made certain elements clear at purchase, a lot of its 'abuse of dominant position' problems might actually go away.
I'm sure Apple has considered this too.
Why don't you think they've ever come out and made the limitations crystal clear at purchase and require consumers to sign off on them?
Buy more shares if you can ahead of AVP....
"Not being told doesn't mean they didn't know"
OK, but that was my entire point because being told does mean they know.
Do you see that?
Now. Why did I bring it up?
Years ago the Spanish banking habit of establishing floor clauses on mortgage contracts was escalated to the EU Court of Justice.
The floor clauses were headline news for years before this and were very clearly laid out in the clauses of the mortgage deeds.
The court ruled that the clauses were legal but the banking system still found itself having to pay billions of euros back to customers. Why? Because the court argued that the presence of the clause wasn't enough. It had to be clearly communicated to clients. The banks couldn't prove that.
This is similar to accepting an EULA. The details are there but there is no guarantee that users actually understand them.
So, as a possible means of skirting the problem of abuse of dominant position, Apple could be clear on it at purchase and explicitly inform users of the restrictions they would face.
Would it work? That's impossible to know but it would very probably make its case stronger (remember the floor clauses were not deemed illegal for the 'abuse' they represented).
My point was also why Apple would never choose that route.
But you are claim that most users are already aware of the limitations. In that case they would simply sign off on them. Right? Nothing they didn't already know.
I said it was nonsense because the vast majority of iPhone users have never even considered the issue. How can they be aware of it. I ask a lot of iPhone users this very question.
I have no idea why you bring up consumer rights or the DMA/DSA.
It didn't mention them. I gave a counterpoint to the OP to expose a flaw in what was said.
It has nothing to do with “opening up markets” or “fostering competition to benefit the customer” let’s call it what it is, a government crying because they see a massive revenue stream escape their grip, and trying everything they can to get a cut of the action.
Name almost any major country, and allowing 3rd party app stores is either already underway, or being actively investigated, or under consideration. IMO 5 years from now, it will be commonplace and no longer even a question whether it is allowable.
I agree that there are probably too many players in the market and consolidation will be the result. I've said that ever since Apple decided to jump in.
Consolidation is happening now so it is market forces at work. But for market forces to work correctly, competition has to exist.
If consolidation leads to a dominant player, steps will be taken to try and prevent it from abusing its position.
Obviously App store competition needs the wrinkles ironed out (for Google etc) and in the case of Apple, competing stores need to exist.
Once that happens we can see what happens next.
IMHO, consumers aren't going to be all that interested in side loading, but sure, alternate apps stores want a piece of the action.
https://www.news18.com/tech/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-warns-people-about-sideloading-apps-on-android-8663804.html
Risk vs reward seems pretty high for side loading, vs App or Play Store.
I do not consider installing via an App Store (offering certified/signed apps) as sideloading.
I have two sets of mobile services on my phone (GMS and HMS). Play Store and App Gallery.
The 'risk vs reward' doesn't have to be any different from the Apple AppStore.
It is perfectly reasonable for a third party App Store to offer better protections than other stores.
Not to mention direct downloads from developers of trusted sites.
"Wandera reports that 5.8% of iOS and 1.1% of Android devices had at least one sideloaded app. For iOS, that’s up from the 3.4% of devices in 2018 that had at least one sideloaded app, with this growth potentially due to the increased presence of BYOD deployments. Meanwhile, the percentage of Android apps having at least one sideloaded app is very low and at odds with Zimperium's data which says 48% of Android devices were found to have at least one, compared to 3% of iOS devices. Quite a difference from Wandera’s data, with Zimperium noting that for their customers, “users are the admins of mobile endpoints,” where they have the ability to download apps themselves without requiring an admin’s permission."
So I suppose it depends on where your device is managed, and how it's used, whether the owner has any side-loaded apps.
So what to do about those who stray outside the official first-party stores? Should they be left to fend for themselves as punishment for going against the company's wishes?
While it's probably not widely known here at AI, Google has long had safety protections built into Google Android which help guard all users whether they sideloaded an app from a 3rd party or got it from official Google Play. Over the past few weeks, that protection mechanism has been upgraded with more capabilities.
https://security.googleblog.com/2023/10/enhanced-google-play-protect-real-time.html
I don't know of any reason Apple could not do the same with iOS. Of course, Google doesn't include Chinese users since the company's OS is nonexistent there. I don't think Apple would have that same issue, being omnipresent in their marketplace, but perhaps there is some subtle code/OS difference between iOS in China and iOS for the rest of the world.