Brazil gives Apple 90 days to enable third-party app marketplaces on iOS
Apple has been forced to enable sideloading for iPhone users in Brazil within the next three months or face daily fines for non-compliance.
-xl.jpg){kind=icon}
Brazil has ordered Apple to enable sideloading within 90 days or face fines.
On Wednesday, Judge Pablo Zuniga of the Brazilian federal court ordered Apple to allow third-party app marketplaces in the country within the next 90 days. If the company fails to adhere to the court's order, it could face a fine of more than $40,000 per day.
The judge said the iPhone maker "has already complied with similar obligations in other countries, without demonstrating a significant impact or irreparable damage to its business model."
The European Union similarly forced Apple to comply with its Digital Markets Act in 2024. With the introduction of iOS 17.4 and iPadOS 18, Apple enabled sideloading for iPhone and iPad users within the EU.
Now, Brazil wants Apple to do the same. As spotted by 9to5mac, and originally reported by the Brazilian publication Valor Economico, Judge Zuniga explained that the "limitations" Apple has imposed on developers could prevent future competitors from entering the market.
In a response to the Brazilian publication, an Apple spokesperson said that the company "believes in vibrant and competitive markets," adding that the iPhone maker "faces competition in all segments and jurisdictions" where it operates.
The original antitrust complaint was filed against Apple in 2022 by Brazilian regulator Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Economica, or CADE. After an investigation and a bad ruling for Apple, an unreasonable implementation timeline was proposed and quickly overturned. More recently, in February 2025, the regulator held a public hearing on the issue.
Apple plans to fight the ruling of the Brazilian federal court, saying that the proposed changes would outright harm the privacy and security of iPhone and iPad users. The entire process could continue for months, and the outcome remains to be seen, but there is a decent chance Apple could be forced into compliance in one way or another.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
In the end, side loading is about money and where that money goes - to Apple for providing and developing the platform or software developers for developing their products. Both deserve compensation. Consumers gain control but probably won’t save money and, to the extent that Apple loses money to developers and seeks new revenue streams from consumers, may pay more.
However, If it wants to open up its platform to outside developers then things change a lot. That is what we are seeing here. It is simply another jurisdiction applying these measures.
Apple has chosen wisely (even if it was nudged to allow third party stores in the EU and current compliance efforts might be fined) and allowed third party stores.
Now it simply has to persuade developers and users to use its store over others.
Sideloading is also the appropriate response for people who don't want to have to give a company all of its personal info just to download an app or update the system software. That Apple has locked people into a system that requires the user to give up all details of use of a phone is unacceptable. And while part of the reason is justifiably to limit the spread of viruses and other malware -- something I appreciated for a long while --, Apple has "evolved" to become a major harvester of personal data to constantly advertise its services to people. And that's where Apple lost me.
Also, the Mac platform permits so-called side-loading and has always done so. I’ll bet the majority of people install the majority of their apps (not including those pre-installed or included with the OS) from the web and not the Mac App Store. And if they ever stopped allowing this it would instantly kill the Mac platform!
Even Epic who started this whole thing has no problem with games consoles being locked down and charging commission on their exclusive stores. The crux of their argument is that smartphones are general purpose devices but they aren't and it wouldn't even matter if they were. The manufacturer should be able to design a product how they want and if people don't like that choice, they buy a different product.
Desktops were designed as creator/productive platforms. This requires being able to develop software and inherently requires fewer restrictions.
Smartphones were designed as consumption platforms, mobile web mainly. They are large scale and have way more personal data than any other device - photos, banking info, biometrics, two-factor authentication, personal messaging - so security comes well above flexibility. They also have a limited UI. If a desktop had malware, it's possible to boot in safe mode and browse the filesystem and processes to remove it. If a smartphone gets malware, there's no UI to get rid of it efficiently.
There's nothing wrong with making 3rd party stores an optional extra that is off by default for security but all it takes is for big companies to push users to need 3rd party stores for their apps and then the scam stores will pop up and people will start installing banking apps that mimic the official ones. Oh it doesn't happen on a large scale on Android people will say. Mainly because people have been conditioned to avoid using 3rd party stores for security reasons. There's not much point in having 3rd party stores when people are told, even by the FBI, to avoid using them:
https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2020/PSA200610
"The FBI recommends only obtaining smartphone apps from trusted sources like official app stores or directly from bank websites."
This whole movement for 3rd party stores hasn't come from consumers but from Apple's biggest competitors who don't like the fact they don't control the platform and don't have the ability to set the rules of the platform like abusing their customers with shady business practises.
Before centralized app stores owned by the OS makers was a thing, downloading an application from wherever was simply what everybody did. It is what you can still do on MacOS (and typically we don’t start calling people “idiots” for doing that).
Also, be nice. Calling everybody an idiot doesn’t make you cool. You can disagree while still being nice. You don’t have to. Nobody can force you. Do whatever you want. But… it would be nice to be nice.
For me 'sideloading' is the installation of a freely distributed installation file on a mobile device through means other than an official app store.
IMO, if an app is installed through an official app store it isn't sideloading, it's loading as per the general rules and is therefore a normal install.