Her opinion of side loading apps will change when she ends up downloading an app that is malware and takes her most precious information. Side loading is the wild Wild West. They just want everything to be fair at the cost of privacy and well working devices. These rules would destroy everything Apple has worked so hard to accomplish. These law makes don’t know how good they have it with using Apple technology. They take what Apple has done for granted and they plan to mess with everything Apple has done. I believe what she is doing also isn’t fair.
“ Additionally, firms defined as "gatekeepers" will have to cease the preferential treatment of their own services on platforms that they control.”
So, not only does Apple have to allow, and support, third party stores and payment services, they are now forbidden from actively promoting their own? That sure sounds like a fair competitive environment to me. Actually, it sounds like more typical regulatory over-correction to a problem that only affects a few.
In 20 years, people will look around and say “how did we let shit get this bad?” Well, it will be because we allowed our elected officials to emotionally manipulate us into thinking that things like this are in our best interests, and deceptively mislead us into not realizing that the only thing the government really cares about is the government itself.
This isn’t about the EU protecting the consumer, or preserving competitive fairness for all. This is about governments inventing legal methods to eliminate competitors to themselves.
Without that revenue Apple will have to change it's business models. Which means developer tools and interface access will be financed like on other platforms.
Before the App Store, the annual fee for the developer program started at $499 and went up to, I believe, $1,499. Mac OS X upgrades also cost $129. People really believe they’re going to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
Is it that much? I thought it was $99 and $299 for the two different developer programs.
EU is horrible with online laws. GPDR is extremely annoying. I am sick of seeing the popup message, "This uses cookie, accept or reject" with no mechanism to automatically accept or reject instead of forcing people to click on it.
And now this. It's going to be ruined. The ecosystem exists for a reason - security. And I also enjoy having the app stores save my purchases and I can re-download without having to register or issuing a license. That's not the case with third party apps where I have to keep a file of their registration, their URLs, and license numbers, and so on.
This is a perfect example of how making laws often make things worse.
“ Additionally, firms defined as "gatekeepers" will have to cease the preferential treatment of their own services on platforms that they control.”
In 20 years, people will look around and say “how did we let shit get this bad?” Well, it will be because we allowed our elected officials to emotionally manipulate us into thinking that things like this are in our best interests, and deceptively mislead us into not realizing that the only thing the government really cares about is the government itself.
This isn’t about the EU protecting the consumer, or preserving competitive fairness for all. This is about governments inventing legal methods to eliminate competitors to themselves.
Without that revenue Apple will have to change it's business models. Which means developer tools and interface access will be financed like on other platforms.
Before the App Store, the annual fee for the developer program started at $499 and went up to, I believe, $1,499. Mac OS X upgrades also cost $129. People really believe they’re going to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
Is it that much? I thought it was $99 and $299 for the two different developer programs.
It used to be, before the App Store. There were multiple tiers. I forgot about the $3,499 tier, but a chunk of that was due to the WWDC ticket included.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
You haven't really thought this through, have you?
Financial forces will appear (like FaceBook's huge bank account handing out money) that will pressure apps to use only side loading as their sole means for loading onto iOS. And those apps will send data back to FaceBook so that FaceBook gets their money back by invading your privacy. Everybody loses, except for giant corporate privacy invaders like FaceBook, whom you obviously love. Do they pay you to support them in these posts?
I hope the EU gets a bunch of malware and then they have to try to track down the developer for a refund or to find out what is going on only to get no response LMAO! Have fun sideloading Europe!
Count me amongst those who thinks Apple should give the EU the middle finger. I can understand 3rd party payment systems, but forcing 3rd party app stores and individual side loading? There are major problems there.
1. There is no competitive reason to do it. 2. It will destroy many small developers 3. Large developers will leave the original store 4. Massive security risks. 5. Poor-quality and spam apps will proliferate 6. It will damage Apple's brand and ability to control the iPhone experience.
Let's see what happens when Google and Apple unite and say "No." What will the EU do? Fine them? There's an easy answer there: They can just take down their stores in the EU. Better yet, maybe the two decide to pull their products from the EU completely. That's right! No more Android or iOS devices sold in the EU. I'm sure their constituents will love that.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
Not really.
The hardest thing for hackers to do, is to find a way to get their malware into or have their phishing scam work on, iOS. But once Apple is forced to provide the door, it makes things a lot easier. Even if the hackers and scammers do not hold the key to the door, they will find ways to convince the users to unlock that door or find a way to unlock that door by way of a security bug that Apple has not yet discovered and patched. Basically, jailbreaking an iDevice is a way of installing that door, without Apple's help.
For example, scammers could send gamers an official looking email that appears to be from Epic Games, informing them they have been selected to test out a new version of Fortnite, that is not yet in any app stores. All they need to do is to go to settings and flip the switch to "allow side loading" and then click on a link. Like all phishing scams, the scammers only need to fool a very small percentage of users, for the scam to be profitable for them. They couldn't pull that off if there was no such switch. They have to confine their trade to Android users, for now.
From a security standpoint, iOS in much, much safer for everyone, if that switch do not exist. Everyone wins. Including the users that might want to or needs to, side load.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
In theory it could be. The trouble is, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that there will be a rush for the exits. A lot of the apps that we need from MS, Adobe, and such, will immediately exit the AppStore for their own company stores so they can keep that 30%. Companies will appear overnight offering to host apps for 10% commission, so even a lot of small time developers will feel the urge to leave the AppStore. The result will be that even if some of us don't want to leave the Walled Garden, we will have no choice. We will all have to flip the switch, set up an account, give them our credit card info, and cross our fingers. We will all have to allow side loading.
Whether this will be good or bad I'm not going to get into. I'm just pointing out that once this Rubicon is crossed, it will be a very different world we are operating in.
No reason for them to do that. It would be easier to simply hike prices to compensate for the commissions and let users to decide which option is better for them.
I can see Class action suits be people who have been harmed by this overreach. It’s taking us all back to the days of windows CE. Security was crap, search everywhere to find an app, mass piracy, easy for anyone to make a fake App Store website and load it with pirated material and viruses/malware. I guess they value cyber security like their NATO spending, not living up to obligations
There is no overreach. As the article points out, this is to bring things into line with what already happens in other industries.
I wonder what this means for console manufacturers, such as Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft?
As to side loading, if third party stores become a source of malware and piracy, then Apple will still retain customers because of trust and they will also be in a position of “told you so”.
BTW I wonder whether corporations with “bring your own phone” policy, could limit install corporate apps to phones using the first party stores only?
It doesn't apply to game consoles. Gaming platforms are not one of the "core platform service" defined under "gatekeeper" in the DMA.
The only "core platform service" Microsoft need to be concern with is "operating system". With "cloud services", they still have quite a way to go, before they can be considered in "control" of that service. With the way Microsoft been kissing up to the EU, I'm surprise it's "operating systems" and not "mobile operating systems".
"Gatekeepers" are ........
Companies who control at least one “core platform service” which means:
E-commerce market places and price-comparison websites;
Online search engines;
Social networks;
Video sharing platforms;
Non-traditional electronic communication services;
Terrible idea. Who gets the blame when a side loaded app bricks your phone or steals your data? Apple.
I have said this before. As a person who jailbroke for years side loading for the vast majority of users is not a good idea. I jailbroke for the unique tweaks not to get free apps from a shady off shore server "App Store". I didn't mind giving small developers a few bucks for a tweak that I enjoyed, and that they put their personal time and effort into creating and maintaining.
How many people still to this day click on links in fake emails to have their machines locked up with Ransomware, or give control of their machines to a criminal because they think amazon needs to access their machines because of an "account" problem. Opening up to allow payments outside of the app store is one thing, but that shouldn't be paired with side loading. They are two very different things and should be considered as such.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
In theory it could be. The trouble is, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that there will be a rush for the exits. A lot of the apps that we need from MS, Adobe, and such, will immediately exit the AppStore for their own company stores so they can keep that 30%. Companies will appear overnight offering to host apps for 10% commission, so even a lot of small time developers will feel the urge to leave the AppStore. The result will be that even if some of us don't want to leave the Walled Garden, we will have no choice. We will all have to flip the switch, set up an account, give them our credit card info, and cross our fingers. We will all have to allow side loading.
Whether this will be good or bad I'm not going to get into. I'm just pointing out that once this Rubicon is crossed, it will be a very different world we are operating in.
No reason for them to do that. It would be easier to simply hike prices to compensate for the commissions and let users to decide which option is better for them.
There's every reason: Money. If a developer thinks they can make an extra 20-25% on their app a lot will go for it. MS and other big companies already have the store fronts set up and running. It would cost them nothing. It would just be a matter of putting the iOS versions of their software out next to the Windows, and Mac versions to increase their profits. Small developers are mostly hanging on by their fingernails. If they think they can squeeze a bit more out by jumping from AppStore to iOSAppsDotCom they will. Raising prices is often not an option. People who would think nothing of dropping $6 on a cup of fancy coffee, will hesitate and often say no if an app is $1.99 vs $.99.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
In theory it could be. The trouble is, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that there will be a rush for the exits. A lot of the apps that we need from MS, Adobe, and such, will immediately exit the AppStore for their own company stores so they can keep that 30%. Companies will appear overnight offering to host apps for 10% commission, so even a lot of small time developers will feel the urge to leave the AppStore. The result will be that even if some of us don't want to leave the Walled Garden, we will have no choice. We will all have to flip the switch, set up an account, give them our credit card info, and cross our fingers. We will all have to allow side loading.
Whether this will be good or bad I'm not going to get into. I'm just pointing out that once this Rubicon is crossed, it will be a very different world we are operating in.
No reason for them to do that. It would be easier to simply hike prices to compensate for the commissions and let users to decide which option is better for them.
So do you think a developer simply raising their price in the Apple App store to make up for the commission and then selling that same app in their own store (or another third party app store) at the same price it was selling for in the Apple App Store before they raised the price, is some how good for the consumers because they now have a "choice" to pay the same price in another app store? What the Hell difference does it make whether the consumers only had the choice to pay $X for an app in the Apple App Store and having a "choice" to pay $X+$ in the Apple App Store and paying $X in another app store? All this did was to shift more money into the pockets of big developers that can afford to operate their own app stores and take it away from the pockets of the company that invested in the RD to create, improve and the cost to maintain the platform the third party app stores are profiting from. Will third party app stores be forced to host free apps? Over 90% of apps in the Apple app Store are free.
Why should these big developers actually lower the price of their apps in their own store (or a third party app store) when they can just simply raise the price of their apps in the Apple App Store and still claim that consumers are benefiting from the lower price in their own app store (or a third party app store)? Or more simply, not make their app available at all in the Apple App Store and still charge the same in their own app store. Why should these developers give consumers a "choice"? Why should they compete with themselves with their own apps?
You are under the misconception that this DMA is about consumers having more choices to pay less, when in fact, it's more about developers having more choices to make more.
And no where does it state that Apple has to allow third party app stores to use their IP, "rent" free. Apple could very well charge a 15% commission on third party app stores sales as "rent". Just like how Apple can still charge a commission on third party payment systems, when that payment system is access from an iOS app. And then the developers can choose what's better for them.
It would be no different than the copyright owner of a song, to charge a fee and royalty, for the use of their copyrighted song in a movie. It is and should be, very hard to deprive copyright/patent owners the right to monetize their IP as thy see fit. In the US, copyright laws in the US Constitution, hands copyright owner a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted works. Micheal Jackson estate is still raking in $60M a year in royalty. Even in death, MJ did not lose his right to monetize his copyrighted works.
And remember this, the copyright laws that hands Apple a monopoly with the rights to monetize iOS as they see fit, are the same laws that hands developers a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted apps. The government should not be able to force Epic to allow third party stores from which others can profit from selling virtual items for Epic's copyrighted Fortnite game, as they shouldn't be able to force Apple to do the same with iOS. Copyright laws should not change because Apple have been determined by some BS criteria, as being a "gatekeeper".
With Android, it's different, as Android is Open Source.
Has the EU proven that people are somehow forced to buy iOS devices? That a vast majority of those users don’t choose iOS because of how it currently works? Until you’ve proven both, you cannot claim that enforcing all these rules is for the benefit of the user.
Well the bottom line is that the EU is going to enforce so many changes to iOS, it might as well be Android at that point. Apple’s business model is all about tight integration; hardware, software, and services. If they can’t continue that, I seriously doubt Apple is interested in making that type of device. Apple’s best option will eventually be to just stop selling iOS devices in the EU. Especially if the fines are going to be so damned huge.
After Apple allows side loading and has to let others use their own payment system on the App Store and has to let others have their own app stores… where’s the incentive for Apple to even bother with an App Store in that market? Where’s the incentive to support that hardware any longer than they have to in those markets? So Apple would drop the App Store off those devices, raise the price for them, and start charging for OS updates.
Or only offer a completely closed device, like the original iPhone. No App Store, no side loading. Only Apple’s software and services. Anything else, access it on the web.
Sorry, but as a hardware vendor, you should have the right to choose what features your device comes with. The consumer can then choose a device based on the features offered. If the user doesn’t like it return it or move on to something else when you go to upgrade.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
This is bullshit.
I can think of several ways to bypass things like App Tracking Transparency via side loaded Apps. It’ll be super easy to monetize users without their consent. I can even monetize data from users who aren’t sideloading.
Comments
So, not only does Apple have to allow, and support, third party stores and payment services, they are now forbidden from actively promoting their own? That sure sounds like a fair competitive environment to me. Actually, it sounds like more typical regulatory over-correction to a problem that only affects a few.
And now this. It's going to be ruined. The ecosystem exists for a reason - security. And I also enjoy having the app stores save my purchases and I can re-download without having to register or issuing a license. That's not the case with third party apps where I have to keep a file of their registration, their URLs, and license numbers, and so on.
This is a perfect example of how making laws often make things worse.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070630060844/developer.apple.com/products/
Financial forces will appear (like FaceBook's huge bank account handing out money) that will pressure apps to use only side loading as their sole means for loading onto iOS. And those apps will send data back to FaceBook so that FaceBook gets their money back by invading your privacy. Everybody loses, except for giant corporate privacy invaders like FaceBook, whom you obviously love. Do they pay you to support them in these posts?
1. There is no competitive reason to do it.
2. It will destroy many small developers
3. Large developers will leave the original store
4. Massive security risks.
5. Poor-quality and spam apps will proliferate
6. It will damage Apple's brand and ability to control the iPhone experience.
Let's see what happens when Google and Apple unite and say "No." What will the EU do? Fine them? There's an easy answer there: They can just take down their stores in the EU. Better yet, maybe the two decide to pull their products from the EU completely. That's right! No more Android or iOS devices sold in the EU. I'm sure their constituents will love that.
The hardest thing for hackers to do, is to find a way to get their malware into or have their phishing scam work on, iOS. But once Apple is forced to provide the door, it makes things a lot easier. Even if the hackers and scammers do not hold the key to the door, they will find ways to convince the users to unlock that door or find a way to unlock that door by way of a security bug that Apple has not yet discovered and patched. Basically, jailbreaking an iDevice is a way of installing that door, without Apple's help.
For example, scammers could send gamers an official looking email that appears to be from Epic Games, informing them they have been selected to test out a new version of Fortnite, that is not yet in any app stores. All they need to do is to go to settings and flip the switch to "allow side loading" and then click on a link. Like all phishing scams, the scammers only need to fool a very small percentage of users, for the scam to be profitable for them. They couldn't pull that off if there was no such switch. They have to confine their trade to Android users, for now.
From a security standpoint, iOS in much, much safer for everyone, if that switch do not exist. Everyone wins. Including the users that might want to or needs to, side load.
The only "core platform service" Microsoft need to be concern with is "operating system". With "cloud services", they still have quite a way to go, before they can be considered in "control" of that service. With the way Microsoft been kissing up to the EU, I'm surprise it's "operating systems" and not "mobile operating systems".
"Gatekeepers" are ........
Companies who control at least one “core platform service” which means:
Why should these big developers actually lower the price of their apps in their own store (or a third party app store) when they can just simply raise the price of their apps in the Apple App Store and still claim that consumers are benefiting from the lower price in their own app store (or a third party app store)? Or more simply, not make their app available at all in the Apple App Store and still charge the same in their own app store. Why should these developers give consumers a "choice"? Why should they compete with themselves with their own apps?
You are under the misconception that this DMA is about consumers having more choices to pay less, when in fact, it's more about developers having more choices to make more.
And no where does it state that Apple has to allow third party app stores to use their IP, "rent" free. Apple could very well charge a 15% commission on third party app stores sales as "rent". Just like how Apple can still charge a commission on third party payment systems, when that payment system is access from an iOS app. And then the developers can choose what's better for them.
It would be no different than the copyright owner of a song, to charge a fee and royalty, for the use of their copyrighted song in a movie. It is and should be, very hard to deprive copyright/patent owners the right to monetize their IP as thy see fit. In the US, copyright laws in the US Constitution, hands copyright owner a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted works. Micheal Jackson estate is still raking in $60M a year in royalty. Even in death, MJ did not lose his right to monetize his copyrighted works.
And remember this, the copyright laws that hands Apple a monopoly with the rights to monetize iOS as they see fit, are the same laws that hands developers a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted apps. The government should not be able to force Epic to allow third party stores from which others can profit from selling virtual items for Epic's copyrighted Fortnite game, as they shouldn't be able to force Apple to do the same with iOS. Copyright laws should not change because Apple have been determined by some BS criteria, as being a "gatekeeper".
With Android, it's different, as Android is Open Source.
Has the EU proven that people are somehow forced to buy iOS devices? That a vast majority of those users don’t choose iOS because of how it currently works? Until you’ve proven both, you cannot claim that enforcing all these rules is for the benefit of the user.
Well the bottom line is that the EU is going to enforce so many changes to iOS, it might as well be Android at that point. Apple’s business model is all about tight integration; hardware, software, and services. If they can’t continue that, I seriously doubt Apple is interested in making that type of device. Apple’s best option will eventually be to just stop selling iOS devices in the EU. Especially if the fines are going to be so damned huge.
After Apple allows side loading and has to let others use their own payment system on the App Store and has to let others have their own app stores… where’s the incentive for Apple to even bother with an App Store in that market? Where’s the incentive to support that hardware any longer than they have to in those markets? So Apple would drop the App Store off those devices, raise the price for them, and start charging for OS updates.
Or only offer a completely closed device, like the original iPhone. No App Store, no side loading. Only Apple’s software and services. Anything else, access it on the web.
Sorry, but as a hardware vendor, you should have the right to choose what features your device comes with. The consumer can then choose a device based on the features offered. If the user doesn’t like it return it or move on to something else when you go to upgrade.
I can think of several ways to bypass things like App Tracking Transparency via side loaded Apps. It’ll be super easy to monetize users without their consent. I can even monetize data from users who aren’t sideloading.