What these politicians fail to realize is that as soon as you take payment processing out of Apple’s hands, you take refunds out of Apple’s hands. Suddenly these companies are allowed to lie cheat and steal from people as soon as they get their credit card details, and it’ll be up to the credit card companies to refund for scams, which they often won’t do.
Get ready for a figurative tsunami of seniors getting scammed by third party apps.
Also as far as the dating apps thing goes, Apple should just spite Match group and the rest and simply say that their new policies prevent predatory in app purchases for dating apps. So they can offer their apps but IAP are no longer available for this category of apps. Also say that they’re getting rid of IAP for games that clearly target small children.
What these politicians fail to realize is that as soon as you take payment processing out of Apple’s hands, you take refunds out of Apple’s hands. Suddenly these companies are allowed to lie cheat and steal from people as soon as they get their credit card details, and it’ll be up to the credit card companies to refund for scams, which they often won’t do.
Get ready for a figurative tsunami of seniors getting scammed by third party apps.
That's a very alarmist take and assumes little to no protections are in place already. They are.
You could argue that if seniors are savvy enough to be using online payments, they are savvy enough to understand the pitfalls.
After all, they are surfing the internet and using emails. The top two sources of those kinds of payment scams.
Bottom line: software developers can sell the same software titles across a wide variety of desktop, mobile and console systems. Nobody can realistically claim that Apple is monopolizing the market for an app since it can be sold elsewhere. BlueMail tried this approach in the U.S. and the lawsuit was dismissed by the judge who cited BlueMail's success on other platforms as contradicting the antitrust claims.
What these politicians fail to realize is that as soon as you take payment processing out of Apple’s hands, you take refunds out of Apple’s hands. Suddenly these companies are allowed to lie cheat and steal from people as soon as they get their credit card details, and it’ll be up to the credit card companies to refund for scams, which they often won’t do.
It appears the EU and Netherlands are deliberately ignoring privacy/security as a competitive feature in the market. They know what they're doing, i.e., they specifically intend to remove that competitive aspect from Apple's product line.
What these politicians fail to realize is that as soon as you take payment processing out of Apple’s hands, you take refunds out of Apple’s hands. Suddenly these companies are allowed to lie cheat and steal from people as soon as they get their credit card details, and it’ll be up to the credit card companies to refund for scams, which they often won’t do.
Get ready for a figurative tsunami of seniors getting scammed by third party apps.
You could argue that if seniors are savvy enough to be using online payments, they are savvy enough to understand the pitfalls.
After all, they are surfing the internet and using emails. The top two sources of those kinds of payment scams.
That isn’t the case in my experience. My MIL has been using Macs since buying a Bondi Blue iMac. She started using an iPhone in 2013 and an iPad in 2017.
After getting iOS devices she has been using the Mac less but still uses it, primarily to run the family business. That family business is a long time side job, she recently retired from over 30 years working for a major insurance company, sometimes in the office and sometimes remote. My point being that she is an older woman (older than you would expect) who has lots of experience using Macs and PCs but much less using iOS devices.
She is constantly needing help to fix issues on her computer that were entirely brought on by being tricked into downloading something or providing information she shouldn’t have to software she shouldn’t have been interacting with. So far she hasn’t been scammed out of any money but she has checked with me on a couple occasions where she could have been. She frequently says “my computer told me I needed to do this” (something my mother also says) and doesn’t realize what she is seeing is not being presented by macOS but is basically an advertisement that is being presented on the internet. She is easily fooled.
Meanwhile, no such issues on her iPhone or iPad, which she uses for much more time. She is essentially self-sufficient with iOS. She downloads apps, orders groceries, plays games, watches Netflix, etc, all with no problems.
So, she’s savvy enough to download apps and make payments on iOS without issue. The same cannot be said about her with macOS. If iOS is made to be more like macOS I can absolutely see the problems she has on her Mac migrating to her iPhone.
I’m positive she isn’t the only “older” person in that position.
I really don't understand how/why a country tells a company - any company - to force it open its proprietary product to outside competitors.
This is not anything like the old Microsoft Antitrust case from 20+ years ago, so don't try playing that card.
Apple owns the hardware, and software. It doesn't license it out to any other companies. It's a closed system. The folks buying the iPhone are Apple's customers, not the developers. The iPhone became popular because Apple's customers enjoy the business model. Period. The folks that are complaining are the minority whining, vocal developers that feel entitled to hitch a ride on Apple's efforts and essentially rip Apple off.
As a developer myself, I'm embarrassed to share the stage with this miscreants. I remember not long ago when boxed software was the only way to get your "app" out there and Apple's 30% fee - while being the current industry norm - was a bargain compared to a company back in the day having to package/distribute their software, compete for shelf space at whatever store carries it, pay all the distribution costs, and accept whatever percentage those retailers take from the sale.
Embarrassing.
Apple does not own the hardware. If they did, it would be different. It’s my phone and it is not for Apple to tell me how to use it.
I'm asking an honest question here. Can you explain how leaving a market and then getting a zero percent market share proves a business is a monopoly. That's like saying penguins have a monopoly at the north pole. Zero is zero, not a monopoly.
Because it leaves just the Android penguins behind (and they are real penguins) and that is a real remnant Android monopoly.
It's kind of funny how they get labelled as a monopoly, even though they are the minority product and have even lower market penetration in Europe compared to English speaking markets. The somewhat creative narrowing of the definition of a monopoly requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics and assumes that consumers are blind to the marketing of other brands.
What I also find interesting is that these cases are popping up from the same countries, despite there being no meaningful change in the market, app store rules, or even the estimated app store growth %. Then when taking into account the proposed fines, it just looks like a shake-down, rather than trying to correct any legitimate unfairness.
Thus it's clear to me why Apple isn't making any preemptive changes to their operations - it seems that these lawsuits will arise no matter how Apple operated its business. Much in the same way that Apple only pays the taxes it owes rather than guessing where the tax code will go, Apple are now likely to only make changes to the app store model when it's legislated, anything else is irresponsible leadership.
What these politicians fail to realize is that as soon as you take payment processing out of Apple’s hands, you take refunds out of Apple’s hands. Suddenly these companies are allowed to lie cheat and steal from people as soon as they get their credit card details, and it’ll be up to the credit card companies to refund for scams, which they often won’t do.
Get ready for a figurative tsunami of seniors getting scammed by third party apps.
It also harms small developers, especially those in countries known for fraud where one might not be willing to entrust them with your credit card information. This entire play is a big developer dream (no surprise who is lobbying for it as well). One can see it already, small developers are going to get screwed by this while big developers cash in.
The whole point of Apple handling the finances was that you didn't have to think about the opposite end, they were never getting your details and if there was a problem Apple would just refund it.
I can also foresee the politicians attempting to blame Apple for the spike in payment fraud that will come about from this change.
I really don't understand how/why a country tells a company - any company - to force it open its proprietary product to outside competitors.
This is not anything like the old Microsoft Antitrust case from 20+ years ago, so don't try playing that card.
Apple owns the hardware, and software. It doesn't license it out to any other companies. It's a closed system. The folks buying the iPhone are Apple's customers, not the developers. The iPhone became popular because Apple's customers enjoy the business model. Period. The folks that are complaining are the minority whining, vocal developers that feel entitled to hitch a ride on Apple's efforts and essentially rip Apple off.
As a developer myself, I'm embarrassed to share the stage with this miscreants. I remember not long ago when boxed software was the only way to get your "app" out there and Apple's 30% fee - while being the current industry norm - was a bargain compared to a company back in the day having to package/distribute their software, compete for shelf space at whatever store carries it, pay all the distribution costs, and accept whatever percentage those retailers take from the sale.
Embarrassing.
Apple does not own the hardware. If they did, it would be different. It’s my phone and it is not for Apple to tell me how to use it.
It is your iPhone, go do what you want with it. Jailbreak it. Reverse engineer iOS in a clean room and come up with your own OS for it. Use it as a door stop or paper weight.
What you can not do is to force Apple to support your iPhone, the way you want it, with their software and IP. Get over it.
I can not force Chrysler to install a Mercedes 4Matic transmission in my Chrysler mini van, even though Mercedes and Chrysler were both own by Daimler-Benz at the time. But nothing was stopping me or me paying a custom auto shop, to mod by mini van to accept a 4Matic trans. And I sure as Hell wouldn't be crying about how Chrysler isn't going to help me with it because I own the mini-van and can do what I want with it. If I wanted a 4Matic trans, I could buy a Mercedes. Like what my wife did.
This is also true with an Xbox. If you want the Xbox you own, to also play Sony Playstation games, then go for it. But don't cry about how Microsoft is not going to help you along way, by modifying their IP on their Xbox.
I don’t understand these countries chastising and calling Apple a monopoly. If some other individual, entity or company can develop a better smart phone I would be more than interested in considering buying it but until then I want the best phone available which is an iPhone. Don’t penalize Apple or me for owning an iPhone.
I truly look forward to Apple pulling either their App Store or their phones from a jurisdiction. I wonder how removing one major smartphone company from the marketplace eliminates the "monopoly" problem.
The problem is if they do that, it likely would bate the belief that they were a monopoly even more. Apple unfortunately is in a loose loose proposition.
I'm asking an honest question here. Can you explain how leaving a market and then getting a zero percent market share proves a business is a monopoly. That's like saying penguins have a monopoly at the north pole. Zero is zero, not a monopoly.
Apple is the only entity providing apps on iOS devices.
You may argue about whether that constitutes a „monopoly“, but if your standpoint is that it does, then all that Apple removing the App Store entirely would achieve is to prove that Apple is prepared to enforce their monopoly and actively harm their users in the process.
It's kind of funny how they get labelled as a monopoly, even though they are the minority product and have even lower market penetration in Europe compared to English speaking markets. The somewhat creative narrowing of the definition of a monopoly requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics and assumes that consumers are blind to the marketing of other brands.
I don't think the problem being cited is monopoly (in the sense of being the sole player in an industry), but antitrust. It's a matter of the government trying to regulate to keep things competitive. That's not saying this is right or wrong in this case, but they don't have to be a monopoly to have regulation imposed on them.
I’m old school Apple and I’m Dutch. I remember Steve being pissed at Microsoft (re it’s market dominance) and we were able to download software from wherever we wanted. There were risks but so is driving a bicycle. I believe that customers should be free to choose from wherever you they want to to buy (paid or free). Apple changed their business model (or adjusted it as it saw fit) and me as a consumer had to adjust with. I sincerely hope Apple will be forced to open up and allow companies to offer downloads for free or paid (outside of the App Store directly onto your phone) and or allow companies to sell directly their software outside of the App Store.
If you’re old school Apple you must know that iOS is not macOS. The two are vastly different serving very different markets. On macOS (old school) you can still download software from wherever you want unabated and the model hasn’t changed. Sure they are trying, but it’s not happening.
iOS is vastly different. Ever since it’s inception the only way to get an app onto the phone from anywhere is via the “web app” method. This was there from day one and remains to this day. The App Store came a few years after first release and was driven by developers wanting a native app capability which had to be BUILT from the ground up. The price was that the only way to use this IP was via the App Store and it’s fee system.
To the vast majority of consumers it is fantastic - a one stop shop for apps that keeps their apps updated with no hassle.
To legacy computer users that got used to the old school way it was alien and seen as taking away features. But we fail (and still do) that the reason for iOS success is the simplicity of a one stop shop.
The vast majority of consumers couldn’t care less about the 30% margin or only having one App Store. They just want their phone to work, not break, and want a single place to find what they want. It’s simple for them and a vast number pay for that.
If you don’t want that, go buy one of the many Android phones on offer.
Basically, you don’t understand that the iPhone as a product has never changed its business model when it comes to apps. The option for web apps still exists, but it provides developers no income to survive.
iOS and MacOS are not vastly different at all - except for the App Store issue.
iOS is tuned for a mobile workflow and plays to its strengths. MacOS is tuned for a less mobile experience.
The iPhone did change its business model with regards to apps. It shipped without an app store as we know it.
You later admit this and mention the costs involved. That is irrelevant. As has been seen over the years, it isn't impossible for third parties to do the same. The complaint is that alternative app stores are not allowed to exist on iDevices. Competition is not allowed.
Developers can generate income from their apps in different ways. It doesn't only have to be through a sole app store.
The vast majority of users not caring less about the 30% is irrelevant (apart from being unproven). None of the different investigations or proposals have considered if users care or not. It could be 10% or 60% and it still wouldn't change anything.
Desktop OS's were developed from the ground up to allow side loading. This because there was no internet (as we know it today) when desktop computers first became available to consumers. So the only way to get software into a desktop was to side load using a floppy drive and later CD / DVD drive. Before the internet, computers were being infected by way of the floppy disc and then with the CD-r and DVD-R and by way of the USB port. There were even cases of blank floppies bought new, that were infected. But there was no way get rid of the floppy or CD or DVD drives or the USB port for installation of software, until the internet and enough consumers were on broadband. No way was downloading a 1GB program feasible with a 56kb dial up modem. Then the internet became the most often way computers got infected. So desktop OS's were designed from the ground up to allow side loading and it's still that way now in order to support users with legacy software on CD's, DVD's and thumb drives. Software that still works on the newest version of the desktop OS. Plus provide old time developers the way to deliver their software the way they've been doing it for years and maybe decades, with a physical media.
Security was built into iOS from the ground up. iOS had never allowed side loading of software from external sources like SD or SIM cards or through USB. This has not affected iOS ability to focus on mobile workflow. iOS is every bit as productive in mobile workflow as Android. iOS did not have to support legacy software. There were no iOS developers before iOS. MacOS (OS X) developer could not just start selling their MacOS software on iOS. Apple did not have to support legacy ways of installing software on to iOS devices. And that includes off the internet. Apple did not have not support MacOS software. No one complained about all this when iOS had a much larger market share of the mobile OS market, than they have today, before Android took over the market.
Saying that MacOS is tuned for a less mobile experience is just a stupid statement that indicate you have no idea what MacOS is tuned for. FYI- MacOS (OS X and OS) was around for decades before there was "mobile". Of course it's less tuned for mobile.
Adding the app store to the iPhone did not change its business model. The iPhone business model still remained the same ...... no side loading of apps ... for security reasons.
What these politicians fail to realize is that as soon as you take payment processing out of Apple’s hands, you take refunds out of Apple’s hands. Suddenly these companies are allowed to lie cheat and steal from people as soon as they get their credit card details, and it’ll be up to the credit card companies to refund for scams, which they often won’t do.
Get ready for a figurative tsunami of seniors getting scammed by third party apps.
You could argue that if seniors are savvy enough to be using online payments, they are savvy enough to understand the pitfalls.
After all, they are surfing the internet and using emails. The top two sources of those kinds of payment scams.
That isn’t the case in my experience. My MIL has been using Macs since buying a Bondi Blue iMac. She started using an iPhone in 2013 and an iPad in 2017.
After getting iOS devices she has been using the Mac less but still uses it, primarily to run the family business. That family business is a long time side job, she recently retired from over 30 years working for a major insurance company, sometimes in the office and sometimes remote. My point being that she is an older woman (older than you would expect) who has lots of experience using Macs and PCs but much less using iOS devices.
She is constantly needing help to fix issues on her computer that were entirely brought on by being tricked into downloading something or providing information she shouldn’t have to software she shouldn’t have been interacting with. So far she hasn’t been scammed out of any money but she has checked with me on a couple occasions where she could have been. She frequently says “my computer told me I needed to do this” (something my mother also says) and doesn’t realize what she is seeing is not being presented by macOS but is basically an advertisement that is being presented on the internet. She is easily fooled.
Meanwhile, no such issues on her iPhone or iPad, which she uses for much more time. She is essentially self-sufficient with iOS. She downloads apps, orders groceries, plays games, watches Netflix, etc, all with no problems.
So, she’s savvy enough to download apps and make payments on iOS without issue. The same cannot be said about her with macOS. If iOS is made to be more like macOS I can absolutely see the problems she has on her Mac migrating to her iPhone.
I’m positive she isn’t the only “older” person in that position.
The trickery is mostly web/email related and therefore device independent. There is actually another vector on mobile phones which is SMS. And then you have the age old and eternal problem of old fashioned calls, where someone actually calls you pretending to be someone else and tries to extract information from you. A lot of older people fall for that.
My banking app always gives me a splash screen on openings on mobile, warning me of phishing, smishing or other kinds of nefarious attempts to get my personal data.
I’m old school Apple and I’m Dutch. I remember Steve being pissed at Microsoft (re it’s market dominance) and we were able to download software from wherever we wanted. There were risks but so is driving a bicycle. I believe that customers should be free to choose from wherever you they want to to buy (paid or free). Apple changed their business model (or adjusted it as it saw fit) and me as a consumer had to adjust with. I sincerely hope Apple will be forced to open up and allow companies to offer downloads for free or paid (outside of the App Store directly onto your phone) and or allow companies to sell directly their software outside of the App Store.
If you’re old school Apple you must know that iOS is not macOS. The two are vastly different serving very different markets. On macOS (old school) you can still download software from wherever you want unabated and the model hasn’t changed. Sure they are trying, but it’s not happening.
iOS is vastly different. Ever since it’s inception the only way to get an app onto the phone from anywhere is via the “web app” method. This was there from day one and remains to this day. The App Store came a few years after first release and was driven by developers wanting a native app capability which had to be BUILT from the ground up. The price was that the only way to use this IP was via the App Store and it’s fee system.
To the vast majority of consumers it is fantastic - a one stop shop for apps that keeps their apps updated with no hassle.
To legacy computer users that got used to the old school way it was alien and seen as taking away features. But we fail (and still do) that the reason for iOS success is the simplicity of a one stop shop.
The vast majority of consumers couldn’t care less about the 30% margin or only having one App Store. They just want their phone to work, not break, and want a single place to find what they want. It’s simple for them and a vast number pay for that.
If you don’t want that, go buy one of the many Android phones on offer.
Basically, you don’t understand that the iPhone as a product has never changed its business model when it comes to apps. The option for web apps still exists, but it provides developers no income to survive.
iOS and MacOS are not vastly different at all - except for the App Store issue.
iOS is tuned for a mobile workflow and plays to its strengths. MacOS is tuned for a less mobile experience.
The iPhone did change its business model with regards to apps. It shipped without an app store as we know it.
You later admit this and mention the costs involved. That is irrelevant. As has been seen over the years, it isn't impossible for third parties to do the same. The complaint is that alternative app stores are not allowed to exist on iDevices. Competition is not allowed.
Developers can generate income from their apps in different ways. It doesn't only have to be through a sole app store.
The vast majority of users not caring less about the 30% is irrelevant (apart from being unproven). None of the different investigations or proposals have considered if users care or not. It could be 10% or 60% and it still wouldn't change anything.
Desktop OS's were developed from the ground up to allow side loading. This because there was no internet (as we know it today) when desktop computers first became available to consumers. So the only way to get software into a desktop was to side load using a floppy drive and later CD / DVD drive. Before the internet, computers were being infected by way of the floppy disc and then with the CD-r and DVD-R and by way of the USB port. There were even cases of blank floppies bought new, that were infected. But there was no way get rid of the floppy or CD or DVD drives or the USB port for installation of software, until the internet and enough consumers were on broadband. No way was downloading a 1GB program feasible with a 56kb dial up modem. Then the internet became the most often way computers got infected. So desktop OS's were designed from the ground up to allow side loading and it's still that way now in order to support users with legacy software on CD's, DVD's and thumb drives. Software that still works on the newest version of the desktop OS. Plus provide old time developers the way to deliver their software the way they've been doing it for years and maybe decades, with a physical media.
Security was built into iOS from the ground up. iOS had never allowed side loading of software from external sources like SD or SIM cards or through USB. This has not affected iOS ability to focus on mobile workflow. iOS is every bit as productive in mobile workflow as Android. iOS did not have to support legacy software. There were no iOS developers before iOS. MacOS (OS X) developer could not just start selling their MacOS software on iOS. Apple did not have to support legacy ways of installing software on to iOS devices. And that includes off the internet. Apple did not have not support MacOS software. No one complained about all this when iOS had a much larger market share of the mobile OS market, than they have today, before Android took over the market.
Saying that MacOS is tuned for a less mobile experience is just a stupid statement that indicate you have no idea what MacOS is tuned for. FYI- MacOS (OS X and OS) was around for decades before there was "mobile". Of course it's less tuned for mobile.
Adding the app store to the iPhone did not change its business model. The iPhone business model still remained the same ...... no side loading of apps ... for security reasons.
MacOS and iOS share the same codebase. There is a lot they have in common. When it was released Apple actually played up to this fact and basically said what I said. The system was tuned to a different input style and a lot of MacOS components simply weren't necessary.
You are confusing some things. Software is packaged (in a file) and distributed. The distribution could be a floppy, flash drive, CD, DVD or the internet.
In fact, IIRC there was a time when the system update itself had to be downloaded to a computer first and then loaded on iDevices from there via cable. You could find those files all over the place, download them and install them. Later Wi-Fi installs became possible and then Ota but my memory of the finer points isn't that good.
MacOS could be forcibly bolted down in exactly the same way as iOS is today.
And iOS could be modified to allow third party app stores.
Security was built into iOS from the ground up. iOS had never allowed side loading of software from external sources like SD or SIM cards or through USB.
You can side load software from the App Store, or Xcode using a Mac through USB.
Steve even used the term "side load" in the App Store introduction (@2:10): ;
Not the same as software from third party stores, or from removable media, sure, but there is capability there that could be expanded if needed
crowley said: Not the same as software from third party stores, or from removable media, sure, but there is capability there. that could be expanded if needed
It isn't needed. Prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps are just as good on iOS as on operating systems with 3rd party stores. And the privacy/security is better than other operating systems with 3rd party stores.
crowley said: Not the same as software from third party stores, or from removable media, sure, but there is capability there. that could be expanded if needed
It isn't needed. Prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps are just as good on iOS as on operating systems with 3rd party stores. And the privacy/security is better than other operating systems with 3rd party stores.
Comments
You could argue that if seniors are savvy enough to be using online payments, they are savvy enough to understand the pitfalls.
After all, they are surfing the internet and using emails. The top two sources of those kinds of payment scams.
What I also find interesting is that these cases are popping up from the same countries, despite there being no meaningful change in the market, app store rules, or even the estimated app store growth %. Then when taking into account the proposed fines, it just looks like a shake-down, rather than trying to correct any legitimate unfairness.
Thus it's clear to me why Apple isn't making any preemptive changes to their operations - it seems that these lawsuits will arise no matter how Apple operated its business. Much in the same way that Apple only pays the taxes it owes rather than guessing where the tax code will go, Apple are now likely to only make changes to the app store model when it's legislated, anything else is irresponsible leadership.
The whole point of Apple handling the finances was that you didn't have to think about the opposite end, they were never getting your details and if there was a problem Apple would just refund it.
I can also foresee the politicians attempting to blame Apple for the spike in payment fraud that will come about from this change.
What you can not do is to force Apple to support your iPhone, the way you want it, with their software and IP. Get over it.
I can not force Chrysler to install a Mercedes 4Matic transmission in my Chrysler mini van, even though Mercedes and Chrysler were both own by Daimler-Benz at the time. But nothing was stopping me or me paying a custom auto shop, to mod by mini van to accept a 4Matic trans. And I sure as Hell wouldn't be crying about how Chrysler isn't going to help me with it because I own the mini-van and can do what I want with it. If I wanted a 4Matic trans, I could buy a Mercedes. Like what my wife did.
This is also true with an Xbox. If you want the Xbox you own, to also play Sony Playstation games, then go for it. But don't cry about how Microsoft is not going to help you along way, by modifying their IP on their Xbox.
Security was built into iOS from the ground up. iOS had never allowed side loading of software from external sources like SD or SIM cards or through USB. This has not affected iOS ability to focus on mobile workflow. iOS is every bit as productive in mobile workflow as Android. iOS did not have to support legacy software. There were no iOS developers before iOS. MacOS (OS X) developer could not just start selling their MacOS software on iOS. Apple did not have to support legacy ways of installing software on to iOS devices. And that includes off the internet. Apple did not have not support MacOS software. No one complained about all this when iOS had a much larger market share of the mobile OS market, than they have today, before Android took over the market.
Saying that MacOS is tuned for a less mobile experience is just a stupid statement that indicate you have no idea what MacOS is tuned for. FYI- MacOS (OS X and OS) was around for decades before there was "mobile". Of course it's less tuned for mobile.
Adding the app store to the iPhone did not change its business model. The iPhone business model still remained the same ...... no side loading of apps ... for security reasons.
My banking app always gives me a splash screen on openings on mobile, warning me of phishing, smishing or other kinds of nefarious attempts to get my personal data.
You are confusing some things. Software is packaged (in a file) and distributed. The distribution could be a floppy, flash drive, CD, DVD or the internet.
In fact, IIRC there was a time when the system update itself had to be downloaded to a computer first and then loaded on iDevices from there via cable. You could find those files all over the place, download them and install them. Later Wi-Fi installs became possible and then Ota but my memory of the finer points isn't that good.
MacOS could be forcibly bolted down in exactly the same way as iOS is today.
And iOS could be modified to allow third party app stores.
Steve even used the term "side load" in the App Store introduction (@2:10): ;
Not the same as software from third party stores, or from removable media, sure, but there is capability there that could be expanded if needed