Not entirely pointless. As a professional developer, I appreciate not having to support apps across multiple stores. And Apple’s rules have made it easier to explain to clients “yeah ‘sorry’ we can’t do [evil and/or privacy invading feature]. It’s against the App Store rules.”<p>I totally understand and empathize with the “it’s the user’s device, they should be able to do what they want with it” argument. I just have also appreciated the professional fringe benefits of the walled garden.<p>I do wish there was some way all the cool apps could run free while the ones we put up with are locked down and restricted even harder. Absolutely no one should install a side loadable version of the Facebook app.
What puzzles me to no end is how many people were happy not only with having no control over their device (which is fine if they don't want it), but also other people not having control over their devices (which is totally <i>not fine</i> if they <i>do</i> want it).
My worry here is how the big apps will just publish instructions on how to sideload and then escape the controls and safety that the App Store provides. We know from years of phishing attacks how easy it is to convince people to click links to non-official sites. The App Store already is doing a poor job at trying to prevent copycat apps, this makes it so much worse.<p>For the majority of my family the App Store provides a huge amount of safety, as no cost. They have no concept of the protections it provides, but equally will just blindly follow instructions online as well.<p>My mother was convinced for years her iMac and MacBook were from Microsoft because every doc she opened said "Microsoft Windows" and she knows Microsoft.<p>Weren't Facebook caught teaching people to use TestFlight to install VPNs to circumvent rules before? This feels like it'll play out similarly to Binance teaching users to install VPNs to circumvent trading controls, for the big official apps, and simultaneously open the floodgates to a ton of spam/phishing/fake apps.<p>Facebook/TikTok/etc just have to say something like "Here's our fancy new version and feature X is only available when you follow these new install instructions" and it'll happen.<p>Then it'll normalize it, which is the worst outcome.
This is a pretty shallow assessment. They acknowledge the malware argument, but don't address it at all. Remember that the iPhone was introduced at a time when Windows was absolutely plagued with trojan scams.
> <i>Worse, by fighting the issue so loudly and for so long, Apple has actually given the issue way more publicity than it would ever have received otherwise. It has turned what would otherwise have been a boring technical detail covered only by the Apple press into a mass-media news story. Apple has effectively contributed to its portrayal as a bad guy, with zero benefit to the company.</i><p>I can only agree with this conclusion. And I'm still somewhat surprised Apple would so intransigently do something that makes them look so utterly stupid and bad.
I have to concur with the article. That said, this likely won’t get far. Google has allowed multiple app stores for years and, still, the vast majority of purchases come from the Google Play Store—so much so that the vast majority of developers don’t even bother putting their apps on other stores.
The lasting legacy will be persuading everyone that installing apps should have its own scary word like "sideloading" rather than just "installing".
I’m happy about this, but I’m going to continue using the App Store unless they censor an app that I like.<p>It’s a very personal decision, but I like iPhone/iOS because it feels like a device, not like a computer. Android still geeked computer-y the last time I tried it a few years ago. Different strokes.<p>I like the level of review that apps get and the data shows a much lower prevalence of malware in the iOS ecosystem vs the Android ecosystem. I also like the integration and convenience. I’m mostly happy in my walled garden.<p>What I don’t like is the political speech suppression. I was appalled when AWS, Google and Apple all canceled Parler. I was not a user of Parler but the arbitrary censorship was shocking.<p>I am ok with protecting me from malware, but not happy with arbitrary editorial decisions about what speech I can see/participate in.
Apple really set themselves up as a "Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory", spending a lot of time presenting marvels (both helpful and useless) to hide the dirty secrets under the surface. Near slavery conditions in manufacturing, arbitrarily applied clauses and rules, and technically enabled limitations to even repair their "Intellectual Property". For years you had to accept the rules of the factory or get shoved down an egg chute, while fanboys laugh at you all the way down.<p>Times have changed though, Willy Wonka is gone now, phones are nearly identical in specs across the board, and there aren't that many more marvels to distract with.
It's always surprising how many times Facebook comes up in these conversations, even though Facebook has not said anything about creating its own store and Epic was the one that brought suit originally.<p>It's almost like a talking point that relates this policy to the bad name of Facebook was seen as being effective
Even if Apple allows third party stores or side loading, its portion is going to be negligible unless regulators force them to change the platform default store (which is not going to happen for a while). The only meaningful competitor in the current era is the Play Store but those duopoly effectively maintain non-aggression pact so they won't likely launch it on iOS. Yeah, finally some hackers may have fun on iOS, but I doubt if this will transform the landscape.<p>I think allowing third party browser engines actually has much broader, significant implications here; Apple is already making aggressive investments into Safari in order to keep its edge against Chromium based browsers. Hopefully, PWA will finally become a viable development platform, which may weaken this "app store" economy in a long run.
I don't think it was pointless. It's probably made them a good bit of money, and since they got ahead of the narrative anyway (as the article concludes) it really seems like fighting it tooth and nail was a great option for them.
If the sole provider isn't acting responsibly, regulators have to allow alternatives.<p>HOWEVER. This would have been a lot easier if Apple and Google simply reformed their commission models. A take rate of 10% instead of 30% would have prevented this.
Apple has always had contempt for its customers, their argument is just an escalation of that which elevated the official company comment to "all of our customers are total idiots"
The only thing I find unfair (on what I understood) about the Digital Markets Act, it's how it looks like it was made to target Apple and only Apple<p>Why I can't install Steam on my Xbox or PS5? Since we are here talking about open market, we should not target one company but make it all open.
Apple has always been incorrect in their arguments. How do I know? Android allowed sideloading since day one and most people have never even considered sideloading. I've never seen any news articles about Android security incidents related to sideloading an trojaned app as the initial vector. I'm sure it's happened, but it is not widespread.<p>Those who did sideload were forced to do so by the extraordinarily popular app they wanted to run not being on the Google Play Store at all. Yeah, I'm talking about Fortnite.<p>Sure there are techies like us who will sideload apps to skip YouTube ads or covertly save Snapchat nudes or sniff wifi packets or whatever, but we're a vanishingly small minority. Most android users didn't even know sideloading was an option and wouldn't care if they did.<p>It's not zero risk, no arguing that. It's just pretty small, and (IMO) not worth the loss in user choice.
How many of these fabulous side-loaded apps will have malware?<p>Will 3rd party stores prevent crappy apps from being published?<p>One reason I never bought an Android is because the Play store is rife with junk, spyware, and malware.
Ultimately I support the change but, however self-interested it may be, their argument is probably true that people will get social engineered into side loading stuff they don’t want to.
I think the antitrust argument has always been specious at best. Apple doesn't control Android or Microsoft Windows Phone OS. If Apple's control over its own package manager can be accused of antitrust, why not the Apple Store? Does McDonald's have a monopoly over Big Macs? Why can't I buy a Big Mac at Hardees? These antitrust accusations stem from a deep misunderstanding of law and exhibit an entitlement to corporate IP. If I have storefront that sells handpicked fruit, you can't legitimately claim antitrust and force me to sell your alfalfa. It's absurd.
[edit] Literally do a side by side of CSS, HTML, and JS vs SwiftUI or storyboard to all the Senators and ask “which one do you understand better” - that’s the point. Then take them through the deployment and ask again<p>This is the biggest modern PR blunder in some time. Do we not get insane productivity as devs from their platform vs others or not? I say emphatically, yes. That’s all you have to do, repeat over and over until blue.