[HN Gopher] iOS 26.2 to allow third-party app stores in Japan ah...
___________________________________________________________________
iOS 26.2 to allow third-party app stores in Japan ahead of
regulatory deadline
Author : tosh
Score : 303 points
Date : 2025-11-05 12:51 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| hypeatei wrote:
| Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping
| until legislation forces them not to? I really don't understand
| how you could remain so stubborn as a company that a system of
| complex rules across regions is preferable to just making it open
| and getting with the times.
|
| I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google announcement
| w.r.t. code signing but it's still too walled off for me. They
| need to open up access to third party stores and third party
| browser engines.
|
| EDIT: yes I understand that we live in a capitalist system that
| is maximizing profit. My argument is that long term they're going
| to lose this battle seeing as the EU and Japan have already
| forced them to play ball. There are two options: remain stagnant
| and collect app store rent as long as possible or learn to be
| competitive in this new environment.
| misnome wrote:
| Presumably they did a cost/benefit analysis and think it is
| more profitable this way?
| hypeatei wrote:
| I mean, sure, but it's most likely a myopic analysis trying
| to keep earnings looking good for next quarter. My personal
| feeling is that, after seeing the winds shifting, you would
| figure out how to operate in an open garden and start
| pivoting now rather than resisting it at every corner.
| mdhb wrote:
| Only in a quarter to quarter sense. I'll never give them
| another cent. I've watched large numbers of people go from
| fans to haters in the last five years especially. I also
| think at just a fundamental technical level their moat is
| quickly disappearing.
| rckt wrote:
| They all will try to gatekeep as much as they can. Google's
| move made this pretty obvious. They don't need free market and
| open platform. This is something for some nerdy enthusiasts.
| Funny that all the new device that are being released lately,
| like Sidephone or Light Phone; they all do the same thing. And
| not only they lock you into their OSes, but they even restrict
| the software that you are allowed to use.
| latexr wrote:
| > Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of
| gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to?
|
| By this point it seems pretty clear that they will, at least
| while Tim Cook is in charge. Other higher ups, specifically
| Phil Schiller, knew this was a bad idea but were overruled.
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-co...
| ndiddy wrote:
| The current system gives Apple a 30% cut of every transaction
| that happens on iOS. Did you really think they'd voluntarily
| give that up just to be nice?
| cbg0 wrote:
| Apple makes over $10B from App Store commissions in the US
| alone, why would they reduce their profits unless forced to do
| so?
| latexr wrote:
| Because doing so would have generated goodwill, which would
| have lead to a stronger brand and more money in the long
| term. Instead, they shot themselves in the foot and put
| themselves in a situation where the launch of a new product
| (Vision Pro) was an embarrassing and utter failure with
| lacklustre support from third-parties.
| lopis wrote:
| You don't need goodwill when you have captured the market.
| latexr wrote:
| They haven't captured every market (again, Vision Pro),
| and the ones they have they are losing power in.
| arkitct wrote:
| It is a shame that people want to believe that companies
| are or will be good. Or that they should even be given
| "human" expectations. Companies are not people and should
| not be afforded being treated as such. A companies
| function, especially if it is a publically-traded company
| is to continuously provide greater return for investors, so
| say the majority of prospectus. What we the people,
| regardless of country, need to start doing is holding the
| company heads to account, perhaps if the threat of
| execution (is China right here?) could "make" the
| company/people good? Something needs to be done before
| everything we have and "are" as a human will be, is a
| subscription to life.
| latexr wrote:
| > It is a shame that people want to believe that
| companies are or will be good. Or that they should even
| be given "human" expectations.
|
| That's not the argument _at all_. I don't understand the
| point of your response, it has nothing to do with the
| points made in my comment. I'm not defending Apple, I'm
| doing the opposite.
| TechRemarker wrote:
| Doubt they would have been considered "goodwill". Investors
| would complain they are doing their fiscal
| responsibilities. Customers and companies would complain
| they didn't do it soon enough and still didn't do enough.
| And if people started having issues with their phones
| because of side loading they would not blame themselves
| they would blame Apple for allowing them to do so and
| potentially hurting the brand. Vision Pro as a test of
| hardware capabilities seems to be going as one would expect
| at the current price points. Once they release their first
| consumer focused glasses as an accessible price point, that
| will be the real test of the product category.
| latexr wrote:
| > Doubt they would have been considered "goodwill".
|
| Perhaps you haven't been following Apple for long? There
| was definitely a period, not that long ago, where they
| had a lot of goodwill from third-party developers,
| especially indies, and that has steadily been eroded
| under Tim Cook.
|
| They also took stances that were (or appeared to be)
| principled, which again placed them at a high degree of
| trust and goodwill (deserved or not isn't the point, they
| had it) when compared to competitors.
|
| > And if people started having issues with their phones
| because of side loading
|
| I'm not talking about or suggesting side loading at all.
| That's an entirely orthogonal matter.
|
| > Vision Pro as a test of hardware capabilities seems to
| be going as one would expect at the current price points.
|
| Vision Pro is not a "a test of hardware capabilities".
| It's not an SDK, it's a product marketed and sold at
| regular people, it's described by Apple as a product you
| can use for enterntainment and work, not an experiment.
| And it had essentially no adherence from companies and
| developers, there's not even an official YouTube app, for
| a device where one of the major use cases is watching
| video.
| Batman8675309 wrote:
| Why would they want goodwill when they can run propaganda
| campaigns against this instead?
| rs186 wrote:
| Goodwill and for-profit companies are inherently
| incompatible things.
| latexr wrote:
| Generating goodwill doesn't mean that you're a paragon of
| virtue, you don't even have to be good, it just means
| people perceive you positively. It's fine to think people
| shouldn't view for-profit companies positively, but
| arguing that doesn't happen or that the two are
| incompatible is detached from reality.
| scrps wrote:
| Tim Cook's most important customer is Wall St, granted that
| is every CEO these days.
|
| The enshittification ceiling is pretty damn high but I get
| the intuitive sense the profit at all cost model's long
| term downsides are going to start showing up for dinner
| soon.
| microtonal wrote:
| For app stores specifically, I don't think people would get
| apps from other App Stores. Alternative App Stores have been
| possible on Android, some manufacturers even include their
| own store (Samsung), but only a tiny subset of users installs
| apps from another app store or from outside the app store.
|
| For me personally, it is mostly an escape hatch for
| developers and users. It will keep Apple honest, because if
| they really mess up the platform, people have the possibility
| to go elsewhere.
|
| I think the bigger risk for Apple is allowing other payment
| options within apps that are distributed through the App
| Store (which I believe is now allowed in the EU among other
| places)? I think the app store is very sticky, but a lot of
| people would pick another payment option if is ~30% cheaper.
| Zak wrote:
| Apple is also forced to allow alternate payment options in
| the USA as a result of the Epic lawsuit. The original
| ruling was fairly permissive about letting Apple set terms
| and collect fees, but the terms Apple set were so onerous
| and the fees so high that the judge determined them to be
| noncompliant and took away Apple's ability to do that.
| asimovfan wrote:
| Do you 'really not understand' that they only want to maximize
| profit?
| SXX wrote:
| Not only want, but this is what they must do in interest of
| shareholders.
| fundatus wrote:
| Yeah, the fragmentation that is caused by Apple's behaviour is
| insane.
|
| You can set a different email client globally, but a different
| default Messages or Maps app? That only works in some regions.
| In-App payments? You can now basically do whatever you want in
| the US, in the EU you can opt-in into a different regime, in
| other regions it's staying the same but who knows for how long.
|
| By fighting this everywhere they're basically losing control
| over the outcomes and will end up with lot's of different
| regulations everywhere. Instead of doing the sensible thing and
| opening up their platform before they're being forced to do so.
| dwaite wrote:
| Four points:
|
| 1. Apple potentially loses giving ground to regulators before
| the regulators ask for something. They don't want to allow
| alternative app stores and then have a regulator say they are
| also not allowed to mandate royalties for digital
| good/service sales in their own store. Apple is likely
| nudging regulators to go a particular way, but is effectively
| trying to barter.
|
| 2. Likewise, individual regulatory bodies solving the issues
| they see in different ways has and will continue to create
| complexity in app developers, in some cases meaning their app
| needs different business models in different countries to
| take advantage of the individual regulated changes. That is a
| consequence of regulators pushing Apple to themselves have
| different business models to fund the App Store in different
| countries.
|
| 3. If Apple doesn't want a feature to be used or thinks the
| feature is actively harmful, they aren't going to encourage
| its use by making it available in jurisdictions where it
| isn't required.
|
| 4. Some of these features (such as default maps app) are
| semi-baked and without industry consensus, but rolled out
| because they were required for regulatory timelines. I can
| emphasize with not wanting to roll out broken features where
| you aren't being required to.
| bigyabai wrote:
| The ground is already lost. Apple can't prove that their
| monopoly is worthwhile, and none of their detractors are
| willing to renege. The "issues they see in different ways"
| ultimately boils down to one objectionable product (the App
| Store) that Apple is unwilling to part with.
|
| Apple can fix this issue without excess complexity. _They_
| are the ones demanding fragmentation and disparity as a
| result, allowing alternative app storefronts has always
| been a one-size-fits-all solution.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Apple preferences users over developers all the time. And
| users are represented by their local governments.
| junaru wrote:
| > They need to open up access to third party stores and third
| party browser engines.
|
| Here in EU they did allow third party stores and all we got
| were shovelware sites with subscriptions. It added even more
| friction an shadiness to acquiring apps.
|
| We need to sop pretending iOS third party stores are anything
| like what we envisioned them to be. They are not f-droid or
| anything even half as good. Apple complies with this impotent
| law because the law changes absolutely nothing for end user.
| fukka42 wrote:
| > Here in EU they did allow third party stores
|
| Hardly. They did everything they could to make it completely
| pointless. Your apps still need to be blessed by apple and
| you still need to pay them. It's embarrassing the EU is
| allowing this sham.
| junaru wrote:
| Exactly. The law achieved nothing yet its being championed
| overseas as 'move to the right direction' and 'progress'.
| fukka42 wrote:
| All it did was embolden Google to start locking down as
| well.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of
| gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to?_
|
| Is Apple going to kill the golden goose unless it is literally
| forced to? Of course not.
|
| Apple, together with Google, get a cut of 15% to 30% of _all_
| mobile app revenue. They have the entire market captured. They
| will only give that up when they 're forced to.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Google has allowed alternate app stores for a long time
| though. Just being the default is good enough to capture a
| lot of revenue.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Is Apple really going to leave all that money on the table
| until obligated? No.
| gregoriol wrote:
| Tim Cook must go: he failed at preserving their gatekeeping,
| and failed at opening it in an honorable manner.
| mjparrott wrote:
| There are end user benefits to apples approach too, due to
| better governance and control over what apps are available.
| Governments also have incentive to maximize their power and are
| not benevolent actors in this scheme.
| TechRemarker wrote:
| On the other hand if long ago they backed down and lowered fees
| and allowed more control, aside from the potential security and
| privacy concerns that could negatively affect the brand,
| companies would have just then wanted more. As Epic has said
| they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple
| provides. So not saying all Apple's choices and timing were
| right or best, but giving up previously wouldn't have prevented
| all of this but rather just lowered the bar and making it
| easier for companies and countries to make it easier to lower
| it even further.
| myko wrote:
| > As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing
| for all that Apple provides.
|
| I agree with this assuming what Epic Games wants is to be
| able to distribute their software themselves without Apple
| being in the loop
| isodev wrote:
| > aside from the potential security and privacy concerns
|
| I make apps both as an indie and during my day job. The App
| Store review doesn't do anything to protect the privacy or
| security of iPhone users. Most of the review is focused on
| ensuring Apple doesn't get sued and that you as a developer
| don't try to advertise something Apple doesn't like. The
| whole idea that the App Store is safer is a marketing thing.
| bzzzt wrote:
| Ok, what do you make of this then?
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712
|
| While not perfect, they claim to do security checks and
| verify some privacy choices. So they do something at least.
|
| As a consumer I can see value in Apple forcing itself in an
| arbiter role for app payments so they can step in when I
| have a conflict with an app developer.
| isodev wrote:
| All this is rehashed common sense - what you as a seller
| of software probably will do anyway to appear legitimate.
| No part of the review process stops someone from
| circumventing any of those rules - all you need is for
| the app to behave during review.
|
| Every technical safeguard is part of the operating system
| anyway, so that's what's really protecting you and it
| will still protect you when you install an app from
| another source. Just like computers have worked since
| forever.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| > As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing
| for all that Apple provides.
|
| As they should be. iOS was already paid for when the user
| bought their device. Mandating a 30% cut on all in-app
| purchases is double-billing.
|
| Tim Kulak[0] calls this "forcing Apple to give away its
| technology for free", which is asshole logic. In no sane
| world would a court consider application developers to be
| making a derivative work of the OS they port to, so the OS
| vendor has no legal entitlement to application developers'
| revenue. The only world in which this stupid 30% cut was even
| tolerated was, ironically for Epic, games development.
|
| As for privacy and security concerns, I would like to note
| that Apple has very _specific_ definitions of those words
| that only marginally interact with your own understanding. To
| be clear, if you were to modify an iOS app to, say, remove
| tracking code from it, Apple would consider that a security
| breach. Even though this is a common thing that we do in web
| browsers all the time. Because users have their hands tied on
| iOS in ways that they don 't on macOS, they can't fight back
| against tracking on their phones like they can on their
| computers.
|
| [0] Term used by the Soviet government to refer to "any rural
| landowner that didn't cooperate with their disastrous
| attempts at land collectivization". I'm using it here mainly
| because it almost-rhymes.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Even if alternative app stores are opened up, there are enough
| limitations that severely impede the device for me as is. You
| can't use a VPN and at the same time do service discovery on
| your local network, for instance. For some services, anyway.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Cigarette companies do this everywhere
|
| And they're just the most visible
|
| Everything banned in the US is still offered as soon as you
| step across a border, every gross visual warning mandated in
| those countries is not implemented in the US
| fainpul wrote:
| > I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google
| announcement w.r.t. code signing
|
| You might want to get informed about the hurdles Apple puts in
| your way first.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Android will still be able to install apps via ADB, even if
| the worst rumors are true about the restriction that will be
| enforced. If Apple allowed installation via some command line
| utility, that would be a radical opening of the platform.
| 45764986 wrote:
| What incentive does Apple have to comply in advance? Every
| government wants to have their stamp on it, trying to build
| ahead of the specifications risks building something that is
| not compliant.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| I hate this. If I wanted a race-to-the-bottom malware ecosystem,
| I'd buy Android.
|
| This helps the tens-of-thousands fart app developers and
| ultimately hurts quality developers making privacy sensitive apps
| for well-heeled customers who gladly sign up for fat
| subscriptions if the value is there.
| gdulli wrote:
| The people who want to prostrate themselves for tech giant
| "security" paternalism can still use the first-party app store.
| The people who don't want to give up freedom for security
| should have the choice not to do so.
| xandrius wrote:
| I see someone really gulped down that Apple kool-aid.
|
| Your life is absolutely untouched by having other store
| options. And privacy is maintained by the granularity of the
| permissions, the manual review process is generally a joke and
| it changes like the weather.
| bzzzt wrote:
| If your social network is only available on a store not
| respecting your privacy and it's normalized people install
| stuff from there it's a loss for you since you don't have the
| option for the app that's compliant with Apple's privacy
| rules. Either you give in to more privacy violations or you
| give up being able to speak to part of your social network
| easily.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| A lot of crying to say "there will be another option beyond
| the first party store". If you don't want those apps, don't
| get them. Imposing your choices on everyone else is not the
| solution.
| postalrat wrote:
| Helping tens of thousands and developers sounds like a good
| trade.
| mdhb wrote:
| Actual security / privacy person here. The iOS ecosystem is
| much much much worse than people currently think of it as. This
| is primarily due to adware SDKs and in-app browsers that Apple
| has done absolutely nothing to address.
| bzzzt wrote:
| And it's still better than Android in that regard...
| Batman8675309 wrote:
| The average person is literally never encountering malware
| on either platform.
| array_key_first wrote:
| This depends on if you count adware as malware, and where
| you draw the line of spyware.
|
| For me personally, I think both the App Store and Play
| Store are mostly malware. Ironically, third party stores
| like f-droid have the least amount of malware.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Don't worry, Google is making the _opposite move_ to lock down
| Android, whereby now app developers have to get notarized and
| anyone who distributes apps Google doesn 't like gets fucked.
|
| Personally, every time I hear Apple fans talk about Android
| users "trying to turn their iPhone into Android because they
| bought the wrong device", I groan. Because over the last ten
| years, while Apple has more or less hasn't budged on their
| shitty security policy[0], Google has been stumbling head over
| heels trying to turn every Android into a shittier iPhone.
|
| As for the "race to the bottom malware ecosystem", you don't
| need to sideload at all to get pwned on Android. That's enabled
| by Google themselves, because Google Play - what is supposed to
| be the vetted and secure place to obtain software - is
| absolutely chock full of scamware. If the app store is the
| "default", or only option, its business model doesn't actually
| punish the store for failing its users' trust.
|
| In fact, while Google is demonstrably worse at every aspect
| running an app store, Apple's own store isn't much better.
| Sure, Apple can stringently review and deny app submissions
| from a new developer, but large established megacorporations
| get all sorts of special treatment on Apple devices. Think
| about how they made an example out of Tumblr, compared to how
| they manage Reddit, Twitter, or _any_ Facebook-owned[1] app. Or
| how Apple blatantly violates their own ATT guidelines by not
| letting us turn off their own first-party tracking[2]. Or
| worse, how Roblox 's core business model violates basically all
| the App Store rules and nobody at Apple seems to care, even
| though that app is basically a child predator's best friend.
| The iOS App Store is _also_ a race-to-the-bottom malware
| ecosystem.
|
| [0] To paraphrase, "Users can't be trusted not to fall for
| scams, and also they will rape developers, so we should have
| total control over their phones".
|
| For the record, "rape developers" means "modify software in a
| way those developers don't like", which is "rape" in the same
| sense that your VCR is a home-invading rapist.
|
| [1] It is always ethical to deadname corporations.
|
| [2] In fact, this is so blatantly anti-competitive, the EU is
| mulling over - I shit ye not - forcing Apple to get rid of opt-
| in consent to level the playing field. Which itself sounds like
| a GDPR violation.
| KZerda wrote:
| It also helps the developers of apps that Apple can't or won't
| approve. Apps like ICEBlock could still work just fine using
| alternative app stores that have backbone.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Apple is a hardware company with proprietary CPUs and such. They
| have such a moat that if they open sourced their entire OS stack
| today nobody would be able to do anything with it except by
| buying their hardware.
|
| But the issue with the app stores is the app fees. Those must be
| lucrative enough to want to keep that gate for themselves.
| microtonal wrote:
| _They have such a moat that if they open sourced their entire
| OS stack today nobody would be able to do anything with it
| except by buying their hardware._
|
| That doesn't make much sense, XNU and the layers above it are
| very portable, they went PowerPC -> x86 -> x86_64 -> ARM64
| after all. They also supported multiple different GPUs in the
| Intel era.
|
| If the entire OS stack was open sourced today, we would have
| forks running on standard Intel/AMD CPUs in a week. They
| wouldn't have the same optimized power management, etc. But I
| think it would have a good chance of wiping out desktop Linux
| within a brief period.
|
| macOS/iOS are part of the moat.
| bzzzt wrote:
| If the entire stack would be open sourced there would be
| ports, but would there be a market for macOS devices without
| the optimized power management and device integration Apple
| offers now?
|
| I'm still hoping some other integrated software/hardware
| company will stand up and offer the same attention to detail
| as Apple did. Instead of that everybody's actively
| enshittifying their own products and complaining Apple is
| earning so much...
| evilduck wrote:
| Companies have tried to sell Hackintoshes before. There was
| a market before Apple silicon. There is still some demand
| it's just nigh impossible to build a modern fully
| compatible system.
|
| I doubt a knockoff MBP would happen initially but it would
| absolutely encroach on the Mac Mini.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| For the original Macintosh operating system, surprisingly a
| good amount of demand:
|
| https://youtu.be/P7vvdXzcrFM
| ezst wrote:
| > wiping out desktop Linux
|
| Doubt. I couldn't figure out how to do windows management
| under macOS to save my life. This is so needlessly obscure
| and inconsistent.
| microtonal wrote:
| If it was open source, people would make their own window
| management modifications on top of it.
|
| (I wouldn't call it obscure though, it's pretty much
| standard WIMP with some differences compared to Windows.)
| alwillis wrote:
| You can have an i3-like window manager for macOS today if
| you wanted to [1].
|
| [1]: https://github.com/nikitabobko/AeroSpace
| JSR_FDED wrote:
| Yeah that's why nobody buys their computers
| bigyabai wrote:
| This but unironically. Mac market share would be larger
| if Apple didn't drag their feet on common-sense features
| for the sake of differentiation. Because Apple tries to
| reinvent the wheel at _every corner_ , they ensure that
| Windows will always have the larger market share even if
| it has more ads.
| ezst wrote:
| I mean, without going this far, the very first computer I
| put my hands on as a child was a Mac, because then Apple
| had a reputation for user-friendliness and
| discoverability. Least I can say is that Apple has taken
| a few turns since. I don't consider myself a WM power-
| user, I just need boring, and MacOS is not, and the
| surprises I encounter along the way I can't describe as
| clever or well thought-out (especially stuff like this1).
|
| 1: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/253594264
| drnick1 wrote:
| > I think it would have a good chance of wiping out desktop
| Linux within a brief period.
|
| Given how polished the Linux desktop experience has become
| and how much software is available (gaming on Proton in
| particular), I don't think this is true.
| bzzzt wrote:
| According to the first Google result they had a revenue of 10
| billion dollars in app store fees in 2024.
| macNchz wrote:
| Services are super high margin (twice that of hardware),
| growing quickly year over year, and now make up a big fraction
| of Apple's overall revenue. Sadly, I think, the days of Apple
| having the incentives and motivations associated with being
| primarily a hardware company are well past us--we're at the
| stage where hardware and OS product decisions reflect a need to
| drive services revenue, rather than simply making something
| great that people want to buy.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| App Store revenue is essentially infinite margin. Selling
| gambling games to children is essentially free money for
| them.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| *skimming off the top from gambling games for children.
|
| They don't even have to put in the effort of making it.
| fukka42 wrote:
| They're the ones selling the gambling games. They didn't
| create them, but they do sell them.
| jonbiggums22 wrote:
| They also ban many types of apps so they can't even claim
| it's a free market that they don't want to/can't control.
| betaby wrote:
| > gambling games to children
|
| Essentially the same as giving alcohol to kids at home.
| That's the parents fault first and foremost.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > Essentially the same as giving alcohol to kids at home.
|
| Is it? A bottle of vodka, rum, wine, beer, is very
| obviously what it is.
|
| A lot of these gambling games are disguised as games,
| that just happen to have elements that are heavily
| disguised to not be obviously and immediately shown to be
| gambling.
|
| You and I both know what loot boxes are, but does
| everyone? There's nothing obviously gambling about a loot
| box, until you dig into it.
| betaby wrote:
| I mean, kids can't buy smartphones and data plans and
| have a credit cards for that gamblings sites. Their
| parents must have given they them. Make no mistake -
| gambling is bad for the society. That doesn't mean
| parents can be absent. And especially in that case,
| parents are complicit.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Services are the second largest revenue steam for Apple, after
| the iPhone. All other hardware they make is way further down.
| There's a relevant discussion at [0].
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45764986
| ponderings wrote:
| And this is why it should be taken away from them. They will
| make better hardware without it.
| Etheryte wrote:
| I'm not sure if I see how this logically follows? Apple's
| massive revenue streams have allowed them to develop the A
| and M series chips, arguably both technological marvels in
| their own right. I don't see how they would be making
| better hardware if they had less money to spend on R&D.
| drnick1 wrote:
| This is very true, and this is why we need freedom for our
| phones. Sadly, the best way of running free software on a
| modern and feature-complete phone at the moment is to buy a
| Pixel and flash Graphene.
| jajuuka wrote:
| The question is, do you want freedom or do you want market
| popularity? Because as you said you can get Pixel and use
| Graphene or Lineage and do whatever you want. But if you want
| market popularity then that is something that is not the case
| right now. The overwhelming majority of people do not
| download and install apps outside the main store fronts.
|
| And how does that freedom help anyone? If your grandparent
| just uses their phone to make calls, texts and playing Candy
| Crush then how is software freedom making their experience
| better? Or are we just imprinting our priorities and desires
| onto others?
| 827a wrote:
| Their services revenue this quarter was their second largest
| business segment (iPhone #1), but experienced more growth than
| any other segment (~15% iirc, iPhone was more like 6%). Many
| onlookers see "Services" and think "Oh wow Apple TV and Apple
| Music must be doing really well", and that's exactly what Apple
| wants you to think. In reality, these services are doing good,
| but my understanding is: that category is utterly dominated by
| tolls. Their toll-taker position in controlling App Store
| sales, the fees they charge on Apple Pay transactions, and
| their revenue from their part in the Apple Card system.
|
| Their genuine services, other than maybe iCloud storage, are
| small businesses. Consider this: Apple reports $28.7B in
| quarterly services revenue. Spotify reported $3.8B in quarterly
| revenue directly from their 281M premium subscribers ($4.3B
| total) (AM has no free tier). Spotify is, in all likelihood,
| quite far ahead of AM in subscriber counts; estimates put AM at
| ~100M. AM also gives away a ton of subscriptions likely at a
| bulk discount (its included with some Chase credit cards,
| Verizon Wireless plans, etc); it would surprise me if total AM
| revenue is higher than $1.5B/q.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| $20B+ of that service revenue per year is free money from
| Google.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Are there any regions in which they're not allowed to enforce
| notarization? Since that effectively preserves their gatekeeper
| status. Even a lot of the App Store guidelines still apply to
| notarization.
| zoobab wrote:
| Notarization means they still have a say on which app is
| allowed to run or not.
|
| This goes against the spirit of the DMA, which was supposed to
| 'open up' 3rd party stores.
|
| The European Commission does not seem to care atm that Apple is
| still the gatekeeper.
| microtonal wrote:
| _The European Commission does not seem to care atm that Apple
| is still the gatekeeper._
|
| I think the European Commission is threading the needle,
| trying to find a path to uphold the DMA/DSA while not
| provoking another tariff war.
| bzzzt wrote:
| I think they prefer to have Apple accountable for
| everything that happens on Apple devices too. You can't
| pressure Apple into removing an app when they have to give
| up the only option to enforce that.
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| > I think the European Commission is threading the needle,
| trying to find a path to uphold the DMA/DSA while not
| provoking another tariff war.
|
| The EC is also under a lot of internal pressure from member
| states to calm down on the regulation, as it's considered
| one reason why Europe is such a bad place to do a tech
| startup right now.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > The EC is also under a lot of internal pressure from
| member states to calm down on the regulation, as it's
| considered one reason why Europe is such a bad place to
| do a tech startup right now.
|
| Turns out then using private data for ads (Google) and
| acting like a middleman (Apple) are apparently lucrative
| and worth money?
|
| (This isn't a critique to you OP or your comment, but
| rather a commentary on the 21st century.)
| JustExAWS wrote:
| And amazingly they never considered Spotify a gatekeeper.
| I wonder what makes Spotify different? It couldn't be
| because they are a European company?
| yupyupyups wrote:
| You wonder what makes Spotify different from the iOS
| AppStore?
| rsynnott wrote:
| It was too small at the time the law came into force.
| It's actually just about big enough now (market cap
| 110bn). That said, it's not at all clear that it's a
| gatekeeper in the sense that, say, Apple or Google are;
| it's mostly just one reseller of many of other peoples'
| stuff, and most Spotify users aren't forced to use it.
| It's just hard to see how it poses the same sort of
| competition problem.
|
| (You could maybe make a _vague_ argument based on podcast
| exclusives, but it seems like pushing it a bit.)
|
| The really puzzling one to me is TikTok, which is
| included but feels like it barely meets the criteria.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| What artist can get away without being on Spotify? There
| are really only two music streaming services that are
| important - Apple Music and Spotify. Just like there are
| only two app stores that are important - iOS and Android.
|
| Spotify has a much larger market share in streaming music
| than Apple has in smartphones in Europe.
|
| Can I side load my own music in my Spotify library like I
| can with Apple Music? (True you either have to either use
| your computer or the iOS GarageBand hack)
| bmicraft wrote:
| Those laws literally only apply to companies a size close
| to Apple. Don't make this about startups.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| B-but that's unfair! All my startups ideas are bait and
| switch, and walled garden, as the end game!
| rsynnott wrote:
| The DMA only applies to companies with a market cap >75bn
| EUR, or turnover in the EU >7.5bn EUR/annum. Like, your
| startup will be _fine_.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _your startup will be _fine__
|
| Your start-up also won't get acquired by anyone "with a
| market cap >75bn EUR, or turnover in the EU >7.5bn
| EUR/annum." That may be fine with some folks. But it's an
| obvious downside if you're a start-up or backer thereof.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Are you claiming that big companies can only exist in an
| environment where they are allowed to be really anti-
| competitive?
| jarjoura wrote:
| Notarization is an automated process at the very least, and
| just speculation, but since entitlements are baked into the
| codesigning step, it seems meant to prevent software from
| granting itself entitlements Apple doesn't want 3rd parties
| having access to.
| cyberax wrote:
| Notarization is automatic, but the European app store still
| requires a full review by a human.
| r_singh wrote:
| The next decade looks like tech vs. governments everywhere. From
| the article, it seems Apple won't roll this out worldwide unless
| forced.
|
| As a user I like Apple's App Store for security personally, but I
| wonder how multiple app stores turn out in other regions. I see
| the EU already allows alternative app marketplaces -- has anyone
| used one and can share their experience?
| isodev wrote:
| Apple complied but maliciously in the EU making it very
| difficult and very expensive to offer apps on alt stores. They
| also made sure to add scary warnings so one can never offer a
| normal onboarding flow.
|
| > Apple's App Store for security
|
| The App Store doesn't do anything to protect you in that sense.
| It's easy to circumvent and these days it's cheaper to just buy
| an iOS exploit than go through the trouble of making a shady
| app.
| alpinisme wrote:
| > It's easy to circumvent and these days it's cheaper to just
| buy an iOS exploit than go through the trouble of making a
| shady app.
|
| But why is that easier? And is it inevitably so or a result
| of the fact that the boundaries of the one place to install
| apps from is aggressively policed?
| r_singh wrote:
| > The App Store doesn't do anything to product you in that
| sense. It's easy to circumvent...
|
| Interesting, their marketing has customers believe otherwise,
| so I wouldn't have thought that as a noob in cybersecurity.
|
| I've submitted an app to the iOS App Store in the past, and
| the process is tedious and doesn't seem superficial (unlike
| the Play Store process, which was completely autonomous at
| the time), so that's another reason why I wouldn't have
| thought it.
| q3k wrote:
| The review doesn't guard against malicious code. You can
| slip through anything you want, just don't trigger the
| functionality during review and you're golden. People have
| been doing that for private framework calls since forever.
|
| The protection is in the permission system and sandboxing,
| which is active regardless of the source of the code.
| prophesi wrote:
| You only need to pass the app review once, then you're
| free to deploy over-the-air updates for as long as you'd
| like. Though you'd need to use a framework like React
| Native, Ionic, Flutter, etc which supports it.
| Essentially anything where you can change app code
| without making any changes to the underlying native code
| (as that would require going through the app review
| process again to publish those changes).
| Ezhik wrote:
| Specifically from a _HOBBYIST_ perspective, what bothers me
| about the App Store is not even the 30% thing, but just...
| the pain of it all. The rejection horror stories, the
| "Apple told me to change my app's entire model" stories,
| the "I can't put this little gadget specifically for me and
| my family on the App Store" problem, and so on and so on.
| There's really no home but the web for silly little things.
| fukka42 wrote:
| Don't forget "apple approved my app already but is now
| blocking bugfixes until I overhaul the entire thing to
| appease this new reviewer"
|
| And then repeat that every few months.
| cruano wrote:
| What bothers me is that despite all of that pain, they
| still let through a ton of low-effort app clones in their
| store, which sometimes even come up before the original
| ones. If you search for GTA you get a ton of lookalikes,
| some of which even use screenshots of GTA V which clearly
| aren't the actual game.
| kotaKat wrote:
| You can't even report behavior that should get an app
| pulled from the App Store.
|
| I know of multiple apps that have malicious ad networks
| in them, don't disclose their ad networks, and have no
| mechanisms to report the ads inside the ad networks or
| any of the content to them, they just say the ads are
| "served by one of our partners".
| askl wrote:
| > Interesting, their marketing has customers believe
| otherwise
|
| That's the point of marketing. Making yourself look good,
| not stating facts.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > their marketing has customers believe otherwise
|
| The marketing is a lie, Apple's manual review process has
| failed to catch extremely high-profile trojan horse
| attacks: https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-
| fraudulent-app-imper...
| gruez wrote:
| >The App Store doesn't do anything to protect you in that
| sense. It's easy to circumvent and these days it's cheaper to
| just buy an iOS exploit than go through the trouble of making
| a shady app.
|
| Different threat models. If you're the mossad and want to go
| after someone in particular, yes the exploit is the way to
| go, but if you're running some run of the mill scam, you're
| certainly not going to spend 6+ figures on a ios 0day that'll
| get patched within days.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| If you're running a run of the mill scam you probably don't
| even need to ship an app.
| spike021 wrote:
| > They also made sure to add scary warnings so one can never
| offer a normal onboarding flow.
|
| is this any different from Macs also prompting the user when
| a downloaded binary is suspicious/not signed properly? or
| windows when installing it'd flash a screen about trusting
| what you're installing?
| fundatus wrote:
| It was way worse. They basically made the first install
| attempt fail. Then they made you go to the Settings app (of
| course without telling you that you have to go there) to
| allow it. Then you had to try again to download, which then
| triggered the scary warnings that you had to accept. This
| has been changed now though due to EU pressure.
| spike021 wrote:
| I thought that's also like macos, where we've needed to
| right click and open and then allow, and sometimes it
| requires going to system settings to approve it also.
| fundatus wrote:
| > Apple complied but maliciously in the EU making it very
| difficult and very expensive to offer apps on alt stores.
| They also made sure to add scary warnings so one can never
| offer a normal onboarding flow.
|
| Even for web distribution in the EU (which they allowed some
| time ago) they require you to have had an Apple Developer
| account for at least 2 years and at least one App with more
| than 1m annunal downloads in the App Store.
|
| So they're forcing you to have a very successful app in their
| own store before you can distribute yourself, basically
| making this impossible to actually use. It's such a blatant
| case of malicious compliance, it's insane.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > these days it's cheaper to just buy an iOS exploit than go
| through the trouble of making a shady app.
|
| "Look, you do not need a front door, and definitely not one
| with a lock on it. After all anybody could machine-gun you
| down through your windows."
| pprg1996 wrote:
| I hate the security argument when it comes to third party
| stores or apps. No one is putting a gun to your head to install
| these things. Imagine trying to apply the same logic to
| macbooks and not let them install from the web or homebrew.
| owisd wrote:
| Not put a gun to your head but ring up pretending to be your
| bank and there's fraud detected and can you follow these
| steps to verify your identity and secure your account.
| array_key_first wrote:
| Okay but they can do that _right now_.
| andoando wrote:
| I dont even get it. Apps require system prompts for access to
| local network, files, etc. Whats the security issue?
| renewiltord wrote:
| This is a website where some moron will read a big
| disclaimer that ChatGPT is a generative AI and can't give
| you objective facts, click "Yes, I understand", then have a
| long conversation with it and kill himself and that is
| supposedly OpenAI's fault. So it's pretty amusing that here
| the view is "a modal is immunity from fault".
| port11 wrote:
| I have Alt, Epic, and Setapp installed. Setapp is something I
| had to stop paying for while unemployed, but has good stuff if
| you can afford it. Alt is mostly empty, but now lets you add
| multiple sources for more sideloading options.
|
| Basically the market is still in an alpha stage. My next app
| will be on Alt just because I want to support the idea.
| Hopefully more apps gets on these stores, for now it's mostly
| nice to have for games, emulators, and some dev tools.
|
| Apple didn't make it friction-free either, but it seems the
| issue is lack of user demand and/or lack of supply.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| For Setapp, I am kind of forced to pay for it since I use
| NotePlan and Paste. And I use Timing Tracker sometimes. The
| first two alone cost the same as a Setapp sub for 4 desktops
| and 4 iOS devices.
|
| I should try Alt out again with you reminding me.
| port11 wrote:
| Alt isn't very exciting. And for Setapp, consider whether
| buying the software outright isn't better. After all the
| time paying for Setapp, once you stop, you've little to
| show for it. It's akin to using Spotify but owning none of
| it.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| If you want to try it for yourself, you can.
| https://downrightnifty.me/blog/2025/02/27/eu-features-outsid...
|
| Requires an EU apple account, a faraday bag, two esp32 boards
| (or other way to spoof hotspots), a VPN with an endpoint in the
| EU, and an iOS device with a supported OS version.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Sounds grand. I'll have my 80yo grandparent try it tonight.
| tempodox wrote:
| There has to be a catch. Apple would never give in without
| malicious compliance to the hilt.
| qqxufo wrote:
| Two separate levers determine how meaningful this is:
| distribution friction and runtime parity. Distribution friction =
| install prompts, default store, ability to deep-link to a store
| listing, auto-updates, and payment flows. Runtime parity = access
| to the same OS APIs/entitlements (push, background tasks, NFC,
| etc.) without extra fees.
|
| If Apple keeps scary interstitials, disables auto-updates for
| non-App Store apps, or taxes critical entitlements, you get
| malicious compliance. If regulators require neutral prompts,
| update parity, and ban API tolls, alternative stores become
| viable--even if only for niches (thin-margin games, enterprise,
| open-source).
|
| The metric to watch isn't "are alt stores allowed," but how many
| taps from web - install - update. If that gets close to App Store
| levels, behavior will follow. If not, it's the EU story all over
| again.
| nolok wrote:
| To go one step beyond, here a simple way to view it that
| doesn't trigger the usual "it's a one store per app bonanza
| issue" : would a steam store work and be properly usable ? I
| use steam because it's one major "app" store (though on
| desktop) that is very large, not based on specific ethics nor
| to a specific manufacturer nor OS developper
| radley wrote:
| > would a steam store work and be properly usable
|
| I think there would be a few different models. Epic, of
| course, would lead as a gaming store, but I could easily see
| competition between Epic and Steam for this space. But there
| could also be other audience-focused stores as well, such as
| for creative professionals, like we had prior to iPhones.
| Then there's also suite apps that will maintain their own
| stores as well.
|
| Just because Apple locked down the entirety of the mobile app
| world for 20 years, and told us we didn't want alternatives,
| doesn't mean it won't happen. If anything, it's evidence to
| the contrary.
| layer8 wrote:
| One problem is that Apple still requires that they notarize
| each single app on alternative app stores, and reserve the
| right to refuse apps for security reasons, so a large third-
| party app store would still be handicapped compared to an
| independent operation like Steam.
| seszett wrote:
| > the usual "it's a one store per app bonanza issue"
|
| What do you mean "usual"? Android had always had app stores
| without too many restrictions (though for a long time it was
| complicated to have auto updates) and it's never been a
| problem.
|
| On which platform did this happen?
| encom wrote:
| You know Apple is going to do the bare minimum required to
| avoid lawsuits or government regulation. It will be as
| miserable is possible. And now Google and Apple will converge
| at that point.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Apple: "I never thought I'd die fighting side-by-side with an
| advertisement monopoly..." Google: "What about
| side-by-side with a friend?"
| justapassenger wrote:
| You do bare minimum, get sued, litigate for few years, pay some
| fines (that are MUCH less than amount of money they made), then
| do bare minimum again, etc - rinse and repeat.
|
| And one may argue - it's not malicious compliance. It's just
| how world is setup for big companies. Any other strategy is
| leaving huge amount of money on the table - that's not what
| shareholders want. Unless you're willing to have fines that
| exceed the profits (and not just say about possibility of
| those, but actually impose and collect them) it's not going to
| change.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| The whole concept of "third party App Store" is just to add
| friction to the whole thing.
|
| Alice wants to use a program made by Bob. Apple won't allow
| Alice to do so unless Bob pays a fee to Apple. With third party
| app stores, they're just allowing _different_ middlemen. What
| we actually want is to be rid of middlemen imposing arbitrary
| restrictions on how Alice can use her own device.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What we actually want is to be rid of middlemen imposing
| arbitrary restrictions on how Alice can use her own device_
|
| Isn't it difficult to do this without rolling out a welcome
| mat for NSO _et al_?
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| I don't see the problem here. Nobody should be able to
| install or disallow installation of software on a device
| except for the end user.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Nobody should be able to install or disallow
| installation of software on a device except for the end
| user_
|
| This is a value statement. There is more public concern
| and support for security and freedom to use commercial
| software than there is for using it as a Stallmanesque
| general-purpose computer.
| sneak wrote:
| End users aren't phone experts, and a huge portion of end
| users would like to completely delegate this decision to
| phone security experts at their handset manufacturer.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| And nobody is trying to stop them.
|
| _I 'm_ not your grandma, though, and I'll thank you (and
| Apple) for not treating me as if I were.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| I, for one, won't be installing anything from the NSO
| Store. Sure, call me paranoid, but I just don't trust it.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Sideloading is nice and good but realistically most users are
| just gonna go to app stores, because they make things easy
| and convenient.
| sneak wrote:
| Users actively don't want that. This is how millions of users
| get malware on their phones.
| wavemode wrote:
| Then just... don't do it? Nobody is forcing you to install
| third-party apps.
| jajuuka wrote:
| It's a weird knee-jerk reaction from some people to claim
| to sideloading = malware. Especially on the Apple side.
| It's like they saw Android malware clickbait headlines
| and just ran with it for decades.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| I prefer middlemen, especially for something like a phone.
| But even on a server I would rather be limited to using the
| OS packages from official repositories, and have a process in
| place if i need to compile something myself, I also think
| that process should be more involved than simply running as
| root.
|
| I am afraid that making it too easy to install anything you
| want on modern smartphones is going to be a problem. Imagine
| how many are going to end up in botnets.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > I am afraid that making it too easy to install anything
| you want on modern smartphones is going to be a problem.
| Imagine how many are going to end up in botnets.
|
| Android _already_ has this problem. It takes a few extra
| taps / coaching to get somebody to install an arbitrary and
| malicious APK but it's doable now. Moving towards a "if
| google didn't sign it and distribute it, you shall not run
| it" future won't really prevent the ignorant laity from
| installing malware regardless. The rest of us, however, are
| going to get screwed.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| > _takes a few extra taps / coaching to get somebody to
| install an arbitrary and malicious APK but it's doable
| now._
|
| It does? Last I checked you just had to click install for
| a f2p mobile game on the Play store and voila, you're an
| exit node for various botnets
| graemep wrote:
| Different middlemen is not a problem because users can decide
| which ones to use. Not happy with the restriction one
| imposes? Use a different one.
|
| Either Bob or Alice could set up an app store if this is done
| right.
| seviu wrote:
| Apple priorities are and have always been:
|
| Apple first Users second Developers third
|
| Not only that they still live with ptsd from the times when
| they almost disappeared, and will do everything in their power
| to keep as much revenue as they can squeeze.
|
| Because of this, the Japan appstore will be as crappy as the
| european one. And the apps as surpar as the ones from the
| appstore.
|
| Because let's be honest, apps quality have gone downhill
| yupyupyups wrote:
| Here is a joke for you all. How do you keep a floor clean?
|
| Tell MacRumors it's Tim Cook's boot.
|
| https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ios-26-2-to-allow-third...
| emchammer wrote:
| Tim Cook has shown everybody what he is good at. It's not
| running a user-first computer company. It's time for him to be
| shown the door.
|
| Can't even scroll right in the text editor. Trillion-dollar
| company.
| runjake wrote:
| The stockholders have something different to say about that.
| He's been a cash cow for them and that's how the game is
| played.
|
| It's really hard to be a publicly-traded corporation _and_
| user-first. Those goals are often at odds with each other.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| > It's really hard to be a publicly-traded corporation and
| user-first.
|
| You aren't wrong, but I hate that you aren't. It's a shame
| there is so little regulation and that things are getting
| more and more expensive and complex to initially develop,
| that there just isn't really a free market anymore for many
| important things.
| runjake wrote:
| I hate that I'm not, too.
|
| Particularly since the 1980s, I feel like we've veered
| too far toward obtaining maximum profit at the expense of
| true innovation and developing products that truly serve
| the customer.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| The cows don't get a say in how they are milked.
| ebbi wrote:
| Exactly. I'm conflicted, because as much as I benefit from
| being a shareholder of companies, I am also acutely aware
| of the fact that once a company is listed on the stock
| exchange, there is an inverse relationship between profit-
| focus and user-focus.
|
| Not being on the stock exchange, a company like Apple could
| be like, you know what, we make enough money from our
| hardware and services to both grow and pay our people well,
| so we will remove the 30% fee on apps and keep our
| developers happy and loyal, increase the cloud storage
| capacity for our customers, etc. But they simply can't do
| that, because it's all about YoY revenue growth to keep the
| shareholders happy.
| JSR_FDED wrote:
| Wish I could be as miserable a failure as him
| eCa wrote:
| Mu favorite Macos bug (haven't upgraded to 26 yet, so not
| sure if it is still a thing):
|
| 1. Have Bluetooth on.
|
| 2. Turn it off from the menu option, but don't close the
| menu.
|
| 3. The shortcut to lock the computer don't work.
|
| It's been like this for 5+ years.
|
| Funniest thing is if you're quick enough it's possible to
| close the menu using a Bluetooth mouse _after_ BT has been
| turned off. It's my daily challenge to pull that off.
| naIak wrote:
| There are zero mentions of Cook in that thread.
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's a thought-terminating cliche common in online circles
| "bootlicker" "corporate overlords" etc. etc.
|
| Has nothing to do with reality and more just a bunch of young
| kids who found another tech forum to perform their political
| whining on.
|
| Eternal September wherever you go.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Ever heard of advanced concepts such as "euphonism" and
| "joke"?
|
| Especially in the context of idioms such as "boot licker"
| (which doesn't describe a person literally licking
| someone's boot! I know, shocking, right?)
|
| I mean I didn't click on the linked thread, because
| frankly: who the hell cares what people on a forum called
| "Mac rumors" say... Even as a frequent apple user myself i
| wouldn't take anything seriously there. But the way you two
| addressed his sarcasm was just underwhelming.
|
| Take a joke for what it is. Downvote if you don't see value
| in it - but if you're going to address it - do it properly
| and not by "misunderstanding" things on purpose.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Yes, indeed, repeating the same thing over and over again
| is one form of humour. Seth McFarlane reached the
| pinnacle, and now Hacker News and Reddit users the world
| over wallow in the shallows of it. A tragedy that a 3B
| LLM can replicate such glory as repetitive posts about
| corporations and bootlickers and so on and so forth.
| kotaKat wrote:
| Nonono, you have to tell MacRumors that Bloomberg reported that
| it was Tim Cook's boot in this week's _Power On_ newsletter.
|
| Then that floor will be so clean you could do open heart
| surgery on it.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I don't really want multiple app stores all over my device. A
| world where if you want an application, you first need to install
| each developer's "store app" is a step backwards. Look at what
| happened on Windows. I can't just install Fortnite. No, I have to
| get the "Epic Games Store" and then use that to install and
| launch it. A lot of other games also have their own "launcher"
| now, too which is just a thinly veiled store that you have to
| launch before you run what you really want.
|
| I just want to take the iOS equivalent of an EXE or APK, load it
| onto the phone, and be done with it. I don't want fucking stores
| all over the place.
| fundatus wrote:
| This is technically possible in the EU (through web
| distribution[1] of Apps), but intentionally made impossible to
| actually use by Apple. They require the developer to have had
| an Apple Developer account for at least 2 years and at least
| one App with more than 1m annunal downloads in the App Store.
|
| [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > I can't just install Fortnite.
|
| You couldn't install it at all on iOS for 4 years.
|
| To your point, you were fine with that, you'll be fine with
| forgoing anything that's not in Apple's AppStore.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I'm not much of an iOS gamer, but I also wasn't a big fan of
| the corporate pissing match between the two companies. There
| was no technical reason Epic couldn't compile Fortnite for
| iOS--they just wanted to put their "store" in the way. Which
| is what I'm really against: I don't want crapware stores all
| over my device as a prerequisite for installing software.
| dadoum wrote:
| No they didn't. As a matter of fact Fortnite has not only
| been put on the Epic Games Store on iOS, but they are also
| supporting it on Alt Store. They just disliked that Apple
| forbade them from using their own payment infrastructure to
| bypass their fees and policy.
| eks391 wrote:
| Sometimes you need to take a step backward to go forward. By
| 'going back' to allowing third party stores and apps, you have
| introduced competition, and realistically, one of them becomes
| the defacto one that is easy for both developers and users. On
| my android, I have lots of sideloaded apps that come from
| different sources, however since F-droid allows you to connect
| lots of 'stores' to it, I only have one app store app, as I
| have connected 5 app repositiories to F-droid. This is a huge
| win, because most of my apps come from F-droid, but there are
| those few that require different repos to get, as well a the
| few that I can install without a store at all, by just
| installing the APK I grabbed from the official site. Apple's
| store could allow these features, but since it undermines their
| anti-competitive practices, law has to come in to temporarily
| inconvenience you, so that your and everyone else's lives can
| be better. It'll just take some time though, because Apple goes
| out of their way to conform to new regulations as minimally as
| possible, to the point of completely missing the point of the
| regulation when possible.
| bluesign wrote:
| Isn't this same as Fortnite windows situation?; windows allows
| exe but Epic still forces the store.
| rs186 wrote:
| I remember the time when Macrumor comment section was full of
| opinions like "The EU is being unreasonable and that's why EU is
| so behind in tech" "Why not create your own operating system"
| blah blah.
|
| How the table has turned.
| betaby wrote:
| Still, 'Why not create your own operating system'?
| westmeal wrote:
| Terry a davis did and look what happened to him.
| u_sama wrote:
| Linux??? KDE was German
| betaby wrote:
| Sailfish OS.
| layer8 wrote:
| Those comments are still plentiful on MacRumors.
| cmxch wrote:
| Now to have it everywhere, not just in specific spaces or Apple
| approved "independent app stores".
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| Pardon me if this is a basic question but surprised I couldn't
| find more details regarding it.
|
| What prevents an end user to either buy a japanese vpn and use
| that to connect to the app store.
|
| I doubt that a vpn running itself inside an ios phone itself
| would work out of the box but what about if its running at a
| router level or lets say I use a vpn on another phone and use it
| to create a hotspot to connect to in an ios phone.
|
| Don't things like these basically allow these rules to
| effectively break the ios monopoly.
|
| Or think about it this way, lets say I go to japan and install an
| third party app store and then go back to some other country,
| would the 3rd party app store still work?
|
| I am also wondering about what mechanism can be used which can
| make a third party store work in the first place, I know of IOS
| jailbreaks so would it be similar to it, how would they detect
| that its in "japan"
|
| Or would these work at a hardware level? That a phone sold in
| japan would have such features, if that would be the case, I
| would assume it would increase the values of such phones.
|
| I would appreciate it if people could tell me more about what's
| the case and answer my questions.
| blibble wrote:
| there's an entire daemon dedicated to making sure you're not
| trying to bypass apple's business model, using every phone
| sensor possible
|
| just a VPN alone won't fool it
| jsheard wrote:
| Yeah, they use (from highest to lowest weight) your last
| reported GPS location, the country codes of nearby cell
| towers, the country codes of nearby WiFi networks, and the
| origin country of your SIM/eSIM. Possibly more besides, but
| at least those.
| layer8 wrote:
| If it's like for other region-locked features, you'll need a
| Japanese Apple account (formerly Apple ID), which likely means
| a Japanese payment method and/or billing address, and you need
| to set your iPhone region to Japan. Furthermore, whatever Apple
| uses for geolocation (it will include mobile cell and wifi
| metadata) needs to not indicate a location outside of Japan
| most of the time.
|
| A VPN doesn't cut it.
| danielscrubs wrote:
| And if they don't match? Let's say all of those parmeters
| indicated a different country...
| layer8 wrote:
| Then you don't get the option to install the third-party
| app store.
| 4oo4 wrote:
| Here are people documenting what they had to do for this, in
| both cases it necessitated the use of Faraday cages:
|
| https://downrightnifty.me/blog/2025/02/27/eu-features-outsid...
|
| https://lagrangepoint.substack.com/p/airpods-hearing-aid-hac...
| kccqzy wrote:
| Open a terminal on your Mac and type `man 8 countryd`. Apple
| documents the daemon for determining your country.
| Phelinofist wrote:
| Is there an update on the malicious compliance from Apple in the
| EU?
| Lammy wrote:
| This is one of the funniest headlines I've seen in a while RE:
| "ahead of regulatory deadline", because deadline is the new year.
|
| Citation: https://www.jftc.go.jp/file/240612EN3.pdf (June 2024)
|
| "Effective date -- The Act shall come into force on the date to
| be set forth by a Cabinet order within one and a half years after
| the date of the promulgation of this Act"
|
| Only Incredible Amazing Awesome Apple could manage to ship this
| change in a year and a half and _totally_ weren 't waiting for
| the last possible moment.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > This is one of the funniest headlines I've seen in a while
| RE: "ahead of regulatory deadline", because deadline is the new
| year.
|
| So you are saying that headline is funny because it is correct?
| Lammy wrote:
| No, it's funny because of the way they feel the need to glaze
| Apple over doing something Apple are required to do. Very
| transparent way to avoid writing a headline that is entirely
| negative about the company these people base their identity
| around. It really doesn't bear mentioning at all that they
| will beat the deadline by, like, a week at most.
|
| If anything it should be mentioned in the opposite way,
| calling out that Apple took as long as possible as an obvious
| way to spite the requirement, with the week-or-so wiggle room
| being a buffer in case of a disastrously bad release that
| might need to be recalled for some reason.
| Clent wrote:
| You went with a cynical view of the situation and that view
| got you upset. That's interesting.
| mcswell wrote:
| No word on being able to turn off "transparency" (really
| translucent), as opposed to muting it. Until then, I'm staying on
| 18.
| modeless wrote:
| Now that Google has agreed to better support third party stores
| worldwide in the Epic settlement, the writing is on the wall.
| It's only a matter of time before Apple is forced to support
| third party stores in the US and I predict they will change their
| policy worldwide at that time.
| munk-a wrote:
| Maybe another solid gold statue to the administration could
| make that pesky lawsuit go away, though. I'm hoping that shift
| doesn't come into effect until 2028 to avoid it being mangled
| or declawed entirely.
| k3nx wrote:
| Here's a thought experiment. (you may need to ignore reality for
| a moment or think alternate universe)
|
| Let's say Apple changed the requirements to have an app "pass"
| the app store rules. Allowed developers a lower fee for "free"
| applications, including OSS ones. (It would be nice if this was
| $0 if the developer was intending to make $0 just to make your
| platform better, etc.) Charged a 10% fee to be hosted on the app
| store instead of 30% (ignore any other fee minutia here, I
| understand making sure taxes are paid in other countries, etc. I
| don't expect them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts)
| Allow businesses to make revenue without going through Apple.
| (yes, the year is past 1998, we can all do this now) I'm ignoring
| legality for the most part. I also understand there's a provision
| "for children safety", but that's never really been "for children
| safety", but some other form of control because children figure
| out how to bypass it before grownups do. (sorry I'm jaded. I have
| children that have figured it out).
|
| Would an alternate store even be needed at this point? How much
| financial loss do they have due to the other app stores vs the
| 30% fee difference? Where I come from 10% is greater than 0%.
| What about folks making money outside of Apple platforms? Yes, it
| happens, strange to think otherwise. Downloading apps? The whole
| thing is sandboxed, with provisions... how is app store review
| different here? If I have to say "yes", allow shady apps to
| access my contacts, does it matter where the app came from?
|
| I don't think third party app stores is the problem. Let people
| install what they want, and charge less to do so. Change the App
| Store to show "This hasn't been blessed by Apple", like the
| Firefox extension store does. Let me install an app I wrote/built
| without expiring in a week, etc. You could have something like
| Gatekeeper that says "hey, are you sure you want to run this?".
| Or, if it's the same self signed cert on my computer and my phone
| just let me do it. It still protects your user base (I can't
| imagine the support calls), without stopping folks that "know
| what I'm doing". You'd have a walled garden for those that want
| it, but a nice footpath for those that don't. It doesn't have to
| be on or off, it can be both.
|
| I'm thinking Apple has much more to lose here. I'd bet in the
| billions. A perspective shift could have avoided this. Think
| different :)
| t1234s wrote:
| Would 3rd party app stores for iOS allow alternative browser
| engines (firefox on iOS) or would apps still be limited to using
| safari
| giobox wrote:
| It seems Apple have added support for shipping alternate
| browser engines in the EU, and could in theory be sold using
| Apple's own store there, as well as third party ones:
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...
|
| FWIW, it does look like Apple have made it pretty hard to
| qualify to ship one though! To best of my knowledge, no one has
| actually shipped one yet in the EU.
|
| > https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-
| ban...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-05 23:01 UTC)