And then suddenly I lose all the protections afforded to me by the Apple Store, such as easy cancellations of subscriptions, easy refunds of apps that don't work, a layer of protection against malware, and so forth. It also just makes my phone that much harder to use, as finding and installing apps becomes that much harder.

If everybody gets sideloading, that absolutely will impact me directly, and negatively. Does that make sense?

This point keeps being made in these threads on here, and the response I’ve seen made, which I agree with, is that this clearly isn’t the case when you look at Android. Sideloading already exists and it is far from a common way to distribute applications.

From a business perspective, it really doesn’t make sense to force users to pull from outside the App Store, because you’re basically going to destroy your business. Most users are not all that technical and the moment you require them to fool around with apks or whatever other format, you’re going to lose a huge percentage of them.

The problem with using Android as a counterexample is that Apple iOS is more restrictive (e.g. privacy settings) than Android.

E.g. Facebook admitted they lost billions in revenue because of the Apple iOS ad tracking permissions change. That might be an example of Facebook forcing users to "sideload" Facebook+Whatsapp+Instagram to get around the privacy restrictions. In contrast, the Android platform didn't financially hurt them like that so there's less incentive to ask Android users to sideload Facebook apps.

So even a mega giant like Facebook has to follow Apple's rules because there is no sideloading to bypass them. A somewhat analogous situation in 2019 happened when Facebook violated Apple's app store policy and spied on teenagers by abusing their Apple developer account: https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+revokes+facebook+certi...

>Most users are not all that technical and the moment you require them to fool around with apks

I think some conversations about "sideloading" are muddy because casual conversation around it mentally includes alternative app stores rather than end users literally downloading raw ".app" bundle files

Apple can clearly make the OS secure/privacy friendly if they want to. The only layer of security that you may lose is the dubious “review” process, which clearly doesn’t do anything considering the amount of scam apps on the store.

Your sentences above are a prime example of a technology mindset being so familiar with the underlying technology that it actually handicaps the analysis of how people might use the tech in ways you don't expect.

The way the sideloaded app gets around the os-level restriction is that they would force users to give permission to the ad-tracking. Otherwise, the sideloaded app has crippled functionality.

That scenario can't happen on Apple's offical App Store because their policies don't allow apps to have crippled functionality when users opt-out of ad tracking.

The theme is that the side-loaded apps can exercise way more freedom with clever psychological dark patterns that bypasses os-level settings.

E.g. see related example from Twitter: https://www.techgoing.com/twitter-ads-may-track-users-in-vio...

There is a simple solution for Apple: disable ad tracking on iOS. The DMA doesn't require gatekeepers permit ad tracking. It only requires gatekeepers provide the same functionality they provide themselves. Apple is still perfectly able to provide a safe and secure OS under the legislation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/11/technology/bad-digital-ad...

Obviously, things like phone book access can be solved for sideloaded apps just as well as for App Store ones – just like Android has been doing for many years.

But it's also been apparent that relying on code auditing wasn't going to be sustainable long term. The real answer is for Apple to beef up their sandboxing to prevent things like cross app tracking, coercing permissions from users, etc - independent of the app store review process or policies.

This is what the Libre Android distributions (eg GrapheneOS, CalyxOS) have been (slowly) converging on.

I originally thought I would never load a different App Store but now I might. If an App Store came out that was highly curated (ie no casino games, no subscription scams, no advertising against competitors), that listed exactly what the in-app purchases are before buying, and removed developers who get a lot of complaints in the store, I would be interested. Apple hasn’t been a good steward of the App Store.

Couldn't have said it better. The only things I could see myself sideloading are indeed the Kindle app (I like being able to single-click buy books without having to switch to Safari), a full browser, and possibly some retro computer, calculator, and console emulators.

All of these are (or at least have been, before I switched) been possible on Android via official apps from the Play Store.

I'm fine with it. Apple has been intentionally hindering WebKit development for years to hobble web apps and maintain their App Store dominance. They'll finally be forced to compete again.

Bingo. Chiefly worried about Facebook and my folks. As well as compliance deciding everyones' personal phones need antivirus spyware.

That said, I think Apple has the playbook with SIP on Macs: make it scary to disable and clearly in power user territory.

> corporate compliance

I've never enrolled any of my personal devices in any sort of corporate network, and I never will. Just say no.

Oh? So are you saying that monopoly power is a real thing, and that a company like Apple can extract a 30% monopoly fee, because of this network effect?

The problem with this argument is that Apple fans on one hand have been smugly commenting for a decade, "go but an Android" or "just don't publish on the iPhone" .

And now, they are turning around and suddenly discovering what market power is.

If Apple had merely reduced their 30% fee to 5% from the beginning, we wouldn't be in the situation.

But thems the breaks. Now every Apple fans will have to hear the same exact argument, that they used against others, for a decade, thrown back in their face.

I had problems with that only once. I guess it depends on people you are around with. But most people have different groups of friends on different apps already so it's usually no big deal.

If you actually try saying no, you'll find that it's actually easy.

And you become the pain-in-the-ass of every friend group and professional circle. No one likes dealing with annoying people like this.

No u.

No, at most you'll pay more for the same app your coworker sideloaded. The price for apple protection, +30% on everything.

Most people didn't extract pictures from their phone before apple cloud (or w/e their service is called) appeared. I know because i was the tech support for my family for those 5 years. How would they sideload?

They claimed that they expected Apple's rule changes a while back to cost them $10 billion dollars in 2022 alone.

Things may work out as the have with Android sideloading, but they may not. Incentives definitely differ between the two. It's also not clear to me that if sideloading is forced via regulation, it'll look like it does on Android—both operating systems may be forced to make it easier than it currently is on Android.

And, to be honest, who is Apple to dictate what Facebook's users can and cannot pay their Facebook subscription with? If people are fine with Facebook's cyber stalking, let them install the stupid app. You can still use the web version from Safari with all of the ad blocking addons you can find. Apple isn't the government and they don't have power of attorney, so I know what basis they have to say what apps you can and cannot sideload onto your phone.

Even still, I doubt Facebook will leave the app store because of this. They may provide some kind of "Facebook Plus" that you need to sideload, but the app store has too many eyes on it because it comes preinstalled.

The nightmare scenario, for the "please don't change it" side, is that one of a handful of big players does this but also uses it to push an entire alternative store. Facebook and Epic are the most likely to try. Maybe Google, outside chance Microsoft tries. I doubt any would bother to just push sideloading an app, without using it to make a play to become the second of an app store duopoly on the platform. Basically the same strategy Steam used to gain market share—"here's our new game that everyone wants... oh, by the way, to use it you have to install our store".

I mean, Epic's been burning stacks of Benjamins for at least a couple years giving away tons of games (most of it not even cheap shovelware!) to buy marketshare for their desktop app store—it's not implausible they'd give away a lot of free games or other software to get iOS users to install their store, to make a play for the #2 (or #1!) app store position on the platform. And Facebook could probably get people to install theirs by just adding some visual bling to users' posts when they use the version from Facebook's store—might not even have to give them actual extra features to make it happen.

Maybe none of that happens, sure, but it might. If these changes brought by regulations end up making sideloading easier than it currently is on Android, on both platforms, I'd say it's a certainty that something like that'll go down, at least on iOS (more money to be made there; store's more restrictive) and maybe on Android, too.

I can see Epic starting a mobile game store. And, honestly, I don't see a problem with that. Apple is using Apple Arcade as one of their many "stay with us and you get all of this stuff" services, so why not? Perhaps Microsoft will join the fight and take Game Pass to mobile phones. May the best app store win.

Apple clearly has the upper hand no matter how this plays out. They'll actually have to compete, which means they may need to fix the review situation and loosen some of their policies to allow for things users want rather than make their users comply with what they want. They can stick to their "no video game streaming, no emulators, no links to your website" policy if they want to, but that'll only work as long as their users agree with them.

Certainly, Play Store doesn't feel as restrictive as the App Store, so that's probably a factor. But I doubt popular apps will drop Apple's store, because it will significantly reduce the number of people willing and able to install their apps.

Given that iphone owners are more wealthy I expect this to happen much more often when sideloading is allowed on iphones since there's more money to be made. It's gonna get bad imo.

Android has always supported sideloading, yet in almost 10 years of using Android, I've never had to sideload any commercial app.

Anecdotally, Amazon has tried to push their app store for a while by incentivizing installs with free games and the like, but none of these weren't also available on the official Play Store. Nowadays, it's all free-to-play anyway, but that's a different topic.

But they want their Facebook. Or SnapChat, or Insta, or TikTok, or whatever.

Once other app stores are allowed, there's nothing stopping Meta (for example) from revoking their existing apps, and requiring the use of the Facebook App Installer for access to Facebook. They've paid people in the past to use their Onavo VPN app to bypass Apple's privacy controls, so this would be unsurprising.

Of course, that's just an example; replace with the next SnapChat, TikTok, whatever. If that's the thing that teens want, and the way to get it is to click a bunch of "Yes I agree" dialogs, they'll happily do it. And now suddenly some developer has access to all your family financials through your teen.

If your solution is "well, people shouldn't do that then", you might not understand teens. (Or grandparents. Or regular people.)

Well, there is maybe one thing. That is their projection of reduced installs. It's not just an issue of clicking "Yes". It's probably also an issue of knowing how to do it in the first place. The first party app store will always be easier.

Read the comments on the article itself, it is just full of "i dont want to do this".. so great, don't sideload apps (no one is forcing them to), but why are they so keen on preventing others from doing it as well?

It might be that nothing changes if sideloading is made much easier, or other browser engines allowed, or whatever. But, that's not guaranteed.

Since I like the current situation—at least, better than the alternative of having no one push back on things like spyware-loving megacorps—I'm not in favor of risking changes to it.

My ideal situation would be that a lot of what Apple prevents on their platform were illegal everywhere so it'd hardly matter, but the US, at least, does not seem to be heading that direction anytime soon.

So, that's why. It risks changing the current situation such that I would find it worse, overall, and I'd prefer not to risk that.

Indeed. This is called "being an monopoly" and "using anti-competitive practices to control a market, in violation of anti monopoly laws".

Yes, anti competitive practices work.

Yes, being a monopoly works.

And yes, it has produced some good things like Apple's focus on privacy.

But it has also produced other very not good things, like the 30% Apple tax.

But, it is at least comforting that people are now saying the quiet part out loud, which is "yep, Apple had anti competitive market power the whole time, I just like monopolies".

It's... been the entire argument, the whole time, for the "please don't change it" side. I'm not even aware of another angle on it. It's never been "quiet".

> I just like monopolies

I like my life being better than it might otherwise be. In this case, yes, that means I'd rather this monopoly stick around at least a while longer. I'm entirely not a fan of black-and-white positions on most issues. Monopolies generally suck. In this case, however, one particular monopoly seems to be giving me significant benefits I might not otherwise have. Now, if I could trade Apple's monopoly for a harsh crackdown on monopolies across the whole economy, that'd be easily worth it—yes, please. Just to "liberate" iOS devices, though? Nah, I'd rather they leave it alone.

Well, it gets conveniently ignored anytime someone would bring up problems with said monopoly.

For example, the 30% Apple fee is a consequence of their anti-competitive market power.

And yet, if you start complaining about that, the response will be to pretend like the anti-competitive market power doesn't exist, and that you should just "go publish on a different app store" if you don't want to pay that monopolistic fee.

You can't have it both ways here. You cannot say that you like their monopoly power, and then pretend like it doesn't exist when the same exact market power allows Apple to extra 30% of the money from the app store market.

> Now, if I could trade Apple's monopoly....... Just to "liberate" iOS devices, though? Nah, I'd rather they leave it alone.

Well then you should blame Apple for the situation we are in now.

People wouldn't be forced to regulate Apple, if they hadn't been abusing their market power for a decade.

If Apple had instead chosen to lower their app store fee, to 5%, then we could have gotten the best of all worlds, which is a focus on privacy, and no monopolistic fees.

Its too late for that now. If only Apple hadn't fought these efforts so much, they could have given everyone a worthwhile compromise.

because it's going to make unscrupulous companies like google/fb/etc all force you to go through their app clients to install their sideloaded apps, without any of the scrutiny and control the apple store has provided historically. that's not really a world I want to live in. While yes, I can just uninstall those apps, some are nearly intrinsic to a mobile experience, like the youtube app.

2) Android is far, far less lucrative per-user than iOS.

Maybe sideloading on iOS will work out like Android has. Maybe not.

Life is too complex and there is too much going on and too much to figure out and too many demands on my time, I just want to pick up a device, use it for what i need and then put it away. I don't want to spend hours tinkering to get every little thing the way i want it, i'm happy to outsource that to someone that knows what they are doing and in return I get a device that just works.

Now we are going to end up with a bunch of app stores, which is horrible and annoying to manage on a phone, side loading apps, apps requiring certain app stores so you have to download that app store just to get it and then apps that don't meet the standards that Apple have set.

If you don't like that, you could have bought an Android, but I was happy with it, I want my devices to get out of my way.

Two very bad consequences for me if sideloading were easy:

1. There would be no safe product to recommend to my aging parents who would be vulnerable to social engineering.

2. A company with a popular produce like Facebook could go outside the store, which would normalize side-loading, thus rendering argument like ‘people who want safety can stick to the store’ moot.

The arguments about not wanting to control what other people do are moot. If you want a platform with side-loading, buy android.

I haven't heart of social engineering involving https://github.com/altstoreio/AltStore but maybe you know something I don't. Either way, installing apps onto iOS devices over the network exists today.

By strong arming carriers Apple took this revenue to themselves which had the paradoxical effect of opening things up from where they were before. Without this, there’s no doubt you’d be using a Verizon App Store and I’d have AT&T and governments would see no need to take action because there was carrier competition.

Is being able to install whatever you want on your phone, a good thing? Undoubtedly, but we wouldn’t have tasted this opportunity without Apple’s move to take App Sales in house. We also have to be mindful of the devil we don’t know. if you’re OSS you see sideloading as blissfully unchaining your device, but if you’re an Apple competitor you see it as a chance to do everything you were forbidden to.

Certainly, the carriers had stores, but it's not like they had software I wanted to run.

Smart tech users do lose out in the trade off, but it is a trade off.