I didn't make that argument at all, my point was to show you that you are grossly overestimating the impact sideloading will have on the spread of scam apps outside the app store. Most of these scammers also have experience with Android and they know from experience that the most efficient way is through the official Apps store, that's how they reach the biggest possible number of users.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says Revised U.S. Sideloading Bill Would 'Undermine the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Rely On
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No need to blame it on Russia - when the highest-risk country is probably the US.
Where any bum can set up a shell company and process credit card payments internationally.
It‘s just… Apple‘s App Store process isn‘t like seatbelts.
Seatbelts are a proven technical means that saves lives.
That‘s like having robust protections and sandboxing in the OS.
Apple‘s App Store though works more like a taxi/cab company that tells you:
? „We promise that all of our drivers and cars need to go through an approval process and are checked - for your safety. If any competitor can get a concession, alternative taxis will undermine the safety of our riders. That‘s why we should keep the only (local monopoly) taxi concession in town.“
? What they don’t tell you: that the laxer their checks on drivers and cars are, they more cabs and cabbies they‘ll have on the road - and the more money they’ll be making. While at the same time downplaying the importance of seatbelts.
Unless, of course, it gets as lax as to become a reputation risk. So what they‘ll do is, strike a balance between reputation and $$$ - and that‘s what the App Store looks like - but certainly not as if they did their utmost to catch scams.
Much too complicated to develop and app and get people to install it - when you can do the same with a simple web site (fake online shop, etc.).
Last edited:
Sorry... I didn't mean to imply that you were saying that.
There's someone else who keeps posting links to articles about scam apps in the App Store every time the topic of sideloading comes up.
You raise a good point. If scammy developers will have the best results by staying in the official App Store... I wonder what that means for legitimate developers?
Wouldn't the same be true for them?
If developers get the most eyeballs and exposure in the App Store... would they really want to set up their own website, set up payment processors, deal with managing accounting and taxes and all that... just to have fewer downloads than in the App Store?
You're right... I might be overestimating the negative side of sideloading.
But now you've got me questioning the positive side of sideloading.
It may be that when Apple allows sideloading... hardly any developers will do it.
Isn't that how Android is? Google has allowed sideloading since the beginning. But most apps still come from the official Google Play Store.
Hell... Epic tried sideloading on Android years ago. But they came back to Google Play because they weren't getting enough engagement. You're right... it turns out there is something to having your app in front of a huge audience in the official store.
If Epic, who had arguably the most popular game in the world at the time, couldn't get people to sideload... what hope is there for a tiny developer to get people to sideload their calendar app?
?
Yeah. Almost as weird as one of the most frequent arguments against sideloading:
„We want to have only one source - if you give people more choices, that’s taking away choice!“
Along with:
„Oh no, some app could ‚force‘ me to load it from a certain distributor and that’s a huge problem!“
But if any and every app forces me to load it from a certain distributor, that’s no biggie!“
One distributor single-handedly controlling availability of all apps ain‘t no problem.
But one developer controlling availability of a single app and taking it „outside“ is.
„We want to have only one source - if you give people more choices, that’s taking away choice!“
Along with:
„Oh no, some app could ‚force‘ me to load it from a certain distributor and that’s a huge problem!“
But if any and every app forces me to load it from a certain distributor, that’s no biggie!“
One distributor single-handedly controlling availability of all apps ain‘t no problem.
But one developer controlling availability of a single app and taking it „outside“ is.
Last edited:
Those aren't so much weird as evidence that you don't understand the arguments. Those arguments are internally consistent. The one I mentioned is not.
Taking away choice by providing more choice (and retaining the previous choice and option, namely to download everything from one single source, Apple) isn’t „internally consistent“.
Sorry, no, it just isn’t.
Checks and balances.
I actually believe that the great majority of people are more than happy to download everything from one single source: the Apple App Store.
Apple could abuse that by hiking their sales commission to 90% - literally tomorrow. What would be stopping them? After all, that’s the argument the anti-sideloaders keep on reiterating: „they created the platform, it’s their platform, they can do anything they want“.
They could also prohibit some types of apps that they don’t like or that are competing against their own services or make them economically unviable (think: banning Spotify. Or prohibiting game streaming without Apple’s interference and approval, cause it’s a competitor to their own gaming subscription).
In other words: Apple could deny - or make unviable - sought-after apps or services by way of their monopoly power on the platform (note: I‘m talking about apps and services that conform to the API, access, sandboxing and security model that Apple has designed and chose for the platform).
„Yeah, but in extreme cases, if Apple blatantly over did it, regulators and courts would take action…“ you may say, and possibly (finally!) concede that that may be appropriate?
? But here’s the thing: Why leave it to regulators and courts where to draw the line between a gatekeeper that‘s abusing his power and one that’s not? Why not leave it up to the market?
And that’s what we get with sideloading:
? Even if no developer took the trouble of offering outside the App Store and no consumer did to sideload, the mere capability and possibility (or the mere threat, if you prefer) of distributing and monetising an app outside of Apple‘s grip and their App Store will keep Apple’s business practices „checked and balanced“. They‘ll have to make a a reasonable, competitive offer with their App Store terms, rules, and regulations.
If you prefer, you can also call it the principle of deterrence.
„Nobody wants to use nuclear bombs and weapons - so why would anyone care?“
Said no one ever.
Last edited:
Like I said, you just don't understand (maybe on purpose) the argument. It is completely consistent to say that I chose iOS in part because of the single app store, and I don't want that choice taken away.
You ask that like it's a hard question. What would stop them would be developers, and then consumers would leave. Pretty simple. (But that's not what's happening, Apple has lowered prices, not raised them.)
Personally, I think 99% of developers are okay with no sideloading and 99% of consumers are okay with no sideloading (based on Android sideload numbers). The only ones pushing for this are huge developers who want to set up their own stores to take a bigger piece of the pie. There wouldn't be any significant consumer benefit to come out of this kind of legislation.
We agree, yes, that’s a consistent argument. (? Providing this „new“, consistent argument doesn’t make the above-mentioned inconsistent)
Then again, I personally think 99% of device/platform choice isn’t based on that argument.
And 99% of consumers are okay with sideloading - if they’re able to get all 99% of their apps from (Apple’s) one store.
Android and the Play Store is a good indication that they will be.
Sure, but that’s not the point. If 99% of consumers don’t want a change, why force it through legislation?
(And I think they will care if even one of their important apps is removed from the App Store.)
That‘s not what I said - and it’s neither what I think they do.
If we did surveys, consumers‘ answers would probably vary considerably based on phrasing/wording.
But I can very well imagine a majority that agrees with (mandating) allowing sideloading.
Especially if you point out the benefits and advantages.
Just as they may wish they could get particular apps today that they can‘t - because Apple doesn’t allow them.
Last edited:
I‘ll propose a win-win solution then:
1. Don‘t force Apple to allow sideloading.
2. But do prohibit them from requiring their own in-app purchase system and charging commission on non-Apple-IAP sales.
3. Also, do prevent them from rejecting apps based on their monetisation/business model or content (unless they’re legally required to do so, e.g. youth protection)
? Developers may get a bigger share of the pie and/or
? Consumers may be able to get lower prices
? Subscription services (Netflix, Spotify) may be able to provide in-app purchases again at competitive rates
? Sure, Apple may lose a few dollars here and there but…
? Apple keeps their platform secure and users safe. After all, that’s what Timmy‘s most concerned about, isn’t he?
99% of consumers and developers will be happy, and Apple safeguard security and privacy.
Last edited:
That's not a win-win. Where's my win? That's a consumer lose, Apple lose, small developers lose, large developers win.
Consumers already have low prices.
If there are scam apps in the Appstore, it just means that Apple is spreading FUD when it says sideloading is harmful. Whether you download from the Appstore or from unknown sources, if you are not prudent, you will be harmed. I do not know if Apple has paid the users who downloaded scam apps and got scammed for the money they lost. If not, what exactly is Apple doing in the Appstore then?
At this point, it doesn’t feel you’re making a point - but rather reiterate a mantra („everyone loses except a few big developers“).
Payment processing and a bit of tax paperwork doesn’t cost everyone 30%. Competitors can do it for less. EPIC does it for 12%. (They just aren’t profitable due to growing their business with exclusivity deals). That leaves room for lower consumer pricing. The suggestion that big developers will always pocket that difference themselves is unsubstantiated and negates basic concepts of competition. It has been observed that it’s not true in other markets. There’s been precedent that Spotify made their in-app purchase subscription more expensive than their out-of-app subscription.
Apps can be provided that Apple doesn’t allow. Nvidia and Microsoft have wanted to offer game streaming services with native apps (that are superior in user experience), but Apple has made that untenable. If Apple’s restriction goes away, consumers can get these apps - that’s a clear win.
Developers can and will offer in-app subscription and management of subscriptions. What the argument that Apple provides unified customer service and subscription management usually fails to recognise: that subscription sign-up has already been removed from apps today - especially in the largest, most popular services, such as Spotify or Netflix. They could offer convenient in-app sign-up and subscription management again - a clear gain for many consumers.
Lower pricing, less jumping through hoops with signing up for subscriptions, new types of apps/services allowed - that’s some wins for consumers, small AND large developers.
I‘m not saying there‘d be no drawback. And I’m not saying you, personally, are going to feel benefits. But outright denying any „wins“ for customers and smaller developers is narrow-minded or refusing to think things through.
Last edited:
1-yes
2-yes(already in progress in the Netherlands)
3- no(because that’s how the App Store will end up with porn, scamware etc)
So… what would be the issue with that?
Isn’t pornography among the most popular video content on the internet?
It’d definitely be a benefit for consumers if they could access relevant apps.
Of course the app provider would have to provide and secure appropriate access controls - just as any other app has to. Can’t and shouldn’t force Apple to set up such a service (except using the age ratings they already have).
Last edited:
That is not the issue apple seemingly wants for itself. While you may not have an Issue with porn, malware and scam-ware it is inevitable that brand devaluation and brand image will be effected.
It's not Apples business what content folks want to engage with on their devices.
These devices don't belong to Apple
You can do whatever you want with your device and browse whatever websites you want using any supported iOS browser.
When it comes to the iOS App Store, that’s a curated experience, with a limited selection of apps.
Well, they surely have no qualms about graphic violence with their brand image. Not as long as it makes them money.
(...unless, that is, someone, god forbid and however historically accurate that may be, carries the wrong flag)
We have Police that don't catch every crook too. Should we do away with them?
If your asking what is Apple doing or if they are doing enough. The answer is no, not enough. As these things exist on the platform. When the rules state they shouldn't. Doesn't stop those from trying to break the rules. But there are rules, and there is some(thing/one) that reviews these apps. Verses the alternative of just let them do their own thing and bypass all the rules.
Same Police analogy. If you see a cop, you may feel safer. There is someone around to deter any wrong doing. But most of the time, you never have enough cops or they are not around when you need them (unfortunately).
I think the idea here is that we all know they are there. So we do take comfort in that "idea".
We do feel safer downloading an App from the store because it "is" part of the experience of owning the product. Most people feel perfectly safe downloading apps from the store. Because Apple put its name on it. They are reputable.
I haven't bothered to research this. So I can't speak pro or con of it. Safe or not.
...or the lovely "brand image" in For All Mankind with the astronauts wife screwing their friends kid after hours at the bar
"Brand Image" my rear end
Apple cares about making money -- that's it.