New EU Law Could Force Apple to Allow Other App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability

[monstermash]

EU needs to fund its budget, therefore, it must have "investigations".

 

[Ethosik]

What I mean by sideloading: To distribute, download and and install apps independently from Apple’s App Store, distribution, review and payment process.

In other words: to have a system like on macOS. That doesn’t necessarily do without signing. Signing is practically a requirement on macOS today, too (though not technically - but the option to run unsigned apps is hidden). Yet Apple doesn’t review or approve all signed third-party apps.


Software development is besides the point. I‘m not talking about doing everything on Windows/Linux or „homebrewing“ (see above).


You can‘t. That’s the point.
But the „bad guys“ can.

They‘ve been proving it for years. The enterprise developer approval criteria may look strict on paper. But alternate, piracy-focused stores (in this case most apparently from China indeed) have proven there are enough holes to get through. Does this mean their party is going to be on, that their certificate will work forever? No - but they‘ll just use another certificate in case of revocation. Apple’s verification process is lax.

For the „evil scammers“ that are being mentioned as a negative effect of allowing sideloading, it doesn’t matter if their „scam“ runs obly for weeks or months. They could just get their app signed on the black market.

Note that this doesn’t eliminate the requirement of the user to explicitly „trust“ the certificate owner for these apps - which limits the effectiveness to be used for nefarious purposes.

„Thankfully“ though, scam app develop often don’t need to use enterprise certificates, when they can relatively easily just slip their apps past Apple‘s App Store review process and release on the official App Store.

So the entire argument is moot then. Side loading doesn’t exist today. Bad guys do stuff all the time. Doesn’t mean someone like my Grandma can easily side load any given app.

 

[Mousse]

Martha Clark? Do you mean Marsha Clark?

She took her husband's name after getting married so she was known as Martha Kent when they adopted Kal-El.😉

Sorry, the comic book nerd in me couldn't resist.🙃🙃🙃

 

[AppliedMicro]

Have to wonder why the EU is not looking into the Symbian OS in the early 2000s, as many in the forums claims that the EU is now only dominated by two mobiles OSes, but prior to iPhone and Android, almost all mobile OSes are Symbian based.

Very simple: mobile phones didn’t have the intermediary role between consumers and businesses that they have today. There was no billion-dollar app economy back then - and business didn’t sell things through mobile apps (nor devices).

So the entire argument is moot then. Side loading doesn’t exist today.

I‘ve always stated it’s not commercially viable for honest and trustworthy operators (except in in-house use for enterprises).

I was refuting the argument that allowing sideloading would suddenly enable all those evil „scam“ apps.
We have scam apps today. Sideloadable - and in the App Store (the latter likely being mor effective).

Apple could enable sideloading/alternative App Stores by way of having users „trust“ developers of their choice in settings - and that’s exactly what we already have today. Basically nothing would change, even for your grandmother.

 

[johnnytravels]

Yes, I'm exaggerating.

Yes. Yes you are.

As developer, it doesn't feel good to know if you do something very well, the EU will eventually come down on you.

So by your statement: If Apple does AppStore so well, they shouldn’t have to fear having to open the operating system to third parties.
Unless what they are actually doing so well is gatekeeping access to selling software on iOS.

 

[mrochester]

Yes. Yes you are.

So by your statement: If Apple does AppStore so well, they shouldn’t have to fear having to open the operating system to third parties.
Unless what they are actually doing so well is gatekeeping access to selling software on iOS.

It'll be interesting to see, once the attack surface is open, how bad malware and scams will get on iOS.

 

[quarkysg]

It seems to take a while for the EU to act on legislation as iOS and Android have been dominating mobile OS for years. Although mobile device operating systems were largely "closed" or "walled gardens" in the 1990s, they were starting to open up in the early 2000s. Restrictions on sideloading, software/app access, etc. (seen today with iOS) were quickly disappearing back then thereby removing or at least significantly lessening any need to investigate.

Odd that the EU doesn't seem to have a problem with Microsoft / Windows being the dominant OS managing trillions of dollars of trade during the 90s / 2000s. IMHO, it's not about being closed, gatekeeper or what-not. It's has always been about the money.

 

[quarkysg]

Very simple: mobile phones didn’t have the intermediary role between consumers and businesses that they have today. There was no billion-dollar app economy back then - and business didn’t sell things through mobile apps (nor devices).

So end of the day, it's always been about the money?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Odd that the EU doesn't seem to have a problem with Microsoft / Windows being the dominant OS managing trillions of dollars of trade during the 90s / 2000s

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission

That said, Microsoft didn‘t prevent developers from offering and users from installing software by cryptographic signing requirements.

So end of the day, it's always been about the money?

…as are Apple‘s anticompetitive Appstore policies.

 

[quarkysg]

Microsoft Corp. v. Commission - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That said, Microsoft didn‘t prevent developers drom offering and users from installing software by cryptographic signing requirements.

The lawsuit is because Microsoft abused it's monopoly by preventing OEMs from offering competitor's products. It is not brought about just because Microsoft being in a monopoly position.

…as are Apple‘s anticompetitive Appstore policies.

Which are not against any law. The playing field is change by lawmakers because .... money?

 

[I7guy]

[...]

…as are Apple‘s anticompetitive Appstore policies.

What anti-competitive appstore policies? Not allowing side-loading?

 

[webkit]

Odd that the EU doesn't seem to have a problem with Microsoft / Windows being the dominant OS managing trillions of dollars of trade during the 90s / 2000s. IMHO, it's not about being closed, gatekeeper or what-not. It's has always been about the money.

Ignoring Microsoft? You're kidding, right? The EU is and had been suing, fining, etc. Microsoft for Windows related activities (tied to its dominance) for decades.

In this particular situation, Microsoft doesn't restrict sideloading or alternative app stores on Windows the way Apple does on iOS so Microsoft isn't violating the law/legislation. However, they are required to follow it just as Apple is.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It is not brought about just because Microsoft being in a monopoly position.

Neither is the DMA brought about just because some companies have a dominant market position - it was instituted explicitly „unfair practices“ by the gatekeepers. Though it admittedly is a somewhat „proactive“ legislation.

Which are not against any law

Well, now some of are are becoming „against the law“.

The playing field is change by lawmakers because ....

Because competition, „ensuring business users’ and end users’ choice“, preventing unfair practices „to the detriment of prices, quality, fair competition, choice and innovation in the digital sector“, etc. I‘ve been quoting the act.

(You can save yourself blanket „EU is only after Apple’s/Google’s/US companies’ money, cause the EU haven’t brought about at eye level“. We‘ve read such unsubstantiated statements often enough).

What anti-competitive appstore policies? Not allowing side-loading?

Among them, yes. Also self-preferencing.

The rules put on game streaming apps lately are very obviously anticompetitive.

 

[mrochester]

Neither is the DMA brought about just because some companies have a dominant market position - it was instituted explicitly „unfair practices“ by the gatekeepers. Though it admittedly is a somewhat „proactive“ legislation.

Well, now some of are are becoming „against the law“.

Because competition, „ensuring business users’ and end users’ choice“, preventing unfair practices „to the detriment of prices, quality, fair competition, choice and innovation in the digital sector“, etc. I‘ve been quoting the act.

(You can save yourself blanket „EU is only after Apple’s/Google’s/US companies’ money, cause the EU haven’t brought about at eye level“. We‘ve read such unsubstantiated statements often enough).

Among them, yes. Also self-preferencing.

The rules put on game streaming apps lately are very obviously anticompetitive.

Personally i think we should stamp out game streaming before it takes hold. No one needs another streaming service of something you rent forever and never own.

 

[I7guy]

Neither is the DMA brought about just because some companies have a dominant market position - it was instituted explicitly „unfair practices“ by the gatekeepers. Though it admittedly is a somewhat „proactive“ legislation.

Well, now some of are are becoming „against the law“.

Because competition, „ensuring business users’ and end users’ choice“, preventing unfair practices „to the detriment of prices, quality, fair competition, choice and innovation in the digital sector“, etc. I‘ve been quoting the act.

(You can save yourself blanket „EU is only after Apple’s/Google’s/US companies’ money, cause the EU haven’t brought about at eye level“. We‘ve read such unsubstantiated statements often enough).

Among them, yes. Also self-preferencing.

The rules put on game streaming apps lately are very obviously anticompetitive.

Hmmm. I wonder how Costco gets away promoting it's Kirkland brand? Like the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer than the world looks like nail, applies to Apple and anti-competitive behavior. They are big and must be anti-competitive in every corner of their business.

 

[CarlJ]

Doesn't take Sherlock to figure out this ain't coincidence.
To be clear, I'm not claiming they have a agreement to do so.
They obviously seem to be implicitly colluding here.

I'm not sure you know what the word "colluding" means. Hint: it doesn't mean, "looking around to see what others are doing and then doing similar."

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'm not sure you know what the word "colluding" means

I'm not sure you've read the sentences you quoted carefully enough.
Hint: please note the italicised word in what you quoted.

EDIT: Are you going to dignify this with a response - or just leave it at a simple "thumbs down"?

 

[CarlJ]

Because competition, „ensuring business users’ and end users’ choice“, preventing unfair practices „to the detriment of prices, quality, fair competition, choice and innovation in the digital sector“, etc. I‘ve been quoting the act.

The businesses and end users already have a choice - they exercised that choice when they chose the Apple ecosystem over the Android ecosystem. I chose iPhone over Android in part because of how Apple is handling security and apps. The EU is now looking to change that, because they feel that the Android way is better. This removes choice from the user, in the guise of giving them more choice.

The EU is essentially looking to start making Apple's business decisions for them - this is not a matter of public safety, this is the EU saying, "well, we think it'd be better this way", and threatening to punish Apple unless it changes its business in the way that they want. If they want to be in charge of making all the decisions, the traditional way to do that is to nationalize the business in question. For the Public Good. If the EU were to offer Apple, oh, say, several trillion dollars, they might consider that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The EU is now looking to change that, because they feel that the Android way is better.

It's not about Android or the Android way.

This removes choice from the user, in the guise of giving them more choice.

It doesn't. Anyone who prefers to only download their apps from the curated Apple App Store can continue to do so.
As a new, additional choice, users should be able to download from elsewhere.

this is the EU saying, "well, we think it'd be better this way", and threatening to punish Apple unless it changes its business in the way that they want

Exactly.
Companies have to follow the law - if they don't, they should and usually will get punished.
And at least with regards to sideloading, it's not only the EU that think's it'd be better this way.
Other jurisdictions will follow suit - I'll guarantee you that.

If they want to be in charge of making all the decisions

They clearly don't.
The legislation is very limited in scope.

 

[quarkysg]

Neither is the DMA brought about just because some companies have a dominant market position - it was instituted explicitly „unfair practices“ by the gatekeepers. Though it admittedly is a somewhat „proactive“ legislation.

Well, now some of are are becoming „against the law“.

Because competition, „ensuring business users’ and end users’ choice“, preventing unfair practices „to the detriment of prices, quality, fair competition, choice and innovation in the digital sector“, etc. I‘ve been quoting the act.

(You can save yourself blanket „EU is only after Apple’s/Google’s/US companies’ money, cause the EU haven’t brought about at eye level“. We‘ve read such unsubstantiated statements often enough).

Among them, yes. Also self-preferencing.

The rules put on game streaming apps lately are very obviously anticompetitive.

So you are essentially agreeing that Apple did nothing wrong now, and the EU is changing the regulation to make what they are doing now illegal right?

And the reason is because ... money?

 

[quarkysg]

Ignoring Microsoft? You're kidding, right? The EU is and had been suing, fining, etc. Microsoft for Windows related activities (tied to its dominance) for decades.

In this particular situation, Microsoft doesn't restrict sideloading or alternative app stores on Windows the way Apple does on iOS so Microsoft isn't violating the law/legislation. However, they are required to follow it just as Apple is.

It looks like you are the one that's joking? Microsoft has been fined because it is found to be abusing it's monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage.

Apple AFAIK was not found guilty of abusing it's "monopoly" which btw Apple does not have any monopoly in any market it is in. And no, iOS Apps are not a market onto itself.

Can you point out to me which regulation specifically state that "sideloading" must be allowed or that alternative store must be allowed?

What Microsoft did and what Apple is doing now are not comparable in any way.

 

[johnnytravels]

I chose iPhone over Android in part because of how Apple is handling security and apps. The EU is now looking to change that, because they feel that the Android way is better. This removes choice from the user, in the guise of giving them more choice.

I have to keep on choosing Apple because of iMessage lock in but I still want a proper Xbox game streaming app. What do I do?

 

[mrochester]

I have to keep on choosing Apple because of iMessage lock in but I still want a proper Xbox game streaming app. What do I do?

You pick which is the most important feature for you and buy accordingly. Like everyone else does.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So you are essentially agreeing that Apple did nothing wrong now, and the EU is changing the regulation to make what they are doing now illegal right?

They are explicitly making illegal some practices - because they are „wrong“ and undesirable to the wider economy and society (whether you agree with that assessment or not).

And no, iOS Apps are not a market onto itself.

Yes, of course they are!

What do you think Apple’s talk about „business models“, „attracting users“ and „staying competitive on the App Store“ (!) on their developer site is about, if not a market?

This is not just some random company freely negotiating with a few others to exclusively carry and distribute their products.

👉 From an economic perspective, the App Store checks all of the characteristics of a „market“. And Apple is the equivalent of an authority or government that makes rules/laws and charges everyone its „taxes“.

Being a a market doesn’t mean it needs to be the only one. Just as they‘re is a market for „housing in New York“ - which ain’t the whole of the US.

You pick which is the most important feature for you and buy accordingly

…and that is a lack of available choices, when there’s only one competing OS as a viable alternative choice.

 

[quarkysg]

They are explicitly making illegal some practices - because they are „wrong“ and undesirable to the wider economy and society (whether you agree with that assessment or not).

So, again, you agree that Apple is not doing anything illegal at the moment and that the EU is going to make it illegal for Apple in the future, because ... money?

Yes, of course they are!

Ok, if you say so. Who am I to say you're wrong in your opinion.

What do you think Apple’s talk about „business models“, „attracting users“ and „staying competitive on the App Store“ (!) on their developer site is about, if not a market?

I don't understand the link. Maybe I'm too dense. What has a business model got to do with a market? Does it mean that a business model that looses capital investment in the hope of making it back via consumables is a market that's different from one that does the opposite when two vendors are selling the same type of products?

This is not just some random company freely negotiating with a few others to exclusively carry and distribute their products.

👉 From an economic perspective, the App Store checks all of the characteristics of a „market“. And Apple is the equivalent of an authority or government that makes rules/laws and charges everyone its „taxes“.

Being a a market doesn’t mean it needs to be the only one. Just as they‘re is a market for „housing in New York“ - which ain’t the whole of the US.

You are free to interprete a market any way you like, but that doesn't mean it is true. It is up to the regulator to interprete it and make it into law. So if the EU so decreed that iOS is a market onto itself instead of a mobile application market, so be it, and Apple will have to deal with it. Until then, it is BAU for them.