App Store to Be 'Split in Two' Ahead of EU iPhone Sideloading Deadline
App Store to Be 'Split in Two' Ahead of EU iPhone Sideloading Deadline
Apple is preparing to split the App Store "in two" in the coming weeks ahead of European Union requirements that will force Apple to enable...
You're viewing a single thread.
Reading the comments from that article is a prime example of how a cult functions.
In reality this will have a 0,002% impact. Most phone users are tech-illiterate and have no idea how to use their devices. You expect these people to go to a different store? On Android you can have other app stores, why don't you have? Because Play Store is default and all app developers want to be where most users are, not on a 3-4% user share store.
It will most likely be background noise in the first months and everyone will go back to the App Store. The only people that will use an alternate store will most likely be the same ones that use F-droid, so 0,002% of the users.
But hey, it's better to scream how this whole thing is making their devices less secure, because Apple told them so.
It's always about the minority. Just because something fits 99% should not mean this is the only thing in existence, when other ways do not disturb. And one not fulfilled minority there, one not fulfilled there and soon we realise that almost everyone fit in some unfulfilled minority that is not dealed with.
Let's not act like Apple isn't spending millions of dollars in guerrilla marketing campaigns to discredit attempts to open up the ecosystem...
At this point I assume anyone complaining about sideloading, alt browser engines, etc is a paid shill, because the arguments against are completely ridiculous and fallacious corporate speak.
I've met plenty of apple sycophants in real life. Such a weird thing to base your identity on.
Seems that people who understand how shit works are the minority. Why does the majority insist on being ignorant?
On Android you can have other app stores, why don't you have?
I do I have a Samsung store. Beyond that, the ability to sideload apps is a huge reason I use Android and IOS sucks. I also have apps I've loaded off of web sites and my own LAN.
Some apps can't be posted on store fronts for one or more reasons.
- Private Internet Access: Due to Play store policy, this version lacks the Mace feature. You have to download the full featured app from PIA's website. https://helpdesk.privateinternetaccess.com/guides/android/install-3/android-installing-the-pia-apk-file
- PornHub: Obvious. But the app is genuinely a better experience than the website.
Side loading definitely has its place and is a welcome change to iOS.
Why is pornhub obvious? Americans are so prude, it hurts my brain. God forbid there are nipples somewhere! But murder is fine.
Google Play policy forbids PornHub from being allowed. But yet we have web browsers... Idgi
School Shootings on the news during the day, where every kid can see it. No wonder there are that many gun nuts, they have to be terrified.
Don't forget the apps that get banned because they dare to undermine the store owner's profit by presenting free alternatives to their awful paid versions.
Like NewPipe and the Youtube app that can't even play video's with the screen off.
iOS is also filled with apps that have ads and subscriptions. Having something like F-droid for Foss apps without the nonsense is nice if you need something like a simple pdf reader or even a calculator. IPad has no calculator for example and there's so much crap you have to shift through to find a simple calculator that doesn't have ads or subscriptions.
Understandably - as a developer you need to pay money to keep your apps listed on the Apple store - even if they're free apps. So just to recoup those losses you almost have to put in ads or subscriptions.
Isn't it like $100 per app publisher per year?
I mean, that's not nothing but seems like it wouldn't take much - certainly not many subscriptions - to pay it off.
A very small GoFundMe or coffee tip jar or just spread out the costs between a few interested people and you're done.
Most of the ad-infested apps - and at this point, that's virtually anything listed for free - are just cash grabs, not anything to do with recouping listing costs.
Whelp - I feel like you're overestimating how much money people donate.
I've got a website service that I offer for free with a Kofi tip jar - I got less than 20€ over the past 3 years that is was online. Which doesn't even cover domain costs.Sure it's very much not in your face and it isn't meant to be, plus being only one anecdotal point of reference, but that's just my experience with that.
I think for consumers it doesn't matter the reason. A bad experience is still a bad experience, and that's something I found the Apple appstore to be, so avoid it most of the time.
The iPad doesn't have a calculator???
Indeed. And you can’t even install the first party Apple one from the store, you have to go third party.
It does, just not as an app. It’s built into spotlight. There’s a built in PDF reader as well, if you just tap to open a pdf file from the files app.
The pornhub app has been discontinued over half a year ago, and they closed the API. So even if you have the old one installed, it doesn't work but will instead forward you to the mobile website.
Tech illiterate Windows users seem to have no problems removing replacing Edge/Bing with Chrome/Google (which, if you've ever tried recently, is quite a painful process - though I suspect it's a lot less painful in the EU where the dark patterns would land them in hot water).
I think the App Store will only be able to maintain it's dominance in Europe if it's a better experience, for both users and developers, than any of the alternatives.
The improvements Apple will make to the store to protect their dominant position will be significant.
Are users actually replacing with Chrome on desktop? As often as you're implying?
I've assumed the vast majority of the significant Edge market share has been due to cases where it's shipped as the default (or Windows pestering users to make it the default). And the majority of Chrome market share the last 5+ years coming from Google deals with OEMs making Chrome the default. Not due to the majority of people seeking out the browser theyve determined is best (or are familiar with). And due to corporate mandates, for business PCs. I don't have data to back this up, though.
Obviously, people do intentionally switch to either browser for various reasons, but I'd be amazed if it was more than like 10% of the cases at this point.
Look at more practical example. Steam, is so big that other publishers said, no we won't put our games in your store anymore. We don't want to pay you 30%, we will make our own stores. Few years later guess where they came crawling back. I mean really big publishers like EA and Ubisoft, on Windows where you can have a store at the snap of your fingers, you don't need Steam. But because Steam is so big and all people buy from Steam, you need to sell there.
In case of Apple it will be even worse, who will dare to not publish in their App Store and leave 99% revenue on the table? Yeah.
I think Steam is not a good comparison. People go to Steam on PC for expensive applications (video games), and for good customer service. Steam actually presents a good value proposition for maintaining your game library. People refused to go to other stores because other stores were crap.
As I understand, there is a significant amount of trivial but essential apps that could be made, and will never get on the App Store, like a calculator that has no ads and no in-app payments. Or for companies like Epic who have big enough IPs that they don't care about discoverability, because they are already viral.
Yes, exposure is a big factor, but if you don't need the exposure, you don't need it. Xbox Game Pass is not on Steam. Microsoft Flight Sim and DCS World both have their non-steam presences alive and kicking, with DCS simply giving you a much better deal if you buy outside Steam, so the niche community around it mostly does.
This will have impact, on Apple's revenue, which is really what they only care about.
If it has such a small effect, why is Apple so hell-bent on stopping it?
Because purchases not made in the App Store are purchases Apple isn't making revenue from.
Mac already can side load and Windows can side load these days as well. Hell my fucking Chromebook that is going on, 7 years old can side load Linux software and Android applications and not any single damn one of my machines have I had a security concern with an app.
Most people don't even know what side loading is. Apple was hellbent on stopping it because it stops revenue.
Windows can sideload? You’re making it sound like Windows has somehow allowed this lately; reality is “side loading” was just called “installing” since time immemorial.
Isn't it more about branding and control? Apple sells a package deal, an experience. Allowing a third party in could hurt their image.
Many Android manufacturers actually have either their own store, or an app that acts as an interface to the Google Play Store. These are installed by default, and subtly pushed over the vanilla Play Store. So I'm guessing millions of users do end up using them.
I think that's exactly the problem. The real user benefit will be very small, but in order to enable those changes, functionality will be implemented on everyone's phones to support sideloading. In my eyes, this increseas the attack surface against iPhones. Time and time again alt stores have been used to distribute fake apps and malware on Android, and the victims are often those users who haven't asked for sideloading and are unlikely to use it intentionally.
Yes, maybe this will enable an F-droid equivalent on iPhone and it will be great to have direct access to open-source apps. But is this niche addition worth potentially reducing the security of all iPhones? I'm not convinced.
The real user benefit will be very small
Time and time again alt stores have been used to distribute fake apps and malware on Android, and the victims are often those users who haven’t asked for sideloading and are unlikely to use it intentionally.
Can you offer any evidence to back up either of these claims?
On malware being distributed through alternate stores, yes. For example:
- https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazons-app-store-puts-millions-of-android-devices-at-risk/
- https://cybernews.com/news/over-9-million-android-devices-infected-with-new-trojan-from-huaweis-app-store/
- https://www.pcmag.com/news/study-reveals-googles-play-store-is-main-distributor-of-malicious-apps (Table VII, "alt-market" row)
The real user benefit will be very small
This is just my gut feeling. It is based on not knowing anyone IRL that has willingly installed an Android app from outside the Play Store, but actually knowing people that avoid it because of the potential security implications.
You have to remember that the vast majority of smartphone users are not power users, and not the people who hang out on these forums. While something may look attractive in small circles like these, there are many other factors to consider when targetting the entire userbase.
Your third link actually discredits your point. The Play store is the "main"/1st party app store for Android devices and the article says how it's the biggest distributer of malware over 3rd party app stores
But here's the thing - side loading, even on android, is an opt-in feature. The user has to actively go out of their way to sideload an app. Even if an app tries to do it behind your back, you must first enable its ability to do so.
Yes, this doesn't exist when ADB is involved, but in that case you have to go out of your way to enable USB debugging (and be stupid enough to plug your phone into someone else's computer). The vast majority of iPhones will never have sideloading enabled by their users. The EU isn't grabbing their balls and saying that all users must have it enabled by default, otherwise they'd be going after Android too.
Sure, I get that. The issue is that as soon as you introduce the ability to install apps from outside the App Store, it becomes possible to trick unsuspecting users into clicking buttons they don't understand. By designing a web page to look like an actual Apple page, a malicious party could convince users to "opt in" to outside sources, in a similar way in which phishing websites harvest users' online banking credentials. Currently, this kind of attack is entirely impossible on iPhone.
Doesn't this argument essentially boil down to "people are stupid and we should take away their freedoms to protect them from themselves"? I'm not going to say that most people would make use of being able to install 3rd party apps, or even that it won't give malware more chances to get people. But people can get themselves hurt or compromise their electronic security in any number of ways taking away people's choices until they can't make bad decisions anymore just doesn't seem worth it to me
Sure, but at that point we're getting into the weeds of fake webpages, which really isn't anything apple could control anyway. Nothing's to say that if sideloading didn't exist, that page wouldn't just direct them to a form to fill out your banking information. All it does is change the method. Apple could simply maintain a hash database of files that are known as dangerous and package it into a built-in AV for iOS (like most OSes do)
Nothing's also to say that the page wouldn't just abuse one of the hundreds of vulnerabilities that currently exist in WebKit currently.
For your average user, they're probably only visiting legit sites on that browser anyway. My grandparents both have Android phones and to my knowledge have never been "tricked" into installing an APK. I can probably say the same for the vast majority of people.
I believe the benefits outweigh the costs here. Apple loses their grip on the walled garden which is punishing for developers and makes Apple judge, jury and executionor on not only what apps can run on iOS, but also how much developers have to give up to Apple (they could up their cut to 90% at anytime and currently developers can't do shit about it).