New EU law could force Apple to allow sideloading

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 6,308   +7,247
"One would force platform holders like Apple to let users download apps from third-party sources."

I am 100% using force against private companies to "make their product the way you think it should be made".

Apple should either fight this or discontinue sales in the EU.
 

trparky

Posts: 1,098   +1,246
This better be something that the user needs to opt into and not on by default because I can imagine dumbsh*ts infecting their phones with God knows what and then crying about it on Twitter.
 

ZedRM

Posts: 1,062   +748
Apparently you didn't get the memo, this *diotic proposal will loosen regulations on apps, not tighten them.

Horrible initiative from any perspective. We already had this "experiment" with Windows, all it gave us was endless waves of malware. 30 years later still going strong. Now they wanna force Apple to let that happen. How great.

Dear EU lawmakers! Please kindly GTFO and leave iOS alone. I like it BECAUSE of the restrictions it imposes on app makers, not DESPITE of them. I want a mobile phone where the apps are safe, I don't need the Windows way where every exe I download need to be scanned for viruses (with varying scanner reliability), because any random script kiddie can put up their ransomware or whatever cr@p for some easy money.

If you want to have alternative stores, use an Android device, or make your own OS, I couldn't care less. Leave my phone alone.

This whole debacle is about greedy developers (read: Epic Games) not wanting to put up with the 30% store fee. Well guess what, developing such an OS, vetting all those apps and updates, and running that ginormous infrastructure is not free, so STFU and pay up, or make a better store for yourself.

Did I happen to mention that the Epic Store is still losing money (we're talking about several hundred million dollars), and they don't expect it to break even before 2024? So yeah, Mr. Sweeney, it's easier said than done, apparently.

And the worst part is that they pretend this is a "pro-consumer" move. No, not in the slightest. I can't think of a SINGLE thing that this would bring to the table for me.
I think you missed the context of the point they were making. That's on you.

This new law will hopefully force Apple to do what they needed to more than a decade ago..
 

Derry Arse

Posts: 8   +3
Apparently you didn't get the memo, this *diotic proposal will loosen regulations on apps, not tighten them.

Horrible initiative from any perspective. We already had this "experiment" with Windows, all it gave us was endless waves of malware. 30 years later still going strong. Now they wanna force Apple to let that happen. How great.

Dear EU lawmakers! Please kindly GTFO and leave iOS alone. I like it BECAUSE of the restrictions it imposes on app makers, not DESPITE of them. I want a mobile phone where the apps are safe, I don't need the Windows way where every exe I download need to be scanned for viruses (with varying scanner reliability), because any random script kiddie can put up their ransomware or whatever cr@p for some easy money.

If you want to have alternative stores, use an Android device, or make your own OS, I couldn't care less. Leave my phone alone.

This whole debacle is about greedy developers (read: Epic Games) not wanting to put up with the 30% store fee. Well guess what, developing such an OS, vetting all those apps and updates, and running that ginormous infrastructure is not free, so STFU and pay up, or make a better store for yourself.

Did I happen to mention that the Epic Store is still losing money (we're talking about several hundred million dollars), and they don't expect it to break even before 2024? So yeah, Mr. Sweeney, it's easier said than done, apparently.

And the worst part is that they pretend this is a "pro-consumer" move. No, not in the slightest. I can't think of a SINGLE thing that this would bring to the table for me.
Ok Tim.
 

Trikkiedikkie

Posts: 6   +8
Apparently you didn't get the memo, this *diotic proposal will loosen regulations on apps, not tighten them.

Horrible initiative from any perspective. We already had this "experiment" with Windows, all it gave us was endless waves of malware. 30 years later still going strong. Now they wanna force Apple to let that happen. How great.

Dear EU lawmakers! Please kindly GTFO and leave iOS alone. I like it BECAUSE of the restrictions it imposes on app makers, not DESPITE of them. I want a mobile phone where the apps are safe, I don't need the Windows way where every exe I download need to be scanned for viruses (with varying scanner reliability), because any random script kiddie can put up their ransomware or whatever cr@p for some easy money.

If you want to have alternative stores, use an Android device, or make your own OS, I couldn't care less. Leave my phone alone.

This whole debacle is about greedy developers (read: Epic Games) not wanting to put up with the 30% store fee. Well guess what, developing such an OS, vetting all those apps and updates, and running that ginormous infrastructure is not free, so STFU and pay up, or make a better store for yourself.

Did I happen to mention that the Epic Store is still losing money (we're talking about several hundred million dollars), and they don't expect it to break even before 2024? So yeah, Mr. Sweeney, it's easier said than done, apparently.

And the worst part is that they pretend this is a "pro-consumer" move. No, not in the slightest. I can't think of a SINGLE thing that this would bring to the table for me.
Stay in your garden. Let others invite their friends
 

Vanderlinde

Posts: 148   +102
So stupid. Apps in appstore are guaranteed to work as intended and the chances of catching malware, spyware or even ransomware is pretty much zero to none.

 

Aaron Fox

Posts: 153   +90
The US government (states, as I recall) sued MS for force-feeding Windows users IE and yet I haven't seen US politicians sue Apple for force-feeding them Safari. iOS won't allow any developer to bypass WebKit.

Frankly, I think closed-source software should be outlawed, as well as closed-source hardware. Lawsuits like the failed US government one won't solve the fundamental problem. So long as software and hardware is closed consumers are at the mercy of 'trust us, it's working for you' corporate claims. That's blind faith, not rational decision-making.

Things like network tampering by governments (both in terms of data storage/mining and in terms of tapping into things like underwater cables and having ISPs give them backdoors in their buildings) is also in need of a fix but good luck getting one.

People speak of malware but only on a superficial level. When the hardware and software is closed and the networks are tapped there is a lot of malware activity that ordinary people won't be informed about, particularly in a timely manner.

I am reminded of all the frivolous complaint about scalpers when the true origin of the problem is with the big companies' refusal to sell directly to consumers.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,630   +4,602
TechSpot Elite
The US government (states, as I recall) sued MS for force-feeding Windows users IE and yet I haven't seen US politicians sue Apple for force-feeding them Safari. iOS won't allow any developer to bypass WebKit.

Frankly, I think closed-source software should be outlawed, as well as closed-source hardware. Lawsuits like the failed US government one won't solve the fundamental problem. So long as software and hardware is closed consumers are at the mercy of 'trust us, it's working for you' corporate claims. That's blind faith, not rational decision-making.

Things like network tampering by governments (both in terms of data storage/mining and in terms of tapping into things like underwater cables and having ISPs give them backdoors in their buildings) is also in need of a fix but good luck getting one.

People speak of malware but only on a superficial level. When the hardware and software is closed and the networks are tapped there is a lot of malware activity that ordinary people won't be informed about, particularly in a timely manner.

I am reminded of all the frivolous complaint about scalpers when the true origin of the problem is with the big companies' refusal to sell directly to consumers.
I'm not against closed source software, but in this case its more about being too big.

Apple has too much pull/influence on the market and their arbitrary decisions impact too many businesses and individuals. If words and common sense don't work (aka self-regulation) then governments need to issue laws to protect consumers (its their job)... even if some fanboys don't like that.

Thankfully this time those fanboys are in a very small minority. Everybody is happy that this is happening.
 

Aaron Fox

Posts: 153   +90
I'm not against closed source software
Why?

'It's true because I believe it's true' is the foundation of religious faith, not rational policy.

The only thing we have to rely upon is the promise of corporations. Corporations are amoral by definition. They were invented to, as Ambrose Bierce said, provide (certain) individuals with profit without requiring those individuals to have adequate responsibility. Basically, a scam.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,630   +4,602
TechSpot Elite
Why?

'It's true because I believe it's true' is the foundation of religious faith, not rational policy.

The only thing we have to rely upon is the promise of corporations. Corporations are amoral by definition. They were invented to, as Ambrose Bierce said, provide (certain) individuals with profit without requiring those individuals to have adequate responsibility. Basically, a scam.
There are a lot of benefits for open source (cost and speed being the two biggest ones), but for a business you sometimes need accountability and and you can't really blame the open source software you work with if something fails. There is a place for all types of code.

One good example against open source can be that it can get really bloated sometimes (on top of the bloat you typically see from what the companies add to their software). You can see this a lot in websites (I'm guilty of this too). Downloading an entire framework for just one function is not really considered "efficient" so in this case making your own code for just that function can improve your application, which can in turn give you the edge against your competitors.

I've also seen arguments about security, but that's just a moot point now. Objectively there is no "this one is better" than the other.

The industry is certainly moving towards open source, but closed source will always have its place on the market.
 

trparky

Posts: 1,098   +1,246
I think closed-source software should be outlawed, as well as closed-source hardware.
Speaking like a person who's never had to make a profit on decades of R&D that cost billions of dollars to happen. If you had shareholders to answer to like most companies do, you would be singing a different tune.
 

GoldenGoat

Posts: 62   +61
Not sure why anyone other than Apple would oppose this. You donā€™t have to use 3rd party app stores and payment providers. Perfectly fine to stick with Apple all the way if thatā€™s your thing.
Because they have a lot of money in Apple stock or receive tax money and campaign contributions from Apple.
 

GoldenGoat

Posts: 62   +61
What you lose: if you choose to install something outside the app store you could get maleware. I would recommend only installing from sources you trust.
What you gain: open competition, plus you can install whatever you want on your own device without Apple's permission. You could install, for example, an xbox app from Microsoft, which apple won't allow because they want you to use Apple Arcade instead so they can get additional profit instead of Microsoft. Could you get maleware installing this from Microsoft? I'd say the chances are just as low as getting an app of the Apple App store.
Most people would just only install from the Apple App store anyway and it would have minimal effect.
For some people, it's a matter of what they consider fair and just.
For some people it's about freedom from corperations having too much control over their lives.
 

Aaron Fox

Posts: 153   +90
Speaking like a person who's never had to make a profit on decades of R&D that cost billions of dollars to happen. If you had shareholders to answer to like most companies do, you would be singing a different tune.
That's not a rebuttal to my central argument. You've sidestepped it.

Which is more important, though? Shareholders or every other person on the planet?
 

Aaron Fox

Posts: 153   +90
I've also seen arguments about security, but that's just a moot point now. Objectively there is no "this one is better" than the other.
No, it's not moot.

It's a simple inconvenient fact that closed-source software is based on the promise of good-faith from corporations which are not good-faith in their fundamental design. That's a double failure.

Open-source software can be sold and protected by copyright and similar mechanisms. It's a false dilemma to claim otherwise. By making the code public, the good-faith promises can actually be verified.

Blind faith is irrational. Verify then trust.
 

trparky

Posts: 1,098   +1,246
Shareholders or every other person on the planet?
Shareholders ultimately invest more money into your company which then gives the company to sink even more money into R&D which, of course, starts the circle all over again.

This is why open source, despite what the idealists think, ultimately fails except in the rarest of situations. One look at all the failed open source projects that litter the graveyard of Sourceforge and Github will prove this. The Linux Kernel, is of course, one of those rare situations that despite everything, it has survived.
 

Aaron Fox

Posts: 153   +90
Shareholders ultimately invest more money into your company which then gives the company to sink even more money into R&D which, of course, starts the circle all over again.

This is why open source, despite what the idealists think, ultimately fails except in the rarest of situations. One look at all the failed open source projects that litter the graveyard of Sourceforge and Github will prove this. The Linux Kernel, is of course, one of those rare situations that despite everything, it has survived.
The only difference between open source and closed source is that the latter has no verified truthfulness. It is business founded upon promises that can be as empty as the wind.

How a system that isn't set up to have open source flourish in the face of closed-source competition has shaken out is evidence only of that.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,630   +4,602
TechSpot Elite
No, it's not moot.

It's a simple inconvenient fact that closed-source software is based on the promise of good-faith from corporations which are not good-faith in their fundamental design. That's a double failure.

Open-source software can be sold and protected by copyright and similar mechanisms. It's a false dilemma to claim otherwise. By making the code public, the good-faith promises can actually be verified.

Blind faith is irrational. Verify then trust.
I do believe that recent events showed exactly what I mean. I don't need any more explanations.

And you seriously don't understand just how complicated the licensing can get once you start using open source code.
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
Sideloading is the biggest threat for malware and spyware which is why tons of android phones gets it. It is very easy to install a spyapp on any android phone as a result. Give me 1 minute with access to it and I will be able to watch your front and back cam any time I want. This is nothing new, simply google it or visit phone hack forums. GPS tracking + cam peeping is so easy to install...
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 512   +976
Sideloading is the biggest threat for malware and spyware which is why tons of android phones gets it. It is very easy to install a spyapp on any android phone as a result. Give me 1 minute with access to it and I will be able to watch your front and back cam any time I want. This is nothing new, simply google it or visit phone hack forums. GPS tracking + cam peeping is so easy to install...
Well I would also not give you 1 minute access to my iPhone.