Apple announces ability to download apps directly from websites in EU

I have plenty of computers running Windows and a variety of Linux distros at my home. Laptops, desktop, servers, and weird hybrids of the former.

Same with mobile - I have tried Android, iOS, PureOS, GrapheneOS.

Apple's UX is so far ahead for me. It's just better. But, you obviously disagree. No need to be disparaging.

Except Airpods. They're pretty sweet.

Aside from me throwing too much at it (should've sprung for 32GB), it's the single best notebook I've ever owned, and the most reliable.

To say it was the best fit for me is an understatement! It's truly great!

After trying UI design tools and web development on Windows and Linux machines and finding the experience very sub-par for my needs, I've found macOS, and by extension, Apple's hardware quality, choice of keyboard layout, ease of use, etc. to be superior for my needs. I have almost no complaints about the Mac platform with the ways I've been able to customize it, and its nag-free experience. As they say, it just works™. ;)

It feels made for UI design & development, with minimal to no configuration, no late nights fixing file permissions or access issues, fixing Linux subsystems, fiddling with very limited terminals, and suffering from buggy piecemeal UI shell packages that prioritize fancy, laggy animations over functionality.

On the contrary, I've found not only doing these tasks and multitasking to be very frustrating when getting serious work done on other machines, primarily frequent interruptions (Windows) and major inconsistencies with global keyboard shortcuts.

For what it's worth, I'm also a staunch Android user, never owned an iPhone, occasionally use an iPad for reading and other content creation, absolutely love my Windows PC for gaming and surfing on my TV, and work exclusively on my MacBook. I'm very particular about using the most suitable machines for the tasks at hand, but well-rounded enough not to be completely captured by Apple.

And there are multiple manufacturers that aren’t associated with Google who make phones.

If this were truly such a shortcoming, more companies, in addition to already existing ones, would create phones with side loading apps.

Imagine me pitching my idea to YC, it’s like an iPhone, but with side loading apps! It’s brilliant!

You’d be laughed out of the room.

The issue is you want those good Apple features, you want that Apple ecosystem, the blue bubbles, etc, but you also want to have a feature that the phone doesn’t have and people are crying that Apple won’t give them that feature.

I don’t even care, and I even if I did, decisions already been made so there’s nothing to argue.

This is simply an amusing situation, the grandstanding is simply funny.

Show of hands, how many people actually spend multiple minutes (or hours) just swiping through their respective App Store just to find something new and interesting?

Aside from the store experiences, the web's powerful (gasp!) ability to find and download content including Computer Applications™ has always been its greatest strength. App stores are a net detriment seeking to protect the lowest common denominator: the uneducated computer user who hasn't bothered to learn everyday security practices to avoid downloading malicious apps or vetting software developers on their popularity and/or security themselves.

This takes a little knowledge and practice, but this isn't much different from shopping for good produce in a grocery store. Avoid the rotten fruit, and use your friends/family to help you judge what's best! That's the beauty of freedom on our devices, as it enables the power users and enthusiasts to enjoy these devices at their fullest, without senseless obstacles offering unsolicited "protection".

That was a few years ago. Anything older I've forgotten honestly at this point. It's been a long time, and I'm certain things are probably better these days, but I have absolutely no reason to switch. My muscle memory and setups on my current machines are too good to let go of.

I have a Steam Deck -- but their experience is so tailored that I'm not sure it counts. I'm not actively using the desktop environment unless I need to use a different game platform. I wouldn't be using this machine for work at all though.

But sure, here's another -

You can run any company's software on a MBP, downloaded from the internet, without paying a dime to Apple. Similar situation applies to Windows / Microsoft.

The iOS model is advocating for rent-seeking in MacOs and Windows binaries.

Surely Apple's OS/framework that they tried to say they spent so much money developing, sandboxes and protects all running code from said data vacuuming behaviour?

Or did you really believe Apple when they said it would reduce security™

Because the only reason it would is if Apple let it happen on purpose so they can create a consumer backlash by saying "I told you so".

There was a story that a Bitcoin wallet in the store was stealing peoples funds and had Apple had be notified at least 12 days prior. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272

So the so-called security is a red herring.

I mean, consultants, they grow on trees and I know what I'm talking about, I sometines interview new hires as part of my job. Developers, less so.

I don't have an explanation for this, it's a strange effect. But it's just an example, I have observed multiple times this unexpected deviation from the law of supply and demand.

My point is, this law is not a sure fire way to explain any price.

I can't get the boomer comic where the guy pulls the calendar and sees the next year is 1984 out of my head now.

I once read a light-hearted analysis of the cumulative time wasted by humanity due to the original USB plugs/sockets being unidirectional. I suspect a similar analysis of these cookie popups would be shocking.

Hah, first Google hit: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/billions-hours-now-being-wast.... (Not sure I agree with the numbers used, but the order of magnitude probably isn't too far wrong)

Not true, actually! GDPR is a framework, and every EU country implements a national law according to that framework (e.g. the Dutch implementation is called "AVG"). The specific requirement that refusal must be as easy as acceptance is not in the GDPR, but several countries added it to their national implementation of the GDPR.

You don't need cookie popups! Really. You don't.

You only need to get consent to track users with software you don't run yourself. Or when you sell your data off to other companies.

Both are, unfortunately, the norm. But there's absolutely no technical reason to have these in place. Non at all. Plenty of alternatives for tracking that doesn't need consent. Or just not sell your customers' data off.

I would be infuriated if I found the bakery down the street is selling its security footage with my face on it, next to my sales and spending in that bakery. I'd expect them to at least warn me about this at the door. So I can then buy my bread elsewhere. That's what a consent banner is!

Also, cookies are not the only method of tracking which is supposed to be disabled when you hit Deny.

I'm not going to argue about the signal to noise ratio between e.g. fdroid vs Google Play, but it should be obvious that while the signal looks the same for both, the noise is very different, with fdroid having outdated, "developer UI" apps as noise and Google Play having fraudulent scams and malware as noise.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this. If the big social media companies pull their apps from Apple's official store and move to their own stores (with unfettered access to spy on users) then they will be successful at dragging their users with them. Furthermore, there is no evidence that GDPR has had any success stopping them from siphoning up all the data they want.

My parents are in their 80s and use Android with F-Droid (I set it up for them). No scams. No account or password. No ads. Simple apps. They have definitely benefited from having more choices available to them, specifically a repo of software built with something other than profit motive in mind. Apple's not very good at offering that.

If app stores need to be locked down to protect the elderly, then surely the Internet needs to be locked down to protect all children. After all, Safari still navigates little Jimmy to pornhub if he clicks the link.

I feel like the real solution, same as the one most parents should be using instead of forcing it into everyone else is the same it's always been; don't give young Jimmy unfettered access to the Internet (and use a child/safety filter in your own home/on your own devices) and for Apple to provide a setting that enables/disables alternative app stores, so that children of the elderly can choose for them in the same way they'd choose for their children.

My original question was a request for hard evidence which I think is lacking in arguments of security and safety.

I think I've seen an equal amount of press surrounding fake and useless apps on both android and apple platforms. But this is purely observational.

    > I guess Play Store & "the Amazon thing" (I don't remember the name either) adoption there is close to 0%.

No, good point! I hadn't thought about the China market. I don't know how things work there.

Which goes to the parent's point that their intent is to prevent competition. Otherwise why would the alternative need more onerous security measures, if not to act as a deterrent through friction?

> Read the DMA. It is very explicit that it expects Apple to maintain security of devices and apps.

It also says that the security measures have to be "strictly necessary" and "there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system" and "[t]he gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation" etc.

Which implies to me that you not only have to be able to turn them off, they have to be off by default.

That's a contradiction in logic there. If they cared for security, they would choose the more secured option. But they didn't?

Either they then have provided worse security all along: web distribution could have offered more security than an app store? Or they could have provided even better security in their app store all along: if they implemented this stricter checking there. Why not?

These arguments are poor and don't stand up to scruteny.

The very simple conclusion is that it's not about security, that it never has been.

Which the annual tax (aka developer fee) presumably covers.

This is how it used to be, until Apple got too large and instead of being beholden to developers it flipped the other way around, and now releasing an app for Apple's platform is a supposed privilege.

Take the games industry, where developers and publishers are often given huge incentives by a platform (mostly consoles) to develop for that platform; because games developers are providing value for the platform owner by making the platform more attractive because it has more content options for the consumer.

Why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around that concept.

Similarly, I dream of going to Epic's website to download some Fortnite, maybe charge a thousand vbucks to mom's credit card if I'm feeling adventurous, and that has nothing to do with Apple or iOS.

This is how every single general-purpose computing platform (including Apple's MacOs) and the open internet has worked for multiple decades.

This would be the developer buying a license to the SDK and documentation and then that would be it.

At the same time, SCOTUS has been guilty of stretching its terms to include ideas that are clearly out of scope. (For example, the dubious invention of “substantive” due process - which all of the abortion stuff hinges on.)

22,000 of Apple’s employees are EU citizens and residents.

When things eventually open up, when Apple is finally forced to permit other app stores on their mobile devices, I'll take a hard pass on them.

It's been a couple of years since I've last tried, but given Google's history regarding subpar controls I doubt it has gotten appreciably better.

Regarding smartphone safety, the only truly safe thing to do is not not use one at all.

You're being a reductive troll. Stop making bad-faith arguments if that's the only way you intend to contribute to the discussion.

In any case, it's possible, but with very little effort, could be far easier than managing native apps even. But alas, that's a threat to a business model of Apple, so not going to happen unless forced, as

¹ https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/15/ios-17-4-web-apps-european-un...

However, I believe another statute of Apple’s implementation is that developers must pick. App Store or Self Distribution— an app cannot be both

Yes, hence alternative app stores. But that isn't the same thing as saying Apple can't take a cut from other App Stores, and surprise, they are.

4. Gatekeeper must allow people to install applications from outside the App Store. That has no relationship at all to whether Apple is allowed to require a contractual relationship with iOS developers that stipulate payment under certain conditions -- installs, IAPs, number of developers, number of users, etc..

7. Gatekeeper can't give themselves special APIs that allow them to do things other apps can't or charge extra for those special privileged APIs. Apple can nonetheless still charge developers to access iOS. But from there Apple can't give themselves an advantage by saying that only Apple apps can access Bluetooth.

I wish I was as optimistic as you. GPDR was already supposed to be such an improvement. I have no doubt that current Apple's dance won't work. But I don't think any European company will actually benefit from DMA. (I'd say the ones who will really benefit from it are Epic Games and Google, maybe Mozilla a bit)

That being said, I'm very happy the EU implemented the DMA.

It is funny to see American companies scream "that's not fair" when faced with a functional government.

A trade war is the last thing the EU wants, especially when they are completely and utterly dependent on the US for technology and protection, so it's very unlikely that the EU will get all extreme on Apple or other US tech companies.

It will push as hard it can but we will not see a protracted ban. The EU understands that it can only push so hard before it starts a trade war and harms itself out of spite.

Hmm somehow I can go to any website in a browser and be just fine hmmmm

And you think those developers, once freed from the Apple App Store, will release their apps for free on the web???

First one I tried had ads.

Second one required making an account.

Third one had some features reserved for the paid version (e.g. factorial).

Then more adware and other crap.

After 20 minutes I gave up and used pen and paper.

Those complaining bitterly that Apple had ruined the product by eliminating expansion cards, and holding the case shut with a special screw that needed an "only available from Apple" screwdriver.

And those who gladly bought the first computer that didn't need users to open up the case and mess around with expansion cards and dip switches and so on.

And so it goes.

There's also the Steam Deck, if you hate getting bent-over by third-party OEMs that don't care about you. But considering your affinity for Apple, maybe the console market is right for you.

Apple could have said at the beginning "hey this is iPhone, there are no external apps for it though" - which was actually the case! iPhone did not have 3rd party apps at launch.

Then Apple could have said "good news everyone, you can now develop for the iPhone. Dev kits start at $10000 per unit, apply to partner with us, call us at this number" and that would be the end of it. Lots of gadgets still work like that and nobody bats an eye.

Apple decreased the barrier to entry and provided it as a service, charged for it but created good value in return, and it worked! But now that governments signal that they will punish such success, the next Apple will likely not go the way of low barrier of entry - this will hurt the regular folk, people with not so deep pockets.

That’s just my personal opinion. The DMA is about anti-trust, that some companies are controlling a too large part of the cake, affecting too many users (end users as well as “business users”, e.g. app developers), which is bad for a competitive market and level playing field.

All of these are wrong. The answer to each of those is "It may or may not be legal depending on various factors including whether it is intentionally creating a monopolistic anti-competitive environment".

Laws are allowed to have very nuanced opinions where it's illegal for microsoft to disallow uninstalling Internet Explorer program (USA vs MS, 2001), but perfectly legal for microsoft do disallow installing the File Explorer program.

I know us programmers want laws to perfectly specified in unambiguous mathematics, but lawyers want laws to be specified in English with nuance and room for interpretation and judgement of intent and spirit.

It makes no sense to you because you are thinking like a programmer. Laws are for empathetic decent humans, not soulless hacker-news-posting programmers.

Gatekeepers are allowed to gatekeep as long as it is fairly applied. That includes charging money for access to the platform and to install software.

Article 6(7) on page 36, says that once software is installed, access to the system services, APIs and ABIs must be free of charge. BUT THAT IS ONLY AFTER THE SOFTWARE IS INSTALLED. You are conflating two different things.

Let's not twist history and say that Apple just suddenly chose to remove Fortnite. Epic made certain choices likely knowing what the outcome would be.

Epic is the one that is removing my choice to play Fortnite through the App Store if I choose. If I want to play Fortnite on my iPhone I will have no choice but to use the store.

So I have the choice I want to make "Do I want to play Fortnite" and then the choice I am forced to make by the developers "Do I want to download the Epic store".

That is removing choice from me.

Just like if I go and buy frozen fries at the grocery store I don't care how much they spent buying the potatoes. That is all the business deals that largely as a consumer is irrelevant to me.

However since you missed the entire line, it is worth mentioning that Steam also takes 30% cut from developers and I believe Microsoft and PlayStation are the same (likely Nintendo but I don't know).

Epic is not without blame for not being on the App Store. They could have played by the rules and not try to get around this rules.

If a developer chooses to use an alternative store, even if I want to use that app, the choice is made for me to not use it.

How exactly is this benefiting users?

I agree with some of the restrictions on what is allowed on the App Store, like porn and browsers. But that is a different topic than having other app stores.

My concern here is billing, we know that developers will abuse this. They have done it and I have personally been in many meetings about user retention when they try to cancel.

Breaking down the walled garden of the App Store would be moving in the direction of a world where the prompts/ requests for access that prevent (or reduce the odds of) data being taken/stolen is higher. If you can download a non-compliant app from any random website you might visit, you can bet your ass the 65+ population is going to end up downloading a bunch of malicious apps.

It is also incredibly hypocritical that here we are complaining about being at the mercy of the choices that Apple makes and you are trying to tell me how I actually feel.

This boils down to the platforms being different. The way that many apps are monetized on Mac (and Windows) is different to how things are monetized on mobile devices.

So please stop telling me how I feel and why I made certain decisions. I think I know why I chose something and not you.

Fortnite also is not on the most popular store on PC so it is not just about their lawsuit. They want to run a store on all platforms and have said they will be launching an Epic game store on iOS. So I don't understand why they are invalid.

But that is a clear example, they are not on the official store for iOS or Android (which also is not part of Epic's lawsuit).

As far as Facebook goes, I don't think anyone is claiming that Facebook will in fact do it so maybe tone it down a bit. But Facebook is an example of a company that has enough of a user base that they could try to convince users to download a store and likely many would since they are addicted to social media and they own Instagram.

TikTok likely could. Microsoft would be stupid to not be looking into it. Steam could be looking into it.

None of those are concrete and to my knowledge none of them have signaled that they would. But those are companies that have enough of a name and a product that they could likely very easily get users to download the App Store which turns into a gateway for others to use their store instead of the Apple App Store since it is is now on their phone.

Regardless of all of those companies, there is zero reason to discount the fact that Epic is doing this on iOS. They skip the Android Play Store and they are doing it on PC. Fortnite has a ton of market power.

Edit: Also Facebook very much has an incentive to explore this option. Not only would it be another revenue source (and maybe they could somehow tie it into their VR/AR stuff) but they have been vocal about their issues with Apple in the past.

> One million free first annual installs. Membership in the Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual installs per year for free for apps distributed from the App Store and/or alternative marketplaces.

> Developers of alternative app marketplaces will pay the Core Technology Fee for every first annual install of their app marketplace, including installs that occur before one million.

https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/