In a new report, Apple says letting iOS users sideload apps would undermine privacy protections, complicate parental controls, and potentially expose user data
which would also work in a world where those apps were sideloaded. No change at all. @rileytestut : Thanks to sideloading, I can make a living developing my open source apps. If Apple had their way, Delta and @altstoreio wouldn't exist, and I'd have to find another job to pay the bills. I'm not okay with that. Delta is my baby, and I won't stop fighting to distribute it (9/10) @appfairness : Our Executive Director wrote an op-ed with @publicknowledge in @Wired to explain how the App Store monopoly hurts real people: https://www.wired.com/... @appfairness : .@Apple is lobbying to stop legislation that would rein in its App Store monopoly by claiming it would hurt user security. So what's the truth? Let's take a look with a ... 🧵🧵🧵THREAD: 🧵🧵🧵 : Tim Sweeney / @timsweeneyepic : Respect to the rebel graphics artist who photoshopped the logo in https://www.apple.com/.... A buoy of truth in a sea of lies! https://twitter.com/... Sami Fathi / @samifathi_ : I agree. If you're paying for an iPhone, you're paying for more than just the physical phone you hold. You're paying for the experience, ranging from the services and integration, to the App Store. If you do want to sideload apps, iOS isn't for you. Simple as that. https://twitter.com/... Paul Thurrott / @thurrott : “Apple's head of user privacy says sideloading is actually ‘eliminating choice’ and would negate technical and policy defenses” Apple's head of user privacy doesn't understand how words or technology work. Roman Meliška / @happy_roman : I hope team @vestager is reading carefully and reconsiders their idea of a second app store. The recent interview w/ @karaswisher on #Sway was quite disturbing and for me personally with the weakest responses in the long history of Kara interviewing the commissioner. https://twitter.com/... Benedict Evans / @benedictevans : People waste an enormous amount of energy talking about sideloading on iOS when it's not a mainstream consumer behaviour and not a viable route to market and therefore any sensible regulator will focus on Apple's rules in Apple's App Store Kushal Dave / @krave : If a government told us total surveillance and censorship was required for our safety, we'd intuitively recognize it as unreasonable, if not outright pretext. Why is it harder to see through when it's a predatorily rent-seeking corporation? https://www.theverge.com/... Alex Russell / @slightlylate : Apple can't have it both ways. No sideloading *might* be reasonable if the web were as competent as they want to claim it is in court...but they keep that from being true on their OS too. Long past time time for real, meaningful browser choice *as the baseline*. @rileytestut : Lastly, there is one other option that can be used to address *all* of these issues: revoking the developer's signing certificate. Should a malicious app be discovered, with the press of a button Apple can instantly block it from running on all iOS devices in the world (7/10) @appfairness : As Apple clings to their App Store monopoly against the complaints of developers, consumers, courts, the EU, the UK, Australia, and Congress, don't fall for their false claims. It's time to #OpentheAppStore to fair competition and consumer choice for all. https://appfairness.org/ @rileytestut : Opening up iOS to allow sideloading does come with risks, and claiming otherwise is a disservice to users trying to make informed decisions. However, I believe Apple is exaggerating these risks, and that they could be largely mitigated with appropriate “guard rails” (8/10)
The dispute is also a contest over who defines consumer harm: AppFairness and Public Knowledge argue that App Store control limits competition, while Apple treats its review and distribution rules as part of the device’s safety architecture. Later EU coverage shows that DMA-mandated third-party stores turned that argument into an operating constraint for Apple.
First-order effects
Apple gains a more detailed privacy, data-protection, and parental-controls rationale for its lobbying against Congress’s proposed App Store constraints.
AppFairness, Public Knowledge, and developers such as Delta’s creator face a policy debate framed around the risks of alternative distribution rather than solely around App Store access and competition.
Second-order effects
Congress must weigh Apple’s claim that centralized distribution is a consumer safeguard against advocates’ claim that the same control preserves an App Store monopoly.
Apple’s security framing raises the burden on alternative-store and sideloading advocates to show how their distribution paths would handle protections that Apple says its current system supplies.
Third-order effects
The later EU move toward mandated third-party stores suggests a durable regulatory pattern: access mandates can coexist with platform-controlled security rules, shifting competition toward the terms on which gatekeepers permit outside distribution.
If that pattern broadens, App Store governance becomes less a binary question of openness than a continuing fight over which safety controls Apple may retain around contestable distribution.
The trend: Mobile-platform regulation is increasingly testing whether app-distribution competition can be introduced without surrendering the security controls incumbents use to justify gatekeeping.
@marcoarment It really amazes me that Apple has not done this. They're attracting so much regulatory pressure that will have consequences much worse than losing IAP money. Apple should take whatever loss they need to, and be done with this situation.
@timsweeneyepic
Tim Sweeney on x
Developers, beware of foxes! They wear masks with dollar signs and take 30% of your revenue. https://twitter.com/...
@_inside
Guilherme Rambo on x
Side loading wouldn't mean that the sandbox just suddenly goes away. The stuff described here could very well be done by an app in the App Store today with an exploit, we know how good they are at finding scams... https://twitter.com/...
@bzamayo
Benjamin Mayo on x
Apple could keep all of the rules of the store exactly the same as they are today, except reduce its commission from 15-30% to 10% flat. Apple would still make a ton of money and almost all of the companies complaining would be satisfied and shut up.
@rileytestut
@rileytestut on x
For one, this quote is already the case today! Apple doesn't allow Delta in the App Store, which ironically forced me to build @altstoreio just to distribute it. If Apple doesn't want users sideloading apps, it is entirely up to them to allow Delta in the App Store 🤷♂️ (2/10) ht…
@marcoarment
Marco Arment on x
The best thing Apple could do to protect the safety and security of iOS touted so heavily in that sideloading PDF: Lift the most anticompetitive IAP rules. Without them, no government would have enough reason to force larger changes like sideloading or alternative app stores.
@rileytestut
@rileytestut on x
Wow, can you imagine if there was an app store where approximately 2% of the highest grossing apps scammed people out of millions of dollars? Thank God the App Store protects us from that! Oh wait https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... (5/10) https://twitter.com/...
@rileytestut
@rileytestut on x
🧵 I read through Apple's anti-sideloading document, and (unsurprisingly) I have some thoughts. It's clear Apple's very concerned w/ antitrust legislation, as this document is effectively just a scare-tactic predicated on some misleading information https://www.apple.com/... (1/10…
@bzamayo
Benjamin Mayo on x
is this fox meant to represent the bad guys or Apple taking 30% https://www.apple.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@stroughtonsmith
Steve Troughton-Smith on x
You'd think if Apple actually wanted to avoid regulatory pressure they would reduce their rates across the board, and stop abusing their monopoly position by unjustly interfering in other peoples' business models, but no, they want to have their cake and eat it too 🤷♂️ https://t…
@marcoarment
Marco Arment on x
Apple's continuing their gross PR strategy of conflating: - IAP restrictions - App Store distribution - app review - iOS's technical security ...to confuse people into thinking they're all equally required parts of the whole iOS app-security package. But they're not.
@stroughtonsmith
Steve Troughton-Smith on x
All of the malware scenarios Apple lists in its 16 page report could be done on the App Store *today*. The solution would be to ban the developer's accounts and revoke the app's signatures — which would also work in a world where those apps were sideloaded. No change at all.
@stroughtonsmith
Steve Troughton-Smith on x
If notarization is mandatory on iOS, devs still have to upload apps to Apple, to be checked for malware, before they can be distributed. Not like it's open season. Only security benefit going through App Store adds is DRM & a couple mins of App Review, which is *far* from perfect
@rileytestut
@rileytestut on x
Thanks to sideloading, I can make a living developing my open source apps. If Apple had their way, Delta and @altstoreio wouldn't exist, and I'd have to find another job to pay the bills. I'm not okay with that. Delta is my baby, and I won't stop fighting to distribute it (9/10)
@appfairness
@appfairness on x
Our Executive Director wrote an op-ed with @publicknowledge in @Wired to explain how the App Store monopoly hurts real people: https://www.wired.com/...
@appfairness
@appfairness on x
.@Apple is lobbying to stop legislation that would rein in its App Store monopoly by claiming it would hurt user security. So what's the truth? Let's take a look with a ... 🧵🧵🧵THREAD: 🧵🧵🧵 :
@timsweeneyepic
Tim Sweeney on x
Respect to the rebel graphics artist who photoshopped the logo in https://www.apple.com/.... A buoy of truth in a sea of lies! https://twitter.com/...
@samifathi_
Sami Fathi on x
I agree. If you're paying for an iPhone, you're paying for more than just the physical phone you hold. You're paying for the experience, ranging from the services and integration, to the App Store. If you do want to sideload apps, iOS isn't for you. Simple as that. https://twitte…
@thurrott
Paul Thurrott on x
“Apple's head of user privacy says sideloading is actually ‘eliminating choice’ and would negate technical and policy defenses” Apple's head of user privacy doesn't understand how words or technology work.
@reckless
Nilay Patel on x
“Do we sound like AT&T taking credit for the iPhone” is a really good threshold question for big tech companies doing the exact same kind of lobbying telecom companies have done for years https://t.co/MF4K0i8S0A
@benedictevans
Benedict Evans on x
People waste an enormous amount of energy talking about sideloading on iOS when it's not a mainstream consumer behaviour and not a viable route to market and therefore any sensible regulator will focus on Apple's rules in Apple's App Store
@krave
Kushal Dave on x
If a government told us total surveillance and censorship was required for our safety, we'd intuitively recognize it as unreasonable, if not outright pretext. Why is it harder to see through when it's a predatorily rent-seeking corporation? https://www.theverge.com/...
@arberesford
Alastair Beresford on x
Apple just released a white paper arguing iOS security requires all apps be installed via official App Store. Scant consideration of alternatives, such as Android's Verify Apps, and little visible academic impact: 28 references but no academic citations. https://www.apple.com/...
@slightlylate
Alex Russell on x
Apple can't have it both ways. No sideloading *might* be reasonable if the web were as competent as they want to claim it is in court...but they keep that from being true on their OS too. Long past time time for real, meaningful browser choice *as the baseline*.
@rileytestut
@rileytestut on x
Lastly, there is one other option that can be used to address *all* of these issues: revoking the developer's signing certificate. Should a malicious app be discovered, with the press of a button Apple can instantly block it from running on all iOS devices in the world (7/10)
@appfairness
@appfairness on x
As Apple clings to their App Store monopoly against the complaints of developers, consumers, courts, the EU, the UK, Australia, and Congress, don't fall for their false claims. It's time to #OpentheAppStore to fair competition and consumer choice for all. https://appfairness.org/
@rileytestut
@rileytestut on x
Opening up iOS to allow sideloading does come with risks, and claiming otherwise is a disservice to users trying to make informed decisions. However, I believe Apple is exaggerating these risks, and that they could be largely mitigated with appropriate “guard rails” (8/10)
@rileytestut
@rileytestut on x
Call me crazy, but people shouldn't have to build their own App Store just to earn a living. Diverse ideas push platforms forward, but the App Store stifles all creativity that doesn't align with Apple And until sideloading is supported, that's just the way things are 😔 (10/10)
@stroughtonsmith
Steve Troughton-Smith on x
(From somebody who literally had to build a [successful] alternate iOS app store — they already exist! — to distribute the apps they make) https://twitter.com/...
@keleftheriou
Kosta Eleftheriou on x
Scammers are already plaguing your @AppStore, Apple. https://www.bloomberg.com/...
@empirestartups
Empire Startups on x
The American Innovation and Choice Online Act, could effectively give Apple's customers broader control over which apps to download on their devices. https://www.wsj.com/...
@appfairness
@appfairness on x
.@WSJ covers the package of antitrust bills ahead of today's @HouseJudiciary markup. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act is an important step as momentum builds to hold platforms accountable for their anticompetitive behavior. Read: https://www.wsj.com/...
@backlon
Dieter Bohn on x
I know this Apple illustration is meant to show an interloper stealing subscription revenue on a pirated app, but damn if it's not also an illustration for some thing else. https://www.theverge.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@bzamayo
Benjamin Mayo on x
It's the mandatory 15-30% which is what people mean when they say Apple is abusing its monopolistic position. The rest of the stuff is just policy decisions about its own platform that ostensibly do make it safer for its customers.
@bzamayo
Benjamin Mayo on x
All of the security points about the App Store are basically true but it sidesteps the essential point, why does Apple need to skim revenue out of the thing? They could run the App Store as-is without taking a hefty commission. Ultimately, the money is why people are angry.
@benbajarin
Ben Bajarin on x
Agree with this point and it's one of my conclusions from our App Store developer research. Simply moving to 10% would be a small decrease in their commission (few billions which is peanuts to Apple) and may even get Amazon and Netflix, etc, back int the store which is $ upside h…
@marcoarment
Marco Arment on x
If alternative IAP was allowed, App Store revenue wouldn't go to $0. The vast majority of apps using IAP today would continue to use it. And big apps that refuse to use it (Netflix, Spotify, etc.) are already not using it! Net change: not much, except regulators disappear.
@marcoarment
Marco Arment on x
Bingo. They're playing chicken with the creation of regulations that would be disastrous to their business in order to protect a very small percentage of it. https://twitter.com/...
@erprose
Eric Rosenbaum on x
I don't know whether this is 0%, 10% or any % more or less true, but i hope to god when trillion-dollar plus companies say antitrust scrutiny will hurt small businesses, we at least start by having our BS meter set to Highly Skeptical. https://twitter.com/...
@stroughtonsmith
Steve Troughton-Smith on x
Apple's trying to pretend that opening up a little means opening everything up completely. It doesn't. They can keep control over dev accounts, signing keys & entitlements. They retain ability to revoke apps & remove them from the platform. The sandbox & security model preserved
@stroughtonsmith
Steve Troughton-Smith on x
It certainly shows that no matter the outcome of the Epic case, Apple thinks it's fighting a losing game
@bzamayo
Benjamin Mayo on x
I'm not saying Apple deserves the money. It's just what is practical on Apple's plate IMO. Maybe relax anti-steering first, allow links to the website etc, and then cut the commission. I think they'd rather do that then allow alternative app stores / side loading / etc.
@lanceulanoff
Lance Ulanoff on x
Apple has argued this for years and I don't think they're wrong. Smaller-scale, third-party software stores will not offer the same level of vetting and protection https://www.wsj.com/...
@shiraovide
Shira Ovide on x
Look, I know the data stealing cartoon fox is supposed to be bad. But is it wrong that I find the fox adorable? https://www.apple.com/... https://twitter.com/...