Not to the same effect. It means if developers don’t want to play by Apple’s rules they don’t have to completely surrender the iOS market. A big enough name could just direct users to the third party App Store.
I would definitely expect a "Facebook Store" to appear if side-loading was allowed which would not only host the Facebook app itself but also provide a safe haven for all of the privacy-violating crap (in fact I'd argue that their review process would require your app to contain the FB SDK for it to be accepted).
Christ, what is with people thinking Tencent is behind Epic? They don't have a majority stake in Epic - Tim Sweeney does. There's zero evidence that anything Epic has done and is doing is driven by Tencent.
Maybe argue about what Epic is doing based on its own merits, rather than some baseless conspiracy about Tencent.
Even if that's true (I haven't seen any reports about Tencent pushing their investments to join the case), it's almost as if it'd benefit a lot of companies to not have to deal with Apple's restrictions.
I'll ask again - do you actually have something to say about the merit of the case itself rather than just conspiracies about Tencent? Why is anything you mentioned bad? For argument's sake let's say Apple is in the wrong here and Epic is in the right. Why would Tencent also having a stake in the case change that?
I'm not certain here. for the users that want the on the rails experience that Apple currently provides like the OP (seemingly), they'd still be able to do so. Meanwhile, someone that wants to download apps that wouldn't pass muster with the App Store rules (such as game streaming apps and, yes, Fortnite with Epic's payment system) would still be available to iOS users that would want them (personally speaking, would love xCloud and GeForce Now clients and would be willing to "unlock" the capability in Settings to do so if given the option).
The issue with that is that you would end up with the balkanisation of the app delivery method as we have with PCs. You would end up with hundreds of 'stores' which act as the exclusive distributor for that vendors products.
One workaround could be permitting additional stores, but insisting that anything available on the additional stores must also be submitted to the Apple store. If Apple rejects it, that's their right but the software can still be made available through the third sideloading.
Of course this would also need to be behind a big 'UNSAFE MODE' lock because it would be an obvious target for malware.
And it would be behind a setting just like Android I'd imagine. Alluded to that in the last bit of what I was saying.
At first I hated the whole idea of the various PC game stores and would continue to buy, say, Assassin's Creed games on Steam even though Uplay came out (and iirc, they started requiring Uplay be installed for DRM or whatever anyway). Then eventually I realized that directly in Uplay, you could get pretty absurd discounts plus discounts from some type of point system compounded on top of that. So by cutting out Steam in that interaction, it made it cheaper for me and they effectively got the same amount of money so win/win. Granted, Playnite and GOG Galaxy 2 really streamlined the whole thing such that managing various libraries wasn't an absolute nightmare.
As far as iOS goes, we should look at Android and Fortnite. Originally, Fortnite was side loaded. Then they moved it to the Android Play Store because they weren't getting the traction that they expected. So they went in with the Play Store.
Could Epic do a side loaded Epic Mobile Store or something where you could get Fortnite, an Infinity Sword remaster, or Shadow Complex ported to mobile (great game, shame they haven't done anything with that property since Xbox 360 era really)? Sure, but if that did happen it would be the exception and not the rule. I don't think you'd see the proliferation of alternate storefronts you see on PCs because the storefronts came later in the PC's life so various means of pulling in new applications has been what we've experienced from day one whereas the App Store has always been there for the vast majority of iOS adopters (no App Store era was during the AT&T period and even then, early on people were under contracts and what not/weren't ready to shell out the kind of money an iPhone called for). Non-billion dollar development shops aren't going to leave the App Store because they want the discoverability nor the overhead required of setting up their own payment gateways and what not.
The existence of a third party App Store doesn’t prevent you from voting with your feet and sticking with Apples App Store, if that’s a valuable feature to you.
I absolutely detest this idea of third party app stores. Please tell me why this is a good idea when literally your entire life and its contents are contained in this palm sized device.
Do you really want sideloading of apps that asks average joes for ransomware?
We already have another sandbox - browsers. And you're seeing problems with extensions, popups, .dmg downloads and .exe virus scans, etc. So much so that browsers are constantly fighting against attacks for 20 years.
> We already have another sandbox - browsers. And you're seeing problems with extensions, popups, .dmg downloads and .exe virus scans, etc. So much so that browsers are constantly fighting against attacks for 20 years.
They are, and, if you look around, they're winning: billions of people use Windows, MacOS and desktop Linux, safely, to do all manner of things. Billions of people use the web, which involves all kinds of code from all kinds of places - none of which is held hostage by a single absurdly valuable corporation - and, judging by the continuing success of that platform, I would say it's doing pretty well.
You know what's terrifying? This argument is terrifying. So, you brought up the web … assuming iOS continues to be what it is, and eventually people just stop bothering to make websites: is that okay? Is that what we want?
I actually want a phone with absolutely no app store. Just browser is fine. Given the amount of information it holds, adding any kind of apps that allow system wide access is horrifying to me. Since we don't have such phones, the next best thing is a store run by a company that can have security staff, highly paid security engineers and a whole bunch of people trying to make it secure than some reddit group that wants to distribute apps to billions of people. For that, as I said, just use a browser.
App store reviewers are not the people you should be trusting to make your phone secure. They can and do make mistakes, because their job is to go through a checklist, look for things they don't like, and maybe run some analysis tools that other people wrote. (I'm guessing, of course: this process is completely invisible to the general public). The people who should be making your iPhone secure are the developers at Apple who are improving how apps are sandboxed, catching and fixing security vulnerabilities throughout the OS, sometimes even with open source code and published CVE entries.
If we have so little faith in those developers that we believe the last line of defence - the App Store reviewers - are the thing holding us back from disaster, then we definitely should not be using iPhones.
App store reviews are executing the policies and tools that security engineers built. Whether it is a human checking these policies or automated scripts doing it, the point is that the policies governing those filtering processes are conceptualized, written and developed by experts that know what they're doing and they get paid a handsome amount [250k USD and upwards]. You're also switching from AppStore to the whole device. The device is secure because of things like T2 chip and billions that probably went into making it possible.
It's really obvious to me which is more secure - a 2 trillion dollar company with vested interest and one of the key selling points, that is privacy; or ... literally anything else.