With the second beta of iOS 17.4, Apple disabled much of the functionality of Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) in the European Union. There was some speculation that it could be a temporary change or a bug related to some of the updates to the app ecosystem in Europe, but Apple has confirmed that PWAs were intentionally removed and won’t be returning.
↫ Juli Clover at MacRumors
When users in the European Union install iOS 17.4, all functionality regarding progressive web apps will be removed from iOS. This means that when you pin a PWA on your iOS home screen, instead of it opening ‘like an application’, so without any browser chrome but with additional other odds and ends to make it feel more like a native application, it’ll just open inside the full browser instead.
It’s typical Apple behaviour – vindictive and petty. Their stated reasoning – it was too hard and too much work to implement this for engines other than WebKit – is a bunch of utter nonsense, since Apple had no issues with developing like 600 new APIs and a whole bunch of new complex frameworks and administrative layers just to support their malicious DMA compliance to ensure they wouldn’t lose a single cent of protection money when a developer wants to distribute an application outside of the App Store. PWAs were the only way you could get an application-like experience on your iPhone from something not controlled, owned, and monetised by Apple, so it had to go to force developers to choose either of Apple’s new, maliciously DMA compliant monetised distribution options in the EU.
Every time this company does anything, it’s just… Slimy, scummy, sleazy, and anti-user.
It seems that it’s not a universal removal of PWAs in the EU, rather, the requirements for iOS to treat a webpage as a PWA are now tighter, to ensure that the default browser selection made by the user is consistently respected, to be compliant with the new EU law.
Sounds like what the law requires. If PWAs essentially use a chrome-less instance of Safari, how would that work with the requirement that users be allowed to choose their default browser and not be forced to use Apple’s?
I wish osnews.com was more than a stream of + . We get it, We really do.
d4cl00,
It seems kind of vindictive for apple to do this. But I wouldn’t care that much as long as apple doesn’t interfere with others implementing PWAs in competing browsers. Apple’s browser would be the inferior one and that’s on apple. But if apple blocks other browsers from implementing PWAs, well it just shows what kind of bastards they are.
Let’s hope EU sees right through this bullshit and won’t let them get away with this, as well as other ways they comply with the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it.
Hey, web dev here – Apple has been subtly undermining PWAs the entire time they’ve had “support” for them. Let’s not pretend this is much of a change. They have NEVER really been a viable alternative to native apps, and this doesn’t change much.
Technically speaking, I get why they might feel they have to do this. The way Apple develops features is at the micro level, API by API, and they are pretty good at it. The Apple way (if they really wanted viable PWAs, which they don’t) would be to create a set of API hooks for alternative browser engines to use, which would allow those browsers to hook in to a native PWA mechanism. They could even start to roll that out – and I wouldn’t be surprised if they do. It’ll be a great way to undermine PWAs for years to come.
I’ll also point out – the other browser makers, who are all essentially sales funnels for google.com, don’t exactly have a stellar reputation for PWA support either. It’s there, but it’s kind of meh.
The problem is that people buy the logic that PWAs are an acceptable alternative to native apps (and native app stores). They aren’t, and they never will be.
It looks like what they actually changed isn’t a nerf to PWA at all. They have always allowed you to add website shortcuts as a launcher to your home screen, and that has always launched Safari (regardless of your default browser setting). Microsoft does this now, in Windows – more things open in Edge than should, or at least that’s what the blogosphere says, collectively (I don’t really use Windows any more). So what Apple did, was change it so that non-PWA launchers don’t open Safari any more, and instead open your selected default browser. Then the entire motivated reasoning brigade, who probably didn’t test the feature, offered uninformed, knee jerk opinions they got directly from someone else, on all their blogs. The real story here, is how those types of uninformed opinions propagate across so many “news” sites.
CaptainN-,
I’m not sure why you brought this up in context of my post specifically, but I will point out that I qualified my opinions “if apple blocks other browsers from implementing PWAs” “as long as apple doesn’t interfere with others implementing PWAs in competing browsers”. The EU product is still in beta and I know things can change before release,but I stand by my post, as long as apple continues to impose artificial restrictions on competitors, then it’s still a problem.
Depends if you can differentiate between “default browser” and “browser engine”. To me, “default browser” just means “when I tap a hyperlink in any app, have it open in XXX web browser”, whereas “browser engine” means “a control/view that is embedded in an app to display web content”.
You say that PWAs are essentially a chrome-less instance of Safari, but so are many “real” apps that have been released on the App Store. I would never expect that installing some future version of FireFox with its Gecko engine and setting it as the default browser would have any effect on the embedded web view in any other App Store app, and likewise I would never expect it to affect PWAs in any way.
To expand on this idea slightly and to demonstrate complete decoupling between “default web browser” and “browser engine”, in a future where third-party browser engines can be used, it’s reasonable that an App Store app could use Gecko as an embedded web view, even if FireFox is not installed.
Therefore, I don’t see how Apple could use “default browser” as an excuse for disabling PWAs.
WordPress stripped my post and doesn’t allow post editing.
Full last paragraph:
I wish osnews.com was more than a stream of [ insert post here ] + [ criticism against large tech company ] . We get it, We really do.
Thom hates Apple.
RumblePony,
Go back a few years and a lot of apple’s coverage was much more favorable IMHO. Once you start looking at things like owner control and right to repair – things that are valued highly in FOSS world, apple as a company starts to look more dystopian. I’m guessing Thom probably realized this too.
I agree, and Apple definitely needs to change there. And they’ll eventually be pressured into these things by Europe (basically the ‘pilot’ stage for these matters, after which surely the US will follow).
But I don’t enjoy reading the sour piss every damn post… Thom could instead opt to write longer articles based on his own research to cover these issues, but instead this is the lazy kind where it’s essentially a link to another person’s journalism, and then adding a paragraph of sour piss to it.
You could say “why are you visiting this page then?”, well it’s because it’s one of the few websites covering OS specific topics across the board. This website has potential but it’s being held back by its own author…
d4cl00,
Honestly I’m much less confident that the US will follow suit. They’ve had ample opportunity but don’t seem too concerned about monopoly abuse or competition these days.
I get that, and sometimes the coverage is too concentrated around the same repetitive topics, be it apple, wayland, or whatever. But it is Thom’s blog and his prerogative. It used to be that osnews would publish more user submitted links & articles, but for whatever reason they don’t seem to do this much anymore.
I had to go to the fourth page of OSNews, to the 18 post on that page, to find another example of “[ insert post here ] + [ criticism against large tech company ]” (it was Google). So almost 100 stories ago.
So roughly 2 out of 100 stories. The data does not support your hypothesis.
Besides being defensive, you’re being too literal here. I recognize there’s not enough news in the land of alternative OSes any longer to be able too have 100% of posts be about operating systems. When OSNews started, there were many OSes giving it a go. But, today, while you certainly have posts about operating systems, nearly every time you provide your own commentary about an article you’re linking to, the commentary is negative whining. Even if you’re right or share the sentiments of many of your readers, you’re just very negative in your statements. I have enjoyed reading your site for many years, including back in the day when there was a big BeOS focus. I still check the site multiple times per week. But, man, you always bring me down. Compared to other tech sites I read, you’re just a downer, always ready to write an article about a policy you don’t like. We all understand how you feel and don’t need to be bombarded with it. It certainly makes me feel like you’re not happy in your life.
Examples:
“The text file that runs the internet.” You write, “Another thing ‘AI’ does not respect.” A snarky response. Yeah, we get it.
“Mozilla downsizes as it refocuses on Firefox and AI” You write multiple paragraphs about the existential crisis Firefox faces. No, Ukrainians face existential crises. You might have to use a closed source browser. (Page 2 has the same criticism with the article “Mozilla names new CEO as it pivots to data privacy”)
“Microsoft is bringing Copilot “AI” to Notepad for Windows 11” You wrote, “I wonder if you could replace this new, butchered Notepad with a an older, working copy.” Again with the snark. You only posted this article so that you could write the snark.
“Microsoft uses giant four-page popup to push Windows 10 users to upgrade to Windows 11″ You wrote, ” Windows is an advertising platform first, operating system second. You should be expecting ads.” Getting tired here.
“Microsoft sneaks ads into the new Outlook for Windows” You wrote, “Ads disguised as emails in your inbox. Microsoft will not rest until Windows resembles Times Square. What a trash fire of an operating system.” How do you have energy for this criticism?
I say this stuff not to be mean or demean, but honestly, to express some worry for you. Your computing life is fine. Write articles about things you love with computers, not things you hate.
beosforever,
I’d like to hear what Thom has to say about this, but I’d be hypocritical to pretend I don’t do the same thing, haha. Unfortunately for people like myself, these huge corporations don’t bring much joy but dominate every news cycle. As a rule, if you want clicks, you cover the big guys. Everything else that is obscure and unpopular is expendable.. Even here on osnews, look at the articles covering obscure topics, there’s not much discussion. Consciously or not, I think people are conditioned to pay attention to big dominant companies and ignore others.
I used to suggest osnews should get more community involvement through collaborative projects where we could have fun small challenges and the like. It’d be more than just talking about the news, but nobody at osnews has shown interest in those ideas. TBH I don’t even know if people would want to get more involved, but I always thought it could be fun.
@Thom
Keep up the good work, you are doing fine!
Why do I want “Progressive Web Apps” anyway? If your product is so important build me a proper app.
ppp,
PWA might offer a useful alternative on restricted platforms where owners aren’t allowed to sideload. Also, PWA may be easier for developers to target. IOS notoriously requires macos to submit applications, but not all developers are interested in that. Most users don’t care so long as it works, although I understand why you’d prefer native apps, and of course that’s your choice.
The fact everything is a “proper app” now (even stuff that shouldn’t be like Uber, Deliverro, Uber Eats, Citymapper, Strava, social media apps, dating apps etc) is the reason we are stuck with 2 smartphone operating systems (Android and iOS).
Choosing anything other OS means giving up large chunks of modern smartphone functionality or having to cope with third-party alternative apps that’ll always have to play catchup with the official app (if they ever).
You could literally come up with a smartphone OS that cooks you dinner and folds your laundry and you still wouldn’t be able to compete with Android and iOS because of the apps issue. Sure, Android gives you a way out thanks to AOSP, but you still have to re-implement GMS and hope Google doesn’t sue you.
Meanwhile, web apps work everywhere.
Most App’s are a PWA in a wrapper. Why make extra steps for them.
I don’t control what owners of web apps do. There are a number I have to use for various reasons, and PWA’s provide a way for me to have a psuedo app for them. IOS isn’t awesome here, but then again these are the web apps where as you pointed out they don’t care enough to create a proper app. I’m just the sucker trying to get work done, let me get work done.
ansidotsys,
Personally I think it’s more of an excuse by apple. They don’t have to support other engines, but they’d probably have to make sure the other engines have what they need to support themselves. It’s probably similar to what microsoft had to do in it’s own browser antitrust case; they weren’t allowed to exclude others from using the APIs that IE was using. In the microsoft case, microsoft ended up allowing other vendors to use the APIs. If they wanted to be dicks though, I suppose they could have deleted features like apple are doing instead.
PWA…
…and I thought it was called Active Desktop.
I don’t want to have a webpage as my desktop wallpaper, I want it as a shortcut that launches as an app.
You can make that in Visual Basic 6 in less 15 minutes.
Like the EU not just as petty. “Hey Apple we know you built out your App store, and we know you invested billions into it but because we don’t have anything to actually compete with you, we are going to force you to allow the competition on your platform that you own and run, even though most customers that don’t like Apple will just by Android and vice versa and the only ones complaining are other rich companies who want customers but don’t want to invest in making their own mobile phone platform”
The EU should be investing in things like Ubuntu Touch or Sailfish. But nope we gonna try and make companies like Apple open up so Epic Games can charge customers the same money but keep it and call that consumer friendly.
Windows Sucks,
An important piece of the puzzle is that the reason IOS doesn’t have viable alternative app stores is because apple blocked them. In fact there was competition very early on and it was extremely popular with iphone users! Apple didn’t even create the first IOS app store. Alas, apple used it’s privileged position to lock out competitors. Supposing apple had to compete instead instead of blocking competitors, we would very likely be looking at more app store players today. I bet we’d even have cross platform mobile stores and these might have thrived if not for artificial market restrictions.
When dominant hardware companies are allowed to abuse their power to control the software market, they become dominant in software markets as well. This is exactly what we have antitrust laws for.
I don’t think the government’s role is to invest…
s/investing/protecting/
But I agree, they needed to do more to prevent the IOS/android duopoly from smothering everyone else. There were so many good alternatives that couldn’t compete with the apps locked in walled gardens and consumers picked up on this. If you wanted the apps, you were forced to pick up dominant phone. This sucks and killed just about all the phone competition. 🙁
“An important piece of the puzzle is that the reason IOS doesn’t have viable alternative app stores is because apple blocked them. In fact there was competition very early on and it was extremely popular with iphone users! Apple didn’t even create the first IOS app store. Alas, apple used it’s privileged position to lock out competitors. Supposing apple had to compete instead instead of blocking competitors, we would very likely be looking at more app store players today. I bet we’d even have cross platform mobile stores and these might have thrived if not for artificial market restrictions.
When dominant hardware companies are allowed to abuse their power to control the software market, they become dominant in software markets as well. This is exactly what we have antitrust laws for.”
Apple never blocked them, Apple never made a way for you to sideload, you had to hack your phone to do it and even then it was never that popular and mostly was in place to give people features that Apple had not put into iOS, once Apple got to a preponderance of features most of that went away.
“I don’t think the government’s role is to invest…
s/investing/protecting/
But I agree, they needed to do more to prevent the IOS/android duopoly from smothering everyone else. There were so many good alternatives that couldn’t compete with the apps locked in walled gardens and consumers picked up on this. If you wanted the apps, you were forced to pick up dominant phone. This sucks and killed just about all the phone competition. ”
Wait this same government invests in things like AirBus and that is fine but no not tech companies. Hummmmm. Ok.
And again the law in the EU did not come from consumer complaints it came from other rich companies that compete with Apple like Microsoft (Mad that Windows phone sucked and they lost) and Epic who don’t want to pay fees but still charge customers the same (They wouldn’t be passing on “Savings” to customers)
And people made Apps for the best systems Android and iOS. And you can’t say its because Apple had more money than Microsoft because at the time iOS came out MS was almost twice as valuable as Apple. Microsoft just flopped.
Windows Sucks,
They do though.
This is the problem.
Cydia had millions of users and they’re the ones who showed apple just how popular the 3rd party app market was with users. I don’t have a problem with apple copying and improving on cydia’s idea…innovation isn’t a one way street. Regardless of how we got here though, the main takeaway should be that competition ought to be allowed and owners ought be free to make their own choices.
I have a bad taste for public taxpayer dollars funding private companies & projects because, at least here in the US, taxpayers often get a raw deal I had to lookup the details about airbus, according to this link, it’s mostly private american shareholders these days.
https://simpleflying.com/europes-manufacturing-juggernaut-who-owns-airbus/
We’ve been complaining about the google/android duopoly for at least a decade. Most governments outside of the EU fail to represent consumer interests even though it’s supposed to be their job.
IMHO there were lots of good alternative mobile platforms, but even users like me who liked them quickly learned that if we wanted apps we were stuck in the android and IOS duopoly and I’m pretty sure this is the #1 reason people gave up on alternatives.
I know this is a really hard problem to fix now that we’re here. But for a start, it seems logical to open up the app market to competing app stores who aren’t incentivized to lock down the app market to their hardware platform. IMHO a multiplatform mobile app store could not only be a boon in it’s own right but with a bit of help enable brand new mobile platforms having access to apps necessary to achieve viability. I for one don’t wish to stay trapped in the IOS/android duopoly.
But it is. Governments are investing all the time on critical enterprises. Mobile computing shouldn’t be different.
Parodper,
Do you really see yourself buying a government built mobile computing device?
Personally I feel there would be a conflict of interest. I for one don’t trust governments to respect privacy. While I appreciate that private companies do violate trust as well, at least they can be sued. The government and it’s officers are prone to operating above the law.
Windows and MacOS allow sideloading and yet they make a ton of money for the companies that make them, strange. With iOS, Apple is essentially double-dipping: Making money on the OS (hardware) and then setting up a tollbooth you have to go through if you want to load paid apps to it.
Windows and Mac are 40 years old, there were no app stores 40 years ago and its to late now to try and change that.
Windows Sucks,
There were literal brick and mortar stores for software in those days. And neither apple nor MS had DRM stopping people from using the store of their choice.
100% garentee that it is google lodgeing the complaint apple’s locked engine is the only thing stoping them from a 100% monopoly in the brouser space.
“Every time this company does anything, it’s just… Slimy, scummy, sleazy, and anti-user.””
You just do the reporting, and stop assuming your readers are too dumb to make up their own minds. Otherwise you align yourself with modern slimy sleazy journalism *ahem*. I’m not even pro Apple and have never owned an iDevice and probably never will… just callin’ em like I see em.
Yeah shopuld have said “every time in the last ten years” (I aint looking it up but it’s been a while).
This isn’t a new site. It’s a blog. Expect opinion on a blog.
osblog.com? Once upon a time this was more than thoms soapbox.
“Every time this company does anything, it’s just… Slimy, scummy, sleazy, and anti-user.”
Making macOS updates free?
Fighting against government and law enforcement pressure to weaken encryption and add back doors?
Providing a competent office suite at no charge with macOS?
Providing industry-leading tech support (according to numerous independent surveys)?
Making OS updates available to every supported device on the day of release? (Contrast that with Android.)
Just admit it: You hate Apple to the point where you can’t objectively report on them.
Miss Sissy,
Unfortunately none of those things make apple any less anti-competitive or anti-repair.
“industry leading tech support” falls flat when there are so many documented cases of apple consumers receiving horrible, incompetent, and dishonest support from apple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1A9y4S60kg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM8tP8uEb4E
“Fighting against government and law enforcement pressure to weaken encryption and add back doors?” Thom did report on this and sided sided strongly with apple.
https://www.osnews.com/story/29088/tim-cooks-open-letter-we-will-not-create-ios-backdoor-for-the-fbi/
You’re accusing Thom of blanket condemnation of apple, but that’s neither fair nor true. He doesn’t pull punches on apple and it’s obvious why this annoys apple fans, but at the same time he doesn’t pull punches with google, microsoft, facebook, etc. All of these companies deserve criticism. I know you don’t like the message, but when a company engages in anti-consumer behavior, don’t shoot the messenger.
Alfman,
You wrote: “You’re accusing Thom of blanket condemnation of apple, but that’s neither fair nor true.”
It is both fair and true. His final line in the article, which I quoted was “Every time this company does anything, it’s just… Slimy, scummy, sleazy, and anti-user.” I didn’t fabricate that quote or alter it to make it sound worse. Those are his words and they constitute a blanket condemnation of Apple.
Miss Sissy,
You want to criticize Thom based on a single statement without broader context, then you do you. But it’s rarely fair to use a single data point to surmise someone’s entire view. And, as I’ve already pointed out, some of your arguments made false assumptions because you did that. I’m not a fan of absolute expressions because they’re often misinterpreted, so I try to avoid them myself, but it’s still common for people to use them and I’d allow for some leeway in the interest of fairness and not get stuck in literalism.
You wrote: “And, as I’ve already pointed out, some of your arguments made false assumptions because you did that.”
You misunderstood my intent. The list was to remind Thom that Apple had done many things that were laudable and pro-consumer. I already knew he had praised Apple’s stance on encryption because I read his articles contemporaneously. That’s why I included that example.
You wrote (and I apologize for not knowing how to quote neatly as you did): “…it’s still common for people to use them and I’d allow for some leeway in the interest of fairness and not get stuck in literalism.”
If Thom said that in casual conversation, I’d agree with that approach. But this is an influential blog that is quoted elsewhere — without context.
If I were to write “Every time Apple does anything, it’s just… Wonderful, honorable, admirable, and pro-user.” I think you’d feel that I was biased even if I had previously criticized Apple for something.
Miss Sissy,
You meant to use an example that contradicts the general premise of your post? That’s weird, but anyway does that mean you thought Thom could cover apple objectively sometimes even as you said he couldn’t?
Almost everything posted here on osnews is a casual opinion piece.
It might steer the conversation that way, but I’d try not to “penalize” someone for backing away from an overstated position. Sometimes in debates someone will try to argue against something that wasn’t necessarily intended. Everyone can overstate & misstate things sometimes and I’m no exception, when something seems excessive / exaggerated, it may be better to get clarification.
“You meant to use an example that contradicts the general premise of your post? That’s weird, but anyway does that mean you thought Thom could cover apple objectively sometimes even as you said he couldn’t?”
I get the feeling you’re pretending to misunderstand in order to jerk my chain.
When you end an article with the line “Every time this company does anything, it’s just… Slimy, scummy, sleazy, and anti-user.” knowing full well that the same company has done things you previously praised, that proves bias. You are not reporting on them objectively. You’re letting your negative feelings towards the company lead you to demonize and villainize the company to the point where you are telling the reader that the company has never done anything admirable — even though you know that they have.
Miss Sissy,
From my point of view, it proves only that people will say things in an exaggerated manor to make their points. We can criticize a speaker for using exaggerated expressions as people do, but regardless not all expressions should be taken as literal absolutes. When we do this, we end up focusing too much on semantics at the expense of broader context. Semantically I understand your point, but I think it’s important to also look at broader contexts and not put too much weight on the literal interpretation of a single exaggerated expression of frustration.
I know some fans hate hearing about it, but whether they like it or not, vilification is probably the most effective tool we the public have to induce real progressive changes. Whether it’s working conditions at factories, fighting against right to repair in court, anti-competitive restrictions, etc, if we don’t call these out and treat these as wrong, it becomes normalized and accepted.
I get that you don’t like the way Thom’s criticises apple, but at the end of the day we’re on an internet.blog and I think Thom’s opinions are appropriate for the medium even if we don’t always agree.
Oh BTW…
<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>
This is the hardest bit, listening to Apple fans, defending “their” company while Apple objectively is one of the shitiest companies in the world.
In no particular order:
– trying to block repair rights everywhere they can, just to make a few bucks more
– bending backwards and forwards to the Chinese government including sensorship on Taiwan, Hongkong, and giving the keys away to Apple iCloud.
– shitty designs while touting it’s a technical breakthrough (like hockeypuck mouses, touchbars, no ports, co-inventing USB but then not using it, taking away audio jacks to make more money out of accessoires, incompatible chargers)
– iron fist death grip on their Apple store, anything that competes with Apple is banned, 30 percent mafia money while there is STILL malware in the store and the effor for the 30 percent is near zero percent, allowing apps but then suddenly disallowing them when they turn out to be a threat to Apple’s bottomline.
– Regarding PWAs: Steve Jobs himself said it was the future of the iPhone until they realised it would cost them money
– Claiming to be privacy heroes while their privacy terms say they can do the the same as Google (and they will mark my words as soon as they don’t find new ways to squeeze more our of their customer)
– Apple consumers cheering everything the company does, even if squeezes the life blood out of the competion, stifling innovation and sponsoring the raking in of money
– paying lipservice to attempts by the EU to make the market more competitive and frankly they are laughing in their face
All of this covered by Apple’s “holier than thou” attitude. It’s disgusting.
We should realise that we are in the same position as Rockefeller and Getty Oil: 2 immensenly powerful companies have a kartel on something that has become essential and action should be taken.
Wondercool2,
You wrote “This is the hardest bit, listening to Apple fans, defending “their” company while Apple objectively is one of the shitiest companies in the world.”
Your ‘Apple fan’ name-calling makes you look foolish and immature. I’m in my office where I have seven computers running various Linux distros (most operating in server roles), one running FreeBSD, one running Windows Server 2019, one running Windows 11, and one running macOS. Computers are not a religion for me. Nor are they a substitute for sports in which I root for ‘my team’ and trash-talk their ‘opponents.’ Perhaps that’s a contrast between us.
As to the rest of your anti-Apple screed, be glad that there is a free market. You can buy or build whatever sort of computers and mobile devices you want, using whatever operating systems and applications you choose. You can develop Android, Windows, and Linux apps if you don’t like Apple’s app store policies and fees.
You should take some economics courses because you’re proposing lots of ways for Apple to reduce their revenue and not explaining why they should want to do that.
I am also not religous to any OS, and that is the reason I’m not using Apple.
I strongly disagree with your argument that you can choose what you want, especially not on phone OSes. There are only 2 barons in town and both are taking money that isn’t in proportion to services rendered hence the term mafia money. And now one of them, Apple, gained so much power that instead of being compliant, it’s malicious compliant, all to keep competitors out. That is the reason why Apple should reduce it’s revenue.
I find Apple’s macOS to be one of the nicest to use. It has stable, BSD-derived underpinnings with a polished, logical GUI on top.
You can just buy a Freedom Phone running ClearOS if you object to the offerings from Apple and Google: https://www.freedomphone.com
If that doesn’t suit you, then there are plenty of open-source alternatives to Android and iOS:
https://itsfoss.com/open-source-alternatives-android/
“That is the reason why Apple should reduce it’s revenue.”
So you think that Apple, a publicly traded company, should announce to its shareholders that it voluntarily cut its revenues by a massive amount because it felt bad for its competitors?
There seem to be no Reply button to the latest post of Miss Sissy hence I reply to myself.
I do run of those alternative OSes (Lineage) but it’s not a replacement for 99.99 percent of people. Only a limited number of old phones are supported and you have to jump through hoops to install it. And most banking apps, Signal and a lot of other apps don’t work.
But that’s not the reason that Apple is shitty. Apple is shitty because they have been shown to have no regard for their customers, show no regard for new rules to allow more competition, set by government to help the consumer AND lie to the public.
There is nothing voluntary about the revenue cuts, so shareholders can’t complain.
Apple seems keenly focused on providing what customers want. That’s why they have grown to have the largest market share of any smartphone manufacturer. Otherwise, they would be where Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola, Blackberry, Windows Phone, and countless other prior market leaders are now. I’m happy with my iPhone. Why shouldn’t I be? It works well. The cameras are good. I can get almost any app that I might reasonably want/need at a very modest cost. There are strong privacy features, like end-to-end encrypted iMessage.
Alternative phone OSs are doomed to failure because they lack the robust revenue streams needed to fund development and marketing — the same revenue streams that you resent Apple and Google for having.
Seldom are things as simple as described in blogs. As a developer, I can see why Apple would want to do this. Imagine if you had a well-regarded PWA that you had developed and you were suddenly inundated with negative reviews and support requests from EU customers who had no idea that the reason your app “broke” was because of their choice of browser.
Apple developed the Lightning connector two years before USB-C was released. As a consumer, I was very happy with the Lightning connector and have many cables through my home and vehicles (SUV, car, and boat). I could insert Lightning plugs in pitch blackness by feel and be greeted with a satisfying click as they snapped into place. Legislation preventing me from buying new phones with Lightning connectors, and requiring that I replace all of my cables, isn’t helping this consumer.
People complained about the headphone jack going away, but almost none of them considered that jack as something that had to be waterproofed and something that intruded into the precious little space in a modern phone. Apple saw Bluetooth as the wave of the future. I’m not a huge fan of it, but Apple was right — consumers love Bluetooth. I can’t complain when Apple sells a headphone DAC/amp dongle for just $9.
Thanks for the discussion.
You are entitled to love Apple but please stop bullshitting yourself. Apple isn’t focussed on consumers at all, they have no choice! There will be a time that even you will think Apple sucks, if this continues.
USB-C is vastly superior to lightning on all accounts but Apple didn’t want to change their proprietary standard because they didn’t want to lose their small? licensing business and they didn’t care if it would lead to more e-waste. It is trivial to make a headphone jack that’s waterproof (it just needs to have an electrical connection to 2 or 3 points) .
It’s not about how good Apple hardware and software is here that’s all in the eyes of the beholder, but it’s about protecting their garden at the cost of the consumer. I do want software on my phone that Apple doesn’t allow (like terminals, webservers, better web browsers) but I’m not allowed. I do want PWA as it makes it cheaper to develop for any phone OS. I also don’t want to pay 33 percent more my monthly subscription to PCPro just because I pay on an Apple phone. Hell, credit card companies don’t make more than 5 percent on transactions, and they don’t tell what I can buy and not buy!
AFAIK Apple headphones don’t use standard bluetooth but a slightly modified version of it. It’s all bullshit.
Now, the EU recognises all this and tries to implement laws that stop Apple from profiteering and come up for consumers. I applaud this and I hope Apple will get punished severely for what they are trying to pull off.
You keep trying to frame this as me having some unwavering “love” of a corporation. I think you’re projecting because your views about Apple are primarily shaped by emotion.
You wrote: “USB-C is vastly superior to lightning on all accounts.”
I don’t believe that you have the engineering expertise or years of experience needed for your overly broad, detail-free statements to be taken as fact. A click-to-engage retention feature is a good and desirable thing on a mobile device connector. Lightning has that and USB-C does not. That alone disproves your blanket statement that USB-C is superior to Lightning “on all accounts” claim. I note that you didn’t address contact count, contact size, wire gauge, physical construction, FOD tolerance, or anything else to support your claim.
You wrote: “It is trivial to make a headphone jack that’s waterproof (it just needs to have an electrical connection to 2 or 3 points).”
You know that it requires an opening in the case that must be made waterproof, right? And you know that each gasket interface is a potential failure point. The jacks are TRRS (Tip, Ring, Ring, Sleeve) configurations assigned as left, right, signal ground, and microphone respectively. Those are the 4 connections, not 2 or 3.
You ignored my point about the space they take inside a phone where every cubic millimeter is precious to designers and engineers. You also seem oblivious to the fact that they require support circuitry that includes a stereo DAC and a stereo headphone amp capable of driving headphones that vary greatly in impedance and efficiency. Nothing is “free.” Every electrical interface to the outside world introduces potential paths for ESD damage. Every connector is a potential failure point (I have replaced multiple, damaged TRRS connectors in mobile devices). And all of that translates to a higher cost for a jack that most users had already abandoned in favor of Bluetooth.
You wrote: “It’s not about how good Apple hardware and software is here that’s all in the eyes of the beholder, but it’s about protecting their garden at the cost of the consumer. I do want software on my phone that Apple doesn’t allow (like terminals, webservers, better web browsers) but I’m not allowed..”
If consumers are so dissatisfied and upset by Apple’s “walled garden,” then why have so many switched to iPhones from other products and stuck with iPhones for years, buying one after another? You can skip the “sheeple” name-calling that’s popular with the knowledge-challenged, not-old-enough-to-drive crowd.
If you want terminals, web servers, and other apps that Apple doesn’t allow, then don’t buy an iPhone. It’s that simple. Your use case is, to put it charitably, unusual, and they are not designing phones for the tiny fraction of a percentage of people who want to use their smartphones those ways.
You wrote: “I also don’t want to pay 33 percent more my monthly subscription to PCPro just because I pay on an Apple phone.:
It’s the same price on their Android app as it is on their Apple app: 12 Issues for £34.99, 6 Issues for £16.99, or 3 Issues for £8.49, The current price for a one-year digital subscription to PC Pro is £2.00 MORE when ordered through their website using a credit card. Maybe you could get a better price by paying for it using “Lineage Pay” from your Lineage OS phone?
You wrote: “AFAIK Apple headphones don’t use standard Bluetooth but a slightly modified version of it.”
Apple Airpod headphones use normal Bluetooth 5.0. They work fine on non-Apple devices (smartphones, computers, tablets, televisions, etc.). Conversely, I have a couple of non-Apple Bluetooth headphones, with mics, and those work fine on my iPhone, iPad, and Mac.
You wrote: “Now, the EU recognises all this and tries to implement laws that stop Apple from profiteering and come up for consumers.”
You remind me of the people who buy houses near airports and then demand that the government pass laws to protect them from airplane noise. The difference is that, unlike them, you don’t even have any skin in the game. You don’t own an iPhone and you aren’t about to buy one. You just want the EU interfering in the free market because you think it will harm Apple.
Forcing iPhone users to replace all of the Lightning cables that they have amassed over the years with USB-C cables isn’t protecting the environment or consumers. But standardizing on USB-C has one advantage: It makes it easier and cheaper for people to switch to iPhones. They already have USB-C cables in their offices, bedrooms, kitchens, dens, workshops, cars, and boats. So they just toss the non-iPhone in the trash and plug in their brand-new iPhones using the same cables. Sounds like a winner.
The last word is yours if you want it, though I won’t see it as I’m signing out of this discussion.
I give up, just a synopsis that is really elementary to Apple (and Google): they are sitting on a product that is essential in this world. There is no real alternative for both consumers and producers but to use one of these 2 companies.
And that means the market should be regulated from abuse. The EU is trying to do that with the DMA (not only Appl) but Apple is fighting everywhere as they want more money. I certainly don’t think Apple wants to do what’s best for their customers, they want to protect their gold mine.
Thanks for the discussion
I dont see the problem if they are forrced to implament PWAs in other engines the devlopers of said engines should have to do the work. But being honest i am Wholheatedly aginst the google brouser on the Apple platform they aready rule evertthing weelse this hust allows them to complete the complete take over of the brouser market. its annoying enough as it is every time i talk to a website’s tech support they say “You have to use the Google Chrome”
cgermann,
I agree, other browser makers can do their own work…as long as apple doesn’t block the APIs or anything hostile like that.
I’ve been there too, my browser of choice was FF, but same deal. God forbid you tell them you’re using linux too, haha. It’s practically an automatic “no support for you”. Society needs to do better to avoid massive mono-culture. The lack of diversity is a vicious cycle.
What shocks me most is that people somehow assert that any one of these major multinational corporates somehow hold a morally better position than any of the others.
If there was a lucky dip and you were given two chances, in the bag was MS, Apple and Google, and you can probably throw in a handful of others as well like Amazon, Ebay, Paypal, etc., etc.. If you pulled out any two of those companies you could probably complain you were unlucky, because you got the same prize twice!
What appears to be tyrannical bastardry from a multinational corporation is basically indefensible, this is nothing more than a massive corporate dummy spit, a tantrum of epic proportions. We are going to have to suffer this more and more in coming years, it’s the new truth.
I can’t see any solution to this than to break them up, all of them. It’s not about wanting to crush them into the dust, but we must preserve freedom of choice wherever possible, and some mega-manufacturer of various e-waste flavoured widgets are not so important that they should get a free pass at discrimination.
I had a friend complain to me just this week about being forced to abandon perfectly functioning media players because one of these corporate bastards arbitrarily switched off the ability to use them, it was nothing more than a market strategy for planned obsolescence. We(The Public) should not put up with it.
A popular topic. Let’s clear up some confusion and misinformation!
Apple did not kill web apps. Webapps work as intended, as they always have, if you use safari.
If you change your browser, then webapps open in your browser of choice.
The idea that Apple made thousands of changes to accommodate 3rd party stores is flat out wrong. Side loading has ALWAYS been an option for skilled users. One Apple never attacked in any way. Use a shell/terminal emulator.
All Apple has done here, from what I can see, in opening up for untrusted markets, is create a script that does what could already be done by hand. Installing the marketplace. Which then uses its own access and methods to install apps.
It’s not hundreds or thousands, it’s a few dozen lines.
So how about those webapps? Well, the idea of how it works is a core aspect of safari! Be it macOS or iOS or iPadOS.
Reaching the same experience in another non-WebKit-browser is not guaranteed. And there is no major user need to make such efforts.
The tiny minority complained and got what it wanted. Other browser engines on the i platforms. But a Quick Looking at macOS shows the vast majority of users are using Safari, either alone or jointly with another browser.
The number of phone and tablet users who will switch browsers, and stay switched, is yet to be seen: but all evidence points to it being fairly low.
Thus wasted effort for the time being to accommodate the 1%.
I have to admit, Thinking about this issue, I’m not convinced that Apple isn’t doing the right thing here. Could Apple make PWA’s that were secure and worked with all browser engines? Sure, if that was the original intent, which it was not. Could it now do that, sure but it will take time, and require co-operation by any web engine that wants to work on ios. For now, I think what there doing is reasonable, but yeah it could be a bit shady as well. But I’d rather they do this than allow an insecure solution. Personally, there is no way on earth I would touch a non Apple Store app in a billion years. Just not worth the risk. I’ll switch to a Pixel if I want a non OS provided app. Google’s been doing it safely for a while. I don’t trust apple to do it at gunpoint safely.
Bill Shooter of Bul,
The thing is nobody expects apple to do any of that work. If mozilla wants to implement it and put in the work, then that’s between mozilla and their users. It shouldn’t be apple’s business to interfere.
When it’s your device, it’s your call. But when it’s someone else’s device, it should be their call. Besides, billions of users own devices that permit sideloading and the world hasn’t come crashing down. I also do not agree that apple are somehow more trustworthy than all other companies. I’m a firm believe in the “your hardware, your choice” philosophy. But it does mean apple has to respect users who chose alternative app stores. Apple have been especially guilty of creating owner restrictions to control markets unfairly.
I find that genuinely interesting. Apple probably has a major grudge with the EU right now, and I concede they may want to take that out on their own EU customers. Ultimately though, even if apple scuttles IOS to avoid full compliance, apple shouldn’t be given special treatment by antitrust regulators. Abusing market positions is not acceptable and in tech especially this abuse has gone on too long.
You appear to miss that Apple is not blocking other companies from coming up with this idea in their own way.
They simply aren’t doing it for them.
lostinlodos,
You are very misinformed.
Edit: I should be nicer. It’s just that the restrictions apple places on owners and software developers with the intention of blocking competition is extremely well established over a long time. Software competitors are NOT free to bring features and software to IOS without apple’s say so. This is a huge problem for competition and innovation and I believe that both suffer at the hands of apple’s self-serving interests. If apple weren’t dominant, then it wouldn’t be an antitrust issue, but since they are, it is an antitrust issue, which is why the regulators need to step in and force apple to stop blocking market competition.
See https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436523
Collapsing has made this more difficult to read.
@Alfman
> Besides, billions of users own devices that permit sideloading
I should have hit this first:
Like iPhone? Again, this misconception from Android users and government is fud. If not intentional bunk. You very much can sideload on Apple’s phones and tablets. No exploit needed.
> Software competitors are NOT free to bring features and software to IOS
They actually can. Though it’s more work for the user. The same restrictions and permissions exist on MacOS that are coming to EU iPhones. Apple is by default restricting software to apple signed apps and packages. For running the application.
A simple command line instruction turns that restriction off.
As for the point of the article? Nothing is stopping developers from porting over their Android/UM or even windows apps. Apple didn’t stop anyone from using the same functionality of live wrapped web pages via a different browser.
They simply didn’t allow other engines to use the default Apple system to do so.
Their statement makes perfect sense as well. To anyone who understands the underlying technology in play.
Apple has always focused on the experience. They can’t control how other browsers work. This they bar interaction with WebKit functionality.
If Google wants to make live wrapped pages they are free to do so. Themselves.
lostinlodos,
I don’t know where you got that impression, but you are wrong. End users are not free to sideload on iphones and it would be entirely disingenuous to claim apple doesn’t lock down a normal owner’s devices. Developer or enterprise accounts can have some restrictions lifted for a fee, but we’re talking about apple blocking competitors in free markets comprised of regular consumers.
gov.uk/government/news/cma-plans-market-investigation-into-mobile-browsers-and-cloud-gaming
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/eu-says-apples-30-cut-from-rival-music-providers-violates-competition-law/
bbc.com/news/world-europe-51906033
9to5mac.com/2022/03/01/web-developers-challenge-apple-to-allow-other-browser-engines-on-ios/
I very much hope apple’s worst anti-competitive abuses can be curtailed. However, apple’s proposed changes still don’t allow users to truly sideload their own apps. If you think this is wrong, please provide a reputable source that shows that users can genuinely sideload apps without getting permission from or signing contracts with apple. Under apple’s changes, even an open source browser or app store distributed for free with no payments could be on the hook for new “core technology fees” where apple gets a cut simply because they control the market. This is a nasty tactic designed not to provide sideloading, but to foil it.
“I don’t know where you got that impression, but you are wrong”
I’m running 4 applications on my phone that are not from the App Store. So either you believe the nonsense out there or you simply didn’t know.
Side loading takes nothing more than a terminal emulator, a bit of understanding, and the ability to copy and paste at the most bare minimum entry.
This has been an ongoing debate I’ve struggle with on multiple sites with many ignorant to the fact complaining, and a few of us demonstrating
Browser? Apple is, was, has been, and is devoted to the experience. No browser technology is as slim and lightweight as WebKit.
This is less of a concern. Ow, as phones match desktop systems in power.
Apple conceded this. If some idiot wants to run chrome on an iPhone with its runaway memory hunger, so be it. Again, over 90% of macOS users use only, or default to, Safari.
Ah, cloud games. Apple has a very strong interest, as a U.S. company, in keeping tight control over loot boxes, which many have called gambling, somewhat accurately. There is also the problem of rogue games that have inconsistent, if not out right criminal, buy in methods.
“abused its dominant position by imposing rules on music streaming apps..”
Yes. Apple restricted outside payments for apps personally, I hope Apple kicks out any app that doesn’t support applepay post alternative store.
The numbers from research show that over 95% of Apple users (excluding games) would not use an outside payment source for in app payments. I don’t know what these companies are targeting, but Apple users aren’t likely to click through links and make payments elsewhere. Spotify may be able to pull this off as a major company. The likelihood of a Pandora or RadioToday doing so… nearly zero.
If you really think Apple has done something wrong, I can’t help you. Companies like epic have a large user base and want to freeload Apple support and distribution, and will probably survive. (Remember epic used to take over 90% of sales as a mail order distributor).
Most developers will run into the wall that Apple users won’t go outside Apple Pay.
This is another ruling that helps the 1%. 1% of iPhone users will install a 3rd party store (to download porn and m+ games). 1% are willing to use a different payment method.
If you need help side loading apps, I’d be happy to walk you through the process.
lostinlodos,
Please stop speaking in unverifiable generalizations and use specific examples and links like I asked!!!
You can claim whatever you want, but the onus is on you to provide the details. I’ve already asked you to provide sources and you did not.
Even if we assume that’s true, it doesn’t mean there aren’t owners who actually want more & different features. Owners should have the right to chose the browser they want to use on their own devices.
I have no issue with criticizing Illegal activities, but you are guilty of bucketing them with legitimate activities.
I always find it fascinating when people are cheerleaders for autocracy, You go do that, but for the record that’s the kind of abuse that antitrust exists to counteract.
I’m going to be a stickler and insist on citing your sources because I’m tired of confronting made up facts. But even 5% of apple users is many millions of users…and why exclude games? Regardless of how much you want to push a one sided apple narrative, the fact is apple’s forcefully imposed market restrictions are impeding the viability of alternative app sources.
Hold on a sec, it’s not me who needs help and it’s not my opinion that matters here. Countless courts have ruled apple has “done something wrong”. I happen to agree with them because anticompetitive business tactics always end up harming consumers in the long run.
Homebrew. A package manager. Cryo. A crypto wallet. NeoRestore a rolling clone backup.and CSh. A terminal emulator. (Along with dependent libraries).
I installed DOSBox with homebrew as well but that can’t count because I believe it’s in the App Store.
> Owners should have the right to chose the browser they want to use
I agree. I’ve always agreed here. And I partly lean on supporting third party stores for that reason. Keeping Apple’s App Store clean of disruptive software. Allowing that stuff to be installed by the few who want it.
> You go do that
The issue is creating a new mess for support. Currently all support for apps comes from Apple, first. Especially purchasing and billing. Other payments is going to create quite the mess in the short term, if not longer.
First, people will continue to use the Apple support app for non -Apple payments. Leading to Apple being unable to help and angry users.
Second, who manages and secures payments. Currently using the Apple wallet your payment details remain in a secure encrypted enclave. Is Apple going to be expected to decrease security for interaction or are these companies going to host their own payment system.
> insist on citing
Supercharge shows only 14 percent would switch completely to a different App Store, principally in parts of Europe. Apple’s last quarterly call stated (less reliably) that internal research shows a roughly 5% show a high interest in using another payment system. Cirp has shown similar results. Safari macOS usage over 96%. A low interest in 3rd party payment systems. They do show a higher interest in 3rd party apps though. As high as 46% depending on wording.
I excluded gaming, because it’s quite clear epic has a large base. And they are the primary drive for all of this legislation.
> Countless courts
I believe we can all agree that courts don’t always get it right. And I’ll simply skip over this beyond saying what I always say about antitrust: antitrust decisions rarely work to the benefits of the consumer.
My concern isn’t allowing other stuff in. I tentatively support the idea. I share here my concerns in right to repair. It’s not the ability I’m against. It’s the faulty laws that would keep companies on the hook for user stupidity.
That! Is a big problem. Be it malware you download and side load or a tiny ribbon cable you break swapping your screen. The companies need to be indemnified. One need only look at the garbage suite against Amazon over prime fees to see how our legal system fails fast.
The moment third party payments are allowed, Apple must share zero liability in how others handle payment. The moment another App Store is allowed, Apple must have zero liability in what is hosted in them.
lostinlodos,
Are you talking about ios or macos?? You were specifically talking about the iphone but if you are talking about installing software on macos it’s not relevant to the IOS restrictions we are talking about.
https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/352632/is-there-any-way-to-install-homebrew-on-ios-jailbroken
Sorry if I’m misunderstanding you, but I’d still ask that you provide links so that we can be on the same page.
I don’t understand why you’re only saying this just now. Still, I’m glad we agree that apple shouldn’t be blocking owners from using competing stores.
This is hardly a new “problem”, consumers have been dealing with multiple payment options for half a century, apple users can figure it out.
I was asking for links, IMHO it’s always important.to provide them.
But logically the fact that users show a large interest an alternative game stores is exactly why they need to be included. It’s like saying “99% of people aren’t interested in alternative energy sources (excluding solar).” Citing a figure to demonstrate disinterest becomes meaningless if you exclude data where people have shown interest.
In this case they got it right though, it’s quite obvious how apple’s restrictions are detrimental to competition.
I don’t think you’ll find anybody here who disagrees with that.
I replied at page end. Again the Column shrunk too far.
An inversion exposes some of the hypocrisy.
If we swapped out “Apple” for “China, Israel or Russia” in many of these posts, and Apple was somehow being restricted, the Apple apparatchiks would be up in arms about any government restricting Apple in the same way that it seems Apple has behaved.
Nobody expects Apple to do anything special, in fact we are requesting that they do not do anything special, just let Devs be Devs wherever they live!
I half heartedly agree with you Opensource projects yey, Multi national couperations that want aan inroad to complete the Engine monoculture of the web. no a million times no
iOS should be open to opensource software only.
I suggest you check out iSH, xterm,
And the like. iOS isn’t so much locked down as it is stored away from the general user.
Homebrew takes effort, but works. Your information is outdated. iOS and macOS are parallel today. The older issue was with architecture. Use the AArm package. Git also works as do others.
https://dev.to/cookrdan/using-git-on-ios-1l1n
Much of cirp is paywalled but you can check them out at https://www.cirp.net
They have multiple substack offerings as .
There’s not much I can do about Apple’s own reports. You’re a stocker holder or not.
> I don’t understand why you’re only saying this just now
It wasn’t important. My statement was Apple didn’t kill off anything. They just require the developer to make their own implementation—rather than Apple doing it for them. Or them botching the design via Apple’s implementation and thus causing a flood of Apple user support requests.
I’ve never stood against alternative stores. I’ve stood against forcing Apple to support anything related to such use. I’m strongly against a company being forced to fix user stupidity at cost.
I’m also very very much against any requirement that forces Apple to allow third party payment in its own App Store. In fact, that’s one prime reason I support other stores. Again, keeping that stuff out of the general apple supplied offerings.
> new “problem”
No, but a quick internet search shows the majority of android payments go through google. Just like most apple payments use Apple Pay. Again, if such an option is to be forced on the public, it should be through a third party store and not through the App Store.
> But logically the fact that
The vast majority of users that are complaining are near completely in the epic camp of users. It’s closer to saying that 1% of the users are interested, on the higher end of what I’ve seen of the earlier epic install base. Hardly anything close to a blip on the user base… a rounding error.
> it’s quite obvious how apple’s restrictions are detrimental to competition.
I’m not arguing against that. though the actual issue is much smaller than you appear to make it.
My concern is government stupidity in its “fix”
Be it the US or EU. Forcing another payment platform into and on to the App Store is not a fix. It’s a security and safety nightmare.
And I’ve some very rude words for epic’s crying over 30%.
When epic was a mail distributor they charged over 90% in many cases.
30% is the world wide norm for service and access.
If you buy a book online the retailer gets 10-30%
If you have a credit card the bank gets 10-30%
Or you take out an auto loan you pay 10-30%
If you hire a service to sell your belongings, they take 10-30%
Nobody is ever going to convince me that there’s some evil in apple charging 30% or less.
lostinlodos,
In the context of sideloading this is disingenuous when different restrictions are in effect. Frankly it’s been very frustrating that you’re forcing me to play 20 questions and guess the circumvention methods you are talking about. But now I’m guessing you are talking about developer mode and jailbreaking as documented here, right?
https://iosnerds.com/how-to-enable-developer-mode-on-iphone-with-ios-17/
Besides developer mode not being that friendly, there are further limitations that make it absolutely useless for real app store competitors without jailbreaking.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/73733701/how-to-enable-developer-mode-on-ios-16-0
https://www.idownloadblog.com/2022/04/12/nofreeapplimit/
If these are the mechanisms you are talking about, then sure I agree they exist. But…this is not the same as giving owners & competitors a real sideloading option for IOS!!!!!!!!
Of course it’s important, apple not blocking owner’s from choosing alternatives is one of the primary motivators for these EU cases.
Great, other stores do their own work and support. I’ve already agreed this isn’t controversial. Don’t turn it into a straw man when there’s no one saying apple needs to provide support for 3rd party stores & software. Let’s move on.
Antitrust is about giving consumers the right to make their own choices. Your opinions about epic don’t justify apple’s abusive control over the app market.
The EU isn’t “forcing a new payment platform into it”, they’re allowing the market to choose different payment platforms. It’s very ironic that you’re real gripe is with the market having that choice.
Having a healthy free market is big than just epic and ideally I’d like to see many alternatives competing – the way free markets are supposed to work.
Did anyone try to convince you that or is this a straw man? As long as there is real competition apple can go charge 50% for all I care. The problem is that, rather than competing, apple are using DRM to control the market and block competition so that owners and developers have no choice.
“In the context of sideloading”
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ish-shell/id1436902243
Your comment on iOS 17 made me think of something though. Appears we’re both right to some degree. Looks like the developer betas aren’t as locked as consumer releases. I tried to install the current homebrew on an iOS 15 consumer and it didn’t work at all. Just got a spinning pipe. I’ve run developer betas so long it didn’t cross my mind.
Guess that means you need to pay $99 to side load.
Still a good deal for many but definitely changes the conversation. Without much interest in further testing the hypothesis… I’ll submit to the initial results here. Apparently only developers can side load. Apple or non Apple sourced.
> Of course it’s important
I think we’re talking about two different things here that you have merged together.
The first being the point of the article. Which is only as true as the immediate perception. Apple removed/blocked the ability of non-WebKit browsers from using Apple’s web app technology. Which is different than refusing to allow others to come up with their own solution. That happened after the EU ruling.
The other being epic, Spotify, and alternative apps.
> Don’t turn it into a straw man
I wasn’t trying to. I looked at the recent right to repair laws, requiring a mandate of one year of service warranty. And worry that somehow this will come back to bite Apple.
We’ve already seen rogue games become an issue for Apple. Treasure Hunter and epic’s in app billing.
The public went to Apple for support on charges from these games.
My personal hope is Apple blocks Apple Pay from non-app-store apps. And that would kill off responsibility. Though I fear that with which high polling for only using Apple pay, and such low support for outside payments, developers may come back and demand that Apple let them use it
> Your opinions about epic don’t justify apple’s abusive control over the app market.
No. But I don’t consider it abuse. I do like the idea of a third party store. As long as the governments don’t force Apple to make them cross-compatible with Apple property features.
Looking at Android, third party stores don’t get direct access to Android pay or Google pay or Samsung pay. And Apple should absolutely not be forced to open its secure services to unknown parties.
> they’re allowing the market to choose different payment platforms
And outside app stores fixes that. See above. Reports at the time clearly showed that some, the percentage varied, users thought they were using Apple Pay on iOS. Even when they were not. Exercising your rights comes with risk. As long as Apple is left out of any aspect of requirements on the third party stores, all good. All too often there’s a government bleeding heart that ruins a good solution shortly thereafter.
> Did anyone try to convince you that or is this a straw man
https://www.imore.com/apple/epics-taking-its-apple-app-store-payments-complaint-to-the-supreme-court
That was the whole point of all of this. Day one. You forgot, missed, or simply ignored the cause of the current situation.
Epic didn’t like paying the fee. A fee that covered marketing, distribution, support, payment processing… …! They violated their contract with Apple to insert their own payment system, which did confuse some customers. Apple booted them for being sneaky and devious and causing the company grief.
The end result, is good. If this is the absolute end of it, third party app stores. No access to Apple Pay without Apple’s express intent. No forced Apple support.
But again, no antitrust legislation has ever helped the consumer in the end. Be it bad rulings or ignorance in the beginning or the ‘thousand cuts’ of new laws after.
Hopefully this ends here with a few other jurisdictions cloning the ruling. App stores. Nothing more.
This could be the first ever antitrust ruling that actually helped the public.
lostinlodos,
I’m glad we can agree!
We’ll see what happens. But my early understanding of apple’s plan is that they will still technically control and enforce sideloading through DRM. The difference will be 3rd party app stores will be issued apple keys that can bypass the app store requirements for EU customers. This is slightly better than before, but if it really works this way then unfortunately it still falls short of the true sideloading demanded by free market advocates and FOSS enthusiasts.
You keep providing anecdotal evidence and I keep asking you for links. The onus is on the person making the claims.
If apple doesn’t want third parties to use apple pay, that would be fine EXCEPT that to date apple have been blocking party services using restrictive terms of service, DRM, etc. Like prohibiting competitors from implementing their own NFC services. This has been a pervasive issue across the board with apple.
As much as you dislike Epic, nothing changes the fact that apple restrictions have been abusive to free market competition.
You don’t seem to have much historical context about the monopolies and robber baron eras that lead to the formation of antitrust laws. Do some research and you’d learn that market monopolies and duopolies are consistently among the worst outcomes for consumers.
> I’m glad we can agree!
I’ve done some not playing around and it’s definitely the developer betas. All the way back to 13, the oldest phone I have an image for: sideloading works.
Makes me wonder if Apple just didn’t lock the back door ala DB?
> issued apple keys that can bypass the app store
They basically set the package security to the lowest non user level. Same as on macOS. Apple singed, or Apple approved. Leaving me to wonder if a shell command can turn off that requirement on iOS as well. Which is what I did on my phones. I’ll need to make a few calls though. I have no access from the US.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios-app-store-violations-epic-payments
“Over 153,000 app submissions rejected for spam, copycats,
or misleading users”
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/05/app-store-stopped-more-than-2-billion-in-fraudulent-transactions-in-2022/
Apple doesn’t list rejections or pulls. But Treasure Hunt hit me directly with fraudulent charges. Apple quickly fixed it by reversing charges and pulled the game.
> EXCEPT that to date apple have been blocking
Given that’s the issue here, third party store, third party payment. Apple Store, Apple Pay.
> …nothing changes the fact that apple restrictions have been abusive to free market competition.
That’s still a matter of opinion. I see a clean, reliable, safe, platform m. As many do. You *can* pay off app if you want.
I disagree with the no-steering aspects. Given the overwhelming research that shows even if given an option most users would still use Apple Pay when the difference is 30%.
Personally I think Apple should just let them advertise their lower rates in app. They are not, based and *overwhelming* research, at any real financial risk. As long as those advertisements are absolutely abundantly clear that the user has left Apple’s long standing protection.
>Do some research…
The road to hell is paved…
I don’t deny good intentions. But! For every technological antitrust issue, I can show you the damages after a ruling, or the damages the ruling if resulting, would have caused. For most antitrust cases in general I can show you consumer—public damage in the aftermath.
This ruling is missing safe guards for the company, and opens up the public to less secure devices.
What happens when a an ai ransomware bricks the phone. A app steals your information. You become a public hotspot unwillingly. Etc.
First, consumers weren’t exposed to that before. Now they are.
And second, where is the safeguard for Apple in that they should not be responsible for such occurrences.
Again, like right to repair. I believe in it and 3rd party app systems. But I do so with the demand that companies be indemnified from user stupidity.
One need only look at the stupidity of the Amazon prime lawsuit or spilled hot coffee to see how fast users file stupid lawsuits without legal basis. And how some judges, juries, rule with emotions instead of with the law.
Apple should not be responsible for your porn virus or $1000 loot box bill on some alternate App Store.
Nope, sorry but it’s a fact that apple have been blocking owners from using competitive services and this is why the EU needed to get involved.
It doesn’t matter! There is still an antitrust issue even if some users continue to use apple pay. Antitrust is about giving users the choice, not forcing them to change. Everyone here should know this.