Apple to Allow Outside App Stores in Overhaul Spurred by EU Laws {DMA, DSA}

[darknessblade]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

This is not enough to enable sideloading and install a malicious app on android.

If it leads to the app store it's not sideloading...

I mean again, what does sideloading have to do with this?

 

That "10K IAP app" also existed on the appstore to some degree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

 

So yeah it has 0.0% to do with sideloading.

-------

I am still baffled how many people do not see the benefit of this.

 

Its like they never had any proper CONSUMER PROTECTION. and are not used to companies being "forced" to do something in the wellbeing of their consumers.

 

[Lightwreather]

7 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

CONSUMER PROTECTION.

I'd say this is more about Consumer Choice rather than Consumer Protection. That this is Minor Semantics, I'm aware.

[mr moose]

21 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think this is true.

I mean, since there are no alternative sources for apps on iOS all it would take is a single malicious app that can be sideloaded for Android to have more. I don't think there is any disputing that there are some risk to letting users download apps from other sources, but the real question is how big that risk actually is, and if it's worth it.

 

I don't think there is a widespread issue on Android of people sideloading malicious apps. I have heard of people downloading sketchy "modified Spotify, get premium for free!" apks that they install and then get their accounts hijacked, but I don't think the risk of that is dramatically higher than someone falling for the same thing on a website. Should we ban browsers from iPhones too to prevent people getting scammed on websites? Of course not!

 

 

Allowing users to do something, anything, is inherently a risk. The more you allow, the more risks occur. But if we take the whole "it's a risk so we shouldn't do it!" to the logical extreme we could argue that our phones shouldn't be able to connect to anything, no Internet, no cellular, nothing, because connecting to those things are risks.

Since we already have sideloading on Android, we can get a somewhat good indication of the risks. So far, I don't know of any widespread issue that has occurred because of sideloading. There have been malware on Android, but in pretty much all instances of that being a big issue it's been in apps distributed by the Google Play store, and as a result had nothing to do with sideloading.

 

From my anecdotal experience, pretty much nobody sideloads on Android. As a result, it doesn't pose a significant threat. The benefits to those who do want to sideload are massive though.

 

 

  

You're not the first person to say this and I am not sure why.

I get the impression that people (not necessarily you) think "regulation" is bad no matter what and we should oppose it on principle. The reason why regulators had to step in is because Apple refused to play ball. This bill would probably not have needed to be made if all companies were nice and did what was best for everyone, but that's not the world we live in.

We live in a world where companies have to be told "you are not allowed to dump toxic waste into drinking water" and "you are not allowed to block a company from communicating with their customers just because you don't like what they have to say". 

 

Regulations should be judged based on the benefits and drawbacks, not just "all regulations are bad". 

 

So three was this article from 2015 that said IOS apps are more vulnerable and we are going to see ios security get worse because of it.

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3003454/ios-apps-more-vulnerable-than-android.html

 

then we got this article in 2021 saying that IOS is at best just as bad if not worse than android for much the same reasoning.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/16/iphone-12-pro-max-and-iphone-13-not-more-secure-than-google-and-samsung-android-warns-cyber-billionaire/?sh=2f431f6b23f8

 

Then there was all the stats that Arika posted in the last massive debate regarding ios v android on this score.  I am pretty confident that the end statistics did not bode wel for Apple given how fragmented, outdated and barely updated android is.  In fact the capacity to sideload on android seems to pale into insignificance next to other attack vectors.

 

 

 

[Dracarris]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

then we got this article in 2021 saying that IOS is at best just as bad if not worse than android for much the same reasoning.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/16/iphone-12-pro-max-and-iphone-13-not-more-secure-than-google-and-samsung-android-warns-cyber-billionaire/?sh=2f431f6b23f8

 

That article is an utter joke. The technical content of the article in correspondence to the clickbait-af title is exactly this:

Quote

There have been many more mobile vulnerabilities targeting and exploiting Android devices than iPhones in the last year—unsurprisingly; iPhones are much more secure, right? No, Shwed, tells me. “I think the risks are for both. There are zero-day attacks and there are malware on both platforms. I think it's actually very balanced.”

So Mr. "security expert" thinks the risks are balanced. Are you actually fucking kidding me. Trust me bro?

 

This whole article is about him claiming how horrible the fact is, that phones mostly do not run dedicated security software - from a guy that, *drum roll* - sells security software.

 

Are you actually fucking kidding me. Forbes should be ashamed, and anyone citing this article, too.

[mr moose]

Just now, Dracarris said:

That article is an utter joke. The technical content of the article in correspondence to the clickbait-af title is exactly this:

So Mr. "security expert" thinks the risks are balanced. Are you actually fucking kidding me. Trust me bro?

 

This whole article is about him claiming how horrible the fact is, that phones mostly do not run dedicated security software - from a guy that, *drum roll* - sells security software.

 

Are you actually fucking kidding me.

About the response I expected form you.

 

[Dracarris]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

About the response I expected form you.

 

About the substance of a reply I expected from you.

 

Again, you fail to admit how bad an anti-Apple argument from yours was. Instead of addressing my factual arguments, "what I expected from you". Very telling and very disappointing.

[mr moose]

Just now, Dracarris said:

About the substance of a reply I expected from you.

 

Again, you fail to admit how bad an anti-Apple argument from yours was. Instead of addressing my factual arguments, "what I expected from you". Very telling and very disappointing.

Whatever dude, you do this all the time, I'm not interested in trying to refute your fantasy's anymore.

[Dracarris]

Just now, mr moose said:

Whatever dude, you do this all the time, I'm not interested in trying to refute your fantasy's anymore.

Nope. Not at all. And my fantasies are literal quotes from an article you brought up? Interesting take, alternative facts?

[Sauron]

21 hours ago, Kisai said:

There's three angles that needs to be considered:

1) Apple will likely sandbox/virtualize the third party store so it has no access to certain API's that can violate the privacy of the user (eg a third party app will have no access to the file system, USB/Thunderbolt, stored passwords, camera or microphone) if you want that, it has to be submitted to the Apple App store and signed by Apple.

2) Anything purchased on the third party store can not stomp on anything already on the device, or already available in the app store, to prevent the piracy of legitimate apps or software impersonating legitimate apps. How I see this being done is the first time the app is attempted to be launched, it submits a fingerprint of the binary to Apple to receive a device-specific whitelist. If the app isn't on the whitelist then it only runs in a virtual machine isolated from all running software.

3) Anything sideloaded is virtualized by default.

 

There will of course be problems with battery life and performance reduction if the user seeks to pirate or sideload software. 

I don't think this would be allowed with this regulation, sideloaded apps need to be able to access the same features as regular app store apps. If the law does not cover this I think that's a major oversight; "you may sideload but only if you don't want any useful features" is blatantly against the spirit of what this is trying to achieve and it still places Apple in a position of absolute power over what is allowed to run on your device. The only exception I would accept is special Apple-only APIs that are used by system utilities, which would be analogous to having root access on android.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So three was this article from 2015 that said IOS apps are more vulnerable and we are going to see ios security get worse because of it.

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3003454/ios-apps-more-vulnerable-than-android.html

 

then we got this article in 2021 saying that IOS is at best just as bad if not worse than android for much the same reasoning.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/16/iphone-12-pro-max-and-iphone-13-not-more-secure-than-google-and-samsung-android-warns-cyber-billionaire/?sh=2f431f6b23f8

 

Then there was all the stats that Arika posted in the last massive debate regarding ios v android on this score.  I am pretty confident that the end statistics did not bode wel for Apple given how fragmented, outdated and barely updated android is.  In fact the capacity to sideload on android seems to pale into insignificance next to other attack vectors.

I think we are talking about different things here.

I don't doubt either of the articles you linked, but they are not really talking about the same type of threats as I brought up. Sideloading has some unique threats associated with them that today don't exist on iOS (outside of jailbreaking them). For example "modded Spotify" apps that silently steals your login credentials are a thing on Android, but not on iOS. With this change, chances are it will be a thing on both platforms, which is bad at some level.

This change will absolutely lower the security of iPhones because it gives attackers another potential attack vector. But essentially all features adds another attack vector, so I don't think that argument in and of itself is good. If we wanted to minimize the risks with no regard for the benefits then our phones would just be bricks that couldn't do anything.

 

I think that the two articles you linked are talking about very specific things and not the overall picture of "security". I am also talking about a very specific thing.

 

Just to be clear, I think the argument that this will lower security on iPhones is silly. It is technically correct, but it's like saying we shouldn't eat food because of the risk of choaking. Or that our phones shouldn't have web browsers because a user might visit a scam website.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

I don't think this would be allowed with this regulation, sideloaded apps need to be able to access the same features as regular app store apps. If the law does not cover this I think that's a major oversight; "you may sideload but only if you don't want any useful features" is blatantly against the spirit of what this is trying to achieve and it still places Apple in a position of absolute power over what is allowed to run on your device. The only exception I would accept is special Apple-only APIs that are used by system utilities, which would be analogous to having root access on android.

 

Again, think about the lowest common demoninator. The average person who owns an iPhone, doesn't want to fiddle around with anything on the device to enable sideloading, let alone a third party app store. Some company who wants to trick people will send a link to their fake app on the fake app store, and the person will not know what damage it does.

 

Apple must absolutely isolate software loaded on the device, or it risks being blamed for all the same security gaffs Android has with fake or cracked software.

 

In case you are not aware, people do regularly download apps or games, and then modify them on the Android device to remove the ads or or give them unlimited freemium currency, or cheat in multiplayer games, or obtain the paid game for free itself. These are not solved problems on the PC, but unlike the PC, installing Denuvo or Epic Anti-Cheat, or whatever else, is not an option on mobile devices.

 

Again, point 1, Sandbox the third party store, and anything installed by it, that has not been approved by Apple for the Apple store.

 

That's the easiest solution, and that is technically how things work now on the Mac and Windows platforms, the apps and drivers are signed with keys from Apple or Microsoft, and neither OS will let you run unsigned drivers without lowering the security level for the entire OS, which then opens it up to further security exploits. In case you have not used Windows in a while, that app signing is how you don't get prompted for UAC prompts twice when running the binary the first time. Which is what I described in point 2.

 

Blocking access to certain API's that only exist on mobile devices, such as cameras and microphones, when it hasn't been vetted is what you want the OS vendor to do. There are Android apps that demand access to everything on the device, even though they don't need it, and there are apps on both iOS and Android, and even Windows that will refuse to operate if you revoke the camera access (such as snapchat and various other apps like it.) Of course there is also the alternative where the device only presents a "null" device for the camera and microphone when the permission isn't granted, and swaps the null device with the real camera if permission is granted. If the device is side-stepping the app store, then what's to keep it from side-stepping the permission controls on the device?

 

On Windows, if you turn of access to the camera or microphone, it ends up disabled for EVERYTHING. Even if you have multiple devices.

 

Clicking on "find out why" just brings up a page that says "some devices may install drivers"

 

For example, NDI side steps this. PCIe Capture cards are still "cameras" to Windows, and disabling it disables capture of everything in OBS.

 

[Sauron]

9 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Again, think about the lowest common demoninator. The average person who owns an iPhone, doesn't want to fiddle around with anything on the device to enable sideloading, let alone a third party app store. Some company who wants to trick people will send a link to their fake app on the fake app store, and the person will not know what damage it does.

You can't do this on android. There is no way an app you get from the store can enable sideloading autonomously as far as I know. Further, what happened to Apple supposedly vetting the stuff that's on their store?

10 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Apple must absolutely isolate software loaded on the device, or it risks being blamed for all the same security gaffs Android has with fake or cracked software.

If you as an android user go out of your way to sideload shady software that's your responsibility. You can't do it by accident.

11 minutes ago, Kisai said:

In case you are not aware, people do regularly download apps or games, and then modify them on the Android device to remove the ads or or give them unlimited freemium currency, or cheat in multiplayer games, or obtain the paid game for free itself.

Which... they deliberately choose... to do..? I have never heard anyone complain about Google because they got malware on their phone after sideloading a cracked app... that's just absurd

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

These are not solved problems on the PC, but unlike the PC, installing Denuvo or Epic Anti-Cheat, or whatever else, is not an option on mobile devices.

You absolutely could just checksum or sign the packages to make sure they aren't modded for cheating. On PC you "need" invasive anticheat software because nothing is sandboxed and you can just read and modify user memory at will if you have administrator privileges, that's not the case on either mobile platform. Besides since jailbreaking has been a thing for years it's not like Apple has been holding back the tide for the past decade - you just don't see it much because nobody cares about a handful of cheaters in mobile games that are almost all trash anyway.

18 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's the easiest solution, and that is technically how things work now on the Mac and Windows platforms, the apps and drivers are signed with keys from Apple or Microsoft, and neither OS will let you run unsigned drivers without lowering the security level for the entire OS, which then opens it up to further security exploits. In case you have not used Windows in a while, that app signing is how you don't get prompted for UAC prompts twice when running the binary the first time. Which is what I described in point 2.

I don't get prompted by UAC because I disable it. Which has always been a possibility and nobody has ever complained about it because, as with sideloading, you're choosing to run the risk.

19 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Blocking access to certain API's that only exist on mobile devices, such as cameras and microphones, when it hasn't been vetted is what you want the OS vendor to do.

You can do this yourself with permission control on both iOS and Android as it stands. Apps need to request permission if they want to use these APIs and it's up to you, the user, to decide whether you want to grant it to them. No Apple vetting required.

21 minutes ago, Kisai said:

If the device is side-stepping the app store, then what's to keep it from side-stepping the permission controls on the device?

The operating system. This is a solved problem.

 

23 minutes ago, Kisai said:

On Windows, if you turn of access to the camera or microphone, it ends up disabled for EVERYTHING. Even if you have multiple devices.

 

On your own screenshot you can see that you can in fact disable the camera on a per-app basis - but ONLY for windows store apps. This is because they are sandboxed while regular old win32 programs are not. This is an inherent issue with the way Windows has historically been built. Android and iOS do not have this problem because all apps are sandboxed by the operating system and can be given or revoked access to features at will. On Android you need root access for an app to do what you describe. That's not the same as sideloading. Same on iOS, you'd need jailbreaking.

[Kisai]

30 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

 

On your own screenshot you can see that you can in fact disable the camera on a per-app basis - but ONLY for windows store apps. This is because they are sandboxed while regular old win32 programs are not. This is an inherent issue with the way Windows has historically been built. Android and iOS do not have this problem because all apps are sandboxed by the operating system and can be given or revoked access to features at will. On Android you need root access for an app to do what you describe. That's not the same as sideloading. Same on iOS, you'd need jailbreaking.

If you turn off the camera, it is turned off for EVERYTHING. Apps included. If you wanted to block the camera for Windows applications but want to keep it only on for Discord, you can not. That is not how it works, and that's fundamentally because "apps" on the Windows store ask the OS for permission, where as apps you "sideload" by downloading or installing them outside the store do not.

 

So to put this back into context, Apple would most likely disable access to the camera and microphone, USB-connected devices and the filesystem itself if it has not been verified by Apple. If your third party store installs an app, or you sideload an app, it can't damage or tamper with what's already on the device.

 

Take a page out of Playstation's book with the PS2 and PS3. When you run Linux on these, you have no access to the GPU beyond the framebuffer, which made the utility of doing so kinda worthless. Turning your game console into the equivalent of a $300 computer is really ass-backwards.

 

But that's the precedent that exists. The device isolates third party, un-approved software, because that software can not be trusted to not tamper with the OS, existing software, and privacy controls.

 

My prediction is that "third party" stores will be apps on the Apple Store that Apple has expressly approved, and the third party store will have to be approved by Apple every time they change their store "app" to prevent circumvention of privacy controls. Whatever permissions you grant to the third party app store, are granted to the software installed by the third party app store, because the third party store is ultimately responsible for the third party apps.

 

[My_Computer_Is_Trash]

Apple will find some way to bend the rules...

Like how they are not going to USB-C and probably just going to remove the lightning port entirely. I know Apple resists change...but at what cost? And why?

[WhitetailAni]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Apple must absolutely isolate software loaded on the device, or it risks being blamed for all the same security gaffs Android has with fake or cracked software.

Every app installed from the App Store is already sandboxed.

Heck, basically every app is. The only exceptions are system applications that need it, such as Settings and Files. Everything else? Sandboxed. The Phone app is sandboxed, the Messages app is sandboxed.

 

To get permissions like notifications, you have to sign the app with the notification entitlement, which you can only get from Apple. To get any entitlement, like notifications, or HomeKit, or Sign In with Apple, or CarPlay, or installing a companion app to an Apple Watch, or transferring data between iPhone and Apple Watch, you have to apply for it on Apple's developer website. Some entitlements like CarPlay are an additional fee. Any app on the App Store goes through this process.

There are additional Apple-only entitlements that only Apple or a jailbreak can give out, such as com.apple.private.security.no-sandbox. Any app signed with that entitlement doesn't have a sandbox and can access any file on the filesystem - otherwise apps are limited to their appdata directory, located in /var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Data/sandbox-uuid/.

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, FakeKGB said:

Every app installed from the App Store is already sandboxed.

Heck, basically every app is. The only exceptions are system applications that need it, such as Settings and Files. Everything else? Sandboxed. The Phone app is sandboxed, the Messages app is sandboxed.

 

To get permissions like notifications, you have to sign the app with the notification entitlement, which you can only get from Apple. To get any entitlement, like notifications, or HomeKit, or Sign In with Apple, or CarPlay, or installing a companion app to an Apple Watch, or transferring data between iPhone and Apple Watch, you have to apply for it on Apple's developer website. Some entitlements like CarPlay are an additional fee. Any app on the App Store goes through this process.

There are additional Apple-only entitlements that only Apple or a jailbreak can give out, such as com.apple.private.security.no-sandbox. Any app signed with that entitlement doesn't have a sandbox and can access any file on the filesystem - otherwise apps are limited to their appdata directory, located in /var/mobile/Containers/Bundle/Data/sandbox-uuid/.

And how do you expect a third party store to operate? It can't give entitlements, it can only grandfather what it already has.

[WhitetailAni]

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

And how do you expect a third party store to operate? It can't give entitlements, it can only grandfather what it already has.

Apple can set them up to be able to provide entitlements. It's not difficult

[Sauron]

44 minutes ago, Kisai said:

If you turn off the camera, it is turned off for EVERYTHING. Apps included. If you wanted to block the camera for Windows applications but want to keep it only on for Discord, you can not. That is not how it works, and that's fundamentally because "apps" on the Windows store ask the OS for permission, where as apps you "sideload" by downloading or installing them outside the store do not.

Again, no. Windows is structured differently from iOS or Android. Installing win32 programs on Windows is not equivalent to sideloading on Android. Apps that are sideloaded on Android can't sidestep operating system restrictions on what functions they are allowed to access UNLESS they are given root access, which is equivalent to jailbreaking and not inherent to sideloading. In fact, forcing users to jailbreak if they want to sideload actually places them at a higher risk for this precise reason; if you just want to run some foss app on your iPhone the ability to sideload makes the process a LOT safer than it would be if it required a jailbreak.

46 minutes ago, Kisai said:

But that's the precedent that exists. The device isolates third party, un-approved software, because that software can not be trusted to not tamper with the OS, existing software, and privacy controls.

This applies by default to every app on iOS or Android, store bought or not. When you install an app from the store you are asked by the operating system whether you want to give it the permissions it's asking for or not. There is no reason you shouldn't be allowed to intentionally give sideloaded apps these permissions if you choose to, like you can on Android. The operating system still has all the power and the app may only do what you specifically allow it to; in any case unless you give it root access it can't under any circumstance tamper with low level operating system functionality.

[Ultraforce]

8 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

doesn't really matter in this case, apple is very apparently profiting off of other people's hard work in a monopoly like environment,  which is *illegal* and for very good reasons.   that this is also anti-consumer is a secondary problem imo.

 

the elephant in the room here is still why corps like Microsoft,  Google, Apple... arent allowed to have this kind of hostile environment, yet on consoles its allowed... the equality principle should apply to everyone here, because the consequences are basically the same no matter the corp name.

 

 

 

 

I think consoles have different rules because they are counted less as normal consumer electronics and more like the LeapFrog educational entertainment products where they can be locked down to some extent for the same reason LEGO or Lincoln Logs don't need to be designed to be nonhostile to Playmobil and K'nex

[Mark Kaine]

37 minutes ago, Ultraforce said:

I think consoles have different rules because they are counted less as normal consumer electronics and more like the LeapFrog educational entertainment products where they can be locked down to some extent for the same reason LEGO or Lincoln Logs don't need to be designed to be nonhostile to Playmobil and K'nex

i mean i guess that's probably right, i just don't agree with it... imo there really isn't a huge difference to other consumer electronics just because consoles are more geared towards "entertainment" (and they still have a monopoly like ecosystem )

 

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, Ultraforce said:

I think consoles have different rules because they are counted less as normal consumer electronics and more like the LeapFrog educational entertainment products where they can be locked down to some extent for the same reason LEGO or Lincoln Logs don't need to be designed to be nonhostile to Playmobil and K'nex

No, it's because Parental lockouts are things that exist on PS3's and iOS devices, and do not exist on PC's themselves. It you allow sideloading on a console, then you side-step the parental controls.

 

At least that's Nintendo's excuse.

https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/22303/~/software-rating-organization-overview

Quote

• The Nintendo Switch system is not region locked so it is possible to play games not rated by the ESRB (e.g., games rated by CERO and PEGI). By using Custom Settings for the Restriction Level, you can select a different Software Rating Organization to determine your Restricted Software setting. If you start a game that has not been rated by the Software Rating Organization you selected, the system will apply the closest equivalent software Restriction Level.

 

If there are no parental controls, then clearly there is nothing to actually check.

[saltycaramel]

 

Well said.

 

We, the 1-billion-strong iPhone family, didn’t sign-up for this.

 

It’s not like we (the users) care if the rent-seeking is done by Apple or by Meta or by Epic. Yeah competition yaddah yaddah but maybe competition can be achieved in other ways and at a different level.

 

But there’s no denying the “walled garden” AppStore model is a success story, both in terms of financials (for everyone involved, not just Apple), security and health of the platform. (whereas Apple’s own “open” platform, the Mac, is mostly an abandoned wasteland in terms of 3rd party software, when compared to iOS)

 

Now some legislators want to throw a wrench into that success story and into that security model. Cool! I’ll get to have yet another platform where I’m gonna install a bunch of retro emulators, try them once and never touch them again! (actually altstore.io could already scratch that itch). But will it be worth it? Time will tell. And the actual implementation of this will tell. 

[mr moose]

20 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

Apple can set them up to be able to provide entitlements. It's not difficult

Not difficult, but given their track record also not likely.

 

6 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

 

Well said.

 

We, the 1-billion-strong iPhone family, didn’t sign-up for this.

 

It’s not like we (the users) care if the rent-seeking is done by Apple or by Meta or by Epic. Yeah competition yaddah yaddah but maybe competition can be achieved in other ways and at a different level.

 

But there’s no denying the “walled garden” AppStore model is a success story, both in terms of financials (for everyone involved, not just Apple), security and health of the platform. (whereas Apple’s own “open” platform, the Mac, is mostly an abandoned wasteland in terms of 3rd party software, when compared to iOS)

 

Now some legislators want to throw a wrench into that success story and into that security model. Cool! I’ll get to have yet another platform where I’m gonna install a bunch of retro emulators, try them once and never touch them again! (actually altstore.io could already scratch that itch). But will it be worth it? Time will tell. And the actual implementation of this will tell. 

Pointless argument as you are not being forced to use 3rd party stores or to sideload anything.   

 

 

[WhitetailAni]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Pointless argument as you are not being forced to use 3rd party stores or to sideload anything.

What's preventing developers from pulling their app from the App Store and moving it to a third-party store?

Want Google Docs? Sorry, can't get it from the App Store. Install the Play Store and get it there.

Or how about COD Mobile. Add the Steam Store.

 

Sideloading needs to be the exception, not the norm. I hope the EU bill doesn't make it the norm.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, FakeKGB said:

What's preventing developers from pulling their app from the App Store and moving it to a third-party store?

Want Google Docs? Sorry, can't get it from the App Store. Install the Play Store and get it there.

Or how about COD Mobile. Add the Steam Store.

 

Sideloading needs to be the exception, not the norm. I hope the EU bill doesn't make it the norm.

 

I see,  the "it's their platform their rules" argument only applies to apple then?

 

EDIT: just to clarify, if a developer only wants to sell their software on a smaller 3rd party app store then that is their choice, they are selling their product, not limiting someone else's business.   Now if it was MS and they were insisting you had to use office only on windows, that would be a different story.  It's the market power that dictates the ethics.