Game Streaming Apps Now Allowed in iOS
- Thread starter Cmaier
- Start date
Honestly most of the EU-required changes sound pretty good. In the EU for non-App Store Apps, Apple can still notarize Apps and charge an install fee on more popular Apps/developers to recoup costs on API development and notarization while smaller developers don’t get hit (as hard) and can continue with the Apple Store if they don’t want to worry about using 3rd party payment methods or developing their own.
If this holds then I have to say it sounds like almost the perfect compromise (and should be the default for other “walled gardens” like consoles too …). It’s basically exactly what I was hoping for once it became clear where regulators and legislators were heading - rather than forcing Apple to open up the App Store itself or not allowing Apple to review/charge sideloaded apps at all (ie completely tearing down the walls). I have to admit when the App Store first came around all those many years ago and, after reviewing the rules, I thought to myself: these rules will be fine as long as the iPhone or the App Store doesn’t really take off. But, even though consoles use much the same system (even more restrictive in fact), I bet if this (the App Store market) becomes bigger, then regulators are going to have a problem with these rules. So honestly, I think this is the best Apple could’ve gotten, it’s better for everyone, and either this or something similar moving forwards becomes the default for them and others everywhere.
If this holds then I have to say it sounds like almost the perfect compromise (and should be the default for other “walled gardens” like consoles too …). It’s basically exactly what I was hoping for once it became clear where regulators and legislators were heading - rather than forcing Apple to open up the App Store itself or not allowing Apple to review/charge sideloaded apps at all (ie completely tearing down the walls). I have to admit when the App Store first came around all those many years ago and, after reviewing the rules, I thought to myself: these rules will be fine as long as the iPhone or the App Store doesn’t really take off. But, even though consoles use much the same system (even more restrictive in fact), I bet if this (the App Store market) becomes bigger, then regulators are going to have a problem with these rules. So honestly, I think this is the best Apple could’ve gotten, it’s better for everyone, and either this or something similar moving forwards becomes the default for them and others everywhere.
Last edited:
- Posts
- 5,349
- Reaction score
- 8,551
The problem will be that notarized apps can still be malicious.
The second problem will be that various apps will be exclusive to various app stores, and mechanisms like centralized unsubscriptions, centralized notice of recurring charges, screen time, etc. won’t work anymore.
Somehow I see this as something that most folks will get hit with issues with in future as more vector of attacks have been opened.
EU shouldn’t have meddled with issues they don’t really understand in-depth.
Really, the only parties that benefits from this are those rich developers.
EU shouldn’t have meddled with issues they don’t really understand in-depth.
Really, the only parties that benefits from this are those rich developers.
That’s true now? It’s still Apple’s notarization process being used to weed those apps out and while I have no doubt bad actors will try to flood the initial release to test Apple’s processes, if it’s the same checks that are being done for the App Store, then they should be letting them through at no greater frequency than it was before. There’s no evidence that Apple is relaxing the security of its checks, and unlike the Mac Apple is only allowing notarized apps through, and Apple is allowed to craft rules for formal 3rd party app stores. You’re not going to get better than that given the priorities of regulators and legislators.
Sure for people who knowingly go outside of the App Store for their apps. If people do that, then they’re making a choice to do so. Everything is a tradeoff. In the the realm of trade offs that’s not a bad one for the market to allow people to make.
Again I don’t see why unless you’re saying Apple will relax its security checks beyond what they do now? And yes the primary benefit will be for rich developers but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong that for instance having a platform holder competing on the same services like say music as them while simultaneously charging them commissions is a bad thing. Regulators were never, ever going to let that fly and this is the best compromise that Apple was going to get.
As far as I know, notarization isn’t doing any checks. It just allows Apple to revoke access at a later date if they find something malicious but that is after the damage is done. I’ve notarized a few binaries and it usually takes less than a minute.
Jimmyjames
Site Champ
- Posts
- 680
- Reaction score
- 768
I am concerned by the removal of web rendering restrictions on iOS. My worry is that this will further entrench the Chrome/Blink monopoly. As it stands many web devs see it as a waste of time to target anything other than Blink. iOS being WebKit only forced them to try and maintain some degree of neutrality. With that gone, I am certain we will see many sites say “This site requires Chrome to work”. Probably not while just the EU mandates these changes, but when other regions do (and that is definitely coming) it will happen.
Not to mention all the apps that will use alternate app delivery to bypass Apple’s privacy checks. I keep seeing people saying that Android doesn’t have many apps that are exclusively non-Play Store but that misses that Apple is far more restrictive than Google is when it comes to privacy violations.
Interesting, that’s not how it’s being described, but if so then I retract and it will indeed cause an increase with malware. As described they say the checks for privacy and security will be the same as the App Store just no content checks.
Apple is also setting up rules for 3rd party stores. We should wait to see what those are.
Yeah that’s a fair point.
Right but the caveat as I understood it is that the security and privacy checks will be required but it will no longer do the content checks the App Store does. But if I’ve misunderstood and they’re not doing any reviews then indeed this will open up attack vectors.
Again my personal ideal would’ve been that Apple would continue review for malware/privacy and be allowed to charge the fees necessary to cover that process as well. Still hoping that’s case.
Last edited:
Aaronage
Power User
- Posts
- 144
- Reaction score
- 213
Mixed bag 
I think the approach to alternative marketplaces is great (solid compromise)… but the fee structure is pretty insulting.
Is Apple actively trying to burn bridges with developers now? The constant antagonising behaviour is so short sighted, it’s crazy. The continued success and growth of Apple’s platforms is not possible without happy developers - could they not just throw them a fucking bone for once? No one at Apple looked at the Unity fallout and thought “hmm, maybe we should rethink the Core Technology Fee…”?
I don’t want to hear the usual “Apple provides the platform, tools etc. so they deserve a fee” excuses. Yes, they deserve a cut, but the amount IS egregious. It’s not warranted. It doesn’t even “punish” the likes of Epic, it hits the smaller developers who could expand iOS in a positive way (e.g. to bring apps like games emulators to iOS through alternative app stores).
This feels like a turning point for me. I have been mostly on Apple’s side throughout this. “console like” platforms are a valid option in my view, but I am sympathetic with developers over the conditions Apple provides. There are legitimate issues and Apple has simply added more with this change. They could used this change to introduce positive change and improve relations,with the developer community, but they chose the opposite. Petty, short sighted.
Honestly, not sure if I’m overly pissed about this, will see how the dust settles…
(Also, non-WebKit browsers bad, don’t think this is a good thing for the web long term).
I think the approach to alternative marketplaces is great (solid compromise)… but the fee structure is pretty insulting.
Is Apple actively trying to burn bridges with developers now? The constant antagonising behaviour is so short sighted, it’s crazy. The continued success and growth of Apple’s platforms is not possible without happy developers - could they not just throw them a fucking bone for once? No one at Apple looked at the Unity fallout and thought “hmm, maybe we should rethink the Core Technology Fee…”?
I don’t want to hear the usual “Apple provides the platform, tools etc. so they deserve a fee” excuses. Yes, they deserve a cut, but the amount IS egregious. It’s not warranted. It doesn’t even “punish” the likes of Epic, it hits the smaller developers who could expand iOS in a positive way (e.g. to bring apps like games emulators to iOS through alternative app stores).
This feels like a turning point for me. I have been mostly on Apple’s side throughout this. “console like” platforms are a valid option in my view, but I am sympathetic with developers over the conditions Apple provides. There are legitimate issues and Apple has simply added more with this change. They could used this change to introduce positive change and improve relations,with the developer community, but they chose the opposite. Petty, short sighted.
Honestly, not sure if I’m overly pissed about this, will see how the dust settles…
(Also, non-WebKit browsers bad, don’t think this is a good thing for the web long term).
Another big issue for me (as EU citizen) is NFC for alternate paying options. I will change bank if my bank decides to stop supporting Apple pay and will instead use their mechanism through the app or something like that. I would not have the privacy I had with Apple pay.
I am unhappy that EU decided that I can not have choice between closed and opened system.
I would say better compromise would be if I can choose for or against alternate store on iOS
I am unhappy that EU decided that I can not have choice between closed and opened system.
I would say better compromise would be if I can choose for or against alternate store on iOS
You know I thought about that myself but one key difference is that Unity had no actual way to track installs the way Apple probably can. I’m not necessarily saying the fee structure is ideal but a major component of the anger over Unity’s position was that they couldn’t actually track installs and were just like “trust us, no we won’t tell you how”. Apple intrinsically has a lot more information about the apps in its platform and should do so even beyond the App Store. Then again they have their “commitment to privacy” and opt-in telemetry so depending on how it works the it may not be an easy thing to accurately count even for them for the installs that are happening outside the App Store.Mixed bag
I think the approach to alternative marketplaces is great (solid compromise)… but the fee structure is pretty insulting.
Is Apple actively trying to burn bridges with developers now? The constant antagonising behaviour is so short sighted, it’s crazy. The continued success and growth of Apple’s platforms is not possible without happy developers - could they not just throw them a fucking bone for once? No one at Apple looked at the Unity fallout and thought “hmm, maybe we should rethink the Core Technology Fee…”?
I don’t want to hear the usual “Apple provides the platform, tools etc. so they deserve a fee” excuses. Yes, they deserve a cut, but the amount IS egregious. It’s not warranted. It doesn’t even “punish” the likes of Epic, it hits the smaller developers who could expand iOS in a positive way (e.g. to bring apps like games emulators to iOS through alternative app stores).
This feels like a turning point for me. I have been mostly on Apple’s side throughout this. “console like” platforms are a valid option in my view, but I am sympathetic with developers over the conditions Apple provides. There are legitimate issues and Apple has simply added more with this change. They could used this change to introduce positive change and improve relations,with the developer community, but they chose the opposite. Petty, short sighted.
Honestly, not sure if I’m overly pissed about this, will see how the dust settles…
(Also, non-WebKit browsers bad, don’t think this is a good thing for the web long term).
Oh and Unity also backported the fee structure to apps already out whereas Apple is doing this for apps changing their distribution model going forwards. So it’s not really the same - at least one of if not two of the major reasons why developers got so pissed at Unity don’t apply.
Of course the third reason developers got mad at Unity does apply, ie the open ended nature of the fee structure. So we’ll see.
I doubt Apple Pay will go anywhere - it’s too ubiquitous. But again we’ll see.
That’s essentially what they did. The rules they set up are what allow alternative app stores to exist. the walls aren’t completely down. However, as I’ve stated a couple of times, I’ll admit if I’ve misunderstood what they’re doing the walls may be lower than what they could be.
Last edited:
- Posts
- 5,349
- Reaction score
- 8,551
That’s not what notarization is for. They will catch some obvious ones, but the purpose of notarization is to ensure that a particular app came from a particular developer. This is not the normal app review process that apple does.
That’s unfortunate then. While it’s not as bad as it could be, it’s not as good either. I know the US is considering similar legislation that is restricted only to mobile devices which I think is ridiculous but I think the EU is broader. I wonder how consoles will be handled or did they carve out something for them? Again I think that would be very much the wrong thing.
- Posts
- 5,349
- Reaction score
- 8,551
I’m not aware of any US legislation that has advanced anywhere (or that is likely to advance anywhere).
The drafts are still in committee last I checked. Given the … volatility of the current political climate, I agree that its passage through Congress or even coming out of committee soon seems unlikely but weirder things have happened and there has been bipartisan support for anti-tech legislation - again for whatever that’s worth right now. I just remember being amused that Microsoft was supporting it because it specifically singled out regulating just the market for mobile phones knowing full well that if it were expanded to include consoles (as it should) the level of hissy fit they’d throw.
That’s why I’m curious as to how the consoles, especially the “digital-only” ones, will have to adapt if at all to the EU legislation. So far the focus is all on Apple and Google, but the big 3 console makers have to be looking at this knowing it eventually will come for them.
Last edited:
It’s not a choice if the app you want to use is only available in a marketplace outside the App Store.
If Meta (for example) decides to move its apps outside the App Store to circumvent privacy restrictions imposed by Apple on the App Store, a user wouldn’t be able to “choose” to keep using the version with privacy restrictions. The only way out would be to stop using their apps completely. That’s immense leverage that third party developers have now, but didn’t have before.
In the same way, I can’t “choose” to use Safari if the website I need to access only works of Chrome after the EU deliberately tanks the market share of the only non-Chromium web browser that still has some semblance of popularity.
Similar threads
