today at 3:18 AM
Thatās good news for people who enjoy the freedom of using the device they own in the way they want.
Having (alt store) presence in Australia, Brazil, EU and Japan is in fact more than enough for many indies - one can even begin to imagine ignoring the US as a region.
today at 3:33 AM
Itās also great news for app developers.
First, Apple does not follow the same rules they set for developers.
Second, Apple does not treat all developers equally. We have functionality weāre unable to offer to iOS users.
The same feature, including technical implementation mechanism, is available in Claude and Gemini. Itās unfair.
today at 3:31 AM
Iāve been thinking about open source replacements of proprietary companion apps. Itās easy enough to reverse engineer Bluetooth protocols now, but you canāt run these in websites. Putting stuff on the App Store is too expensive but sideloading could be viable.
today at 3:36 AM
Side*note: I really hope we can move away from the term "sideloading" which makes it sound like we're doing something on the down low.
Installing something is a perfectly normal operation - it's the App Store that's the special case :).
today at 3:52 AM
> one can even begin to imagine ignoring the US as a region
As someone from that region, this is probably a good idea for all parties, right now. I'm not fond of our current trajectory, and the outside pressure to change isn't sounding unreasonable.
today at 4:06 AM
But that is the region where most developers would want to target to get more revenue
today at 3:46 AM
It's terrible news for anyone who has some responsibility for the security of environments in which these devices are used.
Right now we have a relatively high confidence that as long as the devices are not jailbroken and are kept up to date they are relatively secure.
What this change means for people like me is that either there is some capability to detect whether third-party app stores are in use on a device and we will set a policy that disallows anyone using such things from accessing company data/services, or we have to lock out the devices altogether.
today at 4:26 AM
Or your company buys phones for its employees and allows only those work phones on its networks. I understand that this is an extra cost and phones are maybe more expensive than some laptops good enough for working with Office.
today at 3:56 AM
Surely it's possible to treat phones the same way as computers in corporate settings? Normal users aren't usually allowed to install whatever they want on their work PC, so why their work phone?
today at 4:10 AM
I think they were talking about bring your own device.
today at 4:13 AM
How many people bring their own laptop to work? (ignoring self-employed people and the like which this line of thinking really doesn't apply to) Phones should be treated the same way.
Personal devices shouldn't be used for work purposes to begin with. If work has security requirements regarding what phone and what condition it is in, they better be supplying their own phone to ensure those requirements are satisfied.
today at 4:30 AM
Vast majority of the people don't have the need for a separate work phone. But they benefit from accessing their work email, Teams chat, calendar, etc. from their phones.
today at 3:54 AM
The ruling doesn't ask Apple to get rid of app sandboxing. The ruling explicitly notes this:
> Moreover, because iOS apps are sandboxed, as implemented in other jurisdictions, apps available through alternative distribution will be sandboxed, which further strengthens security and reduces the likelihood that any app will compromise other apps [...]
today at 3:55 AM
Uhm, disallowing third-party stores, sure, but you draw a line that allows a non-jailbroken and updated device to be able to access company data? How is the lack of third-party app stores gonna prevent someone from sending sensitive data through the Mail app or to iCloud? Shouldn't company devices be managed with MDM to begin with?
today at 3:58 AM
"Billions of consumer phones must be locked down because our IT department is completely incompetent and incapable of providing locked down work devices"
today at 3:56 AM
> It's terrible news for anyone who has some responsibility for the security of environments in which these devices are used.
On the contrary, it allows app and payment security to be better than what Apple offers.
today at 3:53 AM
> Subject to orders 12 and 13, the first respondent must do all things necessary (including procuring any act of any related corporation) to ensure that users of iOS devices can discover, obtain and update iOS apps, including alternative app stores, via distribution channels other than the App Store (including via direct download and alternative app stores) provided those iOS apps have undergone an automated scan for genuine security and/or privacy reasons and been notarised by Apple or a suitably qualified third party (Alternative Distribution Channels), and that app developers can distribute and update such iOS apps to such users via Alternative Distribution Channels, including but not limited to providing access to all tools and APIs (including software development kits):
So notarisation is still on the table? I won't be surprised to see Apple using that for all the loophole its worth.
That is, unless that's already covered by the ruling and I just didn't see it while skimming. Maybe the Alternative Distribution Channels is that, although it doesn't seem to be defined beyond 'a suitably qualified third party', which I'm sure Apple would love to say is no-one.
Still, the rest of it is very nice. The altstores for Apple have seemed kind of useless to me just through either costing money to use or needing to connect to a PC every so often, or needing to perform some other stupid dance. If we can get the F-Droid of iOS and an option to just download and install an IPA if I want to, then I'll be pretty happy.
today at 3:59 AM
> I won't be surprised to see Apple using that for all the loophole its worth.
That has already happened on several occasions (Apple refusing notarisation, since you still need to be a member of their Developer Program thus subject to their ToS and all the crazy in it).
Hopefully, the next revision of EU's DMA and equivalent in other countries will close the loop hole.
Or maybe... John Ternus would wake up one day and decide to be a better human being and just fix this globally for everyone.
today at 4:23 AM
Your pesky morals are no match for my capitalism!
/s
today at 3:59 AM
Seems like sideloaded apps will require notorisation from Apple and some form of automated security/privacy scanning (plus a system for authorising alt stores to do the same).
Payment fees for App Store apps seem to be affected in section 9(c) - I have trouble parsing it but it seem to eliminate any fee difference between purchasing physical goods through an app (currently 0% fee) and digital goods (currently 30% fee). There's a carve out for "reasonable costs" for hosting and distributing the digital goods - this could be sensible in certain scenarios (like Netflix asking Apple to a free CDN for them).
We'll see how much malicious compliance the above produces. Otherwise I'm feeling like a happy Aussie today :)
today at 4:17 AM
As an Aussie, I hope Apple maliciously complies to the minimum extent possible until the same rules are applied to all companies equally. And I mean ALL. Every single computing platform with any kind of loadable software developed by any third party.
If the rules are good enough for Apple, they are good enough for everyone.
This might sound like a defence of Apple, and to a small extent it is. But actually, Iām being deadly serious. I think the world would be a better place if these rules applied to everyone.
āBut poor Nintendoā rings as hollow to me as ābut poor Appleā probably does to you.
today at 4:20 AM
I'd be happier if Apple willingly complied, and the rest of the companies were brought to heel next. It sets a cleaner precedent for smaller antitrust cases.
today at 4:26 AM
> There's a carve out for "reasonable costs" for hosting and distributing the digital goods - this could be sensible in certain scenarios (like Netflix asking Apple to a free CDN for them).
The way this should work is that Apple can charge whatever they want for whatever they want but then nobody can be required to use them instead of a third party. So if they want to charge 30% to distribute your app then that's fine, but then you have the option of having someone else distribute your app to customers with iOS (or hosting it yourself), in which case Apple gets 0%.
At which point they might want to get e.g. 5% of something rather than 30% of nothing.
today at 3:52 AM
Just a warning to any publishers who might want to force me into an alternative app store - I will stop using your app long before I'll install another app store.
I have a reasonable amount of confidence in Apple's due diligence around vetting apps on the app store. I can't think of another major brand that I would trust on this matter.
today at 4:16 AM
>I have a reasonable amount of confidence in Apple's due diligence around vetting apps on the app store. I can't think of another major brand that I would trust on this matter.
You should try submitting an app on the app store just to prove to yourself how not true this is. Even in the AI era. They do vet, but it's not as substantial as you think
today at 4:30 AM
Impatiently waiting for mobileconfig settings to disable all alt appstores. same reason.
today at 4:02 AM
> I will stop using your app long before I'll install another app store.
m'okay bye.
Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish by saying this? Do you think you or app developers have any leverage with Apple? A corp that's the size of several countries?
We need choices and alternative options.
today at 4:09 AM
Android is right over there ->
Or hell, anybody from AU should really spin up a tech company or build a phone
today at 4:11 AM
> Android is right over there
Where? Apple and Google are a cosy cartel engineered to never let you out.
today at 4:13 AM
You sound so helpless as if apple and google are forcing you to buy their phones. Victim much?
today at 4:24 AM
Google and Apple aren't, but my banks and government services are trying their best.
today at 3:59 AM
I'm sure the vast majority of app developers are very much uninterested in leaving Apple's App Store if they have any interest in capturing an audience of any size, unless they themselves are a giant corp and have a Fortnite or similar on their hands.
However, the looming threat of that being possible, and Apple not being able to block it from happening, will hopefully prevent Apple from making the App Store experience worse than it needs to be, both from the user's perspective, and the publisher's perspective.
today at 4:02 AM
I never understand when people make this argument. Do you just blindly install apps from the app store? Don't you know what you're downloading? Why do you rely any third party like Apple to do "due diligence" in the act of you installing software on your computer?
today at 4:01 AM
Same, but nonetheless, having more choice for whoever cares canāt be a bad thing.
Chances of my aging parents installing an alt store and getting duped are slim to none.
today at 3:55 AM
Google/Epic?
today at 4:02 AM
Yeah those are at the bottom of the list of companies I would trust
today at 4:04 AM
Yes, now say your prayers to daddy apple that he might protect you in the night.
today at 4:01 AM
I wonder if this will result in a situation where Apple will find some other means of getting paid for all of the money they spend on producing the software that allows access to their hardware. How else do you develop apps for iOS, even if you create your own store, without directly using the software and tooling they provide?
today at 4:22 AM
> How else do you develop apps for iOS, even if you create your own store, without directly using the software and tooling they provide?
Who do you suppose is the primary entity responsible for making it so that you haven't been able to do this on iOS using the variety of open source and proprietary third party development tools that people use on platforms like Linux and Windows?
today at 4:06 AM
I'm ok for Apple to allow (or be forced to allow) users to install alternative operating systems. We all use iOS not because it's great but because there is no other choice.
Of course, this will never happen, it's Apple... they can't even spell competition let alone "libre".
today at 4:14 AM
We need more government join this trend. It benefits for both user and developer.
today at 2:37 AM
This is a massive win for independent Ai.
I want to run so my agents have a local sandbox on device.
today at 3:20 AM
Does this grant any of that?
today at 3:27 AM
Nope. Apple already allows local AI model running in apps on the App Store.
today at 2:42 AM
Truly a universal concern for 99.9% of people who buy an iPhone.
today at 3:20 AM
nowhere they've said that this is a win for iPhone users.
today at 2:23 AM
Huge decision, maybe toughest Apple's seen yet.
today at 2:59 AM
They will appeal.
today at 3:22 AM
The Federal Court is already Australia's second-highest court. The only higher level is the High Court, and like the US Supreme Court, they're quite picky about what appeals they'll accept.
today at 3:27 AM
They will, but they've already been through this in the EU. They will take several years to drag this out through courts and "negotiations" until they comply so maliciously you'll need a new term for that.
today at 3:34 AM
> until they comply so maliciously you'll need a new term for that.
The ruling is pretty clear that malicious compliance won't be accepted. There's a whole section on all the things apple isn't allowed to do to get around this ruling, starting with this:
> the first respondent must not (including by procuring any act of any related corporation) prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder users of iOS devices from discovering, obtaining and updating iOS apps, including alternative app stores, via Alternative Distribution Channels, or from using iOS apps obtained in that way on iOS devices, or prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder app developers from distributing and updating such iOS apps to such users via Alternative Distribution Channels, ...
today at 3:05 AM
Where is my pop-corn?
today at 3:06 AM
"Apple has lost major, high-profile appeals before the European Union courts in two primary landmark matters, while also winning an earlier round in one of them."
today at 3:24 AM
So now that Tim Cook is gone will we see John Ternus actually apply some braincells to this?
Theyāre just going to keep losing. And every time they fight they make it worse. They had a chance to get off way easier years ago. They destroyed it by fighting tooth and nail.
I donāt want any of those features myself, I donāt think. Small chance at side-loading.
But everyone, even diehard Apple pundits, realized long ago this was a very stupid hill to die on.
today at 3:23 AM
I feel incredibly proud do to be Australian right now.
I like how the courtās declarations are punchy, factual, and dare I say obvious. Iād suggest giving section 1 a read.
Thereās going to be a million āwhat ifsā, from walled gardens to security to āyou donāt have to use iOSā, but itās blatantly obvious this is all about competition and money.
Itās anticompetitive, illegal, and the remedy is to cease these anticompetitive actions.
today at 3:51 AM
This is getting ridiculous by Apple.
Just do it worldwide. I go regularly between AU and HK and sorry but it'd be ridiculous half of functionality works in one but not the other
today at 3:25 AM
EU got there first, and Apple sabotaged the entire process anyway. Look at the requirements for setting up and running an alt store that Apple imposes.
today at 3:31 AM
Read the ruling. It's clearly written with Apple's EU schenanagens in mind:
> 4. Subject to orders 12 and 13, the first respondent must not (including by procuring any act of any related corporation) prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder users of iOS devices from discovering, obtaining and updating iOS apps, including alternative app stores, via Alternative Distribution Channels, or from using iOS apps obtained in that way on iOS devices, or prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder app developers from distributing and updating such iOS apps to such users via Alternative Distribution Channels, including but not limited to: ..
Then it goes on to list all the ways Apple isn't allowed to quietly break 3rd party app stores - like, they can't make developers or users pay money to use them. They can't restrict which APIs are allowed to be used via 3rd party stores. They can't require that people who publish apps in the official store remove their apps from 3rd party stores. And so on.
today at 3:35 AM
Ooooh. This is good.
Unfortunately, I still expect Apple to invent new ways to circumvent that :( But really good on court's part.
today at 3:55 AM
They could switch to a different mechanism for app stores every month. Force app stores to be rewritten every month to use a procedurally generated new API, developers have to re-apply every month, and users have to go through the laborious setup process every month. And every time, present it with a cheerful message: "To bring a childlike sense of wonder to our customers, today we launch the new improved 3rd party app store API"
today at 4:15 AM
Yes, because courts are made of stupid people who wonāt see right through this. IANAL, but from what I read, āwell, technicallyā¦ā often does not amuse a judge.
today at 3:45 AM
Great, now iOS users can get crapware and malware just like android users. Freedom!
today at 4:06 AM
[dead]
today at 3:30 AM
[flagged]
today at 3:46 AM
This is disappointing to see. Apple has invested billions of dollars into building the iPhone and part of its business model is having a central App Store. Instead of trying to encourage other phone manufactures to compete, they are forcing there to be competition within Apple's own ecosystem they created. Apple built their hole platform which is why they are able to make choices on how it works.
It is punishing Apple for building too great of a product.
today at 4:21 AM
Apple seems to feel that way, but theyāre wrong.
today at 3:59 AM
If Apple's business model requires preventing their users from using the device they bought as they want, and overcharging commissions on software built by third parties, their business model is wrong.
today at 4:03 AM
/s ?