return to table of content

Apple must open iPadOS to sideloading within 6 months, EU says

DCKing
78 replies
10h52m

The iPad App Store is perhaps an even more dysfunctional place than the iPhone in how much it holds hardware and use cases hostage to the manufacturer's vision. Just imagine how much more versatile the iPad Pro would be if only you could run Linux VMs on it in the moments you want to do anything remotely tinkery on an iPad.

Apple's hardware since the 2021 iPad Pro (with M1) has had the ability to do this. The iPads have the RAM (16gb on higher storage models), appropriate keyboard and trackpads, the works. Great hardware being held back by Apple's vision people weren't allowed to deviate from.

A straightforward reading of the DMA suggests that Apple is not allowed to restrict apps from using hardware features. Let's hope that means Parallels/VMware style VMs are possible without too much of a fight.

BillyTheKing
29 replies
9h47m

totally agree - the iPad Pro could be a great second coding/programming tool - I'd love to justify buying myself one, but.. I just don't see a use-case if I can't work on it. I don't design stuff, don't really feel like I need a separate browsing device either

dainiusse
19 replies
9h27m

Yep, I've got one and don't use too much. Too big for scrolling, too limited (software) for work. But Apple knows iPad might cannibalize mac and limit it's uses on purpose

whywhywhywhy
15 replies
6h49m

But Apple knows iPad might cannibalize mac and limit it's uses on purpose

Felt the goal was to overtake Mac during the 2015-2019 era, all the real engineering focus was on iPad, the Macs were underpowered and not really fit for purpose.

Why would Apple choose a platform where they don't get 30% of every Creative Cloud sub when they could have had that.

Only reason they backtracked was because Mac sales didn't fall off and the iPad just isn't that good to do real work on.

rickdeckard
13 replies
6h17m

I believe it's simply more lucrative to keep selling both devices to the same target group, than try to solve the users' problem with a single device.

Everything in Apple is designed to silo off the two product groups.

An "iPad with MacOS" would just shift revenue from the MacOS division to the iPad division, losing a MacOS customer and probably NOT gaining a iPad customer (as he would have purchased an iPad anyway).

Just as much as developing an MacBook convertible is not an issue of user experience but an issue of unnecessary cannibalization of iPad sales...

latexr
8 replies
6h5m

By that logic, the iPhone wouldn’t have been able to play music as soon as it launched. Yet that was part of the whole pitch: “an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator”.

richrichardsson
3 replies
5h31m

Not so sure.

From mid-to-late 90s onwards a mobile phone was basically an essential item.

I was never tempted to buy an iPod, but combine the phone and iPod and give me internet access to boot... sold.

latexr
2 replies
4h6m

I was never tempted to buy an iPod, but combine the phone and iPod and give me internet access to boot... sold.

Before the iPhone there were already phones which could play music and access the web. I even remember some Motorolas which interacted directly with iTunes. The iPhone didn’t succeed just by smooshing those together.

Either way, that’s neither here nor there, the point is precisely that Apple didn’t shy away from cannibalising their own product.

rickdeckard
0 replies
1h6m

I don't know how it is relevant what Apple did on other products, especially "pre-iPhone".

The point is that TODAY the PC line and the iPad line of Apple are quite notable silo'ed to very specific usage-patterns.

There is no technical reason for that, but the distinct commercial reason that there is nothing to gain in terms of revenue or profit by combining the two products into one.

They both sell fine and at great margin separately, there is little to gain by building an iPad Pro that is 2000 USD and supports the use-cases of both a 600 USD iPad and a 1600 USD MacBook respectively.

Quite bluntly: You want the iPad to be convenient in a workflow as far as possible, and then SUCK really bad in a way only a fully synchronized Macbook can fix.

frumper
0 replies
1h54m

It was cannibalizing a cheaper iPod for a more expensive iPhone. iPad would be taking from the more expensive MacBook market.

rickdeckard
2 replies
4h58m

And then the iPod died.

latexr
1 replies
4h10m

Yes, exactly, that’s the point. Apple did it to themselves. They didn’t “silo off the two product groups”.

rickdeckard
0 replies
3h0m

Then either your point is the same as the one I made, or I don't get your point.

rickdeckard
0 replies
4h59m

The iPod is a product of the pre-iPhone times. Apple used its dominance in Music players to enter the cellphone space.

The iPhone was an iPod combined with an iTunes store, allowing the user to buy content without being in front of a PC, and only buy from Apple.

It was an iPod and a Browser that could be sold in huge volumes via a carrier.

Ah yeah. And a Phone.

ajdude
3 replies
1h35m

This is the same reason behind the Apple Pencil not working on the iPhone. Despite the iPhone approaching sizes of an iPad mini, I can't use the incredibly expensive pencil on an iPhone because according to Apple only the iPad should be used for tablet stuff.

Kirby64
2 replies
1h15m

What? The Apple Pencil works because there’s a special digitizer layer on the screen for pencil compatible devices that allows it to work. This isn’t included on the iPhone. Same reason a Samsung S-Pen doesn’t work on devices that don’t support it.

rickdeckard
1 replies
1h1m

I think the technical reason why the Pencil doesn't work is beside the point here.

Apple is building the hardware, and they decide that the Pencil use-case a iPhone user may have shall not be covered by buying an Apple Pencil, but by buying an iPad (and a Apple Pencil)

Kirby64
0 replies
55m

The technical reason is important, though. If it was totally free I suspect they’d allow it to function, but it doesn’t… so burdening the 200M iPhones with the additional cost of the pencil hardware is a trade off not worth taking. Just like Samsung not “allowing” S-pen to work on most of the phones since adding the digitizer element would be a silly cost adder, especially for their super cheap phones.

sakjur
0 replies
6h28m

Wasn’t that the period when Apple were positioning themselves to get the Macs away from Intel? I’m not sure the goal was to let the iPad overtake as much as it was to get its processors ready to take over from Intel.

xoac
1 replies
8h42m

Not sure if this is true. I mean wasn’t the vision that you actually don’t need the mac for most things when the ipad came out?

ako
0 replies
8h7m

For certain groups of people (the majority?) that is reality, as long as you don’t need compilers, IDEs, or virtualization you can do pretty much anything on an iPad.

latexr
0 replies
6h8m

But Apple knows iPad might cannibalize mac and limit it's uses on purpose

Apple isn’t afraid to cannibalise its own products. They did exactly that with the iPhone in regard to the iPod. If someone is going to displace one of your most successful products, it better be yourself with something even more outstanding.

It would have been in Apple’s best (financial) interest to have the iPad cannibalise the Mac because they’d have more control and earn more money from app sales.

immibis
3 replies
6h12m

Why not buy one of the hundreds of non-Apple tablets which can do what you want?

chongli
2 replies
5h54m

Because they don’t run iPadOS? People love all the things the OS can do. They just wish it wouldn’t stop them from doing that one thing in particular that they it to do.

Tantalizingly close to perfection with one glaring flaw is extremely frustrating!

immibis
1 replies
5h53m

What can it do that other ones can't? Integration with Apple's walled garden is the most common complaint.

chongli
0 replies
4h29m

It's the UI. It is designed from the ground up for touch. People who like iPadOS do not like Windows Surface tablets for that exact reason. A desktop UI that's been shoehorned into a tablet is not as good as a purpose-built touch UI.

d0mine
2 replies
8h33m

iPad (any model) with keyboard-cover can be used as a great portable ssh/mosh terminal (eg with Termius app). I work in Emacs--most functionality is available via terminal.

oefrha
1 replies
6h30m

The keyboard cover keyboard is shit though, I hate every second with it. Plus no escape etc.

accrual
0 replies
6h6m

I've never owned a keyboard cover, but one could bring a TKL or 60% mechanical keyboard for the full typing experience without a laptop - might be a good compromise for some.

lutoma
0 replies
6h40m

I switched from an iPad to a Surface Go 3 running Fedora a while ago and it really transformed my tablet use. I mostly just watched Youtube videos and did some light browsing on my iPad, but never really any serious work. Occcasionally I would ssh into other machines using apps like Blink, but even with the external keyboard the UX just feels ... off. Same for other apps that have IDE-like environments. They work, but they're never really great to use.

I was skeptical about getting a Linux tablet because of the worse battery life and less polished overall experience, but having a desktop Firefox with all add-ons, my text editor of choice, and the ability to open a terminal and run whatever I want really more than makes up for it (Plus GNOME is a pretty good tablet experience out of the box these days as long as you broadly stick to their 'official' apps).

changoplatanero
9 replies
8h51m

Is it right to say that currently the cost of the hardware is being partly subsidized by the profits Apple makes from the software? If some of the profit from the software gets taken away will we see the price of the hardware rise?

fauigerzigerk
2 replies
8h17m

Probably not. If the current price is optimal then it will remain optimal even if costs rise.

labcomputer
1 replies
4h5m

That's really not true. The optimal (in the sense of where the supply and demand curves intersect) price for maximum profit rises as costs rise. It's true that the revenue-optimal price remains the same, but I think Apple's shareholders care more about profit than revenue.

To build intuition on this, it helps to think about the extreme cases: If the marginal cost of production is zero, you can sell the product for close to zero to pick up pennies from almost every human on earth. So the revenue-maximizing and profit-maximizing prices depend on demand elasticity, but are both low.

If the marginal cost of production is a million dollars, selling for anything less than that will result in negative unit economics. You can still maximize revenue with low prices, but that incurs negative per-unit profit. In fact, the price must be more than one million dollars per unit to make any profit. That might imply that the profit-maximizing condition is one unit sold for $1m+1.

For certain demand curves, that might even imply the profit-maximizing condition is to tell zero units! A real-world example of this is Rivian. They have negative unit economics, and would be more profitable if they simply stopped production.

I think what confuses some people is that all these things can be (and are) true at once:

1. The price where Apple achieves maximum profit under the new rules is higher than before.

2. After raising prices, that profit will be less than what they earned before.

3. Units sold will be less than before.

4. Apple won't reduce prices in response to the lower profit because the new higher prices, lower quantity and lower profit are profit-maximal under the new market conditions.

What we will observe in practice is not higher MSRPs in Europe, but fewer discounts (it is an open secret that you should never buy an Apple product without at least a 10% discount).

I see a lot of people claiming (I believe disingenuously) that the changes forced by the EU will convince them to consider buying Apple's products in the future. If you believe those people, that's yet another reason to think Apple hardware prices will rise in Europe: Both the supply and demand curves are moving in directions that imply higher prices.

fauigerzigerk
0 replies
2h22m

You are right. My earlier claim is incorrect. It is not a certainty that the optimal price doesn't change when costs rise. It really depends on demand elasticity.

My reasoning was this: If Apple can get away with a higher price without demand dropping off, why would they not charge this higher price in the first place?

But the idea is flawed. Apple could ultimately make more money selling fewer more expensive devices at higher margins than selling more devices at lower margins. So you're absolutely right.

Of course they could also make less profit by protecting their margins. We don't know.

varispeed
1 replies
8h38m

The cost of custom chips is massive, but then manufacturing is cheap - after selling N units to pay off the initial investment, it's almost free (unit cost) when done at scale.

lotsofpulp
0 replies
7h11m

I don’t think manufacturing would end up almost free for any of the newest chips since there are such tight tolerances and high failure rates. At least not for quite a few more years when (if?) there are competing fabs.

spacebanana7
0 replies
8h43m

In an economic textbook sense, yes.

In the current situation Apple has to consider that a marginal price rise in hardware will lose marginal revenue in software, thereby shifting the equilibrium price of hardware lower.

curt15
0 replies
7h55m

No, Apple already earns legendary profits (something like 30%) from hardware alone.

abenga
0 replies
7h20m

Margins on Apple hardware are generally quite robust.

Rinzler89
0 replies
8h21m

>Is it right to say that currently the cost of the hardware is being partly subsidized by the profits Apple makes from the software?

No, it wouldn't be. You're probably thinking about gaming consoles who's HW is sold at a loss or at very thin profit margins and subsidized by the more expensive game purchases, but Apple hardware already has the highest profit margins of any HW manufacturer out there, and at their 200 USD per 8GB of commodity RAM and NAND chips, you better believe it.

So no, they don't need the walled garden SW money to fund HW. Their HW alone brings in plenty of cash.

walterbell
7 replies
8h12m

> Just imagine how much more versatile the iPad Pro would be if only you could run Linux VMs on it

After installing https://ish.app for Alpine Linux emulation on iPad, one immediately comes up with use cases, even though it's excruciatingly slow.

Hopefully Apple opens up the imminent M3 iPad Pros to allow macOS and Linux VMs, even if the feature is initially price segmented to devices with extra RAM. The iPad 4:3 high-resolution screen offers unmatched vertical real estate for text editing.

rickdeckard
6 replies
7h42m

As long as the majority of the target group keeps buying MacBooks AND iPads, I doubt that Apple has an incentive to cannibalize its own product line.

They are well-aware of this, visible from the fact that they never bothered to add a touch panel or Pen-support to any MacBook, or make the Watch a standalone device: Customers wanting this either buy the devices individually anyway, or wouldn't be willing to hand over the sum of all combined devices for a single "superset" device.

Just imagine that Apple's view of the "iPad Pro with MacOS" demographic are customers who purchased a 1600 USD MacBook and a 1000 USD iPad. Is the "iPad with MacOS" able to replace either of those? Would they be able to charge 2600 USD for that device and sell comparable volumes?

xattt
5 replies
7h29m

I see the Watch the same as a late 90s Palm device. You can’t make it standalone, because it depends on a larger device for configuration.

Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that it be made available for Android users as well.

skhunted
2 replies
6h30m

I have the large Apple Watch. It has cell capabilities. I wish it was a standalone device. I don’t need a phone. The cellular watch could replace my phone if Apple allowed standalone devices. I doubt they will ever allow people to have a cellular watch without being tied to a phone.

nehal3m
1 replies
6h12m

I also have a cellular Watch. Combined with some AirPods it works great if all you need is phonecalls which is a good use case if you want to be available without a time sucking little monster in your pocket.

trogdor
0 replies
9m

I think their point was that you have to pair Apple Watch with an iPhone in order to use cellular, and they wish you could use cellular Apple Watch without having to own an iPhone.

rickdeckard
0 replies
6h28m

Yes, also for Android users.

I see the Watch the same as a late 90s Palm device.

Yes, but the LTE-variant is more along the lines of a Palm Treo.

Apple could probably make it link to a MacBook with very little effort, and to all other platforms with just a little more.

It's just a direction not worth for Apple to explore, because in their view those are just customers who have "not yet bought an iPhone", so why try to win them with the Watch if it just prolongs their journey to the iPhone

HenryBemis
0 replies
7h10m

I bought some Apple Watches (because of reasons). I am wearing one right now. Model 3 (Nike edition or something). I've switched everything off (WiFi, Bluetooth, analytics, the whole thing). It only shows the date and time. The battery lasts 4-5 days.

It's amazing when you shut down the telemetry-battery-draining functionality of devices. And to add some more insult, I am using an Android phone, which ofc don't even try to connect to my watch :) I believe -and Gemini just confirmed- that they don't work together.

it depends on a larger device for configuration

yes, the architecture was purposfully made, so that the Watch only collects your bio-metrics, with limited own/independent functionality. They (Apple) does want everyone in the 'garden', so why open it up?

TaylorAlexander
6 replies
8h42m

Oh gosh if I could use a series of iPad apps to run a Linux system on an iPad I’d be so happy. I mean I could get an android tablet but I don’t really like android. I’m fine with iOS and I love Linux, so sticking those two together would be really nice.

Actually I’d love to run a Linux VM on my iPhone too!

op00to
5 replies
7h43m

What’s the benefit to you of a VM on your iPhone when you can simply ssh to a vm somewhere else? Not saying there isn’t a benefit, but curious about what you want to do. Other than people who are in the middle of nowhere, which at that point I’d recommend a raspberry pi and a battery bank or a laptop or something.

I use the pi and battery for running various ham radio stuff while out in a park or whatever and connect from an iPad, and that works very well in my use case.

Rinzler89
3 replies
6h30m

>iPhone when you can simply ssh to a vm somewhere else?

Like not having reliable internet access everywhere. In a lot of areas mobile internet is spotty. Or you're in roaming so it's insanely expensive.

Plus we already have these powerful devices in out pocket, more powerful than PC's were 10 years ago, sitting idly doing nothing most of the time, why not put them to use when in need instead of paying for some extra remote cloud compute on top of that.

Also, VMs don't just mean Linux for web development, it could be a VM for retro gaming or running things in VM for security sandboxing etc. That would be really neat to always have with me instead of having to ssh all the time.

skydhash
2 replies
6h13m

While I agree with your use case, doing nothing most of the time is how those devices last day long on a battery and can run without a fan. My MBA get toasty when I OCR a pdf, I cannot imagine a phone on a sustained load.

trogdor
0 replies
7m

My MBA get toasty when I OCR a pdf

Apple silicon?

Rinzler89
0 replies
6h5m

>doing nothing most of the time is how those devices last day long on a battery

But It will run down the battery only for me, not for you. Why do you care about how I want use my battery life? You don't have to do what I do, with your own phone. You can just keep using like a regular phone if that's all you want. Me having more freedom with my own device, does not reduce your freedoms you have with your own device.

I paid for the device and I own it so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it how I like even if it runs the battery in 2 hours? That's why I have portable power banks and GAN chargers. They can even throw in a disclaimer about waving your rights to warranty for devices used like that.

Otherwise what's the point of all that technological progress of M* chips if all that we're allowed to wo with them is browse Instagram but now even faster, and play Candy Crush but now with ray tracing.

probably_wrong
0 replies
6h17m

I have some benefits in mind.

First, in the major European city where I live mobile internet is not super reliable and flat data packs are relatively expensive - I have one because I develop a lot on trains, but most of my friends don't.

Second: it's a waste of hardware and money. If I can already run the thing on my device, renting twice as much hardware for the same result is hard to justify.

And finally, it keeps my data under my power. Some of the work I do has strict requirements on what I can do with the data, and "upload it to a cheap cloud provider" is not on that list.

MyFirstSass
5 replies
8h19m

Another thing is the issue of e-waste.

At some point i had multiple older iPads with perfectly great screens, and i wanted to use them as "hubs" for a home setup to control various things, another option was using them as secondary screens, or maybe just give them to a kid.

You couldn't, they were simply to old for the new IOS update, and almost all apps including browsers requires the newer IOS and update automatically without asking - essentially bricking them on purpose.

Anyway i ended up giving them to a "safe e-waste center" but i'm sceptical they'll actually be recycled.

I think locking down a device should be illegal especially e-waste considered, and if there's some reason not to, then it should at least be opened the day official support ends so the device can be used to watch videos/games for kids/whatever.

manderley
1 replies
7h41m

Of course they were recycled, there are valuable minerals in these devices.

MyFirstSass
0 replies
7h28m

Well, in my country there's been multiple scandals about waste handling where it was found very little ended up being recycled, the sorting people did in some cases created more pollution because it had to be transported and huge amounts ended up in big dumps of toxic assorted garbage either here or in some third world country where kids then make a few cents a day scavenging in the toxic piles.

So yeah, i'm sceptical. There's a reason it's called reduce, re-use, recycle as a very distant third as far as i've seen.

pzo
0 replies
7h41m

Same, I wish once device stops being supported it should give easy option to be jailbroken and unlock bootloader. Such devices could be retrofitted for many other roles e.g robotics toy with arduino/raspberrypi, smart home, smart router etc.

pquki4
0 replies
6h55m

A story going in completely different direction --

I have a Sony Xperia phone from 2017. It has stopped receiving OS updates after Android 8, and I don't use it any more other than occasionally as a backup phone. A while ago, I discovered that people on xda are putting LineageOS (a custom ROM based on AOSP) with Android 14 on it, tried that myself, and it works! As slow as the phone is, it can run apps without any problem. This is truly amazing.

bojan
0 replies
7h30m

As a counterexample, the other day I found my old Nexus 5, from 2013, running Android 6. While it was not completely straightforward, I was able to reset the phone and link it to a new Google account, and after several cycles of updates the entire Google suite seems to work, including Maps, and not slowly at that. I was, and still am, genuinely impressed.

f6v
4 replies
7h55m

I don’t think versatile devices are possible. I love iPad Pro for what it is. I tried Surface Pro and it was a much inferior tablet experience, even though the device is more “versatile”. I just doing think that you can get an excellent tablet by trying to be a laptop at the same time.

cromka
2 replies
7h44m

It’s a screen. Add a regular Bluetooth keyboard mouse and you have a PC. There’s no compromise here from hardware perspective, it’s just software that’s in the way.

freeopinion
0 replies
4h45m

Remember the size of the original iPhone? I have long wondered why nobody makes a universal compute brick in such a form factor without a screen. Then sell 5" or 7" or 10" or 27" screens with and without touch that connect to the little brick.

I can buy a 15" screen right now for under $75. It's the ultimate super-thin laptop if you remove the compute and keep the brick in your purse/backpack/holster.

For extra points, connect two compute bricks for more muscle.

TheFuzzball
0 replies
7h0m

The UI elements on iPadOS are necessarily larger to accommodate touch.

It's just a lot less information dense than macOS, and making it the same scale will make using it as a touch device harder.

sseagull
0 replies
6h58m

I have a Surface Pro and really like it. But for sure it is 100% a compromise experience, especially on the tablet side.

But part of it was reconditioning myself; the “proper tablet experience” largely comes from limitations of what they let you do with it. And with more features comes some complexity. For me it’s worth the tradeoff.

huhtenberg
1 replies
8h2m

Isn't iSH is a toy shell? The last time I looked at it, it didn't provide any access to the actual iPad OS or file system details.

EraYaN
0 replies
6h44m

Well it will probably never, since all apps are always within the sandbox. The idea is to ssh out to some other system. Besides the actual iOS shell is not so interesting or useful anyway. (Jailbroken devices have had them for a while, you won't be running your nvim and git stuff locally anytime soon.)

shepherdjerred
1 replies
1h15m

I've been so confused about Apple advertising the capabilities of the M1 iPad -- it's got a _real_ processor, it's so fast!

...but nothing on the iPad can _really_ use it.

trogdor
0 replies
2m

That’s simply not true. For example, Final Cut Pro, Davinci Resolve and Logic Pro all exist as iPad apps.

niutech
1 replies
7h20m

You can run Linux on iPad today, see the options: https://ipadlinux.org

pquki4
0 replies
5h41m

While this is doable, it is far from an enjoyable experience -- many packages are not available on iSH or have issues, for example. Most people are not going to replace their laptop with these two apps.

grishka
1 replies
9h29m

Not just VMs, you could technically also run things like PC emulators, with real PC operating systems, especially older ones, with acceptable performance. Just imagine using Windows 98 on an iPad!

accrual
0 replies
6h5m

Reminds me of running Windows 95 under Bochs on the Sony PSP. The the CPU turned up to max (333MHz) it was just barely fast enough to impress your friends. ;)

talldayo
0 replies
3h5m

Lmao at UTM still being harder to install than QEMU

inopinatus
0 replies
8h4m

the FreeBSD project has a unique opportunity

anileated
36 replies
10h38m

Do I think side-loading and alt app stores would make iPads and iPhones more versatile devices? Yes.

Do I believe indie devs will be worse off? Unfortunately, also yes.

If you are a solo app developer, you will now have to keep presence on all app stores out there, since if you don’t publish on one then a copycat will. Every store would have its own review processes, fee structures, billing and tax procedures. Since you would need to follow a dozen of those, as an indie operation realistically you will either go under or pay middleman companies a chunk for this—so, in the end, you’ll lose the same cut or more and we’re back to the starting point.

Furthermore, I believe you will have much less protection against plain piracy, which was a big thing in the days of yore until it was spectacularly dealt with by Apple within its mobile ecosystem.

This is why I suspect the primary interests side-loading and alt app stores on Apple devices would satisfy is large enterprises and a few opportunistic middlemen. Entities like Epic, Netflix, who will be able to generate more profit; governments, perhaps; a few publishing companies (think CDBaby for apps) will win small time; some users who don’t want to pay and want to get things for free might be able to get their way; indie devs will be worse off.

madeofpalk
9 replies
9h25m

1) Users win. The first alt app store didn't even launch and it pressured Apple to change it's review policies TWICE. Once to allow game streaming services, and then to allow game emulators. Hell, even developers won here.

2) How did this play out on every other platform. Sure - piracy exists, but most don't and it's pretty non-impactful AFAICT.

gtufano
7 replies
8h58m

Piracy is not-impactful is not true. The disappearance of indie software that do not depend on a remote server (or that's not software on a remote server) is basically due to the inability to monetize with sales native, stand-alone, software. And that's for the piracy.

In some way, the success of the App Store towards indie/solo developers is because there was a way to sell things without the piracy easily steal your sales.

Yes, I know that "it's not stealing", "it's not theft", etc. Beside the ethical/moral conundrum of piracy, the fact is that it destroys the market for small developers.

meepmorp
2 replies
8h46m

Piracy literally cannot affect the economic wellbeing of content or software producers. It is logically impossible!

If it weren't, you wouldn't be experiencing this cascade of downvotes, so get with the program.

robertlagrant
0 replies
8h32m

If it weren't, you wouldn't be experiencing this cascade of downvotes, so get with the program.

Disregarding this statement's general silliness, it is also downvoted. Now we're in a paradox. Downvotes mean you're wrong, so the statement that downvotes mean you're wrong..is wrong?

Zr40
0 replies
8h34m

This would be true if the only alternative to piracy is not using said content or software. If paying is a valid alternative to a nonzero fraction of pirate users if piracy was not an option, then the piracy does affect the creators economically.

Adverblessly
2 replies
7h32m

There have been various efforts to estimate the effect piracy has on revenue like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15319476 or http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Another-view-of-game-piracy

So depending on product category it might be a large drop (EU study finds -38% displacement rate for books) but it might also be a boost (EU study finds +24% for video games), and it is hard to say in general, since even a 90% piracy rate might only mean a maximum of 5%-10% lost sales (from the wolfire blog post). Either way it isn't at the level of "impossible to succeed".

If we are talking about app stores specifically, I bet a much bigger factor in (lack of) success is discoverability, both because your app is literally hard to find and because app store owners allow a flow of cheap clones to compete with your genuine app.

gtufano
1 replies
7h6m

Well, the point I was trying to make, said in another way is that the initial success of App Store (iOS, in particular) was driven that the fact that , suddenly, users thought that was OK to pay for the software. I think that the (relative) lack of piracy and difficulty for ordinary users to install pirated software has been a key factor in the success of it: "there's an app for that, and I can't easily find it for free".

The other point I was trying to make is that the disappearance of "stand-alone" apps, not tied to a web service, is primarily driven by the fact that, this way, you can avoid piracy. You can offer a free-tier (that would be eaten by the piracy anyway) and sell (say) a synchronize, or additional features tied to a web service (so not printable).

May be it's not the only thing, but that's what (anecdotically) I hear from solo-indie-very small developers.

I fully agree with you on both the current discoverability problem and also with games piracy having a different, may be even not negative effect.

_aavaa_
0 replies
6h57m

suddenly, users thought that was OK to pay for the software

I would argue almost the opposite way. Users are now conditioned to expect the software to be free with ads of 99 cents. Both greatly lowering the cap on what people can charge for software due to expectations. Instead we've seen the rise of subscription services apps that have no business needing one.

immibis
0 replies
3h3m

The only evidence is that developers think they need to do these things because of piracy, which is not the same as actually needing to. A moral panic about a thing does not prove the thing is actually a problem, and the effects of the panic itself shouldn't be blamed on the thing, either.

fingerlocks
0 replies
6h12m

I ported my lucrative iPhone games to Android back in the early days, 2010-11. They were immediately copied and re-uploaded to Google Play (I think it was still called Android Store back then). I mean literally duplicated, not a single thing changed. Just using my binary under someone else’s name. And then it was freely downloadable all over the web. Just wide open theft and piracy with no help or enforcement from Google.

Took all summer to port those games and I made maybe five bucks for the effort. Never again.

pjerem
4 replies
10h0m

This is already mitigated with copyright laws.

If a copycat is using your brand, you’ll have zero issue removing them from any App Store. If a copycat is just copying your app, well, that’s called a competitor.

kgc
2 replies
9h51m

Indie devs typically won’t have the resources to monitor and react to a constant flow of copycats.

viraptor
0 replies
9h34m

If it's a common issue, services for automatic multi-store deployment and checks like that will appear very soon.

blackoil
0 replies
9h41m

No one copies small indie apps. Copying makes sense only with popular apps.

Also, web is very open ecosystem and phishing is a problem but for users and corporate, not for small devs

labcomputer
0 replies
3h54m

And if the store is hosted outside of Europe? Just like how nobody can access the pirate bay?

mrighele
4 replies
10h1m

I disagree. First of all I expect competing stores to ask a smaller cut than what currently Apple asks (and Apple itself may lower it), so it may very well be the case even with a middleman the amount "lost" by the developer will be lower. Not a given though, I guess we will see.

Secondly, the Android ecosystem seems to be doing well even with the situation you describe. There are not that many competing stores (mostly from sellers of devices, like huawei, samsung, amazon, which is something will not happen with Apple devices), and piracy, while present is not as commons as with desktops.

outofpaper
2 replies
9h32m

I agree with you on most counts save for the piracy. It's highly dependent on market segment, with less affluent sectors especially with youth you'll find very high privacy rates.

I look forward to the day an fdroid like platform is available on Apple phones and tablets.

saintfire
0 replies
6h25m

I'd contend that profiteering off of youth is more questionably moral than piracy among youth.

I pirated virtually everything I consumed as a kid/teen and now that I have money I pay for it. The companies I pirated off of lost nothing because I had no means to purchase it anyways.

madeofpalk
0 replies
9h24m

Are you making much money from less affluent sectors anyway? Existance of piracy doesn't mean loss of sales. I would guess that most pirated software was never going to be purchased anyway.

wellthisisgreat
0 replies
7h0m

Secondly, the Android ecosystem seems to be doing well

Android apps are notoriously pirated through and through. For a smaller company in developed market anything Android is a second thought because monetization is much harder

justinclift
2 replies
10h29m

I believe

Maybe give it some time to see how things shake out, before tying yourself to strong "beliefs" up front?

pantulis
1 replies
10h2m

It's fair: beliefs are like that, you have them before seeing how things shake out.

justinclift
0 replies
9h10m

beliefs are like that

Not really a common approach with the people I know.

People can make educated guesses ahead of facts. That's pretty standard.

But having strong "beliefs" without evidence just means there's no real basis for the "belief". And that makes it just an irrational feeling or wish-for-it-to-be-true for whatever reason.

heavyset_go
1 replies
9h44m

Do I believe indie devs will be worse off? Unfortunately, also yes.

Worse off than having 15% to 30% of their entire revenue stream taken? Doubt it.

bluescrn
0 replies
9h4m

Indie game devs gave up on mobile almost a decade ago, when the F2P wrecking ball swung its way through mobile gaming.

(Have the top games even changed since then? some variant of Clash of Credit Cards dominating?)

76SlashDolphin
1 replies
10h0m

Do you think sideloading hurts indie developers on Android? I believe that over time the situation on iOS will become identical to the one on Android - Google Play/the App Store will be the primary way to install apps for 99% of users since it's the default and has the biggest catalogue; some companies that are unhappy with Google Play/App Store fees will have an alternative store just for their apps (see Epic games), and advanced users will have an "advanced user" appstore with apps that either Apple/Google don't want to support or developed by people who don't want to pay a Google/Apple developer fees (i.e. mostly open-source hobbyist apps), along the lines of F-Droid. It appears the iOS equivalent of that will be AltStore.

If that's what happens then I see no way for this to be bad for indie devs - the ones who want to write a paid app and can afford the upfront capital to publish can still do so on the store with 99% of users, while those who don't have the capital or don't want to publish paid apps now have the option of going with AltStore.

This is what I hope happens at least, as I am a big fan of Apple hardware but absolutely despise how its software treats me like a baby. If Android can allow for more freedom without compromising security by hiding advanced features behind several scary menus and parental controls then I don't see why Apple can't have the same.

user_7832
0 replies
9h32m

I hardly see any critic of the DMA talk about things like F-Droid. I suppose the generous explanation is that they don't know.

user_7832
0 replies
9h33m

You raise some valid points, but I believe your comparison isn't quite complete/holistic.

If you are a solo app developer, you will now have to keep presence on all app stores out there, since if you don’t publish on one then a copycat will.

This doesn't make much sense. The App Store will still be where 90%+ apps are installed from, and I'm willing to bet money on that. Where are all the Google Play devs pushing their apps on the Amazon store or on 3rd party app stores?

Furthermore, I believe you will have much less protection against plain piracy, which was a big thing in the days of yore until it was spectacularly dealt with by Apple within its mobile ecosystem.

Depending on your familiarity you already had lots of such websites (I'm not going to mention any names but it's easily googleable if anyone wants to verify). Yes keeping the app for >7 days was a pain as they expire but a 3rd party altserver helps with that.

This is why I suspect the primary interests side-loading and alt app stores on Apple devices would satisfy is large enterprises and a few opportunistic middlemen.

Have you taken a look at any of the privacy forums/subreddits? Places where they use say GrapheneOS? Do you know what's their favorite app store? It's this thing called F-droid. And it only contains open source apps. Such a move would be amazing for open source devs. Hell, it would be great for beginner/hobbyist devs too. I (ages ago) had tried my hand at android dev. And unlike iOS, you don't need to pay $99 to appease the Apple gods for that. Free publishing is great for indie and small devs who may never hit $99/yr revenue.

Btw, afaik you already needed to pay a higher price for youtube premium if subscribing through the app. And apple's draconian/benevolent-and-super-nice policies (/s) meant that you couldn't even tell your users to get it for cheaper from elsewhere. Would you like paying 30% of your income regardless of choice?

rmbyrro
0 replies
5h52m

you will now have to keep presence on all app stores out there, since if you don’t publish on one then a copycat will

Nobody has to do anything. If you don't want the trouble of publishing on an alt-store to serve your customers, what's the problem of letting others do so?

This is such a lazyness argument, to be honest...

rfoo
0 replies
10h12m

This is why I suspect the primary interests side-loading and alt app stores on Apple devices would satisfy is large enterprises and a few opportunistic middlemen.

Sideload as Apple implemented, yes. Sideload as what sideload always meant, no.

Apple is trying to distract and mislead the public by redefining what "sideload" means. If I can't install whatever open source shit I build myself on NON-APPLE HARDWARE to an iPhone then it's not sideload. I hope EU figure this out soon and retroactively fine Apple for this dishonest move.

realusername
0 replies
8h51m

Do I believe indie devs will be worse off? Unfortunately, also yes.

There's a high number of indie devs which just gave up with the cumbersome appstore process. The ones you see on the appstore are the ones who made past this filter already.

I personally advise single devs against making an app unless you are really sure to have the motivation to go through all all of this.

The mobile stores are particularly bad and unsuited for hobbyists or single devs at the moment.

Just compare that to a website where you deploy and you are done.

pjerem
0 replies
9h56m

You forgot an immense portion of companies who will benefit from this : B2B companies which have lower client pools but want to have a direct contractual relationship with their clients.

jaystraw
0 replies
5h0m

i can't speak for app stores, but my band, based out of Anchorage, Alaska, makes good money from streams. we are completely independent. we don't use cdbaby, but distrokid who charges a flat fee to upload, and publishes to all available platforms. that flat fee also covers publishing to new platforms as they become available to distrokid.

i underdstand your worries but at least in my main line of work, i've seen a lot of innovation over the 20 years i've been doing this. fret not. i guess that's a guitar pun.

globular-toast
0 replies
9h44m

Sounds like they need a meta-bundler that will build bundles for all of the app stores then.

ghusto
0 replies
8h43m

If you are a solo app developer, you will now have to keep presence on all app stores out there, since if you don’t publish on one then a copycat will

I really wouldn't worry about it. Those of us who care about this kind of thing are the small minority. I'm incredibly happy to have this in the EU, but am under no illusions that it means the average Joe is going to care enough to jump through the hoops necessary to install (yes, install!) an alternative app store.

dkdbejwi383
0 replies
10h10m

I've not done much app development as a solo dev, but hasn't it been the case for many years now that Android has supported multiple app stores? Is this a problem for developers of Android apps?

kevingadd
30 replies
12h53m

I'm genuinely surprised by this. I figured the differences between tablets and phones, combined with Apple's efforts to distinguish between 'iPadOS' and 'iOS', would be enough to get them a win on this point. If the shared app store is part of the problem I wonder if that makes it a liability for any new apple ecosystem to tie into the App Store, like Vision OS for example.

kvdveer
23 replies
12h40m

Why would IpadOS not be held to the same DSA rules as IOS? Apple has applied the same model of gatekeeping (walled garden) to both the iPhone and the iPad. DSA attaches requirements to the gatekeepers if they are big enough.

Software similarity and market positioning don't really come into consideration once the role of gatekeeper has been established.

Moldoteck
20 replies
12h15m

Doesn't this mean that game consoles should be gatekeepers too like from sony/nintendo/microsoft?

riffraff
8 replies
12h7m

I 100% think this is the case, my guess as to why they're not targeted yet is just that they're less visible to regulators.

I'd like to know if there's another explanation.

mschuster91
6 replies
11h48m

Consoles are not defined as general-purpose computers (except for a time, the PS3), and there aren't many complaints from the game industry at large about access discrimination or unaffordable devkits any more, there's tons of indie games for just about every major platform these days. So, too much effort for too little gain, there is no artificial competition impediments any more.

The only complaints tend to come from gamers - DRM, "console exclusive" titles and lootboxes, mostly, but of these three the only realistic field where the EU can/will/should intervene is the lootbox crap.

throwaway290
5 replies
11h16m

It's the same for iPad, not defined as general purpose, no complaints about unaffordavle devkits (xcode is free), tons of indie apps.

flumpcakes
2 replies
10h51m

The iPad was heavily marketed as a computer replacement so definitely is supposed to be "general purpose" device. Many people I know don't use a laptop or desktop at all, and just use their iPad.

shuckles
1 replies
8h6m

iPad marketing has historically focused on how it's _not_ a computer, so if people bought the marketing that is an implicit indication that they weren't looking for a general purpose computer.

troupo
0 replies
5h22m

Here's iPad marketing: https://www.apple.com/ipad/why-ipad/

--- start quote ---

Yes, it does that. And then some.

iPad is so versatile, it’s more than up to any task. Whether you’re working on a project, expressing your creativity, or playing an immersive game, iPad is a fun and powerful way to get it done. Here are just a few of the countless things you can do with iPad.

--- end quote ---

And it has historically been "it's like a computer, but in tablet form".

Here's how Apple introduced iPad Pro just a year after it introduced iPad as a product: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2015/09/09Apple-Introduces-iP...

--- start quote ---

The new iPad Pro will enable a new generation of advanced apps for everything from productivity, design, illustration, engineering and medical, to education, gaming and entertainment.

The innovative Apple Pencil and new Smart Keyboard enable users ... making iPad Pro ideal for everything from professional productivity to advanced 3D design.

--- end quote ---

Or in 2016 here's Apple announcing how it will transform businesses with Deloitte: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/09/apple-and-deloitte-te...

--- start quote ---

Deloitte is creating a first-of-its-kind Apple practice with over 5,000 strategic advisors who are solely focused on helping businesses change the way they work across their entire enterprise, from customer-facing functions such as retail, field services and recruiting, to R&D, inventory management and back-office systems.

The new offering will help customers discover the highest impact possibilities within their industries and quickly develop custom solutions through rapid prototyping.

--- end quote ---

etc. etc.

physicsguy
1 replies
10h52m

Xcode is free but a developer account isn't (nor is an Xbox Dev account either for that matter)

bpye
0 replies
10h23m

You can sideload apps with a free account, but only 3 signed at once and for a max of 7 days. There are also some entitlements you can’t use.

rsynnott
0 replies
9h13m

Last year, 7.4 million games consoles were sold in Europe. And 57 million iPhones (as far as I can see they don't report numbers on iPads). Like, I think it's fairly obvious why they concentrated on iOS first.

mr_tombuben
3 replies
11h4m

They most likely are, but Microsoft actually does allow sideloading on Xbox in some capacity.

rezonant
2 replies
10h38m

I don't believe that's true. Can you provide some details? There are some programs indie devs can use to get software on Xbox, but they require approval from MS, which is the opposite of side loading.

ThatPlayer
1 replies
10h15m

It's a separate developer mode you can boot into locks you out of retail games. You can even do RetroArch (emulators): https://youtu.be/2uZu1hITwy0

rezonant
0 replies
7h42m

Interesting! Thanks!

nox101
1 replies
10h39m

It's control of the market that matters. Apple (and Google) each effectively control 40%-60% of the world market on digital goods. Pay Apple 30% for your app and 15-30% for all digital goods. That's unacceptable because their market is so large. 2 billion+ devices each (or is it 3 billion now?) 100s of thousands of companies are under their thumb. Don't follow their rules, loose 50% of your entire market. Do follow their rules, lose all your profit.

Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft's markets 2 orders of magnitude smaller and effect 3-4 orders of magnitude less companies.

shuckles
0 replies
8h7m

What is the market for digital goods and how does PC distribution factor into your definition?

stale2002
0 replies
9h57m

Well, only if they have the extremely large amount of users that is required for the gatekeeper status to cover them.

flohofwoe
0 replies
11h50m

They definitely are, and I bet they're already further down the checklist.

bootsmann
0 replies
12h6m

The markets are too small for DMA to apply IIRC

ReptileMan
0 replies
10h48m

Consoles are (still and mostly) singe purpose devices. While I do approve force opening every Turing complete device to side loading - game consoles are way down in the worst offenders list.

ghusto
1 replies
8h29m

Because it doesn't meet the criteria. To summarise heavily, they are:

- Size criteria:

    Have an annual turnover in the European Economic Area (EEA) of at least €7.5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or

    Have a market capitalization of at least €75 billion, and

    Provide the same core platform service in at least three EU countries.
- Control an important gateway:

    Provide a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users.
- Entrenched and durable position:

    Enjoy an entrenched and durable position on the market, operationalized by having had at least 45 million monthly active end users and 10,000 yearly business users of the same core platform service in the EEA in the last three years.
In fact, the EU has admitted that iPads do not meet the criteria, and are making an explicit exception to include them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm _very_ happy about this, but you asked ;)

Kbelicius
0 replies
6h37m

EU isn't making an exception in this case. DMA empowers the commission to investigate, and even declare as gatekeepers, products that do not meet the quantitative thresholds on the basis of qualitative assessment.

Following this decision EU Commissioner Thierry Breton said: “We continue monitoring market developments and will not hesitate to open new investigations should other services below the thresholds present characteristics to be considered important gateways for business users,”.

per the commission iPad passes the threshold for business users elevenfold.

saagarjha
1 replies
12h23m

I mean it’s literally the same thing. That Apple got away with pretending iPadOS and iOS are somehow fundamentally different for this long is insane to me.

vundercind
0 replies
11h40m

A couple months shy of five years?

rsynnott
1 replies
9h17m

combined with Apple's efforts to distinguish between 'iPadOS' and 'iOS', would be enough to get them a win on this point

I mean, regulators aren't stupid; just because Apple rebranded iOS on iPads to 'iPadOS' a few years ago, presumably seeing the writing on the wall, you shouldn't expect the EC to go "oh, well, the company we're regulating _says_ it's a different thing, so it must be a different thing".

shuckles
0 replies
7h57m

If this is your logic, then you must believe regulators are stupid because the EC indeed recognized iPadOS as a distinct platform. In addition, the insinuation that Apple diverged iOS and iPadOS six years ago in anticipation of legislation that would not be submitted for another year and a half requires more evidence than you provide.

camillomiller
0 replies
9h36m

The number of user is the important metric. I doubt VisionOS will quickly get to the threshold that would make the EU deem it a gatekeeping piece of software.

agos
0 replies
10h35m

Apple's effort to distinguish between iPadOS and iOS has never fooled anyone

rcarmo
11 replies
11h49m

I’m still waiting for a way to run my own apps on my own devices that doesn’t require re-signing them every week.

369548684892826
8 replies
11h33m

Well there is _one_ way but you're probably not going to like it

rcarmo
7 replies
11h28m

I already use Android devices as well, thanks.

rcarmo
2 replies
10h47m

Been there, done that, gave up because it’s not a justifiable expense for individual use. Wrote a couple of Android apps instead but can't really use them daily.

fingerlocks
1 replies
6h3m

Presumably you work in tech.

Every employer I’ve ever had will reimburse my personal dev account fee as an educational expense. Have you tried asking?

rcarmo
0 replies
3m

I work at Microsoft. Next question :)

user_7832
2 replies
9h30m

In the meantime I think Altserver works if you connect to a pc frequently enough

rcarmo
1 replies
8h30m

Tried that. And other alternatives I don’t remember right now. Still a hassle I don’t want to get into (and I have something like seven Proxmox nodes in the house). I just have other priorities and wish that this was as easy to do as in Android.

The EU adjust doesn’t get that, and probably never will, because the bureaucrats are more worried about impact to their industry lobbyists than to their citizens.

user_7832
0 replies
7h11m

Ah that's disappointing, but as a fellow user I too found it too troublesome so I understand that.

no_time
0 replies
10h28m

I'm still waiting for a toggle that lets me turn off mandatory notarization checking. And a way to tap on a .ipa file in the file browser and just being able to install it.

oh and a way to do all this without paying rent money to apple...

kandros
0 replies
11h11m

That would be great

mullingitover
11 replies
11h28m

EU seems like it’s just going to keep daring Apple to exit their market. I’m looking forward to their regulations requiring Apple to write open source drivers for the alternative operating system installs they’ll be required to allow.

AlchemistCamp
7 replies
10h48m

It will probably happen at some point. In 1990, the EU was easy to do business in and represented 25% of world GDP. Now it’s exceeding difficult to do business in and represents just 14% of world GDP. If those two trends continue, there will be a point where it’s just not worth it for large companies to be threatened with fines on their “global turnover”.

pjerem
3 replies
9h37m

You know that EU also have computers engineers ? It’s not like we couldn’t survive without Apple or Google.

Probably nobody wants it to happen but if it were to happen, well, I prefer regulated companies than monopolies.

draugadrotten
1 replies
9h12m

You know that EU also have computers engineers ? It’s not like we couldn’t survive without Apple or Google.

You vastly underestimate how interconnected and dependent the modern tech stack is. EU computer engineers would be thrown back to 1950s if they could not depend on decades of US engineering and services.

I say that as a European.

EU is clearly playing a losing game here and is well on track of becoming the world's largest outdoor museum.

toyg
0 replies
8h38m

Apple and Google are not "decades of US engineering". They are two corporations that really exploit decades of (open source) US (and European) engineering to siphon huge profits to tax havens. If they were to exit the EU market, Europeans would still have access to US engineering just fine.

AlchemistCamp
0 replies
9h15m

Yeah, I think that’s the likely direction, similar to the path China took in the aughts. There will probably eventually be some reasonably large EU-based social networks and maybe even operating systems.

I don’t think that will save you from monopolies, though. Network effects are strong.

sham1
0 replies
9h58m

If "easy to do business in" and having a large percentage of global GDP requires the ability for tech companies to exploit their users, then I for one am glad as a EU citizen to give up on those to be able to have tech companies curtailed like this, and I wish for the EC to make business even more difficult here.

Nothing is stopping companies from acting in a way that isn't anti-customer, other than the fact that anti-customer behaviour is more profitable than acting properly in the single market. We're finally seeing these externalities be addressed and be made slightly better, even if there's still so much more that could be done.

rsynnott
0 replies
9h7m

... Eh? The EU is far easier to do business in today than in 1990; in 1990 you had to care about local regulations to a far larger extent, and they were far weirder and often more protectionist/anticompetitive. In a number of countries in 1990 Apple wouldn't have been able to sell phones, say, had they been in that business at the time; consumer phone equipment was a state monopoly. Very few foreign (or European) countries actually did business in all Western European countries in 1990; it was too much overhead.

jijijijij
0 replies
10h30m

There is literally no chance of Apple exiting Europe. Don't be silly. Next largest consumer market would be China. Good luck finding economic freedom there.

surgical_fire
0 replies
10h4m

I live in Europe, and that's something I would love to see happening.

While we are at it, let's hope Apple takes Google and Facebook along for the ride.

lupusreal
0 replies
9h5m

World's dumbest bluff.

drooopy
0 replies
11h5m

Don't threaten me with a good time. I would use Asahi Linux full time on my mac if that were to happen.

neya
9 replies
8h32m

Almost a decade ago, I bought an iPad Air to try and replace my MacBook Pro. It didn't work and had to resort to laggy online editors with paid subscriptions. And even then, when I was doing Ruby on Rails, it didn't even work out. Ok, so, the technology was new, sure.

Last year I got myself an M series iPad "Pro" thinking things would have changed. Well, VS Code was the only product that allowed me to run a tiny VM to edit and deploy my apps online. It worked really well to its credit despite a little bit of hacks (have to save it as a Safari shortcut) but still, a far cry from replacing my MacBook Pro.

I have the same M series Mac mini back home that I do insane multi-tasking on and something I would claim is easily the best god damn computer ever made for IT devs like myself. That's when I realized, the limitation is in the OS and not the hardware. The iPad "Pro" is really powerful for a lot of other stuff. Photo editing, music creation and what not.

Ironically, I saw someone on YouTube get annoyed with the same problem and use a Raspberry Pi attached with the iPad as a MacBook Pro replacement (it draws power from the iPad itself, so it's a single cable solution). I was amazed and sad at the same time that Apple had to push their neglected audience so far to the point of even bundling our own DIY hardware to make it usable to call it a "Pro". The iPad's "Pro" is such a misnomer.

I am still waiting for the day when I can throw away my MacBook Pro and work from a small factor without carrying a brick to charge a 14", almost 3Kg device in my office bag every day.

Hopefully this changes things.

windowsrookie
3 replies
6h36m

Why don't you just use a 13" MacBook Air? It seems to solve all of your problems without any hacks.

"work from a small factor without carrying a brick to charge a 14", almost 3Kg device"

13" M2 Air - 15 Hours of battery life and 1.24kg. An iPad + Keyboard case is likely going to weight more than a MacBook Air anyways.

rovr138
1 replies
6h6m

Not who you replied to, but in my case,

I want to be able to take notes with a pen but also use a full browser. If I want a keyboard to type something, I’ll attach one.

Basically a surface pro, but using an iPad.

Thin, light, Apple ecosystem for sharing things.

But I want Firefox with extensions, a good editor, etc.

windowsrookie
0 replies
5h43m

That's understandable. Having a separate device just for notes works better for me (e-ink preferably). But I certainly get the appeal of having everything all in one device.

neya
0 replies
3h37m

I like the flexibility of the iPad. I use it a lot for note taking during meetings. I use it to draw architectural diagrams without having to deal with drag and drop interfaces. Plus, not always I find the need for a keyboard. In fact, my favorite setup was an Apple keyboard plus iPad Pro. It almost solved my use case with VS Codespaces. Almost. I think I may re-visit the Raspberry pi solution for now.

These days, my work is almost mostly AI related, so I am on Google Colab most of the time too. So, the use case for a proper laptop without a touchscreen is diminishing with each day (for me).

rcarmo
1 replies
8h28m

Yeah, I’ve been doing the “sidecar” approach for a long time. Here’s the latest iteration: https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2023/10/07/1830

I would also love to run a Linux VM on my iPad Pro, but if we could get third-party app sideloading to work without alternative app stores and other idiocy UTM would fix that for me.

neya
0 replies
7h43m

Thanks for sharing, very interesting read!

olabyne
1 replies
6h36m

just buy the starlite tablet https://fr.starlabs.systems/

Install Wayland (easy install now). Enjoy Linux Dev & Android Apps

neya
0 replies
3h34m

Wow, that looks really good. I have never heard of this company personally. I also like the app ecosystem of Apple iPad. But this looks really good if I was going to buy a new tablet. I am at the moment looking for solutions with my existing iPad unfortunately. Thanks for sharing.

stevej1999
0 replies
8h22m

Base on your descriptions MacBook Air would fit your needs the best.

Most people don't need MacBook Pro. Those extra cores just sit idle most of the time if not utilised for heavy computation.

tomashubelbauer
7 replies
10h31m

I am happy to see Apple's arm twisted, but disappointed the demand is to allow alternative app stores and not user-facing side-loading. In my view, having only the official Apple App Store is just fine as long as Apple also adds the ability to install an app off an unsigned IPA file for free. With that, users would be free to install apps that Apple don't deem fit for the app store, giving them the freedom to use their device as they see fit.

firstbabylonian
4 replies
9h23m

ability to install an app off an unsigned IPA file for free

I feel like the thinking is that there must be an entity — somebody running an app store — who could be held legally responsible for any damage caused by malware distributed via their channels. Regular non-tech-savvy users cannot be trusted with such delicate software as apps running on their personal phones.

robertjpayne
1 replies
7h41m

This is the myth that everyone is going to be screwed by. Nobody is going to be legally responsible for malware that ends up on your device.

The only difference is Apple has the $$ and incentives to remove it as soon as it's brought to their attention (assuming it's actual malware that may cause large financial loss not just copyright infringement).

Alt-stores will be ridden with malware and nobody is going to be legally responsible for it. We can just hope the alt-stores that end up existing have incentives to keep them "clean".

firstbabylonian
0 replies
7h4m

Correct, which is why allowing no-store app delivery would unleash an even greater chaos. In a world where any random website can trick a user into downloading an app via sideloading, there's no hope to protect people from 'unclean' software.

cwales95
1 replies
6h55m

The thing is though, as you said, it's my personal iPhone. If I want to be able to install an unsigned app I should be able to. There should be ways to dissuade the non-technical people but my feeling is it is my iPhone so I should be able to do as I wish.

firstbabylonian
0 replies
6h40m

Nothing against you personally, but since you get the same iPhone as the non-technical folks, some compromises have to be made, and they ain’t gonna be in your favour.

zmmmmm
0 replies
7h40m

I wonder if, as a thought experiment, someone could create an App store with a completely transparent self-signing mechanism that allowed you to install apps yourself (but only to your device).

If so, one would think that unless Apple gets to dictate terms strongly to the App stores, that this would only be a matter of time.

whywhywhywhy
0 replies
10h5m

It would need to be signed so there would be a way to disable it if needed.

This is essentially the same on MacOS now if you distribute, things built without signature at all only open on the machine they were built, you need to provide even a self signature to get it to open with a warning on another machine.

sharpshadow
6 replies
9h3m

Does this mean we finally get Adblock on iOS devices?

fredski42
1 replies
8h6m

Use Orion from Kagi. Get ublock.

sharpshadow
0 replies
7h51m

Interesting didn’t know they have a browser for iOS with web extensions working I check it out. Thanks. Would be super cool if Ublock works with it as u say.

Terretta
1 replies
6h27m

1Blocker is excellent. So is AdGuard Pro. So is NextDNS profile for iOS.

And so is Kagi Orion+ browser with Firefox and Chrome extensions like uBlock Origin.

Don't drink the "you can'd do that on iPad" koolaid without asking someone unbiased quietly using these things already.

vundercind
0 replies
8h1m

I’ve had ad blocking on my iPhone for years.

No I didn’t “hack” the device or anything, the last thing I want to do is tinker with my single most important computing device, I need it to work all the time and work well. It’s been possible for years, officially.

CubsFan1060
0 replies
7h37m

1Blocker works amazing for me.

Longhanks
4 replies
9h33m

With these legislations, I always wonder how the lawmakers come up with timeframes like 6 months. Who is to say this implementation doesn't take, say, a year? I doubt lawmakers have the technological know how to estimate such a project (actually, I doubt anyone has) - but 6 months seems rather short (given they hadn't just had to implement the same thing for iOS)...?

rsynnott
2 replies
9h20m

given they hadn't just had to implement the same thing for iOS

You've kind of answered this for yourself; iPadOS _is_ iOS.

Apple has, in any case, presumably more or less known this was coming for a year or so; they kind of had to make the argument that iPadOS and iOS were not the same thing, I suppose, but it was always a bit far-fetched that the EC would buy that.

ghusto
1 replies
8h34m

It was actually due to the way "gatekeeper" is defined. The EU has now said that although iPads (still) do not meet the criteria, they are being explicitly targeted anyway. My guess is because this is simpler than expanding the criteria to include iPads in some way.

Kbelicius
0 replies
6h42m

My guess is because this is simpler than expanding the criteria to include iPads in some way.

They don't need to expand the criteria. DMA empowers the commission to investigate, and even declare as gatekeepers, products that do not meet the quantitative thresholds on the basis of qualitative assessment.

EU Commissioner Thierry Breton said: “We continue monitoring market developments and will not hesitate to open new investigations should other services below the thresholds present characteristics to be considered important gateways for business users,”. per the commission iPad passes the threshold for business users elevenfold.

troupo
0 replies
6h0m

Any deadline will be declared either too short or too long.

That's why the deadlines usually tend to be on the shorter side to put actual pressure on companies needing to implement them. However, the companies always have a way to say "look, we've tried our best, it's just we just need more time". No one is going to fine them for not meeting those deadlines if the companies are actually working on implementing the changes in good faith.

mise_en_place
3 replies
11h40m

That means Apple must cover jailbroken devices under warranty too. Sideloading Cydia will be even easier now. Apple must support all device configurations now.

l33ter
1 replies
11h13m

Cydia is just an App Store for modifications, right? Don’t you also need to exploit a vulnerability in the OS to get arbitrary code execution? Doubt modifying the OS will be covered under warranty.

tinytuna
0 replies
6h42m

Yes, if you sideload Cydia alone, it’ll still be sandboxed and you won’t be able to install the majority of tweaks

pjerem
0 replies
9h52m

Software modifications are already covered under warranty in Europe too as long as they didn’t cause hardware issues (and it’s up to the manufacturer to prove it).

dzogchen
3 replies
9h1m

Sideloading is such a horrible term for “installing apps without Apple’s approval”. And Apple illegally even tries to STILL require their approval.

FooBarWidget
2 replies
8h44m

I agree. I have no idea when "sideloading" as a term became a thing when it's just plain old "installing software".

wccrawford
0 replies
7h7m

I think it's because dystopian situations force people to name things oddly.

And yes, I think not being able to put an app on a device that I paid for is dystopian. I also think not being allowed to repair my own devices is dystopian, too.

If no device had ever prevented a user from installing their own home-made apps, "side-loading" would never have become a thing.

For gaming consoles, I was vaguely uneased by it at first, but quickly got over it because it had always been that way. I never had a chance to put my own game on a game console.

But with general-use computers, including mobile phones, the whole idea really bothers me. I PDAs and brick phones had never allowed people to write their own apps, I might be less bothered by it. But (thankfully!) they did. That cat's out of the bag, and long ago.

Even Google's attempts to prevent "sideloading" bother me at this point. Any warning that applies to side-loaded apps should also apply to store-installed apps because they have shown they aren't foolproof.

marak830
0 replies
7h3m

I would argue the same reason "quiet quitting" has become more of a norm. Corporate interests that are pushed to various media that becomes 'standard'.

fl_rn_st
2 replies
9h0m

The biggest problem rn is Apple's blocking of JIT for everything but browsers. This means neither UTM nor the more modern emulators can run at close to full speed. I'd like to see this changed. This seems like the real "Gatekeeper".

user_7832
1 replies
7h6m

Could you explain what JIT would allow? Would sideloading allow this to "work" or would it need OS support?

fl_rn_st
0 replies
6h47m

JIT (Just-In-Time) compilation is a technique that allows certain programs to run significantly faster by compiling code at runtime, rather than ahead of time.

Apple enabled this for iOS 14+, but killed it again with iOS 17. It's basically the reason why we currently don't have full speed VM's on iOS / iPadOS devices.

While Sideloading / Altstore / Sidestore allows you to install any IPA, this still doesn't enable JIT for these apps. There are currently some workarounds that involve running certain software on your local network (search SideJITServer on Github).

chucke1992
2 replies
7h27m

Personally I am surprised that IPad has its own OS. I thought it uses the same one as iPhone.

IH0kN3m
1 replies
7h3m

It is mostly just an iOS under the hood. Apple separated the iOS and iPadOS, saying that this way they can develop for it separate exclusive features. While we have things like multitasking and stage manager, mostly it’s been an excuse to bring iOS features to the iPadOS with a delay for a year.

Terretta
0 replies
6h25m

mostly it’s been an excuse to bring iOS features to the iPadOS with a delay for a year

On the contrary, mostly the iPad and iPad OS was the testbed for VisionOS UI management for years, ensuring that iPad apps (and app devs) had to implement support for arbitrary window shapes and layering, using the same affordances (more or less) as VisionOS, unlike iPhone apps that are stuck in portrait or landscape.

There's a lot of truth to AVP is an iPad strapped to your face, and if you have worked on iPad as professional daily driver for 5+ years and now own an AVP, you can remember aspects of VisionPro getting tested in the field over this time period.

Krasnol
2 replies
13h18m

Sounds like it's time again for the litany of fear, uncertainly and doubt or will we, now that the EU has hit so many times, finally hear the other one? The one where Apple came up with the idea by themselves, and they just needed some time to reassure quality?

littlestymaar
0 replies
11h43m

or will we, now that the EU has hit so many times, finally hear the other one

This thread actually contains a new argument that I had not seen before: that “the EC is reinventing the rules in an arbitrary fashion”, and it's again a very bad argument (if the EC was doing that, Apple would just go in front of CJEU and win)

hehdhdjehehegwv
0 replies
13h2m

I’m guessing the EU is just holding it wrong.

KolmogorovComp
2 replies
10h17m

Has there any alternative store that has been launched yet? Who are the contenders? Epic, Spotify, Meta?

shafyy
1 replies
9h52m

AltStore (https://altstore.io/) is available, but only has two apps last time I checked.

toyg
0 replies
8h49m

For all the publicity that the AltStore solo developer tries to push, it's not really a marketplace - it's a hack that Apple let live precisely because it will never get any serious traction.

nla
1 replies
7h3m

Apple should walk away from the communism of the EU.

troupo
0 replies
5h59m

EU: Hey, competition is good for capitalism actually.

Randos on the internet: EU is communism

gchokov
1 replies
9h45m

Do I think side-loading and alt app stores would make iPads and iPhones more versatile devices? Yes.

Will I ever install something side loaded? No.

toyg
0 replies
8h51m

Does anyone care about what you do with your own devices? No.

Should your position impose any limitation on what people can do with their own devices? Also no.

boyka
1 replies
6h45m

I guess this only applies to new releases of iPadOS? Meaning no possibility to make old iPads reusable as, e.g., a linux machine?

Havoc
0 replies
6h42m

Side loading apps and installing an alternate OS are very different

Blackstrat
1 replies
5h52m

There's no reason for this change. Experience has shown that when governments dictate technology changes, in the end, none of us are better off. There are alternatives to the IPad. Buy one of them. IOS/IPadOS are going to become less stable and less secure with forced access. Too much government everywhere.

syene
0 replies
4h55m

iPhone and iPads are marketed as general computing devices and are used by people as general computing devices. Being able to run whatever software you want is a cornerstone of computers that some computer companies have tried to prohibit for their own profit margins, and branded it as a security feature. The industry hasn’t been able to right this in over a decade, so I support governments intervening.

zmmmmm
0 replies
7h44m

It's telling that they are even going after iPadOS. Really messages to Apple strongly that they have no hope of dodging this on iOS if even a relatively niche product by comparison is also qualifying them for gatekeeper status.

op00to
0 replies
7h41m

I’m directing my inlaws to ask for help here when they install bullshit on their iPad or iPhone that breaks something. I refuse to help with that! :)

oliv__
0 replies
9h58m

I'm waiting for the EU to just take over Apple.

I think the EU should just straight up run the company now since it seems to know what's best for its customers. Just replace Tim Cook with Ursula von der Leyen already

jug
0 replies
9h18m

They didn't along with iOS? Oh come on! Apple... sigh

I think this might honestly make iPad more appealing, and serve Apple more than they might think. The room for improvement on iPadOS seems greater than iOS due to iPadOS underutilizing the device.

ghusto
0 replies
8h46m

Excellent! This was a bad oversight, and I'm so happy it's being corrected. For one thing, it makes native Gecko more viable for Mozilla :)

b0dhimind
0 replies
3h40m

I would be so happy to not have to install and refresh AltStore and "developer apps" for emulation and what-not... which is what I think this means?

BiteCode_dev
0 replies
8h2m

Some people somewhere will say that the EU is once again regulating instead of innovating.

But I really like this change.

AshleysBrain
0 replies
7h36m

I suspect the only reason Apple rebranded iOS on iPad as iPadOS a few years ago was just to be able to claim it's a separate OS for regulatory reasons, despite it obviously being the same iOS as run on iPhones but on a different form factor device. I'm glad this gambit did not fool the EU.