The Wall Street Journal has an article today about Apple’s plans for sideloading in the EU:

Apple’s approach to the EU law will help ensure the company maintains close oversight of apps downloaded outside the App Store, a process known as sideloading. The company will give itself the ability to review each app downloaded outside of its App Store. Apple also plans to collect fees from developers that offer downloads outside of the App Store, said people familiar with the company’s plans.

No good. Reviewing apps distributed outside the store defeats the purpose of sideloading.

@manton From everything I've read this does not even meet the letter of the law in the EU. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

@savaran Feels a little bit like a trial balloon leaked to the WSJ by Apple. I don't see how this solution would be acceptable either.

@manton What’s that Princess Leia line to the empire baddies? Like, “The more you tighten your grip…the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”

I’m no star system, but Android is looking more attractive with each of these kinds of reports.

@manton WTF are they even thinking… ಠ_ಠ

@jasonmcfadden That line is so appropriate here.

@jasonmcfadden @manton That is an excellent line! I don't see myself jumping ship though I see why some might consider it. I can certainly see the appeal of Linux. But Android and the many devices that run it, don't they all fall into similar pits of yuck? From Google to Samsung (or any other hardware manufacturer), it's just a different ecosystem of corporate devices and another corporate OS. Perhaps more open but with it's own problems.

I couldn't jump ship anyway as half my living is earned with an application not available on Linux or Android. But even if I could I'm not wealthy enough to purchase new apps in another ecosystem so I'd also be giving up all that previous investment.

At the end of the day Apple's behaviour, while gross, is falling in line with that of capitalism (which, also, gross). It's going to do everything to maximize profit just as Google, Samsung, etc do. It's ugly but that's capitalism. It's not humane, fair or ethical unless forced to be and then only to the degree that it is must be to comply.

@Denny @manton Fair points, Denny. I'm unlikely to jump ship likewise; I'm too invested in Apple/iTunes etc. But I could do it for perks on the other side, though it'd be like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. Corporate controlled computers. That said, my son is planning to buy an Android phone, so I've been looking at them. Tempted.

@manton This is inevitably going to court. I will be very interested to hear how they justify taking a percent of all sales from sideloaded iOS apps, but not from macOS apps. Will they argue that they *do* have a right to a percent of all sales on the Mac (even outside the App Store), but have just chosen not to exercise that right up to now? (That would be a huge red flag for Mac developers.) Or will they twist themselves into contortions trying to find a difference between the platforms?

@DazeEnd Yep. I don't see any legal difference between iOS and macOS.

@manton I would see it as the legal difference found by Epic between iOS and Android: iOS is sold as a closed system and Android is sold as an open one (that Google tried to get the equivalent of a closed system on top of). In that case, macOS falls under the "sold as open" model.

@clonezone Yes, but a closed iOS ecosystem is exactly what the EU regulations are designed to prevent. I’m not sure that argument will hold much water with EU regulators. (At least I hope it won’t.)

@DazeEnd I fail to see what is different between iOS and games consoles. If games consoles are allowed to be closed, then so should iOS. If iOS is forced to be open, then so should games consoles.

@clonezone Whether or not iOS “should” be allowed to remain a closed ecosystem, the fact is that the EU has created regulations that on their face seem intended to open the iOS ecosystem. Regulators in the EU seem to have already rejected your argument.