Brazil Orders Apple To Allow iOS Sideloading Within 90 Days (globo.com) 60
A Brazilian judge has ordered Apple to open its iOS platform to alternative app stores within 90 days, according to Valor International. The ruling cited Apple's compliance with similar requirements in the European Union under the Digital Markets Act without showing "significant impact or irreparable harm to its economic model."
The case originated from a 2022 complaint by Mercado Livre. Brazil previously issued a 20-day deadline in November for Apple to permit alternative payment options and sideloading, but that injunction was overturned in December. Apple plans to appeal.
The case originated from a 2022 complaint by Mercado Livre. Brazil previously issued a 20-day deadline in November for Apple to permit alternative payment options and sideloading, but that injunction was overturned in December. Apple plans to appeal.
Allow sideloading within 90 days... (Score:2, Insightful)
or what?
Re: (Score:3)
Fines or ban, I guess.
Re:Allow sideloading within 90 days... (Score:5, Interesting)
iPhones aren't made in Brazil. They have to be imported. Apple cares more about selling new hardware than about existing customers and what they can do with their devices.
Re: Allow sideloading within 90 days... (Score:1)
Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Great example of Whataboutism.
Just because gaming console are locked-down doesn't mean phones should be. Phones were not locked-down before Apple brought that "innovation".
Also, historically you could buy physical media console games from various stores, so there is no monopoly there either. Another difference is that gaming consoles are typically sold at lost and subsidized by games. While I would favor opening the gaming console market as well, it would break that business model.
iPhones are not sold at lo
Re: (Score:3)
It breaks the printer razor and blade sales model too, but I don't support banning 3rd party inks. They chose to sell at a loss based on what they thought they could get away with.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. And I'd support a government intervention to open gaming consoles as well. However, the SDK is typically not made available for free (unlike Android and iOS). So the result could be limited. It would be hard to develop an Xbox game without Microsoft's documentation and SDK, but maybe not impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be free but does the license allows you to make Xbox games, and sell them, without having to pay anything to Microsoft? It definitely wasn't the case for the original Xbox. Maybe it changed since then.
Every Xbox optical disc game paid royalties to Microsoft, even if the game was sold in an independent store not owned by Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Windows Mobile phones/PDAs were not locked down. You could "sideload" any application. In fact it was the normal way to install.
Dumb phones didn't allow sideloading. OK Sheldon Cooper. But they didn't allow installing applications anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
I never had a Symbian "smart" phone but it seems they allowed "sideloading" (installing apps not from the official store) as well. Never had a Blackberry either but from what I see in forums Blackberry OS 7 from 2011 can sideload apps just fine.
So it seems Apple really did pioneer the locked-down smartphone where apps can only be installed from the official store (and thus Apple can charge a 30% fee on all apps sold).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you managed to reply to something clearly false with something else clearly false.
It is not true that every single phone was locked down "without exception". For J2ME cameraphones, they often were, but usually weren't. For phones with custom openish operating systems, it really depended on the manufacturer. Nokia's 9000 series, for example, was open. I know, I had both a 9000 and a 9290, and could install applications of my own on both.
There were closed platforms, I recall Ericsson doing some weird sm
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It doesn't say they have to make Android apps compatible with the iPhone.
For XBOX this would mean allowing 3rd party stores on the console, so you could buy your games from your choice of publisher, and publishers could bypass Microsoft and release whatever they liked on the system.
That would actually be pretty nice. I guess once it proves that there are no major issues with Apple, platforms like game consoles and smart TVs will be next. They don't really need to wait though, it works fine on Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except die-hard Apple fanboys, everybody will be happy by this decision.
Sideloading doesn't even have to be on by default. It could be like on Android, where you enable it manually if you want to. That the difference between MY phone, and the manufacturer's phone. After I buy it, it should be my phone.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never owned an Apple device, and I'm actually torn on this. While I do agree with you that once you purchase the device it's yours to do with as you please (or it ought to be), you bought the iPhone knowing about its walled garden -- there are no surprises that are sprung on you after the purchase.
I also don't agree with governments issuing fiats to tech companies to influence their design or function. The UK has no business requiring a back door in iCloud, and Brazil has no business telling Apple to jail break their own phones. Also, while I'm glad Apple switched to USB-C from Lightning, I wish it had been Apple simply doing the right thing out of [kindness, prudence, standardization], instead of being forced by the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. And the iPhone isn't a monopoly or even the most common smartphone. In fact, Android outsells Apple better than 2:1. Or at least it does on the days when the narrative is that "Apple is irrelevant and doomed by their minuscule market share." one that the pendulum here swings back to periodically.
And as you imply, this ruling (and the EU ones like it) actually *harm* the consumer by taking a major choice away from them. Anyone who wanted an unregulated and unvetted free-for-all with no restriction
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
And as you imply, this ruling (and the EU ones like it) actually *harm* the consumer by taking a major choice away from them.
No it doesn't. You are still free not to allow unknown sources on both Android and iOS. Nothing has been lost in Brazil, from a consumer perspective.
Anyone who wanted an unregulated and unvetted free-for-all with no restrictions or safeties already had that choice... just buy an Android. Now, in the EU and I guess Brazil soon, there is no alternative.
Android still has the same safety, and it is even on by default. Now in Brazil, users wanting freedom will have 2 choices instead of only 1. That's a win, no matter how you put it.
If you wanted a curated and vetted ecosystem that at least tries to weed out the malware, well... now you're now shit out of luck. That choice has been taken away and made for you in those countries.
Stop eating Apple's Stalin-style propaganda. Apple can (and will) still try to fight malware, including in Brazil and the EU. Sideloading will still be off by default.
Those who will enable it will be mostly power users, and most of them will know what they are doing and won't be affected by malware anyways. Just like I haven't seen any malware in years on Windows or Linux PCs. (Save crapware such as Adobe Reader). Not saying they don't exist, but they are not a big problem as they once were.
What will most likely happen is that this will put some pressure on Apple to reduce that 30% fee. And the consumer will win.
Re: (Score:2)
If you wanted a curated and vetted ecosystem that at least tries to weed out the malware, well... now you're now shit out of luck. That choice has been taken away and made for you in those countries.
Stop eating Apple's Stalin-style propaganda. Apple can (and will) still try to fight malware, including in Brazil and the EU. Sideloading will still be off by default.
[...]
More to the point: the better security we get from iOS and Android devices is nothing to do with vetted app stores, and everything to do with restricted, deny-all, permissions apps get on those OSes. Each app operates in its own walled garden, with no access to anything beyond its own data and the internet, unless flagged by the app and explicitly granted by the user. On Android, each app is its own *nix user. iOS operates the same way.
THIS is why writing malware is much harder on Android and iOS compared t
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
I also don't agree with governments issuing fiats to tech companies to influence their design or function.
At a certain point, the companies are a de facto government unto themselves without actual government intervention. Hard to support one and not the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never owned an Apple device, and I'm actually torn on this. While I do agree with you that once you purchase the device it's yours to do with as you please (or it ought to be), you bought the iPhone knowing about its walled garden -- there are no surprises that are sprung on you after the purchase.
Maybe you knew, maybe you didn't. It's not as if there was a big warning on the box saying "warning: this phone is locked-down and won't be truly yours even after purchase".
Maybe such a mandatory warning could have been an alternative instead. Just like warnings on cigarette packs.
I also don't agree with governments issuing fiats to tech companies to influence their design or function. The UK has no business requiring a back door in iCloud, and Brazil has no business telling Apple to jail break their own phones.
In an ideal world, market forces would push Apple to allow sideloading from day 1. Market forces do not always give good results under oligopolies (such as Android/iOS duopoly). So government intervention can be justified.
Also, while I'm glad Apple switched to USB-C from Lightning, I wish it had been Apple simply doing the right thing out of [kindness, prudence, standardization], instead of being forced by the EU.
Again, s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not saying it's necessary. But I'm saying it can be justified. The EU did the good thing with Apple. And it benefits the whole world as Apple chose to make a single phone instead of making a special one for the EU with USB-C.
Of course in an ideal world, Apple would have been smart enough to never use proprietary connectors.
Re: (Score:1)
The onus is on you, the purchaser, to educate yourself on the features and limitations of the device before purchasing. Caveat emptor [wikipedia.org] .
Re: (Score:3)
A reasonable purchaser would never expect such a dumb move by the manufacturer. So I wouldn't only blame the purchaser in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK has no business requiring a back door in iCloud, and Brazil has no business telling Apple to jail break their own phones.
The two are not nearly the same. A backdoor would be implemented without giving users any choice, whereas Apple providing sideloading would give users an additional option, but users would still be perfectly able to not sideload anything if they prefer to install from the Apple's App Store exclusively.
Also, while I'm glad Apple switched to USB-C from Lightning, I wish it had been Apple simply doing the right thing out of [kindness, prudence, standardization], instead of being forced by the EU.
The reality is that Apple had to be forced though. USB-C would have been in the best interests of the users and probably even Apple from a technical point of view, but very likely it was deemed by Apple agains
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has no business requiring a back door in iCloud, and Brazil has no business telling Apple to jail break their own phones.
The two are not nearly the same. A backdoor would be implemented without giving users any choice, whereas Apple providing sideloading would give users an additional option, but users would still be perfectly able to not sideload anything if they prefer to install from the Apple's App Store exclusively.
It's "optional" to sideload until some app I need (for accessing government services, banking, whatever) decides to mandate that I sideload their app so they can bypass App Store restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, or they may as well not release for the iPhone, and you would be "forced" (your words not mine) to switch to Android.
Re: (Score:2)
I contend that it's much less likely that an entity would have the guts to show a "sorry, go buy a new phone to use our app" message to a user, than they would a "follow this link to download our app (and then please click through all the warnings before installing - don't worry, they're totally benign!)" message.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen a single bank or governement forcing me to sideload on Android. Why would it be any different on the iPhone? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, your are spreading FUD?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure many consumers really appreciate how important side-loading and alternative app stores are, especially if they have not had the opportunity to try them. They may also be strongly motivated to stick with Apple despite the limitations, e.g. because they bought a lot of iOS apps or the family has an iCloud subscription. Realizing now that they may want to side-load, but being unable to without the significant cost of switching to Android.
Re: (Score:1)
Realizing now that they may want to side-load, but being unable to without the significant cost of switching to Android.
Sideloading ahs nothing to do with that.
Which App exists for iOS and Android? Sure, TicToc ... WhatsApp ... and? What about NovoCard? Or ThaiLang?
I would guess 90% of the iOS apps have no Android equivalent, and wise versa.
That is why I have both.
Re: (Score:2)
I would guess 90% of the iOS apps have no Android equivalent, and wise versa.
That is why I have both.
90% of all apps maybe you are right. But 90% of the apps people care about are available on both platforms. I've never encountered an application which was only available for iOS and made me wish I had an iPhone. But I'm pretty sure the opposite would be true as well, at least since Apple added turn by turn navigation and WiFi hotspot (two killer features which were surprisingly not available on the iPhone when I started using Android).
Re: (Score:2)
>> I also don't agree with governments issuing fiats to tech companies to influence their design or function.
This likely depends on one's political / economic leaning.
There are, variously, particular rules regarding companies once they reach a certain size (> n employees) or market share (monopoly, or monopolistic) amongst other things.
If a jurisdiction demands that a phone manufacturer provides side-loading, I have no qualms with that being enforced.
I also have no problem with the manufacturer pul
Re: Good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you bought the iPhone knowing about its walled garden
I bought an iPhone 2008 - or was it 2010?
And I did not know at that time, that it is "a walled garden" - and I am software engineer.
Do you really think ordinary users know anything about that?
I did not know you need iTunes to transfer things, and that the iPhone is not mounted as an USB drive, for example. BTW: my current Android tablet is not mounted as USB drive either. Magically Windows explorer can show it and move files around. But it has no drive le
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think ordinary users know anything about sideloading?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. So you are suggesting that sideloading be prevented on Windows computers as well, otherwise governements will force us to install unwanted software, and that the big tech companies would be our saviors, because they would never allow those programs in their stores?
Thank you Steve Jobs for taking away my freedom!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, being locked down doesn't have any advantage, at least not to the user.
Just because some free/subsidized phone is shit and happens to run Android, doesn't mean other Android phones are plagued by the same issues.
I can turn on or off sideloading on my phone as I want. This is called choice. Something you'll never get with Apple.
Re: (Score:1)
Except die-hard Apple fanboys,
Apple users - fanboys - fanbois: do not care about this.
The share holders might.
Stupid idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Your reaction is proving me right. Apple fanboys (which is a subset of Apple users) do care about this, and hope Apple won't be forced by any government to allow sideloading. It's not enough that they won't sideload anything on their phone, they don't want OTHERS to be allowed to sideload on their iPhone. Why? Because Apple says it's bad, so it must be true.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
i understand, i need to be guarded from candy and demand it be removed from all grocers
no doubt your temptation towards the hidden opt-in toggle would be just as overwhelming
Re:Sideloading is fundamentally insecure. (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, you are free not to enable sideloading if you don't want or need to. Sideloading is currently off on my Android phone.
The great thing about the possibility to use sideloading, is that it push pressure on Google not to put too big Play Store fees, otherwise developers will sell outside of the Play Store.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Sideloading is fundamentally insecure. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's literally because Apple has no way of knowing what an app is really doing
They know.
a) it is written in the App's manifest file
b) what you think WHY the app is asking for permission?
Without a permission, that is defined in the manifest and asked by the app to be granted: the app cant access the relevant files/api's.
True dichotomy (Score:1)
You'll all be cool with only getting software directly from the OS vendor, right? You can't have it both ways.
Disallowing sideloading grants govt too much power (Score:2)
Disallowing sideloading of apps allows things like the Tiktok ban and other such bans from governments. Government's being able to do that is *not* in the people's interest.