App store to be 'split in two' ahead of EU iPhone sideloading deadline: report
Apple is reportedly preparing to split its App Store into EU and non‑EU versions ahead of new Digital Markets Act rules that will require sideloading and third‑party app stores on iOS. Commenters weigh the trade-offs between greater user choice and competition on one side, and increased risks of malware, scams, and privacy‑invasive app stores on the other. Much of the debate centers on how far Apple can go in preserving its commission model and security controls—such as notarization, warnings, and technical restrictions—without falling foul of EU anti‑competition rules.
What “split App Store” might mean
- Several commenters ask what “split in two” means in practice; current country-based segmentation is already handled via backend filtering.
- A common guess: a distinct EU App Store channel whose policies enable sideloading / alternative stores, and a separate non‑EU channel, partly to limit economies of scale for third‑party stores.
- Unclear how multiple region accounts, or EU vs non‑EU residents, will be handled.
DMA, commissions, and exclusivity
- Debate over whether Apple can:
- Block apps from its store if they appear in third‑party stores (many think the DMA forbids this).
- Still charge 15–30% commissions via SDK fees, royalties, or mandatory reporting/auditing of external sales.
- One side: charging for tools/SDKs is normal and not anti‑competitive.
- Other side: re‑implementing the 30% cut via new gatekeeping mechanisms would violate the intent of “contestable and fair markets.”
- EU fines based on worldwide turnover are highlighted as the main enforcement “teeth.”
Security vs openness
- Some argue sideloading will open iOS to the same malware/ransomware ecosystem seen on Android; others counter that:
- The current App Store is already full of scams.
- Proper sandboxing and permissions, not store exclusivity, should guarantee security.
- Strong segment of users wants to stay entirely in Apple’s “walled garden,” often citing older or less‑technical relatives.
- Others emphasize that choice for power users doesn’t remove safety for those who stick to defaults.
Third‑party app stores and big platforms
- Fear that major platforms (Meta, Amazon, etc.) could move or augment their apps via their own stores to restore tracking and monetization Apple has limited.
- Counterpoint: this hasn’t really happened on Android, where third‑party stores exist, and most users stick with the default.
Warnings, UX friction, and anti‑circumvention
- Many expect Apple to add strong warnings and extra friction for non‑App‑Store apps.
- Others note DMA anti‑circumvention language likely forbids degrading quality or adding non‑neutral “scare” flows specifically for alternatives.
- Pop‑up fatigue and ineffective warning models (e.g., Windows UAC) are cited as risks.
Broader themes
- Recurring tension: user freedom vs “benevolent dictatorship” security model.
- Some see EU action as necessary antitrust; others see it as overreach that distorts business models and innovation.