> THE SHIFT

MATT BOLTON wasn’t sure about Apple’s level of control outside the App Store, but it’s better than leaving it to Meta

WHEN APPLE ANNOUNCED that it would be handling the EU’s new rules forcing it to allow sideloading and alternative App Stores by introducing a review/ approval process for any apps someone makes, not just those sent to its store, a lot of people I spoke to said it was a “typical Apple” moment. You know —“typical Apple, swapping Lightning for USB–C on the iPhone 15, but limiting it to USB 2.0 speeds” or “typical Apple, still putting 8GB of RAM in pro laptops and then overcharging to upgrade”.

This one was “typical Apple, even when the law says it needs to open up the system, it invents new methods of control”. I wasn’t very surprised to see that Apple wanted to retain some measure of control over apps (to stop malware or scams), but I imagined it might be quite light–touch, such as using the code signing system (a way of confirming the code in an app you install hasn’t been tampered with, because it matches what’s on record with Apple) to easily kill the ability of an app to run on iOS, no matter where you installed it from. Adding a whole new review process that can enforce the company still taking a cut of revenue is beyond what I expected, and at first I felt it was needlessly heavy–handed too. And then I read that Meta had been incredibly excited by the idea of basically turning Facebook ads into a way for people to install apps from outside the App Store, and suddenly I got why Apple insisted on doing it this way.

AND SUDDENLY I GOT WHY APPLE INSISTED ON A WHOLE NEW REVIEW PROCESS

While Apple likes to tend and nurture its walled garden, Facebook opts to basically cultivate the Swamp of Sadness from The NeverEnding Story. It is rich with scams and ads for boondoggles, and the idea that basically scam apps could be pushed to non–tech– savvy people there with basically no oversight on those ads from the company i