Brazil Orders Apple To Allow iOS Sideloading Within 90 Days (globo.com)
- Reference: 0176642973
- News link: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/03/07/138226/brazil-orders-apple-to-allow-ios-sideloading-within-90-days
- Source link: https://valorinternational.globo.com/law/news/2025/03/06/circuit-court-reinstates-antitrust-ruling-against-apple.ghtml
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.
[1] https://valorinternational.globo.com/law/news/2025/03/06/circuit-court-reinstates-antitrust-ruling-against-apple.ghtml
Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft (Score:2)
So it is safe to assume Playstation Plus will ve appearing on Xbox and Switch. And Xbox Live on Playstation and Switch. And Switch live on Playstation and Xbox soon, Right?
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:2)
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 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)
Or maybe they should all be forced to use servers that anyone could host so you can play your buddies without all shelling out for a subscription as it should be. Back in the Quake days, no one had to pay a monthly subscription to play multi-player Quake.
Good. (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
> Except die-hard Apple fanboys, everybody will be happy by this decision.
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 req
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
> 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 wh
Re: (Score:2)
> 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)
>> Except die-hard Apple fanboys, everybody will be happy by this decision.
> 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)
Wait, so government intervention is necessary for the connector a phone maker chooses? Thank your posting the most ridiculous thing I've read today and I've been on Reddit!
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)
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.
Allow sideloading within 90 days... (Score:2)
or what?
Re: (Score:2)
Fines or ban, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
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.