When I look at the iPad Pro, I don’t see this product with huge deficiencies. And while nothing is perfect, It’s a great mobile computer that, if you want, you can get a lot of work done with. But there are still things Apple can do to improve the product. And it looks like Apple will soon be forced to do one of those things, And that’s opening up the iPad (and iPhone) to alternate app stores.

In late 2022, law makers in the European Union set into force legislation called the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The thrust of this legislation is to prevent tech companies legislators have defined as “gatekeepers” from abusing their dominant positions to stifle competition in various markets. Apple is affected by these proposed changes in a few different ways, but the relevant one for this post would be the requirement that iPadOS and iOS (and Android) allow for users to install alternate App Stores on their devices.

The deadline to implement these changes is March 7, 2024, which puts the necessary changes as part of iPadOS 17.3 or a forthcoming iPadOS 17.4. It’s hard to say how big of a public fuss Apple will make about these changes, if any. This is a change they have fought against for years, and continue to fight against in non-EU markets.

The prevailing wisdom is that this change has the potential to hugely impact the iPhone, but I think iPad could be impacted significantly more. While both devices ostensibly run the same operating system, I believe their form factors dictate or heavily influence their use cases. That leads me to viewing the iPhone as more of an appliance, versus the iPad which I see as a computer.

The iPad is the only computer I can think of that is limited to a single source for software. For the purposes of this piece we’ll ignore web apps, which still aren’t great on mobile or tablet. While Apple hasn’t been the absolute worst software steward, there have been issues. Look at situation with cloud gaming apps. Apple’s App Store rules require each individual game go through App Review, which is unrealistic for the provider and frankly, completely unnecessary. That’s like requiring Netflix to submit every movie for approval before it can show up in the app. This essentially blocks the existence of such apps on iPadOS, requiring the workaround of using a web app. On Android, there is no such issue, and even if there was, the provider can freely (but maybe not easily) offer that app elsewhere. On iPad, the app simply can’t exist. And its a real shame.

If the iPad is ever going to “grow up”, Apple needs to set it free, and allow the ability to install applications from other sources. The App Store financial model does not work for every type of application. Many professional applications would not be able exist at all if they were losing 15-30% of every sale or in-app purchase. A good example of this is the graphic design app Sketch. Now, I’m not a graphic designer, but it is my understanding that Sketch is no longer as popular with designers as it used to be. But back in its heyday, there were many calls for the developers of the app to release a version for iPad. I have no idea why this has stuck with me, but commentary from Sketch co-founder Emanual Sa indicated that the App Store business model, specifically lack of trials and the race to the bottom pricing, prevented them from investing in a full iPad version. Without a reasonable expectation of recouping the cost of creating a full featured iPad version, it didn’t make sense to invest the time and resources. And I bet there are many other application vendors, big and small, who’ve run the same calculations and come to the same conclusion. But what if those same developers could sell the iPad version from their website at a similar or the same price as their Mac version? Or with whatever pricing model they choose? All of sudden, investing in an iPad version of their app might make more sense.

What the DMA might bring

There are some classes of apps that haven’t been (easily) available for iPad and iPhone, unless you want to deal with configuration profiles or building apps from source code and signing them yourself. Things like game streaming apps, virtualization apps, maybe more software development focused tools like alternate compilers may become available through other stores. Hell, I could see creators of various development tools banding together to give us some semblance of a development environment on iPadOS, that so far, Apple has been unwilling to.

A big concern over having a single source of software is the control that store owner has over what apps are approved for the platform. Apple has its own bias and vested interests. During the early days of the App Store, it was not uncommon for Apple to reject apps, after weeks of review, on the grounds that they duplicated built in functionality. Meaning, they competed with Apple’s own apps. This problem could be removed entirely with another viable app store. There have been other controversies around things like certain political apps and porn apps which Apple chooses not to have on their store. Which should be fine, except, again, the means the apps essentially can’t exist. Just because Apple doesn’t agree with morals of an app isn’t a good enough reason keep it from the users who may want that content.

What Alternate App Stores (probably) won’t bring

Right now, we’re getting a preview of Apple’s general attitude towards complying with these government mandates. Which is to say, they follow the letter of the law, while completely trampling over the spirit of it. I’m not going to going into the whole 27% tax on web purchases, but its clear that whatever form alternate app store take, the approach will look more like this than Apple’s recent iPhone USB-C compliance, which was well implemented and received.

Being able to bypass Apple’s App Store also doesn’t change iPadOS itself. The APIs and frameworks that are available to developers will still be the same. The operating system still has the same “restrictions” it normally does. The real difference is that if a developer chooses to use private APIs, there’s nothing stopping them from distributing their app. No reputable developer is going to rely on private apis for their app’s functionality. But, at least they and their users would have the choice, if that’s a risk they want to live with.

Apple’s implementation of alternate App Stores likely won’t be a free-for-all. I would expect, at best, a notarization program for App Stores, similar to Mac apps. However, I think its much more likely there will be some kind of submission and approval process. Some kind of “partner app store” program. Even if apps in those stores aren’t approved by Apple, its like Apple will hold the App Store owners accountable for what comes out of their stores. Again, following the letter of the law, but completely trampling over the spirit.

Famously, iOS, and by extension iPadOS, contains a “kill switch” that allows Apple to remote remove a malicious app from users’s devices, if necessary (Android also has a similar capability). Would apps from other apps stores be able to be remotely removed or managed by Apple? Would the EU be okay with that? Actually, as I think about it, I can’t think of a single government that wouldn’t want the ability to at least pressure Apple to remove an app they deem a problem.

Conclusion

There are interesting times ahead for iPad, between this very limited opening up to alternate app stores and the forthcoming new hardware. What is certain is that once one region gets alternate app stores, expect governments around the world to begin pushing for the same in their countries. And expect Apple to try to push back against all of them.