>Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc).
We are already aware of a platform that allows easy sideloading - Android. And most apps on Android are distribured through the Play Store. All "big" players still go through the Play Store.
When there is no such thing as the examples you described going on in Android, why do you expect iOS to be different?
Several reasons why this hasn't happened on Android. Let's see a few examples:
(1) iOS doesn't let other players have their own broswer engines. Google is one of those other players, and if the iOS App Store wasn't the only game in town, they'd have an alternative pronto. Android is theirs, so they don't need to do that.
(2) iOS has strict privacy/ad rules (getting stricter too). Facebook doesn't like them. Android let's them have it - so no need to make a move there.
(3) iOS also has the share cut that Epic doesn't like regarding the in-store subscriptions thing. In Android, where this is also an issue, Epic already has users sideload Forthnite from their own store.
(4) Serious Adobe apps are not available for Android (just Photoshop Express/Mix and such lite versions for consumers), but are for iOS. So not exactly the same incentive for Above to make a move there. But if it was an option to have their own store on iOS, given their pro app subscription program, I think they'd take it pronto.
2) That would explain greater developer demand for a third party store on iOS, but not why users would seek out these more ad-intensive app stores.
3) Yeah, this would be a pretty major reason to drive third party app stores on iOS, though it's not as if there's a ton of sideloading on Android to get around the Play Store's own 30% cut, besides the high-profile Fortnite example.
4) Yes, and it would be annoying fragmentation if other major developers/publishers did the same on iOS, requiring the installation of a ton of third party app store apps and keeping track of different app store accounts.
But how many would really go through the hassle of building their own app store just to sell their products? (Maybe it'd be easier to find a way to sell and distribute their apps through their mobile browser sites.) One would suspect the number of alternate app stores to stabilize over time.
Worst case scenario, some managers decide to include an app store inside their app, they ignore the reality of the chance of success and put a whole bunch of marketing in it to their higher ups. Then they get promoted or switch jobs then blame whoever gets stuck with it 3-6 months later when it fails.
After that we'll probably end up seeing real use cases side loaded app stores (like hobby game development, or open source tools that don't want to or can't pay the Apple tax).
Epic argued in court that Android side-loading has been designed to make side-loading difficult and annoying.
Background, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple.
There are many big players that don't go through the Play Store, and for a variety of reasons. Fortnite and ISP-promoted apps and device-manucacturer apps (for business and leverage reasons), DMM (because a primary line of their business is in adult content), and basically everything in mainland China (because Google doesn't operate there).
These players all operate their own app stores.
But ISPs still deliver apps through their app stores, and whole segments of big players also successfully distribute outside of it, out of necessity: adult content and the Chinese ecosystem. Note that the DMM example I cited is unheard of outside of Japan, but very well-known in Japan itself.
I’m genuinely curious. I have no clue.
The app store is just called DMM Games store [0], since it distributes both its age-unrestricted games as well as games under its adult imprint (Fanza) via it.
With videos, since stores of videos are allowed on the play store, you instead have the situation that the DMM videos app is available on Android and iPhone, and the Fanza imprint is separately downloadable on Android [1, nsfw, needs vpn]
That didn't happen on Android. But at least on android you can download the apk from github, or use f-droid
Epic did it on Android (they pointed to their own source for Fortnite).
For others, there's no need, like there is on iOS. E.g.:
Google doesn't need to build their own Android app store, they control the main one already!
Facebook doesn't need to do it, as Google is not as strict with app privacy constraints as Apple is.
Together with app owners selling out to malware types, and I see a lack of updates as a blessing.
I want to buy an app version and use that app version until I decide otherwise.
Ideally, when I run an app, inform me there is an update, let me know the benefits, and let me decide if I want to install or not, before or after using the app on this occasion.
On a OnePlus phone I can easily activate root access and install f-droid as root which enables full updates handling.
It's much better than having no alternative store at all, and installing things via adb commands.
1. It is highly dependent on the mechanics of how Apple implements side-loading (again, if it has a scary warning or requires you to turn something on deep in Settings, it's unclear if this would actually be the case). Especially considering that for many apps Apple now has their own versions, so it might not be a great idea for Google to put more hoops to jump through to get to Maps when Apple ships a (now) fairly competent Maps app built in.
2. It also disregards the other benefits the AppStore could provide aside from being the only game in town, as it does now. Again, there are many features that make a lot of sense to be tied to AppStore accounts, the most obvious of which is anything having to do with ease of payments. You might be leaving a lot of money on the table by completely abandoning the "one tap" payments that AppStore payments gets you (especially with in-app purchases, etc.). Separately, users will expect Family Sharing to "just work", etc. Again -- this aligns incentives really well on both sides: a lot of these features are implemented fairly poorly today by Apple because there's no rush, its not like there's another option. With a good incentive to make Family Sharing shine with respect to the competition, it could start being far less confusing and be far more flexible too. It might not take 5 year stretches to get bottom-of-the-barrel basic features like paid app updates or app trials, etc.
3. This actually flips a lot of current economics of the app store on its head: it is an open secret that Apple grants sweetheart deals to big companies on the AppStore who don't pay 30%. This is the worst of both worlds: the big players are given an unfair advantage on the AppStore. However, if they were attracted by their greed to try to "do it on their own" outside the AppStore, then small startups have a real shot at going head to head by being the "AppStore-compliant" version of the app, since 30% is an easier pill to swallow when its not billions of dollars in revenue.
4. The idea that because one or two apps convince users to side-load means that it would open the flood gates to every single scam app doing it is a fairly BIG slippery slope to... slide down? Again, if the process is fairly onerous for each side-load, then you might find that ONLY big names can actually convince people to do it, or important apps like HKMap.live or other apps that nations try to use the bottleneck of the AppStore to prevent. As mentioned elsewhere in these comments -- side-loading wouldn't necessarily mean you don't have to jump through some other Apple hoops.
And most importantly, I would argue that the current situation is worse. Apple tells everyone the AppStore is safe, and thus every app that appears on the AppStore is "Apple approved" (LITERALLY!). This precisely lulls people into installing scammy apps. Apple can't pop up a disclaimer every time you download something from the AppStore saying "HEY NOW CAREFUL, THIS APP MAY BE A SCAM," because it would go against the entire marketing of the AppStore. But they CAN put such a disclaimer in front of every side-load, because they owe those apps nothing and it hurts Apple's reputation none at all in that case.
And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g. Google, Facebook, Abobe, Zoom, Epic, would start their own independent app store (or distribution just for their apps).
Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc).
Then every scammer and scamster does the same for their apps, and lures enough people to get them, and depending on what's allowed, you also get pirated app "stores". In the end the result is not so great for the devs complaining either...
Now instead of 1 method of payment, 1 way to enforce subscriptions/cancellations and other rules, one checkpoint, you have 2 or 5 or 10.