
Telegram files EU antitrust complaint against Apple’s App Store - confiq
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/telegram-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-apples-app-store/
======
Andrew_nenakhov
What baffles me about people defending Apple is that they are basically saying
this: _" I like not having a choice. And I want others not having a choice
too, whether they like it or not"._

Users were able to run apps on their Mac directly bypassing AppStore since
forever. Why would it suddenly be a dreadful problem if Apple would allow app
sideloading on iOS?

~~~
rzwitserloot
I don't think you get the essence of the defense.

Take New York Times. Last I checked, you can sign up online, but to cancel
your subscription, you have to call and subject yourself to a slick sales
pitch and all sorts of questions. It's inconvenient and borderline immoral.

One solution is, heh, the free hand / competition, but we clearly see that
doesn't work all that well. A much simpler solution is to identify such
behaviours and straight up outlaw that stuff. Which hasn't happened yet and
probably won't for the foreseeable future.

Here's the thing: __The app store is in some ways like a government, and
brings laws__. As long as that subscription were to run via the app store, you
_CANNOT_ hide cancellation behind a phone number. Apple won't let you ship an
app that works that way; in fact, apple does the billing.

I'm pretty sure that benefit pales in comparison to the problems that apple's
sole ownership and onerous Judge Dredd-ian (judge, jury, _and_ executioner!)
control over the fate of your apps on the apple app store bring.

But you paint the argument as zero cost to allowing alternate app stores, and
__that is not true__.

Once alternate app stores or other enforced reduction in apple's abilities to
enforce and police app store policy are in place, a bunch of apps WILL go
sleazy on you where they wouldn't have otherwise.

NB: Of course, in practice, netflix etc. just do signups online, you get the
same total lack of protection against sleazy stuff, and now the apps you
download from the app store don't even tell you what you're supposed to do
because apple won't let you explain that you need to sign up online and not in
the app. Apple's solution / the current status quo sucks; probably sucks more
than having alternate app stores available. All I'm saying is that having
alternate app stores, whilst it brings a lot of upside, does bring downside,
and that is (presumably) what the defenders of apple are trying to warn you
about: Those downsides.

~~~
zenexer
I disagree with you, though you have my upvote for articulating that argument
well.

I don’t _want_ Apple to act like a government. I want the government to act
like a government. Why isn’t the government doing more to stop companies from
employing shady sales practices? Why doesn’t the government do more to protect
my 92-year-old grandmother? Why is it so hard to cancel a gym membership? We
should be able to get together and say, “as a society, we want to forbid
predatory sales practices.”

The Apple approach has limited efficacy anyway. Sure, my grandmother can
cancel subscriptions purchased through Apple—or she could, if she knew how to
make them in the first place. But no, that requires a password.

So she has free apps like Duolingo. Those apps have ads. She taps the ads.
They bring her to websites. She enters her credit card number. Bam, new scam
subscription that she can’t cancel.

But Duolingo carries on, displaying the same scam ads, unimpeded by Apple or
any government. Duolingo probably doesn’t even know about those ads. And if
they did, “that’s the ad network’s problem.”

Some people will argue that it’s difficult to write legislation that covers
all the bases. Of course it is. But a private company’s contracts and
guidelines are no different in that regard.

~~~
maxgashkov
> I want the government to act like a government.

That's a valid point, but: the US will probably require membership
cancellations to not suck eventually. EU will too, maybe even earlier then US.

Japan? Not likely. Here the enterprise is king and individual is not a
priority.

Russia? I don't even want to begin with this one.

And that's only 2 localities I had experiences living in, Apple & App Store
probably operates in dozens of completely different jurisdictions, brining
more or less the same rules everywhere.

------
veselin
It is full of Apple (and other corporate) apologists. But I just want to point
out that Google executives were saying some years ago that if Android was not
part of Google, it would have been one of hottest startups in the valley.

Similarly, I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest
CPU company in the world. I am sure that the Apple services will also do
better outside the Apple hardware group. There are plenty of innovations and
certainly there is the tendency to use them to raise the prices for consumers
(which is illegal) as opposed to grow the market. I will refrain to say if
Apple if guilty in this case, just saying that if hypothetically it is, this
is not the end. In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by
actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies
instead of working around the laws.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Except Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any of its markets. They don't have a
monopoly in phones, laptops, desktops, tablets, music, TV, processors, none of
their products dominate their market.

Of course you can try and distort the meaning of monopoly but that isn't going
to get you very far.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
They have a monopoly on iOS app stores. This is a different market than
Android app stores because the set of customers is completely different.

It's like having a monopoly in California. "Just sell in New York instead"
doesn't work, because you already sell in New York and not selling in
California doesn't get the California customers to the New York store.

Compare this to stores that actually have competition, e.g. three grocers on
the same street corner. If you don't want to sell to one of them, the
customers who want your product just go across the street and buy it there. If
you sell to all of them they each represent a third of your sales. If you
don't want to sell to one of them, you don't actually lose all of those sales
because the same customers can still buy your product from the other stores.

If you don't sell to Apple, none of those app sales go to Android because
people don't replace their $1000 phone to buy a $1 app. That's what makes it a
different market, which is what makes it a monopoly.

~~~
nodamage
The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical
sense. Consider this, if Apple only ever made 100 smartphones and sold them to
100 people and had 0.00001% share of the smartphone market, no one in their
right mind would consider them a monopoly or ever consider bringing an anti-
trust case against them for the restrictions they impose on their own App
Store.

But everything you said would still hold true:

"They have a monopoly on iOS app stores." "This is a different market than
Android app stores because the set of customers is completely different."

So clearly this definition cannot be the correct way to define what is and
isn't a monopoly.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> But everything you said would still hold true

That's because it would still _be_ true, because the market for apps for a
particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no
matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents.

In practice if the market was that small then nobody would _care_. It takes a
certain market size before it's worth the effort of bringing a case against
the monopolist. But that's a different question than whether there is one or
not.

Your argument is essentially that if a small town with a population of 100 has
only a single retail store within two hours drive, that store doesn't have a
local monopoly because not enough people live there. But they still do. Even
if they're too small for anybody to do anything about it in practice.

Apple, of course, is not that small.

~~~
nodamage
> That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a
> particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market
> no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone
> represents.

That's incredibly tautological. Walmart has a monopoly on the distribution of
products sold in Walmarts. Nintendo has a monopoly on the distribution of
games on Nintendo products. Visa has a monopoly on Visa transactions.

These are not meaningful distinctions: the consumer has a choice not to shop
at Walmart, not to buy a Nintendo product, and not to use a Visa card.
Similarly, the consumer has a choice not to buy an Apple product.

The types of apps available on a particular phone are part of the purchasing
decision of which phone to buy, just like which games are available for a
gaming console might influence which console you buy.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> That's incredibly tautological.

It's not, because markets are defined by economics and not brands. People keep
asserting over and over again that a brand is not a market, but nobody is
claiming that, they just happen to coincide in this case.

What defines a market is whether there are substitutes. If you have an iPhone
and need an app, and you could install an Android app on your iPhone, then
iPhone apps and Android apps would be the same market. But since you can't,
they're not.

Notice how this doesn't apply to random Walmart products. There may be a
Walmart brand of motor oil that only Walmart sells, but you can go to Amazon
and buy a different brand of motor oil and still use it in the same car. The
relevant market is "motor oil of the spec that works with your car" rather
than "Walmart motor oil" and Walmart doesn't have a monopoly on that.

But for the market "apps of the spec that works with your iPhone" you can only
buy through Apple, so they do have a monopoly.

~~~
nodamage
"If you have an Xbox and need a game, and you could install a Nintendo game on
your Xbox, then Xbox games and Nintendo games would be the same market. But
since you can't, they're not."

Sorry, that makes no sense. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all compete in the
market of video games. They are not competing in three separate markets of
"video games for Xbox", "video games for Playstations", and "video games for
Nintendos". Nintendo games _are_ substitutes for Xbox games, even though you
can't take a Nintendo game and directly plug it into an Xbox.

As another commenter put it, you're gerrymandering the definition of the
market to suit your argument.

------
holmesworcester
It's important to remember that the root issue is not Apple's profit margin,
it's Apple's refusal to allow users to install the apps they wish to install
on phones that they've legally purchased.

The margin, if it is indeed very high—and common sense says it must be very
high—is just an indicator of how much power this control gets them and what
the degree of harm might be.

~~~
threeseed
I can't install the apps I wish to install on my Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft,
Tesla, VW etc.

Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented
one that would destroy many business models.

Consoles being an obvious one.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> I can't install the apps I wish to install on my Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft,
> Tesla, VW etc.

People keep bringing this up as if it wouldn't be better if they were required
to allow competition too.

> Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an
> unprecedented one that would destroy many business models.

The illegality of murder destroys the business model of hitmen. Destroying
harmful business models is _the idea_.

It's not as if consoles wouldn't exist under a different business model. The
console itself would cost more (or just generate less profit) and the games
would cost less. It's hard to see how that wouldn't be an improvement.

~~~
ballenf
"Harmful business model" is a reductive, meaningless argument.

I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by
your suggestion.

How do you choose which group's harm is more important? And who do you trust
to make that analysis?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> "Harmful business model" is a reductive, meaningless argument.

It has a very specific meaning here. It means a market where the company is
not subject to significant competitive pressure.

> I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by
> your suggestion.

You are engaged in arbitrage. The company sold you a subsidized game console
on the theory that you would buy games for it, and you didn't. If everyone did
what you did the business model would fail anyway (or the company would devise
a way to prevent you from doing that), so you're hardly in a position to argue
against something else that attacks the same business model that you're
attacking yourself. You would also have no recourse if the company implemented
some method of preventing your arbitrage.

> How do you choose which group's harm is more important?

The one being deprived of the benefits of competition.

> And who do you trust to make that analysis?

You can make it yourself. Obviously you have to hire someone to actually do
the enforcement, but if they come to the same conclusion as you then you know
they're doing it right.

------
objclxt
> Meanwhile, the expenses required to host and review these apps are in the
> tens of millions, not billions of dollars. We know that because we at
> Telegram host and review more public content than the App Store ever will.

That’s some hyperbole from Telegram. How big is the App Store engineering and
review team? I don’t know, but one report had at least 300 reviewers alone[1].
Add devops, engineering, management...this is easily a team of 500 people,
almost certainly more. And then you’ve got to add hardware and opex costs.

Does Telegram seriously believe a team of that size costs “tens of millions”?
Because I’ve never seen a project of that size and complexity come in at that
level.

[1]: [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/how-apples-app-review-
proces...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/how-apples-app-review-process-for-
the-app-store-works.html)

~~~
Discombulator
Whatever the true cost is, the argument is spurious: Apple is not forced to
provide this service at cost (or with a “reasonable” markup), they can charge
in any case what they want.

Telegram should rather make a convincing argument why Apple should be
considered a monopolist, which is not clear to me given the overall <30%
market share of Apple in the phone market.

~~~
skrowl
100% of apps installed on iOS are through the iOS lockdown walled garden app
store. This is monopoly bundling by definition.

It' doesn't matter than they're only ~11% marketshare of smartphones sold.

~~~
threeseed
And how do you reconcile online stores for software businesses e.g. Atlassian,
Github, Shopify ?

I can't install addons without going through their "app store".

~~~
thewebcount
Forget about app stores. You probably can't get your branded products into
Trader Joe's, but nobody's calling them a monopoly.

~~~
molmalo
To be fair, Trader Joe's or any other store does not require me to go through
them, without any other alternative, every time I want to modify or use in new
ways my stuff after I bought it.

------
rgovostes
Note that the Telegram messaging app is free, with no in-app purchases or
premium membership. They are paying Apple only the annual developer program
membership.

> Telegram said that in 2016 Apple restricted the messaging app from launching
> a gaming platform on the grounds that it went against App Store rules.

Ok, so they wanted to launch their own game store, basically? And what would
their business model have been?

> In its complaint, Telegram took issue with Apple’s argument that the App
> Store commission keeps it running.

Why do I doubt that they were going to offer their gaming platform at-cost?

~~~
dieortin
You must be unfamiliar with telegram. They were going to offer their gaming
platform for free.

~~~
goblin89
The fact that something is free to you does not mean no one is paying.

~~~
techntoke
Telegram is also open source.

~~~
goblin89
I don’t know if you are seeking to counter my point, but open source seems
orthogonal to expenses associated with maintaining infrastructure, ongoing
development, reviewing massive amounts of UGC and so on.

~~~
techntoke
I was under the impression you were trying to indicate that just because
Telegram is free, that it's users are paying one way or another. However,
agreed that Telegram does end up paying for backend costs but the app could be
modified to utilize a different backend.

------
ConsiderCrying
Joining Spotify and Rakuten. Honestly hope there'll be more to come. The
recent situation with Google and Danish record companies being in a stand-off
and Google deleting Danish music from YouTube shows how bad things can get if
left unchecked.

~~~
tehabe
two different issues. Google is not deleting Danish music, just blocking them
in Denmark. Because they don't want to agree on the higher costs for the
rights. The topic is rather complex but honestly, I think the issue is not
really YouTube but the contracts between musicians and record labels, if those
were more fair musicians would earn a lot more, even if YouTube paid less to
the record companies. But this rather off-topic.

~~~
playeren
My understanding of the matter is that while KODA and Google were negotiating,
Google insisted their cut be raised with 80% until they reach a new agreement
at an unknown date in the future.

I would also be wary of letting the other party in a negotiation create strong
incentives to never reach a new mutually beneficial agreement.

------
chmars
I’m wondering which legal entity has filed the complaint. Telegram has always
been reluctant to provide transparency on its ownership and the legal entities
in charge.

~~~
maqp
Regarding transparency, imagine the faces of the journalists who in 2018 went
to check Telegram's offices in Dubai and the Aramex employees who share the
floor with Telegram said they've never even seen anyone enter Telegram's
office spaces. Apparently Telegram's registered in Dubai just to evade taxes.

Source? Here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1chIByzDhsg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1chIByzDhsg)

Telegram supposedly doesn't make a profit, but not having to pay corporate
taxes also allows them to hide their profits. Where are they working from? How
many employees are there? Also given that they had to return their ICO money
and pay 18M USD in fines[1], how are they funding the supposedly free app when
[2] estimates the running costs of the app are about 200M USD / year?

[1] [https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/icos/sec-
orde...](https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/icos/sec-orders-
telegram-to-pay-18m-fine-refunds-1-2-billion-to-investors/)

[2] [https://www.businessofapps.com/data/telegram-
statistics/](https://www.businessofapps.com/data/telegram-statistics/)

~~~
dijit
if you're serious, then it's because of Pavel Durov's personal wealth.

if you're unfamiliar Pavel Durov created VK, which is a 'facebook-like' for
Russia, although it's a bit more advanced than facebook, promoting piracy and
some other stuff that wouldn't fly in the USA.

The Putin administration demanded Durov give access to personal data on the
platform, Durov declined, went into self-imposed exile and the state
confiscated his company. No VK is owned by the russian government, but Durov
still had an enourmous personal wealth, something in the amount of 3 billion
USD.

He started Telegram in exile from Russia in hopes of eventually making himself
famous for being a free speech advocate, then using that fame to make money in
other areas.

You can see his attempts with the TON blockchain thing and the new gaming
platform. Adoption of telegram is failing, and his attempts at using telegram
as a platform to gain wealth is also failing.

~~~
maqp
" if you're serious, then it's because of Pavel Durov's personal wealth."

Any source on the amount?

"if you're unfamiliar Pavel Durov created VK"

Ah I see, what's the business VK is on? How did Pavel Durov make his money?
Did he spy on VK users and display targeted ads like Facebook does? If, is it
a good idea to trust him after that?

"went into self-imposed exile"

He returned to Russia two months later once the (possibly bogus) charges on
driving over police officer's foot were dropped.

"something in the amount of 3 billion USD."

Source?

"in hopes of eventually making himself famous for being a free speech
advocate"

So he set up to create a service that

* by default allows the server to see the content of all chats,

* that allows the server to always see the content of all group chats, and

* that allows the server to always see the content of all Windows/Linux desktop clients.

It's OK to be for free speech, but achieving that requires privacy for the
activists, and Telegram is anything but.

"then using that fame to make money in other areas."

Are these business dealings public knowledge? Does Telegram publish anything
regarding their business. I'd like to see if the records show that he indeed
is not selling user data behind everyone's backs.

"his attempts at using telegram as a platform to gain wealth is also failing"

My concern is mainly, when there's so much valuable data that gets accumulated
daily, what if he changes Telegram's business model once he runs out of money
and it's time to cash in.

------
Dahoon
The comments here might as well be on reddit or facebook. The amount of people
that think they know better then telegram's lawyers if mindbaffeling.

------
daanlo
Imho the app store clearly hinders innovation. In a recent project of ours
(corona related) we had to wait over 1 month for Apple to approve our app -
never knowing whether they would actually approve it. Google Play rejected it,
saying it wouldn‘t allow any corona related apps from parties that are not
government entities. As a response we ported everything to a web based
solution. While I can understand their aim to keep scammers out (probably
mainly to avoid PR issues) it was a real inhibitor to our legit project. For
future projects I will always build web first. With the app store/ google play
you are at the whim of some person at the other end of a textarea.

~~~
Someone
If that’s the whole story, that’s not the strongest of arguments. Google
rejected it, Apple ¿approved? it (that isn’t clear to me from your writing),
but in your opinion took too long. If Apple did approve it, how does that make
Apple bad? AFAIK, you’re ou can’t sue companies for being inefficient.

Even if Apple didn’t approve it, the statement _“As a response we ported
everything to a web based application”_ seems to imply the amount of
“innovation hindering” isn’t that large.

~~~
daanlo
It doesn‘t make Apple bad. It just means they inhibit innovation. The same way
that a micro-managing manager that needs to sign-off on everything stops
progress, but that doesn‘t make them a bad person. Your argument of porting
everything to the web is absolutely valid. We are a small team though and
having to rebuild everything for web meant we had to delay our launch - of
course this is on us. Also some of our features don‘t work in web, since the
native camera libraries are much better, but they aren‘t available on the web
in sufficient quality (neither for ios nor android). And some camera
functionalities are generally only available to safari on ios. It looks to me
as if this is on apple, but may be a chrome/firefox issue.

------
Despegar
They can file complaints but that's not going to change much. If the EC
decides to bring a case against Apple they will have the herculean task of
arguing to the courts that Apple is dominant with less than 25% share of the
smartphone market. I'm willing to bet it will be a repeat of the EC's state
aid case.

~~~
amoitnga
I pay premium for their hardware cause I want to use their software. yet even
after I bought it - I somehow dont own it. Im not renting iphone - they have
no business telling me which apps to install. market share should be
irrelevant in this argument - this is my devise.

~~~
Discombulator
But when you bought it, you knew of those restrictions, right?

A fully unrestricted phone might have cost more (because it is not cross
subsidized by App Store profit), so it is unfair to demand full functionality
at the subsidized price.

~~~
toyg
How can you seriously argue that iPhones are "subsidized by AppStore profit",
when one division pulls in 40%+ of Apple profits and the other barely 15% (and
not even alone - appstore profits get added with iCloud and others under
"Services" in Apple reports; realistically, it's probably 10% at best)...?

It's iPhones that subsidize everything else, including the AppStore. For all
their talk of "going services", Apple is still first and foremost a hardware
company.

~~~
Discombulator
I’m not doubting the facts you mention and the amount of the hypothetical
subsidy might be on average in the low two digit dollar range. The overall
point is however that the App Store restriction was known at the time of
purchase, so demanding to remove it without compensation is unfair.

(What would you say if your employer or client demands to pay a bit less after
signing a contract with you?)

~~~
toyg
_> I’m not doubting the facts you mention_

That's because they are facts. I mean, look up Apple reports, they are very
readable.

 _> and the amount of the hypothetical subsidy_

There is no such subsidy! Why would you "subsidize" something that makes 3-4
times as much money as you do...? The AppStore didn't even exist and the
iPhone was already making money!

 _> The overall point is however that the App Store restriction was known at
the time of purchase_

Key point being _was_. One can just demand that new phones be sold without
this restriction, if you really want to stick to the old rules.

 _> What would you say if your employer or client demands to pay a bit less_

The government can mandate that your employer should pay you less from today,
or even that it should pay you more for stuff done in the past (although
retroactivity in law is pretty bad, it is still occasionally applied). Laws
change every day, all over the world. Stuff that was legal yesterday might not
be tomorrow, that's just a fact of life. And let's not even get into clients:
cutting prices, credit notes, and discounts, are just the price of doing
business and happen every minute of every day.

------
yannikyeo
I believe one can launch an "app-store" like platform, WeChat has done it with
its mini apps. But it will get tricky with Apple when you start earning money
from your app developers.

~~~
cprecioso
WeChat _is_ the whole OS. The mini apps are the actual apps people want. China
runs on them. Apple can’t afford not to have it, so they’re basically allowed
to do (almost) anything.

------
skc
Must be pretty disorienting if you're an EU lawmaker who loves these products
and have to make these calls.

Apple products are beloved the way sports teams are.

Now you have to decide if those products should be tarnished (because that's
what Apple would see it as) or not.

------
t0ughcritic
This was spot on. Not sure how Tim Crook can state there is no anti trust
behaviour.

------
RomaTesla
Through the App Store Apple make sure IOS apps are high quality, which won't
be possible if developers start publishing apps all over the place. The fee is
too high, that's a fact and that's the problem. The fact that you cannot
download apps outside of the App Store is not the problem

~~~
skrowl
It's worth it to be able to download actual Firefox / Chrome / PPSSPP /
PornHub / etc on iOS since Apple bans them for no reason

~~~
scarface74
So exactly what would a Pornhub app do that you can’t do from the website?

Can I buy porn from most mainstream retailers?

~~~
ToruiDev
It would depend on your definition of porn of course, but at least in Germany
you can get pornographic magazines at lots of kiosks/stores, especially the
bigger ones

~~~
scarface74
I’m really trying to be respectful and being careful about the rabbit hole
that this question could go down....

But by “porn” do you mean Playboy level nudity or more hard core?

~~~
toyg
In most European countries, hardcore is typically on sale anywhere you can buy
a newspaper or magazine.

~~~
scarface74
It’s definitely not like that in the US.

------
supernova87a
This case is so full of pot calling kettle back, it's amusing. Not to detract
from their claim, but cmon, at least use arguments that hold water.

 _" Meanwhile, the expenses required to host and review these apps are in the
tens of millions, not billions of dollars."_

As if the price a company charges for its product has to be tied strictly to
the cost it incurs to make that product. Does Telegram follow the same rule in
its business dealings?

As in so many disputes, the parties will claim this is about principles and
yada yada yada, "Apple/Google exercises monopoly control, etc.

You can be guaranteed though, it's always just about the price and how the one
party doesn't want to pay it, and the other party doesn't want to change it.
Simple as that.

------
tigranbs
I think giving ability to download apps outside of App Store would break the
entire business model that Apple has, because app owners will use other
subscription providers and payment options with cheaper fees, but on the other
hand there would be a huge problem with Scam apps or cracked versions. So it's
not going to happen anyway...

~~~
actuator
I think one of the reasoning Telegram is giving is good though. If protesters
in HK are using Telegram to communicate and Apple removes it from the App
Store then they have no recourse of installing it.

I guess giving a way like in Android where you hide the setting behind a flag
in settings and explicitly keep warning the user when they install an app from
outside is a decent middle ground.

I am not sure of this but I think recent version of either Android/Pixel do a
check on apps even installed from outside for malicious activity.

~~~
threeseed
If Apple allowed sideloading of apps it would mirror the Mac. Where apps are
still approved by Apple in order to be signed. And unsigned apps are by
default not allowed to be opened.

This would not change the situation in HK where China could simply force Apple
not to sign the Telegram app and instead sign their fake Telegram app.

~~~
toyg
You can still run unsigned apps on macOS, either by clicking through pop-ups
or (at worst) by disabling Gatekeeper.

~~~
threeseed
By default to run an unsigned app you need to right-click on the app and
select Open. Then it will present a dialog asking whether to ignore the
signing. Otherwise there is no option.

Very few people know about this.

~~~
toyg
I know (I've been on mac for more than a decade, arguably as a power-user),
and anybody who needs to know can google it in 5 seconds. Also, gatekeeper can
be completely disabled from the command line, and then you don't get even that
pop-up and you can run stuff unsigned.

An arrangement like this would work fine on iOS too.

There is no technical motive behind Apple's refusal to allow sideloading. It's
simply a monopolistic power-play.

