Proposed antitrust bills would ban Apple from preinstalling its own iOS apps

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    Will grocers be required to bid out their in-house bakery space or in-house pharmaceutical clones? Or can they still pre-load them?

    There is such a disconnect here.

    MS got into monopoly trouble not for merely including IE with Windows, but for using their dominance in the OS space to force desired behavior from partners -- specifically denying OEM computer makers needed Windows licenses unless they promised to stop including Netscape with their computers. That was the anti-competitive behavior. Apple has not done the equivalent of that.
    To me, the worst part of the MS/IE story was that IE wasn’t particularly standards-compliant, probably by strategic decision, which forced developers to make multiple versions of everything or choose between a standards-compliant website vs. a site that would work for the vast majority of the public. I remember complaining to customer service representatives more than once and being told that their site didn’t officially support Macs at all, only IE on Windows.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 67
    red oakred oak Posts: 886member
    What a fucked up proposal.  Fucking morons 
    Dogpersonzeus423williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 67
    ackpfftackpfft Posts: 26member
    Would this stop Companies like Dell, HP, or Toshiba, from preloading their own bloatware? Will This stop Amazon, from loading their own apps on their tablets, what about the plethora of Android phones and tablets?

    Apple’s apps can easily be deleted and new apps different apps installed. This bill is absolute nonsense. 
    No, the legislation is written so it effects only  5 or so US companies  🙄 
    zeus423watto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 67
    danoxdanox Posts: 599member
    Further proof government fucks up *everything* it touches. Beyond things they absolutely must be involved in, the further away they are the better. 
    Government? Private companies with money are generating this, this has nothing to do with the people, government work for rich corporations.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 45 of 67
    If Apple obeyed the rules, the uproars from consumers will drown Congress. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 46 of 67
    thttht Posts: 4,031member
    Will grocers be required to bid out their in-house bakery space or in-house pharmaceutical clones? Or can they still pre-load them?

    There is such a disconnect here.

    MS got into monopoly trouble not for merely including IE with Windows, but for using their dominance in the OS space to force desired behavior from partners -- specifically denying OEM computer makers needed Windows licenses unless they promised to stop including Netscape with their computers. That was the anti-competitive behavior. Apple has not done the equivalent of that.
    To me, the worst part of the MS/IE story was that IE wasn’t particularly standards-compliant, probably by strategic decision, which forced developers to make multiple versions of everything or choose between a standards-compliant website vs. a site that would work for the vast majority of the public. I remember complaining to customer service representatives more than once and being told that their site didn’t officially support Macs at all, only IE on Windows.
    On the face of it, I think what MS demanded wasn't illegal, or should be in the purview of business relationships. They have a right to have Windows configured as they want. If they didn't like an OEM preinstalling this or that software, that was fine with me. It's a business arrangement. If they allowed pre-installs of this or that bundle, fine with me. I'm even fine with them walling off Windows and having all apps go through an app store.

    The big issue was of course that MS had about >95% of the PC market from about 1997 to 2013 or so. Some reports of 98%! Think about that for a second. The PC market was the technology market back in the 90s. There weren't any smartphones. Dumb phones were barely a thing. Windows NT and PCs were in the process of killing workstations. Cloud computing wasn't a thing. Everyone was in the process of getting rid of their client-server systems and replacing them with PCs running MS server software. PCs were the technology market and MS had >95% of it. It was as if some company today was the platform for 95% of PCs, 95% of smartphones, and 95% cloud servers. 

    Not only that, the gov't actively helped MS gained its dominance with IT requirements mandating MS Office. Not word processors or spreadsheets, but Microsoft Office. So, there definitely was a case to be at least tried. The remedies in the anti-trust suit wouldn't have done anything much, at least that's what I recall. What they needed to do was to address the network effects of the file formats and compatibility game they used, which of course they didn't do.

    It turned out that what MS thought would be IE's biggest advantage, ActiveX, turned out to be it's biggest nightmare. It killed off Netscape and other browsers, yes, but it permanently damaged IE's reputation in the aughts, possibly software in general, as a security nightmare. It was normal for users to reformat and reload their PCs because  some surf-by ActiveX plug-in malware got so embedded that a reformat of your HDD was the easiest solution. It's a testament to MS's dominance that these issues only affected IE to a great degree, and not really their OS share or their Office share. Heck, at present, there is daily ransomware attacks with Windows today. Maybe major news breaking ones once a week. Yet, I don't think there is any real threat to Windows' PC dominance.

    Fortunately, they couldn't rely on Office and Windows network effects for mobile. They were actually on a trajectory to dominate with WinCE, but iOS and Web 2.0 tech came along and totally upended what constituted a smartphone and smartphone software and services.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 67
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,511member
    This is exactly why I've been arguing for years that Apple should allow users to install Android at initial setup. If a user has the choice of Android at setup, then they are free from Apple's default apps. This whole issue will go away because Apple's apps will not be "preinstalled" until the user chooses to install iOS. The whole "App Store monopoly argument" also withers.
  • Reply 48 of 67
    Anilu_777Anilu_777 Posts: 266member
    You can delete Apple’s apps except the vital ones such as Settings, App Store, Phone, Camera, Fitness, Messages, Contacts, Find My and Safari. 

    rcfa said:
    What needs to end is either the walled garden or the AppStore monopoly, it should also be possible to delete Apple’s apps to free up storage, not just hide them.

    It should also be possible for the user to let apps access hardware info, but it should require user consent and be tied to apps with strict privacy policies.

    In other words the restrictions on what sort of apps users may run on their own hardware need to go; but not Apple’s ability to provide an integrated solution.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 67
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,328member
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Next up, let's not allow automakers to include factory sound systems in cars. Instead, they have to leave the hole open for any after-market radio you want to install. For that matter, they shouldn't be able to pre-install any component for which there is a third-party competitor. Tires, wheels, brakes, fog lights, headlights, floor mats, shocks, turbos, tailpipes, seat covers, seats, wiper blades, wipers, windshields, sunroofs, moon-roofs, batteries, belts, oil, coolant, the list goes on. Let's break the automakers' monopoly on car components they want to force you to take preinstalled on your new car!
    Magnuson-Moss Act.

    Buy the car and put whatever you want on it. Buy the iPhone and put whatever you want on it. 
    Magnuson-Moss Act has nothing to do with "buy the car and put whatever you want on it". What Magnuson-Moss Act entail is that so long as you install parts that meets OEM specs, the auto maker can not void any warranty you still have because you installed the parts yourself or had it installed by an independent auto shop. This prevents auto makers from forcing new car owners to have their cars service only by a dealer or authorized repair shop, otherwise they void their warranty. 

    No where in Magnuson-Moss Act does it state that one can install a turbo-charge into a new Ford Focus and if the engine blows, Ford still have to honor their 100K warranty on the engine. 

    But yes, if one buys a car, they can put anything they want on it. Regardless if it's still under warranty. But the car maker don't have to offer any assistance, if you want to install something that the car was not designed for. The same  is true with the iPhone, one can install anything they want on it. Just jailbreak it. But Apple do not have to offer any assistance and make jail breaking an iPhone easier for you to do. 

    Or do you think otherwise?  Maybe you think Apple should allow or be forced to provide, jailbreaking apps in their App Store because when one buys an iPhone, one can "put whatever they want on it". 
    edited June 17 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 67
    frantisekfrantisek Posts: 738member
    sflocal said:
    So if I build my own phone and my own os, and sell it as a single product, I would be barred from loading my own apps on it?

    F**k you politicians.  

    I see no scenario where Apple would ever let this happen.  If passed, it will be forever tied up in the courts.  The iPhone has plenty of competition.  There is zero point to this.

    All big businesses become at some point public service. And it needs some rules.

    I do not mind when non essential apps are not installed. Like Page, Music. But it is stupid to threaten messages and other basic services.
    As mentioned it should be applied to other areas like supermarkets where they should not be able offer own branded products. What would be positive.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,171member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Next up, let's not allow automakers to include factory sound systems in cars. Instead, they have to leave the hole open for any after-market radio you want to install. For that matter, they shouldn't be able to pre-install any component for which there is a third-party competitor. Tires, wheels, brakes, fog lights, headlights, floor mats, shocks, turbos, tailpipes, seat covers, seats, wiper blades, wipers, windshields, sunroofs, moon-roofs, batteries, belts, oil, coolant, the list goes on. Let's break the automakers' monopoly on car components they want to force you to take preinstalled on your new car!
    Magnuson-Moss Act.

    Buy the car and put whatever you want on it. Buy the iPhone and put whatever you want on it. 
    Magnuson-Moss Act has nothing to do with "buy the car and put whatever you want on it". What Magnuson-Moss Act entail is that so long as you install parts that meets OEM specs, the auto maker can not void any warranty you still have because you installed the parts yourself or had it installed by an independent auto shop. This prevents auto makers from forcing new car owners to have their cars service only by a dealer or authorized repair shop, otherwise they void their warranty. 

    No where in Magnuson-Moss Act does it state that one can install a turbo-charge into a new Ford Focus and if the engine blows, Ford still have to honor their 100K warranty on the engine. 

    But yes, if one buys a car, they can put anything they want on it. Regardless if it's still under warranty. But the car maker don't have to offer any assistance, if you want to install something that the car was not designed for. The same  is true with the iPhone, one can install anything they want on it. Just jailbreak it. But Apple do not have to offer any assistance and make jail breaking an iPhone easier for you to do. 

    Or do you think otherwise?  Maybe you think Apple should allow or be forced to provide, jailbreaking apps in their App Store because when one buys an iPhone, one can "put whatever they want on it". 
    You just answered your own question. Look at your first four sentences.

    Unless the addition/modification can be shown to have at least in part caused damage to the vehicle the automaker must still honor the warranty, That aftermarket turbo may cause damage, therefore (probably) no engine warranty. The same would apply to anything the iPhone owner adds to his device post-purchase including an aftermarket part such as a screen, or a third party app that extends functions. If it can be shown that "thing" caused the damage a customer wants corrected under warranty then Apple would not be responsible. That's not a difficult concept is it?

    Apple may deny device warranties now for damages caused by the owner, and does not have to assist anyone else providing a modification or repair. But the automaker cannot actively attempt to block the modification/repair? Nor should Apple.
    Explain how this would be different. 
    edited June 17 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 52 of 67
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,317member
    tht said:
    Hard to see how this passes constitutional muster, but judges are people too with their own set of motivated reasoning, so who knows.

    On the "be careful what you wish for" department, all these developers asking governments to force Apple's platforms to be like MS Windows or Android, I think what is likely to happen is that they make less money. An iOS user spends about 2x to 3x more on apps than an Android user, and probably even more than that than a Windows user. Hence, why all the complaints are over Apple's App Store, even though Apple has minority share worldwide, with a sprinkling of some countries where they are over 50%. Hardly any whining about the Google Play Store.

    The App Store buys trust. That's what the 15/30% buys developers. Trust. Users are more freely willing to spend money when there has been a modicum of filtering and checking for apps along with easy ways to get refunds and to unsubscribe. Same thing with Amazon's Marketplace.

    If there is sideloading and alternate application stores, all we would see is Balkanization, less quality apps and less spending on apps. There will be a Facebook App Store, Amazon App Store, Microsoft App Store, developers who will rely solely on sideloading. All this would mean is the middle to lower class of app developers will lose. The rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer. Indie development will only be harder. Not only that, apps will cost more because they won't be competing in a unified marketplace anymore. Exclusivity to a particular App Store protects them from competition.

    Users won't buy or spend as much money on apps because it is just going to be harder, not as safe, and it is all but inevitable to have pirated apps, malware apps and ransomware apps. Once users see that, the wallets stay closed.

    But, long way to go here, as it hard to see how this passes constitutional muster, let alone actual legislation passing.
    You fucking nailed it.  Multiple app stores will do nothing but make life hell for most developers. Each store with different standards, guidelines, submission policies, security measures, update policies, etc. Now every single app and update will need to be tested against MULTIPLE stores, slowing down development, making it more expensive, and resulting in less quality for the user. And for what? Who the fuck benefits? Not users. Not developers. Only the very richest of the richest developers like Epic, who keep a bit more money in their pocket for fortnite vbucks and such. While making things worse for pretty much everyone else. That's what this whole thing is about, and nothing more. Multiple App Stores and all the headaches and security/privacy/development dilution that will cause will be a net negative to the vast, VAST majority of people who use iOS products. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 67
    svogonsvogon Posts: 3member
    sflocal said:
    rcfa said:
    What needs to end is either the walled garden or the AppStore monopoly, it should also be possible to delete Apple’s apps to free up storage, not just hide them.

    It should also be possible for the user to let apps access hardware info, but it should require user consent and be tied to apps with strict privacy policies.

    In other words the restrictions on what sort of apps users may run on their own hardware need to go; but not Apple’s ability to provide an integrated solution.
    That you want the iPhone to work just like an Android phone is wrong on every level.  You want that functionality?  Go the the COMPETITION.  Apple's business model is why it's so popular and has such brand loyalty.

    Android is where you want to be at, with the countless garbage phones to fill your needs along with a multitude of malware-infested apps to your heart's content.

    I'll even hold the door open for you on your way out.
    I'm more a macOS user (plus 1 iPad) and have had Android phones for quite awhile. Never had a problem with Malware. Most apps are excellent and many to choose from. At best your information is dated and at worst just propaganda you've been led to believe.
    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondonavon b7
  • Reply 54 of 67
    svogonsvogon Posts: 3member
    lkrupp said:
    So politicians would basically force Apple and Google to sell non functioning devices to the public?
    Hopefully, yes and no. On either platform (for example) you get "their" Calendar app and it is difficult, if not impossible to remove it.  What if it is a business phone/iPad and that business uses Outlook?  Why can't I uninstall the Calendar app?

    Repeat for similar apps that are forced-installed-always.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 55 of 67
    teejay2012teejay2012 Posts: 296member
    Let buyers choose... Apple could sell an 'app free' iPhone with a blank screen , or one with installed apps - for the same price /s. I know which one I would buy LOL.
    edited June 17 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,171member
    lkrupp said:
    So politicians would basically force Apple and Google to sell non functioning devices to the public?
    Russia already has, and Apple has no issue complying. At boot up users make a choice of what apps to use for certain tasks, ie search, maps, music, rather than default 1st party apps that are the sole preinstalled choice.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 57 of 67
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,456member
    Will grocers be required to bid out their in-house bakery space or in-house pharmaceutical clones? Or can they still pre-load them?

    There is such a disconnect here.

    MS got into monopoly trouble not for merely including IE with Windows, but for using their dominance in the OS space to force desired behavior from partners -- specifically denying OEM computer makers needed Windows licenses unless they promised to stop including Netscape with their computers. That was the anti-competitive behavior. Apple has not done the equivalent of that.
    Actually it’s been done before. When AT&T was broken up the so-called Baby Bells were forced to provide space and power to competitors wanting to sell dial tone in competition. The central office I worked in was divided into sections so the competition could install their equipment. Some competitors were virtual in that they leased switch ports and cable pairs from the Baby Bells at a regulated price so they could ‘compete’. It was all smoke and mirrors but the politicians called it competition. Needles to say, fast forward to 2021 and every one of those ‘competitors have disappeared and their equipment cages are empty. Even with the power of the U.S. government behind them they couldn’t compete.

    Never underestimate the ability of a politician to screw something up and then claim success in the face of failure.


    williamlondon
  • Reply 58 of 67
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,456member
    Just remember that a bill like this has almost zero chance of getting through the equally divided Senate. And if history repeats itself as it almost always does, the House and Senate will change hands in 2022 mid-term elections. That will be long before the shitload of lawsuits have winded their way to the SCOTUS. 

    So we can rage all we want to but calm down, this ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, if ever.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 67
    JBSloughJBSlough Posts: 88member
    This is exactly why I've been arguing for years that Apple should allow users to install Android at initial setup. If a user has the choice of Android at setup, then they are free from Apple's default apps. This whole issue will go away because Apple's apps will not be "preinstalled" until the user chooses to install iOS. The whole "App Store monopoly argument" also withers.

    And exactly how would that work? Would Google have to write a version of Android to work on Apple’s A series chips? Or would Apple have to? Or maybe Apple shouldn’t be allowed to use their own chips anymore because Android doesn’t run on them. 

    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 60 of 67
    JBSloughJBSlough Posts: 88member
    All kidding aside, I really think Apple’s plan B is to use the Gatekeeper model that’s on macOS. App Store only; Certified Apps; and anything you want. Apple will obviously flash warnings when downloading off the web but maybe with Certified Apps Apple can have the developer use Apple Pay as way to gain trust (biggest issue for me is when I buy apps out of the App Store who am I giving my credit card info to?) This should calm down those who feel Apple has a monopoly on its store. I’m sure Apple can spin this model in its favor as far as privacy goes. If this doesn’t fly maybe they should go back to Jobs original idea: build web apps. 
    edited June 17 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.