Senate lawmakers introduce bill targeting Apple App Store, Google Play

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 66
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,739member
    bulk001 said:
    About time! Look forward to installing any app from any source I want and not only those Cook decides. Look forward to iDos, Epic, streaming game apps from Microsoft, FB etc and buying directly from the Amazon app etc without having to jump through hoops to make the world’s most profitable
    company more money. 
    Then why don't you just use a Samsung smartphone. Or any other smartphone on Android, other than buying one that made more money for the World's most profitable company? Looks like you can have your cake and eat it too. If you only had the brain to buy an Android phone in the first place or at least learn how to jailbreak.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 62 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    I just wish Apple would allow users to install software of their choosing on the devices they own

    It’s such a bad thing on Mac, right?

    No, it’s perfectly fine and Apple embraces it.

    No, it's not perfectly fine.  It's the legacy from early PC history.  And Apple has stated that it isn't fine.  That it has drawbacks.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    designr said:
    designr said:
    Here come the idiots…They ignore the monopoly Straus oil companies have enjoyed for 70 years and go after app market places. They ignore the monopoly status of cable providers, the consolidation of media markets and go after…app stores. 
    Cable providers are typically regulated by the franchising authority of the local municipality which often gets a small cut of the cable provider’s revenues.
    The ability of local municipalities to grant such monopolies is something I'd love to see the federal government prohibit. The feds toss around the commerce clause for almost anything they want. This would seem to legitimately fit under that clause. Such a ban could go a long way to enable greater competition in this space.

    Prices were lower and service better back when local municipalities granted -- and regulated -- those monopolies.
    Then, the holy grail of privatized capitalist competition eliminated that and it's been mostly a mess since -- enough that the federal government is now talking about stepping in with billions of corporate welfare to straighten things back out. 

    From what I've read on this subject the story is way more complicated than that. This is not an adequate forum to debate it. But, if you've not read "Cable Cowboy" you might be interested in it. It's not the only thing to read on this subject and industry but it's a pretty good one and it delves into the multivariate factors that shaped the industry. Needless to say the federal government "stepping in" (multiple times) in the past to "fix" things is, unsurprisingly, what helped create the mess.

    My experience of it was fine.  In fact, I'm transmitting this over the same physical coax installed 40 years by Adelphia Cable (now long gone).   They were regarded and treated and regulated as utilities -- as they should be now. 

    Likewise, how wasteful is it to have different companies stringing wire along the same route?  That duplication is what we call "competition" but is, in fact, just wasteful double work.  While it is true, as Biden recently pointed out, that the worst service is in those areas with only one provider, that is due to the lack of regulation rather than a lack of competition -- how many gas suppliers do you need or have?  Water?   Electric?   When it's done right, you only need one.

    And, no I would not blame that on "the federal government" stepping in.  Like with AT&T, it was private industry pushing the holy grail of "competition" and using the federal government to push their agenda that screwed things up.  We need to return to sanity over ideology.
    ....   And the same applies in this case as well:   sanity over misused ideology hopefully prevails.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 66
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,502member
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    I never understood carving out one component of a company and calling it a monopoly (or having monopolistic tactics)

    The app stores are one component of a product feature set and capabilities. and of a companies overall strategy and ecosystem. They have every right to control access and monetization.

    If the app store fees were so egregious, developers will look elsewhere, or consumers wouldn't pay the prices. Perhaps web-based applications would become more prominent, or another company launches products/services to capitalize on a perceived achilles heal. But that doesn't happen. Because virtually NO ONE, of the billions of users around the world, is screaming for change. And most developers wouldn't even exist, or their net profits much smaller, WITHOUT the stores.

    If Epic and a handful of others don't like it, who gives a shit? 

    Why in the world should any platform developer give free access and distribution, or lessen security, interoperability, or ease of use, for any reason? It's like someone suing Walmart to gain access to their retail floor to sell their products without paying for floor space, or giving Walmart any margin, but expecting Walmart to mange their inventory and point of sale - and marketing - for free. And giving them factory tooling (ie developer tools and support) to boot.

    I DON'T WANT side loading on iOS. That's nuts, and if anyone thinks through what that means in terms of security or loss of interoperability/functionality, and potential harm from data sharing between users, you would readily see the stupidity. And who pays for the inevitable increase in support issues in this mixed environment world? How is Apple's reputation harmed if they start telling people they can't help them, and they indirectly are stained as being less than consumer friendly?

    Mental midgetry in full force here.



    And remember, alternative App Stores mean competition. There is no obligation to use them. 

    If users are so content with the current situation and understand the current restrictions, they would have no reason to stop using the App Store. 

    So what happens when an app you need or want, is no longer available in the Apple App Store but moved to a third party app store? What happen to that choice, that iOS users had with it being in the Apple App Store, before there was other app stores? 

    What happens if you are already using and paying monthly for an app from the Apple App Store, that app moves to a third party app store and now requires you to pay with a CC, instead of iTunes? 

    What happens if your kids wants to play a $1.99 game that all their friends are playing and raving about, but its only available on a third party app store and you have to use a CC to pay for it? 

    What happens if the app you want or need, is only available on a website, must be paid for on the website with a CC and can only be side loaded? 

    So still no reason to stop using the Apple App Store and still no obligation to use a third party app store or to side load? Right? 

    Where there is no obligation for Apple, is to allow any developer to make money off iOS, without Apple being compensated for. iOS is Apple IP. iOS is not a public place where anybody can place a blanket on the sidewalk and sell their stuff to passersby. Developers are under no obligation to develop for iOS, in order to make money.

    Just like game developers are under no obligation to develop and sell games for the Xbox, if they don't want to pay Microsoft for the rights to do so. Microsoft is under no obligation to allow more competition on their Xbox platform, that directly competes with them and other developers that are paying to be there and not get paid for it. Microsoft do not owe their customers a cheaper way to buy games from developers that are not paying Microsoft to sell their games for the Xbox. Worldwide, Microsoft has more marketshare of the gaming console market, than Apple in the mobile device market. Neither of them having a "monopoly" or "monopoly power".  Saying that Microsoft has a "monopoly" with their Xbox platform is just as wrong as saying that Apple has a "monopoly" with their iOS platform.  
    At the level this is being looked at, those arguments have zero legs.

    It's like saying 'let's not have any competition at all and let Apple be the sole Gatekeeper in terms of price determination and have developers not only have no say in the matter but be forced to pass it on to consumers'.

    That is exactly what is being examined here and why the App Store is unlikely to come out of some investigations unscathed. 

    Consumer protection is there for consumers. Choice and competition must exist. 

    Some of the hypothetical cases you mention could play out. There's no doubt about it but if they do, there will be a good reason for it and Apple will have to consider those reasons when competing for business. Consumers will also have a say too. 

    If consumers press a developer for availability through the App Store then the developer will most likely listen but prices between stores may not be the same. That's the whole goal. Everyone competing. 

    If a developer goes so far as to pull an app from the App Store and it remains a success, it would simply mean consumers weren't aware of the so-called advantages of the App Store or that perhaps they simply don't consider them to be essential or worth paying more for. 

    It's also worth pointing out that any app installed through an app store wouldn't be 'sideloading', and with the Internet slowly erasing the lines between native on-device store installed apps and apps that may be fully or partially loaded from the web, the whole idea of where the App store or app 'sits' becomes moot. All apps are downloaded from the web anyway. 

    As for Microsoft or any other vendor in a similar situation to Apple or Google, we'll have to wait and see what any final legislation looks like. 


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 65 of 66
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    I never understood carving out one component of a company and calling it a monopoly (or having monopolistic tactics)

    The app stores are one component of a product feature set and capabilities. and of a companies overall strategy and ecosystem. They have every right to control access and monetization.

    If the app store fees were so egregious, developers will look elsewhere, or consumers wouldn't pay the prices. Perhaps web-based applications would become more prominent, or another company launches products/services to capitalize on a perceived achilles heal. But that doesn't happen. Because virtually NO ONE, of the billions of users around the world, is screaming for change. And most developers wouldn't even exist, or their net profits much smaller, WITHOUT the stores.

    If Epic and a handful of others don't like it, who gives a shit? 

    Why in the world should any platform developer give free access and distribution, or lessen security, interoperability, or ease of use, for any reason? It's like someone suing Walmart to gain access to their retail floor to sell their products without paying for floor space, or giving Walmart any margin, but expecting Walmart to mange their inventory and point of sale - and marketing - for free. And giving them factory tooling (ie developer tools and support) to boot.

    I DON'T WANT side loading on iOS. That's nuts, and if anyone thinks through what that means in terms of security or loss of interoperability/functionality, and potential harm from data sharing between users, you would readily see the stupidity. And who pays for the inevitable increase in support issues in this mixed environment world? How is Apple's reputation harmed if they start telling people they can't help them, and they indirectly are stained as being less than consumer friendly?

    Mental midgetry in full force here.



    And remember, alternative App Stores mean competition. There is no obligation to use them. 

    If users are so content with the current situation and understand the current restrictions, they would have no reason to stop using the App Store. 

    So what happens when an app you need or want, is no longer available in the Apple App Store but moved to a third party app store? What happen to that choice, that iOS users had with it being in the Apple App Store, before there was other app stores? 

    What happens if you are already using and paying monthly for an app from the Apple App Store, that app moves to a third party app store and now requires you to pay with a CC, instead of iTunes? 

    What happens if your kids wants to play a $1.99 game that all their friends are playing and raving about, but its only available on a third party app store and you have to use a CC to pay for it? 

    What happens if the app you want or need, is only available on a website, must be paid for on the website with a CC and can only be side loaded? 

    So still no reason to stop using the Apple App Store and still no obligation to use a third party app store or to side load? Right? 
    No obligation for sure.  It may be desireable, and that's what competition is about.

    Compare to the current situation where some apps, or even entire categories of apps are not available on the Apple curated store and yes, allowing side loading and/or alternative app stores would enable much more choice.  If some apps disappear from the Apple App Store then people will deal with it, either by finding alternatives, doing without, or embracing side loading.  And that's fine.

    And the "what happens" questions have pretty obvious answers so I'm not sure why you're asking them.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 66 of 66
    designrdesignr Posts: 782member
    designr said:
    designr said:
    Here come the idiots…They ignore the monopoly Straus oil companies have enjoyed for 70 years and go after app market places. They ignore the monopoly status of cable providers, the consolidation of media markets and go after…app stores. 
    Cable providers are typically regulated by the franchising authority of the local municipality which often gets a small cut of the cable provider’s revenues.
    The ability of local municipalities to grant such monopolies is something I'd love to see the federal government prohibit. The feds toss around the commerce clause for almost anything they want. This would seem to legitimately fit under that clause. Such a ban could go a long way to enable greater competition in this space.

    Prices were lower and service better back when local municipalities granted -- and regulated -- those monopolies.
    Then, the holy grail of privatized capitalist competition eliminated that and it's been mostly a mess since -- enough that the federal government is now talking about stepping in with billions of corporate welfare to straighten things back out. 

    From what I've read on this subject the story is way more complicated than that. This is not an adequate forum to debate it. But, if you've not read "Cable Cowboy" you might be interested in it. It's not the only thing to read on this subject and industry but it's a pretty good one and it delves into the multivariate factors that shaped the industry. Needless to say the federal government "stepping in" (multiple times) in the past to "fix" things is, unsurprisingly, what helped create the mess.

    Likewise, how wasteful is it to have different companies stringing wire along the same route?  That duplication is what we call "competition" but is, in fact, just wasteful double work.  While it is true, as Biden recently pointed out, that the worst service is in those areas with only one provider, that is due to the lack of regulation rather than a lack of competition -- how many gas suppliers do you need or have?  Water?   Electric?   When it's done right, you only need one.
    I respectfully disagree. Thanks for your perspective though.
Sign In or Register to comment.