Apple urges lawmakers to reject bill that would force it to allow side-loading
Apple is urging top Senate lawmakers to reject a new piece of antitrust legislation that would force it to allow iOS users to download apps from outside of the App Store.
US Capitol building
The letter, penned by Apple head of government affairs in the Americas Tim Powderly, was sent to top members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of its scheduled discussion of the bill on Thursday. It echoes many of Apple's previous criticisms of antitrust legislation.
"We are deeply concerned that the legislation, unless amended, would make it easier for big social media platforms to avoid the pro-consumer practices of Apple's App Store, and allow them to continue business as usual," wrote Powderly.
In the letter, Apple said the bill -- the Open Markets Act -- would harm user security and privacy, create legal uncertainty and expansive liability exposure, and deny consumer choice, according to Bloomberg.
"Sideloading would enable bad actors to evade Apple's privacy and security protections by distributing apps without critical privacy and security checks," Powderly wrote. "These provisions would allow malware, scams and data-exploitation to proliferate."
In addition to forcing companies to allow side-loading, the Open Markets Act would also ban companies from requiring app makers to use first-party payment systems and prohibits app marketplace operators from using non-public information to compete with third parties.
The letter was sent to Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, as well as Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee's ranking Republican.
The Open Markets Act has bipartisan support, making it likely that it will pass the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. It'll face a tougher battle when it goes up for a vote before the full Senate, however.
Back in January, Apple sent a similar letter to legislators on the Judiciary Committee railing against both the Open Markets Act, as well as the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which would bar companies from preferring its own services over those of rivals.
Read on AppleInsider
US Capitol building
The letter, penned by Apple head of government affairs in the Americas Tim Powderly, was sent to top members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of its scheduled discussion of the bill on Thursday. It echoes many of Apple's previous criticisms of antitrust legislation.
"We are deeply concerned that the legislation, unless amended, would make it easier for big social media platforms to avoid the pro-consumer practices of Apple's App Store, and allow them to continue business as usual," wrote Powderly.
In the letter, Apple said the bill -- the Open Markets Act -- would harm user security and privacy, create legal uncertainty and expansive liability exposure, and deny consumer choice, according to Bloomberg.
"Sideloading would enable bad actors to evade Apple's privacy and security protections by distributing apps without critical privacy and security checks," Powderly wrote. "These provisions would allow malware, scams and data-exploitation to proliferate."
In addition to forcing companies to allow side-loading, the Open Markets Act would also ban companies from requiring app makers to use first-party payment systems and prohibits app marketplace operators from using non-public information to compete with third parties.
The letter was sent to Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, as well as Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee's ranking Republican.
The Open Markets Act has bipartisan support, making it likely that it will pass the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. It'll face a tougher battle when it goes up for a vote before the full Senate, however.
Back in January, Apple sent a similar letter to legislators on the Judiciary Committee railing against both the Open Markets Act, as well as the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which would bar companies from preferring its own services over those of rivals.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
It’s a proprietary closed platform. Its growth and popularity in the mobile market were achieved by consumer choice, not some unfair competitive advantage they abused. As a bit of proof of that, Apple doesn’t even sell products on the low-end of the market, meaning their customers are more willing to pay more money for Apple’s products.
Wanted to add…
I do think Apple should offer some kind of tiered developer account whereby a developer could pay more yearly to opt out of the App Store and be able to distribute/sell their own apps from their own site (Apps would still be reviewed by Apple before being signed.). I also think Apple could start lowering their fees, especially for subscription services. Those two things still let Apple stay in control but also squash a lot of these issues.
Frankly, you all might be right that Apple might win more business if they did those things you want. I don't know. But I do know that I believe in freedom and Apple should be allowed to make the wrong business choices. Can you tell me why Apple should be denied freedom?
That’s a little harsh, don’t you think? As a programming hobbyist, there are things I write that I would like to be able to give to a few other people, but not “publish” on the App Store. There are more than just nefarious reasons for wanting something like side-loading.
https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/346416/how-to-share-an-app-with-friends-and-family-only <--
He cheap'd out and spent $45, the first one broke in a little over a year. He spent $60 on another one, that broke a couple years later but had a warranty, from Walmart. I took it back and got replacement unit from Walmart. The 3rd one (the replacement) broke in under a year.
I said that's it damn it, I went out and spent $90 cause they had come down since the first release at $150, like 15 years ago,
I was like here! DONE, I am sick of this replacing these stupid knock offs. I told you get the REAL DEAL and stop being stupid.
This story may seem off topic but the point is, if you get the knock offs you get CRAP.
Somethings CAN be done, 99% the right way in a controlled environment.
I still have that 4th coffee machine, the authentic Keurig one, and it's lasted over 4 years.
SECURITY, DO IT FOR ME! I don't have an army of 10,000 programmers to do it myself.
I want to make money selling software, STOP PIRACY, I don't have an army of 10,000 coders to it myself.
RIDIC
Yep. Already knew those options… not the same thing as creating a full app and sending it to someone for them to use freely without restrictions. Both TestFlight and distributing Xcode projects have limitations and hurdles.
I’m all for side-loading, but at the same time, I’m not complaining about Apple not allowing it because I fully understand why they don’t allow it, and I accept it.
Having an opinion doesn’t make someone unreasonable. Just because you cannot fathom why someone might need a 3rd option, doesn’t mean they don’t have a legitimate reason for it.
Apple charges all developers $99 a year to distribute their apps in the App Store, regardless of price. If a developer wants to make money by selling that app, then Apple should be able to charge a fee for each transaction made. Apple is completely entitled to determined what that fee is as long as the developer is aware of those fees when joining the developer program.
Believing that doesn’t preclude me from thinking Apple might be better off if they lowered those fees as an option to get rid of all these antitrust accusations.
Apple has the right, in my opinion, (and so does Google) to conduct business the way it wants, even if it's not optimal for your purposes or for anyone's purposes. Some people seem to think that companies shouldn't have the same freedoms that individuals do. If Apple doesn't want to have any app stores on iOS, they shouldn't be forced. You have lots of other choices you can make when you buy a smartphone.
Apple is not required to copy anything or everything that Android already gives you. However, in case you aren't familiar with my posts, I've been saying for years on these forums that Apple should allow users to replace iOS with Android on iPhones. Would that make you happy? You could then share apps with your friends "without restrictions," using Android on iPhones. Of course that won't make you happy because that's not really what you want. You do not want the freedom to install apps on iPhones, you want the freedom to install apps on iOS. Right?
instead our government should focus on closing some of the existing holes and making it something we don’t need to worry about. Work with other countries on cybercrime laws and enforce them harshly.
That said, I don't see a chance in Hades that the bill passes.