Senate lawmakers introduce bill targeting Apple App Store, Google Play

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,459member
    applguy said:
    hexclock said:
    If government forces additional App stores on Apple and Google, then by extension shouldn’t Apple or Google be allowed to maintain an App Store on XBox, or PlayStation then? Seems fair to me. 
    I could definitely see Epic, EA, Take-Two Interactive wanting a store on Xbox and PS. It’s not the developers problem that Sony and MS sell consoles at a loss (so Sony claims for the PS5 while posting record profits). Selling at a loss sounds anti-competitive (predatory pricing) and hurts consumers by making games more expensive as developers have to pay exorbitant fees (30%) to distribute through each consoles store. 

    No, that practice of selling a base unit at a loss has been around for ages:   Gilette is a classic example used in college marketing courses:   They started practically giving their razors away -- so that people would have to buy their razor blades.   It was incredibly successful and profitable.

    I'm not familiar with PlayStation but I looked into alternatives for the XBox -- and there were none.  While I could get a more powerful PC, there was no way I could come anywhere close to the power of the XBox Series X for the price.
    applguy
  • Reply 42 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,459member
    mikeinca said:
    2/3 Republicans erroneously believe the last election was fraudulent, despite 60+ cases challenging the election being thrown out for a complete lack of evidence.  Lawyers for Trump admitted they had no evidence of fraud.   

    Here is the relevance:     Because of that, republicans are seeking to blame tech companies. Tech companies are shutting down garbage conspiracy theories, and the republicans are mad about it.  

    It’s not about Epic.  Epic is nothing.   It’s about power.  And tech companies are undermining Republican power grabs.   So republicans are trying to shut tech down.  

    It’s as simple as that.    

    True...
    Meanwhile far left progressives are attacking those same corporations because they are, well, corporations.

    But, there is a "silent majority" rising back up from the middle that will hopefully bring balance and sanity and challenge the crazies on BOTH ends of the political spectrum and shut them up and shut them down.
    elijahgbeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 43 of 66
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,932member
    bshank said:
    I hope Klobuchar and Blumenthal are lrepared to pay both Apple and Google for all they’ve invested into their app stores for developers over the years if they’re going to give Epic (a company that has no problem with competition) a big handout. How does success equate to forcing parts of these companies into being public utilities?
    With that 30% over the years and massive, progressive improvements in fintech and ICT infrastructure, Apple has been making a killing while suppressing competition in the App Store market. 

    It does not matter how much something costs to provide a service when things like competition are at stake. 

    Frankly, it's a miracle that Apple sailed under the radar of competition bodies for so long. Tim Cook is probably celebrating getting as far as they did. 



    elijahgtenthousandthingsmuthuk_vanalingamdantheman827
  • Reply 44 of 66
    designr said:
    p-dog said:
    rob53 said:

    The politicians are listening (being bought by) to loudmouth, greedy developers. I wish they would listen to users instead. If they did, we’d want a closed, secure, easy to purchase App Store. 
    They are also acting on behalf of Microsoft, who has been in the background trying to manipulate the situation the whole time, yet somehow a $2+ trillion market cap tech company not subject to any of this round of “regulation” or even minimal scrutiny.
    I've not been following this closely (or thinking about all the players and their motives). What does Microsoft have to gain here?
    Microsoft is upset that they have had apps rejected. They also see the App Store’s arbitrary rules as a risk to their platform as a service strategy.
    designrwatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 66
    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. 
    The government is not ignoring those monopolies, they're supporting them.  For the "public good" of course...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 66
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,858member
    igorsky said:
    Tim Cook has explicitly stated that Apple will monitize its IP in other ways if it has to.  Be careful what you wish for, devs.
    I missed this, where did he say it and what was the full context?
    designr
  • Reply 47 of 66
    avon b7 said: With that 30% over the years and massive, progressive improvements in fintech and ICT infrastructure, Apple has been making a killing while suppressing competition in the App Store market. 
    I guess you missed the BlueMail decision. Court said that BlueMail's success in selling its software on other platforms undermined the allegations that the App Store was essential to their business. Legally, the claims by BlueMail and Epic don't really seem to have much merit. However, the lack of success in court doesn't necessarily prevent Congress from passing bills that relate to regulation of trade. 

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/apple-beats-claims-that-app-store-suppresses-competition
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 66
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,932member
    avon b7 said: With that 30% over the years and massive, progressive improvements in fintech and ICT infrastructure, Apple has been making a killing while suppressing competition in the App Store market. 
    I guess you missed the BlueMail decision. Court said that BlueMail's success in selling its software on other platforms undermined the allegations that the App Store was essential to their business. Legally, the claims by BlueMail and Epic don't really seem to have much merit. However, the lack of success in court doesn't necessarily prevent Congress from passing bills that relate to regulation of trade. 

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/apple-beats-claims-that-app-store-suppresses-competition
    The Bluemail decision is irrevelant. That was about monopolistic behaviour within the App Store, on specific issues and, AFAIK, was only partially dismissed and by one federal judge.

    That has nothing to do with the App Store existing as an isolated competition-free island on the platform. 

  • Reply 49 of 66
    thrangthrang Posts: 897member
    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.

    bshankn2itivguyrob53killroytmaypscooter63mejsricwatto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 66
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,677member
    thrang said:

    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. 

    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 
    I used to work for a large government contractor. Cyber security was my job. If congress forces Apple to open its App Store while I was still working, there’s no way I would have approved iOS for use by our employees. It’s used now because it can be locked down with a locked down App Store. Allow side-loading and no government agency or business required to follow Government rules would be allowed to even have an iOS device on-site. I would put members on Congress into this group as well. These under-educated politicians should be checking with the security people to see how or if they could accept the risk associated with side-loading of software. Of course security never matters to these people, only legal bribing. 
    killroythrangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 66
    No one will sell apps on the App Store again. Just offer free apps, actually demo apps. You want the full version, click on a link in the app to access the company website and pay portal. Pay for the app with Apple Pay. And no 30% cut to apple
  • Reply 52 of 66
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,932member
    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.

    If iOS were a completely encapsulated platform you wouldn't see any complaints from anyone. It would literally be a case of our way or the highway.

    However, iOS isn't a completely encapsulated platform. It has an existential dependence on outside contact and largely through the App Store.

    When your tentacles reach outside your own realm you become subject to all manner of outside regulations. You simply can't operate commercially without accommodating those rules and regulations. 

    Now, it does not have to mean the end of the world. Personally, I can see a situation whereby Apple might be able to have its cake and eat it. 

    Simply make users sign off on acceptance of what they are giving up but prior to purchase. 

    Of course, and in spite of what many here would have you believe, I'm sure that the vast majority of users don't have the slightest idea of what control Apple has over their commercial Interests. Apple knows this too and I believe they would rather bow to external rulings on the App Store instead of having to spell out in clear language what they are denying users. 

    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. 

    dantheman827muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 53 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,459member
    rob53 said:
    thrang said:

    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. 

    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 
    I used to work for a large government contractor. Cyber security was my job. If congress forces Apple to open its App Store while I was still working, there’s no way I would have approved iOS for use by our employees. It’s used now because it can be locked down with a locked down App Store. Allow side-loading and no government agency or business required to follow Government rules would be allowed to even have an iOS device on-site. I would put members on Congress into this group as well. These under-educated politicians should be checking with the security people to see how or if they could accept the risk associated with side-loading of software. Of course security never matters to these people, only legal bribing. 

    They get their education from lobbyists and dark money groups.
  • Reply 54 of 66
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 654member
    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. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 66
    thrangthrang Posts: 897member
    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.

    If iOS were a completely encapsulated platform you wouldn't see any complaints from anyone. It would literally be a case of our way or the highway.

    However, iOS isn't a completely encapsulated platform. It has an existential dependence on outside contact and largely through the App Store.

    When your tentacles reach outside your own realm you become subject to all manner of outside regulations. You simply can't operate commercially without accommodating those rules and regulations. 

    Now, it does not have to mean the end of the world. Personally, I can see a situation whereby Apple might be able to have its cake and eat it. 

    Simply make users sign off on acceptance of what they are giving up but prior to purchase. 

    Of course, and in spite of what many here would have you believe, I'm sure that the vast majority of users don't have the slightest idea of what control Apple has over their commercial Interests. Apple knows this too and I believe they would rather bow to external rulings on the App Store instead of having to spell out in clear language what they are denying users. 

    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. 

    Sorry, this is mostly gobbledygook and you are just ignoring the points raised. How many businesses have "encapsulated platforms" where there is no interaction with outside suppliers? I'd venture to say none, really.

    This is an Apple-built ecosystem, with countless billions and billions of dollars invested in it over the decades, and they are defining the parameters of participation within that ecosystem. Apple is not attempting to define or alter how businesses operate outside their ecosystem (ie, where some company might pressure a supplier to not do business with another company to harm that competitor beyond ethical free market functions)

    Simply, the app store is a feature of the devices they sell, but one that is only monetized if you use it. The App store is useless without the reliance on their devices. It's a component, a subset, a feature.

    Returning to my aforementioned Walmart; if they keep demanding lower and lower prices from their suppliers, those suppliers can choose to figure out a way to do so and stay profitable, or stop doing business with Walmart. That is a operational business decision, not something to legislate. Fundamentally, if the engagement terms are onerous, partners and/or customers bolt.

    But of course, Apple perhaps is one of the most successful company's of all time, and still growing, because the opposite occurs. Partners and people are highly attracted to it, in numbers that are dizzying. I would speculate more than 95% of the developers making money form the App store would simply exist without it. 

    And other companies are fine not selling through the App Stores and keeping all the revenue raised by selling direct. Almost all of Adobe is that way. That's an option lest we forget.

    But Adobe is a company with a broad array of vertical and somewhat unique products, with their own investment in features and interoperability that almost no other company has surpassed, and with a strong professional and corporate base. So they have made the investments that they can leverage and sell direct. By contrast, Spotify has much less to offer from a breadth of product and feature set perspective. And after initially growing post 2018 cessation of Apple-transacted selling, they are down 30% YTD with reported weaker subscriber growth. So to save the 15% fee to Apple (second and subsequent years for subscription sales) and more direct exposure to selling via the App Store, Spotify chose to keep 100% of a shrinking number.

    Finally, you should know that opening up sideloading of apps brings a host of issues, some of which I mentioned. Even if you don't use sideloaded apps, if others in your circle do and you are transmitted data that may have compromising code, you are compromised in some way. Or if your information is harvested from a friends contact list, or photo library, or Notes, or Messages or Mail, or whatever, you are compromised. Could sideloaded access the camera or microphone without your knowledge? Sure.

    The platform would become far less secure and private. Apple would be forced to block sideloaded apps from accessing many features and data repositories on the phone to protect against that, the overall iPhone/iOS experience become bifurcated, cumbersome, and far less pleasurable, and Apple is potentially harmed with significance. 

    It's stupid.

    So, rather, someone else build a better phone and system and have a go go at it.

    How about Microsoft? Oh, wait.... Maybe Sony. Hmm, well.... Maybe an Epic phone? With fantastic gaming, to shove it Apple's pipe? What about Amazon?

    Nah, why spend billions to do hard work when one can argue they are unfairly treated by Apple and cry to a headline-starving media and technologically illiterate politicians.

    That's easier. And FREE.



    mejsricwatto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 66
    mejsricmejsric Posts: 149member
    me waiting an iPhone without App Store, just a phone with all Apple Services installed and a Safari browser.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 66
    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.
  • Reply 58 of 66
    designrdesignr Posts: 618member
    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.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 66
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,932member
    thrang 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.

    If iOS were a completely encapsulated platform you wouldn't see any complaints from anyone. It would literally be a case of our way or the highway.

    However, iOS isn't a completely encapsulated platform. It has an existential dependence on outside contact and largely through the App Store.

    When your tentacles reach outside your own realm you become subject to all manner of outside regulations. You simply can't operate commercially without accommodating those rules and regulations. 

    Now, it does not have to mean the end of the world. Personally, I can see a situation whereby Apple might be able to have its cake and eat it. 

    Simply make users sign off on acceptance of what they are giving up but prior to purchase. 

    Of course, and in spite of what many here would have you believe, I'm sure that the vast majority of users don't have the slightest idea of what control Apple has over their commercial Interests. Apple knows this too and I believe they would rather bow to external rulings on the App Store instead of having to spell out in clear language what they are denying users. 

    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. 

    Sorry, this is mostly gobbledygook and you are just ignoring the points raised. How many businesses have "encapsulated platforms" where there is no interaction with outside suppliers? I'd venture to say none, really.

    This is an Apple-built ecosystem, with countless billions and billions of dollars invested in it over the decades, and they are defining the parameters of participation within that ecosystem. Apple is not attempting to define or alter how businesses operate outside their ecosystem (ie, where some company might pressure a supplier to not do business with another company to harm that competitor beyond ethical free market functions)

    Simply, the app store is a feature of the devices they sell, but one that is only monetized if you use it. The App store is useless without the reliance on their devices. It's a component, a subset, a feature.

    Returning to my aforementioned Walmart; if they keep demanding lower and lower prices from their suppliers, those suppliers can choose to figure out a way to do so and stay profitable, or stop doing business with Walmart. That is a operational business decision, not something to legislate. Fundamentally, if the engagement terms are onerous, partners and/or customers bolt.

    But of course, Apple perhaps is one of the most successful company's of all time, and still growing, because the opposite occurs. Partners and people are highly attracted to it, in numbers that are dizzying. I would speculate more than 95% of the developers making money form the App store would simply exist without it. 

    And other companies are fine not selling through the App Stores and keeping all the revenue raised by selling direct. Almost all of Adobe is that way. That's an option lest we forget.

    But Adobe is a company with a broad array of vertical and somewhat unique products, with their own investment in features and interoperability that almost no other company has surpassed, and with a strong professional and corporate base. So they have made the investments that they can leverage and sell direct. By contrast, Spotify has much less to offer from a breadth of product and feature set perspective. And after initially growing post 2018 cessation of Apple-transacted selling, they are down 30% YTD with reported weaker subscriber growth. So to save the 15% fee to Apple (second and subsequent years for subscription sales) and more direct exposure to selling via the App Store, Spotify chose to keep 100% of a shrinking number.

    Finally, you should know that opening up sideloading of apps brings a host of issues, some of which I mentioned. Even if you don't use sideloaded apps, if others in your circle do and you are transmitted data that may have compromising code, you are compromised in some way. Or if your information is harvested from a friends contact list, or photo library, or Notes, or Messages or Mail, or whatever, you are compromised. Could sideloaded access the camera or microphone without your knowledge? Sure.

    The platform would become far less secure and private. Apple would be forced to block sideloaded apps from accessing many features and data repositories on the phone to protect against that, the overall iPhone/iOS experience become bifurcated, cumbersome, and far less pleasurable, and Apple is potentially harmed with significance. 

    It's stupid.

    So, rather, someone else build a better phone and system and have a go go at it.

    How about Microsoft? Oh, wait.... Maybe Sony. Hmm, well.... Maybe an Epic phone? With fantastic gaming, to shove it Apple's pipe? What about Amazon?

    Nah, why spend billions to do hard work when one can argue they are unfairly treated by Apple and cry to a headline-starving media and technologically illiterate politicians.

    That's easier. And FREE.



    The points you raised are irrelevant in the context I was using.

    There are hundreds of encapsulated systems. Most of them aren't 'smart' though, which just serves to highlight the nature of this particular beast. It's a problem that is only being looked at now because it the whole issue is relatively new.

    Apple is very much trying to define how businesses operate outside its walled garden. App developers are external. Not only that but they are essential to the iPhones existence because without apps the platform would probably not be viable. Note that they didn't spend those billions and billions developing their own apps. There was a reason for that.

    As for 95% of developers existing/making money because of the App Store is concerned. Again this is irrevelant. It isn't a club where almost everybody wins by simply being on the platform. There must be a competitive environment at App Store level, not simply the developer level. That is what many of the investigations are dealing with.

    And this will not only apply to Apple either. Any ruling that effects how things operate will impact other vendors too.

    'Sideloading' is irrelevant to the questions at hand. As are the possible issues related to it. That isn't even a consideration.

    I don't understand the argument of being sent compromised code from another user.

    It is perfectly reasonable for other app stores to have higher levels of security than Apple's too. 

    How can a side loaded app access your camera and microphone without you knowing? The apps would still need to access those elements through Apple APIs. The user would still have to grant permission.

    Could apps take advantage of bugs to do it? Probably, but then apps on the Apple App Store would be able to do the same. Or maybe, and as we see year after year, Apple's devices, for all the claims of higher security are also compromised because of bugs that have nothing to do with app stores.

    As for other vendors having a stab at phones. Well, they are. And very successfully but if they run app stores they will very likely be subjected to the same changes that may arise from legislation like the act being proposed here. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 60 of 66
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,342member
    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.  
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.