Lobbying group backed by Apple and Google rails against Open App Markets Act
A relatively new lobbying group backed by tech giants including Apple and Google is taking a stand against proposed legislation that targets the outsized market power enjoyed by dominant app stores.
On Wednesday, U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar and Marsha Blackburn introduced the Open App Markets Act, a bill that in part calls on tech companies like Apple and Google to be more open to third-party app stores and sideloading.
The legislation further takes issue with mandates that require developers to use first-party payment systems, as Apple does with its App Store, punishment of apps that present different pricing structures on outside platforms and leveraging private data to compete with third-party apps. Preinstalled apps and private APIs are also mentioned in the bill.
In response, a lobbying group called the Chamber of Progress said the proposed legislation "is a finger in the eye of anyone who bought an iPhone or Android because the phones and their app stores are safe, reliable, and easy to use," reports ArsTechnica.
"I don't see any consumers marching in Washington demanding that Congress make their smartphones dumber. And Congress has better things to do than intervene in a multi-million dollar dispute between businesses," said Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the Chamber of Progress.
Kovacevich's statement closely aligns with Apple and Google's stance on the matter.
"Since our founding, we've always put our users at the center of everything we do, and the App Store is the cornerstone of our work to connect developers and customers in a way that is safe and trustworthy," an Apple spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC on Wednesday. "At Apple, our focus is on maintaining an App Store where people can have confidence that every app must meet our rigorous guidelines and their privacy and security is protected."
The Chamber of Progress, which counts Amazon, Facebook and Twitter as funding members, in June lobbied against a package of antitrust bills designed in part to break up Big Tech platforms. That slate of legislation also scrutinizes app store management with one bill focusing on "self-preferencing" and non-discrimination issues.
Along with government pressure, Apple is facing a legal challenge from Epic Games. The developer claims Apple holds a monopoly and is pushing for the adoption of third-party payment systems and app stores on iOS.
Read on AppleInsider
On Wednesday, U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar and Marsha Blackburn introduced the Open App Markets Act, a bill that in part calls on tech companies like Apple and Google to be more open to third-party app stores and sideloading.
The legislation further takes issue with mandates that require developers to use first-party payment systems, as Apple does with its App Store, punishment of apps that present different pricing structures on outside platforms and leveraging private data to compete with third-party apps. Preinstalled apps and private APIs are also mentioned in the bill.
In response, a lobbying group called the Chamber of Progress said the proposed legislation "is a finger in the eye of anyone who bought an iPhone or Android because the phones and their app stores are safe, reliable, and easy to use," reports ArsTechnica.
"I don't see any consumers marching in Washington demanding that Congress make their smartphones dumber. And Congress has better things to do than intervene in a multi-million dollar dispute between businesses," said Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the Chamber of Progress.
Kovacevich's statement closely aligns with Apple and Google's stance on the matter.
"Since our founding, we've always put our users at the center of everything we do, and the App Store is the cornerstone of our work to connect developers and customers in a way that is safe and trustworthy," an Apple spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC on Wednesday. "At Apple, our focus is on maintaining an App Store where people can have confidence that every app must meet our rigorous guidelines and their privacy and security is protected."
The Chamber of Progress, which counts Amazon, Facebook and Twitter as funding members, in June lobbied against a package of antitrust bills designed in part to break up Big Tech platforms. That slate of legislation also scrutinizes app store management with one bill focusing on "self-preferencing" and non-discrimination issues.
Along with government pressure, Apple is facing a legal challenge from Epic Games. The developer claims Apple holds a monopoly and is pushing for the adoption of third-party payment systems and app stores on iOS.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
But even more so, Apple is very very upfront that they intend to take as much risk out of the user usage process as possible. As simple, safe, and reliable as possible. What a concept right? They’ve done that. Obviously many many of us like and appreciate that. That’s what Apple sells and does so very upfront about it. Numerous times they’ve even blocked what others allow across a number of differing things, even passing up greater short term sales, in order to stick to keeping it as simple reliable and secure for users. Even better, For users who don’t like that, they have the numerous alternative just one display case over. It’s much more free to do what you want. Yet oddly some people, even a rare big fan of Apple, insists Apple has to get back the engineering table, design it to better open up, and get that Apple to stop selling it the way they think is best to sell it.
Regardless of ideas, the lack of them is the only common point in most posts regarding this matter. There may be people who find this so important they signed up to comment - you are very welcome. This was all very obvious for a very long time now, especially since the Epic attack on Apple. Iv been a dedicated Apple Insider for twenty years now and commenting for a decade, so for some of us this has been widely debated. But again it seems crucial for non-trolls to realize the sheer size and scope of this matter.
1 - Anti-Trust laws are there for a reason, and we wouldnt have Apple now if they hadnt been upheld before.
People attacking the regulator approach will always have the option to keep exactly the same phone usage, only further options will be available to the rest.
2 - Security downgrade claims are blatantly fallacious, when what is being advocated by common sense here is simply allowing the same App Store sandboxing magic to other app stores.
If Apple simply curates third-party app stores like it does its apps, its phenomenal security will be remain just the same for the former.
This is big tech lobbying; they know the tide is turning. I wholeheartedly support side-loading of apps and App Stores on Android and iPhone with the full responsibility and consent of the end-user. If they want to, they can stick with Apple; if they want more freedom, they use an alternative. Nobody loses.
Far from it. And you know it.
Side-loading, as proposed, is making this ability part of iOS, without artificial barriers. It should be frictionless.
So, Russia creates an app store to run on American phones. How is Apple to police that?
"Dear Mr Putin, please remove that app spreading disinformation on COVID vaccines because we don't think it's very nice to kill Americans. And, while you're at it, please also remove that app that's been spying on American politicians you have not approved."
But in case of app stores like your facebook example, that would be up to the user. Still Apple could use Googles three strike system, or any other that works. Apple sanctions an 3rd-party app store, keeps it sandboxed perhaps totally in the beginning, maybe more relaxedly so like Apple usually does. But in essence it will address such complaints as you point out and at the third one there would be no more said 3rd-party app store. The actual App Store now is so bloated in functioning that Apple could benefit from this by allocating their experts to evaluating a few app stores at their quality level, rather than millions of apps at a dismal quality (everyone complains). But the most important question in this matter for me is that the App Store will most likely be separated from Apple, observing past anti-trust jurisprudence, so it is not so much a question of whether or not we should have 3rd-party app stores, but rather how Apple can keep the quality up. Because if we keep resisting 3rd-party then we will definitely see our beloved quality of use deteriorate thats for sure, again from past cases.
Your last question is the perspective one and most interesting for me. I personally think you may be right. so i doubt that i will ever install a 3rd-party app store. Even if i reminisce often, my jailbreaking, gaming days are long gone. i jailbroke the first iphone (took 24 hours then) to use it where i lived, and i last gamed 20 years ago. Im perfecty happy with how things are, and will not change my phone. But, like Voltaire i think, i will defend to the death the right for people to use their phone as they wish. Besides and as shared, if Apple doesnt prepare now we all better get ready for a severe decrease in quality once the regulator institutes their measures, as there arent so many possible. And upholding constitutional and fundamental legislature is the reason why we have had an interesting run in freedom in this past century. Nothing is perfect, but anything lesse than the freedom we acquired as people. thank you for opening this!
I would put money on this if Vegas created a line.