Lobbying group backed by Apple and Google rails against Open App Markets Act

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    igorskyigorsky Posts: 650member
    macsimcon said:
    Apple and Google didn't thwart competition in mobile, they just created the best software, and consumers voted with their wallets. Microsoft, Palm, Blackberry, and Danger all tried and they all eventually failed. That's how a free market is supposed to function.
    It's amazing to me that through all these hearings and all the whining by Tim Sweeney, nobody has every asked what consumers want.  And like you said, consumers have clearly voted with their wallets.
    GeorgeBMacn2itivguyj2fusionArchStantonwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 22 of 46
    sflocal said:
    JohnDinEU said:
    Apple (and Google) are way too strong for anyone’s liking, incl the App Store. I remember the old days where Steve was on every platform to complain about, mostly, Microsoft. These days it’s Tim’s shop that stops every competition and we the consumers are paying for it (sometimes with our lives). Of course there need to more places to get Apps, or like in the old days, download directly from a website. The argument that Apple keeps us safe is since two weeks out of the window anyway because Journo’s and political activists were killed because Apple was sleeping at the wheel. 
    First post and all you do is spew nonsense.  Go troll elsewhere, or at least try doing a better job than doing some kind of revisionist history.

    dee_dee said:
    I’m a pretty big Apple fan, but when someone pays $1000 + for a phone, they deserve the right to do what they want with it.  I will still use the App Store, and I’m sure lots still will.  But if someone wants to side load god knows what and is fine with the risk then go right ahead. 
    You already can.  It's called "Jailbreaking".  Apple has no obligation to make it easy to do it.  If you side-load a Trojan-infected application and it bricks your iPhone, I guarantee the first thing you're going to do is play stupid and walk to an Apple store and pretend that it "just stopped working".  I lost count of how many news articles came out back in the day about some severe iPhone malware and criticizing Apple's "security", only to read in the fine print that it was a jailbroken iPhone.

    Even Cydia is barely the hanging on since there is little people realized there is little to no need to jailbreak anymore.   
    RE: warranty, let’s not act like Apple is an angel here. How many class actions had to be made to force their hand in fixing defects!? Or what about including water sensors on a device that’s touted to be water resistant? I’ve had a warranty claim denied because my phone got splashed on as I used it by the pool. My fault for mis-understanding APPLE’S interpretation of IP68.

    Ive had another phone drop battery health to 82% after 6mo, and again, that’s “adequate” to Apple.

    Even Apple’s App Store isn’t all that. I’ve seen companies rebrand after getting abysmal ratings. They don’t do much other then adding an S at the end of the name and change the color tone of the icon. Apple is good with that, so long as they get their 30% cut.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 23 of 46
    If only you knew what you were missing with Apple's tightly regulated App Store apps, you would also be a proponent of the right to install. The same people who made the bone headed decision to allow warrantless spying on everyone's personal data also decided what features apps should be allowed to have. Those decisions had very little to do with security of personal information (which we now know was only marketing and not really a priority for the company). It was always about power and about the ability to carve out sets of features that only Apple could use. Take Apple Tags for example. Apple intentionally restricted what other bluetooth tracker companies could do so that their own trackers would seem amazing when they were finally released. Apple does not ask if Apple's tracking can keep using GPS in the background, for example. There is no way a third party could have implemented that really nice first time setup UI that the Apple tags have. It is an uneven playing field. iDos has to be removed because it gives users too much power and heaven forbid if someone produced their own development system that ran on iOS. "So why don't you use Android?" Because Google is just as bad and worse in some ways. There is no third alternative.
  • Reply 24 of 46
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,444member
    lmasanti said:
    Disclaimer: I'm born and live in Argentina and I am neither a US citizen not live there.
    (But I use an iPhone.)

    Just a question: Would it be possible that the FCC/lawmakes/etc. made a consult to users —like the one on broadband—.
    1— The telcos will send you a message to go to some site with your browser.
    2— When you enter there, your phone number will be used ONLY to avoid that you vote more than once.
    3— Depending in your operating system you'll be asked if you want to have —by example— ‘alternative app stores in iOS,’ and so on.
    4— Other questions could be about companies tracking your behaviour.

    Maybe it could be done more or less compulsory.

    Lawmakers say the want to ‘protect customers.’ Why don't ask customers themselves?

    (Well, maybe lawmakers lost votes.)
    The problem with this sort of polling is it's lacking in context, information and is unscientific. 

    If users are simply posed the question "do you want alternative app stores in iOS," most won't have any idea what that's about. If that question is asked without any additional context, it will be perceived by many as, essentially, "do you want more?" The almost universal answer to that question is "yes," until it's accompanied by the price tag for "more."

    Ask voters the question "do you want the gasoline tax cut in half," and almost everyone would answer "yes." Ask the same voters "do you want the potholes in roads and highways to be fixed?" and almost everyone would answer "yes." It's only when you tie the two questions together that it becomes meaningful: "Do you want the gasoline tax cut in half or do you want the potholes in roads and highways to be fixed?" 

    Do you want alternative app stores in iOS, or do you want all apps that get on your iPhone to be screened for security, privacy and compatibility, and all billing within apps to be transparent and easy to cancel without questions or interference?
    edited August 2021 GeorgeBMacwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 25 of 46
    Spotify complaining against Apple:
    “Spotify commends Representatives… Apple has used the iOS platform and its App Store policies to insulate itself from competition and disadvantage rivals for far too long.”

    So we want to require all companies to help competition and ensure there is no disadvantage to rivals?

    And don’t even think about the argument that Apple is a monopoly of smart phones. 

    Don’t be fooled, this push against Apple is not about consumers, it’s about power, control and greed.  
    n2itivguywatto_cobrajony0Detnator
  • Reply 26 of 46
    It’s not about consumer choice, or making a better system it’s about other companies that ‘want in’ on making more money without providing service, safety or taking responsibility for what they do. A modern phone is not a 1990’s PC market and letting a company that designs and build hardware NOT control the software is a giant backwards step and everyone would come to regret it if it moved forward. If it’s overly broad it will kill a lot of markets. If it’s tailored just to ‘phone’ marketplaces ask yourself WHY? 
    n2itivguyj2fusionwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 27 of 46
    What did Steve Jobs say originally? Build web apps. 
    n2itivguyLeoMCwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 28 of 46
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Ironic that everybody agrees that Apple was right to protect children by scanning for child pornography.
    BUT,
    If Apple loses control over the Apps that can be installed, how does it enforce parental controls?

    Several years ago, my grandson was too young to have access to YouTube (it was PG-13 or PG-17) -- but he found a backdoor into it with an app that had a general, anything goes rating.   I contacted Apple and they at first blamed the app developers -- but they did fix the situation.

    Apple would be helpless if sideloading or 3rd party app stores were allowed.
    watto_cobrajony0Detnator
  • Reply 29 of 46
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,686member
    sflocal said:
    JohnDinEU said:
    Apple (and Google) are way too strong for anyone’s liking, incl the App Store. I remember the old days where Steve was on every platform to complain about, mostly, Microsoft. These days it’s Tim’s shop that stops every competition and we the consumers are paying for it (sometimes with our lives). Of course there need to more places to get Apps, or like in the old days, download directly from a website. The argument that Apple keeps us safe is since two weeks out of the window anyway because Journo’s and political activists were killed because Apple was sleeping at the wheel. 
    First post and all you do is spew nonsense.  Go troll elsewhere, or at least try doing a better job than doing some kind of revisionist history.

    dee_dee said:
    I’m a pretty big Apple fan, but when someone pays $1000 + for a phone, they deserve the right to do what they want with it.  I will still use the App Store, and I’m sure lots still will.  But if someone wants to side load god knows what and is fine with the risk then go right ahead. 
    You already can.  It's called "Jailbreaking".  Apple has no obligation to make it easy to do it.  If you side-load a Trojan-infected application and it bricks your iPhone, I guarantee the first thing you're going to do is play stupid and walk to an Apple store and pretend that it "just stopped working".  I lost count of how many news articles came out back in the day about some severe iPhone malware and criticizing Apple's "security", only to read in the fine print that it was a jailbroken iPhone.

    Even Cydia is barely the hanging on since there is little people realized there is little to no need to jailbreak anymore.   
    RE: warranty, let’s not act like Apple is an angel here. How many class actions had to be made to force their hand in fixing defects!? Or what about including water sensors on a device that’s touted to be water resistant? I’ve had a warranty claim denied because my phone got splashed on as I used it by the pool. My fault for mis-understanding APPLE’S interpretation of IP68.

    Ive had another phone drop battery health to 82% after 6mo, and again, that’s “adequate” to Apple.

    Even Apple’s App Store isn’t all that. I’ve seen companies rebrand after getting abysmal ratings. They don’t do much other then adding an S at the end of the name and change the color tone of the icon. Apple is good with that, so long as they get their 30% cut.
    No, it's your fault for not understanding the difference between "water resistance" and "waterproof". An IP68 rating is far from being "waterproof". One would not need water sensors, for warranty purposes, only if the phone is guarantee to be "waterproof". One also has to understand that with the IP rating test, the phone is new with all the seals intact, the water is not moving, it's fresh water, the phone is in standby and not in "use". It's a standard test, performed the same way depending on the product, for all companies that wants the rating for their products.  

    Much like the EPA MPG rating of a car, when it's new and done on a dynamometer, not on real roads or streets.  This to be consistence for comparison purpose. The rating would be useless for comparison purpose between autos from different auto makers, if every car manufacturer used their own testing method, to determine the EPA MGP rating.   

    https://ktar.com/story/1294724/the-difference-between-water-resistant-and-waterproof-in-smartphones/ ;

    https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml


    AFAIK, Apple batteries are warranty for 1 year or 80% health after 500 complete cycles. 82% health after 6 months is still yet not covered under Apple warranty. But how many cycles it's been through in 6 months aught to tell Apple if the battery is bad. If only once a day for 180 cycle, the battery is most likely bad. But if its been through 270 cycles (1.5 cycles per day) then 82% in 6 months might not be out of the ordinary.  But it will be cover under warranty as soon as it drops to below 80% before 12 months and less than 500 full charge cycles. You have any proof that Apple won't honor this warranty if there were the case?    

    And just what makes you think that the rating system and monitoring of apps in a third party app store, are going to be any better than how Apple is doing with their own App Store? 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 46
    Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
    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.
    That’s personal trolling. It can be bad. There’s also astroturfed trolls. The astroturf trolls typically can be identified from the ongoing basis of their posting content. Just as a random example, say an Apple fan site, the poster is repeatedly posting anti Apple messaging. This kind of trolling also can be seen, as another example, in the ratings section of Amazon. Astroturfed trolls specifically posting purposeful messaging ratings meant to sway users/customers over to their ultimate sponsor. 

    The glib anti trust argument again? Is your idea of anti trust to law fare or legislate what you don’t like?. Real history: varying elements of the Sherman act have been applied rarely considering its age. Not even Microsoft could be found as a monopoly and harmful to consumers (which it was as close to that as one could get in the modern age). An underpinning of Sherman was its bar to establish harm to consumers. That’s purposeful in order to keep regulation as much as possible out of the market. See, you say more regulation is why there is Apple, I say less regulation is why there is an Apple. More regulation makes one just another country that waiting for someone else to come up with the idea->to market. Too many barriers in the already difficult two step process means, likely, someone else will do it. 
    Regardless, you are arguing sideloading is a big consumer harm and makes Apple….a monopoly? Seriously? And that the App Store that keeps scams, spyware etc away from an internet that, fairly stated, is loaded with these nefarious things, and the apps are mostly free. Yep, that sounds like pure Sherman, a real ongoing and big harm to consumers. The App Store is clearly Standard Oil all over again. Obviously I am laying the sarcasm on thick to make the point. What also makes the point is you have to go write laws tailored specifically at Apple to get this BIG sideloading consumer harm and BIG App Store consumer harm fixed. I emphasize big as I’m sure you wouldn’t be advocating for these really smart politicians writing a law aimed specifically at one company to stop something that isn’t a BIG harm to consumers, right? This isn’t to write a law that fixes a problem-ish sorta thing. You wouldn’t advocate for that would you?

    Much of your claim is demonstrably fallacious:
    The Appeal to Authority “I’m a 20 year Apple Insider and 10 year poster”. That is a good thing for you personally but means absolutely nothing on the point of discussion. 
    The Tradition Fallacy: they’ve always done it (anti trust) so it’s ok to do it here. 
    The Circular Logic Fallacy: it wouldn’t hurt consumer security (it demonstrably would) because the App Store 2 and 3 would be exactly the same as the App Store and Apple would oversee the security of App Store 2 and 3. Oh lord. But you just slipped up BIG time, you just admitted Apple’s App Store IS a benefit to consumers because of safety. You’re own words. Did you notice that? Washington DC Headline: “phenomenal security” for consumers of the App store to be expanded by keeping Apple in charge of stores opened by act of Congress. (Oh lord)

    Now consider: most Apps are free, guidelines for being added to the App Store are universal, an app maker can have a web page for transactions (See: Kindle) so this huge user base distribution of the app costs 100$ Apple fee, there are thousands and thousands of Apps from numerous developers — and by your own words Apple makes it safe. 
    This is what needs an act of Congress to save consumers? John Sherman is rolling over in his grave. 

    Btw, pass all the custom aimed laws you want, if you can.. Look forward to the big court battle that has a solid chance to be tied up for multiple years. 


    j2fusionrobabawatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 31 of 46
    If you're in the US, one thing you can do that might help is to contact your senators and ask them to co-sponsor this bill, with any luck they might just listen to their constituents.
     
    Why on Earth would you sponsor something that goes against a free market?

    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.
    Totally Agreed except some of these sideloaders aren’t actual iPhone users or Apple fans. I understand why people read something online from a poster and assume it’s true. It’s nature of humans to see a familiarity bond with seemingly others wanting to chat on a common subject. Sadly not true. The internet has a lot of fakers and astroturfed trolls trying to drive home a single purpose (in this instance: Apple is bad, full stop). 
    Sideloading on an iPhone is unknown and couldn’t care less by the vastly hugely overwhelming iPhone user base. They don’t know it, they don’t care, they are very likely choosing/using Apple because ‘it just works’ as well as the thinking (and complexity) about security has been taken care of. (Shockingly hundreds of millions would think this way) 

    A very vocal anti Apple group is around. That’s a simple fact. And they’ll sometimes say they love! Apple but we must have sideloading, no App Store among others
    watto_cobrajony0Detnator
  • Reply 32 of 46
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
    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.
    That’s personal trolling. It can be bad. There’s also astroturfed trolls. The astroturf trolls typically can be identified from the ongoing basis of their posting content. Just as a random example, say an Apple fan site, the poster is repeatedly posting anti Apple messaging. This kind of trolling also can be seen, as another example, in the ratings section of Amazon. Astroturfed trolls specifically posting purposeful messaging ratings meant to sway users/customers over to their ultimate sponsor. 



    LOL... I didn't realize that this site is restricted to FanBoys only!   Thanks for letting us know.   /s

    Thanks for your opinion, but I and others prefer truth over fantasy.
    And sorry but, in general, even though Apple consistently churns out great products and services, it is not perfect and none of their products are perfect for all solutions.  I know it's hard, but you'll just have to deal with that.




  • Reply 33 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,471member
    j2fusion said:
    Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
    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.
    Ok, let’s say for sake of argument Apple can maintain security while opening up to other App stores.  How do you feel about Apples recent ATT change?  What do you think would have happened if there were multiple App stores? Well, I believe companies like Facebook would have flocked to another App Store that didn’t have such a requirement and FB and other companies would continue to track us without our permission.  In fact, a large company like FB would have the resources to set up their own store that meet their business interest.  This is just one example and how does that help the consumer?
    Wouldn't happen, and what's my support for that? Google already allows alternate app stores (and security mechanisms to protect users from side-loaded apps) and users are not flocking to those "other stores". In regions served by Google Play they are by far the largest provider of Android apps, but not the only one.

    Apple can do it if they need to. 
    avon b7muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 34 of 46
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,444member
    gatorguy said:
    j2fusion said:
    Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
    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.
    Ok, let’s say for sake of argument Apple can maintain security while opening up to other App stores.  How do you feel about Apples recent ATT change?  What do you think would have happened if there were multiple App stores? Well, I believe companies like Facebook would have flocked to another App Store that didn’t have such a requirement and FB and other companies would continue to track us without our permission.  In fact, a large company like FB would have the resources to set up their own store that meet their business interest.  This is just one example and how does that help the consumer?
    Wouldn't happen, and what's my support for that? Google already allows alternate app stores (and security mechanisms to protect users from side-loaded apps) and users are not flocking to those "other stores". In regions served by Google Play they are by far the largest provider of Android apps, but not the only one.

    Apple can do it if they need to. 
    Generally speaking, Apple is doing a lot more than Google in the area of protecting consumers from things like intrusive data mining. This is not about consumers arbitrarily flocking to alternative app stores. It’s about app developers using the existence of alternative app stores to avoid restrictions like requiring data mining to be a transparent opt-in function. Google doesn’t have those sorts of requirements, so the existence of alternative app stores on their platform isn’t a good comparison. 

    Here is a better comparison: In 1978, in the case of Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis vs. First of Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that regulation of credit card accounts is based on the location of the issuing bank, not the location of the credit card holder. Prior to this, states had usury laws that protected their residents from predatory interest rates. If you lived in Ohio, you were protected by Ohio’s usury laws. 

    After this ruling, all that changed. A few states like South Dakota, Nevada and Delaware took the opportunity to gut their usury laws in order to attract banks to locate in their states. This worked in a big way, and soon all of the major credit card issuers were located in those states, busily cranking credit card rates up to 30% and higher. Soon after, millions of Americans found themselves trapped in credit card debt tied to incomprehensible agreements designed to trap people in situations where they could only barely afford to pay interest and rarely pay down principle. 

    Those folks’ home states might still have good usury protections on the books, but not many credit card issuers that weren’t tied to addresses in South Dakota, Nevada or Delaware. 

    This is what will happen if iOS is forced to allow alternative app stores. Apple may still have protective rules in their own App Store, but Facebook, Google and other major app developers will only make their wares available via the alternative stores that don’t have those consumer protections. Consumers will then be forced to either do without those apps or accept the predatory practices built into them. We all know how that will play out. 
    j2fusionwatto_cobrajony0Detnator
  • Reply 35 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,471member
    AppleZulu said:
    gatorguy said:
    j2fusion said:
    Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
    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.
    Ok, let’s say for sake of argument Apple can maintain security while opening up to other App stores.  How do you feel about Apples recent ATT change?  What do you think would have happened if there were multiple App stores? Well, I believe companies like Facebook would have flocked to another App Store that didn’t have such a requirement and FB and other companies would continue to track us without our permission.  In fact, a large company like FB would have the resources to set up their own store that meet their business interest.  This is just one example and how does that help the consumer?
    Wouldn't happen, and what's my support for that? Google already allows alternate app stores (and security mechanisms to protect users from side-loaded apps) and users are not flocking to those "other stores". In regions served by Google Play they are by far the largest provider of Android apps, but not the only one.

    Apple can do it if they need to. 
    Generally speaking, Apple is doing a lot more than Google in the area of protecting consumers from things like intrusive data mining. This is not about consumers arbitrarily flocking to alternative app stores. It’s about app developers using the existence of alternative app stores to avoid restrictions like requiring data mining to be a transparent opt-in function. Google doesn’t have those sorts of requirements, so the existence of alternative app stores on their platform isn’t a good comparison. 

    Here is a better comparison: In 1978, in the case of Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis vs. First of Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that regulation of credit card accounts is based on the location of the issuing bank, not the location of the credit card holder. Prior to this, states had usury laws that protected their residents from predatory interest rates. If you lived in Ohio, you were protected by Ohio’s usury laws. 

    After this ruling, all that changed. A few states like South Dakota, Nevada and Delaware took the opportunity to gut their usury laws in order to attract banks to locate in their states. This worked in a big way, and soon all of the major credit card issuers were located in those states, busily cranking credit card rates up to 30% and higher. Soon after, millions of Americans found themselves trapped in credit card debt tied to incomprehensible agreements designed to trap people in situations where they could only barely afford to pay interest and rarely pay down principle. 

    Those folks’ home states might still have good usury protections on the books, but not many credit card issuers that weren’t tied to addresses in South Dakota, Nevada or Delaware. 

    This is what will happen if iOS is forced to allow alternative app stores. Apple may still have protective rules in their own App Store, but Facebook, Google and other major app developers will only make their wares available via the alternative stores that don’t have those consumer protections. Consumers will then be forced to either do without those apps or accept the predatory practices built into them. We all know how that will play out. 
    You think you're right about appstores based on guessing. I think I'm right based on the available evidence. We differ in opinions, and sooner rather than later I believe one of us will be shown correct. 

    What I'm 100% sure of is Google will not bolt from the App Store no matter what 3rd party options there will be...
    and I'm 75% sure there will be.
    edited August 2021
  • Reply 36 of 46
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,444member
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    gatorguy said:
    j2fusion said:
    Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
    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.
    Ok, let’s say for sake of argument Apple can maintain security while opening up to other App stores.  How do you feel about Apples recent ATT change?  What do you think would have happened if there were multiple App stores? Well, I believe companies like Facebook would have flocked to another App Store that didn’t have such a requirement and FB and other companies would continue to track us without our permission.  In fact, a large company like FB would have the resources to set up their own store that meet their business interest.  This is just one example and how does that help the consumer?
    Wouldn't happen, and what's my support for that? Google already allows alternate app stores (and security mechanisms to protect users from side-loaded apps) and users are not flocking to those "other stores". In regions served by Google Play they are by far the largest provider of Android apps, but not the only one.

    Apple can do it if they need to. 
    Generally speaking, Apple is doing a lot more than Google in the area of protecting consumers from things like intrusive data mining. This is not about consumers arbitrarily flocking to alternative app stores. It’s about app developers using the existence of alternative app stores to avoid restrictions like requiring data mining to be a transparent opt-in function. Google doesn’t have those sorts of requirements, so the existence of alternative app stores on their platform isn’t a good comparison. 

    Here is a better comparison: In 1978, in the case of Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis vs. First of Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that regulation of credit card accounts is based on the location of the issuing bank, not the location of the credit card holder. Prior to this, states had usury laws that protected their residents from predatory interest rates. If you lived in Ohio, you were protected by Ohio’s usury laws. 

    After this ruling, all that changed. A few states like South Dakota, Nevada and Delaware took the opportunity to gut their usury laws in order to attract banks to locate in their states. This worked in a big way, and soon all of the major credit card issuers were located in those states, busily cranking credit card rates up to 30% and higher. Soon after, millions of Americans found themselves trapped in credit card debt tied to incomprehensible agreements designed to trap people in situations where they could only barely afford to pay interest and rarely pay down principle. 

    Those folks’ home states might still have good usury protections on the books, but not many credit card issuers that weren’t tied to addresses in South Dakota, Nevada or Delaware. 

    This is what will happen if iOS is forced to allow alternative app stores. Apple may still have protective rules in their own App Store, but Facebook, Google and other major app developers will only make their wares available via the alternative stores that don’t have those consumer protections. Consumers will then be forced to either do without those apps or accept the predatory practices built into them. We all know how that will play out. 
    You think you're right about appstores based on guessing. I think I'm right based on the available evidence. We differ in opinions, and sooner rather than later I believe one of us will be shown correct. 

    What I'm 100% sure of is Google will not bolt from the App Store no matter what 3rd party options there will be...
    and I'm 75% sure there will be.
    Much of the cause of the back and forth on this subject that is happening right now is a direct result of Apple adding security and privacy protections that go to the heart of Google and Facebook’s business model, which is centered around the collection and sale of user data. 

    If given the option, Google won’t just leave the Apple App Store, they will likely be the creator and owner of an alternate store on iOS. Their familiar branding will attract customers, they already operate an app store, and owning this one will assure they control the rules regarding the mining and sale of user data. 
    j2fusionwatto_cobrajony0Detnator
  • Reply 37 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,471member
    AppleZulu said:
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    gatorguy said:
    j2fusion said:
    Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
    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.
    Ok, let’s say for sake of argument Apple can maintain security while opening up to other App stores.  How do you feel about Apples recent ATT change?  What do you think would have happened if there were multiple App stores? Well, I believe companies like Facebook would have flocked to another App Store that didn’t have such a requirement and FB and other companies would continue to track us without our permission.  In fact, a large company like FB would have the resources to set up their own store that meet their business interest.  This is just one example and how does that help the consumer?
    Wouldn't happen, and what's my support for that? Google already allows alternate app stores (and security mechanisms to protect users from side-loaded apps) and users are not flocking to those "other stores". In regions served by Google Play they are by far the largest provider of Android apps, but not the only one.

    Apple can do it if they need to. 
    Generally speaking, Apple is doing a lot more than Google in the area of protecting consumers from things like intrusive data mining. This is not about consumers arbitrarily flocking to alternative app stores. It’s about app developers using the existence of alternative app stores to avoid restrictions like requiring data mining to be a transparent opt-in function. Google doesn’t have those sorts of requirements, so the existence of alternative app stores on their platform isn’t a good comparison. 

    Here is a better comparison: In 1978, in the case of Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis vs. First of Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that regulation of credit card accounts is based on the location of the issuing bank, not the location of the credit card holder. Prior to this, states had usury laws that protected their residents from predatory interest rates. If you lived in Ohio, you were protected by Ohio’s usury laws. 

    After this ruling, all that changed. A few states like South Dakota, Nevada and Delaware took the opportunity to gut their usury laws in order to attract banks to locate in their states. This worked in a big way, and soon all of the major credit card issuers were located in those states, busily cranking credit card rates up to 30% and higher. Soon after, millions of Americans found themselves trapped in credit card debt tied to incomprehensible agreements designed to trap people in situations where they could only barely afford to pay interest and rarely pay down principle. 

    Those folks’ home states might still have good usury protections on the books, but not many credit card issuers that weren’t tied to addresses in South Dakota, Nevada or Delaware. 

    This is what will happen if iOS is forced to allow alternative app stores. Apple may still have protective rules in their own App Store, but Facebook, Google and other major app developers will only make their wares available via the alternative stores that don’t have those consumer protections. Consumers will then be forced to either do without those apps or accept the predatory practices built into them. We all know how that will play out. 
    You think you're right about appstores based on guessing. I think I'm right based on the available evidence. We differ in opinions, and sooner rather than later I believe one of us will be shown correct. 

    What I'm 100% sure of is Google will not bolt from the App Store no matter what 3rd party options there will be...
    and I'm 75% sure there will be.
    Much of the cause of the back and forth on this subject that is happening right now is a direct result of Apple adding security and privacy protections that go to the heart of Google and Facebook’s business model, which is centered around the collection and sale of user data. 

    If given the option, Google won’t just leave the Apple App Store, they will likely be the creator and owner of an alternate store on iOS. Their familiar branding will attract customers, they already operate an app store, and owning this one will assure they control the rules regarding the mining and sale of user data. 
    You need to look at more recent developments. Google is well into the process of locking things down ala' Apple. In fact, in some specific areas, Google is already out ahead of them. The Google trying to establish their market presence 10 years ago is not the same Google today. 
  • Reply 38 of 46
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,444member
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    gatorguy said:
    j2fusion said:
    Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
    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.
    Ok, let’s say for sake of argument Apple can maintain security while opening up to other App stores.  How do you feel about Apples recent ATT change?  What do you think would have happened if there were multiple App stores? Well, I believe companies like Facebook would have flocked to another App Store that didn’t have such a requirement and FB and other companies would continue to track us without our permission.  In fact, a large company like FB would have the resources to set up their own store that meet their business interest.  This is just one example and how does that help the consumer?
    Wouldn't happen, and what's my support for that? Google already allows alternate app stores (and security mechanisms to protect users from side-loaded apps) and users are not flocking to those "other stores". In regions served by Google Play they are by far the largest provider of Android apps, but not the only one.

    Apple can do it if they need to. 
    Generally speaking, Apple is doing a lot more than Google in the area of protecting consumers from things like intrusive data mining. This is not about consumers arbitrarily flocking to alternative app stores. It’s about app developers using the existence of alternative app stores to avoid restrictions like requiring data mining to be a transparent opt-in function. Google doesn’t have those sorts of requirements, so the existence of alternative app stores on their platform isn’t a good comparison. 

    Here is a better comparison: In 1978, in the case of Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis vs. First of Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that regulation of credit card accounts is based on the location of the issuing bank, not the location of the credit card holder. Prior to this, states had usury laws that protected their residents from predatory interest rates. If you lived in Ohio, you were protected by Ohio’s usury laws. 

    After this ruling, all that changed. A few states like South Dakota, Nevada and Delaware took the opportunity to gut their usury laws in order to attract banks to locate in their states. This worked in a big way, and soon all of the major credit card issuers were located in those states, busily cranking credit card rates up to 30% and higher. Soon after, millions of Americans found themselves trapped in credit card debt tied to incomprehensible agreements designed to trap people in situations where they could only barely afford to pay interest and rarely pay down principle. 

    Those folks’ home states might still have good usury protections on the books, but not many credit card issuers that weren’t tied to addresses in South Dakota, Nevada or Delaware. 

    This is what will happen if iOS is forced to allow alternative app stores. Apple may still have protective rules in their own App Store, but Facebook, Google and other major app developers will only make their wares available via the alternative stores that don’t have those consumer protections. Consumers will then be forced to either do without those apps or accept the predatory practices built into them. We all know how that will play out. 
    You think you're right about appstores based on guessing. I think I'm right based on the available evidence. We differ in opinions, and sooner rather than later I believe one of us will be shown correct. 

    What I'm 100% sure of is Google will not bolt from the App Store no matter what 3rd party options there will be...
    and I'm 75% sure there will be.
    Much of the cause of the back and forth on this subject that is happening right now is a direct result of Apple adding security and privacy protections that go to the heart of Google and Facebook’s business model, which is centered around the collection and sale of user data. 

    If given the option, Google won’t just leave the Apple App Store, they will likely be the creator and owner of an alternate store on iOS. Their familiar branding will attract customers, they already operate an app store, and owning this one will assure they control the rules regarding the mining and sale of user data. 
    You need to look at more recent developments. Google is well into the process of locking things down ala' Apple. In fact, in some specific areas, Google is already out ahead of them. The Google trying to establish their market presence 10 years ago is not the same Google today. 
    Has how they make money changed?

    I just went to Google, clicked “shopping,” and searched “phone.” Interestingly, it didn’t even show any pixel devices until I added “google” to “phone” in the search. Seems doubtful that hardware is a significant part of their revenue stream. That leaves hoovering up data and selling it, which leads right back to what I suggested above. 
    watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 39 of 46
    Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
    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.
    That’s personal trolling. It can be bad. There’s also astroturfed trolls. The astroturf trolls typically can be identified from the ongoing basis of their posting content. Just as a random example, say an Apple fan site, the poster is repeatedly posting anti Apple messaging. This kind of trolling also can be seen, as another example, in the ratings section of Amazon. Astroturfed trolls specifically posting purposeful messaging ratings meant to sway users/customers over to their ultimate sponsor. 

    The glib anti trust argument again? Is your idea of anti trust to law fare or legislate what you don’t like?. Real history: varying elements of the Sherman act have been applied rarely considering its age. Not even Microsoft could be found as a monopoly and harmful to consumers (which it was as close to that as one could get in the modern age). An underpinning of Sherman was its bar to establish harm to consumers. That’s purposeful in order to keep regulation as much as possible out of the market. See, you say more regulation is why there is Apple, I say less regulation is why there is an Apple. More regulation makes one just another country that waiting for someone else to come up with the idea->to market. Too many barriers in the already difficult two step process means, likely, someone else will do it. 
    Regardless, you are arguing sideloading is a big consumer harm and makes Apple….a monopoly? Seriously? And that the App Store that keeps scams, spyware etc away from an internet that, fairly stated, is loaded with these nefarious things, and the apps are mostly free. Yep, that sounds like pure Sherman, a real ongoing and big harm to consumers. The App Store is clearly Standard Oil all over again. Obviously I am laying the sarcasm on thick to make the point. What also makes the point is you have to go write laws tailored specifically at Apple to get this BIG sideloading consumer harm and BIG App Store consumer harm fixed. I emphasize big as I’m sure you wouldn’t be advocating for these really smart politicians writing a law aimed specifically at one company to stop something that isn’t a BIG harm to consumers, right? This isn’t to write a law that fixes a problem-ish sorta thing. You wouldn’t advocate for that would you?

    Much of your claim is demonstrably fallacious:
    The Appeal to Authority “I’m a 20 year Apple Insider and 10 year poster”. That is a good thing for you personally but means absolutely nothing on the point of discussion. 
    The Tradition Fallacy: they’ve always done it (anti trust) so it’s ok to do it here. 
    The Circular Logic Fallacy: it wouldn’t hurt consumer security (it demonstrably would) because the App Store 2 and 3 would be exactly the same as the App Store and Apple would oversee the security of App Store 2 and 3. Oh lord. But you just slipped up BIG time, you just admitted Apple’s App Store IS a benefit to consumers because of safety. You’re own words. Did you notice that? Washington DC Headline: “phenomenal security” for consumers of the App store to be expanded by keeping Apple in charge of stores opened by act of Congress. (Oh lord)

    Now consider: most Apps are free, guidelines for being added to the App Store are universal, an app maker can have a web page for transactions (See: Kindle) so this huge user base distribution of the app costs 100$ Apple fee, there are thousands and thousands of Apps from numerous developers — and by your own words Apple makes it safe. 
    This is what needs an act of Congress to save consumers? John Sherman is rolling over in his grave. 

    Btw, pass all the custom aimed laws you want, if you can.. Look forward to the big court battle that has a solid chance to be tied up for multiple years. 


    im gonna go out on a limb here and trust you are not intentionally trolling.

    Sharing my loyalty years to this platform and brand is meant to make it very clear that ill take no lessons from anyone about defending Apple. Steve Jobs changed my life so many times, up until his very funeral day, that taking shit from people is ok as long as i feel like i contributed.

    I dont know how old you are but Microsoft was found to be transgressing anti-trust laws, not sure what you are going on about. Not only that, but many biographies and behind the scenes tales make it very clear that these laws were the only thing that prevented Microsoft destroying Apple when they could (and tried).

    I am not asking about anti-trust laws, i am telling you that Apple will be condemned for this and when this happens our beloved company better be ready. Dont think so? No problem. Go through my past posts here and you will notice that theres is always someone like you in each. But they never come back or remember when they realise they were talking out of their
  • Reply 40 of 46
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 84member
    I will never understand why people keep blubbering about side loading apps when they have the option to just use whatever pwa they want from whatever app store they want...
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.