White House calls Apple and Google 'harmful' in bid to cut app store fees

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 88
    Madbum said:
    This White House , which I regretfully voted For

    is fast tracking our families  to a Nuclear War vs Russia….

    is helping European Union bashing America’s greatest companies while doing nothing against European companies 

    Make a difference and vote red in 2024.
    imagine 4 more of this terd fest lol!


     a complete shit show in more ways than one ….

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 62 of 88
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 536member
    Madbum said:
    This White House , which I regretfully voted For

    is fast tracking our families  to a Nuclear War vs Russia….

    is helping European Union bashing America’s greatest companies while doing nothing against European companies 

    Make a difference and vote red in 2024.
    imagine 4 more of this terd fest lol!


     a complete shit show in more ways than one ….

    For the record, this guy modified my original post and added a little of his opinion lol.
    edited February 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 88
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,036member
    ranson said:
    Hedware said:
    Somehow everybody gets asked except for consumers. As a owner of Apple products,  I do not want my privacy and security compromised because some lazy developers want to have open skies. They should attempt to build some decent apps. 
    I fail to understand how this compromises YOUR security. It's very simple. If YOU don't want to use a third party store or sideloading to have access to an app, then YOU don't have to. See, no security problem for YOU. But others, who want to put software on their phone that Apple has declined to list in their App Store, should have that opportunity, given it is their device that they own.  None of that compromises YOUR security in any way.

    I hear the argument that "well, there are apps that will move to their own stores instead of Apple's, and then we can't trust the app maker to not do nefarious things."  Fine, then don't install the app. If you can't trust their product because it's not in Apple's Store, then frankly, you can't trust the app at all and should not use it. Note that numerous scam apps are in the Apple Store already (see this AI article from just this morning), and popular apps like Tik Tok and Facebook actively track you in spite of the tracking transparency options. So again, if you think you wouldn't be able to trust them outside of the Apple store, those apps being in the Apple store is really no different. It's a completely false sense of security.

    So nobody's security is unwillingly compromised here. We are adults, and we can make informed decisions about what apps to install, even when it runs counter to Apple's opinion. This harms no one except those who choose to go down that road and make bad choices.
    Just because most of us here on this forum are tech savvy enough not to have our security unwillingly compromised, it doesn't mean that nobody's security is unwillingly compromised. The vast majority of the over 1B iOS users are like you, clueless as to how hackers are getting better and better at stealing personal data off consumers computer devices by using an email phishing scam. Phishing scams that won't work on iOS because (right now) they can't fool iOS users into downloading their malware (or ransomware) into their iDevices. The same phishing scams that might work on people using a Mac, PC or Android device. If there's no way to get software loaded onto iOS, except by way of the Apple App Store or exploiting an unknown security bug, then iOS is more secure for everyone, including the not so tech savvy users. 

    On Android, In order to download software from anywhere other than the Google Play Store (or from a trusted app store) or to side load, the user have to toggle a switch that is disable by default, to allow for this. But toggling the switch to enable will cause several messages to pop up warning about the danger of downloading from an unknown source and requires the user to re-confirm if they are sure they want to toggle the switch to enable. (And there might be a few other warnings along the way when they are in the process downloading.) Well, one of the complaint that looney Sweeney from Epic Games have when suing Google over their Play Store policies is that those warning puts third party app stores and side loading at a big disadvantage and helps Google maintain the monopoly power they have with their own app store. 

    What if our US government wants to be more like the EU and agrees with Sweeney that by forcing users to have to toggle a switch on (that is off by default) and then having to get through the warnings that pops up, in order to download from a third party app store or to side load, "gatekeepers" like Apple and Google are being anti-competitive because this would be them favoring downloading from their own app stores, on their own platform?

    Don't think for a second that the government (both here and in the EU) are looking after you (and @Darkvader) with this finding. They are not looking after the consumers but after companies like Epic Games and Match Group, that feel they are entitled to make more millions and billions of dollars off platforms they didn't help create, maintain, nor will contribute to any further RD. It is extremely laughable that you think the governments are looking after you and your right to do what you want with YOUR iPhone because YOU paid for it and YOU own it. This isn't about YOU and YOUR iPhone but about more profits for billion dollar companies that competes with Apple and Google.
    edited February 2023 roundaboutnowFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 88
    The White House and Dork Biden pretty much has blacklisted and have attempted to cancel and hurt just about every business from A to Z since he took office. “Shut up jack and pay $8 like everyone else”! Lol App Store fees … Phhss
    The level of vicious stupidity coming from the right never fails to amaze me. I guess they were all smoking crack while mango mussolini was robbing us blind. Infuriating.
    sphericthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 65 of 88
    omasouomasou Posts: 562member
    If apps from competing "stores" are not required to go through Apple's review process.

    Is this the government's attempt to sideload spyware apps? Hummmm.
    edited February 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 88
    There are many who do not appreciate the fact that the Apple store does a pretty good job policing malignant software and keeping it out of the Apple App Store. That service requires a serious number of employees to keep the system working well. 

    I guess in the near future we should scrub our iPhone of all person information and revert back to the black plastic phones I had in the 60s (there some colors available too). If one paid extra, they could have a keypad, otherwise there was the rotary dial. There was no computer on board as the central switch building routed calls to your number over a dedicated twisted pair. Of course a pair of alligator clips could be used to tap into the line anywhere along the route of the wires from central station to your home and monitor the call. 

    Many conveniently forget that Googles founder sat on the Board of Directors at Apple. He used that as a basis for informations to start Google by passing all of the R&D expense and was able to get first hand knowledge of all of Apple's plans.

    Google's business plan is monetizing you the customer to the fullest extent possible. 

    We make a choice of which stuff we buy. I chose Apple equipment since 1990 because the equipment is their product, not my personal information.
    edited February 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 67 of 88
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,622member
    "Apple believes in vibrant and competitive markets and through the App Store, we've helped millions of developers around the world turn their brightest ideas into apps that change the world."

    Apple says it believes in a competitive App Store. That clearly sidesteps the whole issue: competition for the App Store itself.

    Every one of those millions of developers who charged a fee for their app had to pay Apple. There was no competing App Store and not a single Apple customer was ever informed of the situation. The vast majority of Apple App Store users are entirely unaware of the internal mechanics of the App Store. 

    Get customers to sign off on that point prior to purchase and I'm quite confident Apple would have a better relationship with competition watchdogs. 

    The thing is, I'm convinced Apple would never do that as customers, once aware of the situation, would refuse to sign. 
    edited February 2023
  • Reply 68 of 88
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    ranson said:
    Hedware said:
    Somehow everybody gets asked except for consumers. As a owner of Apple products,  I do not want my privacy and security compromised because some lazy developers want to have open skies. They should attempt to build some decent apps. 
    I fail to understand how this compromises YOUR security. It's very simple. If YOU don't want to use a third party store or sideloading to have access to an app, then YOU don't have to. See, no security problem for YOU. But others, who want to put software on their phone that Apple has declined to list in their App Store, should have that opportunity, given it is their device that they own.  None of that compromises YOUR security in any way.

    I hear the argument that "well, there are apps that will move to their own stores instead of Apple's, and then we can't trust the app maker to not do nefarious things."  Fine, then don't install the app. If you can't trust their product because it's not in Apple's Store, then frankly, you can't trust the app at all and should not use it. Note that numerous scam apps are in the Apple Store already (see this AI article from just this morning), and popular apps like Tik Tok and Facebook actively track you in spite of the tracking transparency options. So again, if you think you wouldn't be able to trust them outside of the Apple store, those apps being in the Apple store is really no different. It's a completely false sense of security.

    So nobody's security is unwillingly compromised here. We are adults, and we can make informed decisions about what apps to install, even when it runs counter to Apple's opinion. This harms no one except those who choose to go down that road and make bad choices.
    It compromises everyone's security because if Apple has to modify iOS to allow side-loaded apps it makes it much, much easier, for criminals, the government, unscrupulous developers to maliciously load malware and spyware onto your phone. Period.

    But remember how much cheaper software used to be before the App Store? Oh, wait, that's right, software got orders of magnitude cheaper after the launch of the App Store. 


    Exactly.
    I don’t think many people remember what buying software was like a mere fifteen years ago. 

    First, OS updates were few-based, never free. 

    Third-party software was rarely 99¢ or just a few bucks. It was expensive. 

    When considering buying third-party applications, it was up to the end-user to research whether or not a new app was compatible with hardware, operating system, and even other software on your device. That’s right. You could inadvertently load software that would conflict with other software on your device. 

    App developers had few requirements with regard to user interface. That’s right. Each new app could introduce novel and confusing ways to interact with the application, even for simple, basic functions. As such, applications were usually expected to include a thick instruction manual. 

    Then there was the risk of bloatware and malware coming with an app, particularly when installation files moved online. 

    Finally, just like operating systems, app updates were not free. Thinking about updating your OS? Better check with each application on your device to see if it’s compatible with the new OS version or if it will require an upgrade that you will have to buy, or if the developer has produced any version that will function on the new OS at all, and if not, then when or if such a new version will be produced. 

    The list goes on. All that mess and more disappeared with iOS and Apple’s App Store. It’s the elimination of all that mess for end users that created the potentially lucrative app market. 

    That’s why it’s worth the cut that Apple takes from  App Store sales. Apps sell for 99¢ or a few bucks because App Developers don’t have their own overhead just to sell their wares, and they can quickly sell huge volumes of their apps. 

    But now, they’ve forgotten all that and just want to side-load in order to avoid Apple’s cut and Apple’s rules. Forcing that to happen will kill the goose that laid the golden egg and return us to many of the “features” of how it was before. 
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 69 of 88
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    avon b7 said:
    "Apple believes in vibrant and competitive markets and through the App Store, we've helped millions of developers around the world turn their brightest ideas into apps that change the world."

    Apple says it believes in a competitive App Store. That clearly sidesteps the whole issue: competition for the App Store itself.

    Every one of those millions of developers who charged a fee for their app had to pay Apple. There was no competing App Store and not a single Apple customer was ever informed of the situation. The vast majority of Apple App Store users are entirely unaware of the internal mechanics of the App Store. 

    Get customers to sign off on that point prior to purchase and I'm quite confident Apple would have a better relationship with competition watchdogs. 

    The thing is, I'm convinced Apple would never do that as customers, once aware of the situation, would refuse to sign. 
    I take it that you read and fully understand the iOS user agreement and refused to click “agree,” since it clearly states that your use of their operating system and software is a license and that you do not own it (and therefore cannot do whatever you want with it).

    No? 
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 88
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,622member
    AppleZulu said:
    avon b7 said:
    "Apple believes in vibrant and competitive markets and through the App Store, we've helped millions of developers around the world turn their brightest ideas into apps that change the world."

    Apple says it believes in a competitive App Store. That clearly sidesteps the whole issue: competition for the App Store itself.

    Every one of those millions of developers who charged a fee for their app had to pay Apple. There was no competing App Store and not a single Apple customer was ever informed of the situation. The vast majority of Apple App Store users are entirely unaware of the internal mechanics of the App Store. 

    Get customers to sign off on that point prior to purchase and I'm quite confident Apple would have a better relationship with competition watchdogs. 

    The thing is, I'm convinced Apple would never do that as customers, once aware of the situation, would refuse to sign. 
    I take it that you read and fully understand the iOS user agreement and refused to click “agree,” since it clearly states that your use of their operating system and software is a license and that you do not own it (and therefore cannot do whatever you want with it).

    No? 
    No. That won't cut it. 

    That is why Apple is highly likely to end up having to change policy. 

    If you have to accept ToS on device setup, you have a problem right there. If it is a condition you cannot work around it should be presented prior to purchase (not after) - and in clearly understandable terms to an average user.

    All subsequent modifications of ToS resulting from software updates should be presented prior to the update even happening.

    There are a lot of things that need to be looked at. 

    In fact, draft proposals from the EU provide for rollbacks of upgrades which provide unsolicited functionality or hamper performance. 
    muthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 71 of 88
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 536member
    The White House and Dork Biden pretty much has blacklisted and have attempted to cancel and hurt just about every business from A to Z since he took office. “Shut up jack and pay $8 like everyone else”! Lol App Store fees … Phhss
    The level of vicious stupidity coming from the right never fails to amaze me. I guess they were all smoking crack while mango mussolini was robbing us blind. Infuriating.
    There is stupidity on both sides but none more than the current Democrat government forcing malware into my IPhone like what they are suggesting 

    that is the fact
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 72 of 88
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 536member
    ApplePoor said:
    There are many who do not appreciate the fact that the Apple store does a pretty good job policing malignant software and keeping it out of the Apple App Store. That service requires a serious number of employees to keep the system working well. 

    I guess in the near future we should scrub our iPhone of all person information and revert back to the black plastic phones I had in the 60s (there some colors available too). If one paid extra, they could have a keypad, otherwise there was the rotary dial. There was no computer on board as the central switch building routed calls to your number over a dedicated twisted pair. Of course a pair of alligator clips could be used to tap into the line anywhere along the route of the wires from central station to your home and monitor the call. 

    Many conveniently forget that Googles founder sat on the Board of Directors at Apple. He used that as a basis for informations to start Google by passing all of the R&D expense and was able to get first hand knowledge of all of Apple's plans.

    Google's business plan is monetizing you the customer to the fullest extent possible. 

    We make a choice of which stuff we buy. I chose Apple equipment since 1990 because the equipment is their product, not my personal information.
    Most of these people who want to open up IPhone and are on Epics side are either ignorant or the people who wants to exploit peoples data. Let’s cut right to the chase. They are one of two things, either dumb or likely THE CRIMINALS, just because they post here, it doesn’t sanitize their intentions or who they work for
    edited February 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 73 of 88
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,544member
    Madbum said:
    The White House and Dork Biden pretty much has blacklisted and have attempted to cancel and hurt just about every business from A to Z since he took office. “Shut up jack and pay $8 like everyone else”! Lol App Store fees … Phhss
    The level of vicious stupidity coming from the right never fails to amaze me. I guess they were all smoking crack while mango mussolini was robbing us blind. Infuriating.
    There is stupidity on both sides but none more than the current Democrat government forcing malware into my IPhone like what they are suggesting 

    that is the fact
    The bill this is about actually has bipartisan support. The Senate Judiciary Committee that approved of bringing it to the floor is comprised of ten Democrats and ten Republicans. 

    I humbly suggest you eat your "fact" and confront the reality that this is not in fact a partisan issue just because someone who scares you happens to approve. 
    muthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 74 of 88
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,031member
    What? All middlemen make money otherwise they wouldn't be in business. Since when is 30% too much? There must always be a markup. In Apple's case, the vender can charge what they want without the middleman telling them. 

    It could it be that government employees don't have a clue about how businesses work?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 75 of 88
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    avon b7 said:
    AppleZulu said:
    avon b7 said:
    "Apple believes in vibrant and competitive markets and through the App Store, we've helped millions of developers around the world turn their brightest ideas into apps that change the world."

    Apple says it believes in a competitive App Store. That clearly sidesteps the whole issue: competition for the App Store itself.

    Every one of those millions of developers who charged a fee for their app had to pay Apple. There was no competing App Store and not a single Apple customer was ever informed of the situation. The vast majority of Apple App Store users are entirely unaware of the internal mechanics of the App Store. 

    Get customers to sign off on that point prior to purchase and I'm quite confident Apple would have a better relationship with competition watchdogs. 

    The thing is, I'm convinced Apple would never do that as customers, once aware of the situation, would refuse to sign. 
    I take it that you read and fully understand the iOS user agreement and refused to click “agree,” since it clearly states that your use of their operating system and software is a license and that you do not own it (and therefore cannot do whatever you want with it).

    No? 
    No. That won't cut it. 

    That is why Apple is highly likely to end up having to change policy. 

    If you have to accept ToS on device setup, you have a problem right there. If it is a condition you cannot work around it should be presented prior to purchase (not after) - and in clearly understandable terms to an average user.

    All subsequent modifications of ToS resulting from software updates should be presented prior to the update even happening.

    There are a lot of things that need to be looked at. 

    In fact, draft proposals from the EU provide for rollbacks of upgrades which provide unsolicited functionality or hamper performance. 
    Apple has a no questions asked return policy when you buy a new device. Don't like the user agreement and terms of service? Return the device for a full refund.

    As for your expectation of plain language terms on the outside of the box before purchase, that's a much broader issue than Apple. If that's what you want, speak to your legislator about applying that one to everyone, because long user agreements presented after a purchase is pretty much industry standard across a lot of industries. That's that "agree" button you've clicked a thousand times without ever reading the thing you've agreed to. You know you've done that.

    Of course, to be fair to Apple, while it's not printed on the box, you can look up the software license agreements for any of their devices before you purchase one. You did that, right? You wouldn't fail to look something up, fail to ask for the information and then complain that they didn't stick a paper copy in your hand and then refuse to sell you the item for at least an hour so that they can be certain you had time to read it before you agreed to it, would you?

    Every Apple OS update comes with a fresh user agreement as well as release notes, even the something-point-something-point-something updates. They're presented before you download and install it, so you can read, disapprove and decline the update. You're still bound by the previous one you agreed to, of course, but if you've sussed out an objectionable change, by all means, draw the line and stop right there. I save 'em all. Don't you?

    I'd love to see some reform with user agreements, because they pop up everywhere for everything, and I suspect if it were studied how people respond when presented with one, it's probably a tiny fraction of a single percent of people who even save them like I do, much less actually read one. Nonetheless, these things are routinely upheld in court. That's not an Apple problem, and your declaration that "that won't cut it" is profoundly irrelevant. 

    So if you're using an Apple device, you have agreed (repeatedly) that you're accepting a license to use their software, not purchasing and owning the software. That license allows you to use the software as presented, not crack it open, decompile and re-write it. The software you've agreed to use on Apple's terms has an App Store, and it does not have an opening for other app stores or direct side-loading. That's what you agreed to when you bought the thing. If you don't like that, you should've read the user agreement, declined and returned the device for a full refund. 

    Of course, by this point you may no longer be eligible for a refund, but you can stop using your iPhone at any time and go buy a competing device from another manufacturer that has a different operating system that will allow you to side load whatever you like. That's freely available to you at wide range of price points, many of which are less than you'd pay for an iPhone. That's the power of the free market and free consumer choice, baby!
    edited February 2023 FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 76 of 88
    Madbum said:
    williamh said:
    Government motto: if it ain’t broken we will fix it until it is. 
    Disgusting isn’t it 
    And a ridiculous oversimplification, not to mention a sweeping generalization. Governments do amazing things for us that we don’t appreciate because we totally take them for granted. They also do bad things, and they make mistakes. It helps if we elect competent people to tip the balance to the former. Will Rogers, I believe, liked to say “democracy is the worst form of government, other than all the others,” or something like that…
    AppleZulusphericFileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 77 of 88
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,622member
    AppleZulu said:
    avon b7 said:
    AppleZulu said:
    avon b7 said:
    "Apple believes in vibrant and competitive markets and through the App Store, we've helped millions of developers around the world turn their brightest ideas into apps that change the world."

    Apple says it believes in a competitive App Store. That clearly sidesteps the whole issue: competition for the App Store itself.

    Every one of those millions of developers who charged a fee for their app had to pay Apple. There was no competing App Store and not a single Apple customer was ever informed of the situation. The vast majority of Apple App Store users are entirely unaware of the internal mechanics of the App Store. 

    Get customers to sign off on that point prior to purchase and I'm quite confident Apple would have a better relationship with competition watchdogs. 

    The thing is, I'm convinced Apple would never do that as customers, once aware of the situation, would refuse to sign. 
    I take it that you read and fully understand the iOS user agreement and refused to click “agree,” since it clearly states that your use of their operating system and software is a license and that you do not own it (and therefore cannot do whatever you want with it).

    No? 
    No. That won't cut it. 

    That is why Apple is highly likely to end up having to change policy. 

    If you have to accept ToS on device setup, you have a problem right there. If it is a condition you cannot work around it should be presented prior to purchase (not after) - and in clearly understandable terms to an average user.

    All subsequent modifications of ToS resulting from software updates should be presented prior to the update even happening.

    There are a lot of things that need to be looked at. 

    In fact, draft proposals from the EU provide for rollbacks of upgrades which provide unsolicited functionality or hamper performance. 
    Apple has a no questions asked return policy when you buy a new device. Don't like the user agreement and terms of service? Return the device for a full refund.

    As for your expectation of plain language terms on the outside of the box before purchase, that's a much broader issue than Apple. If that's what you want, speak to your legislator about applying that one to everyone, because long user agreements presented after a purchase is pretty much industry standard across a lot of industries. That's that "agree" button you've clicked a thousand times without ever reading the thing you've agreed to. You know you've done that.

    Of course, to be fair to Apple, while it's not printed on the box, you can look up the software license agreements for any of their devices before you purchase one. You did that, right? You wouldn't fail to look something up, fail to ask for the information and then complain that they didn't stick a paper copy in your hand and then refuse to sell you the item for at least an hour so that they can be certain you had time to read it before you agreed to it, would you?

    Every Apple OS update comes with a fresh user agreement as well as release notes, even the something-point-something-point-something updates. They're presented before you download and install it, so you can read, disapprove and decline the update. You're still bound by the previous one you agreed to, of course, but if you've sussed out an objectionable change, by all means, draw the line and stop right there. I save 'em all. Don't you?

    I'd love to see some reform with user agreements, because they pop up everywhere for everything, and I suspect if it were studied how people respond when presented with one, it's probably a tiny fraction of a single percent of people who even save them like I do, much less actually read one. Nonetheless, these things are routinely upheld in court. That's not an Apple problem, and your declaration that "that won't cut it" is profoundly irrelevant. 

    So if you're using an Apple device, you have agreed (repeatedly) that you're accepting a license to use their software, not purchasing and owning the software. That license allows you to use the software as presented, not crack it open, decompile and re-write it. The software you've agreed to use on Apple's terms has an App Store, and it does not have an opening for other app stores or direct side-loading. That's what you agreed to when you bought the thing. If you don't like that, you should've read the user agreement, declined and returned the device for a full refund. 

    Of course, by this point you may no longer be eligible for a refund, but you can stop using your iPhone at any time and go buy a competing device from another manufacturer that has a different operating system that will allow you to side load whatever you like. That's freely available to you at wide range of price points, many of which are less than you'd pay for an iPhone. That's the power of the free market and free consumer choice, baby!
    No hassle return policy does not cut it either because the simple fact of having return something is hassle and involves a process that could have been avoided (by making ToS known at purchase). 

    It's curious that Apple plunks ToS on you before they repair your device out of warranty but not when you buy it. 

    At some point I'm sure legislation will hammer the practice in the EU. The US may be more forgiving. 

    It's amazing that this stuff is deemed acceptable but really boils down to most people not reading through the ToS anyway. Partly because of lack of interest but also lack of time. Personally, I would enforce highlighting of changes within ToS to make keeping up with modifications easier. 

    Layman's terms is also important, seeing as these terms are directed mostly to laypeople and this particular issue has already been dealt with at an EU Court of Justice level. Bank mortgage floor clauses were deemed illegal if they hadn't been clearly explained to customers, most of whom had little idea about them so the mere presence of a clause wasn't enough. Again, I doubt the US would seek to protect consumers in the same way. 

    FileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 78 of 88
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    avon b7 said:
    AppleZulu said:
    avon b7 said:
    AppleZulu said:
    avon b7 said:
    "Apple believes in vibrant and competitive markets and through the App Store, we've helped millions of developers around the world turn their brightest ideas into apps that change the world."

    Apple says it believes in a competitive App Store. That clearly sidesteps the whole issue: competition for the App Store itself.

    Every one of those millions of developers who charged a fee for their app had to pay Apple. There was no competing App Store and not a single Apple customer was ever informed of the situation. The vast majority of Apple App Store users are entirely unaware of the internal mechanics of the App Store. 

    Get customers to sign off on that point prior to purchase and I'm quite confident Apple would have a better relationship with competition watchdogs. 

    The thing is, I'm convinced Apple would never do that as customers, once aware of the situation, would refuse to sign. 
    I take it that you read and fully understand the iOS user agreement and refused to click “agree,” since it clearly states that your use of their operating system and software is a license and that you do not own it (and therefore cannot do whatever you want with it).

    No? 
    No. That won't cut it. 

    That is why Apple is highly likely to end up having to change policy. 

    If you have to accept ToS on device setup, you have a problem right there. If it is a condition you cannot work around it should be presented prior to purchase (not after) - and in clearly understandable terms to an average user.

    All subsequent modifications of ToS resulting from software updates should be presented prior to the update even happening.

    There are a lot of things that need to be looked at. 

    In fact, draft proposals from the EU provide for rollbacks of upgrades which provide unsolicited functionality or hamper performance. 
    Apple has a no questions asked return policy when you buy a new device. Don't like the user agreement and terms of service? Return the device for a full refund.

    As for your expectation of plain language terms on the outside of the box before purchase, that's a much broader issue than Apple. If that's what you want, speak to your legislator about applying that one to everyone, because long user agreements presented after a purchase is pretty much industry standard across a lot of industries. That's that "agree" button you've clicked a thousand times without ever reading the thing you've agreed to. You know you've done that.

    Of course, to be fair to Apple, while it's not printed on the box, you can look up the software license agreements for any of their devices before you purchase one. You did that, right? You wouldn't fail to look something up, fail to ask for the information and then complain that they didn't stick a paper copy in your hand and then refuse to sell you the item for at least an hour so that they can be certain you had time to read it before you agreed to it, would you?

    Every Apple OS update comes with a fresh user agreement as well as release notes, even the something-point-something-point-something updates. They're presented before you download and install it, so you can read, disapprove and decline the update. You're still bound by the previous one you agreed to, of course, but if you've sussed out an objectionable change, by all means, draw the line and stop right there. I save 'em all. Don't you?

    I'd love to see some reform with user agreements, because they pop up everywhere for everything, and I suspect if it were studied how people respond when presented with one, it's probably a tiny fraction of a single percent of people who even save them like I do, much less actually read one. Nonetheless, these things are routinely upheld in court. That's not an Apple problem, and your declaration that "that won't cut it" is profoundly irrelevant. 

    So if you're using an Apple device, you have agreed (repeatedly) that you're accepting a license to use their software, not purchasing and owning the software. That license allows you to use the software as presented, not crack it open, decompile and re-write it. The software you've agreed to use on Apple's terms has an App Store, and it does not have an opening for other app stores or direct side-loading. That's what you agreed to when you bought the thing. If you don't like that, you should've read the user agreement, declined and returned the device for a full refund. 

    Of course, by this point you may no longer be eligible for a refund, but you can stop using your iPhone at any time and go buy a competing device from another manufacturer that has a different operating system that will allow you to side load whatever you like. That's freely available to you at wide range of price points, many of which are less than you'd pay for an iPhone. That's the power of the free market and free consumer choice, baby!
    No hassle return policy does not cut it either because the simple fact of having return something is hassle and involves a process that could have been avoided (by making ToS known at purchase). 

    It's curious that Apple plunks ToS on you before they repair your device out of warranty but not when you buy it. 

    At some point I'm sure legislation will hammer the practice in the EU. The US may be more forgiving. 

    It's amazing that this stuff is deemed acceptable but really boils down to most people not reading through the ToS anyway. Partly because of lack of interest but also lack of time. Personally, I would enforce highlighting of changes within ToS to make keeping up with modifications easier. 

    Layman's terms is also important, seeing as these terms are directed mostly to laypeople and this particular issue has already been dealt with at an EU Court of Justice level. Bank mortgage floor clauses were deemed illegal if they hadn't been clearly explained to customers, most of whom had little idea about them so the mere presence of a clause wasn't enough. Again, I doubt the US would seek to protect consumers in the same way. 

    Even just in the consumer electronics category, I can't think of a single time when I was shown or asked to sign off on terms of service or a user agreement before purchasing a piece of hardware, nor can I recall a box for such an item having said terms listed on the outside. Scads of them have user agreements and terms of service in order to activate them, or create an associated user account or other such thing. Some have legalese on paper inside the box, with a statement to the effect of 'by using this device, you agree to the following," but I can't think of a single case where the user agreement was required before a purchase. Can you?

    If not, then why are you calling it out with regard to Apple? Why only now, as you're trying to make a truly tenuous argument that Apple customers don't know beforehand about the exclusivity of the Apple App Store, and that if they were told about it first, they wouldn't agree to it?

    The answer to your other question should be equally obvious. Apple (and everyone else) asks you to sign off beforehand on an agreement for an out-of-warranty repair because they're going to make clear what you can and can't expect for the repair, for their handling of your device while it's in their possession, and have you agree to the terms of payment before they accept the job and put money into it to make the repairs, which you will likely only be asked to pay for once the work is complete and the device returned to you.

    When you first buy the device, they're actually assuming the risk that you'll read and accept the user agreement, and then activate and use the device, instead of returning it for a refund. If you do, they can't then resell it for full price as a new item. You say "the simple fact of having [to] return something is [a] hassle," but they're the one taking the financial risk.

    Anyway, if you can show where any other even vaguely similar consumer electronic device has you look at (much less agree to) a user agreement before you purchase it, then we can talk. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up to complain about.
    edited February 2023 FileMakerFellerthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 79 of 88
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,622member
    AppleZulu said:
    avon b7 said:
    AppleZulu said:
    avon b7 said:
    AppleZulu said:
    avon b7 said:
    "Apple believes in vibrant and competitive markets and through the App Store, we've helped millions of developers around the world turn their brightest ideas into apps that change the world."

    Apple says it believes in a competitive App Store. That clearly sidesteps the whole issue: competition for the App Store itself.

    Every one of those millions of developers who charged a fee for their app had to pay Apple. There was no competing App Store and not a single Apple customer was ever informed of the situation. The vast majority of Apple App Store users are entirely unaware of the internal mechanics of the App Store. 

    Get customers to sign off on that point prior to purchase and I'm quite confident Apple would have a better relationship with competition watchdogs. 

    The thing is, I'm convinced Apple would never do that as customers, once aware of the situation, would refuse to sign. 
    I take it that you read and fully understand the iOS user agreement and refused to click “agree,” since it clearly states that your use of their operating system and software is a license and that you do not own it (and therefore cannot do whatever you want with it).

    No? 
    No. That won't cut it. 

    That is why Apple is highly likely to end up having to change policy. 

    If you have to accept ToS on device setup, you have a problem right there. If it is a condition you cannot work around it should be presented prior to purchase (not after) - and in clearly understandable terms to an average user.

    All subsequent modifications of ToS resulting from software updates should be presented prior to the update even happening.

    There are a lot of things that need to be looked at. 

    In fact, draft proposals from the EU provide for rollbacks of upgrades which provide unsolicited functionality or hamper performance. 
    Apple has a no questions asked return policy when you buy a new device. Don't like the user agreement and terms of service? Return the device for a full refund.

    As for your expectation of plain language terms on the outside of the box before purchase, that's a much broader issue than Apple. If that's what you want, speak to your legislator about applying that one to everyone, because long user agreements presented after a purchase is pretty much industry standard across a lot of industries. That's that "agree" button you've clicked a thousand times without ever reading the thing you've agreed to. You know you've done that.

    Of course, to be fair to Apple, while it's not printed on the box, you can look up the software license agreements for any of their devices before you purchase one. You did that, right? You wouldn't fail to look something up, fail to ask for the information and then complain that they didn't stick a paper copy in your hand and then refuse to sell you the item for at least an hour so that they can be certain you had time to read it before you agreed to it, would you?

    Every Apple OS update comes with a fresh user agreement as well as release notes, even the something-point-something-point-something updates. They're presented before you download and install it, so you can read, disapprove and decline the update. You're still bound by the previous one you agreed to, of course, but if you've sussed out an objectionable change, by all means, draw the line and stop right there. I save 'em all. Don't you?

    I'd love to see some reform with user agreements, because they pop up everywhere for everything, and I suspect if it were studied how people respond when presented with one, it's probably a tiny fraction of a single percent of people who even save them like I do, much less actually read one. Nonetheless, these things are routinely upheld in court. That's not an Apple problem, and your declaration that "that won't cut it" is profoundly irrelevant. 

    So if you're using an Apple device, you have agreed (repeatedly) that you're accepting a license to use their software, not purchasing and owning the software. That license allows you to use the software as presented, not crack it open, decompile and re-write it. The software you've agreed to use on Apple's terms has an App Store, and it does not have an opening for other app stores or direct side-loading. That's what you agreed to when you bought the thing. If you don't like that, you should've read the user agreement, declined and returned the device for a full refund. 

    Of course, by this point you may no longer be eligible for a refund, but you can stop using your iPhone at any time and go buy a competing device from another manufacturer that has a different operating system that will allow you to side load whatever you like. That's freely available to you at wide range of price points, many of which are less than you'd pay for an iPhone. That's the power of the free market and free consumer choice, baby!
    No hassle return policy does not cut it either because the simple fact of having return something is hassle and involves a process that could have been avoided (by making ToS known at purchase). 

    It's curious that Apple plunks ToS on you before they repair your device out of warranty but not when you buy it. 

    At some point I'm sure legislation will hammer the practice in the EU. The US may be more forgiving. 

    It's amazing that this stuff is deemed acceptable but really boils down to most people not reading through the ToS anyway. Partly because of lack of interest but also lack of time. Personally, I would enforce highlighting of changes within ToS to make keeping up with modifications easier. 

    Layman's terms is also important, seeing as these terms are directed mostly to laypeople and this particular issue has already been dealt with at an EU Court of Justice level. Bank mortgage floor clauses were deemed illegal if they hadn't been clearly explained to customers, most of whom had little idea about them so the mere presence of a clause wasn't enough. Again, I doubt the US would seek to protect consumers in the same way. 

    Even just in the consumer electronics category, I can't think of a single time when I was shown or asked to sign off on terms of service or a user agreement before purchasing a piece of hardware, nor can I recall a box for such an item having said terms listed on the outside. Scads of them have user agreements and terms of service in order to activate them, or create an associated user account or other such thing. Some have legalese on paper inside the box, with a statement to the effect of 'by using this device, you agree to the following," but I can't think of a single case where the user agreement was required before a purchase. Can you?

    If not, then why are you calling it out with regard to Apple? Why only now, as you're trying to make a truly tenuous argument that Apple customers don't know beforehand about the exclusivity of the Apple App Store, and that if they were told about it first, they wouldn't agree to it?

    The answer to your other question should be equally obvious. Apple (and everyone else) asks you to sign off beforehand on an agreement for an out-of-warranty repair because they're going to make clear what you can and can't expect for the repair, for their handling of your device while it's in their possession, and have you agree to the terms of payment before they accept the job and put money into it to make the repairs, which you will likely only be asked to pay for once the work is complete and the device returned to you.

    When you first buy the device, they're actually assuming the risk that you'll read and accept the user agreement, and then activate and use the device, instead of returning it for a refund. If you do, they can't then resell it for full price as a new item. You say "the simple fact of having [to] return something is [a] hassle," but they're the one taking the financial risk.

    Anyway, if you can show where any other even vaguely similar consumer electronic device has you look at (much less agree to) a user agreement before you purchase it, then we can talk. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up to complain about.
    What we are talking about now is focused on, but not limited to Apple. It is also not about current legislation but what may be coming down the pipe. 

    The investigation cited in this article specifically includes a reference to how 'digital' has become an ever increasing part of everyday life - hence the final recommendations to sort things out. 

    Any final legislation will not be limited to Apple and Google.

    It's about the future and remedying the issues of the present. 

    ToS is terms of service and the services industry is chock full of examples of contracts being signed on purchase and not after. In the EU those terms are available to the purchaser during the contract agreement phase.


    When I contracted my internet and phone installation the terms weren't presented when the router was plugged in for the first time. 

    IoT that is services dependent definitely should make ToS available on or prior to purchase.

    10 years ago your washing machine wasn't an IoT device, now many are but none of them are services dependent to be able to function so they will work perfectly without the services extras. That won't always be the case as manufacturers push for things like remote diagnostics and data on machine usage etc. 

    Legislation is needed for these changes. 

    There is literally zero defence for Apple not providing ToS on purchase but demanding users accept them prior to out of warranty repair. I fully understand the need for it in the case of repair. That isn't the issue.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 80 of 88
    What right does the Government have to regulate what a private company charges?

    I can see compelling Apple to allow third party "Stores", but it should be completely up to the consumer as to whether they 

    want to utilize such third parties.  I believe Apple's model has served consumers well.  In exchange for the fees they have 

    kept all kinds of smut and damaging applications off the iOS platform.   
    If the government can prove harm to the citizenry it has every right to regulate. Government exists to act on the behalf of the people it represents, to consider things at a scale and timeframe that individuals cannot manage and to identify and neutralise threats as best as possible.

    If government cannot justify its decisions and actions to the satisfaction of the majority then the citizenry has every right to resist and to insist that the government changes.
    sphericthtwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.