At the same time, the government is obligated to protect the rights and interests of minorities from the majority. That’s what separates the republic from the simple mob rule of pure democracy.
"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.
[emphasis added]
Your assertion contradicts my experience with large numbers of people. My expectation is that:
a significant portion of potential customers would say "Yeah, whatever" and continue with their intended course of action
a (potentially larger, potentially overlapping) portion of potential customers would ask for a discount and/or for the situation to change. Should change not happen, the majority would decide it's not worth the fight and buy an iPhone anyway.
regardless of the choice made, several individuals will be unable to recognise the validity of the other choices made and will give voice to their confusion on the internet.
Some of the most impactful business advice I have ever received is that customers don't (and shouldn't) care about your costs to deliver a service or product. They care about what it costs them and what it can do for them. The profitability of your business is your concern, not theirs.
"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.
Once again, Apple's license agreements for everything they sell are readily available before, during and after your purchase. They're not hiding them. If you're purchasing online, it's one click from the "buy" page for a device. If you're at the store, they'll show them to you right there if you want to see them first. Your "problem" is not a problem.
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.
You CAN install whatever software you want on your iPhone. Option 1 is to jailbreak it; there's a dedicated small community out there that puts the effort in on behalf of those without the technical capability. It's a largely thankless task. Once jailbroken, you need to install software that has been specifically written to function with the chosen OS. Again, a small community does this work for very little reward (financial or otherwise). There's a large amount of risk with this approach because - shocker! - there are people in this world who believe that it's their right to take from others what they cannot defend.
Option 2 is to become a registered developer with Apple. Write your own software, or license it from someone else (for a fee or not). Compile it yourself and install it on your device. The default limitation is that you have to reinstall the software every seven days (which takes maybe 5 minutes per app) but if you pay Apple the annual developer fee of US$99 that limitation is lifted.
The argument that Apple does not allow you to install whatever software you want on your device is bogus. It's more effort and might cost more money (especially if you don't have the required skills), but that's something that applies equally to changing out your car's stereo or painting a room of your house a different colour.
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.
This is the argument Apple needs to make in court, in the halls of government, in the ears of news media editors and in public. Show the data. Show the price differential for "mobile phone software" prior to 2008 and today. Show the price differential for desktop software and iOS software today. Show that a lot of iOS software is simply a digital frontend to a service and the price of the service is not correlated to the price of the software.
Then ask for the proof that consumers are being harmed.
"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.
Once again, Apple's license agreements for everything they sell are readily available before, during and after your purchase. They're not hiding them. If you're purchasing online, it's one click from the "buy" page for a device. If you're at the store, they'll show them to you right there if you want to see them first. Your "problem" is not a problem.
'Readily available' has nothing to do with what I am saying. At no point in the selection process, right up to the 'pay' button for purchase are ToS even hinted at. They are nowhere to be found in the store selection and purchase process.
The only way you will get them is by specifically hunting them down or of course, on trying to use the phone after purchase.
Comments
Your assertion contradicts my experience with large numbers of people. My expectation is that:
Some of the most impactful business advice I have ever received is that customers don't (and shouldn't) care about your costs to deliver a service or product. They care about what it costs them and what it can do for them. The profitability of your business is your concern, not theirs.
Option 2 is to become a registered developer with Apple. Write your own software, or license it from someone else (for a fee or not). Compile it yourself and install it on your device. The default limitation is that you have to reinstall the software every seven days (which takes maybe 5 minutes per app) but if you pay Apple the annual developer fee of US$99 that limitation is lifted.
The argument that Apple does not allow you to install whatever software you want on your device is bogus. It's more effort and might cost more money (especially if you don't have the required skills), but that's something that applies equally to changing out your car's stereo or painting a room of your house a different colour.
Then ask for the proof that consumers are being harmed.
The only way you will get them is by specifically hunting them down or of course, on trying to use the phone after purchase.