Apple, Google Commit to Fairer App Store Practices in UK

[d686546s]

What to do if, legally, companies are doing nothing wrong, but the government wants to do something? Well, the government can just define “how they do business” as illegal! 😀

Yes? That's generally how it works. Legislation is not the only vehicle of change, but one of the ways to make businesses act differently is through laws.

Not sure what exactly you think is ridiculous about that.

 

[The_Gream]

Yes? That's generally how it works. Legislation is not the only vehicle of change, but one of the ways to make businesses act differently is through laws.

Not sure what exactly you think is ridiculous about that.

I think that was his/her point.

Business is doing business legally. Someone (politician or otherwise) doesn’t like how they are doing business and decides to get the law changed to change how the business does business, even though the business was never doing anything illegal.

Like having socks that can be worn on ether foot, then to be told that all socks must be designated for ether the right foot or the left foot, but not both. Change for the sake of change, yet it doesn’t really do any good in the long run. (Poor example but whatever)

 

[d686546s]

I think that was his/her point.

Business is doing business legally. Someone (politician or otherwise) doesn’t like how they are doing business and decides to get the law changed to change how the business does business, even though the business was never doing anything illegal.

Like having socks that can be worn on ether foot, then to be told that all socks must be designated for ether the right foot or the left foot, but not both. Change for the sake of change, yet it doesn’t really do any good in the long run. (Poor example but whatever)

But at a basic level it's a nonsensical criticism. I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't discuss the merit of particular laws, but history is full of examples where perfectly legal business conduct fell out of moral fashion, where new harms were discovered or any other reason why things should change. Equally it can be necessary to make illegal conduct legal.

There's no point in criticising legislation because prior conduct was legal, because obviously if it wasn't there'd be no need for new laws.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

100% agree. Not every developer is a bad actor, but it just takes one. Look how many fake crypto apps out there have stolen peoples money. Something Apple can’t protect against is people’s own ignorance.

And you’re right, I don’t intend to malign all developers, but, if a system resource is misused, intentionally or accidentally, it will have been by a developer (vs a user).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I think that was his/her point.

Business is doing business legally. Someone (politician or otherwise) doesn’t like how they are doing business and decides to get the law changed to change how the business does business, even though the business was never doing anything illegal.

Like having socks that can be worn on ether foot, then to be told that all socks must be designated for ether the right foot or the left foot, but not both. Change for the sake of change, yet it doesn’t really do any good in the long run. (Poor example but whatever)

Consider this, there are REAMS of legislation in both regions, including lots of regulations around how companies should do business. But, those companies have folks tasked with ensuring that they are following ALL of the applicable laws in the region. So, unfortunately for the government, there wasn’t a single law on the books that could be used to even tangentially indicate that they are worthy of regulation. That’s just how law abiding they are.

So, in the case of the EU and UK, their desire to regulate successful companies were so strong (and they had zero case against them), they legally defined a term for “successful company that we want to regulate” (Gatekeeper, strategic market status) and now, by default, because they are “successful companies that they want to regulate”, now they are “successful companies that will be regulated!”

All of that because they just so happened to make products that citizens in those regions like to/want to purchase in large quantities.

 

[d686546s]

Consider this, there are REAMS of legislation in both regions, including lots of regulations around how companies should do business. But, those companies have folks tasked with ensuring that they are following ALL of the applicable laws in the region. So, unfortunately for the government, there wasn’t a single law on the books that could be used to even tangentially indicate that they are worthy of regulation. That’s just how law abiding they are.

So, in the case of the EU and UK, their desire to regulate successful companies were so strong (and they had zero case against them), they legally defined a term for “successful company that we want to regulate” (Gatekeeper, strategic market status) and now, by default, because they are “successful companies that they want to regulate”, now they are “successful companies that will be regulated!”

All of that because they just so happened to make products that citizens in those regions like to/want to purchase in large quantities.

Leaving aside all the legal and regulatory issues both Apple and Google, among others, do have both in Europe and the US, what you're effectively saying is that the only justification for legislation is if what businesses are doing is already illegal. That's what your argument boils down to and it doesn't make a lot of sense.

That doesn't mean we have to agree on whether particular laws are justified, but it's a very poor challenge against legislation per se.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Leaving aside all the legal and regulatory issues both Apple and Google, among others, do have both in Europe and the US, what you're effectively saying is that the only justification for legislation is if what businesses are doing is already illegal. That's what your argument boils down to and it doesn't make a lot of sense.

That doesn't mean we have to agree on whether particular laws are justified, but it's a very poor challenge against legislation per se.

Specifically in the EU and the UK, the justification for legislation was that “they were successful”. In those regions making devices/services that people want to use/buy is an act that deserves punishment. And, if they had said from the start “Don’t grow over a certain level” both companies could have handled that quite well. Instead, they waited until AFTER they had become successful to let them know, “Yeah, being successful, don’t know how you thought you were going to get away with that nonsense HERE!” 🙂

Now that they know that being successful in those regions is illegal, they can take actions with future products/services such that they’re no longer keeping gates needlessly OR having strategic market status. As of this writing, of ALL the markets and products available in the UK, strangely, only two have a status in the market so strategic, that they require regulation. And, they’re both “optional” products, not something like food or clean water. They’re so strategically important, that UK citizens don’t even need them. Perhaps this is ahead of a future regulation that will force people to buy them in order to increase their strategic importance?

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

ACACO (American Companies Always Chicken Out)

 

[riverguide]

Users who prefer the "one App Store model" ought have an option for one - it's safer and more secure for the vast majority of consumers.

I may have misunderstood the last sentence in your comment. If “users who prefer one … model” were granted their wish, would that not exclude third-party app stores forever? User A wants just one store, user B wants more than one. There is no way to accommodate both. Again, I may have misread your point.

 

[surferfb]

I may have misunderstood the last sentence in your comment. If “users who prefer one … model” were granted their wish, would that not exclude third-party app stores forever? User A wants just one store, user B wants more than one. There is no way to accommodate both. Again, I may have misread your point.

Happy to clarify!

In my opinion, given the fact that Android offers users the ability to install apps from alternate app stores (or no App Store at all), users who care strongly about being able to install apps from anywhere have an option: Buy an Android device. In other words, your User A should buy an iPhone, User B should buy an Android.

The issue is that (in my opinion) a subset of developers want access to Apple’s customers, who when compared to Android users, are significantly more likely to spend money on apps. But the subset of developers don’t want to follow Apple’s rules for various reasons (generally: they’d make more money if they didn’t have to), despite the fact that Apple’s rules are (again in my opinion) a huge part of the reason Apple users spend money on apps.

There is also a vocal minority of iPhone users, who are disproportionately represented on MacRumors (given it’s a technically proficient audience who are generally capable of safely analyzing and installing software from “unauthorized” sources in a way people like my dad, my mother-in-law and my kid are not) want to have an iPhone, but also want third party stores.

So rather than make trade offs, these developers and power users want to have government bureaucrats dictate that they get to have their cake (iPhone) and eat it too (sideloading/third party stores) and those who like things the way they are are just out of luck. And for the non-technical users who are now more susceptible to scams snd malware? Well too bad, they should learn how to use computers better.

But (in my opinion), given the significant privacy and security advantages that Apple’s model provides, having some bureaucrats take it away from everyone in the name of “competition” actually does more harm than good, and ironically reduces competition in the market.

 

[d686546s]

Specifically in the EU and the UK, the justification for legislation was that “they were successful”.

Whether deliberate or not, that's such a gross oversimplification that it's objectively just not true and wildly misleading. These laws are not just because these companies are successful, but because they hold a unique position in controlling market access for both other hardware and software competitors with very real knock on effects for a broad range of products and services.

All of this has been discussed to death on these pages and I really don't want to get into it again. We can agree to disagree on whether or not the reasons for legislation are compelling, but let's call a spade a spade.

In those regions making devices/services that people want to use/buy is an act that deserves punishment. And, if they had said from the start “Don’t grow over a certain level” both companies could have handled that quite well. Instead, they waited until AFTER they had become successful to let them know, “Yeah, being successful, don’t know how you thought you were going to get away with that nonsense HERE!” 🙂

Now that they know that being successful in those regions is illegal, they can take actions with future products/services such that they’re no longer keeping gates needlessly OR having strategic market status. As of this writing, of ALL the markets and products available in the UK, strangely, only two have a status in the market so strategic, that they require regulation. And, they’re both “optional” products, not something like food or clean water. They’re so strategically important, that UK citizens don’t even need them. Perhaps this is ahead of a future regulation that will force people to buy them in order to increase their strategic importance?

Respectfully, you seem to argue that legislators should have predicted the future and, having failed to do so, they now can't intervene in what companies are doing because "it was perfectly legal."

That's just not how this works. It's quite normal that companies need to change their business model in response to a changing legislative and regulatory framework because the broader effects of their actions only become apparent after a period of time.

Again, I'm not saying we have to agree on whether these interventions are justified overall or whether the specific interventions the EU and the UK have put in place will have the intended outcome. Frankly, I'm not fully convinced on the latter either.

None of that means that business models are sacrosanct just because they were legal at some point in time. Things change and laws have to change with them.

 

[The_Gream]

Whether deliberate or not, that's such a gross oversimplification that it's objectively just not true and wildly misleading. These laws are not just because these companies are successful, but because they hold a unique position in controlling market access for both other hardware and software competitors with very real knock on effects for a broad range of products and services.

All of this has been discussed to death on these pages and I really don't want to get into it again. We can agree to disagree on whether or not the reasons for legislation are compelling, but let's call a spade a spade.




Respectfully, you seem to argue that legislators should have predicted the future and, having failed to do so, they now can't intervene in what companies are doing because "it was perfectly legal."

That's just not how this works. It's quite normal that companies need to change their business model in response to a changing legislative and regulatory framework because the broader effects of their actions only become apparent after a period of time.

Again, I'm not saying we have to agree on whether these interventions are justified overall or whether the specific interventions the EU and the UK have put in place will have the intended outcome. Frankly, I'm not fully convinced on the latter either.

None of that means that business models are sacrosanct just because they were legal at some point in time. Things change and laws have to change with them.

I do not believe Apple and Google are saints, far from it.

But, any one of these government regulatory bodies could have at anytime over the last like 15-20 years, taken a fine tooth comb to the terms of use for each company and said Yay or Nay to any of the conditions. I am pretty sure there were probably all ready a number of laws in place: some times the terms could be sitting in a grey spot.

Apple’s anti-steering clause, which is standard practice for like every brick and mortar store, was as far as I know, never in violation of the one state that has anti-steeering laws (California). If another state has them, then it should have been that state going after Apple for violating, not a Federal Judge who does not have authority to enforce state law.

If the House felt that Apple’s anti-steering policy was anticompetitive, then they could have addressed it in a new bill or updating all ready existing laws. Congress would then review it and decide to make changes or vote on it. If it makes it makes it through Congress than off to the President to say yay or nay, to finally get to the Supreme Court to say yes, this law does not violate their constitutional rights, or no, this law violates their constitutional rights.

 

[The_Gream]

I wanna add to my above comment. Apple had brick and mortar stores long before their App Store.
One of their policies, required people who worked then that brought a bag with them to work, would be subject to a bag search before they could leave for the day.

Cut and dry policy. Now, should Apple have provided compensation to the people who decided to bring a bag or such to work. I say NO, for the simple fact people knew well in advance what the policy was.
What I do think Apple should have done, was work with the property owners to develop a safe place for Apple’s employees and other employees in the mall or wherever to safely and securely store their personal items.

I still stand by a statement I made a long time ago, any developer or business person with a persuasive tongue could have worked with Apple in changing the terms of use to be more favorable to all parties, avoiding all of this political bs!

 

[riverguide]

Happy to clarify!

In my opinion, given the fact that Android offers users the ability to install apps from alternate app stores (or no App Store at all), users who care strongly about being able to install apps from anywhere have an option: Buy an Android device. In other words, your User A should buy an iPhone, User B should buy an Android.

The issue is that (in my opinion) a subset of developers want access to Apple’s customers, who when compared to Android users, are significantly more likely to spend money on apps. But the subset of developers don’t want to follow Apple’s rules for various reasons (generally: they’d make more money if they didn’t have to), despite the fact that Apple’s rules are (again in my opinion) a huge part of the reason Apple users spend money on apps.

There is also a vocal minority of iPhone users, who are disproportionately represented on MacRumors (given it’s a technically proficient audience who are generally capable of safely analyzing and installing software from “unauthorized” sources in a way people like my dad, my mother-in-law and my kid are not) want to have an iPhone, but also want third party stores.

So rather than make trade offs, these developers and power users want to have government bureaucrats dictate that they get to have their cake (iPhone) and eat it too (sideloading/third party stores) and those who like things the way they are are just out of luck. And for the non-technical users who are now more susceptible to scams snd malware? Well too bad, they should learn how to use computers better.

But (in my opinion), given the significant privacy and security advantages that Apple’s model provides, having some bureaucrats take it away from everyone in the name of “competition” actually does more harm than good, and ironically reduces competition in the market.

Thank you for the clarification! You presented the issue so well, that it got me to think about the possibility of a compromise that would allow both, user A and user B, to “live” in the Apple ecosystem. Apple would not volunteer to accommodate that, I know. If you do not mind, I would send my “compromise” idea as a separate second reply to your clarification because I need to flesh it out first but have not read today’s rumors yet. 😊

As for your last point, I would agree that sideloading should not be facilitated at the expense of reduced privacy & security. But I am personally not convinced (yet) that Apple is 100% committed to privacy & security — in app tracking transparency, yes, but not for website tracking (more on the latter in the separate reply).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Whether deliberate or not, that's such a gross oversimplification that it's objectively just not true and wildly misleading.

I mean, look at the facts. In the EU, it was products sold in 3 or more regions that met specific quantitative thresholds regarding high annual turnover (€7.5 billion in the EU), high market capitalization (€75 billion), and a large user base (45 million monthly active users and 10,000 yearly business users in the EU).

Now, without looking at the names of any companies, would you say that the companies that fit that metric are:
a. successful, or
b. unsuccessful?

And, if a company had a €6.5 billion turnover in the EU in one year and, in the next did an additional €1 billion more business bringing them under regulation, would that business be considered:
a. more successful than the previous year, or
b. less successful than the previous year?

So, the determination of whether or not a company is designated a gatekeeper hinges on ONE metric. That metric is literally “how successful they are” primarily at selling devices/services that people in the region want to buy. Oh, and I recently found out their arbitrary metric was adjusted several times. Why? Because they had to define a level of success that would only target the companies they were going after.

The UK was less clever and just named the companies they wanted to legislate and you’ll note that THEY didn’t want to regulate any less successful companies either. There’s SO much that one would THINK is of strategic importance to the UK… but, nope, cell phones and App Stores is what they felt were so important that this level of attention was required. iOS developers aren’t even a significant portion of the working public in the UK (not even 1%). And, I’m not sure about Google, but Apple’s already doing what they went through the trouble of making them do. That press release listing what they’re already doing as what they’re going to do was simple appeasement. Nothing changed.

None of that means that business models are sacrosanct just because they were legal at some point in time. Things change and laws have to change with them.

If they want to regulate “business models” then that’s what they should do. Not regulate based on success. If the problem with a digital content model is 30% commissions, then regulate everyone following a 30% commission scheme across the board. They are not regulating “the actions they are taking that we feel require additional regulation”. They’re regulating based ONLY on “how successful they are”.

 

[ThomasJL]

Apple and Google have agreed to a series of changes aimed at making their app stores fairer for developers,

Anyone who believes that Apple, Google, and other Silicon Valley corporations care about making things “fairer” is extremely naïve. Silicon Valley corporations would support slave labor if it were both legal and led to large profits.

And many people, such as Tim Cook supporters, would try to justify Cook using slave labor by saying that he has a “fiduciary duty” to shareholders to maximize profits.

 

[I7guy]

Anyone who believes that Apple, Google, and other Silicon Valley corporations care about making things “fairer” is extremely naïve. Silicon Valley corporations would support slave labor if it were both legal and led to large profits.

Correct, it doesn't have to be fairer to you or me, just fairer to the UK. But I think it's fair now anyway.

And many people, such as Tim Cook supporters, would try to justify Cook using slave labor by saying that he has a “fiduciary duty” to shareholders to maximize profits.

Sure, that's exactly what Cook would do. /s