Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens to Destroy the iPhone as You Know It'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The App Store model is alive and well on the Mac right now. Adobe has one called Creative Cloud. You get all their apps through this App Store. Its just not Apple’s App Store.
The App Store model is alive and well on the Mac right now. Adobe has one called Creative Cloud. You get all their apps through this App Store. Its just not Apple
the same people who wear a mask while driving their car alone.
This is just the tip. Pressure is mounting big time against Apple's anti-competitive behavior.
“Apple has locked out all news readers and web sites and now requires its users to get their news from the Apple News app. Apple says they must do this to protect their customers from viruses and misinformation. Apple fans rejoiced. Apple also blocked Spotify from their App Store and said that its users must get their music and podcasts from Apple to protect them from Joe Rogan podcasts.“
The North Dakota Senate this week introduced a new bill that would prevent Apple and Google from requiring developers to use their respective app stores and payment methods, paving the way for alternative app store options, reports The Bismarck Tribune.
According to Senator Kyle Davison, who introduced Senate Bill 2333 yesterday, the legislation is designed to "level the playing field" for app developers in North Dakota and shield customers from "devastating, monopolistic fees imposed by big tech companies," which refers to the cut that Apple and Google take from developers.
Specifically, the bill would prevent Apple from requiring a developer to use a digital application distribution platform as the exclusive mode of distributing a digital product, and it would keep the company from requiring developers to use in-app purchases as the exclusive mode of accepting payment from a user. There's also wording preventing Apple from retaliating against developers who choose alternate distribution and payment methods.
Apple Chief Privacy Engineer Erik Neuenschwander spoke out against the bill, saying that it "threatens to destroy the iPhone as you know it" by requiring changes that would "undermine the privacy, security, safety, and performance" of the iPhone.
Neuenschwander said that Apple "works hard" to keep bad apps from the App Store, and North Dakota's bill would "require us to let them in."
Apple does not allow apps to be installed on iOS devices outside of the App Store and there are no alternate app store options that are available. Apple reviews every app that is made available for its customers to download, something that would not happen with a third-party app store option.
Apple also does not let app developers accept payments through methods other than in-app purchase except in select situations, a policy that has led to Apple's legal fight with Epic Games. Epic Games added an alternate payment method to Fortnite last year, leading the app to be banned from the App Store.
Basecamp co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson, who was also embroiled in a legal fight with Apple over email app "HEY" last year, testified in favor of SB 2333 and said that it gives him hope that "tech monopolies aren't going to rule the world forever."
In 2020, Apple faced a U.S. antitrust inquiry into its App Store fees and policies, which resulted in a 450 page report calling for new antitrust laws focused on promoting fair competition in digital markets, strengthening laws related to mergers and monopolization, and restoring vigorous oversight and enforcement of antitrust law.
No federal legislation has been introduced as of yet, and the North Dakota Senate committee did not take action on the bill. Senator Jerry Klein said that there's "still some mulling to be done" in reference to the bill.
Article Link: Apple Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens to Destroy the iPhone as You Know It'
Said one Apple user, “If you don’t like it, go to some other platform...until that platform is thrown off Amazon servers and crushed by three tech companies.””
In one hand, side loading on PC OS, whether it is Linux, Windows or macOS is OK because it was how things were done before. So we don't need to change. However, you don't really argue whether it should or should not be locked down again. If there is will, it can be done. But I doubt people will happy about locked down OS, I think Apple fully realize this. In other hand, because iOS is new, so whatever applies desktop OS should not apply to iOS. But why? If side loading on PC OS is okay and there is no reason to remove such ability, then why is the same logic not apply to mobile OS? I mean if side loading is dangerous, then it should not be allowed whether it is desktop OS or mobile OS.
Maybe the way iOS way of doing thing is ideal for you, since apparently you don't like go shop around for Apps. Here is how I see things: if I am going to by, let's say an apple, do I go looking for deals for apples? Absolutely. Is there a risk that I might get bad apple from some stores? Maybe? Is there a possibility that I could die from eating an apple brought from a store that could be containment by pesticides。 Maybe. So should I argue that because these risk exists, so there should only one store selling apple? So all the apple sold by that store are being tested safe?
The same logic applies to digital store front as well. People should have freedom to choose where they download apps, how they obtain apps. There is no difference between apps sold inside Apple Store and apple sold inside supermarket. They are essentially the same, both are products that people buy.
Second, dekstop OS are no way less connected to people's life than your phone. I mean, people stores all kind of information on their computer. I highly doubt your phone is capable storing all your digital medias, whether it is your photos, videos you took... People also managing their finance on their computers, I mean just look at how many people purchase tax return software, would you do your tax return on your phone or would you do your tax return on your computer? What about all the financial software that runs on desktop OS? Whether it is accounting software, day trading software, online trading platforms etc... You can't argue mobile OS need more security than desktop OS, both need same level of security.
Quite frankly, I found doing things on PC is way more productive than mobile OS. Yes, you can do same staff on your iPad, iPhone but desktop OS software design are always more productive than mobile OS counterpart.
Also, side note: alternative App Store actual exists. It is just not very functional and very convenient. AltStore is one example. Apps utilizing Apple's enterprise certifications. I mean alternative way of install application have been available for long time, whether Apple likes it or not. Apple might as well make everybody's life easier to allow alternative application store.
Yeah, you could always download Netscape from Netscape even though Internet Explorer came with Windows. Microsoft wasn’t as draconian as Apple and require you go through Microsoft to get apps.
Well, Apple doesn't even need to do under the table deal, it is my way or highway.
If Apple is allowed to ban all competitive app stores on their iOS, I Adon't think what Microsoft did was that horrible. I mean, PC makers doesn't have to install Windows after all. But who knows, Windows is so big and powerful, PC makers has no other choice to accept the deal.
People are keep saying if developer dislike Apple' way, they can chose not develop for iOS. But they forgot, iOS like Windows, both are to big and powerful, developer will have no other choice to accept whatever Apple and Microsoft throw at them.
If this becomes law, look for Apple to completely divest itself from North Dakota.
It's not like it won't be relatively trivial for them to do. It doesn't require them to not ship Apple devices into North Dakota, as that would be interstate commerce.
It's not like it won't be relatively trivial for them to do. It doesn't require them to not ship Apple devices into North Dakota, as that would be interstate commerce.
They don't need to do that. They just need to absent their business entirely from the state. As long as they have no physical presence within the state, the state can't regulate them.
It's just like what Amazon used to do to avoid having to collect California state sales tax. They can continue to deliver their products into the state. It just means no Apple store in Fargo.
Another analogy is if Samsung had 61% of the TV market and they are the only streaming service allowed on their TVs. Any show you want to watch has to be on Samsung’s streaming service. Those TV shows pay Samsung 30%. If Samsung doesn’t like your show, you don’t get on and you aren’t seen by 61% of the market. Samsung tells you that they don’t like the nudity in your show and to censor it. If you refuse, they take your show off their streaming service.
This is literally what is happening on iOS. And it blows my mind that so many Mac users who were whining about Microsoft’s monopoly for so long are totally fine with it.
This is literally what is happening on iOS. And it blows my mind that so many Mac users who were whining about Microsoft’s monopoly for so long are totally fine with it.
Great. Let's make sure we can all get viruses, malware, stealth-privacy-invasion apps, etc on our iPhones. Sounds like a great plan.
We already have a never-ending sea of free and low-cost amazing apps doing anything and everything you can possibly imagine. Why are these crybabies trying to mess this up?
We already have a never-ending sea of free and low-cost amazing apps doing anything and everything you can possibly imagine. Why are these crybabies trying to mess this up?
The mac is not an iOS device. I am fine with iOS being locked down because I have higher security demands for my phone than my laptop. You're damn right that I and probably most Mac users would throw away their Macs in disgust if Apple went much further down the road towards a walled garden under MacOS.
I don't own an iPad, mostly because I don't like the fact that it is so locked down.
How about GM suing Tesla to allow Tesla users to install GM software. How about McDonald's franchisee, wanting to sell Burger King's veggie patties. I think Apple should refuse to open up the App store to apps that are not tested and certified by Apple.
Uuuuuuh. About that "tested and certified" part...
Apple Apologizes to Developer After Indigenous Language App Wrongly Removed From App Store
Apple has apologized to the developer of an app meant to promote the Indigenous language Sm'algyax after he was falsely accused of dishonest and...
www.macrumors.com
Implementation of a legally binding order like this, even on a state level, could possilbly be used to strongly support & argue its validity in a higher court in the future. It's not likely, but letting someone else set a precedent for your company's future is dangerous.
It's the same reason Apple is so militant about protecting its copyright even when there really isn't much violation at all (eg: the Prepear case). Once a precedent is set, it can lead to a whole other can of worms opening up down the road.
What's the difference between software outside the app store and pirated apps? Both are still software. If you want to install software as you please, then it doesn't matter the legitimacy of the software itself.
Alternative App Stores will be a reality sooner or later. Apple has to work out a way that benefits everyone instead of stalling it. Though Android has many Play Store equivalents, still most of the users use Play Store for App Downloads at the same time it also allows those want to use others. It is not something that is going to be invented. Put the T&C and leave the responsibility with the user. Afterall, they have paid so much to own it and they can use alternatives.