Apple Protests Call for Third-Party App Stores and Lower Platform Fees in Japan

[jakey rolling]

You own the device, but not the software. Should we force Microsoft to make it easier to “hack” and “skin” and “modify” Windows? Or should we let those individuals figure it out themselves?

Notice you're moving the goalposts away from forcing Microsoft to make it easier to install applications from third party stores. I wonder why that is.

Either way, it would be weird to push legislation to force Microsoft to make it easier to hack, skin, or modify Windows, since that capability already exists in the current iteration of Windows, and plenty of tools (some Microsoft-provided) already do that.

Now, should we push legislation to slap Microsoft on the wrist for, once again, attempting to use their OS monopoly to push their own browser on Windows 11? Yes. Absolutely.

 

[turbineseaplane]

3. You sell through your own website. You pay nothing to anybody.

This will likely be my preferred method.
That's essentially what most all of my software on macOS is from.

I much prefer to work directly with the folks creating the great software and make sure as few "cuts" come out of their share as possible.

 

[jakey rolling]

I understand that it is arbitrary. The only reason software is licensed is because it is advantageous to developers. There is nothing stopping developers from selling software, they just choose not to because they don't want to give up control.

Thanks very much for confirming my last comment.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Hell, imagine being able to play a ps5 game on your switch.

You can’t emulate a more powerful computer on a less powerful computer (in real time).

Now, playing switch games on your PS5 might be possible.

 

[dk001]

How about this legislation? People’s attitude on these forums? Instead of having the market decide, government is getting involved. Sounds like making a mountain of this “issue” to me.

Sounds more like there are a lot of opinions about this. Then add in Tim Cook's "speeches" on these issues. All it does is stir things up on both sides.

 

[jakey rolling]

Says the person who thinks iOS stopped belonging to Apple the minute they sold an iPhone. Yikes.

Gosh - this ranks right up there with "you shoulda read the EULA."

 

[dk001]

No I’m not. You are saying why you should pay Apple fees for hosting apps on other stores. I said it’s pretty standard if you use UE to deal with these fees on outside stores.

I didn't specify EU, or Japan. It was a general question.
If you need to narrow the focus kindly let me know so I don't assume you are off base.

 

[dk001]

You own the device, but not the software. Should we force Microsoft to make it easier to “hack” and “skin” and “modify” Windows? Or should we let those individuals figure it out themselves?

How?
Windows 11 can side load Android.

On that note, I have an X280 Thinkpad. I took Windows off and put on Linux. No MS.

 

[dk001]

When you buy Ford or a Chevy, do the companies give you access to their in-house CAD software to design spare parts for their cars? No, they have tools that they invest millions in, thats made for their own use. You can download those tools right now, and write an app, and put it on your phone this afternoon. If you also wish to make money using THEIR tools, it makes sense to pay them a royalty for that - and also for being the App Store. Neither Facebook nor Google allow you to advertise for free - why should apple? Because they are going to get a cut - but only if you have a buyer

Huh?
If I want to mod the vehicle I can. If I want to do custom software for it I can.
What has Ford or Chevy to do with that?

 

[4jasontv]

Thanks very much for confirming my last comment.

I don't understand. You seemed to imply I don't know what I am talking about. But clearly developers that support this are hypocrites and their input should be ignored.

 

[Ethosik]

Huh?
If I want to mod the vehicle I can. If I want to do custom software for it I can.
What has Ford or Chevy to do with that?

But should it be legally required for Ford or Chevy to made it very easy to do so? These aren’t good examples since your life is on the line in a car.

But my point is, why should it be required to have Apple make these changes? If you are smart enough to hack the iPhone and jailbreak it to where you can side load, feel free! I don’t agree that “by law” Apple should be forced to make this “easy”

 

[dk001]

But should it be legally required for Ford or Chevy to made it very easy to do so? These aren’t good examples since your life is on the line in a car.

But my point is, why should it be required to have Apple make these changes? If you are smart enough to hack the iPhone and jailbreak it to where you can side load, feel free! I don’t agree that “by law” Apple should be forced to make this “easy”

Once again this is an opinion.
We know that multiple countries are looking at a variety of issues that involve Apple and Google.
One of the opinions is that sideloading (likely easy access) will become required.
Apple is already looking at sideloading (mentioned in the beta code - b1?) in some fashion.

As for the requirement, that is up to the countries raising the issues. Personally I would like to see alternative app stores as I feel Apple is far too restrictive - arbitrarily - IMO.

 

[Ethosik]

Once again this is an opinion.
We know that multiple countries are looking at a variety of issues that involve Apple and Google.
One of the opinions is that sideloading (likely easy access) will become required.
Apple is already looking at sideloading (mentioned in the beta code - b1?) in some fashion.

As for the requirement, that is up to the countries raising the issues. Personally I would like to see alternative app stores as I feel Apple is far too restrictive - arbitrarily - IMO.

The last paragraph is what I don’t agree with. It’s not inherently illegal or anti competitive to create your own platform and have restrictions on it. I think it’s just massive overreach by governments to do this.

Apple wants to implement it themselves? Fine with me. Market decides that’s what we want? Fine by me. But for government to get involved in this case is too much IMO.

And aren’t we all just talking opinions here? Even courts and legal issues that change how something is defined is based on opinions to some degree. Is market iOS or is market mobile apps? Currently that’s an opinion until the courts rule that the markets can be narrow. Someone claimed macos was a market and sued Apple when trying to build macs. Psystar I believe was the name of the company.

 

[usagora]

It is not easy in this world without a smartphone. A game console on the other hand is just entertainment.
The smartphone has become a very important part of everyday life, way beyond calls, texts, facebook and games.
That industry is dominated by 2 of the biggest companies in the world.

And everything that you "need" a smartphone for can be accomplished right now without any changes needing to be made. Governments need to butt out of this. It's ridiculous. Nothing is broken. Tons of app choices out there for all sorts of tasks.

 

[dk001]

The last paragraph is what I don’t agree with. It’s not inherently illegal or anti competitive to create your own platform and have restrictions on it. I think it’s just massive overreach by governments to do this.

Apple wants to implement it themselves? Fine with me. Market decides that’s what we want? Fine by me. But for government to get involved in this case is too much IMO.

And aren’t we all just talking opinions here? Even courts and legal issues that change how something is defined is based on opinions to some degree. Is market iOS or is market mobile apps? Currently that’s an opinion until the courts rule that the markets can be narrow. Someone claimed macos was a market and sued Apple when trying to build macs. Psystar I believe was the name of the company.

We are talking amongst ourselves mostly based on opinions.
The requirements and regulatory are country specific. Their findings are not Apple specific.

Based on the “discussion” here, the final requirements and outcomes will be interesting. Too many here are taking it as gospel instead of talking points. The variety of “understanding” though is both concerning and comical.

Personally I don’t think there is an illegality involved here. Anti-competitive? Likely. That however is defined by country and market.

 

[vipergts2207]

The last paragraph is what I don’t agree with. It’s not inherently illegal or anti competitive to create your own platform and have restrictions on it. I think it’s just massive overreach by governments to do this.

Apple wants to implement it themselves? Fine with me. Market decides that’s what we want? Fine by me. But for government to get involved in this case is too much IMO.

And aren’t we all just talking opinions here? Even courts and legal issues that change how something is defined is based on opinions to some degree. Is market iOS or is market mobile apps? Currently that’s an opinion until the courts rule that the markets can be narrow. Someone claimed macos was a market and sued Apple when trying to build macs. Psystar I believe was the name of the company.

Nothing is inherently illegal or anti-competitive. Anything illegal or anti-competitive is because law defines it as such. And those definitions are subject to change.

 

[Macative]

The last paragraph is what I don’t agree with. It’s not inherently illegal or anti competitive to create your own platform and have restrictions on it. I think it’s just massive overreach by governments to do this.

Apple wants to implement it themselves? Fine with me. Market decides that’s what we want? Fine by me. But for government to get involved in this case is too much IMO.

And aren’t we all just talking opinions here? Even courts and legal issues that change how something is defined is based on opinions to some degree. Is market iOS or is market mobile apps? Currently that’s an opinion until the courts rule that the markets can be narrow. Someone claimed macos was a market and sued Apple when trying to build macs. Psystar I believe was the name of the company.

Personally I don't see how anyone can ever claim with a straight face that iOS is a market, as opposed to a privately owned, controlled, and developed operating system that users have no inherent right to, other than what is specifically provided to them by its owner.

That doesn't mean I don't support side loading. I certainly do. But this argument about iOS is just insane.

 

[vipergts2207]

Personally I don't see how anyone can ever claim with a straight face that iOS is a market, as opposed to a privately owned, controlled, and developed operating system that users have no inherent right to, other than what is specifically provided to them by its owner.

That doesn't mean I don't support side loading. I certainly do. But this argument about iOS is just insane.

You could make that argument about everything owned by private enterprise.

"Standard Oil is just a privately owned, controlled, and developed oil producer that users have no inherent right to, other than what is specifically provided to them by its owner."

"AT&T is just a privately owned, controlled, and developed telephone system that users have no inherent right to, other than what is specifically provided to them by its owner."

"Windows and Internet Explorer are just privately owned, controlled, and developed software that users have no inherent right to, other than what is specifically provided to them by its owner."

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes. For the same reason you might have to mow the lawn but your sibling doesn’t.

Apple should have every right to say you and everyone you work with has to pay 70% and everyone else pays 10%. You don’t get a say in how much it costs to use other peoples things. In this case you want to develop for their device and sell to their customers.

Count your blessings you are allowed to develop at all.

I’m sorry but I’m not the property of apple and I doesn’t owe apple anything. Apple should keep their fingers from my device and do not have a say to what company I conduct business with.

How arrogant of apple to believe they have more rights than the actual owners of the device.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Ok. What about my PS5 example then? Is it not the exact same thing here? I can’t fire up visual studio, write something, deploy it to my site, and direct PS5 players to download it.

And anti-competitive is just over the top reaction to this. If you are a developer that wants to make an app that’s available as a side load, you have Android as an option. The whole idea of every product needs to have all the same features and capabilities is ridiculous. They are essentially stating that products can’t compete by having different features or systems.

Apple believes a walled garden is a differentiator between iOS and Android. So this is basically saying “you can’t compete here”. iPhone sales will decrease if this happens. I hate iOS compared to Android. But I only use it as it’s a closed system.

We do not want iOS to be like android. We want iOS to be more like MacOS

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Oh. Well then the same can be said for the software I purchased. I own it and I can do with it as I wish the moment I pay for it.

Oh.... no developers want the right to own things they buy but they want to license their products and retain control.

Either you own what you buy or you don't.

Pick one.

No developers want to own their things and SELL their things. Not license it.

When I make a game or program I sell it to a coustomer. I don’t license it away. That would be a subscription for a service.

 

[4jasontv]

No developers want to own their things and SELL their things. Not license it.

When I make a game or program I sell it to a coustomer. I don’t license it away. That would be a subscription for a service.

If that's true then I as a paying customer have the right to then resell your game or program for whatever price I want to ask.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I understand that it is arbitrary. The only reason software is licensed is because it is advantageous to developers. There is nothing stopping developers from selling software, they just choose not to because they don't want to give up control.

It's hard for me to support someone that only wants to play by rules that don't apply to them.

Software isn’t licensed. In many cases it’s a wrongful interpretation that goods are licensed when they are sold.
EU have clear case laws already. Purchasing something is ownership transaction not a licensing of a service. You can’t license something you own

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If that's true then I as a paying customer have the right to then resell your game or program for whatever price I want to ask.

Indeed you do and you lose the right to use the program/ game as it’s would be a copyright violation the second you sell your copy. Welcome to EU consumer rights where ownership and private property is legally protected

 

[4jasontv]

Indeed you do and you lose the right to use the program/ game as it’s would be a copyright violation the second you sell your copy. Welcome to EU consumer rights where ownership and private property is legally protected

Great. And as soon as I can sell my copy of an app on the App Store developers can sell theirs on another store.