Biden Administration Report Recommends Sweeping Changes to Apple's Ecosystem

[JamesHolden]

What I'm saying is - the barrier to entry of current sideloading - the hack - prevents normal people from doing it.

Why do you care what other people do?

Once sideloading is allowed, any numbskull who has no idea what sideloading is, will be able to quickly and easily install something without realizing it, specifically users of iOS who've been using it forever and "know" the app store is the only way to install something.

Who cares? I'm not that numbskull and I don't really care what that numbskull does. Some numbskull downloading malware on his or her Mac doesn't affect my Mac. It's not my job, or Apple's, to police everyone's behavior. We're all adults and need to accept the consequences of our actions.

If you, or anyone else, can explain how sideloading with weaken the platform's security overall, I'll listen, but no one has been able to make that argument. More tech-savvy folks have been jailbreaking and sideloading for 15 years now and the platform's security hasn't been weakened as a result.

 

[macsound1]

Why do you care what other people do?


Who cares? I'm not that numbskull and I don't really care what that numbskull does. Some numbskull downloading malware on his or her Mac doesn't affect my Mac. It's not my job, or Apple's, to police everyone's behavior. We're all adults and need to accept the consequences of our actions.

If you, or anyone else, can explain how sideloading with weaken the platform's security overall, I'll listen, but no one has been able to make that argument. More tech-savvy folks have been jailbreaking and sideloading for 15 years now and the platform's security hasn't been weakened as a result.

Because I have family and friends?

 

[JamesHolden]

A merger can help a company achieve greater economies of scale, but the primary purpose of most mergers is to eliminate competition. The business model of a company is their core strategy for profitability. A merger can contribute to profitability, but they are not the “exact same thing”. A merger doesn’t guarantee profitability because there is no guarantee that there won’t be future competition. Over leveraging yourself just to try to eliminate competition at the moment can actually work against your core business strategy.

So a merger is about eliminating competition, but restricting access to a computing platform is...not? Hmmmm.

 

[macintologist]

The only compromise I would accept is if Apple put in feature deep in the menus that let you enable third party app stores and sideloading, but it made the user acknowledge and read the risks that are involved and that Apple cannot propvide support with third party apps etc. Apple devices should be locked down to just the iOS store by default.

 

[JamesHolden]

Because I have family and friends?

Then help them out, but don't restrict everyone else's freedoms because your family and friends are numbskulls.

 

[macsound1]

The only compromise I would accept is if Apple put in feature deep in the menus that let you enable third party app stores and sideloading, but it made the user acknowledge and read the risks that are involved and that Apple cannot propvide support with third party apps etc. Apple devices should be locked down to just the iOS store by default.

I think this is what's tough.
Someone's gunna flip that switch and not remember, then get a popup months or years later saying they need to update Facebook which will install something nefarious. That nefarious thing might actually be FB, or something that looks like FB but actually is actually a keylogger.

 

[webkit]

You’re referring to mergers and the potential problems they can cause — I’m referring to regulation that seeks to control the business model of a company. Apple invested billions into developing a new industry. The market decided that they liked it, and now politicians want to control it by pretending that the market is harmed by it.

Apple didn't exactly develop a new industry. Smartphones were around before the iPhone came along.

Anyway, the point of my hypothetical carriers example was about having a dominant position to control the market which could stifle competition and innovation. iOS and Android have dominant positions in the mobile OS market and as such their actions can have much greater consequences to the market, competition, etc. which is why there is greater regulatory scrutiny.

A number of companies invest significant money in their products but that doesn't give them the right to engage in anticompetition behavior and violate antitrust laws/regulations.

Perhaps Apple should use some of its tremendous wealth and resources to innovate iOS so that it can be safe and secure for users while still following laws and regulations that seek to allow for more open competition and choice in the market when it comes to thing like app access, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, alternative browser engines, etc. on dominant mobile platforms.

These laws and regulations could give Apple more of a push to make iOS even better, safer and more secure than it is now. That would be a GOOD thing.

 

[BaldiMac]

But a merger would be part of the company's business model. It's the exact same thing. The market is very much harmed by Apple's model. Developers are prevented from developing certain kinds of apps because Apple has decided they don't want those apps, nevermind what the paying customer wants. Customers can have apps they've paid for yanked out from under them with no notice because the all-powerful gatekeeper decided to do so - and there's no recourse.

Apple doesn't prevent developers from developing certain kinds of apps, they only prevent them from their own platform. Developers still have access to 80% of the global market! Plus they have access to iOS users through the web.

Opening the platform doesn't change anything for people who want to only use the App Store either. Your phone's security is not compromised because I decided to download an app to my phone from outside the App Store. The gatekeeper model is immoral and it's about time someone cut the head off the snake.

Of course it changes things for people that only want to use the App Store. Every time a developer leaves to be a third-party exclusive. Every time a developer decides that Apple's privacy rules aren't for them. Every time a developer decides that a native UI isn't worth their time and iOS specific features aren't worth supporting. Every time a company decides they want their employees to install a company specific store. Every time you have to go to multiple locations to make sure your apps are up to date. Every time you have to waste your time researching multiple privacy policies and what coupon codes are available. Every time you have to decide between saving money and giving up your privacy.

 

[inkswamp]

No it doesn't. The security of the OS is pretty much security theater anyway. People have been jailbreaking their iOS devices since day one and that hasn't impacted your device's security in any way. If you stay in the App Store's walled garden, absolutely nothing changes for you.

Why is this so hard to understand? If someone jailbreaks their device, it affects just that device. Fine. Got no problem with that. I also think it would fine to legally forbid device makers like Apple from going after that.

But that's not what is being asked of Apple. Apple is being asked to effectively jailbreak all their devices.

And you know this how? Because you're part of the iOS development team? If you jailbreak a device today, you can install anything you want. Apple didn't have to make any changes to the OS, so your argument simply isn't valid.

I've done development on iOS, so I'm familiar with it from that perspective.

You seriously think that entire list of demands can be done without altering the OS? I'm not even going to argue that. You're wrong and don't seem to understand how it works.

Sorry, I don't accept it. I've been an Apple customer for 40 years and I'll continue to be one. Generally I love everything they do, but I strongly disagree with their gatekeeping behavior and will continue to push my elected officials to make sure computing platforms are as free and open as possible. It's in the public's best interest to not have gatekeepers. The whole gatekeeper model is immoral.

That's incredibly self-serving logic.

Let's say you're going to buy a new home. You're looking at two similar neighborhoods. One doesn't have an HOA and everyone can do what they want so the neighborhood is little less nice looking but hey, freedom to do what you want. The other has a very restrictive HOA and the neighbors there seem to be happy with how nice things look as a result. You choose the home in the restrictive HOA because you want the nicer looking neighborhood but once you're there, you start pushing for the rules and regulations to be done away with because you don't like it.

If you don't like it, choose the one without the restrictions. Some of us are okay with that because we don't want neon purple houses and overgrown lawns and political signs.

This isn't rocket science, bud. Stop complaining and move.

 

[RigSatMe]

It’s biased.
If the government pushes for freedom, they shall stick to the same approach in each sector:
1. Medicine
2. Automotive
3. Energy
4. Commodities
5. Insurance
and so.

 

[code-m]

Lol for how long are these grandstanding govt officials going to try and disrupt products that over 2b people cherish for its security, privacy, ease of use, reliability etc…remember guys success is not illegal.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic in your statement but even if this is permitted there is nothing stopping anyone to not use the official Apple AppStore. Freedom of choice and the free market correct. If one does not feel comfortable to use the unofficial AppStore no one is forcing them to do so. Developers can offer their official apps through their official store similar to Mac and Windows, more power to their developers instead on concentrating it with Apple, Microsoft or Google which is a good thing.

The fear mongering is absurd and bombastic when anything pertains to this level, iPhone are not solely created for 60+ year old grandparents or individuals. If this demographics cannot figure things out either don’t use it or they have bigger issues. People behave thats it’s not possible to make an iPhone usability simple with or without an AppleID.

Get real people most of this doom and gloom happens with apps even from the official AppStore. I prefer to download my apps directly from the developers site and address it with them if there is a problem rather than go through a middle man such as Apple or Google. I don’t need big tech to be my parents, I can make that choice on my own through informed decisions similar to on the Mac.

If Apple was smart their would have done this on their own and figured a way to mutually profit instead what we have seen is hesitation, resistance and excuses which does not leave me with a sense of reassurance due to Apple’s insecurity. The people here just buy into the Apple bs reasons and project the fear mongering amplification.

 

[JamesHolden]

Apple doesn't prevent developers from developing certain kinds of apps, they only prevent them from their own platform. Developers still have access to 80% of the global market! Plus they have access to iOS users through the web.

My point of view is based upon my belief that general purpose computing platforms like iOS, macOS, and Windows should be open and that allowing a gatekeeper to control a platform used by literally billions of people is bad for society. You may disagree and I respect that.

Of course it changes things for people that only want to use the App Store. Every time a developer leaves to be a third-party exclusive. Every time a developer decides that Apple's privacy rules aren't for them. Every time a developer decides that a native UI isn't worth their time and iOS specific features aren't worth supporting. Every time a company decides they want their employees to install a company specific store. Every time you have to go to multiple locations to make sure your apps are up to date. Every time you have to waste your time researching multiple privacy policies and what coupon codes are available. Every time you have to decide between saving money and giving up your privacy.

That's called freedom. I believe in freedom. Plus, get real, privacy is complete BS in the digital age. You're being tracked constantly by your ISP, your phone company, and plenty of the apps you download from the App Store. I guarantee you don't read all of those privacy policies either. I bet you've never read any of the novels Apple makes you agree to in order to use their platform.

 

[webkit]

Market share is market share. If you want to move the goal posts to make your point, that's fine but don't expect me to take you seriously.

Does Apple sell more iPhones than Android phones that are sold? No. Therefore they are not a monopoly and therefore the abuse of monopolistic power arguments are invalid. Sorry. You'll have to find some other reason to hate Apple.

Market share is market share and that's what I quoted. How am I moving the goal posts? This article is about U.S. regulation applying to mobile OS activities (sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, alternative browser engines, etc.) in the U.S. and I specifically quoted mobile OS share in the U.S.

Your comment was, "As long as Android exists and has a higher market share than Apple, these arguments are pointless." Well, Android does exist but it's Apple/iOS that has the higher U.S. mobile OS market share with around 58% compared to Android's 42%.

it seems to be you who may be trying to "move the goal posts."

 

[ChromeAce]

HUH?

Mobile Operating System Market Share United States Of America | Statcounter Global Stats

This graph shows the market share of mobile operating systems in United States Of America based on over 5 billion monthly page views.

gs.statcounter.com

Huh?

Operating System Market Share Worldwide | Statcounter Global Stats

This graph shows the market share of operating systems worldwide based on over 5 billion monthly page views.

gs.statcounter.com

 

[BaldiMac]

So a merger is about eliminating competition, but restricting access to a computing platform is...not? Hmmmm.

Of course it's not. It's completely normal to restrict access to computing platforms.

Why do people have to make stuff like this up to justify their opinion? It's completely reasonable to argue that you'd like to see Apple open up iOS because you don't agree with their moderation or whatever other reason. I don't know why people have to go for the "I don't like it, so it must be nefarious" approach.

 

[gund1234]

i like competition, but this will kill iOS app store, we will be downloading apps from third party app stores, we won't know what information they are gathering.

And people who believe that downloading apps from third party app store will be cheaper, i don't think it will be cheaper, businesses will pocket the money that Apple was charging them.

 

[gund1234]

To all the naysayers moaning that their security will be compromised if sideloading is implemented…

Guess what? The  App Store isn’t going anywhere. Everyone can still use the App Store.

The push for sideloading is to benefit developers, not end user customers.

No one will publish apps in iOS app store, so iSO app store will be similar to Mac OS app store.
So either we have to install apps through third party app store, or side load them.
Best example is Mac OS app store.

The push for sideloading is to benefit developers, not end user customers.
This is true, this will help developers make more money, customers will loose at the end of the day.

 

[gund1234]

Concerns have been raised in regards of Android as well. This research wasnt Apple exclusive

Android already has thrid party app stores correct ?
What's the complain there ?

 

[gund1234]

Why limit these recommendations to mobile ecosystems? Let me install Steam on my Xbox and buy games that way!

I should be able to install Android on iPhone ? 😀

 

[JamesHolden]

Why is this so hard to understand? If someone jailbreaks their device, it affects just that device. Fine. Got no problem with that. I also think it would fine to legally forbid device makers like Apple from going after that.

But that's not what is being asked of Apple. Apple is being asked to effectively jailbreak all their devices.

We don't know that. In all likelihood there will be some kind of security setting that the user must enable before third party app stores and sideloading are allowed, in essence a jailbreak toggle. Out of the box, nothing is different than it is today. Enable that security setting and it's the equivalent of jailbreaking.

I've done development on iOS, so I'm familiar with it from that perspective.

I've done iOS development too, but that doesn't mean I have a clue about what Apple might have to do in order to allow third party app stores and sideloading. You and others who defend the App Store monopoly haven't offered a single concrete example of how security will be compromised. It's just a lot of handwringing, hyperbole, and FUD.

You seriously think that entire list of demands can be done without altering the OS? I'm not even going to argue that. You're wrong and don't seem to understand how it works.

I think that today I can jailbreak a device and install apps from outside the App Store. My doing so on my device does not impact anyone else's security and Apple didn't have to make a single change to the OS to allow this to happen.

That's incredibly self-serving logic.

Not at all.

Let's say you're going to buy a new home. You're looking at two similar neighborhoods. One doesn't have an HOA and everyone can do what they want so the neighborhood is little less nice looking but hey, freedom to do what you want. The other has a very restrictive HOA and the neighbors there seem to be happy with how nice things look as a result. You choose the home in the restrictive HOA because you want the nicer looking neighborhood but once you're there, you start pushing for the rules and regulations to be done away with because you don't like it.

If you don't like it, choose the one without the restrictions. Some of us are okay with that because we don't want neon purple houses and overgrown lawns and political signs.

This isn't rocket science, bud. Stop complaining and move.

As I've said before, I believe all general purpose computing platforms should be as open as possible. I think the gatekeeper model is immoral and should not be tolerated. We've already seen the consequences of this model play out when the Chinese government required Apple to yank thousands of apps from the App Store. It is in society's best interest to have open platforms. It's the same logic that applies to power companies and telecoms.

 

[gund1234]

No it doesn't. The security of the OS is pretty much security theater anyway. People have been jailbreaking their iOS devices since day one and that hasn't impacted your device's security in any way. If you stay in the App Store's walled garden, absolutely nothing changes for you.


And you know this how? Because you're part of the iOS development team? If you jailbreak a device today, you can install anything you want. Apple didn't have to make any changes to the OS, so your argument simply isn't valid. Show me how Apple will have to make changes that compromise security and I'll get on board, but no one has been able to do that. Someone else jailbreaking their device and sideloading an app hasn't impacted your device's security for over 15 years.


Sorry, I don't accept it. I've been an Apple customer for 40 years and I'll continue to be one. Generally I love everything they do, but I strongly disagree with their gatekeeping behavior and will continue to push my elected officials to make sure computing platforms are as free and open as possible. It's in the public's best interest to not have gatekeepers. The whole gatekeeper model is immoral.

No it doesn't. The security of the OS is pretty much security theater anyway. People have been jailbreaking their iOS devices since day one and that hasn't impacted your device's security in any way. If you stay in the App Store's walled garden, absolutely nothing changes for you.

You don't have any data to support that.

It does, no one would publish apps to iOS app store.
I am forced to download apps from third party app store, i don't know what i am downloading, what information they are gathering.
take a look at Mac OS app store, this is best example.

 

[CosmoCopus]

The Biden administration is a joke gone bad.

 

[BaldiMac]

My point of view is based upon my belief that general purpose computing platforms like iOS, macOS, and Windows should be open and that allowing a gatekeeper to control a platform used by literally billions of people is bad for society. You may disagree and I respect that.

That's a completely reasonable position. If only you could stick to that and not make up things to support your position.

That's called freedom. I believe in freedom.

You obviously don't believe if freedom if you want to use the government to force a private company to do what you want. So what do you really believe in?

Plus, get real, privacy is complete BS in the digital age. You're being tracked constantly by your ISP, your phone company, and plenty of the apps you download from the App Store. I guarantee you don't read all of those privacy policies either. I bet you've never read any of the novels Apple makes you agree to in order to use their platform.

That's just silly. Black and white thinking. There are obviously degrees of privacy and lines that I can decide not to cross.

 

[JamesHolden]

Of course it's not. It's completely normal to restrict access to computing platforms.

No it's not. DOS, Windows, Mac, Linux, NeXTSTEP, Android, etc...none of them have/had a gatekeeper deciding what the user could and could not do or what kind of apps developers could and could not develop.

Why do people have to make stuff like this up to justify their opinion?

Lol. You're the one making stuff up. Show me where another general purpose computing platform has restricted access in the way iOS does.

It's completely reasonable to argue that you'd like to see Apple open up iOS because you don't agree with their moderation or whatever other reason. I don't know why people have to go for the "I don't like it, so it must be nefarious" approach.

I've never said it was nefarious. I think the gatekeeper model is bad for society. When billions of people reply upon a platform, no single company should be allowed that much power over the platform.

 

[5232152]

Americans will fight for freedom. But for whatever reason liberty ends at their phone.