Biden Administration Report Recommends Sweeping Changes to Apple's Ecosystem

[AppliedMicro]

Developers everywhere we're accusing Apple of keeping them out of the business of creating apps with native code

Out of the business? Developers „everywhere“? There was no mobile app business as we know it.
Jobs even said that applications would be coming - but be web apps, yes:

„Jobs does reveal that there will likely be additional applications that can be bought later and installed, but that this will be in a "controlled environment"

https://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/11/apple-iphone-apps-coming-but-limited/

You're reframing this in a very strange way. Google, in this context, was one of the developers screaming about this. Their rush to get the same on Android was more of an attempt to one-up Apple and force their hand

Google had been working on mobile OS since they bought Android - though they did reshape the product after the launch of the (touchscreen) iPhone.

But everyone rejected that and demanded native code and the App Store

Sure, developers wanted and still want to create native apps with powerful tools (though I sometimes wish, they did focus more on cross-platform compatible web apps when appropriate. The easiness of the distribution and billing provided by the Apple App Store and its low entry barriers certainly were a boon to to developers at the time. That said, and going back to your original claim…

No app store review. No walled garden. No restrictions on in-app content or sales.

I wonder what changed—Apple or the developers/companies who suddenly realized that begging and pleading to be locked in to Apple's walled garden maybe wasn't the best move.

That is reframing it in a strange way.

Native apps and app development don‘t require a walled garden. And no one was begging Apple to make as restrictive their App Store policies as they are today. Or ask for a monopoly on app distribution for iOS, let alone prohibitions on promoting outside sales.

👉 And that is the crux of the issue today: It’s Apple’s totalitarian control over apps distribution.

Apple could allow sideloading with the current sandboxing, security and privacy model in place - just as they do on the Mac. They could allow app functionality within that model, such as emulators, other browser engines and external purchasing methods - and they don‘t need to pre-approve games when you sign up for an external game streaming service. And they don’t need to have a monopoly on app distribution for their mobile devices - just as they don’t on macOS.

Now, it's come full circle. Everyone claims that was all an attempt to control everything, conveniently ignoring that this wasn't even Apple's original plans.

Whatever Apple’s original plans and motives, they are asserting total control over everything today.

 

[mrochester]

Out of the business? Developers „everywhere“? There was no mobile app business as we know it.
Jobs even said that applications would be coming - but be web apps, yes:

„Jobs does reveal that there will likely be additional applications that can be bought later and installed, but that this will be in a "controlled environment"

https://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/11/apple-iphone-apps-coming-but-limited/

Google had been working on mobile OS since they bought Android - though they did reshape the product after the launch of the (touchscreen) iPhone.

Sure, developers wanted and still want to create native apps with powerful tools (though I sometimes wish, they did focus more on cross-platform compatible web apps when appropriate. The easiness of the distribution and billing provided by the Apple App Store and its low entry barriers certainly were a boon to to developers at the time. That said, and going back to your original claim…

That is reframing it in a strange way.

Native apps and app development don‘t require a walled garden. And no one was begging Apple to make as restrictive their App Store policies as they are today. Or ask for a monopoly on app distribution for iOS, let alone prohibitions on promoting outside sales.

👉 And that is the crux of the issue today: It’s Apple’s totalitarian control over apps distribution.

Apple could allow sideloading with the current sandboxing, security and privacy model in place - just as they do on the Mac. They could allow app functionality within that model, such as emulators, other browser engines and external purchasing methods - and they don‘t need to pre-approve games when you sign up for an external game streaming service. And they don’t need to have a monopoly on app distribution for their mobile devices - just as they don’t on macOS.


Whatever Apple’s original plans and motives, they are asserting total control over everything today.

Are App Store policies any more or less restrictive today than they were in 2008? Why were developers happy to take part then but not now?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Why are there not regulations to prevent that? The problem a lot of people have is the action is reactive rather than proactive. The behaviour is fine and desirable until it is arbitrarily not.

If you regulate every small business before they get big and powerful, it's overregulation and restriction of free enterprise. If you don't regulate businesses that have become to powerful to ignore, they will abuse their powers to the detriment of others, choice, competition and innovation.

Laws, especially competition laws, seek to provide a balance between central planning and totally unchecked "free" enterprise. It almost inevitably requires to make decisions - be they new laws or in court - to be made after the fact.

What are the market dynamics that allows the company to get so huge in the first place?

Operating systems and computer platforms (not to be confused with phone models or brands) are markets on which consumers converge on just very few operators/suppliers, due to their strong inherent network effects. Developers won't port their applications to ten different CPU architectures and operating systems - and even if they did, that's not necessarily efficient to the overall market and society.

Why were developers happy to take part then but not now?

Mobile applications were a nascent, developing market in 2007. People weren't used to the concept of spending apps for mobile phone apps, and they weren't used to (nor using) the capabilities of modern smartphones as they do today.

You didn't make travel plans, edit photos, watch TV series and movies, flirted through photo-/swipe-based dating applications and use your phone to make retail payments back then.

What was then a small niche, handheld computing and mobile applications, has now replaced traditional desktop computing (and phone service) as the main computing and communications platform for many people.

As the market grew and more and more businesses and developers have come to rely on gatekeeping platforms for their product and business, so has the potential for abuse by these big gatekeepers. And the costs to consumers and society.

What may (and, I would argue, indeed was) appropriate and desirable in 2007, namely not having specific regulations for Apple and Google, is not necessarily desirable fifteen years later.

 

[mrochester]

If you regulate every small business before they get big and powerful, it's overregulation and restriction of free enterprise. If you don't regulate businesses that have become to powerful to ignore, they will abuse their powers to the detriment of others, choice, competition and innovation.

Laws, especially competition laws, seek to provide a balance between central planning and totally unchecked "free" enterprise. It almost inevitably requires to make decisions - be they new laws or in court - to be made after the fact.

Operating systems and computer platforms (not to be confused with phone models or brands) are markets on which consumers converge on just very few operators/suppliers, due to their strong inherent network effects. Developers won't port their applications to ten different CPU architectures and operating systems - and even if they did, that's not necessarily efficient to the overall market and society.

Mobile applications were a nascent, developing market in 2007. People weren't used to the concept of spending apps for mobile phone apps, and they weren't used to (nor using) the capabilities of modern smartphones as they do today.

You didn't make travel plans, edit photos, watch TV series and movies, flirted through photo-/swipe-based dating applications and use your phone to make retail payments back then.

What was then a small niche, handheld computing and mobile applications, has now replaced traditional desktop computing (and phone service) as the main computing and communications platform for many people.

As the market grew and more and more businesses and developers have come to rely on gatekeeping platforms for their product and business, so has the potential for abuse by these big gatekeepers. And the costs to consumers and society.

What may (and, I would argue, indeed was) appropriate and desirable in 2007, namely not having specific regulations for Apple and Google, is not necessarily desirable fifteen years later.

That sounds too much like wanting to reserve the right to change the rules of the game after it has already started. And that’s a big no no as far as I’m concerned because it denies me my ability to make informed choices about the products and services I want to buy by removing those choices from the market.

 

[webkit]

It keeps being asked, perhaps indirectly, why those who advocate regulating Apple out of the walled-garden model of app development and distribution don't simply CHOOSE to spend their money with Google?

Seriously, I'd like someone on this thread to answer that question. What I suspect if that you actually like Apple products and services better than what Google offers. But you fail to recognize that Apple's model is at the heart of what you actually like about Apple products.

But hey, spell it out for me. If you want Android, then why don't you simply buy Android?

If you are specifically talking about consumers/users, some may like most aspects of the IPhone but are disappointed they can't access apps through sideloading or alternative app stores, can't pay through alternative payments systems, can't use alternative browser engines, etc. These "disappointments" may not be enough to get them to switch to Android at this point but they'd be a happier Apple/iPhone user if the changes were made.

Some are also advocating for more open competition and against dominant companies (Apple has around 58% share of mobile OS in the U.S.) being able to engage in too restrictive or anticompetitive behavior in a market.

 

[webkit]

That sounds too much like wanting to reserve the right to change the rules of the game after it has already started. And that’s a big no no as far as I’m concerned because it denies me my ability to make informed choices about the products and services I want to buy by removing those choices from the market.

It's not about changing the rules, it's about regulations for companies that have significant control or dominance in a particular market and are engaging in potentially anticompetitive behavior. Actions of a company with 58% share can impact competition, innovation, etc. much more so than a company that has 5.8% share and that's a reason why there needs to be different rules and regulations.

 

[lazyrighteye]

If Apple have been sensible they will have seen this coming for a long time and be ready to go with a set of contingency plans. Though no doubt they will still fight it as long as possible.

I love how much The Walled Garden was initially ridiculed as a joke, a bad idea, a losing strategy. And now, everyone wants in. Typical.

Of course Apple has contingency plans. There is a LOT of ground to cover between a Walled Garden and a wide open, dusty, plot of arid land. Apple will, and should, move as slowly and thoughtfully as is possible when considering any access to The Garden from 3rd parties. There are several controls they can put/keep in place that can help ensure weeds don't choke out the healthy veggies.

 

[webkit]

The point I am making is Apple is Apple, the products of Apple are the products of Apple, not inspite of their decision to monitor their operating system and app store, but because of those decisions. The ecosystem of Apple and interoperability of their products are a better experience, imo, than those of a more open system like Android.

As I've stated before, 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.

It's regulations such as the ones being discussed here that can give dominant companies like Apple a push to innovate and make their products even better, more flexible, etc. and less restrictive and anticompetitive. I am confident Apple would be able to keep iOS as safe and secure as it is today (which isn't perfect) for those liking the way it is now, while satisfying any regulations and business/customer demand for sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, alternative browser engines, etc.

But, again, outside of MacRumors or tech blogs, I've never once heard a family member or friend who owns Apple products complain about these issues. Are there pet things I'd like Apple to do? Of course. I'm an individual. But I've chosen the ecosystem of Apple for the overall benefits it brings.

Again and again and again...especially you techies complaining here. Go with Android! Apple gives you a certain product, and all products have upsides and downsides. Want open? So much so that you want government regulation to enforce openness at Apple? Go with Google. Please.

What may be happening in your little world doesn't mean there aren't plenty of consumers complaining about Apple's restrictions or that anticompetitive behavior isn't occurring. Besides, I imagine there weren't too many consumers complaining about Microsoft giving aways its browser for free when Netscape was still largely charging for its browser at the time but that didn't mean the DOJ, regulators, etc. weren't justified in going after Microsoft for antitrust violations related to browsers and other things.

 

[webkit]

No thanks. There ARE options. Plenty of options. And there are powerful players exploring those options to bring you even more options. Google and Samsung are not minor players beholden to the power of Apple. They have the resources to dramatically compete in the market.

The existence of alternatives does not make a dominant company (again, Apple/iOS has around 58% share of mobile OS in the U.S.) immune to potential antitrust laws and regulations.

 

[webkit]

I love how much The Walled Garden was initially ridiculed as a joke, a bad idea, a losing strategy.

It was? Just curious... Who were ridiculing it and calling it a bad strategy?

 

[BaldiMac]

Nothing can make any company immune to any laws or regulations, which are alway subjective applications of philosophies. And in my view, the major push for the changes here have less to do with any coherent view of antitrust philosophies and more to do with business interests trying to leverage a market for their own profit. I'm just not convinced Apple is in the territory of antitrust as the philosophy lays forth.

You'll notice the same people repeating over and over how Apple is violating antitrust law with the App Store model using loaded language. But they all fail to notice that governments are NOT charging Apple with violating antitrust law. They're making new laws and regulations to force changes that billion dollar corporations are lobbying for.

All while ignoring the elephant in the room. Google controls 80% of the global market and entered into anti-competitive agreements with all of their horizontal competitors except Apple. You want to break up the duopoly? Start with the company that is actually leveraging their market dominance to force their competitors to limit competition.

 

[webkit]

One example...the early days of computing and the competition between MS Windows and Apple's strategy. Apple initially refused to license their OS to third-party manufacturers. That was widely seen as a huge mistake, and oft stated as the reason Apple's share of the market was so low. Apple for a time relented and let 3rd parties make machines for the MacOS. I bought one of those machines (hated it) and eventually Apple closed that down.

I don't see that as necessarily being a "walled garden" issue. Apple may not currently license macOS but it's also not nearly as much of a walled garden as iOS is. If Apple treated iOS more like macOS they probably wouldn’t be having near the level of antitrust, anticompetition, etc. complaints and scrutiny they are.

 

[webkit]

You'll notice the same people repeating over and over how Apple is violating antitrust law with the App Store model using loaded language. But they all fail to notice that governments are NOT charging Apple with violating antitrust law. They're making new laws and regulations to force changes that billion dollar corporations are lobbying for.

All while ignoring the elephant in the room. Google controls 80% of the global market and entered into anti-competitive agreements with all of their horizontal competitors except Apple. You want to break up the duopoly? Start with the company that is actually leveraging their market dominance to force their competitors to limit competition.

The regulations being considered would fall under the antitrust legislation umbrella. Also, since this is about the U.S. market, it's Apple and NOT Google that has the largest share of mobile OS at around 58%. The regulations being discussed here also wouldn't have to mean the breakup of Apple.

 

[H2SO4]

I'm betting your Mom isn't begging you to install a different browser or mail app.

And has no interest in side-loading ROMS and emulators...

The majority of users might change their wallpaper and perhaps (maybe) add a widgit for weather alerts.
They upload their photos, install Netflix and Spotify and sign in.
Sorted for most of them.

Even before she gets anywhere near this far, she'll ask me about the pros and cons. I give her my honest appraisal and advise her accordingly.

 

[lartola]

In fact, let's look at MacOS Market Share in relation to this discussion of the IOS marketshare.

Many here are arguing that since MacOS has the ability to load programs independent of Apple's own App store, that the IOS should have the same...

But look at how wildly popular the IOS is compared to the MacOS. MacOS (open) is much less popular than IOS (closed). Hmm....isn't the market telling us something?

Windows has a dramatically more dominant position in the market of desktop OS's than IOS has in the Mobile market.

Your analysis is a bit too US-centric. If you look at the big picture, worldwide markets, it’s different. Worldwide, people prefer by far an open OS over a closed or less open one both in the mobile and desktop markets, with Android and windows dominating in their respective markets in most of the world. The wild popularity of iOS that you’re talking about is pretty much US exclusive. That doesn’t really happen in other countries, where it’s actually android that dominates.

In conclusion, the worldwide desktop and mobile markets -because iOS, macOS, windows and android are all distributed worldwide, not just in the US- are telling us that people prefer an open OS over a closed OS with the US mobile market being an exception rather than the rule.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't see that as necessarily being a "walled garden" issue. Apple may not currently license macOS but it's also not nearly as much of a walled garden as iOS is. If Apple treated iOS more like macOS they probably wouldn’t be having near the level of antitrust, anticompetition, etc. complaints and scrutiny they are.

Of course, if you fundamentally change iOS, there's no guarantee it would have seen the same success. But given the same level of success, regulation is inevitable.

The regulations being considered would fall under the antitrust legislation umbrella.

Ha! So you're saying that they retroactively violated the newly proposed laws because the new laws are in the same category as the old laws. Huh. I'd call that a *unique* legal argument.

Also, since this is about the U.S. market, it's Apple and NOT Google that has the largest share of mobile OS at around 58%.

That's why I specifically mentioned the global market when I made the claim. And, of course, we've already discussed your use of install base instead of market share when discussing antitrust. Especially since Apple does have over 50% smartphone market share in the US.

 

[BaldiMac]

Fine. Let the market decide. No need for Government regulations over businesses they do not well understand.

More importantly, cost is probably a whole lot bigger factor globally than "open".

 

[webkit]

Ha! So you're saying that they retroactively violated the newly proposed laws because the new laws are in the same category as the old laws. Huh. I'd call that a *unique* legal argument.

No. The laws are about dominant companies unfairly restricting or stifling competition in a market. This is nothing new and has long been a cornerstone of antitrust laws and regulations. Google, Apple, etc. are all subject to these laws if they meet the "dominance:" criteria and are engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

Obviously, laws and regulations didn’t specify activities related to things like browser engines or smartphones 50 years ago because those things didn't exist back then but the overall substance of the laws have been around for ages and that is what is being applied to today's markets, technologies, etc.

That's why I specifically mentioned the global market when I made the claim. And, of course, we've already discussed your use of install base instead of market share when discussing antitrust. Especially since Apple does have over 50% smartphone market share in the US.

I understand and I was simply pointing out that the article and many/most comments on this topic were related to the U.S. where Apple has the largest share of mobile OS.

 

[robco74]

I've actually come around on this issue. I think Apple should not only allow sideloading, but should unlock the boot loader as well - just as you can disable SIP on the Mac. But I don't think this will have the effect that legislators are looking for. Google allows these things, yet the Play Store remains the primary method for purchasing and installing apps on Android. Amazon and Samsung, hardly bit players, haven't managed to make much of a dent. Not sure how well Epic is doing distributing Fortnite via sideloading.

It's not easy to run services as a standalone business at scale, and it's not something smaller companies can do easily. Look at how long it's taken Dropbox and the Epic Game Store to become profitable. Even with the funds, it will still take time to build a customer base, and more importantly, trust. The question will be how much of a discount will third-parties be able to offer devs compared to Apple and Google.

My $0.02 is that the Play Store and App Store will remain dominant for some time. We'll get actual Chrome on the iPhone, with many users wondering why their phones have slowed down and their battery life is terrible. My fear is that if third-party stores aren't profitable, then regulators will take the next step - banning Google or Apple from operating stores at all. On the plus side, I look forward to getting Steam on my Xbox.

 

[BaldiMac]

No. The laws are about dominant companies unfairly restricting or stifling competition in a market. This is nothing new and has long been a cornerstone of antitrust laws and regulations. Google, Apple, etc. are all subject to these laws if they meet the "dominance:" criteria and are engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

Obviously, laws and regulations didn’t specify activities related to things like browser engines or smartphones 50 years ago because those things didn't exist back then but the overall substance of the laws have been around for ages and that is what is being applied to today's markets, technologies, etc.

I've posted the actual criteria for single firm conduct under US antitrust laws in discussions with you multiple times. You'll continue to ignore them in favor of nebulous claims of "dominance" and "anticompetitive behavior". And then you'll ignore the fact that they aren't being charged under antitrust law to argue that new regulations are the same thing.

I understand and I was simply pointing out that the article and many/most comments on this topic were related to the U.S. where Apple has the largest share of mobile OS.

Yes, I'm aware that you will continually reframe arguments to parrot your irrelevant US install base statistic.

 

[_Spinn_]

Third-party web browser apps should be able to offer full functionality and not face browser engine restrictions.

This is how you make Chrome an even bigger share of the browser market.

I don’t like any of this. Now when setting up a new device I will have to answer questions about every pre-installed app? That’s like the terrible browser ballot screen on steroids.

 

[AppliedMicro]

But their model doesn't motivate them in the direction of exploiting user data in the way Google's model does. And I've made a decision, as a consumer, about which model I prefer.

Let's see what the future brings.

It keeps being asked, perhaps indirectly, why those who advocate regulating Apple out of the walled-garden model of app development and distribution don't simply CHOOSE to spend their money with Google?

I don't like Google very much and I don't trust them with additional data in addition to my browsing history.

That sounds too much like wanting to reserve the right to change the rules of the game after it has already started

That's politics. New laws get passed all the time to deal or cope with new developments in society or the economy.

Let's be clear here: the laws passed in Europe and proposed in the U.S. are very narrow - they're just concerned about the tip of the iceberg by allowing developers to compete outside of the tight grip of a very few multi-billion dollar companies, only two or three of which control their respective markets.

Again and again and again...especially you techies complaining here. Go with Android! Apple gives you a certain product, and all products have upsides and downsides. Want open? So much so that you want government regulation to enforce openness at Apple? Go with Google. Please.

Why should I? Government slowly, but surely, does enforce pretty much the kind of openness I want - in the Apple products I like - and trust more than Android phones.

Of course Apple has contingency plans. There is a LOT of ground to cover between a Walled Garden and a wide open, dusty, plot of arid land. Apple will, and should, move as slowly and thoughtfully as is possible when considering any access to The Garden from 3rd parties.

I wouldn't be surprised if the aren't expanding their advertising network further and further.

But look at how wildly popular the IOS is compared to the MacOS. MacOS (open) is much less popular than IOS (closed). Hmm....isn't the market telling us something?

Is it? What is it telling with preferring Windows over macOS - or more closed systems?

Fine. Let the market decide. No need for Government regulations over businesses they do not well understand.

Government understands the gatekeeping effect of Apple and Google very well.

We'll get actual Chrome on the iPhone, with many users wondering why their phones have slowed down and their battery life is terrible

It will only slow down while using Chrome - since Apple isn't required to change the allocation of processing power for background processes. Customers can pinpoint which apps use most of their battery power today.

If Chrome is sipping more power, that's competition at play.

It could also go the other way: Someone could make a browser that uses less power than Safari.

 

[BaldiMac]

Let's be clear here: the laws passed in Europe and proposed in the U.S. are very narrow -

The DMA is anything but narrow. It's a big hulking pile of unintended consequences that attempts to shovel a diverse array of situations into a a single label of "gatekeeper" and legislate arbitary rules based on the label.

they're just concerned about the tip of the iceberg by allowing developers to compete outside of the tight grip of a very few multi-billion dollar companies, only two or three of which control their respective markets.

Developers can already compete outside of this so-called tight grip. They choose the tightly controlled platforms for their benefits.

 

[robco74]

It will only slow down while using Chrome - since Apple isn't required to change the allocation of processing power for background processes. Customers can pinpoint which apps use most of their battery power today.

If Chrome is sipping more power, that's competition at play.

It could also go the other way: Someone could make a browser that uses less power than Safari.

You're assuming that Apple won't be coerced into making changes to iOS that allow third-party apps the same access as Apple's own apps. After all, if Apple allows its own apps to run in the background, they would be anticompetitive if they didn't allow that for third-parties. Chrome will undoubtedly support more PWA features, and we'll likely start seeing Electron apps on phones as well. Depending on how things go, Apple and Google may either spend less time updating Xcode and Android Studio, or start charging for them, just as MS does for VS. They will find other ways to monetize their platforms.

Some of Apple's restrictions, such as ATT, do benefit consumers. If Apple is barred from setting app guidelines, someone else needs to fill that gap. I would feel better about this legislation in the US if we had something similar to the GDPR (outside of CA), and more stringent consumer protections overall.

 

[webkit]

I've posted the actual criteria for single firm conduct under US antitrust laws in discussions with you multiple times. You'll continue to ignore them in favor of nebulous claims of "dominance" and "anticompetitive behavior". And then you'll ignore the fact that they aren't being charged under antitrust law to argue that new regulations are the same thing.

U.S. antitrust laws and regulations are such that Apple's dominance and anticompetitive behavior could easily apply i.e., Apple's dominant position (along with Google/Android) in mobile OS in the U.S. combined with anticompetition behavior. This is precisely the type of thing antitrust laws and regulators are supposed to address and deal with.