Biden Administration Report Recommends Sweeping Changes to Apple's Ecosystem

[Onelifenofear]

• Third-party app stores should be permitted and users should not be prevented from sideloading apps outside a gatekeeper's own app store. Legislative and regulatory measures should prohibit restrictions on sideloading, alternative app stores, and web apps.

They going to force that upon xBox, Playstation, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, Microsoft Teams or Slack, Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon Advertising. All of these are Walled Gardens... oh and how about Tesla and cars?

• Requirements that ban developers from using alternative in-app payment systems should be banned.

This is sensible.

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

Chrome. There goes your battery life.

• Pre-installed apps, default options, and anticompetitive self-preferencing should be limited, including in search results.
• Users should be able to choose their own apps as defaults and delete or hide pre-installed apps.

Yes. This is sensible. Pre installed apps SHOULD be allowed but HAVE to be deletable.

• App store review processes should be more transparent.

Yes.

 

[mannyvel]

The NTIA (https://www.ntia.gov/) is controlled by the carriers, who have been waiting to screw apple and take control of the mobile ecosystem ever since the app store came out.

 

[VulchR]

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.

You say that but greed seems to motivate most companies. not security. Imagine now companies leaving the Apple Store to get more money (and perhaps tracking you more to earn yet more money). You need only look at the sad state of the Apple Store for MacOS software to see how devastating this will be. And of course now there will be porn apps for iOS...

I am so glad that the government is spending so much time on this when most of Apple's customers could have voted with their feet and moved to another platform if they had any issues with Apple's policies. I'd much rather that my government do this, than say, revoke laws that allow for blanket surveillance of telecommunications... [/sarcasm]

 

[macsimcon]

This makes no sense. If you start a company, build it into a huge company, do you lose your rights to operate your product (app store) how you see fit? The competition cries and cries.. ok, so make your own phones into a trillion dollar company then? It's like if you created a bakery and grew it into a huge chain - then Krispy Kreme complained to the government that your bakery wont let them come in and sell their donuts in your stores. Like wtf kind of logic is this?

If competitive app stores are allowed on the iphone, be prepared for WAY more spyware/malware to slip through the cracks. Do you think Samsung polices their app store as well as Apple does? Sometimes bad apps slip through even WITH Apple's much higher focus on security and privacy.

I'm not happy about this either...but it's not like we will be required to use third-party app stores. If we stick with first-party, we shouldn't lose much security.

 

[macsimcon]

They going to force that upon xBox, Playstation, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, Microsoft Teams or Slack, Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon Advertising. All of these are Walled Gardens... oh and how about Tesla and cars?

If they don't, then this is just political BS because Apple didn't spend enough money bribing lobbying members of Congress.

 

[Realityck]

Apple should make 2 versions of iOS:

Open iOS -> allow multiple stores, removing apps, third party browsers, sideloading, etc.
Closed iOS -> just as it is now.

And then when the costumer boots their device for the first time (or after a restore) they'll get the option to activate the open iOS or the closed iOS.

It's not a trivial task to consider. Look at differences using this documentation

Apple Platform Security

Learn how security is implemented in Apple hardware, software, apps, and services.

support.apple.com

This exposes what IOS and MacOS offers comparably if you look at table of contents -> app security -> app security is IOS and IPadOS or App security for MacOS.

Unlike other mobile platforms, iOS and iPadOS don’t allow users to install potentially malicious unsigned apps from websites or to run untrusted apps. At runtime, code signature checks that all executable memory pages are made as they are loaded to help ensure that an app hasn’t been modified since it was installed or last updated.

After an app is verified to be from an approved source, iOS and iPadOS enforce security measures designed to prevent it from compromising other apps or the rest of the system.

 

[fenderbass146]

I'm not happy about this either...but it's not like we will be required to use third-party app stores. If we stick with first-party, we shouldn't lose much security.

How dare you have a pragmatic approach lol. I agree, my only concern (and I assume it be like macos, a setting you can turn on and off to allow non apple app store stuff to run) is if someone just clicks a link in a browser and the setting on the phone is turned on to allow thrid party stuff, you open it up to a whole bunch more malware potentials.

So leave it up to consumer. If Apple is forced to do this, I hope they put a super scary message saying you could put your phone and your personal data at major risk.

All said, the federal government in 99.9% of situations should have no influence on choices made by a private business. Unless there is something like a monopoly, which apple is so so so not a monopoly by any definition, there should be no influence. The free market decides. If they like the product with all it's good or bad, they can choose it or go elsewhere.

 

[webkit]

Regulation is about control, not innovation.

It can be about either or a bit of both.

Without regulation, the various cellular network companies (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc.) could've gotten together or merged 15+ years ago and said that only BlackBerry devices could be used on their networks. If that had happened, Apple and others likely wouldn't have been in a position to or have bothered to create new phones and any innovations and competition that would've come from those new devices would've been stifled, at least for the U.S. market.

 

[citysnaps]

But they won't be. They'll blame Apple.

And that's the potential reputational harm Apple should be pushing back on.

Apple will need to modify their terms and conditions spelling out the potential harms customers could be subjected to by not using the Apple App Store.

 

[dbwie]

When you have the kind of money Apple has, everybody wants a piece of it; some more justified than others. I do wonder, though, if the politicians are misjudging the politics of this. Going after a company that has the kind of brand loyalty, and a wide range of individual and retirement funds invested in the company, may not make this a good political move for the Biden Administration. Only time and votes will tell.

 

[webkit]

It's really none of any government's concern how Apple runs its App Store to improve user privacy and security, unless it's using security as an excuse to engage in censorship and interfere with the free sharing of ideas and communications.

Since it seems to be the way things are going, and the walled garden appears to be being torn down one way or the other, I think Apple should relent and allow alternate app stores and apps, but in a virtual iOS environment that's completely sandboxed away from the main iOS installation. Warnings about how installing from 3rd party apps/stores is inherently less secure. All data connectivity via Private Relay. Zero access to personal information from location to contacts to health data, unless explicitly ported to the virtual environment. One button + confirmation deletion so the entire thing can be easily removed and started fresh when it goes sideways.

It can become the government’s concern when too few players dominate a market, as is the case in the U.S. with iOS having around 58% share of mobile OS and Android with 42%.

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.

 

[mookc1]

Thank goodness Apple was there when Uber started tracking their drivers' and the activities on drivers' devices. Side-loading would have skirted app review.

I'm happy with what Apple is doing. Until they break (or are proven to have broken) their privacy stance, I'm a fan. I'm not following them blind; they just haven't caused me any issues thus far.

 

[gugy]

Every day, I dislike the government more and more. Both parties are thoroughly corrupt and serve special interests, as donors aim to enrich politicians and technocrats, making them more powerful and wealthy. Honestly, I don't see any change unless the people start revolting against this corrupt system.

 

[JamesHolden]

This makes no sense. If you start a company, build it into a huge company, do you lose your rights to operate your product (app store) how you see fit? The competition cries and cries.. ok, so make your own phones into a trillion dollar company then? It's like if you created a bakery and grew it into a huge chain - then Krispy Kreme complained to the government that your bakery wont let them come in and sell their donuts in your stores. Like wtf kind of logic is this?

It makes a lot of sense. We're not talking about donuts. We're talking about a computing platform that billions of people reply upon. It's in the public's best interest to have open platforms, not gatekeepers. There are many businesses that the government deems essential to the public good and therefore regulates. Power companies are a perfect example. Telecom is another heavily regulated industry. Should these companies be allowed to charge whatever they want and exclude whomever they want? After all, you can install solar panels or a windmill to power your house if you don't like the power company's terms.

Apple's behavior is both anti-competitive and immoral. They have no right to dictate what paying customers do with their devices. After paying over $1000 for a phone, Apple wants to nanny you and tell you what you can and cannot do with it. Imagine if you bought a car that stopped working in certain parts of town because the car company decided it was a security risk to drive there, or they simply didn't want their brand associated with "that part of town". Would you support that? That's precisely what Apple does today with the App Store.

Adults should be able to make their own choices. We don't need big governments or big corporations playing nanny. Having a single gatekeeper for any platform is a very bad idea. We've already seen what happens in China when the government tells Apple to pull apps. They oblige, claiming they always follow local laws - even if those laws are unjust and immoral. Without a gatekeeper, those apps could be obtained elsewhere. Under the gatekeeper model, authoritarian regimes can shut down speech and censor content with ease. Put pressure on the gatekeeper and watch them cave. The price of doing business. It's a morally bankrupt model and no one should support it.

If competitive app stores are allowed on the iphone, be prepared for WAY more spyware/malware to slip through the cracks. Do you think Samsung polices their app store as well as Apple does? Sometimes bad apps slip through even WITH Apple's much higher focus on security and privacy.

Pure FUD. The Mac is an open platform and it isn't full of spyware/malware. Furthermore, the App Store is full of apps that track you, sell your data, etc., so how secure is it really? There are millions of apps and it's not like Apple analyzes each app's source code. When Apple is forced to allow third party app stores and sideloading, you can still use the App Store and enjoy the same security benefits you enjoy today. Nothing changes for you.

I don't believe it's Apple's job to police my behavior and protect me from myself. If I want to download an app, the choice - and risks associated - should be mine to make. It's also very much in the public's best interest to have open platforms, not gatekeepers who are subject to government coercion.

 

[GtrDude]

This is basically all pointing at Apple and their endless money grabbing schemes.
If it wasn't for their hawkish behavior all in the name of "protecting our customers" this would be necessary.

 

[HVDynamo]

Maybe, but until then it's the most success humanity has had, so unless you have a better solution I don't really want to hear about what one day may be.

It's the most success the first world has had. We are in the zone to benefit from it, Many parts of the world are stepped on so we can have the success we do. The capitalistic mindset is also destroying our environment by prioritizing capital over sustainability. I guarantee that one day capitalism will be looked on as the mindset that brought us to our downfall. Once resources are gone it's going to be ugly.

 

[redheeler]

This makes no sense. If you start a company, build it into a huge company, do you lose your rights to operate your product (app store) how you see fit? The competition cries and cries.. ok, so make your own phones into a trillion dollar company then? It's like if you created a bakery and grew it into a huge chain - then Krispy Kreme complained to the government that your bakery wont let them come in and sell their donuts in your stores. Like wtf kind of logic is this?

If competitive app stores are allowed on the iphone, be prepared for WAY more spyware/malware to slip through the cracks. Do you think Samsung polices their app store as well as Apple does? Sometimes bad apps slip through even WITH Apple's much higher focus on security and privacy.

So 30% of every purchase made on an iPhone should go to Walmart...if that iPhone was obtained at a Walmart? I don't see any reason it should work that way in a physical marketplace like Walmart, and I also don't see any reason it should work that way in a virtual marketplace like the App Store.

But because Apple controls both marketplace and platform, they're able to make it work this way for them whereas Walmart is not – and that's a problem from an anti-competitive standpoint. The solution is to separate marketplace and platform, which can be done by allowing alternative marketplaces. It's a good recommendation.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

It can be about either or a bit of both.

Without regulation, the various cellular network companies (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc.) could've gotten together or merged 15+ years ago and said that only BlackBerry devices could be used on their networks. If that had happened, Apple and others likely wouldn't have been in a position to or have bothered to create new phones and any innovations and competition that would've come from those new devices would've been stifled, at least for the U.S. market.

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.

 

[falkon-engine]

I said it years ago, Apple’s practices with respect to the App Store and in-app purchases are arbitrary and capricious and that it’s just a matter of time before the hammer drops. And the EU dropped the first hammer and hopefully soon the USA will follow as well.

Macintosh and iPad have the same chips. M1 and m2. Macintosh can sideload, but iPad cannot. It makes no logical sense other than to prohibit competition.

On the mac, I can side load Wi-Fi explorer. The app isn’t even available for iPad in the App Store even though the two devices use the same chip. Apple is prohibiting legal trade between me and the Wi-Fi explorer vendor. And the same is true for many other apps.

And that is why the hammer will drop because who is apple to prohibit legal trade ?

 

[falkon-engine]

So 30% of every purchase made on an iPhone should go to Walmart...if that iPhone was obtained at a Walmart? I don't see any reason it should work that way in a physical marketplace like Walmart, and I also don't see any reason it should work that way in a virtual marketplace like the App Store.

But because Apple controls both marketplace and platform, they're able to make it work this way for them whereas Walmart is not – and that's a problem from an anti-competitive standpoint.

One thing many people don’t seem to realize is that Apple also doesn’t collect a 30% cut from apps that sell physical goods or services like Uber. So one class of apps don’t pay for in app purchases but other apps that engage in digital transactions like Fortnite and other games etc must pay the fee. Isn’t that an unduly discriminatory practice ?

 

[Neepman]

Dont like the locked platform. Then dont buy apple. There are other choices.
Its simple really. No different that saying you dont make the car in yellow? I'll buy a different car that comes in yellow.

 

[Ethosik]

Is it so hard to comprehend that you don’t need to do this if you don’t want?

App Store is still there, apple could probably just create a security setting where only apps from the store are allowed, but create a way to enable third party app stores and side loading.

Until facebook leave Apple’s store for their own.

Can it be guaranteed that every iOS app also exists in the Apple’s App Store? No. So some apps some situations will force a user to side load.

 

[JamesHolden]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

Yeah you understand nothing.

You think monopolies are good. You think a company doing great with no competition is good. LMAO.

It’s precisely the opposite.

Regulation is fundamentally important and great. Regulation is why you were killed decades ago from untested medications lmao

I don’t think monopolies are good — I think they are great. Every successful company has a monopoly on the product they make.

Competition is also great, and Apple has many competitors. Let the market decide what they prefer.

Regulation of medications has nothing to do with trying to regulate the business model of Apple, which is the context of what is being discussed. Nobody is going to die from using the App Store or Apple Pay.

 

[JamesHolden]

One thing many people don’t seem to realize is that Apple also doesn’t collect a 30% cut from apps that sell physical goods or services like Uber. So one class of apps don’t pay for in app purchases but other apps that engage in digital transactions like Fortnite and other games etc must pay the fee. Isn’t that an unduly discriminatory practice ?

Yes, obviously, but don't expect the Apple apologists to acknowledge it. They'll perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain why one is ok and the other is not. It's laughable.