Suggesting the app store should have "net neutrality" applied to it is a way of regulating the app store.
Did not suggest Net Neutrality principles applied to the Apple App Store, Google Play or any other. That would be absurd.
But suggested these principles to be applied to regulation around PCs, Tablets and Smartphones. Other may be added carefully in the future … its an evolving matter.
I already explained to you the reason behind this. But again: These kinds of devices became core to people accessing the Internet platform, ecossystem, at the edge. One cannot have a Net Neutral Internet without these components also contributing to that neutrality. Why, because these components host in effect the mandatory End-Points closest to the person. These end-points are technically known as Client end-points, more popularly known as Apps.
Now if regulation comes to these, App Store aren’t being regulated, just the devices and its mandatory OS. In effect, Apple App Store or any other does not need to change their practices. Changes just need to be applied to the device / OS only if necessary to comply with such regulation.
As a consumer, I honestly don’t understand your resistance to this. The latest great innovations in technology and digital businesses had Net Neutrality principles as the base over which they could build do whatever with confidence, knowing that no other entity could unilaterally interfere with the communication between customers and suppliers through the Internet.
In a Non Net Neutral world, carriers could for instance demand a revenue share from Apple just to allow their iPhones to connect to the Internet through their Network. Or they could cap speeds on the iPhone connections, say to a value, and require companies like Apple to share 30% of the revenue to unlock further speeds. Can you imagine that done to Apple say in 2009? Would even the iPhone be possible in such conditions? Most probably we would be getting ISP driven phones. This in practice would be very similar to today’s practices of both Google and Apple in the context of mobile devices. But because its regulated, such demands on the part of Network providers are illegal, with great benefit to all including Apple.
But instead of hovering this, indeed Apple and Google want and are unilaterally fully micro-regulating third party communications over the Internet though their devices, more so Apple.
Take this:
- 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Services: If your app enables the purchase of real-time person-to-person services between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many real-time services must use in-app purchase.
Has you can see this policy has nothing to do with privacy or security, or even technology per si. It has nothing to do with protecting the customer, it does not benefit the customer in anyway. What technology are users and suppliers licensing with this policy (there are others of the same kind)? None, there is no mention of licensing SDKs or whatever, nothing. Are digital goods such as Apps or any other kind being sold or transmitted? … No none. Are customers and suppliers paying in this policy for hosting and distributing the App … no there is not mention of it … how much would that it cost? Don’t know … its the App Store, it will cost 30% of your lessons revenue to reach your customer devices … thank you kindly … wait but 99% … of my customers use smartphones and tablets … well now you see value of our proposition …
It‘s in effect regulating and taxing communication over the Internet in the context of P2P communication … by regulating the end-points on peoples devices. It’s even applying “Tiers”/Categories around this internet end-points on people’s devices to extract $$$. Was even there when the iOS/iPhone path began? Not sure. Things seam to be added and removed at pleasure.
It’s an Abuse of the Internet platform and its guiding principles!!! Why? Not because its an App Store of course. This should be acceptable in the context of any App Store I guess.
But the way I see it is an abuse in the context of a internet devices used by 48% of the population, in the group I’ve mentioned for the reasons I mentioned. The fact is that iOS/OS does not provide other means to install and update third party end-points / clients on user devices, hence it becomes an internet device restriction in context an internet restriction, a constraint in how customers and suppliers communicate over the Internet, not just an App Store policy. If it did offer means (no not sideloading), along with keeping the App Store, this service policies would be a non issue in the context of Net Neutrality principles. A set of principles that even Tim Cook agreed important for innovation.
, giving Apple as an example that benefited from Net Neutrality.
Just because some might be distracted to see these practices as they are in effect and instead being focused on how good is the smartphone camera, the beauty of the design of a device, OLED and refresh rates, black level, machine precision, performance, ports, new OS features etc … it does not mean that some customers, digital services and regulators are.
As I’ve said, close to 48% of the planet population are using smartphones powered by either iOS or Android devices. Meaning Google Play or Apple App Store. Earths population is not infinite. Its impressive how far humans went … we are now talking not at village scale, not at city scale, not at NYC scale, not at country scale, not at some company group of users … but indeed at planetary scale. In the case of EU, at EU scale. Population means life.
Net Neutrality principles and its application is not at all a tribal challenge, Apple vs Epic or whatever. Its a society challenge in the networked world in the digital age.
When you bought an iPhone did you “vote” for this kind of private or public regulation over person to person communication / services? Did ya? You can say, choose Android Google Play instead. But the other guy is doing the same and probably will do the same because it can! Why? Because there no regulation on the operation of these kinds of internet centric devices, Internet Communicator as Steve Jobs labeled it. Why even me, you or any other person / customer should be concerned with this? … we shouldn’t. There should be regulation in place to that customers can confidently buy whatever device knowingly that measures are in place to avoid being treated as communication parties to be sold access like this through OUR DEVICES, through the Internet connections we pay for every month … protected by a set of rules just like driving a car or crossing a road.
Wake up!!!
PS: You are entitled to apply your dogmatic stance over non government regulation and stay with it as a justification for your point of view over the above. But there is more to reason than dogma. There is life. I can see where this is potentially going … who know, future Apple Homes … it seams that cars are coming. What about Apple Glasses regulating what you can see? The tech companies appetite has no boundaries as you may be able to derive from the policies if you actually read them as they are.
