Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bottleneck? What does that mean? The App Store provides a consistent payment mechanism…it’s a strong value add.

It is explained in the post. Its the only equitativ way digital services customers have to install and update the necessary Client. The benefits that the App Store may provide on top is irrelevant to this assement as are technically none critical to such task. As proven by other OSs powering Internet enabled devices (macOS, Windos, Linux, partially Android).
 
Last edited:
I’m not happy with this type of government interference, but as long as Tesla shareholders are compensated appropriately…it’s good.

Why should they be compensated? Nothing is being taken from them. Imagine EU compensating tech companies such as Facebook over GDPR … lolol

Your rhetoric of equating the support of securely installling and updating apps by other means but the App Store payment system, as some kind of toxic waste backeard does not stick. Simply because other popular OSs, such as Apple own macOS supports precisely that … In fact, Apple if adopted the same approach to macOS it can easily be argued that its value would go down the drain to many people … and probably take the iPhone with it for many.
 
Last edited:
It is explained in the post. Its the only equitativ way digital services customers have to install and update the necessary Client. The benefits that the App Store may provide on top is irrelevant to this assement as are technically none critical to such task. As proven by other OSs powering Internet enabled devices (macOS, Windos, Linux, partially Android).
The benefits the App Store provides are totally relevant here. The app store is apple intellectual property and innovation and makes that argument relevant.
Why should they be compensated? Nothing is being taken from them.

Lolol. Was MS compensated from being regulated? Lolol. Silly. It would be interesting if every new regulation that does not fully fits the interests of a particular entity, the govs would need compensate. Sounds like a blackmail kind of system.
Microsoft stronged armed vendors, completely different circumstances. Tesla’s resources are used building their network…if they are forced to open it up, they should be compensated.
 
Microsoft stronged armed vendors, completely different circumstances. Tesla’s resources are used building their network…if they are forced to open it up, they should be compensated.

They seam to be doing fine in Europe. Honestely Musk does not seam worried about that at all. As I’ve said, the idea that any change in regulation would require companies compensation is ridiculous. It’s part of the game.
 
The benefits the App Store provides are totally relevant here. The app store is apple intellectual property and innovation and makes that argument relevant.

If its payment model was at the center of App Store benefit to both customers and suppliers why are digital business that circunavigate it are more sucessfull than the ones that do not? Even here one can interpret as a way to facilitate customers life’s, by giving them the choice not to deal with the cincunavigation if they gave so please.
 
They seam to be doing fine in Europe. Honestely Musk does not seam worried about that at all. As I’ve said, the idea that any change in regulation would require companies compensation is ridiculous. It’s part of the game.
It’s not your dime on the line. If it was there might be a different thought behind this.
 
If its payment model was at the center of App Store benefit to both customers and suppliers why are digital business that circunavigate it are more sucessfull than the ones that do not? Even here one can interpret as a way to facilitate customers life’s, by giving them the choice not to deal with the cincunavigation if they gave so please.
Like epic as a shining example of an unsuccessful App Store business? However there’s a bit of chicken and egg in the above.
 
Like epic as a shining example of an unsuccessful App Store business? However there’s a bit of chicken and egg in the above.

Epic does not sell Internet Devices so such comparison is absurd. Yoy seam to be playing the suffix Store, removing out of the equation that these devices are being used by every day for 48% of the planets population (give or take). Its the nature of the Internet.
 
Epic does not sell Internet Devices so such comparison is absurd. Yoy seam to be playing the suffix Store, removing out of the equation that these devices are being used by every day for 48% of the planets population (give or take). Its the nature of the Internet.
In spite of the popularity the App Store is not a public system. It’s an opt-in situation by virtue of purchasing the iPhone and the license agreements that go with it.
 
In spite of the popularity the App Store is not a public system. It’s an opt-in situation by virtue of purchasing the iPhone and the license agreements that go with it.

In a democracy both public and private system follow regulation. For instance the GDPR regulation is for both for public and private. To compensate people or or organizations affected by a new regulation makes no sense. Nevertheless some things indeed can be negotiated case in case.

People always opted for private services regulated or not. Heck people opt in ISP services and these are regulated. So indeed it does not affect the ability of people opting in if that is the case. In these cases most of the time regulations come mostly to assure that people can opt out without loss of property within reason.

Yes regulation implies a change of practice … that is just it … otherwise would be moot. What we are discussing is simply a change of practice considering a type of device. Nothing more. This happened before, it’s not anyway unique.

There is no moral issue being played here … as far as I’m concerned. it is purely a governance issue.

Within this … the reason behind that change of practice is debatable. I consider you reasoning based on envy of success etc etc totally irrational. Never see a regulation coming out based on those premises.

To be honest when it comes to regulation I am more concerned with the advances of the left to regulate free speech. There is nothing liberal about that. But this is a theme for another topic.

What is at stake here is if Apple and Google are using their power over users Internet usage to pressure digital services unfairly to pay them not only for tech but also to access internet users and vice versa using smartphones This considering that 48% of the planets population use smartphones of either by virtue of selling them these devices. That is all … nothing … more.
 
Last edited:
In a democracy both public and private system follow regulation. For instance the GDPR regulation is both for public and private. People also opted in to many public services that were regulated. Heck people opt in ISP services and these are regulated.

Yes regulation implies a chance of practice … that is just here. What we are discussing is simply a change of practice considering a type of device or service. This happened before, it’s not anyway unique.

There is no moral issue being played here … as far as I’m concerned.
This is not a moral issue, it’s government over-reach. It’s taking intellectual property and regulating it away.
 
It’s taking intellectual property and regulating it away.

What? No one wants to take Apple IP away. No one is touching Apple patents, copyrights, trademarks, so on and so forth. You seam to be confusing issues. Splashing false perceptions, In my opinion, on all directions to see if something sticks.

Again … What is at stake here is if Apple and Google are or not, using their power over users Internet usage to pressure digital services unfairly to pay them not only for tech but also to access internet users and vice versa using smartphones. This through the virtue of the fact that they, Apple and Google, supply their smartphone OSs to anything close to 48% of planet earth population, internet users. That is all … nothing … more. They seam to be doing so by discriminating differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment (Mac, iPhone), and method of communication (Web Client, Native Client, Email ….). Things that go against Net Neutrality principles.

It seams strange to me that a companies like Zoom, Microsoft, Epic, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Facebook, Adobe and so so many more …. heck even the Joe depending on its business model, need as a fact of natural benefit an App Store to proxy payments and distribute their service Client (aka App). As you seam to argue. Yet they seam to be doing great on the Desktop (native) and the Desktop Web (web sites) without any App Stores of sorts. In the case of distributing native Clients … heck never thought these companies need as a matter of fact this service for free … this kind of ”charity”. Also don’t think these companies have any problem paying for the resources they need.

All that these companies seam to be arguing for is to be able to lawfully communicate with their users and their customers within the context of their service, that includes all their Apps, OS native or otherwise, wether desktop, tablets or smarphones. It is just weird that the same service on desktop app, or web app a user can simply click a button within the service realm to pay … while in the smartphone the user is required to go outside the App (service realm), input the URL on a browser (back to the service realm) and than pay. Its just weird … a form of pressure to use some other payment mechanism. Why is this so difficult to understand and we move on tangent issues such as Intelectual Property, Privacy Security, Shareholder compensation … and so on.
 
Last edited:
What? No one wants to take Apple IP away. No one is touching Apple patents, copyrights, trademarks, so on and so forth. You seam to be confusing issues. Splashing false perception, In my opionion, on all directions to see if something sticks.

Again … What is at stake here is if Apple and Google are or not, using their power over users Internet usage to pressure digital services unfairly to pay them not only for tech but also to access internet users and vice versa using smartphones. This through the virtue of the fact that they, Apple and Google, supply their smartphone OSs to anything close to 48% of planet earth population, internet users. That is all … nothing … more.
Seems like we have different definitions here. If you are regulating apples revenue than you are taking away their intellectual property.
 
Seems like we have different definitions here. If you are regulating apples revenue than you are taking away their intellectual property.

The only way government would be able to regulate Apple or Google revenue is through directly regulate end price … even than its not entirely clear and often Govs subsidize the difference if they end up being below market prices. In fact, such a scheme is usually applied to subsidize consumption, a form os injecting tax payers money into the market. I’m against that and its totally unecessary in this case. That would be overreach and a waste tax payers money. It is only used in a crisis situation.

Outside crisis situation, what governments do is regulate practices, it happens all the time. Not only practices that Apple may or not practice, but Google or any organisation acting in a similar fashion and context to protect users and consumers … if needed. Governments do that all the time in all sectors of economic life. From banking to … to fruit marketing, production and distribution. I’ve never seen anyone arguing that regulation is akin to regulating revenue … must be an Apple only thing no?

You seam to be jumping from one misconception to another. You seam to really think that governements all over the world are somewhat against Apple and want to regulate the company revenue because its too much or something. I think this stance lacks rationality. When it comes to revenue there are companies generating even more revenue than Apple, take Amazon … or Alibaba … handling the distribution and commerce of things that are much more complex to do handle than binary info on a pipe along with a library with payment. Granted, is not as sexy, iconographic and cute, but if ever feel so inclined to admire the use of technology and invention in commerce at a large scale, you should check out the logistic complexity of these platforms … its incredible how it even works.
 
Last edited:
The only way government would be able to regulate Apple or Google revenue is through directly regulate end price … even than its not entirely clear and often Govs subsidize the difference if they end up being below market prices. In fact, such a scheme is usually applied to subsidize consumption, a form os injecting tax payers money into the market. I’m against that and its totally unecessary in this case. That would be overreach and a waste tax payers money. It is only used in a crisis situation.

Outside crisis situation, what governments do is regulate practices, it happens all the time. Not only practices that Apple may or not practice, but Google or any organisation acting in a similar fashion and context to protect users and consumers … if needed. Governments do that all the time in all sectors of economic life. From banking to … to fruit marketing, production and distribution. I’ve never seen anyone arguing that regulation is akin to regulating revenue … must be an Apple only thing no?

You seam to be jumping from one misconception to another. You seam to really think that governements all over the world are somewhat against Apple and want to regulate the company revenue because its too much or something. I think this stance lacks rationality. When it comes to revenue there are companies generating even more revenue than Apple, take Amazon … or Alibaba … handling the distribution and commerce of things that are much more complex to do handle than binary info on a pipe along with a library with payment. Granted, is not as sexy, iconographic and cute, but if ever feel so inclined to admire the use of technology and invention in commerce at a large scale, you should check out the logistic complexity of these platforms … its incredible how it even works.
Suggesting the app store should have "net neutrality" applied to it is a way of regulating the app store. And while (obviously) my lone voice has no authority, I do not have be for regulations changing the business model. Regulating banking, water, food, when your health and finances are on the line absolutely. One doesn't want their finance institution to be playing fast and loose with customers deposits.

But you seem to be diverting the real issue here, which is micro-regulation, which seems to be a lose-lose for everybody, except a few small select companies.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
[...]dogmatic stance [...]
Food, air and water (and even electricity) are essential to life and they should be regulated. Smartphones are a great convenience in modern life, and the safety aspects should be regulated...ie exploding batteries and SAR. An iphone is not essential. The app store is not essential.

Change is inevitable. At least in the United States the branches of the government (in theory) keep powers in check. And (in theory) the voters keep the legislative branch in check.

I have no issue regulating the lanes of the internet on all devices. However as a consumer, I cannot honestly see why you see these type of proposed changes are good.

But you have a post that I disagree with premise, but I left one word to show the irony in all of the conversations as it is the pot calling the kettle black.
 
The app store is not essential.

… it is the pot calling the kettle black.

I think we can all be accused of that at some point. But let’s say they we seam to be fairly resilient with our different point of views. But again, this is not about the App Store but but internet devices. Its only confusing because Apple tied both things together.

Automobiles per si aren’t essential either and still are regulated so that can be used in regular roads.

I believe that the Internet became essential to the modern way of life. And the guiding principles of Net Neutrality should not rest entirely on the shoulders of ISPs … but should also né shared with internet enabled device and OS providers. You think otherwise … its ok.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Let’s say they we seam to be fairly resilient with our different point of views. But again, this is not about the App Store but but internet devices. Automobiles per si aren’t essential either and are regulated.

I believe that the Internet became essential to the modern way of life.

Cheers.
Transportation is important as is the Internet however. People can live without both…maybe not effectively or efficiently.

But now we are deep into the weeds.
 
The problem with allowing multiple app stores on the single phone is every app owner will start having their own app store so they don't have to conform to Apple's policies. Unfortunately, the architecture of iOS / iPadOS / MacOS is such that once an app is installed, it can call ANY API from the kernel and system libraries, including APIs that change things like the WiFi network or other security settings. You're then relying on the app developer to be honorable and not do those things.

When you have a single gate keeper, the gate keeper can check the submitted applications to make sure they aren't using APIs beyond what are explicitly allowed. Because of this I won't install any software that doesn't come from Apple's app store, but most people won't be as security conscious (look at the number of people that give their information to Facebook and don't do everything they can to block the information from getting shared). All of this likely means app devs won't bother to publish their apps to the Apple app store, which will severely reduce the number and variety of apps available to me.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.