Epic Games Accuses Samsung and Google of Colluding to Prevent Sideloading on Galaxy Devices

[ProbablyDylan]

Like a few other examples, this sounds like the sort of niche use case that if you want/need to do that, you know how to disable it, or it isn’t your biggest problem.

The catch is that, in the case where one needs to use a PC to reset their device and reinstall the OS, they likely cannot disable it because they cannot to get into their device.

Nobody expects to lose access to their computer or phone or whatever. It's just looking for problems. Even Apple lets you use iTunes and a cable to reset an iPhone and reinstall iOS.

 

[Abazigal]

It’s YOUR phone, you should be able to do whatever you want with it including turning it into an aquarium.

In which case android exists if the ability to sideload matters so much.

I view this sort of feature as another set of trade offs to be negotiated and ultimately decided on by consumers, rather than some sort of immutable human right. And the reality is that most people don’t really hate closed walled ecosystems.

I would argue that people continue to be better served with a central App Store where all apps are available, rather than being made to jump through hoops because the developer wants to play punk.

If it’s choice you want, then you should support different phone ecosystems, rather than argue for them all being cookie cutter versions of each other.

 

[Earendil]

The catch is that, in the case where one needs to use a PC to reset their device and reinstall the OS, they likely cannot disable it because they cannot to get into their device.

Nobody expects to lose access to their computer or phone or whatever. It's just looking for problems. Even Apple lets you use iTunes and a cable to reset an iPhone and reinstall iOS.

Okay, so that’s just crappy implementation (I’m not surprised, given it’s Samsung). The iPhone’s security is even tighter, and as you said, they’ve worked out a way to make it work.

Though I’m a little shocked that Samsung phones corrupt their OS at a rate that makes this a valid point. I can’t remember the last time I heard (anecdotal, I know) of anyone’s iPhone having an OS so corrupted the settings couldn’t be changed, or a hardwired reinstall was needed.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Aren’t you arguing with yourself? Of course they would but also imagine if they did?

I haven’t said that slander is illegal. I simply pointed out what it is and is not a fair play business practice. Especially for consumers.

These companies, following Apple lead,
are creating user stories to make customers feel insecure without OEM App Stores in play. For them to feel unsafe by choosing other distributions channels, other shops.

But the fact is that in a day we buy more stuff outside App Stores than inside. Food, cloths, rides, houses, cars, insurance, water, electricity, school fees, books, computers etc etc etc etc. Most of these transactions occur digitally and we also provide some personal data.

Are you being scammed all the time? Is your money being stolen all the time? I don’t remember last time I missed a buck.

Yes people get scammed in the digital world, people have accidents on the road, people fall, people get robbed … in the EU probably 98% of the time they don’t.

The funny thing is that people seam to be in contact with more scams on Apps supplied by these App Stores … Facebook, Twitter, EBay, etc etc etc.

As a customer can’t you see where this practice is heading? You will be left without nothing men. In other words, you will not own a thing in this system that is not granted by device OEM policies and their App Stores.

As a customer you might be ok being manipulated like that. I am not.

Sell the benefits of your service, don’t sell dystopia. I’m really happy that the EU has the courage to move against this business workflows. This kind procedures is not different then Trump latest statements … “… they are eating their dogs, their cats, their pets … vote for me!”. Totally embedded on your properties at the system level.

What’s next, potatoes? From a security standpoint point what’s the difference between buying a pager or a videogame over the wire? What’s the difference between engaging on Facebook or Photoshop?

Think man, think!!! Please, think!

These kinds of decisions should not be made at the device level. Especially because what is actively being sold aren’t these policies. Just check the latest commercials of these companies.

Yes you should look for technical safeguards, secured operating systems and related technologies.

But what were are discussing is Policy and that is kept away from their commercials.

Cheers.

 

[bgillander]

Epic claims that there are 21 steps to disable Samsung's Auto Block, whereas the standard Android implementation only requires maybe 4 steps. I'm unable to verify since I have not owned a samsung phone in years and this is a new feature apparently.

Auto Block also prevents other things by default, like using a PC to install software updates. Sounds like a bad idea - how are you supposed to fix your phone if an android update borks it?

21 steps seems hard to believe. Have they changed it? I did a quick search which showed the support page for this other Android App store which indicates that it is 4 steps, which seems much easier to believe:

1. Access Settings on your Android device.
2. Go to Security and privacy.
3. Under Additional security settings, tap on Auto Blocker.
4. Turn off the top right toggle.

https://support.uptodown.com/hc/en-us/articles/29057884750477-How-to-disable-Samsung-Auto-Blocker-to-install-APK-files-from-Uptodown

Did Epic list their steps? Did they include buying a phone, driving home, and opening your door?

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Though I’m a little shocked that Samsung phones corrupt their OS at a rate that makes this a valid point. I can’t remember the last time I heard (anecdotal, I know) of anyone’s iPhone having an OS so corrupted the settings couldn’t be changed, or a hardwired reinstall was needed.

I wouldn't say samsung phones are more susceptible to a bad update or other critical software failure. I'm just generally distrustful of computers at large these days - android, iOS, Windows and Mac machines all included.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

21 steps seems hard to believe. Have they changed it? I did a quick search which showed the support page for this other Android App store which indicates that it is 4 steps, which seems much easier to believe:

1. Access Settings on your Android device.
2. Go to Security and privacy.
3. Under Additional security settings, tap on Auto Blocker.
4. Turn off the top right toggle.

https://support.uptodown.com/hc/en-us/articles/29057884750477-How-to-disable-Samsung-Auto-Blocker-to-install-APK-files-from-Uptodown

Did Epic list their steps? Did they include buying a phone, driving home, and opening your door?

I only referenced the statement by Epic because, as I previously mentioned, I do not own a Samsung phone to independently verify it myself. Moreover it is entirely possible for different regions to have different auto blocker implementations - the classic Fragmentation that people always parrot about Android.

Of course, we cannot expect Epic to be entirely truthful either as they clearly have an agenda. At the same time, Google and Samsung also have their own goals. None of these companies should be seen as more honest than the other at this juncture.

 

[I7guy]

I only referenced the statement by Epic because, as I previously mentioned, I do not own a Samsung phone to independently verify it myself. Moreover it is entirely possible for different regions to have different auto blocker implementations - the classic Fragmentation that people always parrot about Android.

Of course, we cannot expect Epic to be entirely truthful either as they clearly have an agenda. At the same time, Google and Samsung also have their own goals. None of these companies should be seen as more honest than the other at this juncture.

Epic is the David that is taking the Goliath’s, except the the first round of epic vs apple speaks for itself.

 

[Naraxus]

It’s YOUR phone, you should be able to do whatever you want with it including turning it into an aquarium.

I'm going to say this a little louder for the people in the back.

As has been explained ad nauseum you CAN do whatever you want to with your phone.

What you cannot do however is whatever you want to with iOS.

You can smash your iPhone, burn it, run it over with your vehicle of choice or, as you mentioned, turn it into an aquarium.

You own your phone.

You're licensing iOS.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

As has been explained ad nauseum you CAN do whatever you want to with your phone.

The value of one’s property is indexed by its function. Without iOS licensing the phone is worth 0 and vice versa.

So effectively you are paying over 1k for something that is worth 0 without the other. But you have no control over the other.

That is how value transfer works.

So no, you cannot do whatever you want your phone except has you pointed out, devalue your property.

 

[bgillander]

The value of one’s property is indexed by its function. Without iOS licensing the phone is worth 0 and vice versa.

So effectively you are paying over 1k for something that is worth 0 without the other. But you have no control over the other.

That is how value transfer works.

So no, you cannot do whatever you want your phone except has you pointed out, devalue your property.

As much as I dislike many of the "upgrades" Apple provides with each OS update (and hate that I now cannot turn of iPadOS multiwindow on my iPad mini), I don't really understand when people complain about features that were already existing and well known in the products that they buy. It seems like buying a Tesla and complaining it will not take gas.

The single App Store is one of the best features of iOS to me, and I am not looking forward to having to track down any software I want that is no longer on it. I still remember the high price of ringtones that I could not carry over to my next phone, and the cost of Windows CE software that didn't work on every Win CE device I owned. I cannot believe anyone that thinks the App Store has been bad for consumers was buying software prior to it. And I also find it hard to believe that any developer that thinks the App Store is bad for them ever had to try to sell software prior to the App Store. The fact that some people think the App Store isn't good for them is a testament to just how much of a seismic shift the App Store was.

That said, Apple is by no means perfect, so oversight is not a terrible thing, but this issue just seems like Sweeney wanting to be able to charge more developers HIS commission, not Apple.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

That said, Apple is by no means perfect, so oversight is not a terrible thing, but this issue just seems like Sweeney wanting to be able to charge more developers HIS commission, not Apple.

Hi. I personally don't care for Epic motivations. It just happens that is one of the companies making some noise around this.

I care to discuss Big Tech Policy and what is the impact of such policies in peoples liberties, in the economy. Now and in the future.

The single App Store is one of the best features of iOS to me, and I am not looking forward to having to track down any software I want that is no longer on it.

The value that you pointed out does not necessarily need a Shop. Like you, I would appreciate the iOS to provide a easy to use human readable inventory of all the software that I have installed in the present and in the past. Not only that, but a reference to where I got it.

There are multiple open package distribution systems that do this, but to have a standard one baked into the OS would be awesome.

I still remember the high price of ringtones that I could not carry over to my next phone, and the cost of Windows CE software that didn't work on every Win CE device I owned. I cannot believe anyone that thinks the App Store has been bad for consumers was buying software prior to it.

I remember those times. No only Windows CE but also Symbian. You needed to connect your phone to a Mac or PC to install the app, ringtones etc. Yuck.

I also remember the times where to update iOS on the iPhone and iPad we needed to connect it to iTunes installed on Windows or a Mac.

But this is technology.

Now let's talk about Policy. Imagine back then that, say Microsoft policy on Windows was to have iTunes in their Store and it could only be acquired through it.

Imagine also, that Microsoft decided to charge Apple users (commission) for every update while charging nothing to Windows CE and later Windows Phone.

Or do so something worst. Imagine Microsoft required the Apps listed in iTunes to be also listed on their App Store if iOS users are to be provided with Apps.

Unimaginable right? I would say, that iPhone "revolution" would be dead before it started. One could argue that in the end of the day it was MS that created the Windows ecosystem.

Yet a similar thing was done by Apple. Apple decided that game streaming services are required to list every single game stream on their App Store if iPhone users are to be provided these streams within developers Apps, case in case XBox etc etc.

Imagine ISP charging a commission over every iPhone connected to their network, it would have been dead in the water. ISP and many other have created the Internet platform, not Apple so would be within their right to charge, right?

The issue that I and many are having with App Store policies is that some of them really caught every one by surprise since inception. Some of them accepted it immediately, others kept afar as long as possible.

If you look at the SJ speech in the initial launch it focused on App sales and distribution.

Consider the current Policies with SJ speech:

Soon later, the market found out that the Policies included also charging for eBooks sales in developers Apps while none of this is being distributed or sold by the App Store, but provided through the App using the business technical infrastructure alone, not Apple tech. Soon later we found out that VOIP Apps weren't allowed to be installed ... It came later after Apple launched FaceTime. Then movies and series sales / services were also being charged a commission ... not the App itself or its distribution.

Here we are now, where a teacher giving one to one online classes through the iPad or iPhone is charged a commission and are forced to sell these classs in App. Heck even a dating arrangement is being charged ... whatever Apple feels. Not to mention the game stream policy pointed above.

If all these Policies are left alone, as more users buy devices with this kind of OEM policies, believe me the claws will go deeper and deeper into users pockets if not harming innovation.

Do you think that is the developer that pays these commissions? Humm. Look around the Apps today on the App Store ... they look like rehashing one another more and more. You see Wallpaper apps charging $7 a week to access stuff that is freely available elsewhere ... crazy … this is not innovation.

And I also find it hard to believe that any developer that thinks the App Store is bad for them ever had to try to sell software prior to the App Store.

I do not think a developer would have an issue with what SJ presented and marketed. Sure, pay for the distribution and sale of the App, ok. But the Policies that presented later revealed that Apple view over commissions was beyond the sales of the object known as App and its distribution.

First, before the App Store there were no means for users to install software on their iOS devices, the iPhone. If you compare with other platforms back then such as Mac, Windows, Linux, Web ... developer had no technical difficulties in distributing their Apps ... at least no more than they have to App Store channels.

If Apple focused its policies over distributing and selling Apps, I believe most of the contention that exists today would be gone. But in fact, they started interfering with the goods and business models of third parties companies, they went way beyond the object known as App. Not only that, but at points, they blocked businesses for reaching their customers with their services, until Apple presented their own competing alternative.

The cherry on top, Apple has been campaigning to bring these policies to macOS.

Samsung and many others are following this lead. Not just on smartphones, but also on new personal computers and OSs.

This is all about money and control Policies, not tech, security or innovation.

Cheers.

 

[bgillander]

I remember those times. No only Windows CE but also Symbian. You needed to connect your phone to a Mac or PC to install the app, ringtones etc. Yuck.

Yeah, I did like my Symbian palmtop, but I think I only used the default apps.


Sorry, you wrote so much that I can only respond to a bit tonight, but you do make good points.

I also remember the times where to update iOS on the iPhone and iPad we needed to connect it to iTunes installed on Windows or a Mac.

But this is technology.

Now let's talk about Policy. Imagine back then that, say Microsoft policy on Windows was to have iTunes in their Store and it could only be acquired through it.

Imagine also, that Microsoft decided to charge Apple users (commission) for every update while charging nothing to Windows CE and later Windows Phone.

Or do so something worst. Imagine Microsoft required the Apps listed in iTunes to be also listed on their App Store if iOS users are to be provided with Apps.

Unimaginable right? I would say, that iPhone "revolution" would be dead before it started. One could argue that in the end of the day it was MS that created the Windows ecosystem.

Well, Apple could just make the updates free and then pay zero commission.

As for also including the same apps on their store, it doesn't really make sense for an incompatible device, but I think I see what you are trying to say. In the case of the App Store (or Google Play or any "Home" app store) I don't have an issue with the OS creator requiring an app to be sold on their store, too, just because of that whole thing where I don't want to have to deal with alternate stores. That said, I disagree with the "most favored" clause (I think that is what it is called) where they have to match the lowest price on the home store. I think that the single source adds enough value for me that I would be willing to pay the difference, or not buy at all if I thought the difference was too extreme.

Yet a similar thing was done by Apple. Apple decided that game streaming services are required to list every single game stream on their App Store if iPhone users are to be provided these streams within developers Apps, case in case XBox etc etc.

Didn't Apple get rid of that and Microsoft then say it still wasn't worth the effort for them? I'm not well versed on the details for this one, but my opinion is that it was more about Apple being worried about an app you could get on the App Store possibly streaming something someone might complain about. My main reason for feeling that way is that it appears to me that the new rules still say you have to age rate your app at the age of the highest age rated game stream. And, yes, I do think Apple is too worried about being "family friendly" in everything and should just have a note like "this app has the ability to stream materials not vetted by Apple."

Imagine ISP charging a commission over every iPhone connected to their network, it would have been dead in the water. ISP and many other have created the Internet platform, not Apple so would be within their right to charge, right?

Wait, you don't pay for your ISP? Mine charges quite a bit. Though I am almost kidding, you seem to have forgotten those ringtones you mentioned earlier. Apple actually failed on their first phone with the ROKR, and when they introduced the iPhone, they actually managed to negotiate a surprising amount of control, otherwise we would likely be paying our telecoms a commission, too. So I'm not sure if you should be mad at Apple for not paying that or thank them. And FRAND helps, too.

...

Here we are now, where a teacher giving one to one online classes through the iPad or iPhone is charged a commission and are forced to sell these classs in App. Heck even a dating arrangement is being charged ... whatever Apple feels. Not to mention the game stream policy pointed above.

If all these Policies are left alone, as more users buy devices with this kind of OEM policies, believe me the claws will go deeper and deeper into users pockets if not harming innovation.

Do you think that is the developer that pays these commissions? Humm. Look around the Apps today on the App Store ... they look like rehashing one another more and more. You see Wallpaper apps charging $7 a week to access stuff that is freely available elsewhere ... crazy … this is not innovation.

I think anything that charges in the app should pay the commission. That seems fair to me. I've got lots of online courses and never paid Apple any of it. I also buy my Audible books on the Audible website as that was the way it worked. Now it appears that you can buy in the Audible app, but I only just noticed that, and still just buy on the web.

I don't think Apple should be able to force you to charge in the app, but I don't know of any cases of that. I also agree that the developer should be able to let the user know to buy online. Apparently Apple made that difficult, but that seemed pretty obvious in the older apps I used that didn't have any built-in purchasing, like Audible and Prime.

If someone is willing to pay $7 a week on wallpaper in the app, they should definitely be giving Apple a cut, as I cannot imagine them making that kind of money without the ease of just clicking on the buy button in the app and App Store, since that person obviously isn't making any effort to shop around. I can't say it is a great thing that Apple enabled that lunacy, but if you are willing to pay for an "I'm Rich" app, why shouldn't Apple get a piece of your poorly spent earnings? (I should say that I haven't seen the app and art does have a value, so perhaps it is actually worth the $7 a week. Hopefully it is to the people that subscribe.)

...

First, before the App Store there were no means for users to install software on their iOS devices, the iPhone. If you compare with other platforms back then such as Mac, Windows, Linux, Web ... developer had no technical difficulties in distributing their Apps ... at least no more than they have to App Store channels.

In 2007 it took a lot more effort to find customers and get paid, but, okay, distributing was a heck of a lot easier than it was in 1993. If you really think the App Store didn't completely change the market, then there is nothing I can say other than "if it didn't change the market, we wouldn't even be having this conversation."

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

In which case android exists if the ability to sideload matters so much.

I view this sort of feature as another set of trade offs to be negotiated and ultimately decided on by consumers, rather than some sort of immutable human right. And the reality is that most people don’t really hate closed walled ecosystems.

I would argue that people continue to be better served with a central App Store where all apps are available, rather than being made to jump through hoops because the developer wants to play punk.

If it’s choice you want, then you should support different phone ecosystems, rather than argue for them all being cookie cutter versions of each other.

Seems like you've missed the point of this article.

 

[bgillander]

Seems like you've missed the point of this article.

"When speaking to journalists earlier today (via The Verge), Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said that he did not have proof that Google and Samsung had colluded on the Auto Blocker feature, but he is hoping to find evidence during the document discovery process. He also did not ask Samsung to make Epic Games an authorized source for games."

I think the point of this article is that Sweeney is quite happy to admit that he has filed a lawsuit with no evidence, simply to go on a fishing expedition to look for some proof he hopes he might find. It will be depressing if this isn't thrown out, as his admission makes this sound like the police pulling someone over just to see if there is something they can charge you for in your car, yet somehow people are touting him as a champion of freedoms. Bizarro world, indeed.


As for Android sideloading, Samsung is not the only Android provider, and another poster said even Sweeney said you could still sideload on Samsung. That poster quoted Sweeney as saying it took 21 steps, but another APK site I found made it sound like a single switch with maybe 4 clicks to get there. Sadly, I would trust that random site before Sweeney, just based on his above comment and his earlier admissions testifying under oath, but even 21 steps is not preventing. Last time I had to sideload on a generic Android tv box, it was a few clicks to turn on developer mode, IIRC. Adding a different switch to enable sideloading certainly doesn't seem like the definition of preventing. If they removed the switch, that would seem like more of an attempt.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Though I’m a little shocked that Samsung phones corrupt their OS at a rate that makes this a valid point. I can’t remember the last time I heard (anecdotal, I know) of anyone’s iPhone having an OS so corrupted the settings couldn’t be changed, or a hardwired reinstall was needed.

Was reading the news today and had to chuckle to myself.

Samsung update bricks phones, giving harsh reminder of data backup importance

“I just really, really want my photos.”…

arstechnica.com

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Didn't Apple get rid of that and Microsoft then say it still wasn't worth the effort for them?

No: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=f1v8pyay

I'm not well versed on the details for this one, but my opinion is that it was more about Apple being worried about an app you could get on the App Store possibly streaming something someone might complain about.

Semantics. What is not semantics is the commission, Ca$h.

On the Semantics .... When you buy a TV you don't blame the TV OEM for your kids having access to porn. When you buy a car you don't go to the manufacturer complaining because it either got stollen or you got stollen in the car ... whatever.

People understand very well the technical boundaries of a device function. I mean the term device in its general form. An iPhone is a device

Further more, legally Apple is not liable for anything that happens on your iPhone or the use of iOS. Check the license agreements … even if caused by a blunder on their part … say a bug. Ultimately is up to you to sort out the mess.

Apple im my view disgustingly playing with semantics, diluting the boundaries of its device value proposition and other businesses devices's value proposition in order to extend its control and charge for what its not theirs to charge for. Diluting the boundaries between devices in other to exercise its money strategy founded on value transfer to itself.

I am using the term device as its general definition. A smartphone is a kind of the device, so is an App. The second is a digital device.

In 2007 it took a lot more effort to find customers and get paid, but, okay, distributing was a heck of a lot easier than it was in 1993.

On the Web? Not really. It was already easy any good developer to offer payments through PayPal and credit cards online. Granted, things got even easier. But that is the nature of technology. Apps, software and digital services did not appear with the Apple App Store. There were plenty already. In fact, in this regard the world way ahead of the the App Store ... Freemium and Subscription based models already common on the Web appeared later on the App Store.

Wait, you don't pay for your ISP? Mine charges quite a bit.

Yes. I pay for ISPs as I pay for an iOS device. The difference is that ISPs don't charge Apple (then me once again) for using their network to operate, because I decided to choose an iPhone. You see, without the Internet the smartphone would be a dead weight.

Neither they can as far as regulation goes in the EU.

ISPs could argue that the iPhone works so well given their Network service, hence should be entitled morally to a commission. But boundaries as well defined by law, so this silly arguments are irrelevant.

But here is the thing, unless property/device boundaries around the digital are established by law, Apple will exploit the loophole in its rhetoric to confuse the population.

I think anything that charges in the app should pay the commission. That seems fair to me. I've got lots of online courses and never paid Apple any of it. I also buy my Audible books on the Audible website as that was the way it worked. Now it appears that you can buy in the Audible app, but I only just noticed that, and still just buy on the web.

If the consumption of goods or services is done through ones App, and you sell those elsewhere, the policy required you to sell it through the App Store. If you don't offer in-app purchases and you get caught by Apple, your App will be expelled from all iPhones. Meaning, the App will be removed from the App Store, iPhone users will not be able to install it anymore, and people that downloaded the App may probably still be able to use it for awhile, but will get no more updates.

Notice, I have no problem with an App Store policies, including that one, if and only if other legal App distribution channels are legally allowed to exist. In other words, the opt in for such policies is not done when buying the smartphone and licensing the OS.

If not, such practice in my view is an unfair business practice, both to consumers who bought the device and the digital economy in general. Just check the latest commercials, people aren't buying due to none of this.

Would you buy a house full price and accept the fact that the seller will commission to everything that is consumed in it? Further more the seller has the capacity to simply block the entrance of any of these goods into your house as it pleases? Even if promises from time to time to do some renovations as per his discretion? Of course not! Well that is the actual deal here! A miracle deal as Tim Cook once remarked.

I also agree that the developer should be able to let the user know to buy online. Apparently Apple made that difficult, but that seemed pretty obvious in the older apps I used that didn't have any built-in purchasing, like Audible and Prime.

Well, Apple disagrees with you. The only reason why now seams to be possible is because of the DMA.

Audible and Prime initially where required to offer in-app purchase to be in the App Store. Then there was several lawsuits concerning media Apps. Several companies were involved, Amazon, Netflix Spotify .... As a result Apple changed the policy, and created a classification of Reader Apps. They are quite creative. If the App was classifies as a Reader App, it could not offer in-app purchase, but could not also provide their own. Lately it changed again. The developer may point to external payment mechanisms if it also offers the Apple App Store in-app purchase mechanisms.

It's very simple. In my view an App is a device as is an iPhone, as is an hammer. Is as much a thing as it is an iPhone, or a House. No things exists in the vacuum, there are interdependencies. Nevertheless, the boundaries of action of device, what makes each device a device on itself is very well defined by law in everything but the digital space. Again Apple is exploiting this hole in the law.

If someone is willing to pay $7 a week on wallpaper in the app,

The context of my remark was one of innovation. There is nothing innovative in this practice. Furthermore, this kind predatory businesses practices in my view has its quality indeed legitimized by the Apple Store policies alone. It creates the ideal environment for these "scams" ... and they are more and more and more in quantity. You would not pay $7 a week to access a Web App on the Internet offering Wallpaper that you can easily get through a Google Search. Why? Because there are more checks and balances outside the App Store environment …

Anyway, all that I am saying is that the DMA is in the right direction. Net Neutrality is fundamental to the digital economy. It was the right move to foster innovation and multiple levels. These kinds of devices are components of such network, so regulation should keep an eye on OEM policies offering them. Otherwise will stop having a net neutral economy and will be ruled by fiefdoms that no person or business will be able to escape from, on top of the network that we all payed for.

Cheers.

EDIT: Do you remember that time where TV broadcast was a closed system. You would pay the broadcaster a subscription have access to a bunch of channels with lots of commercials and payed extra for some exclusive channels. Also channel producers payed a fee to the broadcaster …revenue share só on and so forth. That was the only thing your TV would process.

Now observe what happened the barriers of such systems were broken. Now you have plenty, plenty of options to choose from, more companies came to offer their creations and innovations.

Technology potentials choice, diversity and freedom. But also more control and supervision by users.

What Apple is advocating as the future of digital economic founded on people’s devices, for their own profit, goes totally in the opposite direction. The narrative is such that it bites the very economic and market freedoms that allowed the company to come through. All in a space where the technology provides way more options to pave the way of the future. Why we had in the 70s is much better than what is possible now? … The moral and clairvoyance of profits.

 

[bgillander]

No: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=f1v8pyay

Yeah, that is what I read about the current rules. Apparently our interpretations are different.

Semantics. What is not semantics is the commission, Ca$h.

On the Semantics .... When you buy a TV you don't blame the TV OEM for your kids having access to porn. When you buy a car you don't go to the manufacturer complaining because it either got stollen or you got stollen in the car ... whatever.

People understand very well the technical boundaries of a device function. I mean the term device in its general form. An iPhone is a device

Further more, legally Apple is not liable for anything that happens on your iPhone or the use of iOS. Check the license agreements … even if caused by a blunder on their part … say a bug. Ultimately is up to you to sort out the mess.

Apple im my view disgustingly playing with semantics, diluting the boundaries of its device value proposition and other businesses devices's value proposition in order to extend its control and charge for what its not theirs to charge for. Diluting the boundaries between devices in other to exercise its money strategy founded on value transfer to itself.

I am using the term device as its general definition. A smartphone is a kind of the device, so is an App. The second is a digital device.

I think we actually agree on the main points on this, just disagree on the main reason for it, although cash is certainly one of the reasons, as Apple is a corporation and cash is the reason corporations exist.

On the Web? Not really. It was already easy any good developer to offer payments through PayPal and credit cards online. Granted, things got even easier. But that is the nature of technology. Apps, software and digital services did not appear with the Apple App Store. There were plenty already. In fact, in this regard the world way ahead of the the App Store ... Freemium and Subscription based models already common on the Web appeared later on the App Store.

Sure, for Adobe and any large corporation with an known identity. Having a central storefront available was a mojor breakthrough for the small developer. Epic is not doing this for the little guy and the little guy will not be the ones reaping the benefits of these changes. This is a return to that for all the big players. And this is my main issue with Sweeney's misrepresentation of this.

Yes. I pay for ISPs as I pay for an iOS device. The difference is that ISPs don't charge Apple (then me once again) for using their network to operate, because I decided to choose an iPhone. You see, without the Internet the smartphone would be a dead weight.

Neither they can as far as regulation goes in the EU.

ISPs could argue that the iPhone works so well given their Network service, hence should be entitled morally to a commission. But boundaries as well defined by law, so this silly arguments are irrelevant.

But here is the thing, unless property/device boundaries around the digital are established by law, Apple will exploit the loophole in its rhetoric to confuse the population.

Again FRAND, and as you point out this is a silly argument, due to existing laws.

If the consumption of goods or services is done through ones App, and you sell those elsewhere, the policy required you to sell it through the App Store. If you don't offer in-app purchases and you get caught by Apple, your App will be expelled from all iPhones. Meaning, the App will be removed from the App Store, iPhone users will not be able to install it anymore, and people that downloaded the App may probably still be able to use it for awhile, but will get no more updates.

Notice, I have no problem with an App Store policies, including that one, if and only if other legal App distribution channels are legally allowed to exist. In other words, the opt in for such policies is not done when buying the smartphone and licensing the OS.

If not, such practice in my view is an unfair business practice, both to consumers who bought the device and the digital economy in general. Just check the latest commercials, people aren't buying due to none of this.

Would you buy a house full price and accept the fact that the seller will commission to everything that is consumed in it? Further more the seller has the capacity to simply block the entrance of any of these goods into your house as it pleases? Even if promises from time to time to do some renovations as per his discretion? Of course not! Well that is the actual deal here! A miracle deal as Tim Cook once remarked.

Well, Apple disagrees with you. The only reason why now seams to be possible is because of the DMA.

Audible and Prime initially where required to offer in-app purchase to be in the App Store. Then there was several lawsuits concerning media Apps. Several companies were involved, Amazon, Netflix Spotify .... As a result Apple changed the policy, and created a classification of Reader Apps. They are quite creative. If the App was classifies as a Reader App, it could not offer in-app purchase, but could not also provide their own. Lately it changed again. The developer may point to external payment mechanisms if it also offers the Apple App Store in-app purchase mechanisms.

It's very simple. In my view an App is a device as is an iPhone, as is an hammer. Is as much a thing as it is an iPhone, or a House. No things exists in the vacuum, there are interdependencies. Nevertheless, the boundaries of action of device, what makes each device a device on itself is very well defined by law in everything but the digital space. Again Apple is exploiting this hole in the law.

As I said, I think Apple should be able to charge a commission if you sell in the store, but don't think Apple should be able to force you to sell in the store to get that commission. Pretty straightforward. And as I initially said, I don't disagree with all oversight, and that applies to the developer being allowed to direct the user to buy online. Apple not allowing that seemed stupid to me.

The context of my remark was one of innovation. There is nothing innovative in this practice. Furthermore, this kind predatory businesses practices in my view has its quality indeed legitimized by the Apple Store policies alone. It creates the ideal environment for these "scams" ... and they are more and more and more in quantity. You would not pay $7 a week to access a Web App on the Internet offering Wallpaper that you can easily get through a Google Search. Why? Because there are more checks and balances outside the App Store environment …

Sorry, I call BS on that one, as there are absolutely no checks and balances preventing someone from charging you a bad price outside the App Store environment. If you consider charging for something for which you can find a free alternative , then most things in life are a scam. Eliminating things like this from the App Store would require Apple to have complete authority to make a judgement call as to the value of things, which is exactly the opposite of what you are asking for in the rest of this post.

...

EDIT: Do you remember that time where TV broadcast was a closed system. You would pay the broadcaster a subscription have access to a bunch of channels with lots of commercials and payed extra for some exclusive channels. Also channel producers payed a fee to the broadcaster …revenue share só on and so forth. That was the only thing your TV would process.

Now observe what happened the barriers of such systems were broken. Now you have plenty, plenty of options to choose from, more companies came to offer their creations and innovations.

Technology potentials choice, diversity and freedom. But also more control and supervision by users.

What Apple is advocating as the future of digital economic founded on people’s devices, for their own profit, goes totally in the opposite direction. The narrative is such that it bites the very economic and market freedoms that allowed the company to come through. All in a space where the technology provides way more options to pave the way of the future. Why we had in the 70s is much better than what is possible now? … The moral and clairvoyance of profits.

No, I do not remember that. I remember when TV was free to watch over the air with commercials paying for the few channels in my city. Then cable companies came along and allowed you to pay for access to channels from other cities for more variety. Then companies came along to provide channels with no commercials that you paid to see movies, then they added commercials. Then in my country the cable companies started charging more and more until the delivery platform made more than the broadcasters, and the cable companies ended up buying the broadcasters. Then they figured they weren't making enough from the broadcasters and started laying off staff. It is a bit of a sore point for me. But that is the continued en$#!@ification of the world, it seems.

Here's hoping the downward spiral stops eventually. Cheers!

 

[Nuno Lopes]

As I said, I think Apple should be able to charge a commission if you sell in the store, but don't think Apple should be able to force you to sell in the store to get that commission. Pretty straightforward. And as I initially said, I don't disagree with all oversight, and that applies to the developer being allowed to direct the user to buy online. Apple not allowing that seemed stupid to me.

Super. We agree the rest is moot either way.

I agree that the OEM App Store should be allowed whatever legal practice. The internal policies should be of no concern by the DMA.

Provided that the functions of the iOS such the ability for the user to install Apps is decoupled from the OEM App Store. Technically this is how it is achieved. Simple yeah? Technically the solution is simple. Because then regulations need to deal with steering measures baked into the policies around the ability for the App to be built and ran on the system.

I would add, the term Sideload was used to refer to the practice of violating standard policies by installing Apps using unsanctioned means.

The term Sideload should be abandoned all together, considering that the DMA stipulates that users should be able to choose to whom to buy the App or subscribe to the service on Android, iOS, Windows … and not treated by the OEM aand its OS as some obscure practice, requiring the user mess around with settings by default. For instance, such decoupling is pointless of then OEM charges mostly the same to access the APIs as it would with it together with App Store services. Or makes a set of requirements for developers to be able to distribute their Apps outside of the App Store way more stringent then the App Store. I am not making it up, this is happening.

In a nutshell that is it.

PS: On the TV comparison … I suppose it depends on the Country. In the EU we’d had free to Air channels. Than cable / Telco came and added other channels … a subscription based service that included phone service, some with mobile phones numbers and so on … than they bundled it with Internet service. If you wanted a channels not provided by your cable provided you were stuck. If you wanted to provide your own TV channel you need to pay these operators to be included in their listings so on and so forth. Well known broadcasters would split revenues with cable operators …

This all changed with IPTV. Anyone could simple self “publish” their TV service. Hulu Netflix … YouTube No need to go through cable operators. An explosion of media options. Today you have movie quality series. All due to the fact the wall garden of cable operators around content was broken.

Apple seams to look forward to re-establish such long gone economic systems. Encompassing not just media … but everything … all through their devices.

 

[I7guy]

No: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=f1v8pyay



Semantics. What is not semantics is the commission, Ca$h.

On the Semantics .... When you buy a TV you don't blame the TV OEM for your kids having access to porn. When you buy a car you don't go to the manufacturer complaining because it either got stollen or you got stollen in the car ... whatever.

People understand very well the technical boundaries of a device function. I mean the term device in its general form. An iPhone is a device

Further more, legally Apple is not liable for anything that happens on your iPhone or the use of iOS. Check the license agreements … even if caused by a blunder on their part … say a bug. Ultimately is up to you to sort out the mess.

Apple im my view disgustingly playing with semantics, diluting the boundaries of its device value proposition and other businesses devices's value proposition in order to extend its control and charge for what its not theirs to charge for. Diluting the boundaries between devices in other to exercise its money strategy founded on value transfer to itself.

I am using the term device as its general definition. A smartphone is a kind of the device, so is an App. The second is a digital device.



On the Web? Not really. It was already easy any good developer to offer payments through PayPal and credit cards online. Granted, things got even easier. But that is the nature of technology. Apps, software and digital services did not appear with the Apple App Store. There were plenty already. In fact, in this regard the world way ahead of the the App Store ... Freemium and Subscription based models already common on the Web appeared later on the App Store.



Yes. I pay for ISPs as I pay for an iOS device. The difference is that ISPs don't charge Apple (then me once again) for using their network to operate, because I decided to choose an iPhone. You see, without the Internet the smartphone would be a dead weight.

Neither they can as far as regulation goes in the EU.

ISPs could argue that the iPhone works so well given their Network service, hence should be entitled morally to a commission. But boundaries as well defined by law, so this silly arguments are irrelevant.

But here is the thing, unless property/device boundaries around the digital are established by law, Apple will exploit the loophole in its rhetoric to confuse the population.



If the consumption of goods or services is done through ones App, and you sell those elsewhere, the policy required you to sell it through the App Store. If you don't offer in-app purchases and you get caught by Apple, your App will be expelled from all iPhones. Meaning, the App will be removed from the App Store, iPhone users will not be able to install it anymore, and people that downloaded the App may probably still be able to use it for awhile, but will get no more updates.

Notice, I have no problem with an App Store policies, including that one, if and only if other legal App distribution channels are legally allowed to exist. In other words, the opt in for such policies is not done when buying the smartphone and licensing the OS.

If not, such practice in my view is an unfair business practice, both to consumers who bought the device and the digital economy in general. Just check the latest commercials, people aren't buying due to none of this.

Would you buy a house full price and accept the fact that the seller will commission to everything that is consumed in it? Further more the seller has the capacity to simply block the entrance of any of these goods into your house as it pleases? Even if promises from time to time to do some renovations as per his discretion? Of course not! Well that is the actual deal here! A miracle deal as Tim Cook once remarked.



Well, Apple disagrees with you. The only reason why now seams to be possible is because of the DMA.

Audible and Prime initially where required to offer in-app purchase to be in the App Store. Then there was several lawsuits concerning media Apps. Several companies were involved, Amazon, Netflix Spotify .... As a result Apple changed the policy, and created a classification of Reader Apps. They are quite creative. If the App was classifies as a Reader App, it could not offer in-app purchase, but could not also provide their own. Lately it changed again. The developer may point to external payment mechanisms if it also offers the Apple App Store in-app purchase mechanisms.

It's very simple. In my view an App is a device as is an iPhone, as is an hammer. Is as much a thing as it is an iPhone, or a House. No things exists in the vacuum, there are interdependencies. Nevertheless, the boundaries of action of device, what makes each device a device on itself is very well defined by law in everything but the digital space. Again Apple is exploiting this hole in the law.



The context of my remark was one of innovation. There is nothing innovative in this practice. Furthermore, this kind predatory businesses practices in my view has its quality indeed legitimized by the Apple Store policies alone. It creates the ideal environment for these "scams" ... and they are more and more and more in quantity. You would not pay $7 a week to access a Web App on the Internet offering Wallpaper that you can easily get through a Google Search. Why? Because there are more checks and balances outside the App Store environment …

Anyway, all that I am saying is that the DMA is in the right direction. Net Neutrality is fundamental to the digital economy. It was the right move to foster innovation and multiple levels. These kinds of devices are components of such network, so regulation should keep an eye on OEM policies offering them. Otherwise will stop having a net neutral economy and will be ruled by fiefdoms that no person or business will be able to escape from, on top of the network that we all payed for.

Cheers.

EDIT: Do you remember that time where TV broadcast was a closed system. You would pay the broadcaster a subscription have access to a bunch of channels with lots of commercials and payed extra for some exclusive channels. Also channel producers payed a fee to the broadcaster …revenue share só on and so forth. That was the only thing your TV would process.

Now observe what happened the barriers of such systems were broken. Now you have plenty, plenty of options to choose from, more companies came to offer their creations and innovations.

Technology potentials choice, diversity and freedom. But also more control and supervision by users.

What Apple is advocating as the future of digital economic founded on people’s devices, for their own profit, goes totally in the opposite direction. The narrative is such that it bites the very economic and market freedoms that allowed the company to come through. All in a space where the technology provides way more options to pave the way of the future. Why we had in the 70s is much better than what is possible now? … The moral and clairvoyance of profits.

Here in the US the App Store model has stood a primary challenge in the courts - even if you don’t like the way it operates.

Apple has a lot of customers due to its popularity. They certainly didn’t hold a gun to anybody’s head telling them to buy their products and services.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Here in the US the App Store model has stood a primary challenge in the courts - even if you don’t like the way it operates.

There are many things that are possible in the US that aren’t ok in the EU. And vice versa.

I think both of us should be ok with that. Those differences should not cloud our overall partnership. We have more in common than our differences.

PS: Will see how the situation evolves in the US regarding this subject. It seams DOJ filed another case. But then again the political situation in the US is complicated … not that in EU is any better. But at least we can somewhat blame external factors. There are many external actors interested in the EU break down. Some are indeed shareholders of some companies.

 

[I7guy]

There are many things that are possible in the US that aren’t ok in the EU. And vice versa.

I think both of us should be ok with that. Those differences should not cloud our overall partnership. We have more in common than our differences.

PS: Will see how the situation evolves in the US regarding this subject. It seams DOJ filed another case. But then again the political situation in the US is complicated … not that in EU is any better. But at least we can somewhat blame external factors. There are many external actors interested in the EU break down. Some are indeed shareholders of some companies.

Apple also filed a motion to dismiss, but regardless this will take years to come to a conclusion.

 

[bgillander]

This all changed with IPTV. Anyone could simple self “publish” their TV service. Hulu Netflix … YouTube No need to go through cable operators. An explosion of media options. Today you have movie quality series. All due to the fact the wall garden of cable operators around content was broken.

And now if I want to watch 3 different shows I can end up having to subscribe to 3 separate services, which is exactly the nightmare I'm worried will happen with App Stores on iOS.

Freedom to choose is great when it actually offers choice. Epic's love of "exclusives" is a perfect example of how much they hate monopolies, yet somehow love being the only provider.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

And now if I want to watch 3 different shows I can end up having to subscribe to 3 separate services, which is exactly the nightmare I'm worried will happen with App Stores on iOS.

Nightmare is much of an hyperbole. The idea that going to multiple restaurants, multiple boutiques, different supermarkets, multiple companies, multiple people, is worst than going one place, one person, is a misconstruction of reality. We all do that on our daily lives and its demonstrably a good way to go about doing commerce.

Using one POS for everything It may look convenient for an awhile until it becomes bigger then everything else ... and starts biting. Its like everyone using the same uniform, if you are wearing one your not the commander... convenient yet ...

Now, someone pointed out, it would good to have an human automatic inventory of all the apps and services installed and subscribed ragardless of distributions channel ... I suppose OS could facilitate that ... say an App Wallet ...

 

[bgillander]

For instance, such decoupling is pointless of then OEM charges mostly the same to access the APIs as it would with it together with App Store services. Or makes a set of requirements for developers to be able to distribute their Apps outside of the App Store way more stringent then the App Store. I am not making it up, this is happening.

I guess Apple could just say any company with over $1,000,000 in revenue that wants to use their OS libraries and APIs has to pay Apple a commission, like Epic does with the Unreal Engine.