Japan Passes Law to Allow Third-Party App Stores on the iPhone

[ProbablyDylan]

Additionally, the law requires that third-party developers have access to the same features as Apple's own apps and services, such as NFC for contactless payments.

Does this mean Apple is going to have to document those private APIs? Things could get pretty weird pretty quickly, I'm excited to see how this plays out.

In the end, more competition is for the best.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Then the only choice is to move to the United States. It's likely the last country to enact such laws, for different reasons. Shop for the jurisdiction you like the most. You have a choice!!

No, not if you have your way, right? I mean, you're not simply advocating for government to crack open Appe's walled garden in one locale, you're making arguments that Apple should be forced to comply globally.

At least be honest about what you're arguing here. You don't think I should have the choice of a walled garden, and you're enlisting governments to do your bidding.

 

[MilaM]

At least be honest about what you're arguing here. You don't think I should have the choice of a walled garden, and you're enlisting governments to do your bidding.

I'm just a bystander and observer, as you are probably too. But you are right, I think the laws are needed to have some minimal competition in the phone app space. And I think the arguments put forward by the EU Commission and other governments around the world are reasonable and based on the right assumptions.

If they are going to achieve the goals, and what the collateral damage is going to be? That I can't say.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

It won't take long until 3.5 months is 6 months.... and then another few blinks and it will be a full year. If we don't see a massive big bad wolf event(s), do we ever come to realize that maybe all this security spin was just that: spin?

Again, you're being disingenuous here. One small crack in Apple's Walled Garden will not bring universal damage. But you don't want one small crack in Apple's walled garden, right? You want it to be completely smashed. You think these laws should exist globally, and that a walled-garden approach shouldn't be allowed (only for Apple, btw).

Right? I mean, take your argument to its end and make your arguments from there.

 

[Supermallet]

Not if you have your way, right? I mean, you don't want these laws passed in just the EU and Japan, you want these laws to exist globally. There is a tipping point at which the walled garden approach, my choice, will not exist if what you are advocating for happens. Once it's feasible for META to bypass Apple's strict rules on data collection and privacy, they'll jump ship. And there are apps that I am forced to use today, such as WhatsApp, that will no longer have the protections that Apple forces on META.

You're simply closing your eyes and ears to this argument.


Again, up until the point that your desire has been forced on Apple in enough of the world to destroy the walled garden approach that I prefer. It's disingenuous of you to argue that nothing will change when you want to see this forced upon Apple globally.



3.5 months, in one geographic location in the world, when what you are advocating for is a global ban on Apple's walled garden. Do you see the problem in you concluding that nothing has changed yet?



I'm not worried so much about small time criminals hiding in the dark. I'm worried about the big players, Meta, Google, OpenAI, Micorosoft and...wait for it...Government overreach such as the EU forcing your choice on me, rather than letting me choose a walled garden. Again, you're trying to minimize the real concerns about privacy and security. It may not mean much to you, but it does to me. And I'm not trying to force you to live in my walled garden by asking governments to play nanny to your decisions. You're free to choose differently.

Grant me that same right and respect.

But you are demanding others live in your walled garden because by definition a walled garden cannot exist for a single user. So if we want to use Apple we have to accept a walled garden to maintain your sense of security.

You may not be asking that governments enforce walled gardens by law, but you are demanding that governments do not act in the interests of consumers by using the law to break open walled gardens.

If you really want a walled garden, the solution here is simple. Use only Apple software. Apple will be very happy to oblige you.

 

[rp100]

Apple had their chance to control the process and narrative - they could’ve opened things up, implied that they were doing this to inspire innovation, strongly encouraged people to stay in the “walled garden” by not enabling side loading. Instead, Apple dug in their heels. Now the narrative is being controlled by the very same governments that Apple lobbied, bribed, and wooed in order to seek protection.

 

[I7guy]

The house of cards is falling down...

A house of cards comment would apply to a company like Enron…just sayin’

 

[gnipgnop]

If you think that there is really a material difference between the App Store or the Play Store, I think you are misguided. Google wields as much power and influence over their part the marketplace for apps as Apple. In theory, you can already today have third-party stores on Android. But there is a reason why they are not thriving. The technical obstacles Google has created are enormous. Do some research about Play Services and how they work.

I already posted that I believed governments should focus on holding Google/Apple to their own words when it comes to their platforms. I've also already posted that the stores aren't really where the competition is for mobile or really for any other platform. The competitive focus is always on updates to hardware, OS and applications.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

You may not be asking that governments enforce walled gardens by law, but you are demanding that governments do not act in the interests of consumers by using the law to break open walled gardens.

Am I not a "consumer?" Are Apple's customers not consumers? Are consumers interests only those interests that align with your personal interests?

As you've just said, one of us is using government to force one idea onto everyone else. And it isn't me.

 

[mcled53]

The house of cards is falling down...

Hardly.

 

[jlc1978]

As well they should. They are not there to subsidize failing app developers nor are they there to provide free goods and services just because some people want them.

Exactly, Apple will imply find new ways to make money off off their user base to replace nay lost revenue from the App Store.

I suspect many developers will not find 3rd party stores as lucrative or any cheaper and thus will stay on Apple's store simply becasue it bring them the most money. Developers with large user bases that bypass Apple's in-app payment system will see various fees in order to remain on the App Store; for example they could tier the developer fees based on user base and or a developers revenue. Small developers pay $99 and big ones pay millions. The big players may find it difficult to leave if a significant portion of their user base is there and it provides a large percentage of their user base's growth. Leaving the App Store means having to get users to come to yours and you risk them deciding it's not worth it.

If people expect Apple to say "Hey, we'll run our App Store and let you make a lot of money while it's a losing proposition for us..." I suspect they will be sadly disappointed. The ones with the most to lose are teh smaller developers who may all of a sudden have up front costs and ongoing ones before, or if, they actually make any money.

 

[MilaM]

I already posted that I believed governments should focus on holding Google/Apple to their own words when it comes to their platforms. I've also already posted that the stores aren't really where the competition is for mobile or really for any other platform. The competitive focus is always on updates to hardware, OS and applications.

Sorry. I misunderstood your comment then.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Android phones launched in 2009 so consumers have had choice versus Apple's method since that time. The reality is that IF the Android approach was really that superior commercially to iOS then Apple would have eventually needed to adopt the open approach as well. But that didn't happen. Both approaches were commercially successful.

Let's be real. People want iPhone. There are tons of desirable benefits of iPhone that are NOT available in Android. This is a narrow part of smart phones: app sources, app buying, in-app purchases, etc. Some iPhone buyers may never use apps other than those that come stock on them.

The core value of iDevices is not limited to the App Store alone. There is a whole bundle of many FABs in iDevices- App Store is just one part of the whole. Opening app sourcing to competition doesn't alter the entire bundle of FABs. In fact, each owner can proceed exactly as they do now... including getting the apps they want from only the one thoroughly-dominant store if they like. Others can do what I bet almost everyone griping against this has done with their Macs- shop elsewhere too if they like. CHOICES!

For many, Android is no alt choice because Android doesn't work with a lot of Apple ecosystem stuff that has NOTHING to do with app stores/app payments/etc. When something is as dominant as the iPhone App Store on iDevices, iDevice owners can want flexibility to get apps from other sources. Unfortunately, Apple has grown so big and so dominant, it is taking the action of last resort (GOV actions) to "force" standard kinds of competitive environments upon them... as GOVs have many times before when any one Corp gets too dominant in some way in some space. In general, such actions are good for consumers because real competition just about always works FOR consumers. I don't see this differently.

If I'm an Apple fan and/or I simply buy all of the security disaster, etc spin, I opt to keep right on using my iDevices as I always have... and getting apps from only the one source. If some desired app gets pulled from the one store because that developer wants people to buy direct, there are probably a dozen clones of the same app in the store, so I'll just choose one of the clones. If a clone offers most of the benefits but is missing some key feature or two, stand by as some clone will quickly add the missing feature or two in pursuit of taking the share sacrificed by the developer who decided to exit the store. That's competition at work for us consumers in another way.

Example: For a VERY long time, I was a photoshop user. It was a CORE app in some of what I do... perhaps even towards "essential" to me. Then Adobe opted to go subscription model and relatively pricey subscription model at that. So I opted to try a "clone" and have since moved to Pixelmator Pro. Adobe operating for Adobes interests lost my business and a clone app maker stepped in and gobbled up that share. I know for sure that was not only MY own share of Adobes business- many have gone Pixelmator who need that kind of app.

I expect much of the same here. Let some app bail from the App Store that "everyone" is extremely accustomed to using and watch their daily revenue immediately plunge (which will likely bring them back pretty quickly- unless the "landlord" just refuses to even let them in). Those refusing to procure apps from any other source will then start looking for clones, find a Pixelmator that has most of the features and then a Pixelmator evolves to layer in what they don't quite have yet in a competition-driven thrust to try to sop up that Adobe share.

Competition works. No competition works only for the "company store." Historically, where competition is pinched to "one source", the sellers in those situations get insanely rich. Who's the richest company in the world right now?

 

[gnipgnop]

Legacy or not, it still works just fine... and should work equally fine on other form-factor "computers." Those happy with a lone company store and/or viewing one choice as being superior, more secure, better, etc can keep right on using that one superior-in-every-way store. Other consumers feeling differently (at least others in the EU and Japan) can opt- if they like- to shop around... as they do with their Macs.

----

In the meantime, let's see more threads about other countries "forcing" normal competition and we can fill those full of "OMG- security disaster, doom for <country>, etc" as time just keeps passing and where it's already in place is not playing out the doom. Where is the doom? Any doom? Any doom at all.

Shopping around already existed in mobile. Android's entire marketing strategy back in 2009 was to talk about how "open" was better and to emphasize all the different things that Android allowed users to do that iOS didn't. Like I've said earlier, Android did become successful with consumers via that approach but not at the expense of Apple. iOS continued to be a very popular platform with consumers with a "closed" approach.

In other words, it's never been necessary to force iOS to be like Android. Consumers already had a choice between one company saying "open" was better and one company saying "closed" was better. What government should have focused on was making sure those positions weren't just marketing and that they were really delivering what they claimed, i.e., was Android really open and was iOS really a level playing field.

As for "where is the doom", you can say the exact same thing about the market prior to the DMA. Were prices for apps high on mobile? No. Did customers have a choice between different operating systems and hardware? Yes. Were the complaints to the EU coming from consumers? No.

 

[StuBeck]

Who knows? Once you deem that this is governments role to decide for me than all bets are off. You've basically taken these choices away from me and are trying to paper over that by claiming it's giving me more choice.

So the answer seems to be no if you're not aware of anyone forcing you to use it.

I just don't see an issue for the every day consumer at the choice to have more options, but not forcing them to use these options. Other concerns seem to be quasi political related to government interference, but not related to the security aspects that Apple has been claiming.

 

[Supermallet]

Am I not a "consumer?" Are Apple's customers not consumers? Are consumers interests only those interests that align with your personal interests?

As you've just said, one of us is using government to force one idea onto everyone else. And it isn't me.

With all due disrespect to Robert Bork, monopolies are always bad for consumers. All of the defenses of the “walled garden” are just justifications for monopolies. It’s fundamentally anti-consumer. You are of course free to choose a system that harms you more than it benefits you but no one else should be forced to endure harm for your pleasure.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Am I not a "consumer?" Are Apple's customers not consumers? Are consumers interests only those interests that align with your personal interests?

As you've just said, one of us is using government to force one idea onto everyone else. And it isn't me.

The government wields the power and wishes of the people and it's citizens. Apple, nor any other corporation, is a citizens. The government is how citizens handle things much bigger than an individual can handle.

You can debate if that is happening or not, but that's not the point. The point is, government is the tool that consumers SHOULD be using to hold large giant corporations accountable.

Free markets can't exist without a referee.

 

[I7guy]

The government wields the power

True

and wishes of the people and it's citizens. Apple, nor any other corporation, is a citizens.

False

The government is how citizens handle things much bigger than an individual can handle.

Sometimes

You can debate if that is happening or not, but that's not the point. The point is, government is the tool that consumers SHOULD be using to hold large giant corporations accountable.

Theoretically.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I love to see this more and more!

Well done Japan!

 

[gnipgnop]

I’ve had the good faith debates, and the same people make the same “the sky is falling” arguments every time another country does the sensible thing and enforces completion. So 🤷‍♂️

It's not sensible if all of the data shows that competition comes from updating the hardware, OS and apps. If you're a gamer then you know this is true...new console generations are primarily focused on what the hardware will be, what level of graphics that hardware will produce and what games are going to be available early on in the hardware's life cycle.

 

[turbineseaplane]

All I'm going to say about this whole topic is this:

I have always preferred Apple's closed eco system since I first used a Mac in 1986. I will continue to use it unless I have a reason not to.

What?

You haven't ever been using a closed ecosystem on the Mac

 

[Timo_Existencia]

With all due disrespect to Robert Bork, monopolies are always bad for consumers. All of the defenses of the “walled garden” are just justifications for monopolies. It’s fundamentally anti-consumer. You are of course free to choose a system that harms you more than it benefits you but no one else should be forced to endure harm for your pleasure.

Apple is NOT a monopoly. Nothing in your argument is valid so long as it is built on the idea that Apple is a monopoly.

 

[gnipgnop]

With all due disrespect to Robert Bork, monopolies are always bad for consumers. All of the defenses of the “walled garden” are just justifications for monopolies. It’s fundamentally anti-consumer. You are of course free to choose a system that harms you more than it benefits you but no one else should be forced to endure harm for your pleasure.

What was the harm? It's not the quality of the hardware or OS. It's not the prices. It's not the number of apps available.

 

[MilaM]

Apple is NOT a monopoly. Nothing in your argument is valid so long as it is built on the idea that Apple is a monopoly.

The App Store is a monopoly on iOS. There is a marketplace for apps and services, and Apple has complete control over it.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Again, you're being disingenuous here. One small crack in Apple's Walled Garden will not bring universal damage. But you don't want one small crack in Apple's walled garden, right? You want it to be completely smashed. You think these laws should exist globally, and that a walled-garden approach shouldn't be allowed (only for Apple, btw).

Nope. I like Apple just fine. Almost all tech I own that Apple can make is Apple tech. I make my living on Apple tech.

However, I AM consumer first and, as such, when I see an opportunity to make my experience with Apple better, I can appreciate it... even if that is not necessarily what the Corp would want.

The reality is- and I bet this is the case for MANY who are so passionately finding fault with this- I live in a country that has no such laws... so it is "business as usual" for me. If I want a new app, I have ONE choice of seller of that app. That seller could- if it likes- charge ANY markup for that app, enforce any restriction on that app, even choose to not make some app that runs just fine on my tech not even be available to me because seller has some beef with some developer (that has nothing to do with security... unless security is defined as protecting commissions to store).

Our fellow Apple enthusiasts in other places have GOVs that are essentially putting all this disaster spin to the test. Will the EU experiment destroy our EU Apple friends? We'll see... but it's already been 3.5 months now. In my experience, crimes that can easily be committed tend to not wait 3.5 months to be committed. But I'll keep watching for ANY such news at all. Maybe the evil crime syndicates are just slow... or curiously patient before they make their move?

And I much appreciate many parts of the walled garden... expect parts where decisions seem to revolve around exploiting consumers vs. actually benefitting them. History shows that single "company stores" always exploit the situation. Any area with one kind of store and no competition for great distances will almost certainly have inflated prices and limited customer-benefiting policies. Let even one competitor come into that area and prices will be driven down and competitor benefits will rise... else, share will shift to the new competitor.

Nobody happy with the "as is" has to change a thing. Nobody dealing with the as is outside of the EU or Japan has any way for this to even remotely affect them in the least as there is one and only store from which to get apps. If people are going to have a negative say about this, it seems it should be people IN the EU and Japan. But I suspect many of those passionately bashing these laws are in places other than where they apply.

I'm NOT in the EU or Japan, but I'm appreciating their much greater range of choices from afar... where I have no comparable choices... and fellow consumers making cases why I shouldn't want such freedoms.

Right? I mean, take your argument to its end and make your arguments from there.

OK. At the end, my opinion is that this PART of the walled garden needs more competition. Competition is always good for consumers. I can't recall any situation in history where more competition hurt consumers. Consumers benefit from the ability to shop around instead of having only one seller. Nobody is forced to buy from other sellers if they are happy with one seller. But even those customers wanting to buy from only ONE store can benefit from competition as less passionate fans may shop around and thus pressure the one store into being more competitive.

IMO: everyone wins with more competition... except the company store, as more competition will likely reduce the profit margin a bit in an effort to hang onto share. This particular company store is already richest company in the world. Again, IMO, they don't need these kinds of business practices. They are already the KING of the hill. They are RICHEST. They've completely won that race already. There is no desperation should the WORLD adopt such laws that this King would become a pauper over App Store revenue being modestly impacted by a little competition.