Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New U.S. Antitrust Bill Would Require Apple and Google to Allow Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress shall have power [...] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
If passed and signed into law, this bill would fall easily within the bounds of the Commerce Clause because it’s regulating interstate commerce.
But you get access to the APIs the documentation, XCode, simulators ability to run on device free of charge without the need for a developer account.
Don’t forget, Apples policies have created a poor experience in many subscription apps.
Devs have removed sub options so as not to be beholden to Apple’s 30%. Netflix, Amazon, etc. You need to actively search out the options on the web and step outside of the curated experience.
This can bring back the more integrated user journey once more.
Devs have removed sub options so as not to be beholden to Apple’s 30%. Netflix, Amazon, etc. You need to actively search out the options on the web and step outside of the curated experience.
This can bring back the more integrated user journey once more.
Part of me wants this, but most of me doesn’t, even as someone who’s jailbroken on my iPhone 11. The lack of side loading is why the App Store makes money, and that money makes apps that are significantly better than on Android. Ultimately I own an iPhone because quality trumps customization for me.
Great!
Until some app that you need decides to only distribute through a third party store.
Then that “just don’t use it” line kind of falls apart.
They can couch this however they want, but underneath it still sounds like, “hey, you know that swimming pool that you built yourself in your own backyard? We’ve decided that you’re regulating access to it unfairly, so now we’re going to decide for you who gets to swim and when.”
Your analogy only works if the pool is a semi-public club and you've excluded people based on whatever criteria you decide.
And it’s one of only two swimming pools available to swim in. And pools are necessary for life in the modern world. And that pool is intertwined with a market worth billions, impacting a substantial number of Americans and other businesses. So basically nothing alike at all.
Last edited:
Who owns the content in those emulators ? Nintendo and Sega could create apps in the App Store.
It depends on the final language, of course, but I tend to agree. This isn’t so much unconstitutional as it is stupid.
Technically emulators have no content in them, and the community generally doesn’t charge for them, so no money to be made there - just for fun and “love of the game”.
As for Nintendo (in particular) and Sega they are very careful not to drive people away from “new” product. Nintendo could make a boatload on old IP but they generally choose not to. Nintendo could literally re-release every system they have ever made and people would gobble them up like hotcakes.
No one has proven that the consumer will pay less. Just a different entity getting the cut.
There are many exploits that become possible once you have hostile code running locally. It’s called privilege escalation. Security is all about many layers of security, because any one layer may be broken.
All devs will now have to worry about being 1 exploit away from local malicious code breaking the sandbox, and attacking their apps, stealing user credentials, tokens, app service tokens, etc.
Remember, there are already APIs for installing system-wide VPN, where any one app can already man-in-the-middle attack every other app’s traffic. The only thing holding that in check is Apple pulling those VPN apps if they cross a line. Take that away, and give Facebook their own App Store, where they distribute the Facebook app along with a system wide VPN profile, and all security is gone.
It should also apply to Fortnite. Everyone should be able to sell things for fortnite and have their own billing system in the Fortnite marketplace. Why should Fortnite have a monopoly on this marketplace.
The irony of these arguments is that the "why don't developers create their own iPhone and iOS / successful operating system" statement often heard in response to those who want to open up sideloading goes both ways: why don't users just choose another app if they don't like where they're getting it from? No one is holding a gun to their head saying they have to download it. Furthermore, why don't they build their own app or switch to Android? I'm half kidding...
Or, it still could go to SCOTUS. We don't know if the bill will be passed and what the future is.
New flash: No company is obligated to sell you something that is 100% exactly what you want. Life is full of compromises. “This is a package deal, take it or leave it” is a perfectly reasonable and viable business model.
Lots of trade offs. One worse thing doesn’t mean that another bad thing can be evaluated independently.