New U.S. Antitrust Bill Would Require Apple and Google to Allow Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading

[jlc1978]

Because Epic doesn’t want their in game transactions to be subject to the 30% cut. This move will allow Fortnite to be hosted on the App Store as they can still use their own payment provider.

And if not on App Store, Apple users will still be able to install and play via alternate.

It’s a win for the end user. Surely it’s clear.

EPIC no doubt wants Apple t keep hosting their app for free while they use a 3rd party payment service. I doubt Apple will go for that and simply institute new fees.

Epic says it’s too difficult to launch a side-loaded app. Is it? That’s their claim any way. I don’t use Android and don’t know if that has any merit. Epic’s end goal is to be allowed to have Fortnite on the Google Play Store with an alternate payment system, so they have an incentive to say “but side-loading isn’t a fair or viable workaround.”

Right. They want access to the customer base for free.

Direct from the devs website?!? No royalty.

I doubt they will rush to lower their prices in response to the change.

They said they were at a significant disadvantage not being on the play store. Users received too many notices about side loading and security dialogs.

"For security reasons, your phone is set to block installation of unknown apps. Go to Settings.". That is enough of a barrier to limit the downloads you receive. General users will just move on to something else instead.

Apple could do that under the law as well.

A user who is too incompetent to flip a toggle to allow side-loading is exactly the kind of person who shouldn’t be side-loading apps in the first place.

Most simply can't be bothered, even if they are sophisticated users.

Why steam?

They sell apps (games) and no doubt exceed the customer base threshold.

That's literally the point of anti-trust laws. Standard Oil's product was oil.

Unlike Standard Oil, Apple has competitors in the mobile phone market and not nearly the market share Standard Oil had of ~90%. In addition, SO's actions to create an efficient supply chain drove the price of kerosene was $0.26 / gallon; by 1880, SO had driven the price down to $0.09 / gallon; the price was further reduced to ~$0.07 per gallon by 1890. They created the modern vertical integration, volume discounts, etc.

AT&T's was telephone service.

And that breakup really benefited the consumer. It was needed, but ending a monopoly dosn't always translate to consumer wins.

 

[I7guy]

We've been over this before and you didn't address what I had said, but perhaps you will this time. You're complaining about the current mobile service options not being consumer friendly while ignoring that the original AT&T that was broken up 40 years ago have largely been allowed to re-agglomerate into the modern AT&T and Verizon, controlling almost 3/4 of the U.S. market. AT&T is now made up of what were formerly the baby bells of Bellsouth, AT&T Corp, Ameritech, Pacific Telesis, and Southwestern Bell. Verizon is made up of Bell Atlantic and NYNEX. Your argument makes no sense because it's premised on a reality that no longer exists. As far as Verizon not finishing FIOS, I fully agree they should be punished for that.

If current laws and regulations are insufficient to create the intended results, new laws and regulations can be created, which is what is going on here.

I do not believe there is anything that needs addressing, which is the core of my belief. Obviously I have no control over what will happen in the end. But I do not see these regulations as benefiting the consumer. In fact no one will benefit and imo, this is a lose/lose situation.

As far as ATT there is nothing to address, imo, this was the poster child of a lose/lose for the country.

 

[vipergts2207]

And the App Store's product is... apps?

But don't the apps themselves have competition among each other? My calendar app versus a dozen other calendar apps?

Sure... there's only one store. But it's still a vibrant marketplace with a million apps.

I'm having a hard time imagining what I'd gain from putting my calendar app on different app stores that won't have nearly the userbase of the Official Apple App Store.

And what if Apple is forced to allow alternative app stores... but those other app stores all suck and they go out of business? Then what?

This isn't about whether apps compete with one another, they do. It's about whether Apple is acting in an anti-competitive manner. What you've come up with here is a non-sequitur. In any case, the apps on the app store aren't its product either. Those apps are the developer's product. If anything the app store's product is for developers (hosting, marketing, etc.). For the consumer, the app store is nothing more than a gateway to other non-Apple companies products.

So what if the other stores go out of business? Other ones will be created in their place. As with Android, most apps will remain on the official store. All the bedwetting is unfounded.

 

[jonblatho]

This argument, of course, is the same form the other side. If Apple doesn't allow side loading and third party stores, then deal with it or refuse to do business with them. While I think 3rd party stores is a good idea, I do not think they should be forced to modify their product. The idea that a company should not be allowed to have a "monopoly" on their own product is ludicrous.

It's not even that Apple necessarily has a monopoly on its own product; it’s that Google and Apple comprise a duopoly where the market terms are essentially fixed regardless of which you choose. When Apple makes a change, Google often follows suit, and vice-versa. There is no real choice, and there is no real competition.

 

[buckwheet]

I suppose it's good for users to have the choice, but in all honesty I'll probably stick to the App Store for installing anything on my phone. I'm not up for battling a barrage of malware, and while the App Store isn't impenetrable, I've certainly never had any issues. Third-party stores are likely to be a bit of a fiasco, imho. I suppose there's some argument for the idea that poor security will drive customers away, so competition alone may keep security at a reasonable level. I guess we'll see.

 

[Michael Scrip]

This isn't about whether apps compete with one another, they do. It's about whether Apple is acting in an anti-competitive manner. What you've come up with here is a non-sequitur. In any case, the apps on the app store aren't its product either. Those apps are the developer's product. If anything the app store's product is for developers (hosting, marketing, etc.). For the consumer, the app store is nothing more than a gateway to other non-Apple companies products.

So what if the other stores go out of business? Other ones will be created in their place. As with Android, most apps will remain on the official store. All the bedwetting is unfounded.

If I wake up tomorrow and suddenly Amazon's Appstore is available on my iPhone... I'm not sure how my life, or a developer's life, would be changed.

Sure... Amazon might offer a developer a lower fee... but it will add work for the developer since they now have to manage accounts and updates on two different app stores.

And I doubt the prices will change for the consumer. You can already get apps for the low price of $1 or free on Apple's Anti-Trust App Store.

But if allowing additional app stores will stop these endless articles on this website and others... let's go! F--- YEAH!

 

[vipergts2207]

1. Right. They want access to the customer base for free.

2. Most simply can't be bothered, even if they are sophisticated users.

3. Unlike Standard Oil, Apple has competitors in the mobile phone market and not nearly the market share Standard Oil had of ~90%. In addition, SO's actions to create an efficient supply chain drove the price of kerosene was $0.26 / gallon; by 1880, SO had driven the price down to $0.09 / gallon; the price was further reduced to ~$0.07 per gallon by 1890. They created the modern vertical integration, volume discounts, etc.

4. And that breakup really benefited the consumer. It was needed, but ending a monopoly dosn't always translate to consumer wins.

1. And they shouldn't get it. Google should be allowed to set their terms for their store, as long as they aren't artificially hobbling competitive stores and side-loading. At that point, it's just a cost-benefit analysis for Epic to decide where to host their app.

2. That's Epic's problem to deal with.

3. An entity with 50% of the market can have the same kind of market impacts as one with 90% of the market. Duopolies are a thing.

4. You should tell @I7guy that.

 

[dk001]

I suppose it's good for users to have the choice, but in all honesty I'll probably stick to the App Store for installing anything on my phone. I'm not up for battling a barrage of malware, and while the App Store isn't impenetrable, I've certainly never had any issues. Third-party stores are likely to be a bit of a fiasco, imho. I suppose there's some argument for the idea that poor security will drive customers away, so competition alone may keep security at a reasonable level. I guess we'll see.

Side loading on Android has been around for quite awhile. Unless you are into fringe apps or pirated / illegal stuff, malware and other issues are easy to stay away from. Many 3rd party stores put effort into keeping themselves free of this stuff.
If you have a 3rd party store that has a decent reputation, or poor reputation, word gets around pretty quick. The general 3rd party app store market is not the wild west some folks, including media, try to make it out to be.

 

[vipergts2207]

As far as ATT there is nothing to address, imo, this was the poster child of a lose/lose for the country.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

"The breakup of AT&T produced many immediate benefits for consumers. For many decades, AT&T did not allow users of their service to connect phones manufactured by other firms. They claimed these phones could degrade the quality of the network. AT&T also would not sell its own phones to consumers, so everyone had to rent phones from AT&T. The Baby Bells controlled the direct connections to consumers after the breakup, and they dropped these restrictions. There was soon a thriving market for selling phones to consumers. Phone prices dropped, quality increased, and renting phones faded away."

"The other significant benefit of the breakup of AT&T was competition in long-distance phone service. The Baby Bells allowed consumers to choose among long-distance carriers. Companies like MCI and Sprint (S) challenged AT&T in this market. As competition and technology progressed, long-distance charges fell. By 2019, many Americans no longer paid per-minute long-distance fees for calls within the country. However, per-minute charges were still common for calling foreign countries and smartphone plans."

AT&T's Successful Spinoffs

Find out why the breakup of AT&T into a number of spinoffs called the Baby Bells was one of the most successful spinoffs in the history of business.

www.investopedia.com

As an aside, why does the use of phony excuses to be allowed to maintain your large corporation's business model seem so familiar?? 🤔

 

[Michael Scrip]

Side loading on Android has been around for quite awhile. Unless you are into fringe apps or pirated / illegal stuff, malware and other issues are easy to stay away from. Many 3rd party stores put effort into keeping htemselves free of this stuff.
If you have a 3rd party store that has a decent reputation, or poor reputation, word gets around pretty quick. The general 3rd party app store market is not the wild west some folks, including media, try to make it out to be.

Are there any examples of developers favoring 3rd-party app stores on Android?

Like... "My app's sales were boosted 10x when I went to this other app store" ?

I know there are other app stores on Android... but we barely hear about them.

The largest smartphone manufacturer, Samsung, has their own Galaxy app store. But again... not much is said about it, good or bad.

I just think it's funny that people are practically begging Apple to allow 3rd-party app stores... yet Android has had them since the beginning and no one seems to care.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Nuno Lopes]

All we will have is a system where App Stores do not have the power to control digital goods and services and instead compete to be the best app hosts and stores possible. Users wil have the chance to fully choose where to buy their apps and digital services from without loosing their device functionality like in any other general purpose system. And devs will be able to choose where and how to sell their services regardless of their customers device choices.

The basic tenants of a free market: In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.

Apple will be fine so will devs.

 

[Mousse]

Epic is suing Google over Fortnite’s removal from the Google Play Store

Apple was just round one

www.theverge.com

“After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization,” the company said at the time, “Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage.”

Epic got it backwards here. Google doesn't put apps outside the PlayStore at a disadvantage, it gives apps in the PlayStore an advantage. There is a big difference. This what Epic claims would be the equivalent of saying Walmart puts street vendors at a disadvantage. No, Walmart creates a space where it's convenient for people to get the same items as what street vendors can offer, but in a safer environment. I see lots of street vendors selling fresh fruits and veggies. Most likely, they're fresher and cheaper than your local grocer's fair, but by and large, people get their fruits and vegs from the grocers.
Most people don't even know they can get apps outside of these appstores, so being listed in an appstore gives the developer an advantage.

 

[falkon-engine]

I am so sick of people trying to turn iOS INTO Android with this mess. You bought iPhone knowing full well its limitations on side-loading.

iOS will never be android Einstein, it’s a completely different kernel based on macOS (written in c and c++, and with its own security policies and mitigations) that runs on A-series processors.

You might support limitations on iOS user choice, support restrictions on legal trade between developers and users, and favor Apple exercising its dominance to keep competitors out of servicing App Store markets or in-app payment processing. But I’m glad we have government officials that don’t answer to people like you.

 

[visualseed]

All we will have is a system where App Stores do not have the power to control digital goods and services and instead compete to be the best app hosts and stores possible. Users wil have the chance to fully choose where to buy their apps and digital services from without loosing their device functionality like in any other general purpose system. And devs will be able to choose where and how to sell their services regardless of their customers device choices.

The basic tenants of a free market: In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.

Apple will be fine so will devs.

What happens when you get an AppStore that follows the Walmart business model? Full of inexpensive apps and very popular with consumers. Surviving entirely on volume sales. They can set the terms of who they allow in their store and set the pricing. If a quality app developer doesn’t like it, WallyApp will hire a dev team in Indonesia or somewhere to knock off their app and sell it for a $1. Sure, you may want to buy from the quality app developer, but you will be in the ever-shrinking minority and just to survive they will have to raise their prices to accommodate lower and lower sales volumes until they eventually can’t keep up. This is the model the free market always gravitates to.

 

[RobArtLyn]

Yep. Long time coming. Great news for most.

Potentially great news for a few large developers and that’s about it.

 

[BulkSlash]

I think I'd be more concerned for Apple if they hadn't decided to start treating me like a criminal and snooping through the contents of my device using up storage, memory, CPU time and battery life. They've broken my trust, so let's have third party app stores and then maybe a third party alternative to iCloud too.

 

[RobArtLyn]

I enjoy sarcasm as much as the next person, but the hysterics over the curated experience disappearing is unfounded based upon real world examples.

There have been some improvements the past few years, but the Play Store is much more “Wild West“ than curated.

 

[Sciomar]

That's literally the point of anti-trust laws. Standard Oil's product was oil. AT&T's was telephone service.

What in the actual false equivalence?! 🤣 AT&T built and hoarded, through various subsidiaries, a nationwide telecomm system and allowed no other company to put their equipment on it. Apple created the iPhone and put an app store on it, they do not own the cellular infrastructure and lock out competing cell phone designers from connecting. Are you trying to compare the nation's communications infrastructure to one of many app stores?

 

[jlc1978]

It's not even that Apple necessarily has a monopoly on its own product; it’s that Google and Apple comprise a duopoly where the market terms are essentially fixed regardless of which you choose. When Apple makes a change, Google often follows suit, and vice-versa. There is no real choice, and there is no real competition.

However, given 3rd party app stores for Android have never taken off it appears the consumer has spoken; marketplace success si not automatically illegal.

1. And they shouldn't get it. Google should be allowed to set their terms for their store, as long as they aren't artificially hobbling competitive stores and side-loading. At that point, it's just a cost-benefit analysis for Epic to decide where to host their app.

Given EPIC's experience with Android I'm guessing they will want to stay on the App Store and whine how unfair it is when Apple charges them for things that now are covered by the developer fee.

I'm curious how EPIC re respond when they realize these rules will probably apply to their current app store and game engine as well, even if it is not for mobile phones?

3. An entity with 50% of the market can have the same kind of market impacts as one with 90% of the market. Duopolies are a thing.

That, however, does not make them an illegal monopoly.

 

[RobArtLyn]

That's literally the point of anti-trust laws. Standard Oil's product was oil. AT&T's was telephone service.

You could not buy oil from anyone else. You could not get long distance phone service from anyone else. Millions of people live happy, productive lives buying mobile phones from someone other than Apple.

 

[I7guy]

1. And they shouldn't get it. Google should be allowed to set their terms for their store, as long as they aren't artificially hobbling competitive stores and side-loading. At that point, it's just a cost-benefit analysis for Epic to decide where to host their app.

2. That's Epic's problem to deal with.

3. An entity with 50% of the market can have the same kind of market impacts as one with 90% of the market. Duopolies are a thing.

4. You should tell @I7guy that.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

"The breakup of AT&T produced many immediate benefits for consumers. For many decades, AT&T did not allow users of their service to connect phones manufactured by other firms. They claimed these phones could degrade the quality of the network. AT&T also would not sell its own phones to consumers, so everyone had to rent phones from AT&T. The Baby Bells controlled the direct connections to consumers after the breakup, and they dropped these restrictions. There was soon a thriving market for selling phones to consumers. Phone prices dropped, quality increased, and renting phones faded away."

"The other significant benefit of the breakup of AT&T was competition in long-distance phone service. The Baby Bells allowed consumers to choose among long-distance carriers. Companies like MCI and Sprint (S) challenged AT&T in this market. As competition and technology progressed, long-distance charges fell. By 2019, many Americans no longer paid per-minute long-distance fees for calls within the country. However, per-minute charges were still common for calling foreign countries and smartphone plans."

AT&T's Successful Spinoffs

Find out why the breakup of AT&T into a number of spinoffs called the Baby Bells was one of the most successful spinoffs in the history of business.

www.investopedia.com

As an aside, why does the use of phony excuses to be allowed to maintain your large corporation's business model seem so familiar?? 🤔

IMO, I see it differently. So it's not just a matter of being "plain wrong." At any rate, what doesn't translate for a win for society, government should keep their mitts off. And my opinion, there is justification to show this current legislation is not a win.

 

[visualseed]

We've been over this before and you didn't address what I had said, but perhaps you will this time. You're complaining about the current mobile service options not being consumer friendly while ignoring that the original AT&T that was broken up 40 years ago have largely been allowed to re-agglomerate into the modern AT&T and Verizon, controlling almost 3/4 of the U.S. market. AT&T is now made up of what were formerly the baby bells of Bellsouth, AT&T Corp, Ameritech, Pacific Telesis, and Southwestern Bell. Verizon is made up of Bell Atlantic and NYNEX. Your argument makes no sense because it's premised on a reality that no longer exists. As far as Verizon not finishing FIOS, I fully agree they should be punished for that.

If current laws and regulations are insufficient to create the intended results, new laws and regulations can be created, which is what is going on here.

Most people misunderstand the AT&T breakup. I won’t go into all the details here, but the only semi-positive thing it did was lower long distance rates. Everything else was a total cluster-f. Everyone’s phone bill went up. Quality of service fell drastically and the Regional Bells had to start nickel and diming customers to make up long distance revenue they were no longer geting because they were forbidden by the government from being in the long distance business who also decided to regulate the amount they could charge for interconnect fees making it nearly impossible to afford to maintain their network infrastructure. It is estimated that the “breakup” delayed broadband internet in the US by as much as a decade and cost the economy a few trillion dollars in missed opportunities. It’s also why you are more likely to buy internet access from your cable company today instead of a “phone company.” But hey, MCI got a brief opportunity to create value for shareholders before imploding.

 

[I7guy]

I think I'd be more concerned for Apple if they hadn't decided to start treating me like a criminal and snooping through the contents of my device using up storage, memory, CPU time and battery life. They've broken my trust, so let's have third party app stores and then maybe a third party alternative to iCloud too.

Can bet the farm the above won't happen.

 

[visualseed]

IMO, I see it differently. So it's not just a matter of being "plain wrong." At any rate, what doesn't translate for a win for society, government should keep their mitts off. And my opinion, there is justification to show this current legislation is not a win.

There are great postmortems of this done at 1 year, 5 years, and 20 years after that show how much of a disaster it was. Everyone talks about cheap long distance, but most residential customers rarely made long distance calls. That was the realm of business. AT&T was using high LD rates to subsidize their regional and local services to keep rates down which were regulated by state and local utility commissions and still pay for the infrastructure to provide service. After the breakup everyone’s bill went up. In the ’80s and ‘90s home telephone service got really expensive. Sure, you could now buy a Spiderman telephone from RadioShack or choose MCI or Sprint as your LD carrier but your monthly bill was 30 to 40% higher and that was before the ala-cart extras like Caller-ID or *69. Not to mention regional and “local-long distance” calls were as costly as staggering drunk down a dark ally with your wallet in hand.

 

[macsimcon]

This is why people hate the Democrats, this right here. There were originally half a dozen players in the mobile market. Two of those players, Google and Apple, dominated. They didn't do so through anticompetitive behavior, they produced superior products, and consumers responded by buying those products.

Microsoft, Blackberry, Palm, and Danger were eliminated by consumer choice. Democrats trying to force competition into a market which was created by competition is itself anticompetitive.