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

[GermanSuplex]

I don’t think this bill will get far. This absolutely falls under the same category as the “gay wedding cake baker” case, and is arguably even worse as there’s virtually no discrimination being made by Apple here. They designed the device, they designed the software, the App Store can absolutely be seen much like a physical store with a “No shirt, no shoes, no service sign”. Follow their rules and your app can land on its store on it devices.

People are saying “don’t use a different App Store if you don’t want to”, but the same logic can be applied in Apple’s defense - “don’t buy an iPhone if you don’t like Apple’s system”.

This is a slippery slope.

 

[macsimcon]

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.

But there WAS competition. Apple and Google won, while Microsoft, Palm, Blackberry, and Danger lost. That was a fair fight. It's not like Microsoft was a startup fighting giants who could devour it. Consumers chose, and they chose Apple and Google.

Are you suggesting that government should intervene when fair competition results in a winner? This isn't Standard Oil or the cable industry. There was no underhanded antitrust behavior, Apple and Google won their dominance fairly.

This is a perfect example of how our system is supposed to work. Hell, neither one of these two companies can convince consumers to give them all the business. Neither one can achieve total market dominance, and these are two competitors with virtually unlimited resources.

 

[macsimcon]

I don’t think this bill will get far. This absolutely falls under the same category as the “gay wedding cake baker” case, and is arguably even worse as there’s virtually no discrimination being made by Apple here. They designed the device, they designed the software, the App Store can absolutely be seen much like a physical store with a “No shirt, no shoes, no service sign”. Follow their rules and your app can land on its store on it devices.

People are saying “don’t use a different App Store if you don’t want to”, but the same logic can be applied in Apple’s defense - “don’t buy an iPhone if you don’t like Apple’s system”.

This is a slippery slope.

And if you don't like the terms of Apple's platform, you can use Android, and you WILL have a choice of app stores. I don't see what the problem is here. Android is open, and Apple is curated. The consumer can choose what he or she wants.

 

[vipergts2207]

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?

Clearly you've misunderstood what I said. In any case, I'll address the part that actually applies here. There are not one of many app stores for 50% of smartphone users. For iPhone users, there is but one store.

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

I never said it did. Not being an illegal monopoly however, doesn't mean you can't be subject to laws and regulations or be the target of new ones.

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.

I cannot buy apps through anyone else other than Apple on my phone. You may not see that as an issue, but clearly lawmakers do. Shall home builders be allowed to dictate where home buyers buy their furniture and groceries from to put in their house? Coincidentally the home goods and grocery store where the home builder gets a 30% kickback.

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.

I'm sure some folks were saying the same thing when AT&T was being broken up.

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.

The part of the AT&T breakup they got wrong was not addressing the fact each baby bell then became a monopoly in their market. That's why local rates were able to be increased while long-distance rates went down. Of course the problem still goes back to a company being a monopoly, in the case of the baby bells, regional rather than national.

 

[jlc1978]

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.

Actually you could buy oil from others (but very few) and pre breakup there was MCI for cheaper log distance. As for oil, SO dropped the price of crude by 2/3s from what it sold before they became a monopoly.

This is why people hate the Democrats, this right here.

There's an (R) on the bill's sponsors as well.

I never said it did. Not being an illegal monopoly however, doesn't mean you can't be subject to laws and regulations or be the target of new ones.

True, the question is what and how. Every law has unintended consequences.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Before we worry about app store "monopolies"... can we breakup the utilities first?

I'd love a competitor to Duke Energy. Actually... I deserve it. I have a right to fair competition.

I think that's more important than having multiple stores to download Evernote from...

 

[I7guy]

[...]


I'm sure some folks were saying the same thing when AT&T was being broken up.
[...]

And there are differing views on that. I view it as a American failure...just like this proposed legislation will be if it goes through. As was already said, putting anticompetitive laws in place to foster competition is a lose/lose.

 

[Smearbrick]

Then explain why the play store only makes a fraction the iOS store does with so much larger instal base.

Do you have supporting data back this up?

Also, is the cause of the lower profits (if they exist) due to piracy, more free apps than Apple, or sideloading of legit apps that have a paid alternative in the Play Store?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Are you suggesting that government should intervene when fair competition results in a winner?

Yes - because society keeps going.

It's not a single football game where we are working to find the "winner" and we all just live with the results and ramifications forever.

 

[Smearbrick]

A great disturbance in the force, As if millions of whiny developers that want everything for free, scammers, and terrorists suddenly cheered in victory.

Hope these politicians remember this when a third party app leads to the next 9/11.

Yep… Remember how that insecure app was installed on a bunch of peoples’ phones and 19 terrorists used that information to hijack planes and attack the U.S.?

This may be the dumbest invocation of the “what about 9/11” argument I’ve heard yet.

 

[RedRage]

Cool. Apple will now have to hire even more people to man their Genius Bars when people bring in malware laden iPhones and go "I sideloaded this game...but it mess it up with Moose porn malware...fix it..."

Apply for a job now, they're going to need it!

I don't care what other people do with their phones.

Everyone's argument here is always other people messing up their phones. Other people's phones are not my issue. I don't care if you mess up your phone or my neighbor messes up their phone. We're adults. We don't need apple holding our hand everywhere.

 

[bushman4]

Side loading won’t help the developers as people will get the Apps from Torent sites and the Apps may be corrupt in that they may contain malware etc

 

[Smearbrick]

Side loading won’t help the developers as people will get the Apps from Torent sites and the Apps may be corrupt in that they may contain malware etc

You are about a day behind. That argument was already made and put down. Please keep up.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yep… Remember how that insecure app was installed on a bunch of peoples’ phones and 19 terrorists used that information to hijack planes and attack the U.S.?

This may be the dumbest invocation of the “what about 9/11” argument I’ve heard yet.

Remember that?

Was crazy... it was like a Nokia or Windows Mobile app or something wasn't it?
(my memory is fuzzy)

I think it was called "Let's do Terrorist Stuff - PDA edition"

 

[I7guy]

I don't care what other people do with their phones.

Everyone's argument here is always other people messing up their phones. Other people's phones are not my issue. I don't care if you mess up your phone or my neighbor messes up their phone. We're adults. We don't need apple holding our hand everywhere.

Sideloading, third party app store are akin imo to putting a garbage dump behind an apartment complex. Some people may not notice, may not care, but having a big, smelly garbage dump behind an apartment complex is not the greatest thing for the apartment complex.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

I think this was the real reason for the closed Apple ecosystem from the get go. Not so much security for the consumers but (revenue) security for developers.

That why I don't think Developers are complaining about having just Apple's App Store, perhaps just Epic and a few other copycats.

 

[Analog Kid]

I don’t know much about the original incident from which the term was coined but the practice is still going on according to a recent article I read.

Any chance you can find that article again?

I'm not worried about companies adopting good ideas they find elsewhere, that happens all the time and Apple is victim to it as much as anyone. If you think an idea is novel and valuable, patent it. I would be bothered if there was evidence of a strategic effort by Apple to prevent an app going to market while they clone its functionality though, as you'd suggested earlier.

I suspect what we'll find though is unfounded suspicion driven by distrust of the review process rather than evidence of theft. Apple would have to hold back an application for a very long time in order to see it, pillage it, then release their own version.

An exception might be something like what they did with content blockers, to crack down on some of the hidden VPN type approaches that were funneling user data to third parties-- I seem to remember Apple blocking those and then integrating a more privacy focused approach into Safari itself.

 

[bousozoku]

How do you handle that concern on macOS right now?

How I handle it isn't as important as how those who have no technical knowledge handle it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

How I handle it isn't as important as how those who have no technical knowledge handle it.

That wasn't my question.

 

[gregmancuso]

Finally!! Big win for everybody!!

Absolutely not. This is big with for developers like Epic.

Forcing Apple to allow third-party app stores will remove one key differentiator between Android and iOS. I don't want to side load not do I want alternate app stores. And saying "just don't enable it" it very short-sighted. Multiple app stores leads to app availability issues. This means that I will HAVE to allow side loading or alt stores in order to have access to all apps. In many cases that is probably OK. I could just choose to use an alternative app. But there will be cases where an essential app is only available via alternate paths. So it is no loger a choice to enable or not.

This is a net negative to all but the largest developers (or most vocal minority developers and "geek" users). I am a bit of a geek user. I have been a developer for decades. I used to jailbreak my phone. I have an iOS developer account and have written a few apps (for personal use - never put on the store). But I don't want this on my iPhone. I have an Android phone as well that I can do this on if I really want to.

Result of this legislation as reported:

1. iOS and Android are now functionally equivalent (removes a key differentiator)
2. iOS app discovery gets worse than it is currently is as users need to search multiple stores
3. Need to allow alternate app stores and side load will become required over time
4. Higher costs to developers is inevitable which is severely hurt smaller developers
5. App innovation will decrease - many of the smaller devs come up with the more innovative apps; large devs are looking for franchises only
6. Costs to users will go up as developer costs go up
7. The freemium and subscription "raping of users' wallets" will continue and get worse.

This comment is based on the reported scope of the legislation. I will be reading he draft later today.

Also, I know this reads as rather hyperbolic, but I really am hard pressed to find positives here. Android already allows all this so why do we need it on iOS too? They are different platforms with different sell points. And for the legislation to call out Google as a target for these "remediations" shows a lack of understanding of the market they trying to "open."

 

[turbineseaplane]

This cracks me up to see people so up in arms about Apple maybe having to act like "every other platform".

On Windows I get games from the MS store, Epic Store, Steam, Origin..
(Same for macOS - but I don't by games, but get Apps from all over the web)

The phone in the pocket is literally the same device with a smaller screen.
It's all just computers.

Multiple app sources is all just fine and better for them all respectively to run their payment, ownership and update methodologies as they see fit -- and it allows for great consumer choice and competition.

I honestly think some of you are just mentally trapped in Apple's talking points and defenses of its money making racket.


(Before anyone says it - yes I'd be fine with consoles having to act like this also!)

 

[PlayUltimate]

If I recall correctly, Epic is also suing Google because its too difficult to side-load on Android.

Lawsuit was not about difficulty. Lawsuit was same as the one against Apple re: sales commission. Truth was nobody was taking advantage of side loading.

 

[dk001]

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)_/¯

I have no real idea. Never looked into that aspect of it.
I usually get apps from them that for whatever reason Google doesn’t have or stopped carrying.
Personally I think the landscape in the Android environment is mature enough that conversations like we are having about Apple are a thing of the past.

 

[PlayUltimate]

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.

Tend to agree. The separation of local from long distance created a number of somewhat shady long distance providers. It opened up payphones to even more egregious behavior. But as was discussed, consolidation reoccurred.

 

[dk001]

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.

Also a reason most cost apps in the App Store are in-app purchase types.