U.S. Bills Allowing Sideloading Would Cause Consumers to Be Hit With 'Malware, Ransomware, and Scams,' Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
JoshNori
macrumors regular
This official cover-up story is so phony and boring. So sick of iOS’s limitations and them forcing Safari down my throat. Autofilling addresses and information I’ve entered in 10,000 times doesn’t even work. We have this pathetic excuse for AI, but the phone isn’t intelligent enough to fill in my email correctly 100% of the time? What a joke. We need competition. They can easily facilitate a secure and zero-knowledge security with extremely strong enforcements on OS and filesystem access and even innovate on existing open standards such as authentication. The lion’s share of the work is already done. They simply choose not to, and their iMessage maneuvering is a dead giveaway that this is all a big fat lie. Their Advanced Data Protection should be how the cloud worked all along, and it’s exactly how the on-device interaction should work as well. The US must pass these bills now for the security and decentralization of Apple’s China-envying centrality.
This has become the movie Antitrust. They steal from the open source community, build on top of it, then try and own everything. Where is Ryan Phillippe? Only bad acting from a teenage heartthrob can save us now.
This has become the movie Antitrust. They steal from the open source community, build on top of it, then try and own everything. Where is Ryan Phillippe? Only bad acting from a teenage heartthrob can save us now.
It's about as far from their job to decide this as you can get.
But why? Just because you don't like it? Who are you to force them to do anything? I don't get it. Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
I want them to do different things too. I don't believe I'm entitled to force them to though.
They're for actual anti-trust situations. Not "Apple is really successful so now we get to carve them up the way we want".
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
You aren't and neither am I. Democratically elected government and its laws though is (in some limited circumstances and market situations in most countries).
And the justification this particular case is simple: Apple‘s iOS and Google‘s Android OS and their associated „first-party“ app store have become too important for society and the economy, for dozens of millions of user and hundreds of thousands of businesses (in the U.S. alone) to leave them unregulated and at the whim of their respective „owners“ (acting as gatekeepers).
An assessment that becoming shared by many and lawmakers in developed countries across the world (and that‘s neither coincidence nor an evil conspiracy orchestrated by Epic, Netflix and Spotify).
Nobody will be carved up. Apple's terms, conditions and rules - their business conduct - would just be subject to some additional but limited rules.
And it's not about Apple being successful with their OS and phone business. It's about them unfairly leveraging their success against competition in many other markets. And about them charging anticompetitive rates on whole industries that can't afford to ignore their app distribution platform. So yes, actual anti-trust situations.
Last edited:
You put way too much thought into a flawed theory. Android is way more exposed and you can side load. QED
This is an actual antitrust situation. We are talking about a dominant company (Apple/iOS has around 58% share of mobile OS in the U.S.) that is part of a duopoly with Google/Android and is engaging in anticompetitive behavior (restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative payments systems, alternative browser engines, etc.). These are the kinds of things antitrust laws and regulations are supposed to address.
Dominant company means nothing. They are not providing a critical service. They are providing luxury technology gadgets. You have no right to regulate them. None whatsoever.
Michael Scrip
macrumors G3
I wonder if Apple would be getting the same amount of scrutiny if there were more than two players?
Imagine Apple had all their same policies... but there were three players in the market:
34% - iOS
33% - Android
33% - Blackberry
Apple would still be "dominant" according to that chart... but the market would be spread out a little more.
We always talk about duopoly like it's a dirty word. But we have to remember that Apple didn't choose to become part of a duopoly. When Apple got into the phone market... there were actually many players. Android was also a newcomer to the market around that same time.
But the reason iOS and Android are still here today is because they were desirable platforms. Apple and Google made such good products that people chose them instead of Palm, Blackberry, Windows Phone, Symbian, etc.
My point is... would governments have problems with Apple's behavior regarding app stores, payments, browsers, etc if they were 34% of three players instead of 58% of two players?
Last edited:
It's ENTIRELY about that. Stop pretending.
Of course dominant companies mean something and governments have every right to apply antitrust laws and regulations to those companies, at least of they are believed to be engaging in anticompetitive behavior or unfair business/market practices.
Antitrust laws and regulations are about dominant companies and their activities in and control of a particular market.
In that scenario, the market would have a greater number of (major) players and would be more evenly divided. No single company would have more 50% share. How dominance may be defined by regulations or in court can vary.
It doesn’t matter if they "chose to" become part of a duopoly or not. Also, being part of a duopoly is not necessarily illegal. The potential legal issues come in from that combined with anticompetitive behavior. It's about both together.
Antitrust laws and regulations are about dominant companies and their activities in and control of a particular market.
Nope. Dominant companies selling optional luxury goods that no one actually needs are far from being under the authority of the federal government.
The internet has taught you people that you can force your will upon anyone so long as you gather enough pushes of the like button. That isn't how the real world works.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
They are providing an increasingly critical service.
No one is stopping Apple from providing these gadgets and selling them.
It’s only their operating system and App Store that will be required to follow some additional rules.
And stop pretending they‘re just luxury gadgets. When all of my banks offer an iOS app, some of them even require it for (free) 2nd factor authentication, all of my public transport services offer online ticketing but less and less service announcements in-person ticketing options and and live timetables, and all my children are keeping in touch with their friend on the preferred choice of messenger…
It is not merely a luxury gadget anymore. Stop pretending.
It’s not me or webkit personally claiming a right to do so.
Governments can do it. And they seem increasingly willing to do so by way of new laws.
And I could just shrug and walk away from this discussion.
It’s not just a few entitled guys on random online forums. Stop pretending.
No, it’s not. It‘s about their stranglehold on app distribution and unfair competing in other markets. No one is preventing Apple from being successful and no one is punishing them for having been successful.
Success doesn’t mean you can do everything you please - not even with the very things and businesses that made you so successful.
No one needs the internet, when you can go to the post office and mail a letter.
No one needs gasoline, when you can do your grocery-shopping on a horse-drawn carriage (the Amish are proving it everyday).
You act like these things just existed and Apple came in and took them over. Apple INVENTED mobile app distribution. They invented iOS, the App Store, and everything in between. These are not utilitarian things that you're entitled to.
And the way you keep detaching yourself from the government...you clearly don't understand what the government is.
Michael Scrip
macrumors G3
Microsoft "invented" Windows... but they still got slapped-down by the US Government.
🤣
Given how many iPhones are sold and used in the U.S., I think calling them a "luxury good" is debatable. Regardless, there is no U.S. antitrust exception for companies that sell "luxury" goods. Those types of companies are subject to the same antitrust laws and regulations as others.
Apple didn't "invent" mobile app distribution. App stores existed before the launch of the iPhone and iPod Touch in 2007. From Wikipedia:
Smartphone app stores
In September 2003 Danger Inc. released an over-the-air update for T-Mobile Sidekick devices which included a new catalog application called Download Fun, also known as the Catalog or Premium Download Manager (PDM). This was one of the first notable app stores on a smartphone with a framework similar to what we see today with the Apple App Store. The Download Fun catalog allowed users to download ringtones and applications directly to their device and be billed through their wireless carrier. Third party developers could develop native Java based applications using Danger's free SDK and submit them for distribution in the Catalog.
In October 2003 Handango introduced an on-device app store for finding, installing and buying software for Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 devices. App download and purchasing are completed directly on the device so sync with a computer is not necessary. Description, rating and screenshot are available for any app.
In 2006 Nokia introduced Nokia Catalogs, later known as Nokia Download!, for Symbian smartphones which had access to downloadable apps—originally via third-parties like Handango or Jambal but from mid-2006 Nokia were offering their own content via the Nokia Content Discoverer.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
But you do?Well, I hate to... no, actually I love to break it to you...
If you think government is restricted from "having authority" over and regulating only things one "actually needs", you couldn't be more wrong.
Hardly anyone "actually needs" a dead tree in their living room. Yet there government regulations and required permits for growing, cutting and selling christmas trees. Even in the self-proclaimed land of the free, the United States of America
👉 Government is in the business of regulating what a majority of people want. Not necessarily need.
That is not to say that most people explicitly want side-loading or alternative app stores. But they clearly want to use smartphones, paid apps and online services. And government (at least given certain market conditions) is regulating the markets in which those sought-after products/services are demanded, paid for and delivered.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Not true. They are in the business of regulating what they want and not what is necessarily good for consumers. Of course what is good for consumers can be hotly debated.
Thank god for everyone that you are completely wrong about this.
ponzicoinbro
Suspended
End all the crypto crimes.
End all the scam support centers.
End all the malware infected warez.
End all the intelligence companies who operate troll farms and try to hack phones and distrupt elections.
Then we can talk about side loading.
The discussion so far is backwards and the wrong way around.
But I bet because politicians are getting dark money donations from the criminals above they are trying to profit from our phones being hacked and users getting scammed.
End all the scam support centers.
End all the malware infected warez.
End all the intelligence companies who operate troll farms and try to hack phones and distrupt elections.
Then we can talk about side loading.
The discussion so far is backwards and the wrong way around.
But I bet because politicians are getting dark money donations from the criminals above they are trying to profit from our phones being hacked and users getting scammed.