U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Another Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading on iPhone

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple's privacy and security arguments are valid; but the motivation for making the argument is profit. They want to control the experience to keep extracting their fees.

Apple's publisher fees are a fraction of what fees were for traditional software publishing back in the day. When a publisher would take 50-60%, or even more, for software that was sold in boxes and distributed through retailers. And the retailer still got their cut! Selling a piece of software for $30 and making a couple of bucks for each copy wasn't uncommon. When the App store was first released, that 30% cut was celebrated. And that's what happens. People get used to it, and then want more.

I find myself fairly torn. This is Apple's platform that they've built. Is it a monopoly? Kind of? Except that there really is healthy competition. Consumers can choose excellent Android devices that allow sideloading. Even jailbreaking has significantly lost interest to consumers. Consumers don't appear to be foaming at the mouth to sideload apps; though many would if given the opportunity.

My biggest concern from a consumer standpoint is that all of the businesses demanding "choice" now won't offer it to consumers once one of these goes through. Once Apple can no longer force companies to use the App store for purchases, we may be back to the way things used to be. You had to go to a specific website to buy a specific app and download it. Apps in the app store may actually STOP allowing IAP, and force consumers to another site when you click the button to buy through a third party processor that charges less. Not all apps will do this; plenty will recognize that the convenience of the app store drives up sales. But big apps like Netflix and others will; because there's enough consumer demand that consumers will be willing to go through that extra step. Consumers won't even be given the choice of using the App stores own payment processing.

but did best buy want 30% of your Cable tv sub + 30% of each PPV?
Did they take 30% of your WOW sub fees?

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Politicians are cheap especially the radicalised ones who want to break privacy and take bribes from data hungry firms.

Installing apps on desktop operating systems isn't considered side loading.

But we now live in an age of ransomware and massive attacks on networks by state actors. Companies like Apple and Microsoft have done a lot of work to mitigate this but hackers and malware coders are always two steps ahead.

Anyone who advocates side loading is either ignorant or a beneficiary of cyber attacks. People who own crypto benefit from ransomware demands. That's who to point the finger to when you see people with this anti-privacy and anti-security worldview. They are dangerously radicalised and don't care if they profit from cyber crime.

apple needs an adults only part of the app store and an no political censorship area if they want to keep store only

 

[jlc1978]

This is just sad. Third-party app stores sound like a great way to get the malware. Say goodbye to privacy and security.

Our privacy will be on the line and we will be exposed to the malware. I really hope Apple will find a way to stop this. The government should really stay out of this.

Actually section 4 gives Apple a big out:

SEC. 4. PROTECTING THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF USERS.

(a) In General.—Subject to section (b), a Covered Company shall not be in violation of a subsection of section 3 for an action that is—
(1) necessary to achieve user privacy, security, or digital safety;
(2) taken to prevent spam or fraud; or
(3) taken to prevent a violation of, or comply with, Federal or State law.

(b) Requirements.—Section (a) shall only apply if the Covered Company establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the action described is—
(1) applied on a demonstrably consistent basis to Apps of the Covered Company or its business partners and to other Apps;
(2) not used as a pretext to exclude, or impose unnecessary or discriminatory terms on, third-party Apps, In-App Payment Systems, or App Stores; and
(3) narrowly tailored and could not be achieved through a less discriminatory and technically possible means.

Security will be the way Apple makes it tough to side load and drives people to the App Store. I suspect Apple may change its fee structure to make teh App Store more attractive and 3rd party stores less.

Do these car manufacturers have more than 50 million US users?

No, but EPIC does. Or, as they put it:

Why does the Epic Games Store make exclusivity deals?
Exclusives are a part of the growth of many successful platforms for games and for other forms of digital entertainment, such as streaming video and music.

Epic works in partnership with developers and publishers to offer games exclusively on the store. In exchange for exclusivity, Epic provides them with financial support for development and marketing, which enables them to build more polished games with significantly less uncertainty for the creators.

In addition, creators will earn 88% of all the revenue from their game, while most stores only offer 70%.

I wonder how they will feel when, if it passes, the law impacts them. While everyone is seeing it as an Apple issue, the law is pretty broad.

 

[turbineseaplane]

But we now live in an age of ransomware and massive attacks on networks by state actors. Companies like Apple and Microsoft have done a lot of work to mitigate this but hackers and malware coders are always two steps ahead.

Anyone who advocates side loading is either ignorant or a beneficiary of cyber attacks. People who own crypto benefit from ransomware demands. That's who to point the finger to when you see people with this anti-privacy and anti-security worldview. They are dangerously radicalised and don't care if they profit from cyber crime.

Easy chief...

We are advocating for code signed apps still
(just like is the third party norm on macOS unless explicity opted out of ).

You are throwing up scary sounding stuff that is not a concern here simply by getting code signed apps from other locations than Apple's specific distribution point.

 

[boss.king]

Anyone who advocates side loading is either ignorant or a beneficiary of cyber attacks.

I thought I had already seen the craziest thing I would read today, but then I saw this.

 

[metapunk2077fail]

Easy chief...

We are advocating for code signed apps still
(just like is the third party norm on macOS unless explicity opted out of ).

We still don't know what it will look like. If side loading still requires strong permissions from Apple then it might not be a danger.

If side loading only requires user acceptance then there are hundreds of ways of bypassing security measures.

 

[Erwin-Br]

I love how people go out of their way to make absurd (and inaccurate!) comparisons like Target selling Walmart items, while the most obvious comparison is not in their favour, which is how we are allowed to buy things outside of the store on our Macs.

 

[turbineseaplane]

We still don't know what it will look like. If side loading still requires strong permissions from Apple then it might not be a danger.

If side loading only requires user acceptance then there are hundreds of ways of bypassing security measures.

Let's at least start from a point of assumption that it would be pretty similar to macOS.

Apple has done a great job making a safe 3rd party environment there -- that is still open to nearly infinite flexibility for those that seek it.

That's the model.
Let's work from that

 

[metapunk2077fail]

I thought I had already seen the craziest thing I would read today, but then I saw this.

So you have nothing to say. It's people like you who are heading for danger, either through these policies or in other spaces.

 

[boss.king]

I love how people go out of their way to make absurd (and inaccurate!) comparisons like Target selling Walmart items, while the most obvious comparison is not in their favour, which is how we are allowed to buy things outside of the store on our Macs.

That's exactly why they have to turn to insane, contrived analogies—because the sane ones don't support their argument.

 

[turbineseaplane]

So you have nothing to say. It's people like you who are heading for danger, either through these policies or in other spaces.

You're paranoid rambling about crypto and ransomware
It's way off topic here

 

[Analog Kid]

A simpler solution is for you to simply opt out of downloading those apps. It even requires zero effort on your part.

By definition, a simpler zero-effort solution for me is for nothing to change from a system I'm currently quite happy with.

 

[4tune8chance]

Question, if apple is forced to allow side loading, can it be stopped at the device level? E.g. “the app you want to download does not meet security standards” it then needs apple to review the app to get approval.

 

[boss.king]

So you have nothing to say. It's people like you who are heading for danger, either through these policies or in other spaces.

I doubt at this point that you'd listen to anything I have to say, nor would I be saying anything that hasn't been said before in this thread and many others. I just wanted to acknowledge that you take is truly off the rails.

 

[JGIGS]

when did it become “sideloading” on the Mac? when the Mac App Store came out, was everything else “sideloading”?

Technically kinda? lol

 

[turbineseaplane]

Question, if apple is forced to allow side loading, can it be stopped at the device level? E.g. “the app you want to download does not meet security standards” it then needs apple to review the app to get approval.

Gatekeeper (macOS) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Erwin-Br]

Installing apps on desktop operating systems isn't considered side loading.

Semantics. Technically it is exactly that. You're installing an unverified app from outside the curated walls of the App Store. It's just that the term didn't exist yet before the iPhone.

But we now live in an age of ransomware and massive attacks on networks by state actors. Companies like Apple and Microsoft have done a lot of work to mitigate this but hackers and malware coders are always two steps ahead.

Hackers will always be two steps ahead and I'll tell you a secret: They will get you by opening an email or a website. Heck, they can even get you by viewing a picture on a website. A walled App Store is not going to save you. If you are really scared and want to be safe, just ditch your internet connection and use your phone for calls only. You know, what they once were used for.

 

[vipergts2207]

Actually section 4 gives Apple a big out:

SEC. 4. PROTECTING THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF USERS.

(a) In General.—Subject to section (b), a Covered Company shall not be in violation of a subsection of section 3 for an action that is—
(1) necessary to achieve user privacy, security, or digital safety;
(2) taken to prevent spam or fraud; or
(3) taken to prevent a violation of, or comply with, Federal or State law.

(b) Requirements.—Section (a) shall only apply if the Covered Company establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the action described is—
(1) applied on a demonstrably consistent basis to Apps of the Covered Company or its business partners and to other Apps;
(2) not used as a pretext to exclude, or impose unnecessary or discriminatory terms on, third-party Apps, In-App Payment Systems, or App Stores; and
(3) narrowly tailored and could not be achieved through a less discriminatory and technically possible means.

Security will be the way Apple makes it tough to side load and drives people to the App Store. I suspect Apple may change its fee structure to make teh App Store more attractive and 3rd party stores less.

The bold part is rather important and will prevent Apple from any shenanigans trying to get around the law.

 

[vipergts2207]

By definition, a simpler zero-effort solution for me is for nothing to change from a system I'm currently quite happy with.

It's not simpler for you. Neither require any action on your part.

 

[Grohowiak]

"...Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Asimov
This quote is used a lot recently but it is so accurate.

A lot of this in this thread.
The absolute fear of losing one or two apps to a developer that decides to pull it out of appstore (biggest potential issue here at play) creates a fearmongering culture that to protect its own interests hides behind some bogus claims pretending to "care" about everybody.

lmao what a circus.

 

[Analog Kid]

I love how people go out of their way to make absurd (and inaccurate!) comparisons like Target selling Walmart items, while the most obvious comparison is not in their favour, which is how we are allowed to buy things outside of the store on our Macs.

I love how people go out of their way to focus on bad analogies while the underlying argument is not in their favor, which is keep the Government's hands off my technology choices.

I don't want Congress to legislate that Macs must buy through a common app store, and I don't want Congress to legislate that iPhone must not require apps purchased through a common app store. Personally, I would like to see Mac Apps more consolidated through one App Store and payment system and would support moving more in that direction but I also understand that the Mac is a different beast than the iPhone/iPad and may justify a different usage model.

With minimal negative externalities, and since neither I, nor Senator Soandso, should be making that decision for every consumer, then it seems a perfect parameter to leave to the great Free Market Innovation Engine. If sideloading and alternative app stores and payment systems in mobile devices is really a priority to the consumer, then we should see Android steadily gain market share. If people really want something that doesn't exist in the marketplace today, then a whole new ecosystem sounds like a great investment opportunity.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

It should not surprise me that the least innovative group of people alive think that they can do something that increases innovation. Yeah, attacking Apple and Google, two companies that enabled a renaissance, is going to help a lot. I am not even a fan of walled gardens but know that these guys can only cause more harm than good.

 

[StupidOpinion]

By definition, a simpler zero-effort solution for me is for nothing to change from a system I'm currently quite happy with.

just because YOU'RE happy with it, does not mean that others are as well. macrumors is a pretty biased forum. many of the people here are "apple fanboys" and many are also financially invested into this company. however, when you ask the majority of apple users about their opinion, many of them will be pro-sideloading. because sideloading is optional from the user's perspective, i don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Wildkraut]

Apple really needs to realize that while its "my way or the highway" approach works remarkably well on its users and developers, Uncle Sam is much bigger bully than it could ever hope to be.

Apple needs to realize that the markets don't have play Apples game, it's Apple who must play the markets game.
These laws exists, and new ones will be set up to safeguard competition, innovation and ensure that the overall economy stays healthy.

Apple is just too bigheaded, and the governments around the world were just to slow and shortsighted to notice and tackle this earlier.

Thanks EPIC for throwing the first stone, you won't be forgotten.

 

[vipergts2207]

I love how people go out of their way to focus on bad analogies while the underlying argument is not in their favor, which is keep the Government's hands off my technology choices.

You guys wouldn't need to keep regurgitating all these bad analogies if your position in this debate wasn't so poor in the first place.