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

[huge_apple_fangirl]

If this passes, be prepared for serious limitations/costs on the use of Apple's SDK. Apple owns their system. There will always be restrictions put upon developers to access it.

It probably wouldn't be legal for Apple to cripple non-App Store apps like that.

People are constantly suggesting "clever" loopholes for Apple to defeat antitrust legislation without realizing that Apple is already taking this incredibly immature approach in South Korea and the Netherlands, and the response from regulators hasn't been "Oh, gee Apple, you got us! I guess we can't do anything then."

 

[PlayUltimate]

Remember one key thing

Apple needs developers every bit as much (if not more) than developers need Apple.

iPhones will not sell as they do if third party apps are purposely hamstrung in strange ways just to try to force an outcome Apple prefers.

Perhaps. . . . Apple can easily change the store's distribution model from one of consignment to one of retail. At this point, nearly anyone can create an app and get it approved for sale in the store. Apple could turn that model off and start to sell apps at Apple's chosen price and pay developers at a wholesale price. This is the model that retailers use throughout the world and was the model that existed for developers prior to on-line stores. The usual take for a developer was 30-45% of the retail price. Change never occurs without unintended consequences.

 

[vipergts2207]

And Target has the right to buy and retail any product they decide. They don’t have to buy and retail Coke. The gov’t mandating that one company has to allow any and every other company be allowed to sell products on their platform is no different than telling Target they have to sell some Walmart branded product, when Walmart decides it’s only fair if their product is available at Target, and vice versa.

Let us all know when two retailers have a duopoly on their market.

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

Apple leaves tons of cash at their doors..

How do you explain the bipartisan opposition to Apple and their iOS App distribution monopoly?

Apple leaves far less cash than all the other companies combined. No doubt.

It's Apple's infrastructure and they should have the right to control it. Apple is perfectly fine with customers choosing a different brand.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple leaves far less cash than all the other companies combined. No doubt.

It's Apple's infrastructure and they should have the right to control it. Apple is perfectly fine with customers choosing a different brand.

What's their infrastructure?
Nobody is trying to tell them what to do on their own App Store

We are telling them that they don't get to be the only way for a user to get Apps on the users own phone.
Apple doesn't own the phone.

More sources for Apps would be a much more dynamic and beneficial situation for for consumers (and developers).

A 30% cut of digital goods is ENORMOUS.
There literally are apps and businesses not currently viable or even being created at all due to onerous costs.

Lifting that restriction will unlock tremendous potential for consumer benefit in the long run.

 

[lkrupp]

Fine, Apple should put up about a dozen warning pop-ups before the user can actually install something from outside the App Store. Make the warnings dire and apocalyptic, and absolving Apple from any liability if the app turns out to be bad news.

Anyone want to make a prediction of how soon a malware app will infect iOS if this legislation passes? Surely some douche will do it just because.

People use the Mac as a foil against the side-loading issue. Go take a look at the Apple Discussion Forums where you will see users suffering from malware every single day. Do they blame themselves for clicking and installing software that nails them? Nope, they blame Apple, each and every time.

 

[4jasontv]

Or maybe the opposite. Did you consider both ways? Maybe the App Store version will be the "premium" version with more features (since it costs more)? The fact is, everything you claim is conjecture. All made up scenarios that may or may not happen. I think most software companies simply don't want to pay Apple 30% and would rather pay a CC portal company 3% to process direct sales of a single version of software. Simple, I know...but seems like the easy choice from a business perspective.

It doesn’t matter though. All that matters is if the versions or prices are different.

I can’t see the developer not offering some ‘perk’ to go directly to them if they earn more money. We just can’t trust the developers.

The key word in your statement is "elect." Each person can choose to download apps where ever they chose. If you want to keep getting all of your apps from the iOS app store for piece of mind, then go for it. If you are more tech savy and don't need to have Apple hold your hand, go for it.

You can think of it as you are paying Apple 30% of all of your app store purchases for Apple's services of approving the apps, etc. Or you can use your own personal judgement to find safe alternative downloads outside of the app store. MacOS has worked this way for decades. No reason a mini computer like an iPhone shouldn't be able to too.

No, the key statement is different. Developers will inevitably use the side-loading to either add features that wouldn't get approved or lower the cost to encourage more side-loading sales. What if a developer decides not to make the app not the App Store at all? Who will hold them accountable for that?

The iPhone isn't a computer and it's false to call it one to defend the ide.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Fine, Apple should put up about a dozen warning pop-ups before the user can actually install something from outside the App Store. Make the warnings dire and apocalyptic, and absolving Apple from any liability if the app turns out to be bad news.

Anyone want to make a prediction of how soon a malware app will infect iOS if this legislation passes? Surely some ****** will do it just because.

So....why isn't this a problem on macOS?

 

[Ravi_MR]

If I wanted side loading, I would have stayed on Android. Hoping the Senate would see sense and reject the bill! Of course one might argue it can be an option which users may opt not to switch on. But given airdrop sharing between apple devices and one of them might have chosen to side load an unsafe app, it may potentially affect me as well. I wish Apple would not be forced to go down this road.

 

[WiseAJ]

Fine, Apple should put up about a dozen warning pop-ups before the user can actually install something from outside the App Store. Make the warnings dire and apocalyptic, and absolving Apple from any liability if the app turns out to be bad news.

Anyone want to make a prediction of how soon a malware app will infect iOS if this legislation passes? Surely some douche will do it just because.

I bet Russia/China have something ready and waiting for day one.

 

[vipergts2207]

Perhaps. . . . Apple can easily change the store's distribution model from one of consignment to one of retail. At this point, nearly anyone can create an app and get it approved for sale in the store. Apple could turn that model off and start to sell apps at Apple's chosen price and pay developers at a wholesale price. This is the model that retailers use throughout the world and was the model that existed for developers prior to on-line stores. The usual take for a developer was 30-45% of the retail price. Change never occurs without unintended consequences.

I sincerely doubt this too clever by half solution would fly with regulators either because Apple would still act as the sole gatekeeper to iPhone users. What's to stop Apple from pricing apps they don't want their customers to buy at $1000?

 

[mikethemartian]

The iPhone is quite dissimilar from an underpowered car. Analogy doesn't fit, but they rarely do.

The biggest problem with analogies is that they are often mistaken as identities.

 

[antiprotest]

Tbh I don't mind other people sideloading, but I don't want the apps that I care about scattered all over the place, or not offered in the app store and being able to skip the app review process. What other people do is their business but I want my apps in one place and having gone through some kind of review. Even though the review process does not guarantee privacy and security, it is better than not having any rules or review at all.

 

[turbineseaplane]

but I don't want the apps that I care about scattered all over the place, or not offered in the app store and being able to skip the app review process.

What you want is Apple to be forced to have their App Store offering be so compelling that everyone WANTS to use it.
You want them to have to compete for the business.

Does everyone understand that this is the problem right now? (among many)

Apple doesn't have to do anything to make their store better, let alone "the best", for developers/customers.
Monopoly situations suck for everyone other than the monopolist.

Business is good when there is competition..

 

[jmgregory1]

Not the same situation at all. Walmart branded products are owned by Walmart, so they can sell them anywhere they choose. Non-Apple branded apps aren't owned by Apple, so developers shouldn't have to go through a middle-man to sell them.

Point being, does Walmart have the right to sell their branded product at Target, regardless of whether Target wants them to or not? It’s worse, this would force Target to have to sell a Walmart branded product, because this law is suggesting Apple gets no say in the matter.

And this thing of cutting out a middle man, is a red herring. What laws like this are suggesting is that Apple’s or Google’s or Sony’s developed platforms have to allow other retailers (middlemen) to be able to access the brand‘s users, earning their own cut of the sale of any software they offer, which isn’t just for some individual app developer, but can be whole other ”stores” full of apps they decide are worth offering.

 

[aidler]

It’s good that for once the US senat is doing the right thing. Breaking the Apple ecosystem, no matter how, is a good thing for consumers and will even be a good thing for Apple in the long run. I would have preferred to find a way in cooperation with Apple to give back control to consumers or to drastically reduce the insane 30 % app store tax, but Apple was never willing to move in any substantial way.

 

[lkrupp]

I bet Russia/China have something ready and waiting for day one.

Yep, here comes iOS ransomware in spades.

 

[4jasontv]

Remember one key thing

Apple needs developers every bit as much (if not more) than developers need Apple.

iPhones will not sell as they do if third party apps are purposely hamstrung in strange ways just to try to force an outcome Apple prefers.

Apple sold iPhones before it had an App Store, and despite being priced without carrier subsidies people bought out inventory. The App Store makes the iPhone more attractive, but it‘s just a prom dress completing its genetics.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yep, here comes iOS ransomware in spades.

Complete FUD that is unfounded and unsupported by any data or examples.

 

[jmgregory1]

Let us all know when two retailers have a duopoly on their market.

You mean like Walmart and Target?

 

[lkrupp]

It’s good that for once the US senat is doing the right thing. Breaking the Apple ecosystem, no matter how, is a good thing for consumers and will even be a good thing for Apple in the long run. I would have preferred to find a way in cooperation with Apple to give back control to consumers or to drastically reduce the insane 30 % app store tax, but Apple was never willing to move in any substantial way.

So why aren’t you on the Android platform then? Why are you sticking with iOS?

 

[paradox00]

The biggest problem with analogies is that they are often mistaken as identities.

Read my next post, or the rest of that one. (edit: I guess that was all of the first post, I'm very dismissive of poor analogies) The comparison has to share a similarity somewhere. A bigger problem is many people think an analogy is good if it feels good and reinforces the view they already hold.

Edit: For clarity: a good analogy will get someone to think and look at a problem from different perspective, and possibly change their view; not fall apart under simple scrutiny.

 

[4743913]

Can we just quit calling it sideloading? Thats how apple confuses the phone people.

Its called "INSTALLING APPS".. we do it every day on our macs and pcs with programs that do not come from "app stores". We give the dev money, download his app, and INSTALL it. We do not SIDELOAD it. There is nothing nefarious about INSTALLING apps. If the phone people think they are too stupid to discern safe apps from risky ones, then they need to only INSTALL apps from the appstore. The rest of us should have the freedom to use our devices as we please.

The bill allows INSTALLING apps on an iPhone.

Phone people kill innovation. Stop them by supporting this bill and devs.

 

[boss.king]

You mean like Walmart and Target?

How are they a duopoly? I can buy anything I need without ever setting foot in either of those stores.

 

[boss.king]

Can we just quit calling it sideloading? Thats how apple confuses the phone people.

Its called "INSTALLING APPS".. we do it every day on our macs and pcs with programs that do not come from "app stores". We give the dev money, download his app, and INSTALL it. We do not SIDELOAD it. There is nothing nefarious about INSTALLING apps. If the phone people think they are too stupid to discern safe apps from risky ones, then they need to only INSTALL apps from the appstore. The rest of us should have the freedom to use our devices as we please.

This. I've been trying to make an effort to not refer to it as sideloading because that makes it sounds like something nefarious when, as you point out, it's just installing.