Biden Administration Report Recommends Sweeping Changes to Apple's Ecosystem

[wbeasley]

Absolutely see this as the right way to go.
As with my Mac, I'll choose which apps to buy outside of the store and which to buy from it and advise those I know to do the same.

I’ll plan to explain to my Mom this weekend about side loading apps on her iPhone and the merits of various browsers and mail apps so she can make informed decisions.

I'm betting your Mom isn't begging you to install a different browser or mail app.

And has no interest in side-loading ROMS and emulators...

The majority of users might change their wallpaper and perhaps (maybe) add a widgit for weather alerts.
They upload their photos, install Netflix and Spotify and sign in.
Sorted for most of them.

 

[visualseed]

The Democrats did control both houses and obviously didnt consider this important enough to push through on their watch - so guess that makes you wrong

They had both houses and the oval and none of their tech anti-trust bills made it out of committee.

 

[webkit]

Interesting history, but I don’t see these having anything materially to do with the mobile app industry we see today. I think a big differentiator were the tools made available to create native experiences on iOS, whereas these stores you mentioned were probably an extension of the web along with ringtone downloads. Nokia also had a big market share prior to 2007, so clearly there was no sizable industry to speak of.

Regarding the internet, any smartphone can access it — so opening up the closed native platform is not necessary because users aren’t being restricted in their use of the web. But you might argue that the native experience is preferable — well, who can we thank for that? The company that created that favorable environment shouldn’t be forced to compromise it. They invested billions into making it what it is today, and this has benefitted their users and developers greatly.

I think what we've seen is simply the evolving of an industry. Going back to your previous statement, I don't think one can say Apple "developed a new industry" here. Apple (with the App Store and iOS) and Google (with Android and the Google Play store) took an existing industry to where it is today.

As I've stated before, Apple should use some of its tremendous wealth and resources to innovate iOS so that it can be safe and secure for users while still following laws and regulations that seek to allow for more open competition and choice in the market when it comes to thing like app access, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, alternative browser engines, etc. on dominant mobile platforms.

It's regulations such as the ones being discussed here that can give dominant companies like Apple a push to innovate and make their products even better, more flexible, etc. and less restrictive and anticompetitive. I am confident Apple would be able to keep iOS as safe and secure as it is today (which isn't perfect) for those liking the way it is now, while satisfying any regulations and business/customer demand for sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, alternative browser engines, etc.

 

[AppliedMicro]

There are so many unproven assumptions in this report, and in the comments here on MacRumors:

• "Apple's Walled Garden Harms Developers"
  • Apple's Mobile App model generates far more revenue for developers than any other model
• "An Open System is better for Citizens"
  • This is not proven by any available metrics. What is the definition of better? Unlimited?
  • Privacy concerns are not some tangential concern here. They are central.
  • Forcing Apple to be Android would harm MY choice to not participate in the Android model
• "Apple Could Still Be Apple if they are forced to Be Android"
  • No. Apple has a model that focuses on revenue derived by selling hardware and services.
  • Android exists as a model focused on selling personal data
  • Forcing Apple into the Android Model harms the central tenet of Apple's business model
• "The Mac is Open so IOS should be Open too!"
  • MacOS developed in a time when many were naive about data mining.
  • IOS is a child of a different era.
  • There are significant and compelling reasons for me to choose Apple's Walled Garden.
  • I currently have zero apps side loaded on my Mac.
• "Apple is Anti-Freedom"
  • No. Apple is giving me the option to stay out of the Android Cesspool of Data Mining.
  • Apple is not perfect here, but their model gives me more control over my personal data than that of Android.

"There are so many unproven assumptions in this report, and in the comments here on MacRumors"

👉 There are. And one of the biggest seems to be that Apple is so restrictive all (or mainly) in the name of privacy.


"Apple's Mobile App model generates far more revenue for developers than any other model"

👉 Considering that Apple has never tried or allowed any other model, I consider that an unproven assumption. Their own macOS App store may be evidence to the contrary, since many high-profile apps and profitable developers have chosen not to distribute their apps on the Mac App Store.

"This is not proven by any available metrics. What is the definition of better? Unlimited?"


👉 The report finds that Apple's (and Google's) policies impose higher costs on developers and (ultimately) higher prices on consumers, limit innovation by restricting functionality and choice.
Lower prices, more choice and functionality are generally "better" for consumers than less.


"Forcing Apple to be Android"

👉 Apple are not forced to be Android. They don't have to make iPhones running Android software of applications.


"Apple has a model that focuses on revenue derived by selling hardware and services."

👉 Services that enable "the extraction of disproportionate returns by the operating system owners"


"Android exists as a model focused on selling personal data"
"Forcing Apple into the Android Model harms the central tenet of Apple's business model"

👉 Apple purposely built advertising ID into their products and provided them to advertisers to track consumers.


"MacOS developed in a time when many were naive about data mining."

👉 True - but irrelevant in this discussion. They have the technical capability to lock down macOS. And they're not locking down iOS for privacy reasons only (not even mainly for that, I contend).


"Apple is giving me the option to stay out of the Android Cesspool of Data Mining"

👉 They are more than happy to approve apps with all sorts of trackers embedded to the app store. And often enough charge their commission on them.


"Apple is Anti-Freedom"

👉 That's exactly what they are - if, when and because it benefits their bottom line.

 

[Carrotcruncher]

This makes no sense. If you start a company, build it into a huge company, do you lose your rights to operate your product (app store) how you see fit? The competition cries and cries.. ok, so make your own phones into a trillion dollar company then? It's like if you created a bakery and grew it into a huge chain - then Krispy Kreme complained to the government that your bakery wont let them come in and sell their donuts in your stores. Like wtf kind of logic is this?

If competitive app stores are allowed on the iphone, be prepared for WAY more spyware/malware to slip through the cracks. Do you think Samsung polices their app store as well as Apple does? Sometimes bad apps slip through even WITH Apple's much higher focus on security and privacy.

With the introduction of end to end encryption how else are the NSA, CIA, Mossad, and GCHQ gonna get their info ? They gotta get their apps on there somehow 🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

[Scarrus]

Why limit these recommendations to mobile ecosystems? Let me install Steam on my Xbox and buy games that way!

Actually I fully agree with this. Companies, especially in the last years, keep selling us a plethora of devices that more or less could all be doing the same thing.

Why do I have to have 2 Games Consoles with the exact same specs just so I can run some games on one system and other games on the other system? Why do I need 2 Laptops just so I can run 2 separate operating systems? Why can't I run a Desktop OS from my Phone by hooking it up to an external Display with Mouse and Keyboard? The Hardware is more than capable!

You could probably have 1(!) device which does all these things but everybody has at least 4 at home sitting around so that our Corporate Overlords can make more revenue.

 

[M3gatron]

Apple needs to show them who's boss and pull out of the US market in protest!

That is a really good one.
The threads regarding EU imposing a similar measure were full of people suggesting "Apple should pull out of the EU market", or "Apple should try to blackmail the EU".
Funny how these kind of comments haven't made their way in this thread.

 

[M3gatron]

Regulation is about control, not innovation.

A company that has a monopoly in a market, which is legal, has a better chance of innovating and producing products that benefit the consumer.

I disagree, if a company holds a monopoly it has no incentive to innovate and produce products that benefit the consumer. I mean what are consumers going to do anyway? it's a monopoly, it's not like the have other options.

 

[Four oF NINE]

These people who bitch about capitalism just amaze me with out-of-touch of reality and history they are. Are there problems? of course there are, but it isn't capitalism, it's greed. That is something that until we have replicators like Star Trek (and even then) will always be a problem. It is part of the human condition.

Greed is inherent to capitalism. A socialist system built on scientific principles would be an advancement.

 

[fenderbass146]

Greed is inherent to capitalism. A socialist system built on scientific principles would be an advancement.

History says otherwise. Greed is just as big of a problem in socialist systems and the consumer has less say in the system to change anything.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I disagree, if a company holds a monopoly it has no incentive to innovate and produce products that benefit the consumer. I mean what are consumers going to do anyway?

...and neither do developers of apps have a choice. It's not only the consumers.

Regulation is about control, not innovation.

You have noticed, how Apple is "regulating" the whole app marketplace and distribution of apps for their iOS devices and operating system and its dozens of thousands of developers, haven't you?

And Apple isn't regulating for innovation - they're regulating for control.

And they, Apple, are answering to no one about how they're regulating and governing their App Store and app ecosystem - except to $$$ and a few institutional investors. And government that can pass laws to limit their powers - though so far largely hasn't.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

I disagree, if a company holds a monopoly it has no incentive to innovate and produce products that benefit the consumer. I mean what are consumers going to do anyway? it's a monopoly, it's not like the have other options.

You’re confused about what a monopoly is — there are not inherently illegal. Apple has a monopoly on iPhones, Macs, etc. — they are the only company that can produce these products with the level of experience that they offer. Apple didn’t invent the cell phone or the smart phone, but they built their place in the market through innovation and a user experience that over a billion people find superior. They didn’t buy other companies to eliminate competition. Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone. There are many other options available. But if you prefer the iPhone user experience, your only option is an iPhone — that is not illegal.

 

[M3gatron]

You’re confused about what a monopoly is — there are not inherently illegal.

I'm not confuse about anything, if somebody is confused here, it's you sir.

Apple has a monopoly on iPhones, Macs, etc. — they are the only company that can produce these products with the level of experience that they offer. Apple didn’t invent the cell phone or the smart phone, but they built their place in the market through innovation and a user experience that over a billion people find superior. They didn’t buy other companies to eliminate competition. Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone. There are many other options available. But if you prefer the iPhone user experience, your only option is an iPhone — that is not illegal.

Excuses that aren't even relevant.
The fact that a monopoly is legal or illegal makes no difference for what a monopoly is.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

...and neither do developers of apps have a choice. It's not only the consumers.

You have noticed, how Apple is "regulating" the whole app marketplace and distribution of apps for their iOS devices and operating system and its dozens of thousands of developers, haven't you?

And Apple isn't regulating for innovation - they're regulating for control.

And they, Apple, are answering to no one about how they're regulating and governing their App Store and app ecosystem - except to $$$ and a few institutional investors. And government that can pass laws to limit their powers - though so far largely hasn't.

Apple has every right to control the distribution of apps on their devices. If you don’t like the way they do this, you have other options.

What Apple created, with all of the controls in place, has been one of their biggest innovations — no rational person can disagree with this. It has been great for consumers and developers. There are more independent developers now than ever, their reach is far greater, and consumers spend less on software now than in the past.

Government regulation in this instance is not a solution to the [non-existent] problem, it is the problem. The politicians don’t understand the technology, and their focus is on controlling business — not helping the consumer.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Enjoying the frothing in this thread.

This year will be their first regulation phone release, iPhone 15r with USB C and third party app stores.

 

[segfaultdotorg]

That is a really good one.
The threads regarding EU imposing a similar measure were full of people suggesting "Apple should pull out of the EU market", or "Apple should try to blackmail the EU".
Funny how these kind of comments haven't made their way in this thread.

I don't know why nobody else is saying it. Time to cowboy up, Apple!

 

[macintologist]

I think this is what's tough.

Someone's gunna flip that switch and not remember, then get a popup months or years later saying they need to update Facebook which will install something nefarious. That nefarious thing might actually be FB, or something that looks like FB but actually is actually a keylogger.

could be just

I think this is what's tough.
Someone's gunna flip that switch and not remember, then get a popup months or years later saying they need to update Facebook which will install something nefarious. That nefarious thing might actually be FB, or something that looks like FB but actually is actually a keylogger.

They should make it like macOS. Block non App Store apps by default and make you go into a menu to disable it.

 

[Four oF NINE]

20% is outside the US. In the US iOS has over 50% of the mobile market. That puts Apple pretty close to a monopoly there.

Perhaps you can find an app that features mathematics instruction.
Hint: "Monopoly" implies single entity. "Over 50%" by definition implies multiple players.

 

[Four oF NINE]

True. With the House going R, this legislation is as good as dead. If the Ds control the White House and both house chambers in the future this will happen.

Right now there is zero reason to suspect the fascists will get the White House in the '24 election. No democracy loving citizen will ever vote fascist

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple has every right to control the distribution of apps on their devices. If you don’t like the way they do this, you have other options.

Oh, I agree on both.

They currently have that right - and it sucks how they're exercising it.
So I'll encourage and applaud politicians and regulators to do something about it - to limit Apple's rights, with new specific legislation, yes. It's about time.

It has been great for consumers and developers

The security aspect of it - somewhat, yes.
The pricing, Apple "taxes" and disallowed functionality - no.

There are more independent developers now than ever, their reach is far greater, and consumers spend less on software now than in the past.

Quite the contrary - I spend less on software bought directly from developers.
I spend more and more on software from Apple's App Store.

Prices have only been getting higher - and moving to subscription pricing that I definitely don't benefit from or pay less for. Though that's exactly what Apple has been encouraging.

 

[webkit]

Hint: "Monopoly" implies single entity. "Over 50%" by definition implies multiple players.

"Monopoly" may imply single entry but the reality is that courts have declared companies monopolies and having monopoly power even though there were multiple players in a market. A U.S. federal judge, for example, declared Microsoft a monopoly in desktop OS in the late 1990s even though there were multiply players in that market.

 

[lartola]

"Monopoly" may imply single entry but the reality is that courts have declared companies monopolies and having monopoly power even though there were multiple players in a market. A U.S. federal judge, for example, declared Microsoft a monopoly in desktop OS in the late 1990s even though there were multiply players in that market.

Exactly my point. Though it’s not literally a monopoly, having over 50% of the market already makes Apple big and poweful enough to ignore the other players and behave as though it were a monopoly.

 

[lartola]

Perhaps you can find an app that features mathematics instruction.
Hint: "Monopoly" implies single entity. "Over 50%" by definition implies multiple players.

Don’t be ridiculous. I meant that although Apple is not a monopoly in the strict sense of the word, having over 50% of the market already makes the company poweful enough to ignore the other players and behave as though it were a monopoly.

Now I am the one who can’t believe there was anyone who would analyze my comment with such a narrow mind.

 

[GFLPraxis]

This makes no sense. If you start a company, build it into a huge company, do you lose your rights to operate your product (app store) how you see fit? The competition cries and cries.. ok, so make your own phones into a trillion dollar company then? It's like if you created a bakery and grew it into a huge chain - then Krispy Kreme complained to the government that your bakery wont let them come in and sell their donuts in your stores. Like wtf kind of logic is this?

If competitive app stores are allowed on the iphone, be prepared for WAY more spyware/malware to slip through the cracks. Do you think Samsung polices their app store as well as Apple does? Sometimes bad apps slip through even WITH Apple's much higher focus on security and privacy.

I understand where you’re coming from, but uh, yes, yes you do.

Read up on the history of antitrust. Standard Oil grew until they were able to buy most of the railroads in the US and controlled the entire market.

Once you get to a certain size, you become capable of influencing the entire industry with your decisions, and now, yes, the government does have a role in keeping the market competitive.

Capitalism only works when markets remain competitive.

Also, IMO there’s a big problem when China can determine what gets installed on iPhones in China. Apple is directly aiding their propaganda efforts.

 

[inkswamp]

No. There wasn't any App Store business as we know it - and there was no reason to call it unfair.

There was a well-documented backlash by developers. Developers everywhere we're accusing Apple of keeping them out of the business of creating apps with native code. It was labelled as unfair. I remember it very clearly, and remember thinking how ridiculous it was.

They didn't give in to external pressure from app developers. Schiller and co. were fighting with Jobs internally, trying to convince him to allow native apps. And once word around that Google was close to launching their own mobile OS and SDK allowing native apps, Apple couldn't went out for their way to pre-announce their own SDK with an open letter by Jobs - just in time to beat Google's Android announcement by a few days.

Probably one of their the wisest decisions ever for the iPhone - I am sure Apple wouldn't be a relevant smartphone maker (and the size they) are today, had they sticked with their decision not to allow native apps - if only for a few more years. Their App Store business wouldn't hold a candle to the Play Store today.

You're reframing this in a very strange way. Google, in this context, was one of the developers screaming about this. Their rush to get the same on Android was more of an attempt to one-up Apple and force their hand, which appears to have worked.

The bottom line is this: Apple's original plans for iOS development was web-apps with hooks into the system APIs. Some of those hooks and some of the infrastructure are still there. That would have been the very definition of free and open development on the platform. No app store. No app review/approval. No tools controlled by Apple. No content restrictions. Free and open. But everyone rejected that and demanded native code and the App Store, which forced Apple to reconfigure their whole approach and implement some strict rules and methodologies to keep their users safe and the platform stable.

Now, it's come full circle. Everyone claims that was all an attempt to control everything, conveniently ignoring that this wasn't even Apple's original plans.