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

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple wasn't the first to have an app store either. But after 13 years, the politicians now want to regulate it.

So what?

PS: It is interesting when companies somehow benefit from regulation over other market behavior and at the same time spit on it when it affects theirs. It is always the same, it will never change.

The good thing is that customers end.up benefiting. Look at what customers now get from Apple and Google because others were.

 

[I7guy]

So what?

PS: It is interesting when companies somehow benefit from regulation over other market behavior and at the same time spit on it when it affects theirs. It is always the same, it will never change.

So what is right....Sure, some companies that are legal monopolies benefit from regulation. But that is not what this is all about.

The good thing is that customers end.up benefiting. Look at what customers now get from Apple and Google because others were.

Case in point AT&T breakup. Consumers did not really end up benefiting, at least imo. And that is not to say, consumers will benefit if this proposed legislation goes into law. Some will benefit, but it will be the big companies -- at least in my opinion.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Case in point AT&T breakup

Haven’t seen any proposals to break Apple up. Anyone?

Rewriting history and rewriting the present no?

It is interesting how you ignore a much similar situation from 20 years ago (Google + Apple today compared to MS back then) and go and fetch an example that nothing in common from 40 years ago give or take.

 

[I7guy]

Haven’t seen any proposals to break Apple up. Anyone?

Rewriting history and rewriting the present no?

It is interesting how you ignore a much similar situation from 20 years ago (Google + Apple today compared to MS back then) and go and fetch an example that nothing in common from 40 years ago give or take.

To quote a famous phrase: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, which is not rewriting history. It's stating what has occurred, not looking through rose colored glasses.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

To quote a famous phrase: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, which is not rewriting history. It's stating what has occurred, not looking through rose colored glasses.

Haven’t the Bell/ATT case did not occurred. But you comparison suggested that regulators are thinking of breaking up Apple. That is no where near reality. So such comparison is indeed a smoke screen if understanding what is on table is the goal.

MS Anti Trust case also occurred no? Was there any break up? No. Was its and other similar market behaviours regulated in multiple markets? Yes. Suggesting something actually closer clarifies a bit the situation rather then mystifying reality. Was it the downfall of Windows? No, quite the opposite. Downfall of Microsoft? No. Did the market prospered up to appearance of a strong Apple, Google, Facebook … so many so many … YES. Were Internet standards sucked but IE? No.

Could MS be stronger today? Probably if it did not wasted so much energy fighting against the obvious and focused on what actually they are good at and what matters to their customers.

If Apple, or you, think that what matters the most for their customers is Apple being their sole merchant … it lost any sense of reality. This works for Google too by the way. So this is for both.

 

[I7guy]

Haven’t the Bell/ATT case did not occurred. But you comparison suggested that regulators are thinking of breaking up Apple. That is no where near reality. So such comparison is indeed a smoke screen if understanding what is on table is the goal.

I'm suggesting government interference in private sector may not turn out for the betterment of all involved. And if if isn't good for consumers, isn't good for devs (except a select few) and isn't good for Apple, why push this legislation? The answer is: don't push the legistlation.

MS Anti Trust case also occurred no?

Wasn't Apple involved in some nefarious bribing of soft or hard assets? Or maybe because they owned 97% of the market, they were under the crystal ball. Not that they didn't get to be in that position due to regulation...no it was popularity.

But now apple and google own nearly 100% of the market. VZW, TMO and ATT own nearly 100% of the market instead of 100% being owned by ATT. Which, imo, government doesn't do very well at certain things.

Was there any break up? No. Was its and other similar market behaviours regulated? Yes. Suggesting something actually closer clarifies a bit the situation rather then mystifying reality. Was it the downfall of Windows? No. Downfall of Microsoft? No. Did the market prospered up to appearance of a strong Apple, Google, Facebook … so many so many … YES.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I'm suggesting government interference in private sector may not turn out for the betterment of all involved.

In 40 years how many cases you recall? Only mentioned one. I mentioned a second that choose to ignore for drama sake.

Now, let’s talk about lack of regulation, or will to enforce regulation shall we? Toxic CDO’s and Subprimes that lead to 2007 economical meltdowns. Devasting partially the American economy (and everything it touched, including EU and others)… only to be saved partial by China buying like mad American dept and Tax payers money … otherwise the effects would hurt even more the citizens. Now the problem, China rose in economically ability like a racing horse in the last … 13 years … hummm … what was the actual deal here to save the day … imports?

All this might be unrelated to lack of regulation or will to apply it … or maybe not … who knows. But one thing is for sure … politicians hate success.

I like to think positively .. rather than this way. Everyone is doing their best. These are complex problems with no silver bullet.

 

[I7guy]

In 40 years how many cases you recall? Only mentioned one. I mentioned a second that choose to ignore for drama sake.

Now, let’s talk about lack of regulation, or will to enforce regulation shall we? Toxic CDO’s and Subprimes that lead to 2007 economical meltdowns. Devasting partially the American economy (and everything it touched, including EU and others)… only to be saved partial by China buying like mad American dept and Tax payers money … otherwise the effects would hurt even more the citizens. Now the problem, China rose in economically ability like a racing horse in the last … 13 years … hummm … what was the actual deal here to save the day … imports?

All this might be unrelated to lack of regulation or will to apply it … or maybe not … who knows. But one thing is for sure … politicians hate success.

Not sure how what is being discussed about Apple dovetails into the above. Some regulation is necessary in modern society. Changes in laws were brought about over the years to protect people; their money; their health. You put your money in a bank you expect it to be safe, but you find out the bank is playing fast and loose with your depostis.

But what exactly are these legislators protecting people from with this legislation?

 

[Michael Scrip]

I'm getting excited thinking about how great our lives will be when developers can use Stripe or PayPal to process payments instead of Apple.

Welcome to Utopia!

 

[Nuno Lopes]

But what exactly are these legislators protecting people from with this legislation?

From people loosing their ability to choose which merchant to buy their goods within their devices. And from people’s ability to be the merchants of their own products regardless of the devices their customer choose to use.

Not just one or two … but billions of people.

Its quite clear really.

PS: Assuming that billions are voting through their wallets into smartphones (android/iOS) to loose their ability to control with whom they want to trade with is as absurd as assuming that are voting through their presence and activity in Facebook or using Google Search to loose control of their personal information.

Is that bad of an assumption.

 

[I7guy]

From people loosing their ability to choose which merchant to buy their goods within their devices. And from people’s ability to be the merchants of their own products regardless of the devices their customer choose to use.

Not just one or two … but billions of people.

Its quite clear really.

Yes. Turning a negative of restriction into a positive of freedom. It will free the masses from the shackles of Apple and allow them:
- to run more of the malware of their choice
- become more prone to financial fraud
- developers will be subject to more copycat apps and no apple enforcement
- commission fees for devs will now be a race to bottom
- run lower quality apps as there is less incentive to develop high quality apps
- loose all control of their personal information as apple cannot enforce any standards

Not for one or two people, but for billions. But yeah, if this is what you like, this is a positive for the ecosystem.

PS: Assuming that billions are voting through their wallets into smartphones to loose their ability to control with whom they want to trade with is as absurd as assuming that are voting through their presence activity in Facebook or using Google Search to loose all control of their personal information.

Is that bad of an assumption.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Yes. Turning a negative of restriction into a positive of freedom. It will free the masses from the shackles of Apple and allow them:
- to run more of the malware of their choice
- become more prone to financial fraud
- developers will be subject to more copycat apps and no apple enforcement
- commission fees for devs will now be a race to bottom
- run lower quality apps as there is less incentive to develop high quality apps
- loose all control of their personal information as apple cannot enforce any standards

Not for one or two people, but for billions. But yeah, if this is what you like, this is a positive for the ecosystem.

In such yet hipothetical free digital market in the mobile space, at the same level as others …

1. to run more of the malware of their choice

It just a matter users choosing merchants that sell them good products like they do now every single day. They would be able to opt in app to use App Store as e merchant of their Spotify subscription or or directly to Spotify. Spotify and Apple App Store or Google Play being arbitrary examples of plenty to choose from. The oddity today is the imposition of two Merchants in front of billions.

Heck, user might even reject any merchant but the Apple App Store or Google Play due to such concerns. But they do so, not by policy but by choice.

That is what my family does in the Mac … don’t remember ever getting malware.

2. become more prone to financial fraud

Not more prone than currently happens in iOS or Android when buying clothes, food, taxi rides, cinema tickets resevation … thousands of activities.

3. developers will be subject to more copycat apps and no apple enforcement

The rising phenomena of copy cats actually appeared with the emergence of the solo App Stores. Maybe because features are so easy to copy … aka … not really that innovative. On the other hand … The current Apple Reminders App remind me a lot of Things … once a very popular task manager for Mac and iOS.

Now, apps presenting it self as being or suggesting something else … that is a criminal offense. Never heard Apple taking to courts companies that tried to do that in the App Store.

4. commission fees for devs will now be a race to bottom

If the Apple App Store provide the best commission fees or cost effectiveness when compared to other venues, including selling by themselves why would devs choose something else?

5. run lower quality apps as there is less incentive to develop high quality apps

What provides incentive for better apps (and feed by the way) is competition between merchants for customers and supplier… related to 4. Not the curator of apps while taking a slice of their value.

6. loose all control of their personal information as apple cannot enforce any standards

Or migrate to the EU. Another options is to choose App Store only apps.

For such a Free Market advocator you do see more problems than solutions with it. On the other hand see so many solutions in single Merchant market … hence Non Free. Weird.

…

There is still one other solution which I think would be the best of both worlds. Apple keeping full control of the iOS app catalogue (I mean the App), allow other forms of payment along with App Play, and offer a tiered cloud service payed by devs … hosting (app review), catalogue, marketing, billing & payment processing, a bundle of it all, ... or Premium much like they do now. But hey, that would be already regulating too much I guess. Impossible for a company like Apple to do … hey but why would they do this anyway … there is no incentive to do.

 

[I7guy]

In such yet hipothetical free digital market in the mobile space, at the same level as others …

1. to run more of the malware of their choice

It just a matter users choosing merchants that sell them good products like they do now every single day. They would be able to opt in app to use App Store as e merchant of their Spotify subscription or or directly to Spotify. Spotify and Apple App Store or Google Play being arbitrary examples of plenty to choose from. The oddity today is the imposition of two Merchants in front of billions.

Heck, user might even reject any merchant but the Apple App Store or Google Play due to such concerns. But they do so, not by policy but by choice.

That is what my family does in the Mac … don’t remember ever getting malware.

2. become more prone to financial fraud

Not more prone than currently happens in iOS or Android when buying clothes, food, taxi rides, cinema tickets resevation … thousands of activities.

3. developers will be subject to more copycat apps and no apple enforcement

The rising phenomena of copy cats actually appeared with the emergence of the solo App Stores. Maybe because features are so easy to copy … aka … not really that innovative. On the other hand … The current Apple Reminders App remind me a lot of Things … once a very popular task manager for Mac and iOS.

Now, apps presenting it self as being or suggesting something else … that is a criminal offense. Never heard Apple taking to courts companies that tried to do that in the App Store.

4. commission fees for devs will now be a race to bottom

If the Apple App Store provide the best commission fees or cost effectiveness when compared to other venues, including selling by themselves why would devs choose something else?

5. run lower quality apps as there is less incentive to develop high quality apps

What provides incentive for better apps (and feed by the way) is competition between merchants for customers and supplier… related to 4. Not the curator of apps while taking a slice of their value.

6. loose all control of their personal information as apple cannot enforce any standards

Or migrate to the EU. Another options is to choose App Store only apps.

For such a Free Market advocator you do see more problems than solutions with it. On the other hand see so many solutions in single Merchant market … hence Non Free. Weird.

…

There is still one other solution which I think would be the best of both worlds. Apple keeping full control of the iOS app catalogue (I mean the App), allow other forms of payment along with App Play, and offer a tiered cloud service payed by devs … hosting (app review), catalogue, marketing, billing & payment processing, a bundle of it all, ... or Premium much like they do now. But hey, that would be already regulating too much I guess. Impossible for a company like Apple to do … hey but why would they do this anyway … there is no incentive to do.

Again, it seems like my analogy of putting a garbage dump behind an apartment is as valid as ever. Some people my not notice, may not care...but all in all having a stinky, smelly in back of a residential area devalues the surrounding area. Similar to the Apple ecosystem. And thus we are back in the full circle to these discussion points.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Again, it seems like my analogy of putting a garbage dump behind an apartment is as valid as ever. Some people my not notice, may not care...but all in all having a stinky, smelly in back of a residential area devalues the surrounding area. Similar to the Apple ecosystem. And thus we are back in the full circle to these discussion points.

So now we move to 7.

I guess macOS is a stinky, smelly OS than.

In what way is this garbage dump rationale applicable to the case where Apple denied both xCloud and Stadia Apps in the App Store?

There are plenty of examples were Apple decisions aren’t at all driven by these kind of values … but actually using their power to create barriers around iOS users for which it wants the be the sole merchant. Again, both Apple Store and Google Play having 100% power over the 99% of American population in such a context.

In my last paragraph a solution is described were Apple or Google would have still full control of the garbage dump, still charge for App hosting services and review/curaation, let others be merchants of their products in app, … if not to select Apple Store as the only merchant. In such model of course refusing xCloud or Stadia App to be hosted would make no sense as the aim would not be to charge for the games they stream, for their catalogue. But again is conveniently overseen …

All motivations for one merchant only to save the day failing ... we move to 8. reason … is their OS, their Stores (Apple App Store, Google Play), they created, should be able to do whatever they want …

and from there we go on a circle.

EDIT. My 10 year old kid, we never talk about any of this of course. But he surprised me. In other day came with a joke. I don’t quite remember the precise words but he said something like:

”Daddy do you want to ear a Apple joke” … we only use Apple devices in the house.

I said … “yes”.

”Our desire to improve peoples lives lead us to work harder this year to bring the iPhone to even more people. Starting at just $999 …“.

 

[I7guy]

So now we move to 7.

I guess macOS is a stinky, smelly OS than.

In what way is this garbage dump rationale applicable to the case where Apple denied both xCloud and Stadia Apps in the App Store?

There are plenty of examples were Apple decisions aren’t at all driven by these kind of values … but actually using their power to create barriers around iOS users for which it wants the be the sole merchant. Again, both Apple Store and Google Play having 100% power over the 99% of American population in such a context.

In my last paragraph a solution is described were Apple or Google would have still full control of the garbage dump, still charge for App hosting services and review/curaation, let others be merchants of their products, … if not to select Apple Store as the merchant. In such model of course refusing xCloud or Stadia App to be hosted would make no sense as the aim would not be to charge for the games they stream, for their catalogue. But again is conveniently overseen …

All motivations for one merchant failing ... we move to 8. reason … is their OS, their Stores (Apple App Store, Google Play), they created, should be able to do whatever they want …

and from there we go on a circle.

Apple allowing alternate payment systems feeds into my opinion that this is worse for consumers and worse for Apple. Only big devs like Epic will really benefit as they can use the apple ecosystem essentially for free. That somehow doesn't seem fair...does it?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple allowing alternate payment systems feeds into my opinion that this is worse for consumers and worse for Apple. Only big devs like Epic will really benefit as they can use the apple ecosystem essentially for free. That somehow doesn't seem fair...does it?

I don’t see you concerned that Apple is also using devs ecossystems/tech/products enriching their ecosystem system and helping selling even more devices FOR FREE too … well actually being payed with 30% of in app revenue on top for the pleasure. I don’t see you worried about Facebook, Twitter and many others getting it all for free while others are required to give up 30% of their potential revenue to reach their customers too … for things they might not even need or find cheaper elsewhere if not for certain policies. I don’t see you acknowledging iOS and Android amongst other things is only possible given considerable prior investment of others as well third parties … Apple is also benefiting from that for free.

All I see you concerned is for Apple … the rest are abusers, loosers … I wonder why. What do you have to gain?

Only really huge techs like Apple and Google can actually pull this one off … but you aren’t concerned about that at all … Just concerned with comparatively smaller shops … those are the “abusers” makers of garbage … might be also merchants. Oh, we aren’t even talking about really small ones … like Tiles … Sherlocking Things … these cases its just the Free Market and competition working you say.

The fact is that that in Free Market … nothing is free … for anyone … everything piece is competing with the other. Only entities that are somewhat able to create fences around people are able to.

But again the overseen last paragraph a middle ground solution is succinctly described … basic pay per use rationale … common everywhere but with iOS and Android App Stores. Epic would pay for app hosting and review (keeping the garbage away). But would be allowed to charge for their app and addons if they ever so which… being a merchant of their own tech/product. In other words, Apple would not be by policy banking on third party businesses revenues on top of enriching their ecosystem. Businesses that want the full pack, as it is now, pay 30%, why not?

We use Azure as our backend to distribute apps and many other things. In the end of every month we receive a billing statement with the resources used to host our entire infrastructure … much like Apple also receives to host parts of their App Store with Google (imagine Google to Apple … share 30% of your revenue with us for it, Apple would go to Amazon or Azure for sure, that is the beuty of a actual Free Market). Believe me its cost is not even close to 10% of our revenue … much less 30%. In fact the value we deliver is not so much the app, app is just a delivery medium. And yes, I would have a problem someone else banking on anything but the app because, our business … that is why even though we would like to be able to offer an app in one of the App Store, sharing 30% of the revenue generated by something that is not created by the App itself just delivered is crazy. We don’t sell an App. Now, considering that fences are being created around billions of people by companies like Apple through devices and policies, I’m concerned that not too long from now we will be forced into it just to be in the digital game.

 

[I7guy]

I don’t see you concerned that Apple is also using devs ecossystems/tech/products enriching their ecosystem system and helping selling even more devices … well actually even sharing their revenue on top for the pleasure. I don’t see you worried about Facebook, Twitter and many others getting it all for free while others are required to give up 30% of their potential revenue to reach their customers too …

The last I look it was completely legitimate to upload an app to the app store and not charge for the app and not charge IAP. Does this concern you, or should every app charge a fee?

for things they might not even need or find cheaper elsewhere if not for certain policies. I don’t see you acknowledging iOS and Android amongst other things is only possible given considerable prior investment of others as well third parties … Apple is also benefiting from that for free.

Apple is providing a captive platform to potentially reach 1 billion users. Devs pay no hosting, no management fees, no distribution fees. Apple gets to keep a commission if IAP is charged, for it's services.

All I see you concerned is for Apple … the rest are abusers, loosers … I wonder why. What do you have to gain?

Don't know where you got the above from, but it's not what has been said.

Only really huge techs like Apple and Google can actually pull this one off … but you aren’t concerned about that at all … Just concerned with comparatively smaller players … yes those are the “abusers”. Oh, we aren’t even talking about really small ones … like Tiles … Sherlocking Things … these cases its just the Free Market and competition working.

So now a small dev is an abuser? I don't understand the logic, maybe you can explain it in more detail.

The fact is that that in Free Market … nothing is free … for anyone … everything piece is competing with the other.

Free market doesn't refer to price. It refers to legal means of entry that is not being stopped by law. "Free market" does also not infer that one can enter into a market for free, with no capital.

But again the overseen last paragraph a middle ground solution is succinctly described … basic pay per use rationale … common everywhere but with iOS and Android App Stores. Epic would pay for app hosting and review (keeping the garbage away). But would be allowed to charge for their app and addons if they ever so which… being a merchant of their own tech/product. In other words, Apple would not be by policy banking on third party businesses revenues on top of enriching their ecosystem. Businesses that want the full pack, as it is now, pay 30%, why not?

We use Azure has our backend. In the end of every month we receive a billing statement with the resources used to host our entire infrastructure … much like Apple also receives to host parts of their App Store with Google.

I don't see a reason for this legislation to exist and most probably it won't go anywhere. You don't want Epic to pay virtually anything. I'm not of that opinion.

Believe me is not even close to 30%.

Apples net profit is irrelevant. They are allowed to make what they can. Let people vote with their dollars.

 

[vagos]

Apples net profit is irrelevant. They are allowed to make what they can. Let people vote with their dollars.

Well people can't vote with their dollars since apple and google formed a joint monopoly kicking all competition out of the mobile app market. Imagine if MS windows acted the same way. Would you feel the same?

 

[I7guy]

Well people can't vote with their dollars since apple and google formed a joint monopoly kicking all competition out of the mobile app market. Imagine if MS windows acted the same way. Would you feel the same?

Microsoft is allowed to make what it can. Are you suggesting the government should step in and push through legislation that would cap revenue? I know where you wanted to go with this, but notice I didn't say Apple could charge whatever they wanted for IAP, which has been an historical 30%. I said they are allowed to make what they can.

Now if Apple wanted to charge $5000 for the next iphone. I don't think there would be many takers, and government wouldn't step in with legislation and android would have a few more former ios users.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

@I7guy,

My last post, and now this one will be the last, was to describe how distorted was you concern towards just one side of the coin. I suggested a middle ground solution but even that you are trying to distort. Now, you can keep on distorting what I’ve written pretending not to understand it.

The rationale is very clearly exposed. Interpret it anyway it pleases you. Regulation is coming. You may disagree with it … but its coming. Hopefully Apple will do a better job than MS did in such situation and focus on the bottom line of their business … not getting distracted with irrelevancies all things concerned.

Why its coming is on reason around maintaining a Free Market were single merchant fences around billions aren’t allowed much less dual merchant around 100% planet level … with potential to reach all kinds of businesses. Regardless of how one got to build them. It might not come this year or next year, but regulation is coming. All this happened before, case in case the MS situation 15 years ago or so shared a lot of similarities for a lot less reasons: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/microsoft-antitrust.asp

Hopefully both Apple and Google will comply in ways not taking their frustration against users and actually do a good job in the process. No need to break up anything.

I made just a simple suggestion how such thing could possible be done, still getting payed by everyone as per app distribution and curation resource usage. Not as it is now over others business value generation (give it for free if you will to some and not to others) and doing app curation for malpractices, while not constraining the ability of businesses to be merchants of their own products in their apps regardless people’s device choice. Take it or leave it.

Cheers.

 

[tubedogg]

Last I checked, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo do not control eBay, Facebook Marketplace, etc.

IMO, being able to obtain new and pre-owned games from those channels (as well as 3rd party retailers) is equivalent to sideloading.

If I buy a pre-owned game, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo do not get a single cent from the sale, just like how sideloading an iOS app means Apple doesn't get a single cent.

Last I checked, the actual process of sideloading has no reliance on money as part of its definition, and buying used (or new) console discs or download codes from third parties has **** all to do with sideloading. Your definition of sideloading is literally entirely made up and has no relation to what anybody actually involved with the creation, sale, or manufacturer of consoles or console games thinks. One way you know this is that literally nobody has ever argued against used game sales by calling them sideloading.

IMO, your avatar is quite apt.

Buying a new or used game via eBay does not bypass any official channels (was the disc not manufactured by or under the auspices of the console manufacturer?) and therefore has exactly zero to do with sideloading.

Also, even in your scenario, both the console manufacturer and publisher got money from the original sale of the disc, whereas with a sideloaded app, Apple at no point gets money in relation to that app, while the publisher might. So even with your made-up definition of sideloading, the two scenarios are not the same.

Sideloading Fortnite on Android (back when that was a thing) versus downloading it now from the Google Play Store are two different things. Both are free, and Google gets paid nothing for either one (unless the user downloads from the Google Play Store and buys IAP, but the presence of or beneficiaries from IAP are not relevant to whether something is sideloaded or not).

Downloading Fortnite for Android from the official website made by the creator of Fortnite was sideloading it. Purchasing a download code for a game from the official website of the creator of a console game has zero to do with sideloading it. (Not sure that's a thing that even happens.)

 

[Tech198]

Easy to say, but it will be a different story when you actually work in that business, if the goal is to prevent and secure, side-loading is anti-competitive..

Kind of like allowing exceptions to privacy... Well, you can't really call yourself private if all we do is trust more either.

Actions speak louder than words.