U.S. Government to Investigate Sideloading and Web App Restrictions on iOS

[terryzx]

Let the others do their side loading and when their machine gets screwed up, have the the people who made that stupid choice to go somewhere other than Apple to get it fixed.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

As usual, the EU leads and the US follows.

Does that explain why the largest and most innovative tech companies are based in the US?

 

[Orange Bat]

No it isn't. Apple's fee is not an app discovery fee. It is not a credit card transaction fee. Having your app on the App Store enables it to be searched on the Store. That is one of several mechanism a developer has to bring his app to market. Anyone relying solely on the App Store will not be successful (as as successful as they could be).

The fee Apple charges is not a credit card processing fee or an app discovery fee. It covers:

• Global tax payments on behalf of developers along with all required reporting
• First line support for application issues, including install and billing
• Support for the App Store (operations, personnel, real estate, hardware, utilities, real estate taxes, etc.)
• App Store review process and staff
• Free access to notifications servers
• Free access to use of Apple Maps in applications
• Free access to one petabyte of online storage for your apps' users' data
• Free access to Testflight and developer app beta support
• Funding for all developer tools which are free to use by all (Xcode, API, docs, etc.)
• Funding for new features in iOS and API (e.g., Metal, AI/ML, HEIC/ProRaw, Portrait, etc.)

And before it is said, the $99 annual fee does not cover all of the above. It covers:

• Deployment certificates necessary to submit apps to the App Store
• Access to developer-beta-builds of all Apple products
• Access to developer support (2 free per year)
• Access to developer forums

We can argue all day long as to whether 30% is too high. Or even 15%. But we can all agree it is not 0%.

Even with side loading allowed Apple would still be free to charge a platform fee. A case could be made to have an itemized fee schedule. 6% for credit card transaction processing, plus tax accounting, and a little towards developer tools funding. An additional 9% to 24% includes all the rest. Or some cafeteria-plan of fee / capability. And everyone still needs to pay the annual fee anyway as they will need deployment certificates just like on Mac.

None of this matters if you aren’t on Apple’s own App Store. When a developer wants to make an iOS app, they have no choice, even if they don’t use any of Apple’s services in their apps. Pay to be on the App Store or don’t make an iOS app. That’s the choice. Everything else is secondary.

 

[dk001]

Side loading is very easy on Android. All you need is a website to host the APK. Once a user downloaded it, the system will simply ask if the user want to allow the app (in this case the browser) to install the app, and it’s just a tap of switch away.

Not on 11 or 12.
It’s. Bit more than that.

 

[dk001]

This is great they’re taking input from the public. I just left a comment. I urge others to do the same.

FYI- I said in my comment that I am pro-closed ecosystem because I don’t want an app that I need, to be only available in some third party app store that I don’t trust to value my privacy, which would pretty much inevitably happen.

Yup. Left mine. ?

 

[visualseed]

Good points. The AMG vs FTC ruling will likely be overcome with new legislation that addresses the shortcomings identified.

As for equal protection, I'm not sure why you think expanded equal protection for corporations would hamstring existing antitrust regulation. If memory serves there's been at least one high-profile antitrust case where a corporation used equal protection as a defense, which was dismissed not on the grounds the corporation didn't enjoy equal protection but that the Federal government had significant discretion in choosing the selection criteria by which it brings antitrust cases. If I can remember the case I'll post back.

Regardless of whether I can remember the case, equal protection has very specific criteria and doesn't exclude some situations that intuitively we think it would or should. A simple example is our progressive tax system.

The biggest reason why EP applies is because much of the antitrust legislation that is being focused on today (market size, monopoly powers, etc) is based on "rule of reason" and not per se rules. Absolute things like price fixing are very easy to define, identify, and prosecute. - those are per se rules. Rule(s) of reason are things that are very subjective and don't have definitive guidance. The vagueness of the various AT Acts have made it almost impossible for us to truly define what a monopoly is. (we rely on precedents and formulas, but those vary from circuit to circuit and year to year) How do we define harm to competitors? Consumers? Why are remedies extremely inconsistent for similar situations and enforcement varies wildly from industry to industry?

So the EP question that arises is how can private property be taken (or be deprived of use) for public interest if the public interest is not defined nor the infraction or damages quantified. If regulators "feel" that one company is anticompetitive but don't "feel" the same way about another company with similar standing and position in another industry, they have created a huge conflict of public interest and not applied law equally. Essentially they are failing to apply rational basis review (or even the three scrutinies) to determine legitimate government interests and justifying a legitimate distinction between persons (in this case 'corporate entities' - which has yet to be established in law) and instead applying restrictions to liberty on an arbitrary basis without a constitutionally legitimate purpose. It should be no less a violation of the 14th amendment to form a commission, policies, or laws to specifically target big tech companies than to create a police force and laws to specifically target minorities.

Antitrust has historically proven to be a political tool and not an economic one and the courts have rightly pushed back on it. Which explains why very few rule of reason AT cases are actually reaching summary judgement (In most, prosecutors push for consent decrees early on) and when they do you end up with SCOTUS verdicts like Ohio v Amex that turn the entire concept of "markets" inside out.

 

[mejsric]

i buy Android phone to side load some apps (hacks etc.)
so if iPhone can side load, i wont buy Android phone anymore?
i will just buy another iPhone for privacy and another iPhone for whatever.

old setup is iPhone+Android, with this iPhone+iPhone
hope this wont kill Android phones.

 

[Beautyspin]

With all due respect, if you do not like it, then buy Android. My issue with this crass government overreach is that once side-loading becomes available, the apps I normally trust will vacate the App store and I'll have to get them from the Wild West. Of course that is what normally happens for other operating systems, like Android, but then again I put much more sensitive information on my Apple devices than I otherwise would precisely because of the walled garden. Lawmakers should butt out, with the exception perhaps of making Apple guarantee security of all apps in the app store if there is a walled garden (the supposed justification for the iOS ecosystem).

For all those worried about Apps vacating App Store, all I can say is that it is all Apple's fault. It should not run rough shod over the developers. Now that the tables have turned, it will have to woo them to be on the App Store. I am glad for this new normal.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Source?

Then you would be in the majority of users who would choose to keep the optional side-loading setting disabled on their phones.

Source?

Source?
I support several large organizations, one has over 10,000 users worldwide, and they don’t allow Android devices for VPN access.
If you need more proof, do your own research.

Side-loading will ruin developers. Software piracy will go overboard. Just ask a real developer about it.

 

[TheToolGuide]

You know your contact info can already get uploaded from iPhones by your friends and family, even in the walled garden?

You‘re right it can be. A lot of apps in the past would just take all or as much of your information as they could. Apple has been restricting a lot of it or putting a lot of warnings in place to help educate people. It won’t protect me from everything for sure. I’m not also worried just about contacts. Photos I share with people, travel plans I have with others, notes people have about me. There’s a lot of Metadata that can been sniffed off of another person’s phone that is not possible or is incredibly hard to do with Apple’s walled garden.

I’m personally not paranoid about messages or information I share with people who don’t use iPhones and so inevitably I will have my stuff out there in less secure situations.

Look if you want to have an discussion about getting more money to the developers while Apple isn’t footing the bill I’m open to that. I don’t care about big companies like Epic or Google. I’m talking about developers that the 30 or 15 percent profit share prevents them from entering the App Store to be profitable. And I don’t think we need to give up privacy to get there for the developers who really need it.

If Apple has locked features away from developers I’m open to discussion on finding ways to allow the devs access, again without having to compromise on privacy.

Most people can’t even really point to many apps that they wish they had on their iPhone that would be better with side loading. They just want control just like Apple wants control of the platform they build and many people enjoy.

 

[svish]

More pressure on Apple. Apple might be forced to implement changes.

 

[Deguello]

The vagueness of the various AT Acts have made it almost impossible for us to truly define what a monopoly is. (we rely on precedents and formulas, but those vary from circuit to circuit and year to year)

Which makes it almost impossible to conform or avoid, which is insane in a system that’s supposed to be about rule of law and not about the whims of lawyers and judges.

 

[BootsWalking]

The biggest reason why EP applies is because much of the antitrust legislation that is being focused on today (market size, monopoly powers, etc) is based on "rule of reason" and not per se rules. Absolute things like price fixing is very easy to define, identify, and prosecute. - those are per se rules. Rule(s) of reason are things that are very subjective and don't have definitive guidance. The vagueness of the various AT Acts have made it almost impossible for us to truly define what a monopoly is. (we rely on precedents and formulas, but those vary from circuit to circuit and year to year) How do we define harm to competitors? Consumers? Why are remedies extremely inconsistent for similar situations and enforcement varies wildly from industry to industry?

So the EP question that arises is how can private property be taken (or be deprived of use) for public interest if the public interest is not defined nor the infraction or damages quantified. If regulators "feel" that one company is anticompetitive but don't "feel" the same way about another company with similar standing and position in another industry, they have created a huge conflict of public interest and not applied law equally. Essentially they are failing to apply rational basis review (or even the three scrutinies) to determine legitimate government interests and justifying a legitimate distinction between persons (in this case 'corporate entities' - which has yet to be established in law) and instead applying restrictions to liberty on an arbitrary basis without a constitutionally legitimate purpose. It should be no less a violation of the 14th amendment to form a commission, policies, or laws to specifically target big tech companies than to create a police force and laws to specifically target minorities.

Antitrust has historically proven to be a political tool and not an economic one and the courts have rightly pushed back on it. Which explains why very few rule of reason AT cases are actually reaching summary judgement (In most, prosecutors push for consent decrees early on) and when they do you end with SCOTUS verdicts like Ohio v Amex that turn the entire concept of "markets" inside out.

I remembered the case. It wasn't equal protection that was argued but instead "bill of attainder" - similar concepts but applied to the law itself rather than application of the law:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ng.2331945/page-5?post=30791971#post-30791971

 

[Wanted797]

why are you referring to yourself as third person "random"?

“Random” developers like to and will install things without your knowledge.

 

[4743913]

“Random” developers like to and will install things without your knowledge.

you shouldn't be installing apps from devs you do not trust. maybe you should just stay in the garden.. its all about choice.

 

[I7guy]

For all those worried about Apps vacating App Store, all I can say is that it is all Apple's fault. It should not run rough shod over the developers. Now that the tables have turned, it will have to woo them to be on the App Store. I am glad for this new normal.

Yeah, let the devs leave, starting today - this very minute. That’s really the way to show apple…if they are serious. Don’t wait until and if the government creates a back-door.

 

[Beautyspin]

How do you know they are?

Does Apple Sell Your Data? Everything You Need To Know

It is completely justified if you want to know how Apple uses your data, and I think we have a somewhat complicated answer to this question

fossbytes.com

How Apple made privacy profitable?

An explainer on how Apple used a privacy update to create a new revenue driver

finshots.in

Apple's ad business sees windfall; may break own privacy rules - 9to5Mac

Apple's ad business has grown dramatically since the company's App Tracking Transparency rules came into effect, says a new report ...

9to5mac.com

I could go on, but what is the point?

 

[I7guy]

Does Apple Sell Your Data? Everything You Need To Know

It is completely justified if you want to know how Apple uses your data, and I think we have a somewhat complicated answer to this question

fossbytes.com

How Apple made privacy profitable?

An explainer on how Apple used a privacy update to create a new revenue driver

finshots.in

Apple's ad business sees windfall; may break own privacy rules - 9to5Mac

Apple's ad business has grown dramatically since the company's App Tracking Transparency rules came into effect, says a new report ...

9to5mac.com

I could go on, but what is the point?

Nothing in that article is new news. One can download all of your data apple has kn you. It’s a rare case that when you buy a product, a tv, car, and other types of consumer products you can consent (or not) to receive marketing emails. And apple is not an exception.

That’s not profiting from your data, that’s sending marketing emails. (Of course it’s in the hopes that these emails will result in a purchase, which results in revenue, which results in profits)

I could go on, but what’s the point.

 

[CE3]

As usual, the EU leads and the US follows.

Yeah, if you’re posting this from a parallel universe

There quite a few EU countries doing things I wish were “usual” for the US to follow, or even take the lead on. This isn’t really one of them, though.

 

[Beautyspin]

Apple should, yes. But it is their right to do so. As long as they're not using any anti-competitive practices, they are the ones with the ultimate rights to determine what should happen on their own platform, store, and so on. Apple owns and maintain the platform, the app store, and so on, this isn't a public forum.

Government forcing companies to open up their platforms, app stores, absolutely not.

If the market wants an open platform and open app store, they can go with Android or have the government create their own OS, devices, and app store.

If Google promises an open app store and platform but uses practices such as enforcing 20+ steps barrier to sideload that is absolutely unreasonable or create FUD, then the government should write the laws to regulate the said open app stores rules and enforce it but not to private companies that do not have open app stores.

1. They may own the platform, but they are selling their stuff to the public. They are using their products for internal consumption. That means they have to be regulated and the regulations can be anything the governing bodies feel could affect the public.
2. Please don't spread the FUD that it takes 20+ steps to install 3rd party app stores or sideloading apps, it takes exactly 2 steps.

 

[Beautyspin]

No, the government should butt out of this. Even many people who want Apple to allow sideloading on iOS agree that the government shouldn't be determining this. I personally don't care either way about sideloading - I just think it's Apple's right, and theirs alone, to decide this.

As long as they sell their stuff for internal consumption, it is their right to do whatever they want. The minute they sell their phones to the public, they lose that right.

 

[I7guy]

As long as they sell their stuff for internal consumption, it is their right to do whatever they want. The minute they sell their phones to the public, they lose that right.

Companies don’t loose the right to develop and sell products for mass consumption to the public using their own design guidelines and requirements as long as all necessary laws are followed and approvals received.

After the fact to have the government mandate the nfc chip must be opened up or the App Store should allow sideloading is government overreach.

I wonder how many here advocating this would not mind additional overreach laws for example allowing the police to enter your residence at any time for any reason.

 

[usagora]

As long as they sell their stuff for internal consumption, it is their right to do whatever they want. The minute they sell their phones to the public, they lose that right.

Really? So how far do you want to take this? Should the government be allowed to tell Apple how to design the home screen as well? Obviously the government should be regulating certain things in the market to avoid abuse, corruption, etc. But the method of downloading apps to an iPhone is not one of those things. That's clear overreach.

 

[gregmancuso]

None of this matters if you aren’t on Apple’s own App Store. When a developer wants to make an iOS app, they have no choice, even if they don’t use any of Apple’s services in their apps. Pay to be on the App Store or don’t make an iOS app. That’s the choice. Everything else is secondary.

Not at all. A developer has several options that don’t incur an Apple platform fee. Free apps, apps with ads, apps with external payment options. The latter was never an issue for larger, cross-platform dev shops and is now quite feasible with the elimination of anti steering rules.

Paid and IAP are the only mechanisms that incur platform fees.

The list of capabilities I listed are available for all now under the current rules. The fact that App Store distribution bundles them all just makes for easy admin and accounting. If side loading or other alternate distribution models (stores) are forced don’t be surprised to see other platform fee pricing plans put in place.

And no developer uses no Apple services.

I am not advocating for or against alternate distribution models in this post. Just that the current platform fees and distribution model gave been in place since 2008 or so. Fees have gone down over the years. Services provided have gone up. My gut feel is that smaller devs are getting caught up in the rhetoric of the larger devs and will get burned in the end. Platform licensing fees will be paid. How and at what rates are to be determined but probably higher than they currently are (assuming all services are used). I don’t envision most devs will see an increase in either top or bottom lines.

 

[dk001]

Source?
I support several large organizations, one has over 10,000 users worldwide, and they don’t allow Android devices for VPN access.
If you need more proof, do your own research.

Side-loading will ruin developers. Software piracy will go overboard. Just ask a real developer about it.

Don’t allow?
Why in the heck not?
My org has well past 100k globally and the predominate device is Android (except in the US). VPN and DM is not a problem. This is both work supplied and BYOD. Not all devices require a VPN - depends on the user access needs.

JMW YWMV