Unlike the EU, nothing will come of this. That's the difference.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Government to Investigate Sideloading and Web App Restrictions on iOS
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Collect taxes. Build infrastructure. Support and direct the military. You know, the usual run-of-the-mill stuff...
There are two app stores and three major cell providers.
However, there's also a couple dozen small cell providers people can go to. And anyone can found a new cell provider if they like.
Try to build an app store and you will fail, because Apple and Google control the industry in a way that locks anyone else out. Nobody controls the cellular industry.
Also, those three cell providers only serve the US. Apple and Google have their duopolies worldwide with the exception of china.
Collecting taxes by writing regulation on how much should be collected. Build infrastructure by writing regulation on how
it should be built, then using those taxes to pay private companies who will actually do the work.
Yes, they run a military. And police/courts.
But the real job of the government is regulating things.
Taxes are regulation. Infrastructure is built by the private sector, almost exclusively.
Everything else is done with taxes.
Millions of pages of regulation. The system to enforce them. And the military.
Couple of items on that ...
1. Not all Android versions (talking device OEM) allow sideloading
2. Depending on the version, wading through the sideloading can be a mess
Would love to see Google simplify the basic sideloading function.
this this and this, this is why I choose iOS it's so easy to release an app (relatively that is) and just have apple take care of the rest.
Take one step into alternative app stores. Start by having one alternative.
One day, I decide that I’d like an app for some reason. I start by looking at Apple’s app store simply because that is what I have always done. But I don’t find one that convinces me to download it.
Next stop, B’s app store. Broadly two likely scenarios. Either they will only have a modest number of apps – in which case quite likely few that weren’t on Apple’s app store. Or they’ll to a very large extent have the same apps.
I don’t know about you, but I get bored stiff working through the various apps that initially look possible. Having spent time doing that one one app store, I’ll only have a
Cursory glance at another which is largely the same.
Two obvious paths – B offer an option to only see apps that are unique to them. Which might hack off some developers who find their apps easily hidden. Or they don’t which might hack off end users who are already bored.
Now multiply that to three, four, …, twenty or more app stores.
And for each app store you use, you’ll most likely have to register and set up an account. Maybe not to browse, but definitely if you want to download and buy apps.
In fairly short order, some of these alternate app stores are likely to struggle. At least to the extent that you won’t be saving much, if anything, in terms of payment for apps.
I can see the alternate app store for a few companies. A mega-game app store which is more or less exclusive to that game? Maybe a facebook app store to try to lock people in ever tighter?
At the same time, I can see some apps remaining only with Apple’s app store – things like bank-provided apps. Where the company behind them sees no incentive to offer them elsewhere – and possibly a disincentive in having to deal with multiple app stores to distribute their apps. And the possibility of less security.
I can also see situations such as we currently have where there are wars – real physical wars as well as cyber wars. If Moscow wants to create an app for Russian citizens, they’d probably be all too happy to set up their own app store. And manage the apps to do what they want them to without any external checking or verification of safety at all.
(I can equally imagine London, Washington, Beijing, etc., doing much the same. Not confining the problem to one country.)
As a pretty pathetic app user, I really don’t have many installed, it is probably easier and, in the end, no more expensive, for me to simply stick with Apple.
One day, I decide that I’d like an app for some reason. I start by looking at Apple’s app store simply because that is what I have always done. But I don’t find one that convinces me to download it.
Next stop, B’s app store. Broadly two likely scenarios. Either they will only have a modest number of apps – in which case quite likely few that weren’t on Apple’s app store. Or they’ll to a very large extent have the same apps.
I don’t know about you, but I get bored stiff working through the various apps that initially look possible. Having spent time doing that one one app store, I’ll only have a
Cursory glance at another which is largely the same.
Two obvious paths – B offer an option to only see apps that are unique to them. Which might hack off some developers who find their apps easily hidden. Or they don’t which might hack off end users who are already bored.
Now multiply that to three, four, …, twenty or more app stores.
And for each app store you use, you’ll most likely have to register and set up an account. Maybe not to browse, but definitely if you want to download and buy apps.
In fairly short order, some of these alternate app stores are likely to struggle. At least to the extent that you won’t be saving much, if anything, in terms of payment for apps.
I can see the alternate app store for a few companies. A mega-game app store which is more or less exclusive to that game? Maybe a facebook app store to try to lock people in ever tighter?
At the same time, I can see some apps remaining only with Apple’s app store – things like bank-provided apps. Where the company behind them sees no incentive to offer them elsewhere – and possibly a disincentive in having to deal with multiple app stores to distribute their apps. And the possibility of less security.
I can also see situations such as we currently have where there are wars – real physical wars as well as cyber wars. If Moscow wants to create an app for Russian citizens, they’d probably be all too happy to set up their own app store. And manage the apps to do what they want them to without any external checking or verification of safety at all.
(I can equally imagine London, Washington, Beijing, etc., doing much the same. Not confining the problem to one country.)
As a pretty pathetic app user, I really don’t have many installed, it is probably easier and, in the end, no more expensive, for me to simply stick with Apple.
Sure but apple invented their own App Store. It’s not a publicly owned utility service. And developers are not forced to develop for iOS
Apple is an American corporation, and thus is subject to prevailing state and federal laws, which include the Sherman Antitrust Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Antitrust Act. Nobody was forced to use Microsoft Windows. Or Kodak Cameras.
I wonder how people discover their apps. App Store / Play Store in app advertising? Or from somewhere else?
I discover mine usually via advertising or I Google for a specific function / type of app.
For me both the App Store and Play Store are a mess when you want to discover new applicable apps.
Did you read the section on why they felt this was the case?
Never mind, someone else already covered it
Last edited:
If I want something really specific — vacation planner or recipe app or whatever — I google “best x iOS app” and take a look at the results.
If I want something more generic — a particular kind of game (solitaire, mahjong, etc.) — I’ll search on the app Store.
If I just want something to kill some time, I might browse categories on the App Store.
I think I’m pretty set for apps at this point, though.
Some of the apps I sideload on Android are for exactly that: no longer offered in the Play Store.
Pretty cool option IMO.
While they may be subject to these laws, the courts have frequently ruled their behavior doesn't violate them. In fact, for the last several decades, the courts have been reluctant to side with the government in all but the most extreme cases of antitrust and, even then, the rulings and penalties have been rather mild. There will probably never be another AT&T style breakup and even the Microsoft wrist slap two decades ago would be unfathomable now.
There are enough pending cases in the various courts that there is very decent chance that corporations may soon get constitutionally ensured equal protection under the law on par with individual citizens, just as they got first amendment rights under Citizens United. If that happens, the government loses almost all its targeted regulatory authority. Only broad regulations that affects every business in a similar position equally would be allowed and Congress would have to quit making laws that specifically target one business sector and close carveouts for specific industries in existing laws.
Last edited:
Certainly it's the the role of the courts to adjudicate the antitrust cases brought to them by the Federal government. By precedent corporations already enjoy equal protection under the 14th amendment. That does not contravene any existing antitrust laws.
Because they need money. Many governments around the world are looking for additional sources of revenues due to the pandemic. Apple, being one of the richest company is an easy target. They can get something through fines and whatnot from some arbitrary laws they will make.
If the government were truly concerned about competition, they would’ve jumped in way long time ago when Windows Phone and WebOS were still around.
It’s not that simple. Apple is so huge today that their brand is highly valued. Allowing anything that can ruin a consumer experience, intentionally or not, can be a negative effect on that brand value. In the end, when things go south, a consumer will simply look at the logo on their phone and it’s Apple. They will associate their bad experience with the Apple brand.
How do you think people have the mindset of Windows being associated with viruses and malware? We know that most of the time, it’s not Microsoft’s fault, but the brand of Windows has been tarnished (to the point that Apple exploited that way back). The Windows logo/brand is what people see and they will associate anything bad within it to that brand.
Apple will protect their brand value at all cost (what makes you think people willing to spend $1000+ on phones? It’s that Apple logo). Control and vertical integration is part of their efforts to do so.
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.
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.
They don't quite have full equal protection under the 14th. They have some, but the courts have sidestepped rulings that would have given them full protection as individuals have. The domino effect of making that distinction would gut the scope and power of regulatory administrations. Tangentially, Axon v FTC may end the practice of the FTC self-ruling on antitrust issues, specifically mergers and acquisition, outside the courts which will be a big deal for almost every regulatory agency. Also last year's ruling in AMG v FTC ended the FTC's ability to seek equitable monetary relief as an enforcement tool. This means they can't pressure companies (freeze assets, place under receivership, etc) into settlements over the threat of investigating alleged violations that they will also rule on. For now, the FTC will work around it by handing cases off to other agencies and state AGs, but they will have to use the courts and deal with less than certain outcomes and costly appeals.
Last edited:
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.
Doesn’t really matter to me. I’m still gonna be only downloading from the App Store