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

[Michael Scrip]

I remember long ago reading about how Apple was doomed because they didn't have enough market share. Remember that? Back then every phone manufacturer had their "iPhone killer" and these forums were full of comments like "Android is dominating" and "Apple will never catch up"

But now actual governments are having to step in because Apple has simply become too powerful. Wow!

What a wild turn of events!

I wish I could go back a few years and tell the forum members what to look forward to. I'd also tell everyone to sell their shares of HTC as soon as possible...

 

[arobert3434]

If you don't want to see this passed, write to your senators and representative today. There are various guides online how to do this, for example you can look up your representative and senator contact information at house and senate dot gov.

 

[quatermass]

It's just a metaphor which means "You accept our terms of service, or you walk." That's gangster-esque.

And again, I'll point to monopolistic behavior. Apple can SAY "sure they can sell their app on Android" but it's the only other player [worth selling on]" and at the same time Android is heavily the underdog in some regions so they're doing the typical monopolistic argument that there is at least one competitor [that none of your friends or relatives or anyone you know uses] so it's TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE." Hmm..

Unless you're a billion+ dollar company, you don't negotiate with Apple. I think there have been only two exceptions to this, like ... ever.

Or you know, loan sharks with insane percentage cuts.

It's snarky, at the minimum... and outright wrong by other standards.

How can it be monopolistic behaviour, when they don't have anything close to a monopoly of the phone or App market? Your freedom to choose where you get your Apps has not been infringed in any way. You might as well complain that BMW has a monopoly of the BMW car market! Or perhaps you'd like the right to choose and install different vehicle management software for your car from wherever you want? Good luck with that!

 

[Thebrochure]

Adding more ways for developers to distribute their Apps ≠ restricting your freedoms

It's restricting Apple's.

 

[Thebrochure]

Go look at US senate.

Yes, but how does the color of their skin matter? How does it apply? Of what relevance is it? There was no need to even type that.

 

[metapunk2077fail]

We already do know what it looks like. Check out GateKeeper for macOS.

Who said macOS is safe? Even Federighi said it doesn't have the security they would like.

 

[kognos]

How can it be monopolistic behaviour, when they don't have anything close to a monopoly of the phone or App market? Your freedom to choose where you get your Apps has not been infringed in any way. You might as well complain that BMW has a monopoly of the BMW car market! Or perhaps you'd like the right to choose and install different vehicle management software for your car from wherever you want? Good luck with that!

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Apple monopolizes the distribution of applications on their stores, hurting consumers. This is a supreme court decision, not just about this thread, but Apple does absolutely use its app store position to harm consumers.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf

Plus your strawman argument is inappropriate. When you own your car, you can do whatever you want with it. 3rd party vendors can sell upgrades or modifications to it (at your own risk) and BMW doesn't have to give 30% of their sales to BMW.

There is no BMW market. Or if there is -- I'm not a car-mods guy, but -- it's entirely adhoc and not directly tied to a vendor. Like I said, you can go to Car Toys and have your BMW turned into a Ford with a Tesla screen if you want. But BMW gets no cut. That's allowing you to do what you wish. That's an open market.

Now if BMW sold custom seats for their cars, they could also do whatever they wanted.

But if BMW allowed 3rd party vendors to sell seats, but only through BMW, and somehow was impossible to change seats or forced 3rd party vendors to give 30% of their money to BMW, now we'd be getting close to an appropriate analogy.

By the same token, you can jailbreak your iPhone, you can throw it against the wall, you can paint it rainbow colors, you can run Windows on it. Do you see the difference here? Monopoly != Monopolistic behavior.

Apple absolutely has total control (not saying monopoly) of their own individual market, and engages in harmful monopolistic practices using that market control that hurt developers and consumers. That's why the supreme court decision stands, and now antitrust lawsuits are in play. Apple makes a play about how many billions their developers make. And Apple does very very little to protect both consumer and developer here, it's been basically noted that this cut is arbitrarily for infrastructure that doesn't need anywhere close to that upkeep.

 

[Thebrochure]

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Apple monopolizes the distribution of applications on their stores, hurting consumers. This is a supreme court decision, not just about this thread, but Apple does absolutely use its app store position to harm consumers.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf

Plus your strawman argument is inappropriate. When you own your car, you can do whatever you want with it. 3rd party vendors can sell upgrades or modifications to it (at your own risk) and BMW doesn't have to give 30% of their sales to BMW.

There is no BMW market. Or if there is -- I'm not a car-mods guy, but -- it's entirely adhoc and not directly tied to a vendor. Like I said, you can go to Car Toys and have your BMW turned into a Ford with a Tesla screen if you want. But BMW gets no cut. That's allowing you to do what you wish. That's an open market.

Now if BMW sold custom seats for their cars, they could also do whatever they wanted.

But if BMW allowed 3rd party vendors to sell seats, but only through BMW, and somehow was impossible to change seats or forced 3rd party vendors to give 30% of their money to BMW, now we'd be getting close to an appropriate analogy.

By the same token, you can jailbreak your iPhone, you can throw it against the wall, you can paint it rainbow colors, you can run Windows on it. Do you see the difference here? Monopoly != Monopolistic behavior.

Apple absolutely has total control (not saying monopoly) of their own individual market, and engages in harmful monopolistic practices using that market control that hurt developers and consumers. That's why the supreme court decision stands, and now antitrust lawsuits are in play. Apple makes a play about how many billions their developers make. And Apple does very very little to protect both consumer and developer here, it's been basically noted that this cut is arbitrarily for infrastructure that doesn't need anywhere close to that upkeep.

Telling Apple what they can and can not sell (or how much they charge businesses for shelf space etc.) within the walls of their store is no different than telling Walmart the same thing. Just because one is digital and one is physical does not change the premise.

It's wrong.

 

[bgillander]

So is congress going to let you pay your taxes to a different country? Seems unfair of them to deny the competition. Who cares who provides the infrastructure, after all?

 

[msackey]

I think we could still be ok with some choice on iOS

Right now we have “none”

None? You feel you have no choice?

 

[visualseed]

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Apple monopolizes the distribution of applications on their stores, hurting consumers. This is a supreme court decision, not just about this thread, but Apple does absolutely use its app store position to harm consumers.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf

Plus your strawman argument is inappropriate. When you own your car, you can do whatever you want with it. 3rd party vendors can sell upgrades or modifications to it (at your own risk) and BMW doesn't have to give 30% of their sales to BMW.

There is no BMW market. Or if there is -- I'm not a car-mods guy, but -- it's entirely adhoc and not directly tied to a vendor. Like I said, you can go to Car Toys and have your BMW turned into a Ford with a Tesla screen if you want. But BMW gets no cut. That's allowing you to do what you wish. That's an open market.

Now if BMW sold custom seats for their cars, they could also do whatever they wanted.

But if BMW allowed 3rd party vendors to sell seats, but only through BMW, and somehow was impossible to change seats or forced 3rd party vendors to give 30% of their money to BMW, now we'd be getting close to an appropriate analogy.

By the same token, you can jailbreak your iPhone, you can throw it against the wall, you can paint it rainbow colors, you can run Windows on it. Do you see the difference here? Monopoly != Monopolistic behavior.

Apple absolutely has total control (not saying monopoly) of their own individual market, and engages in harmful monopolistic practices using that market control that hurt developers and consumers. That's why the supreme court decision stands, and now antitrust lawsuits are in play. Apple makes a play about how many billions their developers make. And Apple does very very little to protect both consumer and developer here, it's been basically noted that this cut is arbitrarily for infrastructure that doesn't need anywhere close to that upkeep.

That ruling does not say what you think it does. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to sue Apple for what they were alleging. Not that Apple was guilty of anything nor did the the court make any ruling on the merits of their actual case.

 

[Aoligei]

Because, in all likelyhood, it has been stolen. That's theft. You don't seem to get that it 'aint your software. It's mine, or whoever wrote the bit of binary code that you seem to think you have some constitutional right to. You don't.
Write your own and side load it with Xcode. You can do that today without having to bribe a congressman/woman.

I can give you few reason that I sideload. Few apps are not available within Canadian App Store, like Bilibili. I made sure apps that I sideload are free apps.

Why do you think when I sideload apps, I must pirate apps? This goes back with people who are dead against jailbreaking. I used to download lots of jailbreak tweaks to make iOS less boring and more functionals, like ability to connect USB drive and load video from USB drive.

 

[Aoligei]

Telling Apple what they can and can not sell (or how much they charge businesses for shelf space etc.) within the walls of their store is no different than telling Walmart the same thing. Just because one is digital and one is physical does not change the premise.

It's wrong.

I don't know about USA. But here in Canada Ontario, WalMart or any other super market are not allowed to sell liquors, caanibis. Governemtn absolutely have power to deiciates what product can and cannot be sold in stores.

 

[PlayUltimate]

I’m a small independent app developer. I like the App Store for a number of reasons. 1. Free access to Apple’s APIs. If I had to pay for API calls, I’d be done as a developer. 2. The App Store takes care of all the overhead For me. I only need to worry about the basics, such as graphics and descriptions for marketing, and Apple takes care of the rest. And 3. I don’t have to do crazy marketing to get apps discovered. The App Store provides a one-stop shop for ALL apps on iPhone. I have as much chance to be successful as a huge company as long as my product is good.

Is the App Store perfect? No. 15% is still a bit much to take from a little guy like myself. After all, I have to do ALL the work on the apps themselves, plus all of the updates. Once I upload an app and get it on the App Store, Apple does very little from that point on. Also, I still have to pay $99 a year to be a developer. The Android Store charges me a $25 fee to upload the app once, then I never have to pay again. Like others have mentioned, having to compete with scam apps really sucks, and Apple can be slow to approve updates. Still, I like the App Store as is. I won’t be leaving any time soon no matter what.

I agree with everything you said. . . . I don't understand the complaint about the 15% - 30% commission. (Note you are not charged anything unless you sell something). The is low compared to nearly any other business. Investigate the cost of restaurant franchise with NNN-lease.

 

[AdonisSMU]

That makes no sense
Your post said not one thing about "app stores"

You said:




The "core of iOS" is already limited access
No third party can "do whatever you want on iOS" right now, nor would that change with code signed side loading.

The context of the discussion is app stores.

The core of every computer is limited access in theory regardless of platform.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

Exactly. Assuming all apps are on the App Store with the same features and price it won’t. Developers already insert code to bypass app store rules, so how long will they offer identical apps in the App Store?

Nobody knows for sure obviously but if Android is anything to go by then the answer is “forever”

Unless an app CAN’T BE on the Play Store (such as YouTube Vanced, a tweaked version of YouTube) the dev will always make it available on the Play Store.
Heck, even Fortnite decided to stay on the Play Store after trying the sideloading way! They know they have a bigger audience this way.

 

[AdonisSMU]

The other option for Apple is to not have any way to download any external apps. I feel like congress is diving too far into the regulation of this. Next thing you know people will be complaining their microwave wont install the apps they want it to.

 

[mrochester]

The other option for Apple is to not have any way to download any external apps. I feel like congress is diving too far into the regulation of this. Next thing you know people will be complaining their microwave wont install the apps they want it to.

Web apps, as Apple originally wanted!

 

[svish]

Not good for security and privacy. Apple might be forced to allow sideloading if it becomes law

 

[NufSaid]

Huh?
Who would be doing the "banning"?

I am not for the banning Youtubers from griping about bad phones they ruin with sideloading. I am pointing out that when the government jumps in to regulate business…where do we stop.

But it would be frustrating to see how many would complain about battery life or security while sideloading trash.

Fun Fact: A friend carries two phones because her mortgage company prohibits even checking email on an android device due to security.​

 

[Grohowiak]

Agreed. But the analogy about Apple being blamed for what would arguably be a user issue is not without warrant. See what happened to the Audi brand in the ‘80s with the phenomenon know as ‘runaway’ acceleration.

Lol funny you mention that. My brother had this car and things did get south once.
He got rid of it pretty fast.

 

[votdfak]

I can give you few reason that I sideload. Few apps are not available within Canadian App Store, like Bilibili. I made sure apps that I sideload are free apps.

Why do you think when I sideload apps, I must pirate apps? This goes back with people who are dead against jailbreaking. I used to download lots of jailbreak tweaks to make iOS less boring and more functionals, like ability to connect USB drive and load video from USB drive.

You don't have to sideload, you just need USA App Store account. I have like 6 different App Store accounts (USA, UK, DE, FR, RS, CRO).

 

[4jasontv]

Nobody knows for sure obviously but if Android is anything to go by then the answer is “forever”

Unless an app CAN’T BE on the Play Store (such as YouTube Vanced, a tweaked version of YouTube) the dev will always make it available on the Play Store.
Heck, even Fortnite decided to stay on the Play Store after trying the sideloading way! They know they have a bigger audience this way.

So you are saying some apps might not be on the app store. That seems like sufficient reason to not allow it.

But, Epic also said they wanted to make their IAP cost less when you use a side-loaded copy. That’s another reason to not allow it.

How do we ensure that all customers pay the same amount across all instances of an app and developers don’t promote instances that generate more profit?

I just think developers will be tempted to try and increase revenue through price manipulation, feature asymmetry, and promotion.

 

[BaldiMac]

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Apple monopolizes the distribution of applications on their stores, hurting consumers. This is a supreme court decision, not just about this thread, but Apple does absolutely use its app store position to harm consumers.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf

Nope. You are misrepresenting the ruling. All the Supreme Court said in the ruling you link to is that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the suit.

 

[Aoligei]

You don't have to sideload, you just need USA App Store account. I have like 6 different App Store accounts (USA, UK, DE, FR, RS, CRO).

Yes. I know. But you then you need six different email address, 6 different payment cards (for example: Chinese App Store won't take credit card issued in Canada, Japanese App Store only take card issued in Japan). I believe now days with two factors authentication, you need phone number from all these countries. It just too much trouble. I rather want sideload.