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

[kognos]

I think you may have linked to the wrong document. This one is a SCOTUS ruling that people buying apps are direct purchasers from Apple, not indirect purchasers. I don’t see any decision on monopolization of anything in that document.

You can take your time and search up the many reviews on this (correctly linked) SCOTUS opinion.

I'll stress this clearly, because everyone seems to muddy the point:
Apple is not a monopoly.
The App store is not a monopoly.
The Apple app store is a monopolist retailer.
Apple is using monopolist behavior with the app store.
These opinions are not conjoined.

The SCOTUS opinion was in regards to whether Apple could be sued directly for sales on the App Store. Apple argues they cannot since the developers set the price, the sale is effectively direct to the developer. But since Apple inflates the price and act as middleman, they are a monopolistic retailer in this context and also attempting to both shield themselves from applicable antitrust law by stating they are providing direct sales to developers while still taking a cut of those sales and directly raising and manipulating costs. This is evidence of monopolistic behavior and the court opined that apple can be held liable for this.

To the point of this thread, by allowing a secondary process for application installation, this issue would be nullified. Which is why Android devices both have the comparative pricing structure and sideloading, and seem to be handling life just fine.

 

[Analog Kid]

You can take your time and search up the many reviews on this (correctly linked) SCOTUS opinion.

I'll stress this clearly, because everyone seems to muddy the point:
Apple is not a monopoly.
The App store is not a monopoly.
The Apple app store is a monopolist retailer.
Apple is using monopolist behavior with the app store.
These opinions are not conjoined.

The SCOTUS opinion was in regards to whether Apple could be sued directly for sales on the App Store. Apple argues they cannot since the developers set the price, the sale is effectively direct to the developer. But since they inflate the price and act as middleman, they are a monopolistic retailer in this context and also attempting to both shield themselves from applicable antitrust law by stating they are providing direct sales to developers while still taking a cut of those sales and directly raising and manipulating costs. This is evidence of monopolistic behavior and the court opined that apple can be held liable for this.

To the point of this thread, by allowing a secondary process for application installation, this issue would be nullified. Which is why Android devices both have the comparative pricing structure and sideloading, and seem to be handling life just fine.

And you sir, are obfuscating the point which is that the supreme court said that Apple was demonstrating monopolistic behavior.

Sorry, but I have to say it’s you that’s muddying the point and given that it looks like you did read the SCOTUS opinion, and might understand some of it, that you’re perhaps muddying the point intentionally. The SCOTUS opinion you cite did not say that Apple monopolizes distribution of apps on their devices, which you continue to claim. You know what the opinion states, yet you go off elsewhere claiming it states something it does not.

If SCOTUS had opined that Apple holds a monopoly, even if they felt it was an illegal monopoly, it would be largely irrelevant because that was not the matter before the court. Interpretation of a detail of standing was.

Apple is not trying to shield themselves from applicable antitrust law, they are trying to shield themselves from inapplicable antitrust law or law applied by parties it does not apply to.

You seem to be conflating the decision that a suit can proceed with the presumption that the suit will succeed.

 

[metapunk2077fail]

I have followed Apple long enough to know that their senior execs have always said that macOS is safe. They're only back tracking now because there's a lot of heat on their a**.

That's untrue otherwise regular standalone security updates for the last 3 decades wouldn't be a thing. No one calls their OS 'safe'. They only say 'safer than the other OS'.

 

[4jasontv]

As it stands right now is those apps flat out don't exist on iOS.
Would you rather have an app not exist for iPhone users just because it can't deal with the App Store rules?

As for the rest of your argument I honestly don't care if Apple loses money on their stupid in-app purchase fees? They'll be fine with the obscene amount of money the make off selling great hardware and software, they'll be fine without the 2-3 billions in service revenue or whatever.
They have no right to get 30% of something they're not helping at all with.

Keeping the app on the store? Sure, whatever; they're hosting the files, making it accessible, promoting it (once in a blue moon) and in general demanding a fee to be on their platform, a fee that you pay by giving them 99 (or 299 if you-re a big corporation) dollars a year. That's more than enough.
But they sure as hell don't need 30% off every single thing users are paying for MY app to do.
5-10% maybe, just to cover processing and a hefty fee for convenience, but anything more is absolutely pushing it.

Either lower it to a point where it makes sense or keep it sky-high but give me the option to do it in a different way, some business cannot afford a 30% cut. That doesn't include Epic or Spotify obviously, but 30% or like 2,99 can make a real difference for your bottom line.

Not exist.

 

[BaldiMac]

And you sir, are obfuscating the point which is that the supreme court said that Apple was demonstrating monopolistic behavior. You are absolutely correct about the outcome and case purpose, but when the highest court in the land says "you are acting monopolistic" and this thread says "Apple treats everyone with love, candy, and kisses", then ... no.

No. I'm not. The Supreme Court didn't say that. The complaint alleged that. You're confusing what the plaintiffs allege with what the Supreme Court says.

 

[kognos]

The SCOTUS opinion you cite did not say that Apple monopolizes distribution of apps on their devices, which you continue to claim.

(Emphasis: mine)

The SCOTUS opinion uses the term "allegedly" but I'd like for anyone, literally anyone, to tell me where there is any other non-hack method for software distribution on an iPhone. No jailbreaks allowed.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The SCOTUS suit does not define Apple explicitly as a monopolistic retailer because that was not the point of the opinion. Totally agree. Still, SCOTUS does not at all shy away from labeling it as such, nor does Apple even shy away from practically defining itself AS such. Apple will be the only ones allowing products on the App store. Gatekeepers, keymasters, rulemakers and enforcers of all.

We can go round and round on this, but Apple is a monopolistic retailer subject to antitrust lawsuits. I don't care that it's not defined as monopolistic, or "a monopoly of sorts", this is my opinion, and you can tell me I'm wrong all you want, until you consider that if you want to be in the Apple IOS app store market, you have but one, singular choice of retailer. And Apple isn't treating the developers fairly, evenly, appropriately.

But thank you for seeing my point that they're viable for being sued, because what Apple is doing to developers is unfair and should change. They demonstrate monopolistic behavior. They are doing badly. They can (and should) be sued. What they are doing is the bare minimum to scrape by so they can continue to make a metric truckton of profit off of sales of IOS apps.

Do I have a presumption that the lawsuit will succeed? Yes ... yes I do.

No. I'm not. The Supreme Court didn't say that. The complaint alleged that. You're confusing what the plaintiffs allege with what the Supreme Court says.

Look ... who said what and to whom for what purpose and opinion and fact are not important. Yours and my opinion are not important. When it comes to opinion of anyone, none of this forum squabble matters. What matters is that this literally got to SCOTUS about allowing us to sue Apple for what is allegedly wrong. However, we don't go to a lawyer because we're happy with our lives. When it smells rotten, it's rotten. Things are going to change as a result.

But Apple will change as slowly as possible because Apple really enjoys that minor insignificant ~75% of their entire earnings based off IOS apps and related services, and they'll somehow make it sound like sideloading is the "best thing ever" that no one has ever thought of before.

 

[Ethosik]

The SCOTUS opinion uses the term "allegedly" but I'd like for anyone, literally anyone, to tell me where there is any other non-hack method for software distribution on an iPhone. No jailbreaks allowed.

If you also fully believe Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo should allow this kind of thing too, then we have another discussion to have as I would be more open to agreeing with you. And yes, even if you sell your console game at Target, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo still indirectly controls software distribution through large licensing costs.

Basically, what I want to ask you is: Are you going after Apple because its Apple?

 

[turbineseaplane]

So fun to have "MegaCorp" deciding everything
(read the replies -- their policies are like netting for fish -- they kill a ton of ancillary not guilty parties)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489941898341064709

 

[ender78]

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.

Why isn’t Bilibili available, is that the developers choice?

 

[turbineseaplane]

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.

Well said

As many have noted in the past also, a lot of great functionality in iOS today started as jailbreak tweaks.
Apple doesn't know everything nor what is always "best" or what people might want, use and love

One JB tweak I deem nearly essential on my OGSE is the ability to hold a physical button combo to activate the flashlight.

It works by feel (the key) and it allows me to toggle the flashlight without even waking up the iPhone screen.

I use it every single night when grabbing my phone and trying to navigate around a sleeping spouse in the room.
It's totally awesome.

 

[kognos]

If you also fully believe Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo should allow this kind of thing too, then we have another discussion to have as I would be more open to agreeing with you. And yes, even if you sell your console game at Target, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo still indirectly controls software distribution through large licensing costs.

Basically, what I want to ask you is: Are you going after Apple because its Apple?

To the point of the thread, I believe all those systems allow sideloading. You can get, acquire, use and consume software on those systems without going through their vendor-specific stores. That's the key point.

Even CD installs for example, qualify. It is effectively sideloading using this context, and it allows for any software developer to consume to use the "market" without the direct interference of the infrastructure designer, like you say, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo. But Apple ... you have zero options to get apps for IOS except one spot. Properly. (not counting jailbreaks and hacking - consumer novice level methods here)

Sure you can sell at retailers like Target as you say, but the underlying point is the software developer can decide the method for distribution and the cut that that distribution requires. I can sell a game from my garage and take cash. I get 100%. Or I can sell at Target and let them take a cut. Etc etc. I get it, but that's the point ... the developer overhead should be developer choice.

That market can exist as long as sideloading is condoned in some context. I'm not disagreeing to the cut that is taken, I'm in disagreement with it being mandatory, which in turn creates price disparity, and policies that enforce that, which ultimately creates or CAN create unfair business.

I'm not really going after Apple alone, this is just an Apple forum. I love apple hardware and would love for this stuff to be better. They're getting a little more predatory as they age. The more we push against these predatory practices which exist in many places not unique to Apple, the better we all are ... cuts will get smaller, developer pain will recede ("We had to raise our monthly costs on apple alone because the apple fee + our cost wasn't enough" is a bad position to be in)

Edit: Note that even Apple has admitted internally that most of their IOS fees are pure profit. I get that there is overhead but this should be normalized and lowered by far. I know there are costs, just not worth 30/15% of all the fees. I know there's nuance to the fees too but it's a little nutty that it's that much and that constant.

 

[Ethosik]

Edit: Note that even Apple has admitted internally that most of their IOS fees are pure profit. I get that there is overhead but this should be normalized and lowered by far. I know there are costs, just not worth 30/15% of all the fees. I know there's nuance to the fees too but it's a little nutty that it's that much and that constant.

This is the part I don't agree with. A company should be able to sell their product at whatever price they see fit. In terms of a store, they should be able to mark up as high as they want.

This is the kind of discussions that lead me to believe people don't want companies to make profits.

To the point of the thread, I believe all those systems allow sideloading. You can get, acquire, use and consume software on those systems without going through their vendor-specific stores. That's the key point.

So would you be okay if Apple turned into a console where you still need to get the license to release the app? And have the license fee be thousands and thousands of dollars instead of the $99? Which is why I am not creating a Playstation game because even if I just want to sell to Target, I still need to pay Sony A LOT of money.

What people here are advocating for will not impact the Epics or Metas of the world. But it will impact me and other indie developers.

 

[kognos]

This is the part I don't agree with. A company should be able to sell their product at whatever price they see fit. In terms of a store, they should be able to mark up as high as they want.

This is the kind of discussions that lead me to believe people don't want companies to make profits.

Actually we're in agreement here, the problem is the conjoining of the App Store cuts and the necessity that you can only use the App Store. To the entire point of this thread, sideloading or any other method isn't possible at all, so you must use the App Store AND whatever the cut might be if you want to be in the IOS market AT ALL. In the other platforms you listed, there are alternative choices. The developer always has a choice of those avenues. NOT on IOS.

Yes, this is where people say "there's always Android" in the phone market and that is true but a little myopic because it's not really about a competition in the phone overall space. Apple still plays the part of the monopolistic retailer (edit: within IOS) with no avenue for sideloading. They also play the delicate game of price matching with Android. But at the end of the day, only one of those two allows sideloading so far. I'll give you one guess and it's not Apple.

I don't care that Apple makes a profit, that's fine, expected, normal, encouraged! I care that developers have no choice to sell products for IOS except through a single source. And Apple does not want any liability. Or legal involvements. But profits... yeah they'll take those.

 

[I7guy]

…]

I don't care that Apple makes a profit, that's fine, expected, normal, encouraged! I care that developers have no choice to sell products for IOS except through a single source. And Apple does not want any liability. Or legal involvements. But profits... yeah they'll take those.

Because it’s their ip and developers opt-in? That is quite different than no choice.

 

[Analog Kid]

The SCOTUS suit does not define Apple explicitly as a monopolistic retailer

Ok, so you see how you may have eroded your credibility by peppering that document throughout the conversation claiming it means something it does not. I suppose the open question is whether you don’t understand what you’re reading or if you know what you’re reading and don’t let facts get in the way of your rhetoric— it gave you the chance to spout “Supreme Court” over and over hoping people without the time or inclination to read the citation might give your statements more weight than they deserve.

The SCOTUS opinion uses the term "allegedly"

Yes, it does. You don’t get to just ignore that word.

If you’re on a Mac or iOS device and click to look it up, you’ll see the OED definition, “used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof”. That word is there specifically to indicate that SCOTUS is simply repeating what someone else said without agreeing nor disagreeing.

That’s why it’s kissing cousins with the phrase “false allegation”.

What you are pointing to is the background, not the ruling. Kavanaugh is simply stating why they’re all in the room.

they're viable for being sued, because what Apple is doing to developers is unfair

The SCOTUS opinion you keep posting has absolutely nothing to do with developers, it specifically addresses customers.

If you’re interested in suits by developers, then we’re back to the Epic v Apple case you tried to disregard earlier because you know trying to cite it won’t go in your favor…

Do I have a presumption that the lawsuit will succeed? Yes ... yes I do.

On which grounds? I can’t find that it’s even going forward let alone destined for success. Can you link me to it?

 

[amartinez1660]

Just give users an option to download from the App Store-only or anywhere, like on a Mac. Put up about five warning screens (maybe seven for good luck). Done!

Agreed.
Maybe behind a special restart tinkering mode, Face/Touch ID, passcode and a two factor or triple factor authentication step.
And/or make sure that since now that door exists, that no one, no hack, no exploit, no tinkering, no bug, no virus, no malware, absolutely nothing can somehow activate that switch without the users consent.

 

[amartinez1660]

Disappointed in my Senator over that one.. Android exist if one wants to sideload and honestly iOS and Android are both petty much the same now. Pretty much any main stream app is on both devices

I won't be sideloading so it won't effect me but the way Apple been lately with bugs in iOS makes me wonder if it'll open a door for a person to load something on a persons device unknowingly.

My main concern is that, now having the optional switch there: how can they guarantee that no one, no hack, malware, low level machine level exploit, “png bytes this or jpeg that”, or any sort of tinkering could switch it on and install stuff? I ask because if the situation can be less than ideal without those venues, I can only imagine when that path becomes available.

I like a lot a previous commenters requirement about having to go through a factory reset process, some features like iCloud backup and whatnot are disabled, amongst others actually.

 

[kognos]

Can you link me to it?

No I can't, because it is my opinion as I said. I said that I had a presumption that lawsuit will succeed. If you look up the definition of "presumption" you'll find it worded like this: "an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain." I meant that. I cannot provide a link into my brain ... yet.

Yes, SCOTUS has not said that apple is anything monopolistic. I believe they are. They have a hell of a lot of lawsuits alleging that they are. I don't need a court of law to confirm the sky is blue when others have rose colored glasses. I also believe that they are engaging in monopolistic behavior. This is not proven, nor does it really have to be. That's not the point. The point is basically, if it walks like a duck...

Apple is being litigated and being forced to change. They have already changed to a minor degree (external payment links) and I would bet more is coming. I think those changes are for the better of Apple and the developers. You won't find explicit rulings to support that, but I'm showing the paper trail. Epic v Apple is another such thread. Epic handled that entire situation poorly but has a mountain of support behind it, and again is alleging monopolistic behavior. It's not a done deal yet... Epic v Apple is still being litigated.

The result of the SCOTUS opinion I referenced is still being litigated (now that is THIS thread -- it wouldn't have started without SCOTUS green-light). Apple is being held against anti-trust laws now.

I believe that opening up sideloading is for the betterment of the community, the developers, and the consumers. This isn't a black market back door shady virus ridden hellscape cancer Apple would like you to believe. It is simply alternatives to the Apple app store.

 

[Analog Kid]

I believe that opening up sideloading is for the betterment of the community, the developers, and the consumers. This isn't a black market back door shady virus ridden hellscape cancer Apple would like you to believe. It is simply alternatives to the Apple app store.

I believe that consumers benefit from having a choice of ecosystems. I like the iOS ecosystem as it is. If you want an ecosystem that supports sideloading, they exist. I don't think that reducing choice or the competition of ideas should be the goal of antitrust law.

 

[Analog Kid]

now that is THIS thread -- it wouldn't have started without SCOTUS green-light

Wait, what green light did the Supreme Court give that has anything to do with the proposed bill?

 

[BaldiMac]

Look ... who said what and to whom for what purpose and opinion and fact are not important.

When discussing a legal question, whether or not the Supreme Court said something is important. You misrepresented what the Supreme Court said.

Yours and my opinion are not important. When it comes to opinion of anyone, none of this forum squabble matters. What matters is that this literally got to SCOTUS about allowing us to sue Apple for what is allegedly wrong. However, we don't go to a lawyer because we're happy with our lives.

I didn't post an opinion in our conversation. I simply pointed out that you were wrong about what the Supreme Court said.

When it smells rotten, it's rotten.

That's a metaphor that you interpret the exactly the wrong way. Just because something smells rotten, doesn't mean that it is.

 

[masterhiggins]

Wait. So now Apple doesn’t love government and regulations?

 

[rafark]

This is going to force Apple to stop investing heavily into the App Store. They should tell these congressmen the unvarnished truth. If they decrease profitability of their platform they will stop investing in it or start charging all developers for access whether their app is free or not based on the number of Apple API calls per month. Many of the small developers will close and the Epics and Microsofts of the world will be able to charge what they want because they won’t have to compete with the little guys anymore. It’ll be like the old days for them. Just what they want.

Yknow, the small developers could just sell their apps directly from their website. They’d be saving around 27% in fees.

 

[I7guy]

Yknow, the small developers could just sell their apps directly from their website. They’d be saving around 27% in fees.

They can do that today on android.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Sony PS4 Agreement. Interesting read. See further how some of the ideas that people on this forum are seeing as non-standard are pretty much standard contract language. A couple of key points:
1) Publisher(developer) needs to keep records for auditing by Sony.
2) Physical can be distrubuted anywhere. Digital can ONLY be distributed via the Sony store.
3) Fees will be charged on all sales: physical or digital.

Exhibit