U.S. Senate Panel Approves Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading

[Nuno Lopes]

Logical fallacy alert. Does government get it right 100%.

Getting it right all the time is not a precondition of any action to be taken by any entity. It’s not even part of the definition of legitimacy. For a Government or for Apple or any other entity.

In the case of Governments it’s driven by citizens democratic votes … not the Wall Street or anything that Devine..

 

[I7guy]

Getting it right all the time is not a precondition of any action to be taken by any entity. Yet I agree that there is more pressure on Governments to get it right considering it will probably be around after you, me, Google, Apple …

So questioning what government does and why are they doing this, is a positive thing. And I hope that government will be around after you and me, if not we're doomed.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

So questioning what government does and why are they doing this, is a positive thing. And I hope that government will be around after you and me, if not we're doomed.

Yes. I think questioning whatever entity, situation or practice is healthy behaviour. I’m not much into politics and politicians. Watching debates between them … its kind of like getting into the the twilight zone.

I’m more inclined to look at policies and make my own judgement based on how I think about it.

Regarding App Store policies my reasoning … tried to explain several times …

Apps are devices like is an iPhone or a Car. The App Store deals Apps like a Car Dealer deals with Cars … yet it’s policies are not towards charging for the Sale or lease/subscription of Cars. The thing that actually deals with. But the actual use of a Car for whatever reason. All while the Cars aren’t even theirs to being with.

I think private businesses created around policies charging others for the use of things they do not own are bad policies … App Store business or whatever. The fact a business may have provided components for others to create the things in question is for me irrelevant. This happens all time, buy third party components and services to build new things, its not unique. They should get payed for those components as they are, components and that is all there is to it.

Car dealers charge for the Car not its use. The same as any stores selling devices, say Best Buy … charge for the sale of an iPhone … not its use. Why … not to mention that technically it would be impossible to implement such practice … it would be extremely unfair and abusive.

So gladly there are other ways to do businesses, to create value. So indeed there are other ways to be compensated by ones efforts while respecting third party properties and customers, both businesses and device owners.

If inside your Car, while on the road you close a deal of 1M, say a dating arrangement, why is the Car dealer entitled 300K? It’s absurd. But somehow the same thing happens inside your App, Apple can demand 300k cut by forcing its own POS (in app purchase device). In order not to, one you’ll need stop the Car, leave and close the deal outside your own stupid Car. It’s totally absurd!!

This is basically what Apple is telling as the competitive solution to avoid their charges. Stop the App, get out of it, and outside do your business … come back to the App … Its crazy.

It seams that governments all over the world are looking at this practice. I assume is based at least on a lot of complaints they may have received …

I really appreciate Apple innovations … and the company history. I really like their products and services, so much so these are what we use at the core of our digital life. Still, I don’t think they are in the right in enforcing this kind of business practice … I also think that they do not stand a chance on this issue … I rather prefer Apple moved on from this practice on their own terms … rather than governamental terms.

For two reasons: One is that no other than Apple can define the best terms to do it for themselves. The second is a question of trust. Yes they are selling lots of iPhones and derivative digital services. But they have failed to move beyond that … a distrustfull environment amongst third party business and users would make it harder … when the smartphone bubbles blows where will Apple go without the support of third party businesses … HomePod, will MacOS blow Windows anytime soon especially with Greg appetite to come with an iOS like App Store policies to it?. I think MS fundamentally was never able to get into the smartphone game because its businesses practices where distrusted by third party business and users … it took them a long time to come out of that.

Todays Apple dome cultural scene, this mentality of Apple vs Govs and those greedy devs … reminds me a bit of Apple vs Microsoft years ago. The hords aligned with Apple, burn Microsoft … kind of reminds me the current animosity against the Gov. Until SJ came on stage and actually gave more of a balanced perspective … Apple than thrived even more as it was able to focus on what really really mattered to the company.

I may be mistaken, but there is no future for Apple charging for the use of things they do not own. They may sell things they do not own, but not charge for its use. The things, the devices in question are of course Apps and the App Store the dealer of these things. The practice of “I will provide you with the components you need to build your thing to serve your customers on their smartphone, but you will only sell and serve whatever within such a thing through me” … is fundamentally anti-competitive … its arm twisting at its best backed up by 50% smartphone maket share. I bet third party businesses will not ever provide their contributions empowering Apple to be in such a position again whatever may come next from them … if they do not backtrack on this that is …. Windows Phone was not really such a bad tech, it failed mostly due to the total lack of good third party support given they distrusted MS, for good reason back than.

Will see.

Cheers.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I really appreciate Apple innovations … and the company history. I really like their products and services, so much so these are what we use at the core of our digital life. Still, I don’t think they are in the right in enforcing this kind of business practice … I also think that they don’t not stand a chance on this issue … I rather prefer Apple moved on from this practice on their own terms … rather than governamental terms.

So well said...

I also really hope Apple, while publicly digging in, is behind the scenes preparing for some changes.

Fighting this to the n-th degree will become not winnable eventually...and in the mean time they might just burn up all the goodwill they have.

 

[I7guy]

Yes. I think questioning whatever entity, situation or practice is healthy behaviour. I’m not much into politics and politicians. Watching debates between them … its kind of like getting into the the twilight zone.

I’m more inclined to look at policies and make my own judgement based on how I think about it.

Regarding App Store policies my reasoning … tried to explain several times …



I think private businesses created around policies charging others for the use of things they do not own are bad policies … App Store business or whatever. The fact a business may have provided components for others to create the things in question is for me irrelevant. This happens all time, buy third party components and services to build new things, its not unique. They should get payed for those components as they are, components and that is all there is to it.



So gladly there are other ways to do businesses, to create value. So indeed there are other ways to be compensated by ones efforts while respecting third party properties and customers, both businesses and device owners.



This is basically what Apple is telling as the competitive solution to avoid their charges. Stop the App, get out of it, and outside do your business … come back to the App … Its crazy.

It seams that governments all over the world are looking at this practice. I assume is based at least on a lot of complaints they may have received …

I really appreciate Apple innovations … and the company history. I really like their products and services, so much so these are what we use at the core of our digital life. Still, I don’t think they are in the right in enforcing this kind of business practice … I also think that they do not stand a chance on this issue … I rather prefer Apple moved on from this practice on their own terms … rather than governamental terms.

For two reasons: One is that no other than Apple can define the best terms to do it for themselves. The second is a question of trust. Yes they are selling lots of iPhones and derivative digital services. But they have failed to move beyond that … a distrustfull environment amongst third party business and users would make it harder … when the smartphone bubbles blows where will Apple go without the support of third party businesses … HomePod, will MacOS blow Windows anytime soon especially with Greg appetite to come with an iOS like App Store policies to it?. I think MS fundamentally was never able to get into the smartphone game because its businesses practices where distrusted by third party business and users … it took them a long time to come out of that.

Todays Apple dome cultural scene, this mentality of Apple vs Govs and those greedy devs … reminds me a bit of Apple vs Microsoft years ago. The hords aligned with Apple, burn Microsoft … kind of reminds me the current animosity against the Gov. Until SJ came on stage and actually gave more of a balanced perspective … Apple than thrived even more as it was able to focus on what really really mattered to the company.

I may be mistaken, but there is no future for Apple charging for the use of things they do not own. They may sell things they do not own, but not charge for its use. The things, the devices in question are of course Apps and the App Store the dealer of these things. The practice of “I will provide you with the components you need to build your thing to serve your customers on their smartphone, but you may only sell and serve whatever within such a thing if not through me” … is fundamentally anti-competitive … its arm twisting at its best backed up by 50% smartphone maket share. I bet third party businesses will not ever provide their contributions empowering Apple to be in such a position again whatever may come next from them … if they do not backtrack on this that is …. Windows Phone was not really such a bad tech, it failed mostly due to the total lack of good third party support given they distrusted MS, for good reason back than.

Will see.

Cheers.

Yes, we’ll see. It boils down to the same basic discussion across multiple threads.

 

[BaldiMac]

Just for perspective, this argument is about billion dollar corporations wanting to take control from a trillion dollar corporation. The idea that this argument is about fighting for the little guy is laughable.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The idea that this argument is about fighting for the little guy is laughable.

It may not be about "the little guy", but as one iOS user here, it would immensely increase my enjoyment of the platform to have it be a bit more flexible.

I sort of "tolerate" iOS at this point - I'm long past loving it, as there are so many g-damnd annoyances and restrictions. I'm not going to Android (iMessage family lock in) - so basically just stuck.

 

[BaldiMac]

It may not be about "the little guy", but as one iOS user here, it would immensely increase my enjoyment of the platform to have it be a bit more flexible.

I sort of "tolerate" iOS at this point - I'm long past loving it, as there are so many g-damnd annoyances and restrictions. I'm not going to Android (iMessage family lock in) - so basically just stuck.

"Immensely?" ?. I think you are overstating that a bit. We're talking about giving your money to a different vendor.

As another iOS user here, I think the benefits of the single App Store far outweigh the benefits of allowing alternative stores. To each his own.

 

[turbineseaplane]

"Immensely?" ?. I think you are overstating that a bit.

I’m talking about relaxing rules on App source.

I shouldn’t have to jump through Apple hoops to get small dev third party apps on my phone I may want and/or that may run afoul of some dumb Apple rule or restriction

That lock of that sort of flexibility immensely reduces the interesting usage potential.
Just map the same restriction onto a Mac and see how utterly useless the platform would become

 

[BaldiMac]

I’m talking about relaxing rules on App source.

I shouldn’t have to jump through Apple hoops to get small dev third party apps on my phone I may want and/or that may run afoul of some dumb Apple rule or restriction

That lock of that sort of flexibility immensely reduces the interesting usage potential.
Just map the same restriction onto a Mac and see how utterly useless the platform would become

Sure, but everything sounds better if you only consider the advantages. The Mac is a perfect example. I buy far less software on my Mac. And many of my favorite apps have abandoned a native Mac interface in favor of cross platform UIs. That's just one of the negatives of your position.

 

[theotherphil]

So even if Apple modified iOS so that there's side loading, how are the developers going to side load their apps into iOS, without depending on Apple IP/ API’s in iOS? iOS is Apple copyright/patented work, not "public domain" nor "open source", it doesn’t belong to the end user because it is licensed and isn’t available for sale anywhere in an aftermarket.

This isn’t an easy way to bypass paying Apple’s commissions and it’ll be super easy for apple to audit and raise an invoice. It’s going to be “Epic” seeing certain developers whiny tweets once they realise that there’s no free lunch and the Apple Store was already the most streamlined way of achieving maximum revenue/ profits.

 

[Smearbrick]

So even if Apple modified iOS so that there's side loading, how are the developers going to side load their apps into iOS, without depending on Apple IP/ API’s in iOS? iOS is Apple copyright/patented work, not "public domain" nor "open source", it doesn’t belong to the end user because it is licensed and isn’t available for sale anywhere in an aftermarket.

This isn’t an easy way to bypass paying Apple’s commissions and it’ll be super easy for apple to audit and raise an invoice. It’s going to be “Epic” seeing certain developers whiny tweets once they realise that there’s no free lunch and the Apple Store was already the most streamlined way of achieving maximum revenue/ profits.

Developers would still pay the development fee, but would handle all of the payment and delivery logistics on their end.

How do apps that aren’t in the Mac AppStore get developed and installed. Same thing here.

 

[BaldiMac]

Developers would still pay the development fee, but would handle all of the payment and delivery logistics on their end.

How do apps that aren’t in the Mac AppStore get developed and installed. Same thing here.

I think the point was that they will likely be paying additional fees as well.

I could even see Apple saying that you can't use Xcode for apps distributed outside the App Store. And they'd obviously restrict API access.