12 ms·

App stores need heavy regulations. It's not only Apple but Google and even steam to a small extent. Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guar

App stores need heavy regulations. It's not only Apple but Google and even steam to a small extent. Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing enforcement. This shouldn't have been legal. They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies.

ryanlol 6y ago
Why do app stores need separate regulations? > They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies. But they aren’t, this is a rather competitive space.
- bronzeage 6y ago
  The stock market is heavily regulated. Commodity markets are regulated. It's actually the slowness and corruption of the law makers that we're still without any regulations to virtual markets.
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    How are app stores like stock markets or commodity markets?
- simion314 6y ago
  Competitive? How many places are where I can host a web page and how many app stores ? The ratio is probably much larger then 10000 : 1 .
- _nalply 6y ago
  Competitive between developers and perhaps platforms but absolutely a monopoly for iOS.
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    This is as nonsensical as complaining about Disney having a monopoly in Disneyland.
    - jaywalk 6y ago
      Phones are not the private property of Apple and Google.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        That's true about the hardware.
    - ViViDboarder 6y ago
      It’s not like that at all... Disneyland sells Disney IP. These stores are marketplaces.
    - chownie 6y ago
      It is a false comparison to put Disney land (owned by Disney) and iOS devices (owned by Apple customers) side by side. We already had battles on this front, Microsoft had to offer competing browsers for some time at least in the EU. Manufacturing the platform ceases to afford dictatorship when the device reaches a large enough share of the population imo.
- lacker 6y ago
  It seems like a pretty clear duopoly to me, Apple and Android are the only two mobile platforms, and rather than compete with each other on price they are just both leaving their cut at 30%. Personally it’s not even the 30% I mind so much as, maybe there are cool new products like new mobile browsers that are just forbidden by the app stores and so we will never get them.
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    Amazon appstore, F-droid, Huawei app store, Samsung Galaxy Apps and so on.
    - mcherm 6y ago
      What is the market share of those? Ideally measured two ways: in downloads and in dollars.
      - Spivak 6y ago
        You can’t claim poor market share as evidence. If iOS and the Play Store are “good enough” for people to not seek alternatives, and for devs to still publish apps, then 30% might not be a big enough cut.
    - kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
      None of those matter. Neither does the fact that you can buy a Linux phone, today. The people downvoting you just want to punish the wicked. It's like the digital content distribution discussions where even a single inconvenience or a perceived lack of value is met with "YARR ME MATEY SAIL THE SEVEN SEAS". When you point out that all of this (waves hand) is an optional luxury and if they want open culture they can choose to consume open (and public domain) culture you are looked at like you are a goblin and downvoted. They don't care about open culture they just want to punish music and film distributors. If they did care about open culture they would only consume culture that had been voluntarily released as free and open. There is plenty of creative commons, public domain, open source, and other free content for them to consume but they want the good stuff. They don't care about competitive app stores they just want to punish the app store owners. If they did care about open app stores they would all buy the PinePhone and support developers on that platform MAKING MINOR PERSONAL SACRIFICES until it was a success. But the people downvoting you don't care and will tie themselves into knots and find every hollow and vapid excuse why you are wrong and they are right.
- hugey010 6y ago
  They enforce intentionally anti-competitive policies. Referencing third party mobile platforms (Android) is not allowed in iOS apps. See 2.3.10 https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#accurate-metadata https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#acc...
- jlmorton 6y ago
  Competitive? It is an oligopoly with tacit collusion on price fixing. This is the exact reason why anti-trust legislation exists. A competitive market would be one in which the platform providers were forced to divest from the app markets, and support competing app markets which meet requirements, and which actively compete on features and price. If cars only supported gasoline from manufacturer gas stations, and 95% of the market was controlled by cars from GM and Ford, and once you bought a GM car you could only buy gasoline from a GM gas station, would you call the gasoline market competitive? To extend the metaphor, let's say it was technically possible to use third-party gas stations, but the manufacturers had hidden this ability, and it required a small amount of mechanical knowledge to enable, and maybe voided your warranty, would you then consider the market competitive?
  - briandear 6y ago
    Can you prove price fixing? Or collusion? If you want to make the claim, then let’s see the proof.
    - jlmorton 6y ago
      You don't have to prove active collusion. Tacit price fixing is still anti-competitive behavior.
    - alias_neo 6y ago
      What options are there? Google Play, Apple App Store. How much do they take? 30% and 30%. Is there an option where they take less than 30% or where someone can compete on that cut? No. Is there a different store you can use with the same privileges as these two stores? No. Can you take your payments outside of the store and manage payment fees yourself so as to not give them 30%? No.
      - noisem4ker 6y ago
        I doubt it's news to you, but Android openly allows app stores other than Google's.
- arnvald 6y ago
  Not really, at least not in a sense that different products and stores compete. When I buy a phone I can choose from multiple models, then once I choose a model I can choose a store where I want to buy it. These 2 examples are competitive. Then I can choose what app I want to buy, but I can't choose anymore where I buy it (at least on IOS). There's no competition between stores. There's just competition between phone manufacturers that ends the moment you choose the phone, from then onwards is a monopoly (or near monopoly in case of Android)
- solarkraft 6y ago
  Oh, really? Which competitors to Apple are there on iOS?
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    Which competitors to $car_manufacturer engines are there for $car_manufacturer cars? This is a stupid question. Whether or not there is competition on iOS doesn’t matter as long as there exists viable competition on any viable platform.
    - rcoder 6y ago
      ...and if all car manufacturers bought engines from the same factory (TSMC), used the same satnav (except one brand, who had a slightly-worse in-house clone), and an accelerator and gearbox from exactly one source (Google search) would you be more concerned about anticompetitive behavior? What if the manufacturers were allowed to produce "accessories" like batteries, tires, and child seats that refused to work in any other car, and actively sued repair shops that weren't official dealerships? Apple and Google may be competitors, strictly speaking, but the reality is they've pretty well carved up the market between premium buyers mostly concerned with fit+finish, prestige, and compatibility with other Apple devices, and the operating system and network infrastructure for, well, everything else. It's absolutely a duopoly, and so minimally competitive: either Google or Apple would happily claim leadership status, but neither party really wants the other to go away lest actual competition or government intervention cause them to lose control of their patch of ground.
      - ryanlol 6y ago
        > Apple and Google may be competitors, strictly speaking, but the reality is they've pretty well carved up the market between premium buyers mostly concerned with fit+finish, prestige, and compatibility with other Apple devices, and the operating system and network infrastructure for, well, everything else. Somehow there are heaps of expensive android phones that sell just fine. The flagship Samsung phones cost more than any iPhone. > It's absolutely a duopoly, and so minimally competitive Well no, there are tons of smartphone manufacturers with viable products.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Huh? Which space is competitive? Apple and Google are pretty much the only shows in town and even more restricted is that the App Store is the exclusive store for iOS. In fact, they don’t even really compete with each other. Play is only on Android and App Store is only on iOS. You could say Android and iOS compete with each other, but once someone has bought a phone, they do not have a choice of where to buy apps.
bitexploder 6y ago
I remember when we didn’t have app stores. All we really need is decentralized app publisher trust. Centralized app publishing will always be abused by the publisher in the long run. It’s just too powerful and tempting to not stack the deck in your favor as the app store owner.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  What if the choice really is to only make things lucrative for restrictive shop owners vs malware authors? So far those have been the only two options.
  - shi314 6y ago
    What if choice to maximize revenue by all means. Like creating extra costs for developers or creating obstacles for developers who have lucrative business and it wants to control it too. Btw, curating is basic responsibility of every storefront. It's something even your Brick and Mortar Store does.
  - bitexploder 6y ago
    I think Microsoft did a good job with its drivers program. It was solving different (but similar) goals, and the bar was kind of high, but they essentially did a good job with their driver signing system. A web of trust approach is not horrible. You should know the reputation of software publisher before you install an app. App stores do a lot of static analysis and screening, and they yank unsavory apps, but their profit motive is suspect and inevitably biases them towards maintaining that model rather than giving the optimal environment that favors users and publishers.
Consultant32452 6y ago
The only heavy regulation I need is the device is fully mine after I buy it. I'll take care of the rest.
- HumblyTossed 6y ago
  Exactly. If anyone wants to run an app store, fine, but I must be allowed to "side load" apps onto my device so that I don't have to participate in the app store economy.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    You can sideload on an iphone now without a developer account.
- EdwinLarkin 6y ago
  Sure but you are still just "renting" the software.
centimeter 6y ago
A simple regulation that would fix this without overbearing price controls is to require manufacturers to allow users to sideload their own app stores.
- Spivak 6y ago
  the monkey’s paw finger curls Regulation granted! There are now many stores on Apple devices. But the platform still requires code signing from Apple for code to run and must still abide by all existing Apple policy including entering into a contract with Apple that 30% of all revenue from your app on iOS is paid to them.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    That obviously would be covered by the fact that I said the word "sideload".
    - Spivak 6y ago
      second finger goes down Regulation granted! You can now download and install apps directly from the internet or locally with no pesky store to act as an intermediary. However, you still require Apple code signing for the app to run and for that your app must go through the regular App Store approval process.
      - centimeter 6y ago
        That's not what "sideload" means. I leave it to a lawyer to translate it into legalese.
rabuse 6y ago
This is specifically why I want web browsers to interface with mobile devices better. The walled garden these stores are absolutely infuriates me.
- Spivak 6y ago
  If the web really did take over you don’t think platforms would be any less restrictive when they control the main browser on their respective platforms?
cwhiz 6y ago
>Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing enforcement. What monopoly? Apple controls maybe 8% of the desktop/notebook market and ~13% of the smartphone market. They don't even come close to qualifying as a monopoly.
- owenwil 6y ago
  Apple generates more than 50% of all smartphone App Store revenue, so I'd argue it has a monopoly through that lens https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/03/apples-app-store-generated-80-more-revenue-than-google-play-with-a-third-as-many-installs-in-first-half-of-2019 https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/03/apples-app-store-...
  - briandear 6y ago
    That doesn’t mean that Apple has a monopoly, only that Android users are typically cheap and don’t pay for apps as much.
    - PostThisTooFast 6y ago
      This is very likely true. The millions of no-name, rock-bottom, cheap-ass phones all over Asia and the rest of the world are running the free-to-implement OS: Android. They can't run iOS. Thus Android has a far bigger "market share" by sheer numbers, but how many of their users are app buyers or big spenders? Way, way fewer than iOS users.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    That isn't how monopolies work or are defined or classified. Revenue has nothing to do with market control. Even if we rewrite the dictionary and legal texts, Apple would be part of a duopoly, not a monopoly. If you try to redefine monopoly to mean that Apple has a monopoly over their own platform, then you better start lawyering up because essentially every company in America has a monopoly. I think people want Apple to be classified as a monopoly because they see their behavior as unfair. But they aren't a monopoly and your recourse as a free American citizen is to just not buy Apple products. The fact that you are able to buy from a competitor with zero personal harm is absolute indication that Apple is not a monopoly.
indymike 6y ago
App stores need competition, not regulation.
- libraryatnight 6y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree but that's a tall order when lots of users believe the app store default on their respective device is the only option.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  In situations where competition is not possible, we need to resort to regulation.
- Sargos 6y ago
  In this case the economic conditions are a monopoly so competition is impossible. That's why regulations exist, they fix market failures.
  - indymike 6y ago
    Breaking the monopoly is the solution. Pouring regulatory cement on just makes the monopoly legitimate and sanctioned forever.
    - 8note 6y ago
      Breaking monopolies is a form of regulation
- alewi481 6y ago
  A positive aspect of Apple’s model is that it’s impossible for a malicious ad to trick an unsuspecting user into sideloading malware on their device.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6y ago
simonh 6y ago
The iPhone is an Apple product. The App Store is an Apple product. The libraries and development tools needed to create iOS apps are Apple products. Traditionally the company that develops a product gets to decide what features that product has. There are various laws that require a product be safe to use, is not misrepresented and does what it is advertised to do, but beyond that there are very few actual features of products that they are required by law to have. Maybe some standards they need to meet. Sometimes companies will invite other companies to join them in adding features to a product. A TV company might add licensed audio technology from Dolby, a car company might add licensed software for infotainment or navigation software, and they may charge their customers for the added software features. This is how games consoles work, you buy the console from the manufacturer, who licenses other companies to write games for their product as add-on modules. In the past CDs and cartridges were used, but now this often happen via downloads. These games are developed using the console manufacturers tools, run against their code libraries on the device and are clearly an extension of their product. This has been an established approach for many decades. When my kids were toddlers I bought an educational toy where you could buy little cartridges for it that added educational features. That's all the App Store is. It's a feature added by Apple to their product for adding optional features to the device. As in many cases in the past, across many types of device, this is a feature added by the manufacturer and your relationship as a customer remains with them. There is no law requiring that a device containing a computer, be it a car, TV, games console, phone or whatever have any specific features to enable loading additional software. That's just not a requirement that exists, and if a device does have a mechanism to add or update its software, there are no laws about how that must or must not be implemented, that I'm aware of anyway. If you disagree that this is the way it should be that's fine, that's absolutely your right, but can you explain how such laws should be drafted. What kinds of requirements should be put on manufacturers? Under what criteria should they apply and to what devices? If you think Apple has failed to comply with some law in the way they implemented their products, I'd appreciate some clarity about exactly what you think Apple has done wrong, and how that should be redressed.
- terrortrain 6y ago
  It's different when TV manufactures put Dolby in charge of advertising and supporting the feature. Then charge them a cut of their profit, with little to no recourse or dispute mechanisms. Besides that, it could be argued that running software is the feature. What software does is not a feature of the iPhone. Like a recipe is not a feature of a stove. We are buying the device, it's a tool, and we should control how it's used.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
I don't see what kind of regulation Steam needs. They are hardly the only storefront on the platforms they support, aren't the default one, have almost no exclusive content, and don't even take a cut if you sell Steam keys on other stores. What is there to regulate? If you don't like their terms you can sell on a different store or distribute yourself, there's nothing stopping you like there is on a typical iPhone or Android device. And frankly their terms are pretty damned fair. For the longest time they took such a hands-off approach to their marketplace that people got angry about that instead!
- erk__ 6y ago
  Steam did not offer refunds at all until they came into trouble for it in Australia and the EU. That is what regulations are for.
  - throwaway45349 6y ago
    Other than lack of refunds and poor support for a decade, Steam was still the most consumer friendly app store. They got everything else right.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      The family plan settings on an account are certainly not an example of getting it right. You can share a library, have multiple linked accounts, but the instant any one of those accounts fires up a game all other accounts are locked out of the entire library. Not just the game that is currently running, but the everything. Valve missed the entire point of having a family account setup and every time I mention this I get “shut up pirate” as the response because having kids isn’t a valid use case.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > The family plan settings on an account are certainly not an example of getting it right. What other stores have a family plan at all?
jedberg 6y ago
But the regulations you are looking for should be on the device manufactures not the app stores. Require Apple to allow other app stores to be installed that has the same level of access to the OS and APIs that their native app store has, as well as direct app downloads from the internet with the same level of access (maybe with some extra hoops for security controls). That would solve the problem. Someone will spin up a better App store. Someone already has in fact. If you jailbreak your iPhone you get access to a second app store (https://cydia-app.com https://cydia-app.com) which has apps that Apple won't put in their regular store.
aww_dang 6y ago
This will only increase the fees and introduce compliance costs new entrants can't readily afford.
jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
Steam is the very opposite of a walled garden. Putting them in the list but leaving out all console manufacturers and operating system devs? Strange.
- bronzeage 6y ago
  I think all gaming consoles are similar. It's actually because steam is something I use while consoles aren't that I didn't think about that.
yurlungur 6y ago
May be a stupid idea, but I always feel that appstores should be independent from device and service providers. Consumers should have the flexibility to not get tied to certain distributors of software. Even if apple and Google are not prevented from hosting appstores they should be required to support third party ones as though they were native.

ryanlol 6y ago

Why do app stores need separate regulations? > They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies. But they aren’t, this is a rather competitive space.

bronzeage 6y ago
The stock market is heavily regulated. Commodity markets are regulated. It's actually the slowness and corruption of the law makers that we're still without any regulations to virtual markets.
- ryanlol 6y ago
  How are app stores like stock markets or commodity markets?
simion314 6y ago
Competitive? How many places are where I can host a web page and how many app stores ? The ratio is probably much larger then 10000 : 1 .
_nalply 6y ago
Competitive between developers and perhaps platforms but absolutely a monopoly for iOS.
- ryanlol 6y ago
  This is as nonsensical as complaining about Disney having a monopoly in Disneyland.
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    Phones are not the private property of Apple and Google.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      That's true about the hardware.
  - ViViDboarder 6y ago
    It’s not like that at all... Disneyland sells Disney IP. These stores are marketplaces.
  - chownie 6y ago
    It is a false comparison to put Disney land (owned by Disney) and iOS devices (owned by Apple customers) side by side. We already had battles on this front, Microsoft had to offer competing browsers for some time at least in the EU. Manufacturing the platform ceases to afford dictatorship when the device reaches a large enough share of the population imo.
lacker 6y ago
It seems like a pretty clear duopoly to me, Apple and Android are the only two mobile platforms, and rather than compete with each other on price they are just both leaving their cut at 30%. Personally it’s not even the 30% I mind so much as, maybe there are cool new products like new mobile browsers that are just forbidden by the app stores and so we will never get them.
- ryanlol 6y ago
  Amazon appstore, F-droid, Huawei app store, Samsung Galaxy Apps and so on.
  - mcherm 6y ago
    What is the market share of those? Ideally measured two ways: in downloads and in dollars.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      You can’t claim poor market share as evidence. If iOS and the Play Store are “good enough” for people to not seek alternatives, and for devs to still publish apps, then 30% might not be a big enough cut.
  - kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
    None of those matter. Neither does the fact that you can buy a Linux phone, today. The people downvoting you just want to punish the wicked. It's like the digital content distribution discussions where even a single inconvenience or a perceived lack of value is met with "YARR ME MATEY SAIL THE SEVEN SEAS". When you point out that all of this (waves hand) is an optional luxury and if they want open culture they can choose to consume open (and public domain) culture you are looked at like you are a goblin and downvoted. They don't care about open culture they just want to punish music and film distributors. If they did care about open culture they would only consume culture that had been voluntarily released as free and open. There is plenty of creative commons, public domain, open source, and other free content for them to consume but they want the good stuff. They don't care about competitive app stores they just want to punish the app store owners. If they did care about open app stores they would all buy the PinePhone and support developers on that platform MAKING MINOR PERSONAL SACRIFICES until it was a success. But the people downvoting you don't care and will tie themselves into knots and find every hollow and vapid excuse why you are wrong and they are right.
hugey010 6y ago
They enforce intentionally anti-competitive policies. Referencing third party mobile platforms (Android) is not allowed in iOS apps. See 2.3.10 https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#accurate-metadata https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#acc...
jlmorton 6y ago
Competitive? It is an oligopoly with tacit collusion on price fixing. This is the exact reason why anti-trust legislation exists. A competitive market would be one in which the platform providers were forced to divest from the app markets, and support competing app markets which meet requirements, and which actively compete on features and price. If cars only supported gasoline from manufacturer gas stations, and 95% of the market was controlled by cars from GM and Ford, and once you bought a GM car you could only buy gasoline from a GM gas station, would you call the gasoline market competitive? To extend the metaphor, let's say it was technically possible to use third-party gas stations, but the manufacturers had hidden this ability, and it required a small amount of mechanical knowledge to enable, and maybe voided your warranty, would you then consider the market competitive?
- briandear 6y ago
  Can you prove price fixing? Or collusion? If you want to make the claim, then let’s see the proof.
  - jlmorton 6y ago
    You don't have to prove active collusion. Tacit price fixing is still anti-competitive behavior.
  - alias_neo 6y ago
    What options are there? Google Play, Apple App Store. How much do they take? 30% and 30%. Is there an option where they take less than 30% or where someone can compete on that cut? No. Is there a different store you can use with the same privileges as these two stores? No. Can you take your payments outside of the store and manage payment fees yourself so as to not give them 30%? No.
    - noisem4ker 6y ago
      I doubt it's news to you, but Android openly allows app stores other than Google's.
arnvald 6y ago
Not really, at least not in a sense that different products and stores compete. When I buy a phone I can choose from multiple models, then once I choose a model I can choose a store where I want to buy it. These 2 examples are competitive. Then I can choose what app I want to buy, but I can't choose anymore where I buy it (at least on IOS). There's no competition between stores. There's just competition between phone manufacturers that ends the moment you choose the phone, from then onwards is a monopoly (or near monopoly in case of Android)
solarkraft 6y ago
Oh, really? Which competitors to Apple are there on iOS?
- ryanlol 6y ago
  Which competitors to $car_manufacturer engines are there for $car_manufacturer cars? This is a stupid question. Whether or not there is competition on iOS doesn’t matter as long as there exists viable competition on any viable platform.
  - rcoder 6y ago
    ...and if all car manufacturers bought engines from the same factory (TSMC), used the same satnav (except one brand, who had a slightly-worse in-house clone), and an accelerator and gearbox from exactly one source (Google search) would you be more concerned about anticompetitive behavior? What if the manufacturers were allowed to produce "accessories" like batteries, tires, and child seats that refused to work in any other car, and actively sued repair shops that weren't official dealerships? Apple and Google may be competitors, strictly speaking, but the reality is they've pretty well carved up the market between premium buyers mostly concerned with fit+finish, prestige, and compatibility with other Apple devices, and the operating system and network infrastructure for, well, everything else. It's absolutely a duopoly, and so minimally competitive: either Google or Apple would happily claim leadership status, but neither party really wants the other to go away lest actual competition or government intervention cause them to lose control of their patch of ground.
    - ryanlol 6y ago
      > Apple and Google may be competitors, strictly speaking, but the reality is they've pretty well carved up the market between premium buyers mostly concerned with fit+finish, prestige, and compatibility with other Apple devices, and the operating system and network infrastructure for, well, everything else. Somehow there are heaps of expensive android phones that sell just fine. The flagship Samsung phones cost more than any iPhone. > It's absolutely a duopoly, and so minimally competitive Well no, there are tons of smartphone manufacturers with viable products.
ViViDboarder 6y ago
Huh? Which space is competitive? Apple and Google are pretty much the only shows in town and even more restricted is that the App Store is the exclusive store for iOS. In fact, they don’t even really compete with each other. Play is only on Android and App Store is only on iOS. You could say Android and iOS compete with each other, but once someone has bought a phone, they do not have a choice of where to buy apps.

bitexploder 6y ago

I remember when we didn’t have app stores. All we really need is decentralized app publisher trust. Centralized app publishing will always be abused by the publisher in the long run. It’s just too powerful and tempting to not stack the deck in your favor as the app store owner.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
What if the choice really is to only make things lucrative for restrictive shop owners vs malware authors? So far those have been the only two options.
- shi314 6y ago
  What if choice to maximize revenue by all means. Like creating extra costs for developers or creating obstacles for developers who have lucrative business and it wants to control it too. Btw, curating is basic responsibility of every storefront. It's something even your Brick and Mortar Store does.
- bitexploder 6y ago
  I think Microsoft did a good job with its drivers program. It was solving different (but similar) goals, and the bar was kind of high, but they essentially did a good job with their driver signing system. A web of trust approach is not horrible. You should know the reputation of software publisher before you install an app. App stores do a lot of static analysis and screening, and they yank unsavory apps, but their profit motive is suspect and inevitably biases them towards maintaining that model rather than giving the optimal environment that favors users and publishers.

Consultant32452 6y ago

The only heavy regulation I need is the device is fully mine after I buy it. I'll take care of the rest.

HumblyTossed 6y ago
Exactly. If anyone wants to run an app store, fine, but I must be allowed to "side load" apps onto my device so that I don't have to participate in the app store economy.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  You can sideload on an iphone now without a developer account.
EdwinLarkin 6y ago
Sure but you are still just "renting" the software.

centimeter 6y ago

A simple regulation that would fix this without overbearing price controls is to require manufacturers to allow users to sideload their own app stores.

Spivak 6y ago
the monkey’s paw finger curls Regulation granted! There are now many stores on Apple devices. But the platform still requires code signing from Apple for code to run and must still abide by all existing Apple policy including entering into a contract with Apple that 30% of all revenue from your app on iOS is paid to them.
- centimeter 6y ago
  That obviously would be covered by the fact that I said the word "sideload".
  - Spivak 6y ago
    second finger goes down Regulation granted! You can now download and install apps directly from the internet or locally with no pesky store to act as an intermediary. However, you still require Apple code signing for the app to run and for that your app must go through the regular App Store approval process.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      That's not what "sideload" means. I leave it to a lawyer to translate it into legalese.

rabuse 6y ago

This is specifically why I want web browsers to interface with mobile devices better. The walled garden these stores are absolutely infuriates me.

Spivak 6y ago
If the web really did take over you don’t think platforms would be any less restrictive when they control the main browser on their respective platforms?

cwhiz 6y ago

>Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing enforcement. What monopoly? Apple controls maybe 8% of the desktop/notebook market and ~13% of the smartphone market. They don't even come close to qualifying as a monopoly.

owenwil 6y ago
Apple generates more than 50% of all smartphone App Store revenue, so I'd argue it has a monopoly through that lens https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/03/apples-app-store-generated-80-more-revenue-than-google-play-with-a-third-as-many-installs-in-first-half-of-2019 https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/03/apples-app-store-...
- briandear 6y ago
  That doesn’t mean that Apple has a monopoly, only that Android users are typically cheap and don’t pay for apps as much.
  - PostThisTooFast 6y ago
    This is very likely true. The millions of no-name, rock-bottom, cheap-ass phones all over Asia and the rest of the world are running the free-to-implement OS: Android. They can't run iOS. Thus Android has a far bigger "market share" by sheer numbers, but how many of their users are app buyers or big spenders? Way, way fewer than iOS users.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  That isn't how monopolies work or are defined or classified. Revenue has nothing to do with market control. Even if we rewrite the dictionary and legal texts, Apple would be part of a duopoly, not a monopoly. If you try to redefine monopoly to mean that Apple has a monopoly over their own platform, then you better start lawyering up because essentially every company in America has a monopoly. I think people want Apple to be classified as a monopoly because they see their behavior as unfair. But they aren't a monopoly and your recourse as a free American citizen is to just not buy Apple products. The fact that you are able to buy from a competitor with zero personal harm is absolute indication that Apple is not a monopoly.

indymike 6y ago

App stores need competition, not regulation.

libraryatnight 6y ago
I don't necessarily disagree but that's a tall order when lots of users believe the app store default on their respective device is the only option.
jonny_eh 6y ago
In situations where competition is not possible, we need to resort to regulation.
Sargos 6y ago
In this case the economic conditions are a monopoly so competition is impossible. That's why regulations exist, they fix market failures.
- indymike 6y ago
  Breaking the monopoly is the solution. Pouring regulatory cement on just makes the monopoly legitimate and sanctioned forever.
  - 8note 6y ago
    Breaking monopolies is a form of regulation
alewi481 6y ago
A positive aspect of Apple’s model is that it’s impossible for a malicious ad to trick an unsuspecting user into sideloading malware on their device.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 6y ago

simonh 6y ago

The iPhone is an Apple product. The App Store is an Apple product. The libraries and development tools needed to create iOS apps are Apple products. Traditionally the company that develops a product gets to decide what features that product has. There are various laws that require a product be safe to use, is not misrepresented and does what it is advertised to do, but beyond that there are very few actual features of products that they are required by law to have. Maybe some standards they need to meet. Sometimes companies will invite other companies to join them in adding features to a product. A TV company might add licensed audio technology from Dolby, a car company might add licensed software for infotainment or navigation software, and they may charge their customers for the added software features. This is how games consoles work, you buy the console from the manufacturer, who licenses other companies to write games for their product as add-on modules. In the past CDs and cartridges were used, but now this often happen via downloads. These games are developed using the console manufacturers tools, run against their code libraries on the device and are clearly an extension of their product. This has been an established approach for many decades. When my kids were toddlers I bought an educational toy where you could buy little cartridges for it that added educational features. That's all the App Store is. It's a feature added by Apple to their product for adding optional features to the device. As in many cases in the past, across many types of device, this is a feature added by the manufacturer and your relationship as a customer remains with them. There is no law requiring that a device containing a computer, be it a car, TV, games console, phone or whatever have any specific features to enable loading additional software. That's just not a requirement that exists, and if a device does have a mechanism to add or update its software, there are no laws about how that must or must not be implemented, that I'm aware of anyway. If you disagree that this is the way it should be that's fine, that's absolutely your right, but can you explain how such laws should be drafted. What kinds of requirements should be put on manufacturers? Under what criteria should they apply and to what devices? If you think Apple has failed to comply with some law in the way they implemented their products, I'd appreciate some clarity about exactly what you think Apple has done wrong, and how that should be redressed.

terrortrain 6y ago
It's different when TV manufactures put Dolby in charge of advertising and supporting the feature. Then charge them a cut of their profit, with little to no recourse or dispute mechanisms. Besides that, it could be argued that running software is the feature. What software does is not a feature of the iPhone. Like a recipe is not a feature of a stove. We are buying the device, it's a tool, and we should control how it's used.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

I don't see what kind of regulation Steam needs. They are hardly the only storefront on the platforms they support, aren't the default one, have almost no exclusive content, and don't even take a cut if you sell Steam keys on other stores. What is there to regulate? If you don't like their terms you can sell on a different store or distribute yourself, there's nothing stopping you like there is on a typical iPhone or Android device. And frankly their terms are pretty damned fair. For the longest time they took such a hands-off approach to their marketplace that people got angry about that instead!

erk__ 6y ago
Steam did not offer refunds at all until they came into trouble for it in Australia and the EU. That is what regulations are for.
- throwaway45349 6y ago
  Other than lack of refunds and poor support for a decade, Steam was still the most consumer friendly app store. They got everything else right.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    The family plan settings on an account are certainly not an example of getting it right. You can share a library, have multiple linked accounts, but the instant any one of those accounts fires up a game all other accounts are locked out of the entire library. Not just the game that is currently running, but the everything. Valve missed the entire point of having a family account setup and every time I mention this I get “shut up pirate” as the response because having kids isn’t a valid use case.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > The family plan settings on an account are certainly not an example of getting it right. What other stores have a family plan at all?

jedberg 6y ago

But the regulations you are looking for should be on the device manufactures not the app stores. Require Apple to allow other app stores to be installed that has the same level of access to the OS and APIs that their native app store has, as well as direct app downloads from the internet with the same level of access (maybe with some extra hoops for security controls). That would solve the problem. Someone will spin up a better App store. Someone already has in fact. If you jailbreak your iPhone you get access to a second app store (https://cydia-app.com https://cydia-app.com) which has apps that Apple won't put in their regular store.

aww_dang 6y ago

This will only increase the fees and introduce compliance costs new entrants can't readily afford.

jfkebwjsbx 6y ago

Steam is the very opposite of a walled garden. Putting them in the list but leaving out all console manufacturers and operating system devs? Strange.

bronzeage 6y ago
I think all gaming consoles are similar. It's actually because steam is something I use while consoles aren't that I didn't think about that.

yurlungur 6y ago

May be a stupid idea, but I always feel that appstores should be independent from device and service providers. Consumers should have the flexibility to not get tied to certain distributors of software. Even if apple and Google are not prevented from hosting appstores they should be required to support third party ones as though they were native.