27 ms·

Senators introduce bipartisan antitrust bill to promote app store competition

381 points by averysmallbird 5y ago

meepmorp 5y ago
I actively do not want this as a consumer. I don't care about competition, for payments or other shit. I want to deal with Apple's payment system because I don't want my payment details and other personal information scattered across whatever crap an app developer decides to use. I like being able to cancel subscriptions in a single place. I don't give a shit about your profit margins or being able to sell my personal info for more money.
- EMIRELADERO 5y ago
  From what I've read the bill would not prevent Apple from forcing developers to use their payment system. It would prevent Apple from mandating devs use it as their only option. So, any developer could put any other payment system in their apps, but that wouldn't block you from still using Apple's if you don't trust that developer.
  - naravara 5y ago
    Devs have enough UX dark patterns in their toolkits to funnel the vast majority of their non-technically savvy userbases into the their favored payment systems and away from Apple's. It is way easier to enforce a blanket ban than trying to play whack-a-mole with those. Apple doesn't even do a great job enforcing its blanket ban either. Lots of shady developers will skirt the rules around subscription apps still being functional without subscription by having it function while under review and then flip something on the server side to lock it down once approved.
    - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
      > Devs have enough UX dark patterns in their toolkits to funnel the vast majority of their non-technically savvy userbases into the their favored payment systems and away from Apple's. It is way easier to enforce a blanket ban than trying to play whack-a-mole with those. If my interpretation of the bill is correct, then Apple could just say "You need to list Apple IAP in the same screen as the other payment methods, and you can't make it harder to find than the custom methods you implement." And knowing Apple, that's what they would do.
  - Sunfllowerfly 5y ago
    Every single big company will only allow their payment method. None that can afford to change will want to pay Apple's cut if they don't have to. If this passes, for any big successful app, using Apple payment will not be an option. Small developers will likely still use Apple because it is easy. The cut is likely less than the hassle of using a different system. After an update took away the required login setting for a purchase, Twice I have called Apple and received a refund when my kid spent hundreds of dollars in a couple hours. What is going to happen when that is a malicious game developer? They are not giving that money back. The cable monopolies show how monopolies will make it exceedingly hard to cancel a subscription. As a mere consumer, that is no longer developing for a living, I do not want this option. I do not really care if companies have to pay Apple a cut. I want easy. I want to trust who has my credit card.
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
      > Every single big company will only allow their payment method. Did you read the comment you replied to? Even if this passes, Apple will still be able to require that all apps offer Apple pay as an option for in-app payments. They just won't be able to prevent developers from offering additional payment options, or from informing users about Apple's 30% cut, or from charging a different price to users who opt to pay using another method.
      - judge2020 5y ago
        > Even if this passes, Apple will still be able to require that all apps offer Apple pay as an option for in-app payments. Not possible if the developer only offers their app via their own competing app store, which won't be subject to forced Apple Pay nor Apple's in-app payment system integration.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      Don't allow your kid to have a device which also saves your credit card to the device.
      - 5y ago
- asddubs 5y ago
  So don't use other app stores, which I suspect a majority of people won't do. I doubt app developers are going to leave the apple app store in large numbers for some other thing you have to search for and install first (meaning your app also by default won't show up on search at all)
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  Don't you think that is something apple should have thought of before doing what they did to cause the outcry that lead to this? Apple wanted to be the gatekeeper blocking out harmful apps, fine by me. Apple then wanting to use that gatekeeper status to steal money from app developers, block apps that compete with apple internal apps, and enforce moral choices on what kinds of apps you can install on your phone, evil by me. They could have done the former without doing the latter, but they fucked it up, and have to pay the piper.
- BackBlast 5y ago
  As a business owner. The principle policy I despise in this is that Apple won't let me charge iOS users differently than other users. If I could just mark up the iOS version to cover the additional fee, I would find it much less onerous. You like the walled garden? You are welcome to pay for it. I also find Amazon's similar policy equally disturbing. I don't think players in such powerful positions should be able to dictate pricing in such a manner.
  - blowfish721 5y ago
    Sure you can, but you’re not allowed to mention that it’s cheaper if you buy it elsewhere.
- srswtf123 5y ago
  Generally, I agree with you. I don't care about what you don't care about. I like the way Apple implements things, I've mostly liked their privacy-protecting moves until this latest fiasco. But I'm not sure this is bad. With Apple being the only app store, all the possible apps are in their App Store. If there were other stores, perhaps Apple could actually clean all the garbage out of their store. Give them the opportunity to hawk their wares on less reputable stores. This also can potentially lead to Apple touting the "luxury-brandness", or simply the exclusivity of their app store -- they seem to really like that. I'd also love to see an app store that's entirely focused on open source apps, perhaps with no payment method required. I bet there'd be no end to the types of storefronts we would see. As long as you can continue to opt-in to what you want, this doesn't seem too bad.
- perfectstorm 5y ago
  if you don't trust the developer, don't buy it just like on web. the more likely scenario is Paypal, Amazon etc. are going to provide SDKs and developer can use that for checkout instead of going through App Store.
  - johnsolo1701 5y ago
    Tell that to a parent of a kid who wants to play Fortnite on their iPhone. Make no mistake, this isn't a matter of consumer choice. Whether or not people trust Tencent/Epic, they will install their app store because they want to play their games.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  So you can keep using Apple's app store. That was always allowed.
- Ajedi32 5y ago
  Yeah, personally I feel that this bill is a bit too broad in some ways, too narrow in others. Too broad because I'm fine with walled gardens so long as there's a way to opt out of them. If Apple wants to force apps distributed through their store to behave a certain way to ensure a consistent user experience, that's fine with me. If Apple wants to force _me_ as the device owner to remain within that walled garden though just because I bought their hardware I'm very much against that. Too narrow because I think the principle that _users_ should control their own devices is sufficiently generalizable that it should apply to more than just "App Store[s] for which users in the United States exceed 50,000,000" on "general purpose computing device[s]". Overall though, I think I'd much rather have this bill pass as written than not have it pass at all.
cody8295 5y ago
If this passes, will Apple have to allow third-party apps like Android does?
- bumblebritches5 5y ago
  Yes, third party app stores are mentioned explicitly.
- averysmallbird 5y ago
  Yes
mikedouglas 5y ago
Full text of the bill: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%20Open%20App%20Markets%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%...
- judge2020 5y ago
  Note that it hasn't been filed in congress yet, so there's still a real possibility of it being amended. Maybe it'll even be amended to include the definition of "general purpose computing device" :)
threatofrain 5y ago
> Senators Richard Blumenthal and Amy Klobuchar, both Democrats, teamed up with Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn to sponsor the bill, which would bar big app stores from requiring app providers to use their payment system. Extremely disappointing. Google and Apple already support other payment methods, but by forcing apps on the iOS store to support Apple Pay and Sign in with Apple, me and my family are all the safer for it. That's part of the reason I jumped into the Apple ecosystem — that Apple intermediates relationships. This is not a pro-consumer move. Consumers already have choice. We should instead have laws for Extremely Strict data handling for payment vendors, including the sale of customer information.
- mikedouglas 5y ago
  IAP is a platform-enforced monopoly that allows Apple and Google to extract a flat 30% from every digital transaction that happens in an app. It's one of the clearest examples of the deadweight loss from monopolies, as businesses that would otherwise exist but have higher marginal costs can't offer products that consumers would otherwise benefit from. https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/1402691047940100100 https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/14026910479401001...
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    App store fees and Apple Pay are different things. What people are concerned about are increased fees and side-loading apps, and we can have a separate policy discussion on capping fees and having separate stores. What Apple Pay does is protect consumers from having to hand out their credit card information to random companies with less-than-Apple's reputation for handling consumer financial data. This is true both on and off the app store. No other payment vendor is going as far as Apple to protect your financial data, and you most certainly will never have the negotiating position to make Target budge on how they do things.
  - 6510 5y ago
    I keep thinking of this burger joint 22 km from my house who do free delivery when I order a rather large 6 euro burger menu. The micro-margins and the monumental effort involved blows my mind. They have to be cheap enough to get enough orders to be able to chain together enough deliveries most of the time. Surely Apple and Google in this settings are entitled to 2 euro for all the work they did. Seems only fair.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Zelphyr 5y ago
Senator Marsha "I've Never Met A Cable Or Telecom Lobby Dollar I Refused To Take" Blackburn makes me wonder if some of this push isn't by the telco's to try to get back in the game. Before the iPhone and Apple App Store, the telcos made a lot of money on mobile apps. Not comparable to what Apple and Google make now, but in part because they charged the developers so much to get an app on their platforms.
- xunn0026 5y ago
  This bill is like 5 years too late. If the telecom companies have to lead the way, so be it. Because the government surely doesn't mind the duopoly that exists.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Telco has basically no interest here, she's probably doing this as a bid to please her freedom-loving constituents who're begging for the ability to install Gab on their $1000+ phone.
- pzh 5y ago
  So we’re looking at a future where if you buy a phone from a phone company, it will come preloaded with their own version of the app store and a bunch of spyware apps selling you upgrades?
  - athenot 5y ago
    That's kinda how it was with feature phones (before smartphones).
  - infogulch 5y ago
    Seems not. > (3) hide or delete Apps or App Stores provided or preinstalled by the App Store owner or any of its business partners.
- rektide 5y ago
  this conspiracy theory would be more entertainable if the telecomm giants had any dog in the game at all. but they dont. there is essentially no competition, other than F-Droid, which appears to be 100% public benefit, barely monetized at all. that itself says quite a lot about this situation to me. no one else is even able to compete? the other giant companies haven't made any progress at all? not media outlets, not telecomm giants, no one? it's just two companies running the market, unchecked? which they guard jealously, & use their position to obstruct possible competition over? what words come to mind to describe this???
f32jhnjk33jj 5y ago
But only iPhone send your pictures automatically to the police without your consent, just because some unreliable Apple-AI suggest it *could be* something illegal...
- f32jhnjk33jj 5y ago
  https://fstoppers.com/news/apple-plans-scan-all-your-images-and-report-people-police-574633 https://fstoppers.com/news/apple-plans-scan-all-your-images-...
- whateveracct 5y ago
  Ah yes the advanced unreliable AI of .. a database of hashes?
  - yazaddaruvala 5y ago
    The problem is the lack of transparency around the hashing algorithm and bytes of the images used.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Do you really believe only Apple is doing this matching?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
criticaltinker 5y ago
I think many people here will be supportive of the proposed "Open App Markets Act" [1]. I found the bill to be fairly comprehensive, here are the excerpts I found most interesting: > COVERED COMPANY.—The term ‘‘Covered Company’’ means any person that owns or controls an App Store for which users in the United States exceed 50,000,000. > SEC. 3. PROTECTING A COMPETITIVE APP MARKET. (a) EXCLUSIVITY AND TYING. A Covered Company shall not: > (1) require developers to use an In-App Payment System owned or controlled by the Covered Company or any of its business partners as a condition of being distributed on an App Store or accessible on an operating system > (2) require as a term of distribution on an App Store that pricing terms or conditions of sale be equal to or more favorable on its App Store than the terms or conditions under another App Store > (3) take punitive action or otherwise impose less favorable terms and conditions against a developer for using or offering different pricing terms or conditions of sale through another In-App Payment System or on another App Store. > (b) INTERFERENCE WITH LEGITIMATE BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS. A Covered Company shall not impose restrictions on communications of developers with the users of the App through an App or direct outreach to a user concerning legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings. > (d) INTEROPERABILITY. A Covered Company that controls the operating system or operating system configuration on which its App Store operates shall allow and provide the readily accessible means for users of that operating system to: > (1) choose third-party Apps or App Stores as defaults for categories appropriate to the App or App Store > (2) install third-party Apps or App Stores through means other than its App Store > (3) hide or delete Apps or App Stores provided or preinstalled by the App Store owner or any of its business partners. > (e) SELF-PREFERENCING IN SEARCH. (1) A Covered Company shall not provide unequal treatment of Apps in an App Store through unreasonably preferencing or ranking the Apps of the Covered Company or any of its business partners over those of other Apps. Unreasonably preferencing - (A) includes applying ranking schemes or algorithms that prioritize Apps based on a criterion of ownership interest by the Covered Company or its business partners; and (B) does not include clearly disclosed advertising. > (f) OPEN APP DEVELOPMENT. Access to operating system interfaces, development information, and hardware and software features shall be provided to developers on a timely basis and on terms that are equivalent or functionally-equivalent to the terms for access by similar Apps or functions provided by the Covered Company or to its business partners. [1] https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%20Open%20App%20Markets%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%...
drenvuk 5y ago
This article glosses over the biggest deal in the bill. Section 3 subsection d - INTEROPERABILITY A Covered Company that controls the operating system or operating system configuration on which its App Store operates shall allow and provide the readily accessible means for users of that operating system to— (1) choose third-party Apps or App Stores as defaults for categories appropriate to the App or App Store; (2) install third-party Apps or App Stores through means other than its App Store; and (3) hide or delete Apps or App Stores provided or preinstalled by the App Store owner or any of its business partners Let's see how far this goes before it gets mangled all to hell.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  That's actually a fairly sensible bill. I'd imagine that both Google and Apple's respective teams are working their hardest to prevent the American people from hearing too much about this.
  - eganist 5y ago
    Not so much "preventing" anyone from hearing it as much as disparaging the bill in public discourse alongside buying off politicians. Mostly because word about bills like this tends to go around anyway thanks to all the orgs working for the public good. E.g the EFF, etc.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Google already complies with that except the default is one big switch AFAIK on android, it's not per-category.
    - teruakohatu 5y ago
      I think having two app stores being installed would (or should) satisfy this. I think the intention is to prevent Apple saying "either you use our store exclusively, or you opt out of all our apps". Google lets you install a browser from one store, a game from another, and everything else from the official Play Store. Google could also easily implement category switching. The URL navigation structure of android could just append ?cat=gaming.
pfraze 5y ago
Going to put in some positivity compared to the other comments here— Good. The OS store should have to compete with other software stores. If their store is actually better for consumers, then they have no cause for concern.
- wcarey 5y ago
  I'd support this if app developers were also required to release their apps on all the available stores and obey the policies of a particular store for users who obtain the app through that store.
  - healsdata 5y ago
    Why is that? If an App Store is cruel to the app developers, either through terms or actions, why should developers be forced to support them? This is particularly important for stores like Amazon which dictate things you're allowed to do with your app outside of the Amazon store. (i.e., you can't charge a lower fee outside of Amazon regardless of what Amazon is charging you.)
    - pchristensen 5y ago
      Because the App Store acts as the user's agent. I have no ability to force Facebook not to track me, but Apple can. In the GP's comment, think of the App Stores as a jurisdiction and set of rules that the app maker and user agree on. Maybe Facebook doesn't want to follow Apple's rules, but I don't want to use Facebook on Android's terms.
      - DougWebb 5y ago
        So... don't install Facebook unless it's from the Apple App store. Problem solved, right?
        filoleg 5y ago
        That's why the grandparent comment said "I'd support this if app developers were also required to release their apps on all the available stores". Without that clause, your approach wouldn't work, because what incentive would Facebook even have to release it on the Apple App Store and follow Apple's tighter privacy/anti-tracking rules, when they can just release it on the Facebook App Store for iOS (or whatever else they decide to call it or, alternatively, another third-party app store)? Sure, having third-party app stores helps smaller devs. But it also unchains all the anti-tracking and privacy shackles from the tech giants like FB who don't care which app store they are on (as long as they can set their own rules), because FB/Instagram/etc. users will follow to whatever app store their app is on (no matter how much or how little privacy protection that specific app store is willing to enforce on FB).
candiddevmike 5y ago
This could give stripe some explosive growth. I wonder how much the yearly app store fees would increase from this?
somebodynew 5y ago
My thoughts from a user perspective are that a mandatory app store is only beneficial to me to the extent that it enforces one or more positive aspects in published apps that could be expected to disappear due to profit motives if looser alternatives were available. The existence of such an option would seem to lead directly to most apps being exclusive to the cheapest and least stringent viable store (this doesn't seem to be the case for Google, but it is often suggested that it is hindered by factors like preventing automatic updates for apps from third party stores). I would not expect to have a choice of stores for a single app, or serious competition between stores on rule quality. That primarily leaves the question of what positive aspects are enforced by Apple's App Store in the first place, beyond the omnipresent operating system security model.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  Privacy and Apps not locking themselves out if a specific unnecessarily permission isn’t granted. The later would never slide in a walled garden but absolutely would in another store operated by a giant capable of spinning one off I.e Epic Games , Facebook, Google , Samsung. Etc.
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
I would love to see Apple forced to allow alternate app stores, which this bill also seems to require. And since both app stores charge a 30% fee, I can really only see this helping consumers in the end. Epic demonstrated it pretty well when they were willing to offer half off to customers who pay outside the app store. Apps would allow you to likely still purchase the 'easy way', but could give a discount if you use a sane processor that charges the standard ~3% fee versus 30%.
- rahkiin 5y ago
  I see plenty games on the Epic Game store that are the same consumer price as on Steam; only the developer pockets the difference.
  - jjcon 5y ago
    And presumably they can both be priced cheaper because some of the revenue is made up from the lower cut epic takes
    - judge2020 5y ago
      Epic doesn't release it on Steam because they don't want to support the Steam platform at all; worse for consumers in choosing which 'app store' to use, easier for developers to have their cake and eat it too.
  - shagie 5y ago
    I await the Mac version of Borderlands 3 on Steam. This remains an Epic Game store exclusive.
- nomel 5y ago
  > And since both app stores charge a 30% fee, I can really only see this helping consumers in the end. My naive assumption is that these fees reduce the need for an ad/user data based revenue stream, which seems to be one of the main uses of Android.
jeroenhd 5y ago
I wonder what the impact will be on the operating systems themselves. Currently, Android has the ability to run alternate app stores, but there's no way for an "app store" to silently install apps. Every update needs to go through a consent popup unless the phone has been rooted and some security-bypasses have been worked around. I run into this every week in F-Droid. If this practice is allowed to continue, Apple and Google will just modify their operating systems to add as many popups and warning screens for every install as they legally can. The only way to get useful app store support that allows competition is to introduce a way to mark an external application as an "app store" that has installation privileges. In my opinion, that part can have all the red tape and warnings, because installation permissions can be very dangerous. In my opinion, this law is a good thing that should've been introduced years ago, but its implementation will probably take years, with politicians and tech giants flinging shit at each other every chance they get.
- jsnell 5y ago
  That's already changing in Android 12, independent of this legislation: https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-stores-update-apps-background/ https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Are user-initiated app installations on par with Google's revenue generating path for app installations via the Play Store? Do users still have to adjust arcane settings to use another app store or install an app without one? Does Google still show users scary warnings and make competitors' apps seem as if they're broken or malicious, and still say the user is protected by Play Protect despite that the Play Store itself distributes the majority of Android malware[1]? Is Google going to drop the mandate that all apps on the Play Store must use Google's billing system that gives them a 15% to 30% cut[1]? And how will Google treat apps that don't use Google's billing system as their payment method, considering how Google makes user-installed apps seem malicious? [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-distribution-vector-for-most-android-malware/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...
hamburgerwah 5y ago
There is way too much common sense in this bill which guarantees it will go nowhere.
summerlight 5y ago
I personally don't believe this will make a dent to the current situation; Apple and Google have so many other strategies to maintain their monopoly effectively on the app store market. But at least I hope this bill will give users some choice and control.
milderworkacc 5y ago
I love this idea - I paid a grand for this thing, I should be able to run whatever I like on it. However, this does make it significantly more difficult for Apple to dictate terms to every random app that your network of friends and colleagues makes you download, and makes it more likely that those apps will be a regression in terms of actual consumer experience. Regulation of access to your camera roll and contact list is a terrible idea, so I don’t see a solution. Apple is the only thing stopping WhatsApp (let’s face it, an essential app in 2021) from demanding your location at all times. We don’t notice this on the web, because Mozilla and Google (!) enforce terms for us (and most desktops don’t have GPS receivers). Take out the gatekeeper on mobile and we might find that the benevolent dictatorship wasn’t so bad after all. Edit: want to add that replacing Apple’s consumer protection gatekeeper role with a government agency is a non starter. Apple (and to give them credit, Google) know that the data available to the gatekeeper role is toxic and dangerous. Government thinks it’s a big bowl of lollies.
- vimy 5y ago
  The APIs won’t change with alternative app stores. Asking permission for using gps or camera or … can still be enforced. Just like on macOS.
  - milderworkacc 5y ago
    That’s a good point, but the behaviour I’m talking about is enforcing the optionality of those functions in order for the app to work. I might be wrong about this (not a dev, just play one on the internet) but Apple has the power to say that in order to submit an app to the App Store, user location/contacts/photos/whatever must not be required to be turned on for the app to work. ie. Apple enforces your ability to use WhatsApp without giving up microphone access. Without that model, yes, permissions are still granular. But WhatsApp can tell you to turn all of them on, or you can’t use the app. To me, that’s not a meaningful difference to the “just don’t install it” crowd’s preferred suggestion.
    - DenisM 5y ago
      Worst case Apple can feed those apps a random location, supplemented with a random film roll and address book.
ortusdux 5y ago
Reminds me of the judgement in U.S. v. Microsoft. https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/503541/download https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/503541/downlo...
- averysmallbird 5y ago
  It’s not a coincidence: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/opinion/microsoft-antitrust-case.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/opinion/microsoft-antitru...
moonchrome 5y ago
Wondering why the EU is lagging behind on this one.
wsc981 5y ago
For me as a developer, I feel Apple's Mac App Store sucks. And it's probably the same for iOS. Discoverability on Apple's Mac App Store is horrible. I released a game earlier this year on the Mac App Store and while it's not a great game (my first experience with LÖVE, so a pretty simple project), I got zero sales. I recently finished a 2nd game and published it on both the Mac App Store and Steam this week. On Steam I sell some units every day. On the Mac App Store it's still zero. And I don't expect the sales on Mac App Store to be the same as on Steam (since I sell mostly to Windows users on Steam), but it would be nice to see at least a couple of Mac sales. I am currently working on my 3rd game (which will be a bit more ambitious compared to my first 2 games) and I am considering publishing only on Steam, since publishing on the Mac App Store seems a waste of energy. I don't know if this bill would help someone like me, but maybe ...
- rahkiin 5y ago
  I don’t think so. You can put your app on your website with Stripe as well. Nothing stopping you there for macOS.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    This bill isn't about MacOS so much as it is iOS/Android, and moreover their owners.
- mrzimmerman 5y ago
  I do most of my gaming on the same Mac Book Pro I work on and I buy pretty much everything on Steam anyway since I can eventually install them on the gaming PC I keep telling myself I’ll build. Not saying it’s a waste of money or time to use the MacOS store but given the choice I’ll always choose Steam since my library is much more flexible and portable.
- Aperocky 5y ago
  Are Mac App Store actually useful? I don't recall using it (maybe once?), and I burnt through 3 macs over the past 5 years. Things are either installed via brew or steam, or even git and make. But then again my interface of choice is terminal and editor of choice is vim, so maybe a far outlier. Back to your experience, go steam alone, the thought of even downloading regular software in the 'App Store' don't even cross my mind, let alone games.
flyinglizard 5y ago
I think this will create a race to the bottom on app quality, at least on iOS. I suffer from Apple’s seemingly random antics and app review process as much as the next dev here but as a consumer I’m all for paid, curated content from a trusted source. I like Sign In with Apple buttons and strict enforcement of permissions and privacy. Many times I hear “just let me pay for what I’m consuming instead of having my data sold and spammed with ads”; the App Store, to some extent, pretty much does that. Now, “what’s wrong with having an alternative” you say? Apps will migrate to the path of least resistance. No reviews, no rules? Much easier than the official store. Once you develop your app for the unofficial store, getting it into the official one would be like certifying a Mad Max vehicle at the Californian DMV. In short, I like the ecosystem Apple created, especially for my kids. This seems like a big step forward for competition but is it really that good for me?
- asddubs 5y ago
  >No reviews, no rules? Much easier than the official store. Once you develop your app for the unofficial store, getting it into the official one would be like certifying a Mad Max vehicle at the Californian DMV. but also not being able to be found by default at all, until your potential users download some other app store. I think android is a good example showing that most people probably will not bother to do that, and apple still has a large advantage, it just evens the playing field a little
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  Don't you think that is something apple should have thought of before doing what they did to cause the outcry that lead to this? Apple wanted to be the gatekeeper blocking out harmful apps, fine by me. Apple then wanting to use that gatekeeper status to steal money from app developers, block apps that compete with apple internal apps, and enforce moral choices on what kinds of apps you can install on your phone, evil by me. They could have done the former without doing the latter, but they fucked it up, and have to pay the piper.
reactspa 5y ago
It's instructive that it took Senators from MN, TN and CT to bring this forward. Nobody from CA.
xibalba 5y ago
Between this and the infrastructure bill passing, are U.S. politicians actually starting to do their jobs (aka finding common ground, compromising, and passing meaningful legislation)?
solarkraft 5y ago
This is awesome. Now - does it have a chance? My gut says yes, because Apple’s lobbying will be met by that of all the companies interested in getting rid of the fees. My main interest is in sideloading, but I fear that might eventually be compromised away/Apple will meet the demand by themselves to not have to follow the rest. By the way, devices and services should not be tied either. Apple shouldn’t be allowed the give their apps and services a special place and special rights only they can use. I should be able to self host my own iCloud (with a third-party implementation). So for me this bill doesn’t go far enough, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction.
emsy 5y ago
Finally my iPad may actually be useful for more than just a really expensive web browsing machine.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  The website other than Google on my iPad pro by miles is library genesis. It's a damn good pdf reader but it would be nice to plot some graphs on it from time to time.
ape4 5y ago
In /r/androiddev I've read stories of developers getting lifetime bans (from Google Play) for 3 strikes. Maybe they are guilty but often they say they didn't know what its for and the decisions are made by bots. A common one is screenshots of a music player app showing copyrighted material: album covers. So alternate stores would be appreciated by small developers.
j_koreth 5y ago
The bill's text seems to specify "App Stores" to those limited to "users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device". Does anyone if this can possibly apply to video game consoles? A wasteful amount of computing is locked behind these consoles and it would be great to see open access come to these platforms as well. Another concern is whether Android and iOS can get out of this bill by arguing themselves to be similar entertainment devices.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > Another concern is whether Android and iOS can get out of this bill by arguing themselves to be similar entertainment devices. Almost certainly covered by "a mobile device"
  - judge2020 5y ago
    then I suppose Nintendo Switches are also "mobile devices" - it would help if this bill had any definition whatsoever of "mobile device" and "general purpose computing device". It's a PR fluff piece and not even the initial version of the bill that will be submitted to congress.
    - j_koreth 5y ago
      That's exactly why I wasn't sure what would be included in the bill.
spullara 5y ago
Hello malware my old friend, I've come to talk to you again.
kart23 5y ago
I honestly think Apple might go nuclear here if this gets a serious shot at passing. I could see them removing the app store outright and instructing people to complain to their representatives, like lyft & uber did for prop 22. In fact, the first people to complain would probably be the senators themselves.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  A) Apple would probably be sued by their shareholders and users. B) Making their app store useless wouldn't stop them from being obligated to allow 3rd party stores so this would drive users and developers to such stores If they don't C) It says developers would be entitled to 3x actual damages plus attorneys fees. Damages could be as high as 318 million dollars per day a sticker shock fit to startle even a giant since it's more than their daily profit.
  - kart23 5y ago
    If they don't run an app store, they aren't a covered company, and therefore not required to allow a third party app store. At least that's what I gleaned from my reading of the bill. I don't think they would be able to bring a successful suit, the bill doesn't outlaw shutting down an app store. Apple could just say, we don't think running an app store is worth it anymore, and therefore exempt themselves from the bill. I do think it's crazy, but still possible.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      You are assuming that judges in America all the way up the food chain are going to think that your cleverness is cute and allow you to cheat the obvious intent and purpose of the law with a technicality. Why would they? As of the day before the law goes into effect Apple has an app store. Apple would pretty much have to kill its entire phone business, not just its app store, which is the lions share of its income now and forever if it gave up on having any credible way for normal users to install software. A reasonable judge would say Apple HAS an app store that it has temporarily shuttered for the purposes of a political stunt and happily fine them for believing they were immune from consequences for ignoring the law. Meanwhile all its partners far from merely yelling at their congresscritter would be steadily losing faith in Apple. They can't possibly be so naive.
rubyist5eva 5y ago
This is clearly being done to specifically target Apple, I'm not sure this would hold up as being legal. I see a situtation where Apple takes this to the supreme court, wins on first amendment grounds, and then everyone is royally f*cked for eternity because it's now unconstitutional to prevent a company from lockding down their proprietary hardware/software.
- jjcon 5y ago
  > This is clearly being done to specifically target Apple That is how antitrust legislation has always worked and it wasn’t until recently that congress/DOJ lost all spine to go after these companies
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    Apple is not a monopoly, not even close. Anti-Trust against apple is a joke.
    - yxhuvud 5y ago
      Anti trust legislation doesn't require monopolies, just uncompetitive practices. Which is something monopolies can help facilitate, but it is not a requirement.
      - rubyist5eva 5y ago
        Apple is not being anti-competitive, competitors are free to go play in Google's play ground. The iphone started with no third party apps, Apple has zero obligation to anyone. Apple's walled garden approach is differentiator against its competitors. Forcing them to act like everyone else is anti-competition because you are removing my choice to willingly buy into that walled garden.
    - jjcon 5y ago
      Where did I say they were? I said antitrust which means anticompetitive. If you don’t like the law take it up with the governments in the EU, US and Australia.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Why not just enforce the laws already on the books.
doit4thebitties 5y ago
I'm all for app store competition and not suppressing apps users want. The downside is apps aren't curated enough as it is. Malware and knock-off apps are the likely consequences of wild west app stores.
jmull 5y ago
This is mostly good, but it forces Apple/Google to hand over your email address (or other means of communication) to anyone you download an app from so they can spam you. The bill says they don’t have to allow spam, but specially allows “legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings”… which is spam unless one explicitly opts-in to it. I don’t appreciate the double-talk. This part of the bill is user hostile and should be deleted.
- AndrewKemendo 5y ago
  I'm legitimately curious how you would mandate platform portability and also prevent communication from the third party in the form of a law? The only way to do that is to mandate that the platform (Apple/Google) give the third party the ability to move the user, which it is doing here with the most universal identifier.
- echelon 5y ago
  That requirement isn't user hostile, and it's not even that bad. You have to give your address to people that ship you things. You used to have to use your email address to sign up for websites. Nobody complained. People used throwaway emails if needed. It's not like they're reading your files. Gatekeeping the means of contact is an asymmetry that allows Apple and Google to retain power. Remember, these companies were trying to shrink wrap all of us and sell/tax access. An artificial world impossible to operate in without them. This act needs to go a step further and guarantee web downloads of apps independent of app stores as a first class construct. It also needs to allow runtimes and alternative web browsers specifically to combat Apple. Furthermore, it should disallow devices from coming with a default app store or default browser. (Similar to the EU's browser choice screen for Microsoft Windows.) Then we'll have a fair mobile world for the first time ever. Apple and Google will still make a metric ton of money. They'll also be able to start focusing more on future endeavors and innovations, which would be good for them and for us.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Is it even necessary? An app store could simply require that users make an account. That allows them to harvest your email at time of account creation, and provides users choice of which email address will be shared. And it's fully above-board.
wankerrific 5y ago
Marsha Blackburn signed on. That can only mean AT&T or Verizon is lobbying for it. She’s basically legislates whatever they tell her to do.
welder 5y ago
Does this mean Apple will be forced to allow third-party Xcode extensions? When they released their "extensions" they disabled all third-party extensions that everyone was already using. I say "extensions" because source editor extensions are really just macros with a menu item to run them.
Tossrock 5y ago
Finally I can run yum on Ubuntu
dontblink 5y ago
Wouldn't this be a net benefit for Google? They could offer their Play store on IOS if this passes. That could lead them to really break the IOS walled garden if user's purchases work on both platforms. Actually this goes for any third party store. I don't see Apple ever offering their store on other platforms given their history though. Overall this seems like a huge net benefit. I can then not care about IOS vs Android if my purchases follow me.
willbrodnax 5y ago
Who are the primary lobbyists benefiting most from this bill?

I actively do not want this as a consumer. I don't care about competition, for payments or other shit. I want to deal with Apple's payment system because I don't want my payment details and other personal information scattered across whatever crap an app developer decides to use. I like being able to cancel subscriptions in a single place. I don't give a shit about your profit margins or being able to sell my personal info for more money.

EMIRELADERO 5y ago
From what I've read the bill would not prevent Apple from forcing developers to use their payment system. It would prevent Apple from mandating devs use it as their only option. So, any developer could put any other payment system in their apps, but that wouldn't block you from still using Apple's if you don't trust that developer.
- naravara 5y ago
  Devs have enough UX dark patterns in their toolkits to funnel the vast majority of their non-technically savvy userbases into the their favored payment systems and away from Apple's. It is way easier to enforce a blanket ban than trying to play whack-a-mole with those. Apple doesn't even do a great job enforcing its blanket ban either. Lots of shady developers will skirt the rules around subscription apps still being functional without subscription by having it function while under review and then flip something on the server side to lock it down once approved.
  - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
    > Devs have enough UX dark patterns in their toolkits to funnel the vast majority of their non-technically savvy userbases into the their favored payment systems and away from Apple's. It is way easier to enforce a blanket ban than trying to play whack-a-mole with those. If my interpretation of the bill is correct, then Apple could just say "You need to list Apple IAP in the same screen as the other payment methods, and you can't make it harder to find than the custom methods you implement." And knowing Apple, that's what they would do.
- Sunfllowerfly 5y ago
  Every single big company will only allow their payment method. None that can afford to change will want to pay Apple's cut if they don't have to. If this passes, for any big successful app, using Apple payment will not be an option. Small developers will likely still use Apple because it is easy. The cut is likely less than the hassle of using a different system. After an update took away the required login setting for a purchase, Twice I have called Apple and received a refund when my kid spent hundreds of dollars in a couple hours. What is going to happen when that is a malicious game developer? They are not giving that money back. The cable monopolies show how monopolies will make it exceedingly hard to cancel a subscription. As a mere consumer, that is no longer developing for a living, I do not want this option. I do not really care if companies have to pay Apple a cut. I want easy. I want to trust who has my credit card.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
    > Every single big company will only allow their payment method. Did you read the comment you replied to? Even if this passes, Apple will still be able to require that all apps offer Apple pay as an option for in-app payments. They just won't be able to prevent developers from offering additional payment options, or from informing users about Apple's 30% cut, or from charging a different price to users who opt to pay using another method.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      > Even if this passes, Apple will still be able to require that all apps offer Apple pay as an option for in-app payments. Not possible if the developer only offers their app via their own competing app store, which won't be subject to forced Apple Pay nor Apple's in-app payment system integration.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Don't allow your kid to have a device which also saves your credit card to the device.
    - 5y ago
asddubs 5y ago
So don't use other app stores, which I suspect a majority of people won't do. I doubt app developers are going to leave the apple app store in large numbers for some other thing you have to search for and install first (meaning your app also by default won't show up on search at all)
MrStonedOne 5y ago
Don't you think that is something apple should have thought of before doing what they did to cause the outcry that lead to this? Apple wanted to be the gatekeeper blocking out harmful apps, fine by me. Apple then wanting to use that gatekeeper status to steal money from app developers, block apps that compete with apple internal apps, and enforce moral choices on what kinds of apps you can install on your phone, evil by me. They could have done the former without doing the latter, but they fucked it up, and have to pay the piper.
BackBlast 5y ago
As a business owner. The principle policy I despise in this is that Apple won't let me charge iOS users differently than other users. If I could just mark up the iOS version to cover the additional fee, I would find it much less onerous. You like the walled garden? You are welcome to pay for it. I also find Amazon's similar policy equally disturbing. I don't think players in such powerful positions should be able to dictate pricing in such a manner.
- blowfish721 5y ago
  Sure you can, but you’re not allowed to mention that it’s cheaper if you buy it elsewhere.
srswtf123 5y ago
Generally, I agree with you. I don't care about what you don't care about. I like the way Apple implements things, I've mostly liked their privacy-protecting moves until this latest fiasco. But I'm not sure this is bad. With Apple being the only app store, all the possible apps are in their App Store. If there were other stores, perhaps Apple could actually clean all the garbage out of their store. Give them the opportunity to hawk their wares on less reputable stores. This also can potentially lead to Apple touting the "luxury-brandness", or simply the exclusivity of their app store -- they seem to really like that. I'd also love to see an app store that's entirely focused on open source apps, perhaps with no payment method required. I bet there'd be no end to the types of storefronts we would see. As long as you can continue to opt-in to what you want, this doesn't seem too bad.
perfectstorm 5y ago
if you don't trust the developer, don't buy it just like on web. the more likely scenario is Paypal, Amazon etc. are going to provide SDKs and developer can use that for checkout instead of going through App Store.
- johnsolo1701 5y ago
  Tell that to a parent of a kid who wants to play Fortnite on their iPhone. Make no mistake, this isn't a matter of consumer choice. Whether or not people trust Tencent/Epic, they will install their app store because they want to play their games.
perryizgr8 5y ago
So you can keep using Apple's app store. That was always allowed.
Ajedi32 5y ago
Yeah, personally I feel that this bill is a bit too broad in some ways, too narrow in others. Too broad because I'm fine with walled gardens so long as there's a way to opt out of them. If Apple wants to force apps distributed through their store to behave a certain way to ensure a consistent user experience, that's fine with me. If Apple wants to force _me_ as the device owner to remain within that walled garden though just because I bought their hardware I'm very much against that. Too narrow because I think the principle that _users_ should control their own devices is sufficiently generalizable that it should apply to more than just "App Store[s] for which users in the United States exceed 50,000,000" on "general purpose computing device[s]". Overall though, I think I'd much rather have this bill pass as written than not have it pass at all.

cody8295 5y ago

If this passes, will Apple have to allow third-party apps like Android does?

bumblebritches5 5y ago
Yes, third party app stores are mentioned explicitly.
averysmallbird 5y ago
Yes

mikedouglas 5y ago

Full text of the bill: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%20Open%20App%20Markets%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%...

judge2020 5y ago
Note that it hasn't been filed in congress yet, so there's still a real possibility of it being amended. Maybe it'll even be amended to include the definition of "general purpose computing device" :)

threatofrain 5y ago

> Senators Richard Blumenthal and Amy Klobuchar, both Democrats, teamed up with Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn to sponsor the bill, which would bar big app stores from requiring app providers to use their payment system. Extremely disappointing. Google and Apple already support other payment methods, but by forcing apps on the iOS store to support Apple Pay and Sign in with Apple, me and my family are all the safer for it. That's part of the reason I jumped into the Apple ecosystem — that Apple intermediates relationships. This is not a pro-consumer move. Consumers already have choice. We should instead have laws for Extremely Strict data handling for payment vendors, including the sale of customer information.

mikedouglas 5y ago
IAP is a platform-enforced monopoly that allows Apple and Google to extract a flat 30% from every digital transaction that happens in an app. It's one of the clearest examples of the deadweight loss from monopolies, as businesses that would otherwise exist but have higher marginal costs can't offer products that consumers would otherwise benefit from. https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/1402691047940100100 https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/14026910479401001...
- threatofrain 5y ago
  App store fees and Apple Pay are different things. What people are concerned about are increased fees and side-loading apps, and we can have a separate policy discussion on capping fees and having separate stores. What Apple Pay does is protect consumers from having to hand out their credit card information to random companies with less-than-Apple's reputation for handling consumer financial data. This is true both on and off the app store. No other payment vendor is going as far as Apple to protect your financial data, and you most certainly will never have the negotiating position to make Target budge on how they do things.
- 6510 5y ago
  I keep thinking of this burger joint 22 km from my house who do free delivery when I order a rather large 6 euro burger menu. The micro-margins and the monumental effort involved blows my mind. They have to be cheap enough to get enough orders to be able to chain together enough deliveries most of the time. Surely Apple and Google in this settings are entitled to 2 euro for all the work they did. Seems only fair.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Zelphyr 5y ago

Senator Marsha "I've Never Met A Cable Or Telecom Lobby Dollar I Refused To Take" Blackburn makes me wonder if some of this push isn't by the telco's to try to get back in the game. Before the iPhone and Apple App Store, the telcos made a lot of money on mobile apps. Not comparable to what Apple and Google make now, but in part because they charged the developers so much to get an app on their platforms.

xunn0026 5y ago
This bill is like 5 years too late. If the telecom companies have to lead the way, so be it. Because the government surely doesn't mind the duopoly that exists.
smoldesu 5y ago
Telco has basically no interest here, she's probably doing this as a bid to please her freedom-loving constituents who're begging for the ability to install Gab on their $1000+ phone.
pzh 5y ago
So we’re looking at a future where if you buy a phone from a phone company, it will come preloaded with their own version of the app store and a bunch of spyware apps selling you upgrades?
- athenot 5y ago
  That's kinda how it was with feature phones (before smartphones).
- infogulch 5y ago
  Seems not. > (3) hide or delete Apps or App Stores provided or preinstalled by the App Store owner or any of its business partners.
rektide 5y ago
this conspiracy theory would be more entertainable if the telecomm giants had any dog in the game at all. but they dont. there is essentially no competition, other than F-Droid, which appears to be 100% public benefit, barely monetized at all. that itself says quite a lot about this situation to me. no one else is even able to compete? the other giant companies haven't made any progress at all? not media outlets, not telecomm giants, no one? it's just two companies running the market, unchecked? which they guard jealously, & use their position to obstruct possible competition over? what words come to mind to describe this???

f32jhnjk33jj 5y ago

But only iPhone send your pictures automatically to the police without your consent, just because some unreliable Apple-AI suggest it *could be* something illegal...

f32jhnjk33jj 5y ago
https://fstoppers.com/news/apple-plans-scan-all-your-images-and-report-people-police-574633 https://fstoppers.com/news/apple-plans-scan-all-your-images-...
whateveracct 5y ago
Ah yes the advanced unreliable AI of .. a database of hashes?
- yazaddaruvala 5y ago
  The problem is the lack of transparency around the hashing algorithm and bytes of the images used.
tinus_hn 5y ago
Do you really believe only Apple is doing this matching?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

criticaltinker 5y ago

I think many people here will be supportive of the proposed "Open App Markets Act" [1]. I found the bill to be fairly comprehensive, here are the excerpts I found most interesting: > COVERED COMPANY.—The term ‘‘Covered Company’’ means any person that owns or controls an App Store for which users in the United States exceed 50,000,000. > SEC. 3. PROTECTING A COMPETITIVE APP MARKET. (a) EXCLUSIVITY AND TYING. A Covered Company shall not: > (1) require developers to use an In-App Payment System owned or controlled by the Covered Company or any of its business partners as a condition of being distributed on an App Store or accessible on an operating system > (2) require as a term of distribution on an App Store that pricing terms or conditions of sale be equal to or more favorable on its App Store than the terms or conditions under another App Store > (3) take punitive action or otherwise impose less favorable terms and conditions against a developer for using or offering different pricing terms or conditions of sale through another In-App Payment System or on another App Store. > (b) INTERFERENCE WITH LEGITIMATE BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS. A Covered Company shall not impose restrictions on communications of developers with the users of the App through an App or direct outreach to a user concerning legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings. > (d) INTEROPERABILITY. A Covered Company that controls the operating system or operating system configuration on which its App Store operates shall allow and provide the readily accessible means for users of that operating system to: > (1) choose third-party Apps or App Stores as defaults for categories appropriate to the App or App Store > (2) install third-party Apps or App Stores through means other than its App Store > (3) hide or delete Apps or App Stores provided or preinstalled by the App Store owner or any of its business partners. > (e) SELF-PREFERENCING IN SEARCH. (1) A Covered Company shall not provide unequal treatment of Apps in an App Store through unreasonably preferencing or ranking the Apps of the Covered Company or any of its business partners over those of other Apps. Unreasonably preferencing - (A) includes applying ranking schemes or algorithms that prioritize Apps based on a criterion of ownership interest by the Covered Company or its business partners; and (B) does not include clearly disclosed advertising. > (f) OPEN APP DEVELOPMENT. Access to operating system interfaces, development information, and hardware and software features shall be provided to developers on a timely basis and on terms that are equivalent or functionally-equivalent to the terms for access by similar Apps or functions provided by the Covered Company or to its business partners. [1] https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%20Open%20App%20Markets%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%...

drenvuk 5y ago

This article glosses over the biggest deal in the bill. Section 3 subsection d - INTEROPERABILITY A Covered Company that controls the operating system or operating system configuration on which its App Store operates shall allow and provide the readily accessible means for users of that operating system to— (1) choose third-party Apps or App Stores as defaults for categories appropriate to the App or App Store; (2) install third-party Apps or App Stores through means other than its App Store; and (3) hide or delete Apps or App Stores provided or preinstalled by the App Store owner or any of its business partners Let's see how far this goes before it gets mangled all to hell.

smoldesu 5y ago
That's actually a fairly sensible bill. I'd imagine that both Google and Apple's respective teams are working their hardest to prevent the American people from hearing too much about this.
- eganist 5y ago
  Not so much "preventing" anyone from hearing it as much as disparaging the bill in public discourse alongside buying off politicians. Mostly because word about bills like this tends to go around anyway thanks to all the orgs working for the public good. E.g the EFF, etc.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Google already complies with that except the default is one big switch AFAIK on android, it's not per-category.
  - teruakohatu 5y ago
    I think having two app stores being installed would (or should) satisfy this. I think the intention is to prevent Apple saying "either you use our store exclusively, or you opt out of all our apps". Google lets you install a browser from one store, a game from another, and everything else from the official Play Store. Google could also easily implement category switching. The URL navigation structure of android could just append ?cat=gaming.

pfraze 5y ago

Going to put in some positivity compared to the other comments here— Good. The OS store should have to compete with other software stores. If their store is actually better for consumers, then they have no cause for concern.

wcarey 5y ago
I'd support this if app developers were also required to release their apps on all the available stores and obey the policies of a particular store for users who obtain the app through that store.
- healsdata 5y ago
  Why is that? If an App Store is cruel to the app developers, either through terms or actions, why should developers be forced to support them? This is particularly important for stores like Amazon which dictate things you're allowed to do with your app outside of the Amazon store. (i.e., you can't charge a lower fee outside of Amazon regardless of what Amazon is charging you.)
  - pchristensen 5y ago
    Because the App Store acts as the user's agent. I have no ability to force Facebook not to track me, but Apple can. In the GP's comment, think of the App Stores as a jurisdiction and set of rules that the app maker and user agree on. Maybe Facebook doesn't want to follow Apple's rules, but I don't want to use Facebook on Android's terms.
    - DougWebb 5y ago
      So... don't install Facebook unless it's from the Apple App store. Problem solved, right?
      - filoleg 5y ago
        That's why the grandparent comment said "I'd support this if app developers were also required to release their apps on all the available stores". Without that clause, your approach wouldn't work, because what incentive would Facebook even have to release it on the Apple App Store and follow Apple's tighter privacy/anti-tracking rules, when they can just release it on the Facebook App Store for iOS (or whatever else they decide to call it or, alternatively, another third-party app store)? Sure, having third-party app stores helps smaller devs. But it also unchains all the anti-tracking and privacy shackles from the tech giants like FB who don't care which app store they are on (as long as they can set their own rules), because FB/Instagram/etc. users will follow to whatever app store their app is on (no matter how much or how little privacy protection that specific app store is willing to enforce on FB).

candiddevmike 5y ago

This could give stripe some explosive growth. I wonder how much the yearly app store fees would increase from this?

somebodynew 5y ago

My thoughts from a user perspective are that a mandatory app store is only beneficial to me to the extent that it enforces one or more positive aspects in published apps that could be expected to disappear due to profit motives if looser alternatives were available. The existence of such an option would seem to lead directly to most apps being exclusive to the cheapest and least stringent viable store (this doesn't seem to be the case for Google, but it is often suggested that it is hindered by factors like preventing automatic updates for apps from third party stores). I would not expect to have a choice of stores for a single app, or serious competition between stores on rule quality. That primarily leaves the question of what positive aspects are enforced by Apple's App Store in the first place, beyond the omnipresent operating system security model.

Jcowell 5y ago
Privacy and Apps not locking themselves out if a specific unnecessarily permission isn’t granted. The later would never slide in a walled garden but absolutely would in another store operated by a giant capable of spinning one off I.e Epic Games , Facebook, Google , Samsung. Etc.

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago

I would love to see Apple forced to allow alternate app stores, which this bill also seems to require. And since both app stores charge a 30% fee, I can really only see this helping consumers in the end. Epic demonstrated it pretty well when they were willing to offer half off to customers who pay outside the app store. Apps would allow you to likely still purchase the 'easy way', but could give a discount if you use a sane processor that charges the standard ~3% fee versus 30%.

rahkiin 5y ago
I see plenty games on the Epic Game store that are the same consumer price as on Steam; only the developer pockets the difference.
- jjcon 5y ago
  And presumably they can both be priced cheaper because some of the revenue is made up from the lower cut epic takes
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Epic doesn't release it on Steam because they don't want to support the Steam platform at all; worse for consumers in choosing which 'app store' to use, easier for developers to have their cake and eat it too.
- shagie 5y ago
  I await the Mac version of Borderlands 3 on Steam. This remains an Epic Game store exclusive.
nomel 5y ago
> And since both app stores charge a 30% fee, I can really only see this helping consumers in the end. My naive assumption is that these fees reduce the need for an ad/user data based revenue stream, which seems to be one of the main uses of Android.

jeroenhd 5y ago

I wonder what the impact will be on the operating systems themselves. Currently, Android has the ability to run alternate app stores, but there's no way for an "app store" to silently install apps. Every update needs to go through a consent popup unless the phone has been rooted and some security-bypasses have been worked around. I run into this every week in F-Droid. If this practice is allowed to continue, Apple and Google will just modify their operating systems to add as many popups and warning screens for every install as they legally can. The only way to get useful app store support that allows competition is to introduce a way to mark an external application as an "app store" that has installation privileges. In my opinion, that part can have all the red tape and warnings, because installation permissions can be very dangerous. In my opinion, this law is a good thing that should've been introduced years ago, but its implementation will probably take years, with politicians and tech giants flinging shit at each other every chance they get.

jsnell 5y ago
That's already changing in Android 12, independent of this legislation: https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-stores-update-apps-background/ https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Are user-initiated app installations on par with Google's revenue generating path for app installations via the Play Store? Do users still have to adjust arcane settings to use another app store or install an app without one? Does Google still show users scary warnings and make competitors' apps seem as if they're broken or malicious, and still say the user is protected by Play Protect despite that the Play Store itself distributes the majority of Android malware[1]? Is Google going to drop the mandate that all apps on the Play Store must use Google's billing system that gives them a 15% to 30% cut[1]? And how will Google treat apps that don't use Google's billing system as their payment method, considering how Google makes user-installed apps seem malicious? [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-distribution-vector-for-most-android-malware/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...

hamburgerwah 5y ago

There is way too much common sense in this bill which guarantees it will go nowhere.

summerlight 5y ago

I personally don't believe this will make a dent to the current situation; Apple and Google have so many other strategies to maintain their monopoly effectively on the app store market. But at least I hope this bill will give users some choice and control.

milderworkacc 5y ago

I love this idea - I paid a grand for this thing, I should be able to run whatever I like on it. However, this does make it significantly more difficult for Apple to dictate terms to every random app that your network of friends and colleagues makes you download, and makes it more likely that those apps will be a regression in terms of actual consumer experience. Regulation of access to your camera roll and contact list is a terrible idea, so I don’t see a solution. Apple is the only thing stopping WhatsApp (let’s face it, an essential app in 2021) from demanding your location at all times. We don’t notice this on the web, because Mozilla and Google (!) enforce terms for us (and most desktops don’t have GPS receivers). Take out the gatekeeper on mobile and we might find that the benevolent dictatorship wasn’t so bad after all. Edit: want to add that replacing Apple’s consumer protection gatekeeper role with a government agency is a non starter. Apple (and to give them credit, Google) know that the data available to the gatekeeper role is toxic and dangerous. Government thinks it’s a big bowl of lollies.

vimy 5y ago
The APIs won’t change with alternative app stores. Asking permission for using gps or camera or … can still be enforced. Just like on macOS.
- milderworkacc 5y ago
  That’s a good point, but the behaviour I’m talking about is enforcing the optionality of those functions in order for the app to work. I might be wrong about this (not a dev, just play one on the internet) but Apple has the power to say that in order to submit an app to the App Store, user location/contacts/photos/whatever must not be required to be turned on for the app to work. ie. Apple enforces your ability to use WhatsApp without giving up microphone access. Without that model, yes, permissions are still granular. But WhatsApp can tell you to turn all of them on, or you can’t use the app. To me, that’s not a meaningful difference to the “just don’t install it” crowd’s preferred suggestion.
  - DenisM 5y ago
    Worst case Apple can feed those apps a random location, supplemented with a random film roll and address book.

ortusdux 5y ago

Reminds me of the judgement in U.S. v. Microsoft. https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/503541/download https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/503541/downlo...

averysmallbird 5y ago
It’s not a coincidence: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/opinion/microsoft-antitrust-case.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/opinion/microsoft-antitru...

moonchrome 5y ago

Wondering why the EU is lagging behind on this one.

wsc981 5y ago

For me as a developer, I feel Apple's Mac App Store sucks. And it's probably the same for iOS. Discoverability on Apple's Mac App Store is horrible. I released a game earlier this year on the Mac App Store and while it's not a great game (my first experience with LÖVE, so a pretty simple project), I got zero sales. I recently finished a 2nd game and published it on both the Mac App Store and Steam this week. On Steam I sell some units every day. On the Mac App Store it's still zero. And I don't expect the sales on Mac App Store to be the same as on Steam (since I sell mostly to Windows users on Steam), but it would be nice to see at least a couple of Mac sales. I am currently working on my 3rd game (which will be a bit more ambitious compared to my first 2 games) and I am considering publishing only on Steam, since publishing on the Mac App Store seems a waste of energy. I don't know if this bill would help someone like me, but maybe ...

rahkiin 5y ago
I don’t think so. You can put your app on your website with Stripe as well. Nothing stopping you there for macOS.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  This bill isn't about MacOS so much as it is iOS/Android, and moreover their owners.
mrzimmerman 5y ago
I do most of my gaming on the same Mac Book Pro I work on and I buy pretty much everything on Steam anyway since I can eventually install them on the gaming PC I keep telling myself I’ll build. Not saying it’s a waste of money or time to use the MacOS store but given the choice I’ll always choose Steam since my library is much more flexible and portable.
Aperocky 5y ago
Are Mac App Store actually useful? I don't recall using it (maybe once?), and I burnt through 3 macs over the past 5 years. Things are either installed via brew or steam, or even git and make. But then again my interface of choice is terminal and editor of choice is vim, so maybe a far outlier. Back to your experience, go steam alone, the thought of even downloading regular software in the 'App Store' don't even cross my mind, let alone games.

flyinglizard 5y ago

I think this will create a race to the bottom on app quality, at least on iOS. I suffer from Apple’s seemingly random antics and app review process as much as the next dev here but as a consumer I’m all for paid, curated content from a trusted source. I like Sign In with Apple buttons and strict enforcement of permissions and privacy. Many times I hear “just let me pay for what I’m consuming instead of having my data sold and spammed with ads”; the App Store, to some extent, pretty much does that. Now, “what’s wrong with having an alternative” you say? Apps will migrate to the path of least resistance. No reviews, no rules? Much easier than the official store. Once you develop your app for the unofficial store, getting it into the official one would be like certifying a Mad Max vehicle at the Californian DMV. In short, I like the ecosystem Apple created, especially for my kids. This seems like a big step forward for competition but is it really that good for me?

asddubs 5y ago
>No reviews, no rules? Much easier than the official store. Once you develop your app for the unofficial store, getting it into the official one would be like certifying a Mad Max vehicle at the Californian DMV. but also not being able to be found by default at all, until your potential users download some other app store. I think android is a good example showing that most people probably will not bother to do that, and apple still has a large advantage, it just evens the playing field a little
MrStonedOne 5y ago
Don't you think that is something apple should have thought of before doing what they did to cause the outcry that lead to this? Apple wanted to be the gatekeeper blocking out harmful apps, fine by me. Apple then wanting to use that gatekeeper status to steal money from app developers, block apps that compete with apple internal apps, and enforce moral choices on what kinds of apps you can install on your phone, evil by me. They could have done the former without doing the latter, but they fucked it up, and have to pay the piper.

reactspa 5y ago

It's instructive that it took Senators from MN, TN and CT to bring this forward. Nobody from CA.

xibalba 5y ago

Between this and the infrastructure bill passing, are U.S. politicians actually starting to do their jobs (aka finding common ground, compromising, and passing meaningful legislation)?

solarkraft 5y ago

This is awesome. Now - does it have a chance? My gut says yes, because Apple’s lobbying will be met by that of all the companies interested in getting rid of the fees. My main interest is in sideloading, but I fear that might eventually be compromised away/Apple will meet the demand by themselves to not have to follow the rest. By the way, devices and services should not be tied either. Apple shouldn’t be allowed the give their apps and services a special place and special rights only they can use. I should be able to self host my own iCloud (with a third-party implementation). So for me this bill doesn’t go far enough, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction.

emsy 5y ago

Finally my iPad may actually be useful for more than just a really expensive web browsing machine.

mhh__ 5y ago
The website other than Google on my iPad pro by miles is library genesis. It's a damn good pdf reader but it would be nice to plot some graphs on it from time to time.

ape4 5y ago

In /r/androiddev I've read stories of developers getting lifetime bans (from Google Play) for 3 strikes. Maybe they are guilty but often they say they didn't know what its for and the decisions are made by bots. A common one is screenshots of a music player app showing copyrighted material: album covers. So alternate stores would be appreciated by small developers.

j_koreth 5y ago

The bill's text seems to specify "App Stores" to those limited to "users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device". Does anyone if this can possibly apply to video game consoles? A wasteful amount of computing is locked behind these consoles and it would be great to see open access come to these platforms as well. Another concern is whether Android and iOS can get out of this bill by arguing themselves to be similar entertainment devices.

vineyardmike 5y ago
> Another concern is whether Android and iOS can get out of this bill by arguing themselves to be similar entertainment devices. Almost certainly covered by "a mobile device"
- judge2020 5y ago
  then I suppose Nintendo Switches are also "mobile devices" - it would help if this bill had any definition whatsoever of "mobile device" and "general purpose computing device". It's a PR fluff piece and not even the initial version of the bill that will be submitted to congress.
  - j_koreth 5y ago
    That's exactly why I wasn't sure what would be included in the bill.

spullara 5y ago

Hello malware my old friend, I've come to talk to you again.

kart23 5y ago

I honestly think Apple might go nuclear here if this gets a serious shot at passing. I could see them removing the app store outright and instructing people to complain to their representatives, like lyft & uber did for prop 22. In fact, the first people to complain would probably be the senators themselves.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
michaelmrose 5y ago
A) Apple would probably be sued by their shareholders and users. B) Making their app store useless wouldn't stop them from being obligated to allow 3rd party stores so this would drive users and developers to such stores If they don't C) It says developers would be entitled to 3x actual damages plus attorneys fees. Damages could be as high as 318 million dollars per day a sticker shock fit to startle even a giant since it's more than their daily profit.
- kart23 5y ago
  If they don't run an app store, they aren't a covered company, and therefore not required to allow a third party app store. At least that's what I gleaned from my reading of the bill. I don't think they would be able to bring a successful suit, the bill doesn't outlaw shutting down an app store. Apple could just say, we don't think running an app store is worth it anymore, and therefore exempt themselves from the bill. I do think it's crazy, but still possible.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    You are assuming that judges in America all the way up the food chain are going to think that your cleverness is cute and allow you to cheat the obvious intent and purpose of the law with a technicality. Why would they? As of the day before the law goes into effect Apple has an app store. Apple would pretty much have to kill its entire phone business, not just its app store, which is the lions share of its income now and forever if it gave up on having any credible way for normal users to install software. A reasonable judge would say Apple HAS an app store that it has temporarily shuttered for the purposes of a political stunt and happily fine them for believing they were immune from consequences for ignoring the law. Meanwhile all its partners far from merely yelling at their congresscritter would be steadily losing faith in Apple. They can't possibly be so naive.

rubyist5eva 5y ago

This is clearly being done to specifically target Apple, I'm not sure this would hold up as being legal. I see a situtation where Apple takes this to the supreme court, wins on first amendment grounds, and then everyone is royally f*cked for eternity because it's now unconstitutional to prevent a company from lockding down their proprietary hardware/software.

jjcon 5y ago
> This is clearly being done to specifically target Apple That is how antitrust legislation has always worked and it wasn’t until recently that congress/DOJ lost all spine to go after these companies
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  Apple is not a monopoly, not even close. Anti-Trust against apple is a joke.
  - yxhuvud 5y ago
    Anti trust legislation doesn't require monopolies, just uncompetitive practices. Which is something monopolies can help facilitate, but it is not a requirement.
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      Apple is not being anti-competitive, competitors are free to go play in Google's play ground. The iphone started with no third party apps, Apple has zero obligation to anyone. Apple's walled garden approach is differentiator against its competitors. Forcing them to act like everyone else is anti-competition because you are removing my choice to willingly buy into that walled garden.
  - jjcon 5y ago
    Where did I say they were? I said antitrust which means anticompetitive. If you don’t like the law take it up with the governments in the EU, US and Australia.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

Why not just enforce the laws already on the books.

doit4thebitties 5y ago

I'm all for app store competition and not suppressing apps users want. The downside is apps aren't curated enough as it is. Malware and knock-off apps are the likely consequences of wild west app stores.

jmull 5y ago

This is mostly good, but it forces Apple/Google to hand over your email address (or other means of communication) to anyone you download an app from so they can spam you. The bill says they don’t have to allow spam, but specially allows “legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings”… which is spam unless one explicitly opts-in to it. I don’t appreciate the double-talk. This part of the bill is user hostile and should be deleted.

AndrewKemendo 5y ago
I'm legitimately curious how you would mandate platform portability and also prevent communication from the third party in the form of a law? The only way to do that is to mandate that the platform (Apple/Google) give the third party the ability to move the user, which it is doing here with the most universal identifier.
echelon 5y ago
That requirement isn't user hostile, and it's not even that bad. You have to give your address to people that ship you things. You used to have to use your email address to sign up for websites. Nobody complained. People used throwaway emails if needed. It's not like they're reading your files. Gatekeeping the means of contact is an asymmetry that allows Apple and Google to retain power. Remember, these companies were trying to shrink wrap all of us and sell/tax access. An artificial world impossible to operate in without them. This act needs to go a step further and guarantee web downloads of apps independent of app stores as a first class construct. It also needs to allow runtimes and alternative web browsers specifically to combat Apple. Furthermore, it should disallow devices from coming with a default app store or default browser. (Similar to the EU's browser choice screen for Microsoft Windows.) Then we'll have a fair mobile world for the first time ever. Apple and Google will still make a metric ton of money. They'll also be able to start focusing more on future endeavors and innovations, which would be good for them and for us.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Is it even necessary? An app store could simply require that users make an account. That allows them to harvest your email at time of account creation, and provides users choice of which email address will be shared. And it's fully above-board.

wankerrific 5y ago

Marsha Blackburn signed on. That can only mean AT&T or Verizon is lobbying for it. She’s basically legislates whatever they tell her to do.

welder 5y ago

Does this mean Apple will be forced to allow third-party Xcode extensions? When they released their "extensions" they disabled all third-party extensions that everyone was already using. I say "extensions" because source editor extensions are really just macros with a menu item to run them.

Tossrock 5y ago

Finally I can run yum on Ubuntu

dontblink 5y ago

Wouldn't this be a net benefit for Google? They could offer their Play store on IOS if this passes. That could lead them to really break the IOS walled garden if user's purchases work on both platforms. Actually this goes for any third party store. I don't see Apple ever offering their store on other platforms given their history though. Overall this seems like a huge net benefit. I can then not care about IOS vs Android if my purchases follow me.

willbrodnax 5y ago

Who are the primary lobbyists benefiting most from this bill?