31 ms·

App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

211 points by mark-ruwt 5y ago

chomp 5y ago
Sudden outbreak of common sense. I hope this passes and forces Google/Apple to justify the value that their app stores provide, for the amount that they take from developers.
- stuff4ben 5y ago
  I tend to side with the tech companies (Apple in particular) due to the security issues and review process. It's not perfect and the cut seems excessive IMO, but there is value there that can't be dismissed outright. It'll be interesting to see how Apple and Google handle this. Maybe they'll allow side-loading with big, scary language? Or perhaps a cheaper or even free tier for developers to allow apps on their respective App stores?
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    Don't kid yourself. Definitely not value for money. They're checking that nobody is getting around their pay-to-play walled garden. Any security checking is probably automated and incidental.
    - stuff4ben 5y ago
      > Any security checking is probably automated Genuine question, do you think that comes free? It costs money to develop these things and having control over the app store allows them to recoup that. I see no problem except maybe it's too expensive for developers. A more reasonable cut should be offered IMO.
      - e93849 5y ago
        I already paid Apple when I bought my iPhone. Why should I be forced to keep paying them more?
        JoeAltmaier 5y ago
        Hell, you own the phone, the contract with the carrier, the storage. Apple is like a thug on the street charging a cover charge to go in the club, and they don't own the club or work for them. They just demand money because they're bigger than you.
  - e4e78a06 5y ago
    Android already has side loading, and Epic tried and failed to get a third party store going. I highly doubt this bill will do anything unless it mandates that Google can't mandate Google Play Store as a condition of receiving development support.
    - scarface74 5y ago
      Epic also perfectly demonstrated the security issues involved. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/just-as-critics-feared-fort...
      - JaimeThompson 5y ago
        Apple also perfectly demonstrated even more worrisome security issues https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30192743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30192743
        scarface74 5y ago
        Would you trust Apple to patch security fixes and distribute it as soon as they know or a random third party developer?
        bluSCALE4 5y ago
        Neither. Lots of bounty hunters have come out threatening to go public if Apple doesn't patch fix / pay them.
        scarface74 5y ago
        Why haven’t they then? Or at least sold them already to one of the Israeli firms?
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
  - itg 5y ago
    I don't buy the security issue scare-mongering from Apple if they are required to open up their platform. Bruce Schneier points out the flaws in Apple's argument very well in his letter https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2022/01/letter-to-the-us-senate-judiciary-committee-on-app-stores.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2022/01/letter-to-t....
    - anonymouse008 5y ago
      If I paid for Apple's centralization, by buying their products, and now that's being forcefully removed from me. How is this ok?
      - olyjohn 5y ago
        What's being removed from you again? Don't sideload apps if you don't like sideloading. Keep using Apple's app store if you like it, or maybe in the future, you will find you like an app store better than Apple's. We will never find out if someone does it better than Apple, if nobody can even try.
        threeseed 5y ago
        This is such a facetious argument. You know that developers will end up using alternate App Stores. Which means I will be forced to use them if I want to continue to use the app.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        What developers will do that? Android has alternate stores, and there isn't any vendor lock-in. The Amazon and Samsung Android alternatives to the Play Store aren't huge competitors. Epic hasn't tried to build their alternative Android app store yet with Fortnite as an exclusive. This is all scare-mongering about what could happen but probably won't happen. Name a single major Android app that's located on an alternative app store.
        idle_zealot 5y ago
  - m463 5y ago
    But what if there was a "Bruce Schneier" app store?
- olliej 5y ago
  No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the is going away, only now developers get to bypass sandbox restrictions and access user data. From the users point of view side loading allows only a reduction in security. All those tracking restrictions? App Store submission policy. All those raw data access protections? App Store rejecting sandbox features that are unsafe. There is a reason malware is a huge problem on android but not on iOS.
  - flutas 5y ago
    > No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP Except Unity doesn't make the only device that Unity games can run on. Apple should be making their money from the phones, not seeing the phones as a utility to get even more licensing fees ($99/yr, 30% cut of all payments) from developers. But also doesn't the $99/yr charged to put apps on the store count as a license, making your Unity example sound even more monopolistic for Apple.
    - olliej 5y ago
      Apple makes some on the sale of hardware, but does not charge end users for software updates after then. Unlike google it actually supports that hardware. The support costs money. You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc. The alternative model is you sell out your users, like google does.
      - ahiknsr 5y ago
        > You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc. Not really. Gaming consoles are usually sold at loss. "The reason game consoles end up being profitable is through a combination of software, service, and accessory sales, but it's still surprising to find Microsoft has never achieved hardware profitability" https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-consoles-have-always-been-sold-at-a-loss https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-consoles-have...
spywaregorilla 5y ago
This is great. I kind of assumed a judicial ruling would be necessary but this would make things a lot easier.
jliptzin 5y ago
Surprised it took this long. If they would have taken a more reasonable 5-10% of developer earnings they’d still collect billions upon billions in rent while not angering millions of developers and lawmakers writing this legislation. Or at least charge a tiered annual publication fee plus payment processing fees. But greed got the best of them. Their fees are akin to a shopping mall owner taking 30% of store revenues off the top, plus the usual monthly rent. Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to.
- aserdf 5y ago
  dozens of congresspeople had to prepare their positions around reporting periods. this must have been the most opportune time :)
- ribosometronome 5y ago
  >Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to. I mean, given that this bill is targeting two companies, I'm not sure your analogy holds. There clearly is another mall you could move to. You just wouldn't get the patrons at the other mall. And they charge the same and always have. And, your business doesn't even have to be located in the mall if you think the fees are unreasonable. You just don't get the benefit of all the people already shopping at the mall. I also generally want to have my cake and eat it, too, though.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    There are two malls, both are charging the same ridiculous fees and have created a situation where competition is not possible. The fix for that is legislative, not judicial. The legislature can decide that two malls with bad rates is a situation that needs fixing.
  - panzagl 5y ago
    The analogy is saying there are malls in two different towns- there's only one mall in Androidville, and if I want to go to the one in Appletown I have to sell my house and all the stuff I bought at the Androidville mall and move there. Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument.
nojito 5y ago
I personally can’t wait for students to be forced to install apps from third party stores that collect all their information because their schools have a contract with the developers and have made it mandatory. Same will be true of employees and their employers.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > can’t wait for students to be forced to install apps from third party stores that collect all their information I'm similarly wary. But Apple and Google have been bad stewards of their market power. If the only thing protecting our rights is Cupertino's goodwill, perhaps that's an orthogonal issue for lawmakers to take up (and citizens to lobby for).
  - dodobirdlord 5y ago
    > But Apple and Google have been bad stewards of their market power. Can you explain how? Because I don’t think they have at all. App developers are not their customers, they are business partners, and prioritizing customers over business partners is laudable.
- realusername 5y ago
  That's already the case with the appstore. If you value privacy, don't install apps, use their website instead (ironically a free and open platform as well, there are lessons to be learned here)
  - scarface74 5y ago
    It’s a lot easier to track your usage across websites than it is across apps.
    - realusername 5y ago
      No it's not, phones have unique identifiers, easier hardware access, poor cross-apps sandboxing capabilities, they also have no private mode, don't support adblocking & tracking blocking... There's a reason everybody nags you to install their apps on every website.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
As an Apple user, I kind of view the App Store as a kind of collective bargaining with app developers. If you want to have access to Apple Users you need to adhere to certain standards. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Apple are some of the scummiest companies and their software is full of dark patterns. Apple’s App Store does a lot to protect me. I guess I view this bill much as a union member might view a “Right to work bill”. Theoretically it is increasing user choice, but in practice it will just allow a race to the bottom in terms of privacy and dark patterns.
- yepthatsreality 5y ago
  Apple never deploys dark patterns?
- osrec 5y ago
  How do you explain the plethora of sub standard apps already in both major app stores then?
- gorjusborg 5y ago
  You don't have to side load. If you value the 'protections' the app stores offer, you can continue to use them, from how this reads.
- JanSt 5y ago
  Everyone would be glad if Apple and Google would drastically drop their cut to 5%-7%. They basically take a risk free 15-30% stake in revenues (!) of many companies that serve users on mobile devices.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Well then that’s what the bill should say.
    - JanSt 5y ago
      Law is not about making people happy
ADent 5y ago
Does this apply to XBox and PlayStation?
- grishka 5y ago
  Those aren't general-purpose devices. You can't even get official SDKs unless you're a game studio.
  - veilrap 5y ago
    They are just as general purpose as my phone. It's quite easy to sideload applications onto an Xbox console for example.
    - enragedcacti 5y ago
      courts don't really care about technicalities like that. No one is filing their taxes or sending out work emails on their Xbox so its not the same even if someone hypothetically could.
    - grishka 5y ago
      Most modern consoles include a web browser. How many people do use it for real? How many people use consoles for anything that isn't gaming or media playback? For all intents and purposes, most people do consider them appliances.
  - nexuist 5y ago
    Is that fair? Why can't you develop software for the hardware you purchased? How is that different from the argument against Apple's App Store? > Those aren't general-purpose devices So if Apple sold an "iPad Gaming Edition" then none of this would matter?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      If they sold an iPad that was only made for playing games and that was sold at a large loss, it would be a different conversation, even though I think that consoles should be opened up.
irrational 5y ago
> New rules could require them both to allow app side-loading — installing apps from non-sanctioned marketplaces — and alternative payment processing systems. Apple and Google have argued vehemently against the bill. Why is Google against side-loading? It is already possible to side-load on Android devices, what is their argument?
- m463 5y ago
  > Why is Google against side-loading? money? If it is explicitly allowed, it will open the door for some extremely high quality, curated stores that can break google's iron grip on revenue, advertising, privacy, etc...
- pornel 5y ago
  Mobile app stores are a duopoly, so Google can charge as much as Apple charges.
  - irrational 5y ago
    But, isn't this trying to close the barn doors after the horses are already out? Side loading is already here and there are already multiple app stores: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_app_stores https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_app_stores
    - bogwog 5y ago
      How many of those actually have users? The only ones barely relevant are the preloaded OEM stores, like Samsung’s and Amazon’s, but even those pale in comparison to Google Play. And it’s not because Google Play is better than the competition. It’s because Google has barriers in place to stop any would be competitors. Look at the epic game store for a high profile example of that.
- Zak 5y ago
  I don't think Google is against sideloading since Android supports it by default. I think Google is against being required to allow third-party app stores to have feature parity with its own, and against being required to allow third-party payments in apps purchased from the Play store. Those things would reduce Google's revenue.
keleftheriou 5y ago
Great news. Apple has turned the magic of software development from “how cool would this be?” to “how cool would Apple be with this?” That’s an environment of software suppression instead of free innovation, and Apple has felt little pressure to change. For anyone concerned about the security and privacy implications, don’t fall for the misconceptions perpetuated by Apple: non-App Store apps will still be sandboxed (so they can’t access other app or system data), and also scanned for malware by Apple - just like App Store apps!
- zepto 5y ago
  - nightski 5y ago
    That is rather reductionist. Users care about lots of things including the hardware itself, the camera, battery life, etc...
    - zepto 5y ago
      Sure, but that’s a matter of competition. Google and Samsung both have the resources to compete with Apple in those areas.
  - bluSCALE4 5y ago
    Like all the shitty games with circular ads that which I also think should not exist? Can't wait for an actual curated store.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - zepto 5y ago
      How will this ‘curated store’ be profitable?
      - 5y ago
bjornlouser 5y ago
Opening up the platform to allow other app stores sounds great for consumers, but developers are likely to lose money... Maybe Apple will give developers the ability to determine whether the app was installed from Apple or some other source.
ubermonkey 5y ago
- keleftheriou 5y ago
  Care to elaborate?
lilyball 5y ago
People seem mostly mad about the IAP thing, so I don't understand why everyone keeps lumping third-party payments and third-party app stores together. They're completely orthogonal.
- idle_zealot 5y ago
  They are not orthogonal. Allowing third-party stores/sideloading implies allowing third-party payments, at least for apps distributed outside the App Store. Forcing the Apple to allow apps that use third-party payments on the App Store and forcing Apple to allow sideloading are orthogonal though.
DannyBee 5y ago
One downside (as a consumer) of this bill is that it requires app store owners to allow spamming users "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." Yay, more spam (probably all starting with "Dear user, we have a legitimate business offer for you!")
- duped 5y ago
  They already do, see Uber
- emsy 5y ago
  I have yet to see a downside of this bill that isn’t solved by deleting or not installing offending apps.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    Except that you can only do so after you know it is offending. By then the app could've siphoned all of your data.
    - emsy 5y ago
      Don't. Install. If you think Apple's vetting process is adequate protection, exclusively use their App Store. Websites can also siphon your data, yet Safari let's me browse the websites unfiltered.
    - dangus 5y ago
      This is the status quo on desktop OSes, and it's largely a solved problem. A centralized monopolistic app store isn't solving the same "problem."
      - shuckles 5y ago
        Is that true? I still have to remove AltAdBrowser fairly often from my mother’s relatively new Dell laptop when I visit.
nerdjon 5y ago
As long as this does not cause an exodus from the App Store and I am forced to start paying for apps directly, I am fine with this. But a strong benefit to the App Store for me is being able to manage and cancel my subscriptions from a central place. No going through 5 screens, no being forced to call, no any of that crap. I can already see apps refusing to carry through the App Store so they can control more, and I am not looking forward to that.
- notyourwork 5y ago
  Where is Apples incentive to leave it centralized if they cannot siphon as much money from the pipe?
  - nerdjon 5y ago
    I mean I would argue that the very reason I have subscribed to several of the apps I have is because I was able to do it through the App Store and I knew I could easily cancel. Had that not been the case I would have never subscribed which gives the developers and apple that money. Basically apple is getting more money from me because I took more of a risk on something.
  - andrewjl 5y ago
    Highly profitable hardware sales? There are also many others.
    - notyourwork 5y ago
      I buy my iPhone for the hardware, not the app store.
- javajosh 5y ago
  You are in luck! Another way to manage subscriptions client side is to use PayPal. In the same way you have control over all your subscriptions in one place, and can cancel without the interference of the counterparty - a great benefit indeed. And paypal can work with anything, any entity that has a PayPal account. PP is, of course, not without its own horror stories, however a lot of that is around p2p selling-gone-wrong. I have not experienced or even heard of problems around subscriptions, so I think this is a sweet spot.
yalogin 5y ago
If this comes into effect will we see a plethora of appstores on each devices? Every app worth its salt will want to create their own bundle or App Store and hope to control their own end to end experience. I cannot imagine how terrible that experience is going to be.
- shaky-carrousel 5y ago
  Well, my user experience is my problem. Other people dictating how should I experience my devices is hugely condescending.
  - yalogin 5y ago
    Who is “you” here? A end user or app developer?
    - shaky-carrousel 5y ago
      That distinction is way outdated because a developer is not inherently more savvy than an end user. You could have a web developer who has no idea about how a smartphone works internally.
  - shimfish 5y ago
    It becomes everyones user experience when every big company only offers their software on their own app store so they don't have to pay anyone else a cut.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      Yes, but is that inevitable? Facebook tried to take advantage of Android's open nature in the past and failed outright, and that wasn't even an app store but an app launcher (Facebook Home). The Amazon Appstore is mostly used for their Fire Tablets anyway. Ditto Samsung Galaxy Store is specifically for their own devices. Epic's attempts at building their own mobile app store hasn't gotten anywhere. So what other phantom third party app store are we so afraid of? Steam?
shimfish 5y ago
As an indie dev, I'm really not getting this. Android has had alternate app stores for years. I don't recall any of them being a panacea for poor struggling devs held captive by Google Play. I stopped offering my apps on any of them as it was never worth the bother. What problem is this trying to solve for who exactly? I don't see any way this ends up as a win for small devs.
- henryfjordan 5y ago
  Maybe there will end up being a single app store for both Android and Apple? As a small dev, you'd only have to deal with 1 upload, a single review process, one set of user reviews, etc.
  - shimfish 5y ago
    So you're suggesting that either Google or Apple will just step aside? And the point of this monopoly busting legislation was to create a bigger monopoly?
    - henryfjordan 5y ago
      The legislation would require Google/Apple to "step aside" and allow side-loading/alternative app stores, so yes? Google and Apple would still be welcome to operate their own stores. A 3rd-party cross-platform store would compete with them, hence no monopoly. Edit: I guess you read my comment to mean "Apple's app store would come to Android" or vice versa? That's a possibility. I'd prefer that to the current state of affairs where no direct competition is possible
      - shimfish 5y ago
        I still end up with one more app store to deal with. Unless this 3rd party becomes a de-facto monopoly, there's no way you could afford to leave money on the table by not also dealing with Apple and Google.
        5y ago
monopoliessuck 5y ago
I blame consumers for the duopoly we have. I get that practically, it's a farce to call this choice we have real and significant but these marketplaces exist because of the demand. Making this duopoly more convenient for app-makers only kicks the can and further re-enforces the duopoly. In an ideal world, people would fund projects like the PinePhone or PostMarketOS, but our "solution" to the walled-garden is apparently to make it less painful but just as preeminent. Consumers should be smarter. There are a lot of passionate people trying to make these alternative hardware and software marketplaces work, but passion is no replacement for genuine demand so supply is scant. Given the unfortunate historical trajectory, quality will always be wanting. So, I guess I'm against a practical solution that entrenches the status quo when there's an ideological solution that would make these poor options obsolete. I'm probably just holding my breath though.
- jahewson 5y ago
  The essence of what you’re saying is: People should want something they don’t want. Because… People who want to make that thing would like a job making it. But it’s backwards, you can’t say that people “should” be a certain way you have to look at how they actually are. Being passionate about building something does not convey a right to a job doing that. It makes for a fine hobby - but outside of that build something people want.
  - monopoliessuck 5y ago
    I never said people have a right to make a living off of their passions. People don't. Passionate people are not divorced from the market but active participants in it. I, however, would like to pay people to make this thing that may just happen to have a passionate origin. I also think many people want some polished version of this thing to exist, despite not wanting to fund its manufacture and maintenance. I think the inconvenience to the user in the interim is worth it, but many/most don't agree with me and that is one reason it doesn't exist. Making legislation to force third-party marketplaces to exist on a "platform" is more in line with your concern, to be honest. It's forcing an entity to do something it doesn't want to do. If consumers cared about this, they would move to a different platform or gasp create a competitor that does what they want. I already know of some people that have moved from Apple to Android simply because side-loading is possible. Also, I take issue with the notion that in order for something to exist today, it has to have "broad mainstream appeal". A marketplace by its very nature benefits from diversity of marketed goods, but just like any other product, it shouldn't need to completely displace market leaders to exist. The rise of megalythic companies, VC being promised eventual Google-scale growth of their bets and people's general squeamishness at using anything at all unpolished or inconvenient has created this world where everything needs to be huge in order to be considered successful in any meaningful way. F-droid is a thing and I don't think anyone would argue it A. Doesn't exist. B. Is a real competitor to the Google Play Store. C. Doesn't invovle people in the market, both developers and users, who are happy that it exists and wish to further it's growth. I can say, I think a lot of the problems we currently have and ones we are trying to spotfix with legislation could be better solved via a more conscious consumption. "Should" is a subjective term based on a cost/benefit analysis and while I think people should act differently, I don't think they should be barred from acting as they have today nor are they morally corrupt for doing so. Everyone buckets and weights the pros and cons of everything differently.
roughly 5y ago
If anyone actually thinks we’re going to be in an objectively better spot in 2 years because of this bill, I encourage you to take a real good look around at the actual world we actually live in. Things I guarantee you will see because of this: 1. You will have six different app stores on your phone. The Apple one, the Facebook one, the Google one, the Epic one, and at least two more, probably one from Disney and one from Spotify. 2. Those apps will absolutely not follow anything even close to App Store guidelines, and will wholesale be grabbing everything they can and exploiting every available opportunity to at best take your data and at worst add any kind of adware, malware, or anything else they can. 3. You thought payment dark patterns were bad Now? 4. Every goddamn app you want from every goddamn anything will be side-loaded. Some of these will be legit versions of the app you wanted. You live in a world in which large predators want to devour you and small predators want to gnaw on you. You live in a world in which goddamn websites are running crypto-miners in your browser. You live in a world in which every company out there is aggressively hacking your dopamine circuits to try to get you to use their app more, and every company out there is grabbing every bit of data they can on you so they can sell it to whatever shady asshole’s willing to give them money for it. You live in a world where nation states are actively targeting you and everyone else around you from across the goddamn world. For fuck sake, you live in a world in which every entertainment studio out there is yanking their content from every other channel and demanding a subscription for them alone. The App Store is an extractive tax on developers. It restricts user freedom. These things are true. But the goddamn naivety it takes to seriously think that the ability to side-load is going to make our actual lived day-to-day lives better instead of just hypercharging this dark forest hellscape we’ve invented for ourselves takes my breath away. Where the Hell have you people been Living for the last decade?
- citrusynapse 5y ago
  Pure artistry.
- slaymaker1907 5y ago
  I'd rather developers have flexibility and for aggregators to have competition. Yes it is inconvenient having the EA games app, Steam, and the battle.net launcher (all of which I have installed), but people have choices. And despite what fear mongerers would have you believe, there is a lot of pressure on devs to make their games available on common stores like Steam due to convenience. Right now we just have contractual monopolies with no other options.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
olliej 5y ago
I can't wait to have to break my phone's security to install software. Hooray.
Apocryphon 5y ago
I find the FUD against third party app stores on iOS to be simultaneously crediting Apple with providing immense amounts of security in its App Store, and believing that it would be incredibly helpless without sole control through its App Store. That's very contradictory, both in ignoring the many, many vulnerabilities and scams that have proliferated on the App Store through the years (not to mention other negative user experience), but also ignoring the great pains that Apple has in ensuring security through layers and mechanisms beyond the App Store. iOS is more secure than Android not simply because the App Store is better curated than the Play Store, but protections built in its very own operating system model. There are permissions restrictions that Apple has guarded carefully and not subject to removal through the permitting of third party app stores. Furthermore, because Apple still has ultimate control of its operating system, it can design a careful flow to enable the use of third party app stores and side loading. It can hide it deep in Settings behind multitudes of "are you sure?" windows and security checks. It can coax users not to relinquish protections. Hell, if Apple embraced the whole decentralized app store idea, it can provide an AppStoreKit SDK and sets of standards for third party app stores to adopt, a sort of security certification system that they can choose to conform to and be recognized for meeting Apple standards, similar to Apple's verified third-party repair stores. The idea that allowing third party app stores will doom iOS is an anti-Apple critique in disguise, because it claims that Apple is helpless outside of its App Store. There is a lot more Apple can do.
- mortenjorck 5y ago
  > Apple still has ultimate control of its operating system This is by far the most under-appreciated point in all the dialog around third-party app stores (and intentionally downplayed by Apple itself). Apple doesn't have to control the store to control the platform. The degree to which independently-distributed binaries can still be locked down remains entirely within Apple's control, and if they really do somehow fail to stop this legislation (realistically, I see both Apple and Google tying it up in the courts for years) expect a new level of hardening in iOS and Android from top to bottom. Ironically, this will probably be better for security in the long run.
- hparadiz 5y ago
  > iOS is more secure than Android [Citation Needed]
guerrilla 5y ago
Would this allow alternative browser emgines on iOS?
- Someone1234 5y ago
  Not directly, since it doesn't require a more permissive sandbox. You could side-load a completely bespoke browser engine, but within the current sandbox restrictions it would be significantly worse than the Safari-based one. Apple would have to both allow side-loading AND weaken the OS's sandboxing restrictions to get a e.g. Chromium based browser engine running natively.
- chacham15 5y ago
  Yes it would. "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."[0] means that anything a native app can do should be possible to do from a third party app. [0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2710/text?r=23&s=1#idb7e6b97c9b624477b6e61301194c4afa https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Presumably "similar Apps or functions" would mean that third-party Apps could once again[0] deactivate the cellular radio, to prevent tracking by the mobile network at certain times (or locations/speeds). [0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25674655/how-to-turn-on-off-airplane-mode-even-on-new-android-versions-and-even-with-ro https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25674655/how-to-turn-on-...
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      Not so. Those functions are OS-exclusive. It's doubtful that legislators intend the Settings app to be one of those similar apps that third parties can duplicate, and Apple would easily win any case that argued otherwise.
Dig1t 5y ago
I'd bet $20 that Google (and probably Amazon) has started or will start working on an App Store for iOS. If either of them use their dark patterns to get people to install their app stores then this could be a different situation than what's happening on Android, where very few users actually side load apps. With the weight of one of these giants they could really get massive adoption on iOS in an alternative store.
- tragictrash 5y ago
  Damn. They are totally going to do this, just to avoid the app store review process. Funny how apple made the process so difficult and because of that, when they lose their monopoly, Google and others will be there waiting to implement the parent comment's plan.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    I mean it's not super exciting as a user that apps are gonna wholesale migrate away to the whatever store has the fewest rules and lowest cost to publishers. I see the value-add from the publisher side -- yay we can spam, charge for notifications and dark mode, and freely track users! I mean it's absolutely nuts that the web is basically unusable without an aggressive content filter but obviously native apps are gonna be angels.
- greggman3 5y ago
  Amazon already tried that on Android and failed. Why do you expect them to succeed on iOS?
  - tragictrash 5y ago
    Failed? Dude, it's going strong.
    - warning26 5y ago
      I mean, it exists -- but does anyone actually use it?
outside1234 5y ago
I'm in favor of this bill - but not sure how you can argue it won't cause security issues with a straight face.
greggman3 5y ago
No idea if it will happen but I'd love a Steam App store on iOS. If I buy an game that runs on Mac/PC/Android/iOS I'd love to be able to buy it once and play it everywhere. I can do that Mac/PC/Linux at the moment, would be nice to add iOS and Android as well. And, even if they aren't the same game it would nice if buying a game on steam unlocked some companion app on my phone via a Steam iOS/Android store.
warning26 5y ago
Good. At the very least, people should be allowed to install browsers that aren't Safari.
- toqy 5y ago
  If Chrome’s battery drain vs Safari on MacOS is an indication of how it’ll be on iOS then I’ll pass
  - Larrikin 5y ago
    Chrome versus safari is ignoring the much better choice of Firefox with extensions.
    - toqy 5y ago
      Firefox battery on macos is also bad, so same argument. Their market share on android vs chrome isn’t worth mentioning, so I don’t even know that it’s a better choice.
      - cma 5y ago
        You can run a real ad blocker with FF mobile, which saves battery.
  - mopsi 5y ago
    That's fine. But don't take away my freedom to decide that for myself.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      At this point Apple zealots usually say you are free to buy device form another manufacturer, because Apple is not a monopoly.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        And if the US government banned all mobile manufacturers other than Apple, the Apple fans would say you can always go live in a different country. (If all countries banned non-Apple phones, then presumably the advice would be to start a new country, on a new planet if necessary).
pronlover723 5y ago
Looking forward to porn apps and or app stores on iOS. Seriously. There's several Android only sex apps (sideloaded), and lots of PC only sex apps, that could be on iOS if there was a way to load them. Many are made in Unity so it could be as simple as just re-exporting, but until now there was no way to ship them for iOS.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
The main question is: What about push notifications? WHAT ABOUT PUSH NOTIFICATIONS?!! Even if we sideload an app, with modern mobile OS architecture many classes of apps will be almost useless if sideloaded apps will not be able to use push notifications provided by an operating system.
- chillfox 5y ago
  No, too many apps wants to interrupt whatever I am doing to nag/inform me about non time critical stuff. I have disallowed notifications for almost all apps on my iPhone. I will check an app when I want to check it, not when the app developer wants me to.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    This is an extremely limited way of thinking. Do you want WhatsApp to deliver a message to you from your mom or special one that they urgently need help? Or should they wait till you will want to check the app?
    - chillfox 5y ago
      They should use a phone call for urgent things.
    - tomjen3 5y ago
      I can maybe see a prioty system for contacts. Not sure how much it would help. My family is at least an hour away and I might not see the notification anyway. That is a far cry from permitting it for all apps though.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        You may disallow app access to notifications if you want to check it only on your schedule. But not having access to notifications hinderes main function of messaging apps - delivering messages to you. It is frankly shocking to me how many people fail to understand that. "I don't like push notifications, it means nobody needs them"
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tmpuser123 5y ago
To those who say that if I don't sideload then this change won't affect me, I don't think this is true. Just because there aren't many alternative app stores on Android doesn't mean it won't happen on iOS. Developers will do this if there is a financial incentive. This is a forced fragmentation of the App store and will do absolutely nothing to improve the experience of a normal, non-HN-reading end user. This will in fact weaken the security for a normal user because they now can be tricked into installing malware without jailbreaking their phones.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Not looking forward to when Verizon, AT&T, and T-mobile all decide to make app stores of their own and put them front and center. Their first attempts pre-iPhone were very shoddy.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Apple disrupted the whole game and put carriers on the defensive. It is highly unlikely that the carriers could try to create their own app stores to funnel iOS users towards them. Unlike with Android, neither they nor the OEMs have the ability to customize the operating system. Nor would users care to install a bunch of bloatware apps on some shoddy telecom's third party app store.
    - syspec 5y ago
      The same carriers that hijack DNS, to show you adds when you make a typo on a URL? Or the same carriers that managed to show you an add when you're on WiFi that you pay for, on your own computer?
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        It takes a lot less effort to do both of those things, than it is to build a third-party app store and to entice users to join. They may attempt to, but it would be difficult. It’s a lot easier to show ads than it is to get users to use those crappy carrier or OEM bundled bloatware apps. Even Apple has had to allow app hiding or deletion of its first party apps in recent updates, because a lot of users don’t use a lot of them and find them to be clutter.
Larrikin 5y ago
Does this bill meaningfully impact Android users in anyway. Alternative app stores, alternative payments, side loading have all existed for years. The article claims Apple and Google are both opposed to the bill but doesn't really say why. I can only think of a couple. Potentially opening up of services like notifications so that apps that don't have play services can get notifications without destroying the users battery. Disabling or neutering of the awful SDK banking apps and games use to detect root and not run. They're small but annoying things but hopefully are outcomes from this bill.
pabs3 5y ago
Doesn't Google already allow "side-loading"?
pkaye 5y ago
> New rules could require them both to allow app side-loading — installing apps from non-sanctioned marketplaces — and alternative payment processing systems. Apple and Google have argued vehemently against the bill. Doesn't Google already allow side loading or is that no longer so?
- summerlight 5y ago
  Yes, they're still allowing side-loading. Though it recently tried to monetize Play Store by enforcing its own payment processing system for most apps.
Mutjake 5y ago
I would be more interested in having this for car entertainment systems, smart televisions, and like TBH. For my iPhone this probably causes me to install less apps and avoid subscriptions as I’m not interested in the ”install this crap so you can install that crap” pattern. If this is route, force Epic and digital platforms to open up their market places as well and let me design my own loot boxes to side-sell to let them taste the medicine of user choice and convenience of supporting alternative platform actors as well. I’m really not interested in giving more foothold for adtech and micropayment nickle-and-dimers on my most personal computing device. It’s enough I need to put up with Apple’s bright ideas of implanting my device with ”this scans everything on your phone” brainfarts, I definitely don’t need a zuccstore on my phone implanting every internal API for ”DRM purposes and best experience” as a ransom for the privilege of using WhatsApp so I can get more targeted ads for gimp suits and toilet brushes.
diebeforei485 5y ago
There is no way this will get much floor time on the Senate. The only real path forward is that a stripped-down version of it is added to some sort of big spending bill, similar to what they did with the tobacco minimum age[1]. https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/congress-raises-minimum-age-tobacco-use-21 https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/congress-raises-minimum-age-tobacco...
belated_tech 5y ago
I can already see makers of mainstream apps in China (e.g., WeChat, TikTok, Alibaba, etc) building more feature-rich versions of their apps outside AppStore and unnecessarily mandating contacts and location permissions, while putting a zombie version on AppStore. (This is already the case for Android/Google Play)
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  The Chinese tech giants probably have the most motivation and capability to develop their own independent third party app stores, moreso than Facebook or Amazon imo. That said, I'm not sure if WeChat or Alibaba would be as interested as one would think- they've invested years and years of work into mini programs or lite app within their own apps themselves, building app stores would be undoing a lot of that work at worst, making it redundant as best. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/alibaba-alipay-mini-programs-230m-users/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/alibaba-alipay-mini-progra...
musicale 5y ago
> New rules could require them both to allow app side-loading — installing apps from non-sanctioned marketplaces — and alternative payment processing systems. Apple and Google have argued vehemently against the bill. Imagine if Google were forced to allow sideloading on Android. then other companies (like Amazon) could offer their own App Stores; Google Play's profits would tank, and they'd no longer be able to charge 30% platform fees. Right? ;-) Oh, wait...

211 points by mark-ruwt 5y ago

Sudden outbreak of common sense. I hope this passes and forces Google/Apple to justify the value that their app stores provide, for the amount that they take from developers.

stuff4ben 5y ago
I tend to side with the tech companies (Apple in particular) due to the security issues and review process. It's not perfect and the cut seems excessive IMO, but there is value there that can't be dismissed outright. It'll be interesting to see how Apple and Google handle this. Maybe they'll allow side-loading with big, scary language? Or perhaps a cheaper or even free tier for developers to allow apps on their respective App stores?
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Don't kid yourself. Definitely not value for money. They're checking that nobody is getting around their pay-to-play walled garden. Any security checking is probably automated and incidental.
  - stuff4ben 5y ago
    > Any security checking is probably automated Genuine question, do you think that comes free? It costs money to develop these things and having control over the app store allows them to recoup that. I see no problem except maybe it's too expensive for developers. A more reasonable cut should be offered IMO.
    - e93849 5y ago
      I already paid Apple when I bought my iPhone. Why should I be forced to keep paying them more?
      - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
        Hell, you own the phone, the contract with the carrier, the storage. Apple is like a thug on the street charging a cover charge to go in the club, and they don't own the club or work for them. They just demand money because they're bigger than you.
- e4e78a06 5y ago
  Android already has side loading, and Epic tried and failed to get a third party store going. I highly doubt this bill will do anything unless it mandates that Google can't mandate Google Play Store as a condition of receiving development support.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Epic also perfectly demonstrated the security issues involved. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/just-as-critics-feared-fort...
    - JaimeThompson 5y ago
      Apple also perfectly demonstrated even more worrisome security issues https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30192743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30192743
      - scarface74 5y ago
        Would you trust Apple to patch security fixes and distribute it as soon as they know or a random third party developer?
        bluSCALE4 5y ago
        Neither. Lots of bounty hunters have come out threatening to go public if Apple doesn't patch fix / pay them.
        scarface74 5y ago
        Why haven’t they then? Or at least sold them already to one of the Israeli firms?
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
- itg 5y ago
  I don't buy the security issue scare-mongering from Apple if they are required to open up their platform. Bruce Schneier points out the flaws in Apple's argument very well in his letter https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2022/01/letter-to-the-us-senate-judiciary-committee-on-app-stores.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2022/01/letter-to-t....
  - anonymouse008 5y ago
    If I paid for Apple's centralization, by buying their products, and now that's being forcefully removed from me. How is this ok?
    - olyjohn 5y ago
      What's being removed from you again? Don't sideload apps if you don't like sideloading. Keep using Apple's app store if you like it, or maybe in the future, you will find you like an app store better than Apple's. We will never find out if someone does it better than Apple, if nobody can even try.
      - threeseed 5y ago
        This is such a facetious argument. You know that developers will end up using alternate App Stores. Which means I will be forced to use them if I want to continue to use the app.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        What developers will do that? Android has alternate stores, and there isn't any vendor lock-in. The Amazon and Samsung Android alternatives to the Play Store aren't huge competitors. Epic hasn't tried to build their alternative Android app store yet with Fortnite as an exclusive. This is all scare-mongering about what could happen but probably won't happen. Name a single major Android app that's located on an alternative app store.
        idle_zealot 5y ago
- m463 5y ago
  But what if there was a "Bruce Schneier" app store?
olliej 5y ago
No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the is going away, only now developers get to bypass sandbox restrictions and access user data. From the users point of view side loading allows only a reduction in security. All those tracking restrictions? App Store submission policy. All those raw data access protections? App Store rejecting sandbox features that are unsafe. There is a reason malware is a huge problem on android but not on iOS.
- flutas 5y ago
  > No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP Except Unity doesn't make the only device that Unity games can run on. Apple should be making their money from the phones, not seeing the phones as a utility to get even more licensing fees ($99/yr, 30% cut of all payments) from developers. But also doesn't the $99/yr charged to put apps on the store count as a license, making your Unity example sound even more monopolistic for Apple.
  - olliej 5y ago
    Apple makes some on the sale of hardware, but does not charge end users for software updates after then. Unlike google it actually supports that hardware. The support costs money. You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc. The alternative model is you sell out your users, like google does.
    - ahiknsr 5y ago
      > You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc. Not really. Gaming consoles are usually sold at loss. "The reason game consoles end up being profitable is through a combination of software, service, and accessory sales, but it's still surprising to find Microsoft has never achieved hardware profitability" https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-consoles-have-always-been-sold-at-a-loss https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-consoles-have...

spywaregorilla 5y ago

This is great. I kind of assumed a judicial ruling would be necessary but this would make things a lot easier.

jliptzin 5y ago

Surprised it took this long. If they would have taken a more reasonable 5-10% of developer earnings they’d still collect billions upon billions in rent while not angering millions of developers and lawmakers writing this legislation. Or at least charge a tiered annual publication fee plus payment processing fees. But greed got the best of them. Their fees are akin to a shopping mall owner taking 30% of store revenues off the top, plus the usual monthly rent. Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to.

aserdf 5y ago
dozens of congresspeople had to prepare their positions around reporting periods. this must have been the most opportune time :)
ribosometronome 5y ago
>Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to. I mean, given that this bill is targeting two companies, I'm not sure your analogy holds. There clearly is another mall you could move to. You just wouldn't get the patrons at the other mall. And they charge the same and always have. And, your business doesn't even have to be located in the mall if you think the fees are unreasonable. You just don't get the benefit of all the people already shopping at the mall. I also generally want to have my cake and eat it, too, though.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  There are two malls, both are charging the same ridiculous fees and have created a situation where competition is not possible. The fix for that is legislative, not judicial. The legislature can decide that two malls with bad rates is a situation that needs fixing.
- panzagl 5y ago
  The analogy is saying there are malls in two different towns- there's only one mall in Androidville, and if I want to go to the one in Appletown I have to sell my house and all the stuff I bought at the Androidville mall and move there. Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument.

nojito 5y ago

I personally can’t wait for students to be forced to install apps from third party stores that collect all their information because their schools have a contract with the developers and have made it mandatory. Same will be true of employees and their employers.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> can’t wait for students to be forced to install apps from third party stores that collect all their information I'm similarly wary. But Apple and Google have been bad stewards of their market power. If the only thing protecting our rights is Cupertino's goodwill, perhaps that's an orthogonal issue for lawmakers to take up (and citizens to lobby for).
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  > But Apple and Google have been bad stewards of their market power. Can you explain how? Because I don’t think they have at all. App developers are not their customers, they are business partners, and prioritizing customers over business partners is laudable.
realusername 5y ago
That's already the case with the appstore. If you value privacy, don't install apps, use their website instead (ironically a free and open platform as well, there are lessons to be learned here)
- scarface74 5y ago
  It’s a lot easier to track your usage across websites than it is across apps.
  - realusername 5y ago
    No it's not, phones have unique identifiers, easier hardware access, poor cross-apps sandboxing capabilities, they also have no private mode, don't support adblocking & tracking blocking... There's a reason everybody nags you to install their apps on every website.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

As an Apple user, I kind of view the App Store as a kind of collective bargaining with app developers. If you want to have access to Apple Users you need to adhere to certain standards. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Apple are some of the scummiest companies and their software is full of dark patterns. Apple’s App Store does a lot to protect me. I guess I view this bill much as a union member might view a “Right to work bill”. Theoretically it is increasing user choice, but in practice it will just allow a race to the bottom in terms of privacy and dark patterns.

yepthatsreality 5y ago
Apple never deploys dark patterns?
osrec 5y ago
How do you explain the plethora of sub standard apps already in both major app stores then?
gorjusborg 5y ago
You don't have to side load. If you value the 'protections' the app stores offer, you can continue to use them, from how this reads.
JanSt 5y ago
Everyone would be glad if Apple and Google would drastically drop their cut to 5%-7%. They basically take a risk free 15-30% stake in revenues (!) of many companies that serve users on mobile devices.
- zepto 5y ago
  Well then that’s what the bill should say.
  - JanSt 5y ago
    Law is not about making people happy

ADent 5y ago

Does this apply to XBox and PlayStation?

grishka 5y ago
Those aren't general-purpose devices. You can't even get official SDKs unless you're a game studio.
- veilrap 5y ago
  They are just as general purpose as my phone. It's quite easy to sideload applications onto an Xbox console for example.
  - enragedcacti 5y ago
    courts don't really care about technicalities like that. No one is filing their taxes or sending out work emails on their Xbox so its not the same even if someone hypothetically could.
  - grishka 5y ago
    Most modern consoles include a web browser. How many people do use it for real? How many people use consoles for anything that isn't gaming or media playback? For all intents and purposes, most people do consider them appliances.
- nexuist 5y ago
  Is that fair? Why can't you develop software for the hardware you purchased? How is that different from the argument against Apple's App Store? > Those aren't general-purpose devices So if Apple sold an "iPad Gaming Edition" then none of this would matter?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    If they sold an iPad that was only made for playing games and that was sold at a large loss, it would be a different conversation, even though I think that consoles should be opened up.

irrational 5y ago

> New rules could require them both to allow app side-loading — installing apps from non-sanctioned marketplaces — and alternative payment processing systems. Apple and Google have argued vehemently against the bill. Why is Google against side-loading? It is already possible to side-load on Android devices, what is their argument?

m463 5y ago
> Why is Google against side-loading? money? If it is explicitly allowed, it will open the door for some extremely high quality, curated stores that can break google's iron grip on revenue, advertising, privacy, etc...
pornel 5y ago
Mobile app stores are a duopoly, so Google can charge as much as Apple charges.
- irrational 5y ago
  But, isn't this trying to close the barn doors after the horses are already out? Side loading is already here and there are already multiple app stores: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_app_stores https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_app_stores
  - bogwog 5y ago
    How many of those actually have users? The only ones barely relevant are the preloaded OEM stores, like Samsung’s and Amazon’s, but even those pale in comparison to Google Play. And it’s not because Google Play is better than the competition. It’s because Google has barriers in place to stop any would be competitors. Look at the epic game store for a high profile example of that.
Zak 5y ago
I don't think Google is against sideloading since Android supports it by default. I think Google is against being required to allow third-party app stores to have feature parity with its own, and against being required to allow third-party payments in apps purchased from the Play store. Those things would reduce Google's revenue.

keleftheriou 5y ago

Great news. Apple has turned the magic of software development from “how cool would this be?” to “how cool would Apple be with this?” That’s an environment of software suppression instead of free innovation, and Apple has felt little pressure to change. For anyone concerned about the security and privacy implications, don’t fall for the misconceptions perpetuated by Apple: non-App Store apps will still be sandboxed (so they can’t access other app or system data), and also scanned for malware by Apple - just like App Store apps!

zepto 5y ago
- nightski 5y ago
  That is rather reductionist. Users care about lots of things including the hardware itself, the camera, battery life, etc...
  - zepto 5y ago
    Sure, but that’s a matter of competition. Google and Samsung both have the resources to compete with Apple in those areas.
- bluSCALE4 5y ago
  Like all the shitty games with circular ads that which I also think should not exist? Can't wait for an actual curated store.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zepto 5y ago
    How will this ‘curated store’ be profitable?
    - 5y ago

bjornlouser 5y ago

Opening up the platform to allow other app stores sounds great for consumers, but developers are likely to lose money... Maybe Apple will give developers the ability to determine whether the app was installed from Apple or some other source.

ubermonkey 5y ago

keleftheriou 5y ago
Care to elaborate?

lilyball 5y ago

People seem mostly mad about the IAP thing, so I don't understand why everyone keeps lumping third-party payments and third-party app stores together. They're completely orthogonal.

idle_zealot 5y ago
They are not orthogonal. Allowing third-party stores/sideloading implies allowing third-party payments, at least for apps distributed outside the App Store. Forcing the Apple to allow apps that use third-party payments on the App Store and forcing Apple to allow sideloading are orthogonal though.

DannyBee 5y ago

One downside (as a consumer) of this bill is that it requires app store owners to allow spamming users "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." Yay, more spam (probably all starting with "Dear user, we have a legitimate business offer for you!")

duped 5y ago
They already do, see Uber
emsy 5y ago
I have yet to see a downside of this bill that isn’t solved by deleting or not installing offending apps.
- threeseed 5y ago
  Except that you can only do so after you know it is offending. By then the app could've siphoned all of your data.
  - emsy 5y ago
    Don't. Install. If you think Apple's vetting process is adequate protection, exclusively use their App Store. Websites can also siphon your data, yet Safari let's me browse the websites unfiltered.
  - dangus 5y ago
    This is the status quo on desktop OSes, and it's largely a solved problem. A centralized monopolistic app store isn't solving the same "problem."
    - shuckles 5y ago
      Is that true? I still have to remove AltAdBrowser fairly often from my mother’s relatively new Dell laptop when I visit.

nerdjon 5y ago

As long as this does not cause an exodus from the App Store and I am forced to start paying for apps directly, I am fine with this. But a strong benefit to the App Store for me is being able to manage and cancel my subscriptions from a central place. No going through 5 screens, no being forced to call, no any of that crap. I can already see apps refusing to carry through the App Store so they can control more, and I am not looking forward to that.

notyourwork 5y ago
Where is Apples incentive to leave it centralized if they cannot siphon as much money from the pipe?
- nerdjon 5y ago
  I mean I would argue that the very reason I have subscribed to several of the apps I have is because I was able to do it through the App Store and I knew I could easily cancel. Had that not been the case I would have never subscribed which gives the developers and apple that money. Basically apple is getting more money from me because I took more of a risk on something.
- andrewjl 5y ago
  Highly profitable hardware sales? There are also many others.
  - notyourwork 5y ago
    I buy my iPhone for the hardware, not the app store.
javajosh 5y ago
You are in luck! Another way to manage subscriptions client side is to use PayPal. In the same way you have control over all your subscriptions in one place, and can cancel without the interference of the counterparty - a great benefit indeed. And paypal can work with anything, any entity that has a PayPal account. PP is, of course, not without its own horror stories, however a lot of that is around p2p selling-gone-wrong. I have not experienced or even heard of problems around subscriptions, so I think this is a sweet spot.

yalogin 5y ago

If this comes into effect will we see a plethora of appstores on each devices? Every app worth its salt will want to create their own bundle or App Store and hope to control their own end to end experience. I cannot imagine how terrible that experience is going to be.

shaky-carrousel 5y ago
Well, my user experience is my problem. Other people dictating how should I experience my devices is hugely condescending.
- yalogin 5y ago
  Who is “you” here? A end user or app developer?
  - shaky-carrousel 5y ago
    That distinction is way outdated because a developer is not inherently more savvy than an end user. You could have a web developer who has no idea about how a smartphone works internally.
- shimfish 5y ago
  It becomes everyones user experience when every big company only offers their software on their own app store so they don't have to pay anyone else a cut.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Yes, but is that inevitable? Facebook tried to take advantage of Android's open nature in the past and failed outright, and that wasn't even an app store but an app launcher (Facebook Home). The Amazon Appstore is mostly used for their Fire Tablets anyway. Ditto Samsung Galaxy Store is specifically for their own devices. Epic's attempts at building their own mobile app store hasn't gotten anywhere. So what other phantom third party app store are we so afraid of? Steam?

shimfish 5y ago

As an indie dev, I'm really not getting this. Android has had alternate app stores for years. I don't recall any of them being a panacea for poor struggling devs held captive by Google Play. I stopped offering my apps on any of them as it was never worth the bother. What problem is this trying to solve for who exactly? I don't see any way this ends up as a win for small devs.

henryfjordan 5y ago
Maybe there will end up being a single app store for both Android and Apple? As a small dev, you'd only have to deal with 1 upload, a single review process, one set of user reviews, etc.
- shimfish 5y ago
  So you're suggesting that either Google or Apple will just step aside? And the point of this monopoly busting legislation was to create a bigger monopoly?
  - henryfjordan 5y ago
    The legislation would require Google/Apple to "step aside" and allow side-loading/alternative app stores, so yes? Google and Apple would still be welcome to operate their own stores. A 3rd-party cross-platform store would compete with them, hence no monopoly. Edit: I guess you read my comment to mean "Apple's app store would come to Android" or vice versa? That's a possibility. I'd prefer that to the current state of affairs where no direct competition is possible
    - shimfish 5y ago
      I still end up with one more app store to deal with. Unless this 3rd party becomes a de-facto monopoly, there's no way you could afford to leave money on the table by not also dealing with Apple and Google.
      - 5y ago

monopoliessuck 5y ago

I blame consumers for the duopoly we have. I get that practically, it's a farce to call this choice we have real and significant but these marketplaces exist because of the demand. Making this duopoly more convenient for app-makers only kicks the can and further re-enforces the duopoly. In an ideal world, people would fund projects like the PinePhone or PostMarketOS, but our "solution" to the walled-garden is apparently to make it less painful but just as preeminent. Consumers should be smarter. There are a lot of passionate people trying to make these alternative hardware and software marketplaces work, but passion is no replacement for genuine demand so supply is scant. Given the unfortunate historical trajectory, quality will always be wanting. So, I guess I'm against a practical solution that entrenches the status quo when there's an ideological solution that would make these poor options obsolete. I'm probably just holding my breath though.

jahewson 5y ago
The essence of what you’re saying is: People should want something they don’t want. Because… People who want to make that thing would like a job making it. But it’s backwards, you can’t say that people “should” be a certain way you have to look at how they actually are. Being passionate about building something does not convey a right to a job doing that. It makes for a fine hobby - but outside of that build something people want.
- monopoliessuck 5y ago
  I never said people have a right to make a living off of their passions. People don't. Passionate people are not divorced from the market but active participants in it. I, however, would like to pay people to make this thing that may just happen to have a passionate origin. I also think many people want some polished version of this thing to exist, despite not wanting to fund its manufacture and maintenance. I think the inconvenience to the user in the interim is worth it, but many/most don't agree with me and that is one reason it doesn't exist. Making legislation to force third-party marketplaces to exist on a "platform" is more in line with your concern, to be honest. It's forcing an entity to do something it doesn't want to do. If consumers cared about this, they would move to a different platform or gasp create a competitor that does what they want. I already know of some people that have moved from Apple to Android simply because side-loading is possible. Also, I take issue with the notion that in order for something to exist today, it has to have "broad mainstream appeal". A marketplace by its very nature benefits from diversity of marketed goods, but just like any other product, it shouldn't need to completely displace market leaders to exist. The rise of megalythic companies, VC being promised eventual Google-scale growth of their bets and people's general squeamishness at using anything at all unpolished or inconvenient has created this world where everything needs to be huge in order to be considered successful in any meaningful way. F-droid is a thing and I don't think anyone would argue it A. Doesn't exist. B. Is a real competitor to the Google Play Store. C. Doesn't invovle people in the market, both developers and users, who are happy that it exists and wish to further it's growth. I can say, I think a lot of the problems we currently have and ones we are trying to spotfix with legislation could be better solved via a more conscious consumption. "Should" is a subjective term based on a cost/benefit analysis and while I think people should act differently, I don't think they should be barred from acting as they have today nor are they morally corrupt for doing so. Everyone buckets and weights the pros and cons of everything differently.

roughly 5y ago

If anyone actually thinks we’re going to be in an objectively better spot in 2 years because of this bill, I encourage you to take a real good look around at the actual world we actually live in. Things I guarantee you will see because of this: 1. You will have six different app stores on your phone. The Apple one, the Facebook one, the Google one, the Epic one, and at least two more, probably one from Disney and one from Spotify. 2. Those apps will absolutely not follow anything even close to App Store guidelines, and will wholesale be grabbing everything they can and exploiting every available opportunity to at best take your data and at worst add any kind of adware, malware, or anything else they can. 3. You thought payment dark patterns were bad Now? 4. Every goddamn app you want from every goddamn anything will be side-loaded. Some of these will be legit versions of the app you wanted. You live in a world in which large predators want to devour you and small predators want to gnaw on you. You live in a world in which goddamn websites are running crypto-miners in your browser. You live in a world in which every company out there is aggressively hacking your dopamine circuits to try to get you to use their app more, and every company out there is grabbing every bit of data they can on you so they can sell it to whatever shady asshole’s willing to give them money for it. You live in a world where nation states are actively targeting you and everyone else around you from across the goddamn world. For fuck sake, you live in a world in which every entertainment studio out there is yanking their content from every other channel and demanding a subscription for them alone. The App Store is an extractive tax on developers. It restricts user freedom. These things are true. But the goddamn naivety it takes to seriously think that the ability to side-load is going to make our actual lived day-to-day lives better instead of just hypercharging this dark forest hellscape we’ve invented for ourselves takes my breath away. Where the Hell have you people been Living for the last decade?

citrusynapse 5y ago
Pure artistry.
slaymaker1907 5y ago
I'd rather developers have flexibility and for aggregators to have competition. Yes it is inconvenient having the EA games app, Steam, and the battle.net launcher (all of which I have installed), but people have choices. And despite what fear mongerers would have you believe, there is a lot of pressure on devs to make their games available on common stores like Steam due to convenience. Right now we just have contractual monopolies with no other options.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

olliej 5y ago

I can't wait to have to break my phone's security to install software. Hooray.

Apocryphon 5y ago

I find the FUD against third party app stores on iOS to be simultaneously crediting Apple with providing immense amounts of security in its App Store, and believing that it would be incredibly helpless without sole control through its App Store. That's very contradictory, both in ignoring the many, many vulnerabilities and scams that have proliferated on the App Store through the years (not to mention other negative user experience), but also ignoring the great pains that Apple has in ensuring security through layers and mechanisms beyond the App Store. iOS is more secure than Android not simply because the App Store is better curated than the Play Store, but protections built in its very own operating system model. There are permissions restrictions that Apple has guarded carefully and not subject to removal through the permitting of third party app stores. Furthermore, because Apple still has ultimate control of its operating system, it can design a careful flow to enable the use of third party app stores and side loading. It can hide it deep in Settings behind multitudes of "are you sure?" windows and security checks. It can coax users not to relinquish protections. Hell, if Apple embraced the whole decentralized app store idea, it can provide an AppStoreKit SDK and sets of standards for third party app stores to adopt, a sort of security certification system that they can choose to conform to and be recognized for meeting Apple standards, similar to Apple's verified third-party repair stores. The idea that allowing third party app stores will doom iOS is an anti-Apple critique in disguise, because it claims that Apple is helpless outside of its App Store. There is a lot more Apple can do.

mortenjorck 5y ago
> Apple still has ultimate control of its operating system This is by far the most under-appreciated point in all the dialog around third-party app stores (and intentionally downplayed by Apple itself). Apple doesn't have to control the store to control the platform. The degree to which independently-distributed binaries can still be locked down remains entirely within Apple's control, and if they really do somehow fail to stop this legislation (realistically, I see both Apple and Google tying it up in the courts for years) expect a new level of hardening in iOS and Android from top to bottom. Ironically, this will probably be better for security in the long run.
hparadiz 5y ago
> iOS is more secure than Android [Citation Needed]

guerrilla 5y ago

Would this allow alternative browser emgines on iOS?

Someone1234 5y ago
Not directly, since it doesn't require a more permissive sandbox. You could side-load a completely bespoke browser engine, but within the current sandbox restrictions it would be significantly worse than the Safari-based one. Apple would have to both allow side-loading AND weaken the OS's sandboxing restrictions to get a e.g. Chromium based browser engine running natively.
chacham15 5y ago
Yes it would. "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."[0] means that anything a native app can do should be possible to do from a third party app. [0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2710/text?r=23&s=1#idb7e6b97c9b624477b6e61301194c4afa https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Presumably "similar Apps or functions" would mean that third-party Apps could once again[0] deactivate the cellular radio, to prevent tracking by the mobile network at certain times (or locations/speeds). [0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25674655/how-to-turn-on-off-airplane-mode-even-on-new-android-versions-and-even-with-ro https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25674655/how-to-turn-on-...
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Not so. Those functions are OS-exclusive. It's doubtful that legislators intend the Settings app to be one of those similar apps that third parties can duplicate, and Apple would easily win any case that argued otherwise.

Dig1t 5y ago

I'd bet $20 that Google (and probably Amazon) has started or will start working on an App Store for iOS. If either of them use their dark patterns to get people to install their app stores then this could be a different situation than what's happening on Android, where very few users actually side load apps. With the weight of one of these giants they could really get massive adoption on iOS in an alternative store.

tragictrash 5y ago
Damn. They are totally going to do this, just to avoid the app store review process. Funny how apple made the process so difficult and because of that, when they lose their monopoly, Google and others will be there waiting to implement the parent comment's plan.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I mean it's not super exciting as a user that apps are gonna wholesale migrate away to the whatever store has the fewest rules and lowest cost to publishers. I see the value-add from the publisher side -- yay we can spam, charge for notifications and dark mode, and freely track users! I mean it's absolutely nuts that the web is basically unusable without an aggressive content filter but obviously native apps are gonna be angels.
greggman3 5y ago
Amazon already tried that on Android and failed. Why do you expect them to succeed on iOS?
- tragictrash 5y ago
  Failed? Dude, it's going strong.
  - warning26 5y ago
    I mean, it exists -- but does anyone actually use it?

outside1234 5y ago

I'm in favor of this bill - but not sure how you can argue it won't cause security issues with a straight face.

greggman3 5y ago

No idea if it will happen but I'd love a Steam App store on iOS. If I buy an game that runs on Mac/PC/Android/iOS I'd love to be able to buy it once and play it everywhere. I can do that Mac/PC/Linux at the moment, would be nice to add iOS and Android as well. And, even if they aren't the same game it would nice if buying a game on steam unlocked some companion app on my phone via a Steam iOS/Android store.

warning26 5y ago

Good. At the very least, people should be allowed to install browsers that aren't Safari.

toqy 5y ago
If Chrome’s battery drain vs Safari on MacOS is an indication of how it’ll be on iOS then I’ll pass
- Larrikin 5y ago
  Chrome versus safari is ignoring the much better choice of Firefox with extensions.
  - toqy 5y ago
    Firefox battery on macos is also bad, so same argument. Their market share on android vs chrome isn’t worth mentioning, so I don’t even know that it’s a better choice.
    - cma 5y ago
      You can run a real ad blocker with FF mobile, which saves battery.
- mopsi 5y ago
  That's fine. But don't take away my freedom to decide that for myself.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    At this point Apple zealots usually say you are free to buy device form another manufacturer, because Apple is not a monopoly.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      And if the US government banned all mobile manufacturers other than Apple, the Apple fans would say you can always go live in a different country. (If all countries banned non-Apple phones, then presumably the advice would be to start a new country, on a new planet if necessary).

pronlover723 5y ago

Looking forward to porn apps and or app stores on iOS. Seriously. There's several Android only sex apps (sideloaded), and lots of PC only sex apps, that could be on iOS if there was a way to load them. Many are made in Unity so it could be as simple as just re-exporting, but until now there was no way to ship them for iOS.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

The main question is: What about push notifications? WHAT ABOUT PUSH NOTIFICATIONS?!! Even if we sideload an app, with modern mobile OS architecture many classes of apps will be almost useless if sideloaded apps will not be able to use push notifications provided by an operating system.

chillfox 5y ago
No, too many apps wants to interrupt whatever I am doing to nag/inform me about non time critical stuff. I have disallowed notifications for almost all apps on my iPhone. I will check an app when I want to check it, not when the app developer wants me to.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  This is an extremely limited way of thinking. Do you want WhatsApp to deliver a message to you from your mom or special one that they urgently need help? Or should they wait till you will want to check the app?
  - chillfox 5y ago
    They should use a phone call for urgent things.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    I can maybe see a prioty system for contacts. Not sure how much it would help. My family is at least an hour away and I might not see the notification anyway. That is a far cry from permitting it for all apps though.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      You may disallow app access to notifications if you want to check it only on your schedule. But not having access to notifications hinderes main function of messaging apps - delivering messages to you. It is frankly shocking to me how many people fail to understand that. "I don't like push notifications, it means nobody needs them"

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tmpuser123 5y ago

To those who say that if I don't sideload then this change won't affect me, I don't think this is true. Just because there aren't many alternative app stores on Android doesn't mean it won't happen on iOS. Developers will do this if there is a financial incentive. This is a forced fragmentation of the App store and will do absolutely nothing to improve the experience of a normal, non-HN-reading end user. This will in fact weaken the security for a normal user because they now can be tricked into installing malware without jailbreaking their phones.

bobthepanda 5y ago
Not looking forward to when Verizon, AT&T, and T-mobile all decide to make app stores of their own and put them front and center. Their first attempts pre-iPhone were very shoddy.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Apple disrupted the whole game and put carriers on the defensive. It is highly unlikely that the carriers could try to create their own app stores to funnel iOS users towards them. Unlike with Android, neither they nor the OEMs have the ability to customize the operating system. Nor would users care to install a bunch of bloatware apps on some shoddy telecom's third party app store.
  - syspec 5y ago
    The same carriers that hijack DNS, to show you adds when you make a typo on a URL? Or the same carriers that managed to show you an add when you're on WiFi that you pay for, on your own computer?
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      It takes a lot less effort to do both of those things, than it is to build a third-party app store and to entice users to join. They may attempt to, but it would be difficult. It’s a lot easier to show ads than it is to get users to use those crappy carrier or OEM bundled bloatware apps. Even Apple has had to allow app hiding or deletion of its first party apps in recent updates, because a lot of users don’t use a lot of them and find them to be clutter.

Larrikin 5y ago

Does this bill meaningfully impact Android users in anyway. Alternative app stores, alternative payments, side loading have all existed for years. The article claims Apple and Google are both opposed to the bill but doesn't really say why. I can only think of a couple. Potentially opening up of services like notifications so that apps that don't have play services can get notifications without destroying the users battery. Disabling or neutering of the awful SDK banking apps and games use to detect root and not run. They're small but annoying things but hopefully are outcomes from this bill.

pabs3 5y ago

Doesn't Google already allow "side-loading"?

pkaye 5y ago

summerlight 5y ago
Yes, they're still allowing side-loading. Though it recently tried to monetize Play Store by enforcing its own payment processing system for most apps.

Mutjake 5y ago

I would be more interested in having this for car entertainment systems, smart televisions, and like TBH. For my iPhone this probably causes me to install less apps and avoid subscriptions as I’m not interested in the ”install this crap so you can install that crap” pattern. If this is route, force Epic and digital platforms to open up their market places as well and let me design my own loot boxes to side-sell to let them taste the medicine of user choice and convenience of supporting alternative platform actors as well. I’m really not interested in giving more foothold for adtech and micropayment nickle-and-dimers on my most personal computing device. It’s enough I need to put up with Apple’s bright ideas of implanting my device with ”this scans everything on your phone” brainfarts, I definitely don’t need a zuccstore on my phone implanting every internal API for ”DRM purposes and best experience” as a ransom for the privilege of using WhatsApp so I can get more targeted ads for gimp suits and toilet brushes.

diebeforei485 5y ago

There is no way this will get much floor time on the Senate. The only real path forward is that a stripped-down version of it is added to some sort of big spending bill, similar to what they did with the tobacco minimum age[1]. https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/congress-raises-minimum-age-tobacco-use-21 https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/congress-raises-minimum-age-tobacco...

belated_tech 5y ago

I can already see makers of mainstream apps in China (e.g., WeChat, TikTok, Alibaba, etc) building more feature-rich versions of their apps outside AppStore and unnecessarily mandating contacts and location permissions, while putting a zombie version on AppStore. (This is already the case for Android/Google Play)

Apocryphon 5y ago
The Chinese tech giants probably have the most motivation and capability to develop their own independent third party app stores, moreso than Facebook or Amazon imo. That said, I'm not sure if WeChat or Alibaba would be as interested as one would think- they've invested years and years of work into mini programs or lite app within their own apps themselves, building app stores would be undoing a lot of that work at worst, making it redundant as best. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/alibaba-alipay-mini-programs-230m-users/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/alibaba-alipay-mini-progra...

musicale 5y ago

> New rules could require them both to allow app side-loading — installing apps from non-sanctioned marketplaces — and alternative payment processing systems. Apple and Google have argued vehemently against the bill. Imagine if Google were forced to allow sideloading on Android. then other companies (like Amazon) could offer their own App Stores; Google Play's profits would tank, and they'd no longer be able to charge 30% platform fees. Right? ;-) Oh, wait...