7 ms·

It's really time to do what needs to be done. I want the EU to force Apple and Google to allow 3rd party app stores with the exact same rights as theirs (auto

It's really time to do what needs to be done. I want the EU to force Apple and Google to allow 3rd party app stores with the exact same rights as theirs (auto updated etc.). Just like back in the day when Microsoft was forced to let users allow other browser when it wasn't even being blocked. Just theirs was pre-installed! The security excuse doesn't cut it, sorry. 3rd party app stores can be just as secure if not even more being smaller and able to properly vet apps. This closed eco-system hinders innovation. Apps that compete with apple or google routinely get blocked or removed.

Arnt 5y ago
A fine goal, and I approve strongly, but I worry that without a real understanding of what has happened in China, the outcome might be prices like China's (50% cut being typical, https://archive.fo/5dvsz https://archive.fo/5dvsz). And IMO, anyone who says "well, obviously the only reason…" doesn't really understand.
- sschueller 5y ago
  I don't think so and this is where unregulated markets (although I am not a fan at all) would push the prices down. If anyone can provide an app store and that app stores fees are lower people will move. What Apple and Google need to do is work on assuring that Apps can be uniquely identified (which the can already) and validated so that you don't have a clone of an App in another app store.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    AIUI China has many mobile phone builders that all use android with minimal customisation, so they're basically interchangeable except for the prices of the vendor-provided app store on each. And apparently none of them use app pricing to undercut the others, unless I've overlooked recent developments? It's not clear to me why the Chinese competition fails at undercutting Apple/Google and the proposed app store competition would achieve that. I don't see the relevant difference. The unique identifier on Android is easily broken, BTW. I don't know iOS well, but on android it's simple. IIRC you don't even need an android development kit, the java tools will do. This fine web page lets you download a formerly welll-known app; someone downloaded the app, unzipped the executable (which is in zip format), resigned and uploaded. https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/app-quickpic-v4-5-2-classic-version.3204543/ https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/app-quickpic-v4-5-2-class...
    - kerneloops 5y ago
aeonflux 5y ago
Supported side-loading is a thing on Android since day one? What innovation came out of this? Thousands of rip-off apps, all sort of malware pushed upon clueless users? I know, that some of those things are still a problem on iOS, but just imagine how worse this can gen, if they would be forced to open up the system for additional app stores.
- fulafel 5y ago
  F-Droid.
- sschueller 5y ago
  Like SSL, Apple and Google need to do their part to provide a way for developers to validate an app and prevent clones from being installed instead even if coming from a 3rd party store.
  - aeonflux 5y ago
    It doesn't really work even with one closed AppStore. How that could work if they would be forced to allow 3rd party AppStores? I don't understand this logic. On one hand you want to force Apple to allow 3rd patry stores (and apps). But still you want them to have final word in the approval process? And SSL validates just the domain name, which still allows all the phishing attacks to thrive. Compare installing App for the first time to coming to some website for the first time ever. SSL doesn't really provide anything to identify the site, anyone can get any domain.
    - sschueller 5y ago
      Like Microsoft allows you to sign your app, there should be a mechanism like this for each OS. I can still install an app if it is not signed but I am being warned.
  - warkdarrior 5y ago
    Why should the app store prevent clones? Clones are just another name for competition. I want the app stores to ensure that the apps are safe, not that they are free of competition.
dpcx 5y ago
Microsoft was forced around Internet Explorer not "just" because theirs was pre-installed. It was more that Internet Explorer had become so baked in to the system that it literally could not be removed without breaking Windows. That was the thing that caused rulings against Microsoft.
- capableweb 5y ago
  I'm not sure that holds up in practice. The "fix" for the anti-trust claim (or what it was called) was for Microsoft to add a popup asking the user what browser they wanted, and Internet Explorer (or whatever it's called today) is still as embedded into the OS as it was in the past.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    IE isn't embedded in the OS in any significant way any more, and hasn't been for a while. Windows Explorer used to basically be a wrapper around IE, for example.
    - horsawlarway 5y ago
      Windows explorer is STILL a wrapper around IE - I can go install COM components for IE that will run just fine in explorer. And the vast majority of the webviews used by the OS were IE (now webview2, based on Edge instead). It turns out the ability to display a webpage is a pretty critical part of any modern operating system - they all support some form of a webview. The one in Windows is based on browsers that MS develops and owns (IE, then EdgeClassic, now Chromium Edge). It's absolutely baked in still.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      Nowadays the Windows default browser is called Microsoft Edge (based around Blink engine), and you still cannot remove it from the OS as it's "essential component of our [Microsoft] operating system", at least according to Microsoft themselves: > Microsoft Edge is the web browser recommended by Microsoft and is the default web browser for Windows. Because Windows supports applications that rely on the web platform, our default web browser is an essential component of our operating system and can’t be uninstalled. To provide our users with compatibility, compliance, accessibility, and performance, we'll continue updating Microsoft Edge through the browser installer or Windows updates. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/why-can-t-i-uninstall-microsoft-edge-ee150b3b-7d7a-9984-6d83-eb36683d526d https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/why-can-t... I still click on links in some parts of the OS or other applications on Windows 10 that opens in Microsoft Edge, even though I've set Firefox to be my default browser.
myspy 5y ago
I see a problem with the Facebook, the Microsoft, the Epic store with all different rules and payment methods. Having them to cross a common threshold is better for me as an end user.
- causi 5y ago
  Then use the common threshold. I'm sure Epic would happy to keep a version of their games on the App Store with all prices inflated by thirty percent.
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    Their saga with the Play Store shows that that isn’t the case.[0] Once you allow third parties to use different stores, and those stores aren’t as restrictive, you bet businesses are gonna move there. The whole “if you like the App Store, just don’t use the others” doesn’t work in practice. See also: the whole Steam vs Epic issue on Windows. Should Apple open their store? Sure. But it’s not as cut and dry as people make it out to be. [0]: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/how-to-install-fortnite-on-android-devices https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/how-to-install...
    - causi 5y ago
      Apple would not let them charge one price for App Store payments and another price for external payments.
      - dessant 5y ago
        A store cannot dictate how much you charge for a product at a different retailer, and they have no right to interfere with your business activity, and the agreements you have with a different distributor.
        Diggsey 5y ago
        Apple can and does do this.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
Why don't we buy their security concern? We then declare the App Store a utility and divorce it from Apple entirely. Pay Apple off and have it run as a non-profit supported by a minimal tax from Apple and developers.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  Apart from the fact that almost nobody could afford to pay them off! (FWIW, I have always thought that media companies should collectively buy Twitter and run it as a utility)
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > I have always thought that media companies should collectively buy Twitter and run it as a utility That's a pretty good analogy—twitter is to media companies, as power plants are to power companies.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- scarface74 5y ago
  Yes because government being in charge of technology could never go wrong. You really don’t see the harm in government controlling distribution?
snowwrestler 5y ago
> Just like back in the day when Microsoft was forced to let users allow other browser when it wasn't even being blocked. Just theirs was pre-installed! Microsoft’s antitrust case is frequently misunderstood. MS was a supplier to the companies that made and sold computers. They got in trouble for messing with other suppliers. Apple manufacturers and sells the computer. It’s not analogous.
- tremon 5y ago
  Isn't Apple now similarly messing with suppliers of iOS apps?
- rsstack 5y ago
  > MS was a supplier to the companies that made and sold computers. They got in trouble for messing with other suppliers. Isn't this only true for the US antitrust case? IIRC the EU antitrust case was similar Apple's situation.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  It's a LOT closer than you seem to be painting it. Apple is a supplier to software companies (of both hardware and software). They are getting in trouble for messing with other suppliers (of both hardware and software). To quote the charges in the MS case: "the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java." Apple in this case: "Apple is illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the mobile application market primarily through technical restrictions it puts on the abilities of iOS software developers and users to install 3rd party application and programs." We're essentially playing out a very similar situation, just with the focus on digital goods.
  - gls2ro 5y ago
    I don't think this is the case. Here is how I understand this: Microsoft was accused of having a monopoly in a market (PC) defined by one single software (Windows) and hardware produced by a lot of PC manufacturers. Apple could be accused of having a "monopoly" in market defined by their own software and their own hardware. So in a way, IANAL, but Microsoft had a monopoly with their product in a bigger market than the one created by them, while Apple has a "monopoly" on the market (Apple ecosystem) that exists only because they exist. In this way, Microsoft was creating a monopoly in an otherwise free market, while Apple is a monopoly on their own devices, so if Microsoft would stop selling Windows the PC market will still exist, while if Apple will stop selling iPhones with iOS the App Store market will not exist anymore. The correct comparison could be with Microsoft which has a monopoly on the Surface market where they produce both hardware and software.
Isinlor 5y ago
EU is specifically drafting legislation for gatekeepers in Digital Markets Law. TL;DR Apple and Google will have to allow to install third-party app stores trough their stores. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A842%3AFIN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20... Gatekeepers like Apple will have specific obligation according to Article 5: (b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper; (c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper; And Article 6: (c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper; (k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation. Following articles, like: - article 7: Compliance with obligations for gatekeepers - article 10: Updating obligations for gatekeepers and - article 11: Anti-circumvention give the EU Commission quite a lot of executive power to ensure effective implementation.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Will these laws also apply to game consoles? Set top boxes?
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    The current law draft deems you a gatekeeper if you have: - annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years - market value of at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States So, I believe it will apply to many game consoles. More in detail: Article 2, Definitions ‘Core platform service’ means any of the following: (a) online intermediation services; (...) Article 3, Designation of gatekeepers Paragraph 1, a provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if: (a) it has a significant impact on the internal market; (b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and (c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future. Paragraph 2, a provider of core platform services shall be presumed to satisfy: (a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States; (b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year; for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year; (c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last three financial years.

Arnt 5y ago

A fine goal, and I approve strongly, but I worry that without a real understanding of what has happened in China, the outcome might be prices like China's (50% cut being typical, https://archive.fo/5dvsz https://archive.fo/5dvsz). And IMO, anyone who says "well, obviously the only reason…" doesn't really understand.

sschueller 5y ago
I don't think so and this is where unregulated markets (although I am not a fan at all) would push the prices down. If anyone can provide an app store and that app stores fees are lower people will move. What Apple and Google need to do is work on assuring that Apps can be uniquely identified (which the can already) and validated so that you don't have a clone of an App in another app store.
- Arnt 5y ago
  AIUI China has many mobile phone builders that all use android with minimal customisation, so they're basically interchangeable except for the prices of the vendor-provided app store on each. And apparently none of them use app pricing to undercut the others, unless I've overlooked recent developments? It's not clear to me why the Chinese competition fails at undercutting Apple/Google and the proposed app store competition would achieve that. I don't see the relevant difference. The unique identifier on Android is easily broken, BTW. I don't know iOS well, but on android it's simple. IIRC you don't even need an android development kit, the java tools will do. This fine web page lets you download a formerly welll-known app; someone downloaded the app, unzipped the executable (which is in zip format), resigned and uploaded. https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/app-quickpic-v4-5-2-classic-version.3204543/ https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/app-quickpic-v4-5-2-class...
  - kerneloops 5y ago

aeonflux 5y ago

Supported side-loading is a thing on Android since day one? What innovation came out of this? Thousands of rip-off apps, all sort of malware pushed upon clueless users? I know, that some of those things are still a problem on iOS, but just imagine how worse this can gen, if they would be forced to open up the system for additional app stores.

fulafel 5y ago
F-Droid.
sschueller 5y ago
Like SSL, Apple and Google need to do their part to provide a way for developers to validate an app and prevent clones from being installed instead even if coming from a 3rd party store.
- aeonflux 5y ago
  It doesn't really work even with one closed AppStore. How that could work if they would be forced to allow 3rd party AppStores? I don't understand this logic. On one hand you want to force Apple to allow 3rd patry stores (and apps). But still you want them to have final word in the approval process? And SSL validates just the domain name, which still allows all the phishing attacks to thrive. Compare installing App for the first time to coming to some website for the first time ever. SSL doesn't really provide anything to identify the site, anyone can get any domain.
  - sschueller 5y ago
    Like Microsoft allows you to sign your app, there should be a mechanism like this for each OS. I can still install an app if it is not signed but I am being warned.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  Why should the app store prevent clones? Clones are just another name for competition. I want the app stores to ensure that the apps are safe, not that they are free of competition.

dpcx 5y ago

Microsoft was forced around Internet Explorer not "just" because theirs was pre-installed. It was more that Internet Explorer had become so baked in to the system that it literally could not be removed without breaking Windows. That was the thing that caused rulings against Microsoft.

capableweb 5y ago
I'm not sure that holds up in practice. The "fix" for the anti-trust claim (or what it was called) was for Microsoft to add a popup asking the user what browser they wanted, and Internet Explorer (or whatever it's called today) is still as embedded into the OS as it was in the past.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  IE isn't embedded in the OS in any significant way any more, and hasn't been for a while. Windows Explorer used to basically be a wrapper around IE, for example.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    Windows explorer is STILL a wrapper around IE - I can go install COM components for IE that will run just fine in explorer. And the vast majority of the webviews used by the OS were IE (now webview2, based on Edge instead). It turns out the ability to display a webpage is a pretty critical part of any modern operating system - they all support some form of a webview. The one in Windows is based on browsers that MS develops and owns (IE, then EdgeClassic, now Chromium Edge). It's absolutely baked in still.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Nowadays the Windows default browser is called Microsoft Edge (based around Blink engine), and you still cannot remove it from the OS as it's "essential component of our [Microsoft] operating system", at least according to Microsoft themselves: > Microsoft Edge is the web browser recommended by Microsoft and is the default web browser for Windows. Because Windows supports applications that rely on the web platform, our default web browser is an essential component of our operating system and can’t be uninstalled. To provide our users with compatibility, compliance, accessibility, and performance, we'll continue updating Microsoft Edge through the browser installer or Windows updates. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/why-can-t-i-uninstall-microsoft-edge-ee150b3b-7d7a-9984-6d83-eb36683d526d https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/why-can-t... I still click on links in some parts of the OS or other applications on Windows 10 that opens in Microsoft Edge, even though I've set Firefox to be my default browser.

myspy 5y ago

I see a problem with the Facebook, the Microsoft, the Epic store with all different rules and payment methods. Having them to cross a common threshold is better for me as an end user.

causi 5y ago
Then use the common threshold. I'm sure Epic would happy to keep a version of their games on the App Store with all prices inflated by thirty percent.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  Their saga with the Play Store shows that that isn’t the case.[0] Once you allow third parties to use different stores, and those stores aren’t as restrictive, you bet businesses are gonna move there. The whole “if you like the App Store, just don’t use the others” doesn’t work in practice. See also: the whole Steam vs Epic issue on Windows. Should Apple open their store? Sure. But it’s not as cut and dry as people make it out to be. [0]: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/how-to-install-fortnite-on-android-devices https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/how-to-install...
  - causi 5y ago
    Apple would not let them charge one price for App Store payments and another price for external payments.
    - dessant 5y ago
      A store cannot dictate how much you charge for a product at a different retailer, and they have no right to interfere with your business activity, and the agreements you have with a different distributor.
      - Diggsey 5y ago
        Apple can and does do this.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

Why don't we buy their security concern? We then declare the App Store a utility and divorce it from Apple entirely. Pay Apple off and have it run as a non-profit supported by a minimal tax from Apple and developers.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
Apart from the fact that almost nobody could afford to pay them off! (FWIW, I have always thought that media companies should collectively buy Twitter and run it as a utility)
- mcphage 5y ago
  > I have always thought that media companies should collectively buy Twitter and run it as a utility That's a pretty good analogy—twitter is to media companies, as power plants are to power companies.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
scarface74 5y ago
Yes because government being in charge of technology could never go wrong. You really don’t see the harm in government controlling distribution?

snowwrestler 5y ago

> Just like back in the day when Microsoft was forced to let users allow other browser when it wasn't even being blocked. Just theirs was pre-installed! Microsoft’s antitrust case is frequently misunderstood. MS was a supplier to the companies that made and sold computers. They got in trouble for messing with other suppliers. Apple manufacturers and sells the computer. It’s not analogous.

tremon 5y ago
Isn't Apple now similarly messing with suppliers of iOS apps?
rsstack 5y ago
> MS was a supplier to the companies that made and sold computers. They got in trouble for messing with other suppliers. Isn't this only true for the US antitrust case? IIRC the EU antitrust case was similar Apple's situation.
horsawlarway 5y ago
It's a LOT closer than you seem to be painting it. Apple is a supplier to software companies (of both hardware and software). They are getting in trouble for messing with other suppliers (of both hardware and software). To quote the charges in the MS case: "the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java." Apple in this case: "Apple is illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the mobile application market primarily through technical restrictions it puts on the abilities of iOS software developers and users to install 3rd party application and programs." We're essentially playing out a very similar situation, just with the focus on digital goods.
- gls2ro 5y ago
  I don't think this is the case. Here is how I understand this: Microsoft was accused of having a monopoly in a market (PC) defined by one single software (Windows) and hardware produced by a lot of PC manufacturers. Apple could be accused of having a "monopoly" in market defined by their own software and their own hardware. So in a way, IANAL, but Microsoft had a monopoly with their product in a bigger market than the one created by them, while Apple has a "monopoly" on the market (Apple ecosystem) that exists only because they exist. In this way, Microsoft was creating a monopoly in an otherwise free market, while Apple is a monopoly on their own devices, so if Microsoft would stop selling Windows the PC market will still exist, while if Apple will stop selling iPhones with iOS the App Store market will not exist anymore. The correct comparison could be with Microsoft which has a monopoly on the Surface market where they produce both hardware and software.

Isinlor 5y ago

EU is specifically drafting legislation for gatekeepers in Digital Markets Law. TL;DR Apple and Google will have to allow to install third-party app stores trough their stores. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A842%3AFIN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20... Gatekeepers like Apple will have specific obligation according to Article 5: (b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper; (c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper; And Article 6: (c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper; (k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation. Following articles, like: - article 7: Compliance with obligations for gatekeepers - article 10: Updating obligations for gatekeepers and - article 11: Anti-circumvention give the EU Commission quite a lot of executive power to ensure effective implementation.

scarface74 5y ago
Will these laws also apply to game consoles? Set top boxes?
- Isinlor 5y ago
  The current law draft deems you a gatekeeper if you have: - annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years - market value of at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States So, I believe it will apply to many game consoles. More in detail: Article 2, Definitions ‘Core platform service’ means any of the following: (a) online intermediation services; (...) Article 3, Designation of gatekeepers Paragraph 1, a provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if: (a) it has a significant impact on the internal market; (b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and (c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future. Paragraph 2, a provider of core platform services shall be presumed to satisfy: (a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States; (b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year; for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year; (c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last three financial years.