EU Chief Calls on Apple CEO Tim Cook to Open Hardware and Software Ecosystem

[bcortens]

So, the only value that Apple provides to developers is payment processing? That's a ridiculous statement.

No. But developers provide value to Apple equal to that provided by Apple to developers.

These is one of those arguments that falls apart when you consider it in any other context. A store needs products just as much as products need a store. Does that mean the store doesn't provide any value other than payment processing?

A platform isn't a store. Apple built a platform because they know that enabling 3rd party apps on their platform (iOS) makes iOS more valuable. Apple didn't create the App Store because they wanted that 30% revenue. They created it because having 3rd party apps on the platform made the platform more useful, users would spend more time with their platform and thus see iPhones as more worth buying.

Again, this comes to a point I keep trying to make, if Apple deserves compensation for creating the platform it should be getting compensation for all developers, but it doesn't it carves out all sort of exceptions. Mostly for business reasons, and as your own data points out, only 13% of developers pay a commission. If Apple is truly entitled to a share of revenue for creating the platform shouldn't this number be 100% (of paid apps)?

So do I. I just believe that the DMA and the EU's overall strategy so far is a poor way to accomplish their goals.

Alternatively, Apple has invested billions in creating a platform for Apple Fitness, that a competitor gets to take advantage of for a mere 15-30% of their revenue. Seems like a good deal to me.

Investing to give yourself an advantage in a market isn't anticompetitive. It is competing.

Let's consider the telecoms, telecommunication companies also invest billions in the cellular infrastructure, and there was a time they too thought they were entitled to a share of all revenue that occurred on phones on their network. Apple used their power to break up this rent seeking behaviour and governments are treating telecoms like utilities, yes they provide a service and are permitted to charge for that service, but they are not entitled to all revenue that flows through that service. This is how I believe Apple should be regulated. The app market is too important to leave it up to the whims of private companies.

If Apple is entitled to revenue on top of the revenue they get from selling a product to consumers then the telecom companies are also entitled to a share of revenue that occurs thanks to their network (which they also invested hundreds of billions into).

I understand that you want Apple to be forced to meet your preferences. Blaming them or accusing them of wrongdoing because they don't is silly.

I believe my preferences are good for citizens and consumers, I believe they have themselves to blame for this regulation because they behaved in ways that negatively affect consumers.

 

[bcortens]

I assume agencies already exist in many countries to some degree; something similar to the FTC in the United States.

I just don't think they have adapted quickly enough to tackle the number of different unethical ways companies try and extract money from people.

 

[I7guy]

And there are scams and scam apps on iOS too. Creating an artificial bubble is not necessarily the answer. Allowing more open competition and pushing companies like Apple to innovate by using their wealth, talent and resources to create a "stronger" product and better experience than others for BOTH those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores and those who don't can be a better solution.

Sure forcing the disassembly of the ios app will make everything better. /s the handwriting is on the wall in how bad things will get.

 

[BaldiMac]

No. But developers provide value to Apple equal to that provided by Apple to developers.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you think a completely made up calculation shows.

A platform isn't a store.

So? I made an analogy. You're changing the topic instead of addressing the point.

Apple built a platform because they know that enabling 3rd party apps on their platform (iOS) makes iOS more valuable. Apple didn't create the App Store because they wanted that 30% revenue. They created it because having 3rd party apps on the platform made the platform more useful, users would spend more time with their platform and thus see iPhones as more worth buying.

You're creating a false dichotomy here. As if your claimed motivation prevents them from monetizing the platform.

If Apple is truly entitled to a share of revenue for creating the platform shouldn't this number be 100% (of paid apps)?

No.

Let's consider the telecoms, telecommunication companies also invest billions in the cellular infrastructure, and there was a time they too thought they were entitled to a share of all revenue that occurred on phones on their network. Apple used their power to break up this rent seeking behaviour and governments are treating telecoms like utilities, yes they provide a service and are permitted to charge for that service, but they are not entitled to all revenue that flows through that service. This is how I believe Apple should be regulated. The app market is too important to leave it up to the whims of private companies.

You were so close to clarity there! Apple didn't end the the telecom control of apps through regulation, they ended it by offering a better product that customers wanted to pay for. That's the part the the EU is missing.

If Apple is entitled to revenue on top of the revenue they get from selling a product to consumers then the telecom companies are also entitled to a share of revenue that occurs thanks to their network (which they also invested hundreds of billions into).

And they were. Up until Apple took that value away from them in exchange for a new and much more profitable source of revenue (data plans).

I believe my preferences are good for citizens and consumers, I believe they have themselves to blame for this regulation because they behaved in ways that negatively affect consumers.

Good for you!

I think your preferences will be bad for consumers overall. The EU's current course of action will mainly benefit a few billion dollar corporations at the expense of a few trillion dollar corporations. It will increase the control of market leaders across several market segments, particularly benefiting Google. Consumers will see higher prices, more confusion, more scams and malware, anti-consumer pricing strategies like variable pricing, and a significant decrease in app quality.

 

[I7guy]

No. But developers provide value to Apple equal to that provided by Apple to developers.

No apple provides a quick cheap and easy way to get your digital product to the masses. The iOS App Store is like Costco in that getting product in Costco is a big thing.

A platform isn't a store. Apple built a platform because they know that enabling 3rd party apps on their platform (iOS) makes iOS more valuable. Apple didn't create the App Store because they wanted that 30% revenue. They created it because having 3rd party apps on the platform made the platform more useful, users would spend more time with their platform and thus see iPhones as more worth buying.

Sure and apples vision and innovation in this regard was spot on. But a dev knew with almost no risk and some technical acumen visionary product could be released to the masses.

Again, this comes to a point I keep trying to make, if Apple deserves compensation for creating the platform it should be getting compensation for all developers, but it doesn't it carves out all sort of exceptions. Mostly for business reasons, and as your own data points out, only 13% of developers pay a commission. If Apple is truly entitled to a share of revenue for creating the platform shouldn't this number be 100% (of paid apps)?

Apple certainly deserves to manage the store as it sees fit. The fact that government intervenes in the EU is going to be a headache for those in govt who want back doors, the ability to snoop etc.

Let's consider the telecoms, telecommunication companies also invest billions in the cellular infrastructure, and there was a time they too thought they were entitled to a share of all revenue thst occurred on phones on their network.

When did this happen unless you are discussing a per call or per charge for sms?

Apple used their power to break up this rent seeking behaviour and governments are treating telecoms like utilities, yes they provide a service and are permitted to charge for that service, but they are not entitled to all revenue that flows through that service.

Yes they are.

This is how I believe Apple should be regulated. The app market is too important to leave it up to the whims of private companies.

Don’t over aggrandize the app market. There are multiple app stores but one which consistently makes money. Let government create its own App Store if they are worried.

If Apple is entitled to revenue on top of the revenue they get from selling a product to consumers then the telecom companies are also entitled to a share of revenue that occurs thanks to their network (which they also invested hundreds of billions into).

That’s a false equivalency.

I believe my preferences are good for citizens and consumers,

I believe they are bad.

I believe they have themselves to blame for this regulation because they behaved in ways that negatively affect consumers.

I believe in vote with your dollars.

 

[bcortens]

No apple provides a quick cheap and easy way to get your digital product to the masses. The iOS App Store is like Costco in that getting product in Costco is a big thing.

Sure and apples vision and innovation in this regard was spot on. But a dev knew with almost no risk and some technical acumen visionary product could be released to the masses.

As I pointed out, either everyone should pay on revenue earned through the App Store or no one should. Additionally Apple should either be the only gatekeeper and be a neutral one, or they have to allow side loading and third party stores.

Apple certainly deserves to manage the store as it sees fit. The fact that government intervenes in the EU is going to be a headache for those in govt who want back doors, the ability to snoop etc.

Completely disagree, their store is one of two gatekeepers to a 100 billion dollar (just in Europe) market, this is incredibly important. As above, Apple can manage it as they see fit and allow side loading and third party stores, or they can be a natural gatekeeper.

When did this happen unless you are discussing a per call or per charge for sms?

Do you really not remember the fight about net neutrality? Carriers trying to make Apple, Netflix and Google pay for bandwidth on top of what consumers paid for bandwidth?
It's been so long since carriers dictated which apps were available for your phone that maybe you don't remember but pre-2007 the carriers dictated what apps were available for the phone.

Yes they are.

Don’t over aggrandize the app market. There are multiple app stores but one which consistently makes money. Let government create its own App Store if they are worried.

Again, the app market is a hundred billion dollar market, phones are incredibly important, I don't care if you personally don't think it isn't but I, and the government disagree. Besides, if the app market isn't important to you, why do you care if it is regulated? Again (3rd times the charm) Apple either has to be a neutral gatekeeper or hey have to allow third party stores and side loading.

That’s a false equivalency.

Where is the false equivalency? Carriers sell a product - internet access - if you browse free sites no one has to pay extra - if a company sells a service over the internet they should have to pay a commission to the carrier for building the infrastructure that enabled the sale to take place.

I believe they are bad.

I believe in vote with your dollars.

Meh - disagreement on this point - markets are not natural or neutral forces and people should be free to elect governments that regulate markets if they feel the markets could be improved with regulations. Don't like it? Vote for different government representatives. Companies should be bound by governments not the other way around.

 

[bcortens]

Hmm. I'm not sure what you think a completely made up calculation shows.

Apple's calculation is also made up - Why is the number 15 or 30%? Why do only 13% of apps pay it? By what calculus does Apple determine how much value they provide to developers?

So? I made an analogy. You're changing the topic instead of addressing the point.

You're creating a false dichotomy here. As if your claimed motivation prevents them from monetizing the platform.

Sort of - I have been trying to refine my argument here and have somewhat refined it to the point that: Either apple can be a gatekeeper to the platform and be a neutral one that applies rules fairly and equally (which means they cannot use their position to artificially promote their own products and services) or they can allow third party stores and side loading. I also believe if they are going to monetize access they have to monetize everyone equally.

No.

You were so close to clarity there! Apple didn't end the the telecom control of apps through regulation, they ended it by offering a better product that customers wanted to pay for. That's the part the the EU is missing.

And they were. Up until Apple took that value away from them in exchange for a new and much more profitable source of revenue (data plans).

That's only possible in some situations. Why hasn't the power grid delivery system been disrupted, where are the new nationwide cell phone carriers? Market disruption is staggeringly difficult and if companies become too big and market momentum prevents new entrants (15 years of development on iOS is very high barrier to entry). In this case regulation can help open up the market or ensure that the competitors in that market have a more level playing field.

Good for you!

I think your preferences will be bad for consumers overall. The EU's current course of action will mainly benefit a few billion dollar corporations at the expense of a few trillion dollar corporations. It will increase the control of market leaders across several market segments, particularly benefiting Google. Consumers will see higher prices, more confusion, more scams and malware, anti-consumer pricing strategies like variable pricing, and a significant decrease in app quality.

This is possible - but I doubt these negatives will be widespread.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple's calculation is also made up - Why is the number 15 or 30%? Why do only 13% of apps pay it? By what calculus does Apple determine how much value they provide to developers?

That's a completely ridiculous argument. Look into ECON 101. I'm not going to explain how pricing decisions are made in a market economy.

Sort of - I have been trying to refine my argument here and have somewhat refined it to the point that: Either apple can be a gatekeeper to the platform and be a neutral one that applies rules fairly and equally (which means they cannot use their position to artificially promote their own products and services) or they can allow third party stores and side loading. I also believe if they are going to monetize access they have to monetize everyone equally.

"Fairly" and "artificially" are doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I think outside of a few significant exceptions, Apple already meets your requirements stated here.

That's only possible in some situations. Why hasn't the power grid delivery system been disrupted, where are the new nationwide cell phone carriers? Market disruption is staggeringly difficult and if companies become too big and market momentum prevents new entrants (15 years of development on iOS is very high barrier to entry). In this case regulation can help open up the market or ensure that the competitors in that market have a more level playing field.

Even your one example counters your point. Android is open source. Anyone can benefit from 15 years of development to fork their own OS that is compatible with a whole ecosystem and choose from a whole selection of non-Google defaults. If it weren't for the anticompetitive agreements that Google has across 70% of market, we'd be seeing the competition already.

As long as the EU continues to ignore the elephant in the room, they're just putting lipstick on a pig.

This is possible - but I doubt these negatives will be widespread.

Why do you doubt it when we have actual evidence of most of these things in Android and desktop operating systems?

 

[I7guy]

As I pointed out, either everyone should pay on revenue earned through the App Store or no one should. Additionally Apple should either be the only gatekeeper and be a neutral one, or they have to allow side loading and third party stores.

I disagree. Apple is entitled to legally run its business.

Completely disagree, their store is one of two gatekeepers to a 100 billion dollar (just in Europe) market, this is incredibly important. As above, Apple can manage it as they see fit and allow side loading and third party stores, or they can be a natural gatekeeper.

I disagree as I said above apple is entitled to legally run its business.

Do you really not remember the fight about net neutrality? Carriers trying to make Apple, Netflix and Google pay for bandwidth on top of what consumers paid for bandwidth?
It's been so long since carriers dictated which apps were available for your phone that maybe you don't remember but pre-2007 the carriers dictated what apps were available for the phone.

This is not net neutrality. (And the FCC enabled this behavior.) The iOS App Store is a proprietary product that nobody has to use unlike the cell phone signal that is needed for the most basic of connectivity.

Again, the app market is a hundred billion dollar market, phones are incredibly important, I don't care if you personally don't think it isn't but I, and the government disagree. Besides, if the app market isn't important to you, why do you care if it is regulated? Again (3rd times the charm) Apple either has to be a neutral gatekeeper or hey have to allow third party stores and side loading.

You saying it’s incredibly important is an opinion. What’s important is not the phone itself but the abilities and functions to make calls and work remotely. The phone is a form factor not the solution.

Where is the false equivalency? Carriers sell a product - internet access - if you browse free sites no one has to pay extra - if a company sells a service over the internet they should have to pay a commission to the carrier for building the infrastructure that enabled the sale to take place.

Sure I agree. Make it happen then. /s. However free sites are akin the dev providing an app for no charge. But you are welcome to throw false equivalencies into this conversation.

Meh - disagreement on this point - markets are not natural or neutral forces and people should be free to elect governments that regulate markets if they feel the markets could be improved with regulations. Don't like it? Vote for different government representatives. Companies should be bound by governments not the other way around.

We have a basic disagreement of opinion. And correct vote as I see fit. That doesn’t mean the EU won’t get exactly what it wanted in spades. I think apple should pull out of the EU along with google and Facebook and let the EU figure things out.

 

[webkit]

Sure forcing the disassembly of the ios app will make everything better. /s the handwriting is on the wall in how bad things will get.

Things aren't going get better if we stick with an artificial bubble approach and don't try to push industries and companies to be open to more competition and innovate to make things stronger for more or broader uses now and for the future.

 

[bcortens]

That's a completely ridiculous argument. Look into ECON 101. I'm not going to explain how pricing decisions are made in a market economy.

I get that companies that have differing levels of power and that lets them negotiate deals with one another, however, when you create a market and that market grows to a certain size that the government has an interest in checking to make sure that the players are treated fairly. Furthermore developers never had a choice as to whether their Apps were in the App Store (paying a commission) or not, right from day 1 it was the App Store or nothing.

Yet again, my point about the 15/30% share (and my belief that 100% of paid apps should pay it for the system to be fair) is based on the proposition that Apple deserves compensation for developing the platform and running the store. If running the store costs money and Apple wants to be a neutral platform and take a commission, then as a neutral store, 100% of paid apps should pay the commission, otherwise it is not an equal and neutral market for all developers. Developers in some categories have to pay Apple 15/30% and others don't. Apple doesn't treat the store as a neutral market but treats different categories of products in its store differently. If Apple wants to do this, I believe they should then allow other stores and side loading so that users aren't forced to use only Apple's store and its chosen tradeoffs.

"Fairly" and "artificially" are doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I think outside of a few significant exceptions, Apple already meets your requirements stated here.

Just a few examples of app categories that do not currently exist because Apple is not a neutral App Store. No springboard customization apps, no emulators, no software development apps.

Even your one example counters your point. Android is open source. Anyone can benefit from 15 years of development to fork their own OS that is compatible with a whole ecosystem and choose from a whole selection of non-Google defaults. If it weren't for the anticompetitive agreements that Google has across 70% of market, we'd be seeing the competition already.

As long as the EU continues to ignore the elephant in the room, they're just putting lipstick on a pig.

iOS is the more profitable portion the market and affects roughly 100 million EU citizens, that is enough people to warrant checking to see if Apple is behaving in a manner that does or does not warrant regulatory attention.

Next: ASOP is only part of what makes Android valuable. Plus the fact that ASOP forks are not successful also points to the other half of my argument, App support is vital to a platforms success.

Whether or not the EU puts a halt to Google's forced bundling of Play services is irrelevant to whether or not Google and Apple behave as gatekeepers.

Why do you doubt it when we have actual evidence of most of these things in Android and desktop operating systems?

Because they are important but not widespread and do not cause large amounts of damage to the majority of users. They cause large problems for a very small proportion of users - macOS with gatekeeper is a good example of a system that helps prevent abuse. Furthermore iOS already has tons of scam apps, the App Store doesn't prevent them from existing. The App Store doesn't prevent unethical monetization schemes like loot-boxes or in app currency.


I actually don't think third party stores and side loading are going to have much of an impact on Apple, I think that they will still get most of the same revenue they currently get and most apps will still come from the App Store.
What will change is the opportunity to get the niche and edge case apps that Apple currently prevents from running. I would love to see Visual Studio Code on iPad OS, I would love to see custom windows management helpers on iPadOS like we have on macOS, I would love to see emulators that don't require hacks and compiling your own app to install.



Anyway - I am going to bow out now because I think we are just going in circles - I do however want to sincerely thank you (and others in this thread) because I really think these kind of discussions are valuable. Even though they get heated and we never come to an agreement I think that unless a person is prepared to argue their point with someone else they are never going to properly understand their own points or those of the other side.

 

[NEPOBABY]

And there are scams and scam apps on iOS too.

And you will get a lot more because of the size of the market.

Please understand the scale of the problem.

The criminals out there only need to scam and rob 1% more of the world's population to have enough money to buy up all the politicians and police chiefs you can count. Everywhere.

They are very eager to do that and also to ensure they will be able to buy off all future political candidates.

You won't live in a democracy anymore. You will live in an even worse criminal led society. All the terrible things that have happened in the last decade will pale in comparison.

They will also ensure you cannot organize protests or find them to prosecute them. They will have too much power, money and data tracking.

All acquired by stealth, scams, robbery, data brokering, hacking, fake ads, fake apps, loan sharking, crypto scams, money laundering through the property markets, then imposing obscene rents on working people.

Criminals with that much wealth and power will make life very expensive and difficult for you. They are already doing it and it will get worse.

 

[I7guy]

Things aren't going get better if we stick with an artificial bubble approach and don't try to push industries and companies to be open to more competition and innovate to make things stronger for more or broader uses now and for the future.

Well they could get better with a bubble approach, but clearly won’t get better with a free for all. That’s not innovation. No more than removing speed limits on all roads.

 

[BaldiMac]

I get that companies that have differing levels of power and that lets them negotiate deals with one another, however, when you create a market and that market grows to a certain size that the government has an interest in checking to make sure that the players are treated fairly. Furthermore developers never had a choice as to whether their Apps were in the App Store (paying a commission) or not, right from day 1 it was the App Store or nothing.

They certainly had a choice. Work with Apple under their terms or not. Are you arguing that developers were forced to work with Apple when the only had a million or so users? And the terms have only become better for developers since then.

Yet again, my point about the 15/30% share (and my belief that 100% of paid apps should pay it for the system to be fair) is based on the proposition that Apple deserves compensation for developing the platform and running the store. If running the store costs money and Apple wants to be a neutral platform and take a commission, then as a neutral store, 100% of paid apps should pay the commission, otherwise it is not an equal and neutral market for all developers. Developers in some categories have to pay Apple 15/30% and others don't. Apple doesn't treat the store as a neutral market but treats different categories of products in its store differently. If Apple wants to do this, I believe they should then allow other stores and side loading so that users aren't forced to use only Apple's store and its chosen tradeoffs.

And yet again, that's a completely ridiculous argument that has no analog in other businesses. There is no legitimate reason (and no government is making the argument) that Apple can't charge different fees for different categories of apps.

Just a few examples of app categories that do not currently exist because Apple is not a neutral App Store. No springboard customization apps, no emulators, no software development apps.

Neutral doesn't mean without rules. It means the rules are applied equally. I completely understand that the number one reason people want sideloading is piracy and copyright infringement. Apple's decision not to allow that is fantastic to me. i don't see why we need to make the same mistakes of our past.

iOS is the more profitable portion the market and affects roughly 100 million EU citizens, that is enough people to warrant checking to see if Apple is behaving in a manner that does or does not warrant regulatory attention.

Based on what metric? The "I originally said 140 million but I was wrong so now I'll say 100 million because that number means that Apple qualifies" metric? Aren't you the one that supports neutral application of the rules and not singling out a specific category by inventing rules to target them? Or do you not stand by your own standards?

Next: ASOP is only part of what makes Android valuable. Plus the fact that ASOP forks are not successful also points to the other half of my argument, App support is vital to a platforms success.

ASOP forks are successful. Each manufacturer forks ASOP. And there is no reason that a fork of ASOP couldn't support the same apps.

Whether or not the EU puts a halt to Google's forced bundling of Play services is irrelevant to whether or not Google and Apple behave as gatekeepers.

Irrelevant? Without Google controlling 70% of the market, there would be no need for the DMA to adopt the term gatekeepers.

Because they are important but not widespread and do not cause large amounts of damage to the majority of users. They cause large problems for a very small proportion of users - macOS with gatekeeper is a good example of a system that helps prevent abuse. Furthermore iOS already has tons of scam apps, the App Store doesn't prevent them from existing. The App Store doesn't prevent unethical monetization schemes like loot-boxes or in app currency.

As they say, perfect is the enemy of good. The fact that some apps that can be considered scams are on the App Store, does not change the fact that the problems I described are orders of magnitude larger on other platforms. Malware and piracy has cost the global economy trillions of dollars.

You see a few stories about scam apps on the App Store, and think "If they can't eliminate every single one including borderline cases, then we should allow all of them." I'm not a fan of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I actually don't think third party stores and side loading are going to have much of an impact on Apple, I think that they will still get most of the same revenue they currently get and most apps will still come from the App Store.
What will change is the opportunity to get the niche and edge case apps that Apple currently prevents from running. I would love to see Visual Studio Code on iPad OS, I would love to see custom windows management helpers on iPadOS like we have on macOS, I would love to see emulators that don't require hacks and compiling your own app to install.

There's the gist of the argument there. You want "niche and edge cases" at the expense of piracy, native UIs, malware, pricing scams, etc. Seems like that's a poor trade off for those of us who aren't interested in niche and edge cases. Especially when those niche and edge cases are already supported by 70% of the market.

Anyway - I am going to bow out now because I think we are just going in circles - I do however want to sincerely thank you (and others in this thread) because I really think these kind of discussions are valuable. Even though they get heated and we never come to an agreement I think that unless a person is prepared to argue their point with someone else they are never going to properly understand their own points or those of the other side.

You too! It would certainly be less interesting if we all agreed on everything.

 

[webkit]

And you will get a lot more because of the size of the market.

Well they could get better with a bubble approach, but clearly won’t get better with a free for all. That’s not innovation. No more than removing speed limits on all roads.

Scams and criminals have been around for ages and will continue to around in the future but the answer is not to maintain an artificial bubble, restrict competition, etc. Allowing more open competition and pushing companies like Apple to innovate by using their wealth, talent and resources to create a "stronger" product and better experience than others for BOTH those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores and those who don't can be a better solution.

 

[I7guy]

Scams and criminals have been around for ages and will continue to around in the future but the answer is not to maintain an artificial bubble,

The answer is to maintain the bubble and have government keep the heck out of private industry unless the involvement is heath, finances food or water or air.

restrict competition, etc. Allowing more open competition and pushing companies like Apple to innovate by using their wealth, talent and resources to create a "stronger" product and better experience than others for BOTH those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores and those who don't can be a better solution.

Yes if private industry chooses this. Otherwise provenindustry shoukd be free to conduct lawful business.

 

[mrochester]

Scams and criminals have been around for ages and will continue to around in the future but the answer is not to maintain an artificial bubble, restrict competition, etc. Allowing more open competition and pushing companies like Apple to innovate by using their wealth, talent and resources to create a "stronger" product and better experience than others for BOTH those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores and those who don't can be a better solution.

I think you are incredibly naive to think that government regulation is going to achieve that.

 

[webkit]

I think you are incredibly naive to think that government regulation is going to achieve that.

I think it's incredibly naïve to think that maintaining an artificial bubble in a market by allowing dominant companies to restrict competition is the answer.

If Apple is going to have to open up iOS to sideloading, alternative app stores, etc., they are going to have to make operating system improvements (innovate!) to accommodate the changes and will continue to do so to make the product better, stronger, etc. for more and more users going forward. A good thing. In doing so, it will also open the door for more potential app access and app store competition. A good thing.

 

[mrochester]

I think it's incredibly naïve to think that maintaining an artificial bubble in a market by allowing dominant companies to restrict competition is the answer.

If Apple is going to have to open up iOS to sideloading, alternative app stores, etc., they are going to have to make operating system improvements (innovate!) to accommodate the changes and will continue to do so to make the product better, stronger, etc. for more and more users going forward. A good thing. In doing so, it will also open the door for more potential app access and app store competition. A good thing.

Most fraud and scams are a result of social engineering. Being able to easily install apps from anywhere with no oversight by any authority, a bad thing. There’s nothing Apple can do here to protect the user, precisely because we have removed Apple from the process.

No doubt you think those people deserve to be scammed though, just so long as you can have your emulator app.

 

[1129846]

Most fraud and scams are a result of social engineering. Being able to easily install apps from anywhere with no oversight by any authority, a bad thing. There’s nothing Apple can do here to protect the user, precisely because we have removed Apple from the process.

No doubt you think those people deserve to be scammed though, just so long as you can have your emulator app.

The fact that you think the App Store protects against that completely is pretty laughable.

It’s is easier than you think to slip by apples reviews rule breaking.

Apple does not see the code and you have to supply an account for them to test. One can easy configure remote disabling rule breaking features during a review process, or the account you give them has some things turned off. You turn them back on after Apple approval or wait until later for the real attack.

Basically don’t relay on Apple to protect you. Top it off I am willing to bet good money Apple has a way to remotely pull any App off the phone. We learned Google has a remote kill switch during the Fortnight leaving the Google play store as the fortnight installer allowed non fortnight things to be installed as an exploit. Google basically told EA fix it now or Google will force remove it from all Android phones no matter how it was installed. Apple has it or an easy way to add it.

 

[mrochester]

The fact that you think the App Store protects against that completely is pretty laughable.

It’s is easier than you think to slip by apples reviews rule breaking.

Apple does not see the code and you have to supply an account for them to test. One can easy configure remote disabling rule breaking features during a review process, or the account you give them has some things turned off. You turn them back on after Apple approval or wait until later for the real attack.

Basically don’t relay on Apple to protect you. Top it off I am willing to bet good money Apple has a way to remotely pull any App off the phone. We learned Google has a remote kill switch during the Fortnight leaving the Google play store as the fortnight installer allowed non fortnight things to be installed as an exploit. Google basically told EA fix it now or Google will force remove it from all Android phones no matter how it was installed. Apple has it or an easy way to add it.

I think you’re naive for thinking there isn't going to be more scams and fraud committed once apps can be installed from anywhere.

 

[I7guy]

I think it's incredibly naïve to think that maintaining an artificial bubble in a market by allowing dominant companies to restrict competition is the answer.

What’s naive is thinking government regulation is best for private industry when no laws were broken.

If Apple is going to have to open up iOS to sideloading, alternative app stores, etc., they are going to have to make operating system improvements (innovate!) to accommodate the changes and will continue to do so to make the product better, stronger, etc. for more and more users going forward. A good thing. In doing so, it will also open the door for more potential app access and app store competition. A good thing.

Have you looked at what’s going on in certain large California cities? Its a metaphorical parallel about where iOS is headed.

 

[webkit]

Most fraud and scams are a result of social engineering. Being able to easily install apps from anywhere with no oversight by any authority, a bad thing. There’s nothing Apple can do here to protect the user, precisely because we have removed Apple from the process.

No doubt you think those people deserve to be scammed though, just so long as you can have your emulator app.

And pushing Apple to make operating system improvements (innovate!) to accommodate the changes and make the product better, stronger, etc. for more and more users going forward is a good thing. Making iOS more open to app competition by allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. is a good thing.

 

[webkit]

What’s naive is thinking government regulation is best for private industry when no laws were broken.

A dominant company/product (such as Apple with iOS) engaging in anticompetitive behavior (such as restricting competition on a dominant platform) is breaking the law, and has been a potential example of an antitrust violation for ages.

 

[mrochester]

And pushing Apple to make operating system improvements (innovate!) to accommodate the changes and make the product better, stronger, etc. for more and more users going forward is a good thing. Making iOS more open to app competition by allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. is a good thing.

I have a feeling you aren’t going to understand my point.