Alternative payment processors and google has a pretty bad history of attacking developers/manufacturers that try and go around them.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
New U.S. Antitrust Bill Would Require Apple and Google to Allow Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading
- Thread starter Kaeden
- Start date
User Banned (Permanent): Trolling, long history of similar infractions
In all fairness, this is a forum with a bunch of people with massive hate-boners for having more than one installer in their overclocked, $3,000+ gaming rigs with terabytes of on-board storage, because it's not convenient enough for them. So I wouldn't be surprised to see people who think that having a choice they can ignore is inconvenient enough.
This is poor economics. The oligopoly in mobile phone operating systems is a textbook definition of market failure. There is an asymmetry in market power between the platform holder and the apps/services. Apple has too much market share for it to be reasonable for 'everyone' to pull their app. This would require unsustainable collusion between app makers.
The role of the government isn't only to step in for 'essential parts of life' as you define them. Competition law exists to regulate markets to run more efficiently. When it is effective it addresses the market failures like oligopolies in the interest of social welfare.
Also this
I disagree. It's not Apple or Google's fault no one else has managed to come in and be successful in the market. They shouldn't be punished for their success. And this isn't being done in the name of social welfare. This is being pursued because companies want to do business on Apple's platform without having to pay them for it. Nothing is going to change for the consumer. The prices will all be the same. Companies will just pocket the 30% that used to go to Apple.
I think we have a reasonable compromise as is. Google if you would prefer a more open platform and apple if you want the security of a more curated device.
I don't like this cause it takes that choice away from me and I'm fine with what I lose to have a more curated device.
Pretty sure sideloading was always possible on Android. I don't remember if it was there for 1.x but I remember sideloading all kinds of stuff on my Android Gingerbread (2.3) phone in 2011 or so.
That said I doubt this bill has any chance of getting approved. Apple has billions to spend on lobbying to stop this from happening.
That said I doubt this bill has any chance of getting approved. Apple has billions to spend on lobbying to stop this from happening.
There is no defying the laws of economics required. You simply make a box that you can sell for $500. The PS5 is already production neutral. The switch was never sold at a loss. This isn't the PS2/PS3 era where they stay losing money for years. These companies are already designing boxes that lose little to nothing. If anything, we'll get a high-end box that has more comfortable profit margins but there is no scenario where consoles "cease to exist". And I'm going to continue repeating that, because it is just true. There will continue to be demand for consoles and somebody will serve that need.. A PC box doesn't exist today because Sony/MS/Nintendo already dominates the market so its not needed... And they will continue to dominate the market because console audiences are already acclimated to using the default stores and that gives them an incredible advantage over any third party store.
They (evil corporation) created the product, services, and infrastructure on which this software can be installed. All of which came at great cost and risk, and continues to incur ongoing cost. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate how it's run?
It's not like you don't have a choice, the choice of apps on a given platform is far from essential. And even if you argue it is, you have other (more open) choices. There is no legitimate argument for government intervention here.
Its not about fault. A network externality is a type of natural oligopoly. It occurs because the value consumers receive from these mobile platforms is in part derived from the amount of people that use them. There is also significant cost for consumers to change platforms due to closed infrastructure (particularly under iOS); meaning they will lose all their apps/services in doing so. This makes it extremely challenging for competition to occur in the sector.
It's not that they are being punished for their success, it's that the market conditions they operate in need regulation to operate efficiently. You can't appeal to market forces correcting behaviour in a market failure. That requires efficient competition in the market. Regulation in requiring third party app stores to exist on the platform increases competition. Competition is what reduces prices.
I was using chrome, and I would get the constant redirects to "Congratulations you won" scam sites. I'm talking about 3 years ago. I never sideloaded anything. I'm on mobile and don't have the inclination to search for it myself, but I know I read an article somewhat recently about apps on the Play store that carried malware.
I don't want to have to worry about if my phone manufacturer has the latest version Android available, or what security is compromised between this version or that version. I'm old and have too much shit to do to worry about it.
One question.
What's the precise meaning of this requirement? Does it mean Google and Apple can't force apps on other stores to use their payment system (and therefore take a cut on those other stores)? Or does it mean they have to allow apps on their own store to use an alternate payment system and dodge the cut that way?
PS5 is neutral only for the disc edition and only on a per-unit basis going forward. It has not recovered its significant R&D costs, per-unit losses from launch until now, and continued losses from the digital edition.
Did you forget what you originally replied to or are you acknowledging that prices for consoles would go up? Yes, prices going up was the point. It'd be close to the PC model.
All it takes for audiences to use another store is to have exclusives and lower prices, which a competing store can afford to pay for when they didn't spend hundreds of millions on developing and marketing hardware. It's not like discovery is good on PS store or Xbox. A PC box doesn't exist because anyone doing it would lose money if they tried to match console hardware price/performance. If people buy consoles that themselves make no money for the manufacturers to play fortnite on Epic Store for PS5/Xbox and Sony/MS see none of the royalties they currently get from fortnite, of course they'd charge more for hardware. If there is no demand at higher hardware prices, they would need to lower hardware performance to meet the cost target.
Am I the only iOS user that would get those random malware ads on their calendar? It was so weird and the walled garden did nothing to prevent it.
Edit: this stuff https://www.rd.com/article/iphone-calendar-spam/
Edit: this stuff https://www.rd.com/article/iphone-calendar-spam/
This will also as others have said that everyone can use store without paying single cent to Apple or Google. And if other stores are allowed soon there will be tons of stores with various exclusives so you would need to use them. That also means more accounts you need to create and that to leads to more points where your data can be compromised.
As I said before 8 am already annoyed that more and more companies are making me create accounts to play damn single player games. This is not for the consumers, this will mostly have bad impact for consumers. Other big companies like Spotify are the ones who will have most benefits. And remember Spotify who is fighting for this is awful company that pays basically nothing to creators and charging them ridiculous money for some things
And this is not just limited to Spotify, other companies like Facebook would love this so they can harvest even more data from you. As I said this is really bad deal for end consumers.
As I said before 8 am already annoyed that more and more companies are making me create accounts to play damn single player games. This is not for the consumers, this will mostly have bad impact for consumers. Other big companies like Spotify are the ones who will have most benefits. And remember Spotify who is fighting for this is awful company that pays basically nothing to creators and charging them ridiculous money for some things
And this is not just limited to Spotify, other companies like Facebook would love this so they can harvest even more data from you. As I said this is really bad deal for end consumers.
Any examples of this on Android where it's completely open at the moment?
Or maybe I just like console gaming and don't them to go up price or worse, go away entirely because of a bunch of old men who don't understand technology?
One example is Fortnite that is on Samsung Store for example. But Android has big issue with paid apps so exclusive games and apps are mostly on iOS due to way higher sales. Better comparison would be PC market.
That isn't by choice though, and you can still just download Fortnite from epics website right you don't have to use the Samsung launcher?
It doesn't take any choice away from you, you wouldn't be obligated to sideload apps or use a different store; you would have to go out of your way for it to even be a factor for you.
Last edited:
It is by choice that Epic made. Epic made choice for their users. They can put Fortnite on App and Play Store without breaking ToS. Hell Judge even offered them to put freeze any earnings until case is closed and then based on the outcome to split the money.
People need to understand that this is not fighting for small guy as it is presented. This is fight for other big companies to get a chance to earn even more money. And most of those big companies don't care about you. Just look who is lobbying for this.
If you think that other companies won't force you to get apps outside App Store i have bridge to sell you. Facebook will be the first one that will work on converting users to their Store/Sideloaded app.
Who is lobbying for this? Congress has been doing anti competitive/monopolistic hearings on tech companies since before the epic v apple trial...
Look for Coalition for App Fairness. They literally drafted rules and laws for politicians to put for voting. And if you compare them to this you will see a lot of similarities.
This would be super frustrating, tbh.
I like having a single simple closed eco system. It's why I enjoy console gaming. I don't want additional storefronts or different payment systems.
There's always the argument of "Don't want it, don't use it." But the second this becomes a thing, then things that I do want start becoming separated from the simple way I like to do things and my devices start to become more and more complicated than I want them to be.
I like having a single simple closed eco system. It's why I enjoy console gaming. I don't want additional storefronts or different payment systems.
There's always the argument of "Don't want it, don't use it." But the second this becomes a thing, then things that I do want start becoming separated from the simple way I like to do things and my devices start to become more and more complicated than I want them to be.
Okay but who's in that group? I largely agree with what's being said here in the name of digital fairness so they seem to be lobbying in the right direction after all
Epic, Spotify, Deezer... and again it is framed to look like they are suffering and that they are underdogs. They are some benefits for end consumers and smaller devs but don't be fooled that this is being pushed to make things better for you, me or smaller developers. I showed you above what Spotify is doing to creators while screaming about how Apple is unfair to them. Someone calculated that Spotify only gives around 15-18% of their earnings to creators while complaining that they only get 70% from Apple/Google.
Why would they do that? They still have their app in GooglePlay store, even though you can sideload and install stores to your hearts content.
What your saying isn't happening there, even though claim they'd be the first to do it.
Eh unless I'm missing something here this lobbying group seems pretty small potatoes. Congress seemed to be working on this already independent of any lobbying group sorry to say.
OpenSecrets
www.opensecrets.org
Data harvest. Have you seen how Facebook reacted on new Apple privacy settings?
But that's an OS change that has nothing to do with what app store it's on?
Personally, I do think we should be able to install whatever stores or apps we want, on whatever device. If I buy an iPhone, it becomes mine. It's my property, not Apple's, and they shouldn't have any further say in what I'm allowed to run on it. I understand that this would disrupt the market, and there might be some significant changes. But I see the control of our devices as an important issue. If it was up to me, I'd go through with this, or something similar.
Having this only apply if there's a userbase of 50 million people or more does strike me as arbitrary. Companies would be allowed to have a completely different model, as long as they try to keep their userbase stable at 40 million or so and not grow further. Would that actually happen? I have no idea. But the potential exists, and it would be weird.
I'm also still a little iffy about that one part of Section 3, about enforcing a payment system. There's a way I could interpret that which I wouldn't be a fan of, but there's just enough ambiguity that I'm second guessing myself. And I can live with the rest of the bill, for sure.
Having this only apply if there's a userbase of 50 million people or more does strike me as arbitrary. Companies would be allowed to have a completely different model, as long as they try to keep their userbase stable at 40 million or so and not grow further. Would that actually happen? I have no idea. But the potential exists, and it would be weird.
I'm also still a little iffy about that one part of Section 3, about enforcing a payment system. There's a way I could interpret that which I wouldn't be a fan of, but there's just enough ambiguity that I'm second guessing myself. And I can live with the rest of the bill, for sure.
It is far easier to go around that with side loading and 3rd party app store. It works because they are multiple steps in Apple chain to spot potential issues due to tighter control. Sideloaded stores and apps won't have those steps.
And regarding lobbying, not everything is public. If Antitrust commission wanted to do something regarding App stores they would do it long time ago not after Epic and Coalition for App Fairness started lobbying and suing.
Eh they've been doing this a while, and appealing to conspiracy isn't a very realistic argument imo. Sounds like you should stick to the apple app store though and never venture outside it if these are your worries :p
Have you ever heard of jailbreak? You already have a say.
I never owned Apple device in my life. I went from Java based OS phones to Symbian to Android and I modded every single of them. I am also PC/Windows user strictly (also modded that too). So basically i am on open platforms since I got interested in technology. And I am the first one who recommends closed system for relatives who are not tech savvy.
I don't think that's good enough. Our ability to install what we want shouldn't depend on finding an exploit. Rather, Apple just shouldn't be stopping us in the first place.
More importantly it shouldn't void your warranty or let Apple off the hook for service and repair work.
Percentage of people who know what they are doing with sideloading apps including all potential risks is minor compared to he rest of the users. And you are willing to compromise majority for that like 5%? I get bothered almost daily by coworkers and family members how they are getting tons of notifications on their Android phones just because they press Yes to everything.
if an app chooses not to use the apple store it does. And yea many won't do that but it gives the option for those that don't want to pay the extra.
The digital edition will be neutral soon. R+D costs are obviously not fully covered by that because R+D fuels so many other areas of the platform and the business as a whole.
Introducing a new SKU is not the same as flatly increasing the price of hardware. The console makers all already have multiple versions of their hardware, I'm sure that is going to continue and be expanded with or without a third-party store mandate. For instance, Nintendo is about to introduce a third version of the Switch that is $50 more expensive than the standard Switch...but I would not say "the price of the Switch has gone up!" because the standard model still exists. Nor will I say that if (when) Sony/MS introduce pro models of the PS5/Xbox. They're already emulating the PC market in this way.
See, this bolded statement is where I feel our thoughts on how these markets exist are so fundamentally opposed that it's difficult to have any discussion at all. Because this statement makes it sounds like it would be so easy for a third party to come in and become a dominant platform. Consistently, we have seen evidence of the opposite. Epic is the perfect example. They've spent years and hundreds of millions trying to fight Valve by snatching up any decent PC game as an exclusive and giving away a ton of free games... Steam is still the dominant PC platform and Valve has barely done anything to compete. Epic also tried EGS on Android and it wasn't working out so they decided to put the game on Googleplay. So why does this suddenly work if Epic does the same thing on Playstation?
I simply think you are underestimating how powerful these entrenched platforms are and the herculean effort it takes to deprogram an entire audience that has spent decades buying their games from these places.