Legislation mandating all platforms to allow for third party app stores to exist with zero functionality/feature penalties in terms of what those apps are able to do (Apple can't gatekeep certain features as only supported by Apple app store apps). I would dovetail this with legislation limiting app store cuts to 5%.
I support most of the requirements listed in this article, in addition to removing the 30% cut. I do not support third-party app stores on iOS because I believe that the benefits of increased consumer choice in that regard do not outweigh the concerns of allowing larger companies with significant app ecosystems (or governments) to make their own app stores with different, potentially user-hostile or privacy-compromising apps.
Agreed, I think legislation should just force Apple to allow for competing app stores. At the end of the day, the users make the choice. Epic for example made their own store on PC to rival Steam's 30% cut. And they could do the same for iOS and Android, but on iOS that isn't even an option.
At minimum if you operate an app store on your own platform that takes a cut the platform should allow alternative 3rd party stores to be used. Android/Windows/web/MacOS are already there on that software front. iOS/Consoles/SmartTVs and many others are not. It's probably why you hear about the Apple App Store 30% but not the Play/Microsoft Store 30% - those aren't the only options to distribute an app on those platforms. Users are definitely steered and incentivized to use them but not forced.
That in itself isn't a fix all, for example the Amazon app store for Android based devices still takes a 30% cut at the moment, but it opens the floodgates to stores like this that could start to create natural competition. And even if not at least you have the choice to try not to do that, look at Fortnite. Not for the court case but because they took a 0% cut on Android by distributing the app via their own store when they got kicked off due to that battle. Obviously not an option for everyone but you can still load the app on Android devices and Epic Games Store actually only takes a 12% cut as it's trying to compete. Even if none of this ends up mattering - at least one can load what they want on their devices.
.
At the more extreme end there is always antitrust action like the oft cited idea of splitting the likes of Apple or so on into "Apple Hardware" and "Apple Software" which would definitely blow away some anti-competition tendencies (How many use ios+safari+apple-hardware because that's what they would pick vs that's the only option to get any of the above? Probably less than 100%...) but at the same time are probably a bit extreme when we have tried tamer things like the above before.
Maybe this is the antitrust law we need for app stores: ban owners of app stores from distributing apps by any means if they wouldn't allow an app with the same functionality but written by an arbitrary third party to be distributed in their own store.
I think apple caving on 3rd party app stores might be the easy regulatory solution for Apple.
As a consumer there is definitely a tangible benefit to having the App Store be safe and consistent. Apple can impose its technical, moral, safety, and design philosophy on every app in its own stores like Disney or Whole Foods might with their retail products.
But if Hey Email or ClassPass or anyone else doesn't like Apples offerings, they can go to a 3rd party store and be available there. Like the new browser entitlement, Apple can choose which 3rd parties are able to allow installs (and hopefully some regulation prevents this from being anti-competitive).
There is no anti-competitive measures because there is no singular channel to install an app on an iphone anymore. And then Apple can make their App Store even more tightly controlled because every developer there is there by choice. Apple can cut custom deals to keep Google, Facebook or anyone else there, but Apple has to earn those partnerships like on the Mac App Store
The law should be that people can easily install 3rd party app stores on your platform, just like when M$ was forced to allow other browsers to be installed on their OS.
The idea that their app store must accept an app that makes money from other sources seems kinda backwards. You run an app store for profit. Just like I can't go into Target and sell my products on a popped up table, but I can open a store down the street to sell my products.
Make it so installation of stores is easy, and then let the market work it out.
The bill is pretty straight forward and can be found here [1]. There are 4 requirements which together fill about half a page. A, C, and D seem entirely reasonable in my opinion.
B is the controversial one.
A provider of a digital application distribution platform may not:
B) Require a developer to use the provider's digital transaction platform or in application payment system as the exclusive means for accepting payment from a user to download the developer's software application, or purchase a digital or physical product or service created, offered, or provided by the developer through a software application.
It seems reasonable that the app store should be able set processing requirements the for apps within the store.
What should be legislated and allowed is the ability of users to download alternative app stores onto their devices if they want to live outside of the walled garden.
Honestly I don't see how they can justify more than a few percent cut. They offer no value in terms of discoverability anymore, app stores essentially only serve the purpose of a file host.
But even if they were only taking a 5% cut, I think the argument still stands that they have a negative impact on consumers in that they decide what the hardware you bought is and isn't allowed to do. Apple can invalidate entire business models if they disallow an app on their store, and an entrepreneur can spend millions developing a business only to have it rendered inviable by a change to the terms and services which can be made over night without warning.
All of this could be solved by allowing side-loading. It wouldn't even have to be made easy to do - go ahead and bury it deep in the settings behind a bunch of scary warnings. But I see no excuse for not allowing this at all.
Isn’t the sensible option then to allow third party app stores? If you want a tightly regulated environment only stick to the official channels. Apple can continue to charge their premium for that.
From what I understood Apple will allow third-party app stores soon due to EU regulations, and is already (reportedly) in process of making that happen.
There's nothing stopping Apple (or any other app store vendor) from creating a middle ground, by requiring third parties to agree in advance to a strong set of data-handling and privacy rules in order to sell apps in their store. They could even periodically audit those third-party products; failure to live up to the terms the third party agreed to when they published the app would be pretty solid grounds for kicking them out of the store.
That stuff would cut into the planet-size hoard of profit Apple makes off the app store, though, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
So won’t the same people be screaming if Apple puts too tight of restrictions on a third party App Store? If Apple has to approve third party app stores, would people be happy?
Senate Bill ‚Open App Markets Bill’ will require Apple and Google to be more open to third-party app stores and sideloaded apps.
Quote:
The Open App Markets Act would protect developers' rights to tell consumers about lower prices and offer competitive pricing; protect sideloading of apps; open up competitive avenues for startup apps, third party app stores, and payment services; make it possible for developers to offer new experiences that take advantage of consumer device features; give consumers more control over their devices; prevent app stores from disadvantaging developers; and set safeguards to continue to protect privacy, security, and safety of consumers.
I’m wondering if the solution is forcing the platform vendors to allow the device owners to “bless” an App Store in the way that they can permit individual sideloaded apps.
This article glosses over the biggest deal in the bill.
Section 3 subsection d - INTEROPERABILITY
A Covered Company that controls the operating system or operating system configuration on which its App Store operates shall allow and provide the readily accessible means for users of that operating system to—
(1) choose third-party Apps or App Stores as defaults for categories appropriate to the App or App Store;
(2) install third-party Apps or App Stores through means other than its App Store; and
(3) hide or delete Apps or App Stores provided or preinstalled by the App Store owner or any of its business partners
Let's see how far this goes before it gets mangled all to hell.
I'd be perfectly happy if Apple were forced to allow alternative app stores on the IOS platform, so long as security was guaranteed and backed by legal penalties, if Apple was allowed to heavily curate the collection of apps offered by their own store.
I wouldn't use a third-party app store, nor recommend it, but I'd be fine with their existence.
Apple may be forced to have competing app stores but:
a) They would be allowed to then ban apps that exist on alternate stores.
b) They can still collect their 30% cut which no-one has ever said was not permitted. They already have telemetry about what apps are being installed on their phones and can simply bill the third party App Store. Non-payment would result in the store being banned.
Similar situation happened when Apple was forced to support alternate payment processors in Netherlands. Nobody used it because it ended up being less profitable than simply using Apple.
reply