Telegram files EU antitrust complaint against Apple’s App Store
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Users were able to run apps on their Mac directly bypassing AppStore since forever. Why would it suddenly be a dreadful problem if Apple would allow app sideloading on iOS?
Personally I like apple devices, I like that when I give them to my family I don't get a bunch of support questions like I do when I give them PC's or my old Android devices.
That said: I would prefer apple devices (and thus, their store) to be a minority market share, which pushes the play store to look at their own practices and increase the barrier to entry, or the standard to which applications are held.
Even my girlfriend (who is young and relatively tech savvy, though does not work in tech) has downloaded and executed virus' from the play store by mistake.
Or, maybe, you don't like the idea that you'll have to sideload the app you need because it isn't available in the AppStore? Hmm. Well, you'll feel a biiiiit like other people who don't have a choice under Apple's regime, with only difference that they can't run the app at all, and you can run it in a way that you don't like.
Sideloading is still possible and is free, but you have to know what you're doing. It's a tremendous barrier to entry (your keys even expire every few days so you have to keep re-sideloading) thus people don't bother with it.
Alternative appstore is basically same as sideloading, cause the latter is necessary for the former to function.
Btw important overlooked issue is not only sideloading per se, but unrestricted access to push notifications / subscribing to alternative push notification services. With restrictions on running in background iOS apps are next to useless without notifications - you won't get VoIP, email, chat apps working without capability to wake up on push.
I'm very happy in my locked platform, I'm happy that my family are on a locked platform.
If they (or I) want to be on a more open platform then that exists, just not for apple devcies; but for now I trust random developers less than I trust Apple.
If it becomes normalised to bypass the app store, then it's going to be very difficult to control the quality of software generally; and on a macro-scale will entice even large developers (like banks) to go the 'alternative app store' route, which will force everyone to be using applications which are not vetted in a reasonable way.
But why are you wording this as if AppStore will somehow vanish? I don't think it will be going anywhere even if some apps will start working without Apple's permission. Chances are, it'll get better if it has some real competition.
It's like buying an android phone then being sour that photoshop doesn't work, I think.
As for why I'm wording it as if the AppStore will dissapear, it's because of all the reasons I laid out.
Right now it's a gate or a fence; the great filter which all must pass through; but if there exists a cheaper/easier alternative that gives the same results, why not use that? It will become incredibly normal to run the alternative app store- to the point where a lot of software will be released only to run there (which is a stated aim) and if everyone has the alternative store, why bother with Apples?
Yes, for a developer or advanced user, walled gardens look bad. But we as a community need to accept that we are a small minority of users of Apple devices. I personally recommend iPhones and iPads to entry level users in my family because I know they can't mess up the device completely without knowing ... so, to be honest, because of the walled garden and the limited choices. And I accept that if I want more freedom, I have to get something else for me.
Therefore, the question isn't why someone doesn't want to give you the choice and freedom, but why you (and sometimes I, and a lot of people in our community) want to force a change to the majority of iPhone users that are perfectly happy with the current status quo. A status quo that was in place 5 to 10 years ago and was definitely in place when they bought their devices.
I think that Apple should allow apps to be installed from outside of the app store, but your argument is just a straw man.
As a consumer, I am 100% in favor of the way run the app store. I don't want to give random apps my credit card. I don't want to have 18 accounts to keep track of. I don't want to have to call telephone support to cancel my account. I don't want malware in my apps. I don't want apps to have my email if they don't need it. I don't need another middleman for content companies license and distribute. Everything Apple is doing is helping make a better app store for me.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24013658
I can add that he also doesn't want Chinese dissidents to run Signal or XMPP app to bypass wiretapping by the oppressive government.
Fairly certain user @spullara was talking about themselves personally.
> I'm very happy in my locked platform, I'm happy that my family are on a locked platform.
> If they (or I) want to be on a more open platform then that exists, just not for apple devcies; but for now I trust random developers less than I trust Apple.
You made the first choice, if the choice does not permit you to do what you want then you have made an incorrect choice. Apple did not choose you, you chose Apple.
I willingly bought my last iPhone knowing the restrictions of the App Store and it did not bother me. If it did I could have easily bought any of the Android phones or at the time Windows phones. If you bought an Apple device knowing the restriction why did you make the choice anyway?
Btw, another popular argument defending Apple is "Sideloaded apps will defraud users by tricking them into giving payment information and stealing funds" - but Apple already defrauded their users by selling them the device and next blocking them from using it in any way they want.
If a user wants to run an app on iOS device, and apps developer wants a user to run this app, it should not be Apple's business to stop them from doing it.
Which is of course possible, has been for a long long time, and doesn’t require Apple or AppStore approval. It’s even free to do if you don’t mind repeating your steps weekly.
It's not a choice when there are very limited handset operators available.
Market power is a very real thing.
I suggest that the overwhelming majority of iOS users would opt to be able to download apps out of the App store if this were an option.
not necessarily - I don't have an iPhone right now and I'd still attack Apple on that. Negating me this right would be the same that saying that as a french I couldn't go to protests against Guantanamo.
for a non-trivial amount of people because they or their peers use ios exclusive software already. There are only two major smartphone operating systems, and countless of walled gardens and exclusive features. So depending on circumstance, it's very easy to basically be forced to pick into an ecosystem.
Choice is a reasonable argument on the laptop market nowadays, the smartphone market fundamentally lacks choice and competition, at least at the ecosystem level.
On the other hand, if Apple would limit MacOS in this way I would be livid.
They're well on their merry way to doing exactly that.
It would benefit in some way (like being able to subscribe to Audible in the app) but also it could be less safe (because if Amazon can, anyone else also can, possibly without supervision)
I’m not saying the apple model is how I want things (far from it), but it certainly has been effective at controlling malware on the platform.
https://www.techradar.com/news/phantomlance-malware-breaches...
Dozens of malicious apps infected with the malware are being distributed via the Play Store and alternate app stores such as APKpure and APKCombo, often targeting users to spy on their habits and steal data.
According to security firm Kaspersky, this malware campaign has been live for over 4 years, and is likely the work of the OceanLotus advanced persistent threat (APT) group, thought to be based out of Vietnam.
From GP’s quote directly above.
https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...
Iirc the issue was that they first downloaded a file and then ran it. Thus there was a short window of time where someone can tamper with the file before it's running. Far from being a security nightmare it was a subtle flaw, and fixed quickly.
A mac-like system for iOS would work just fine.
That's the impression Wikipedia seems to give:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid
So, for my use case: I want to run some proprietary software, F-Droid will be insufficient.
Happy to be proven wrong.
You can add custom repositories in the fdroid app, as I understand it anyone can host a repo and put whatever they like on it.
I work with free software too so this was a very conscious decision for me.
Run open-source software everywhere else though.
I don't believe this issues you're facing come from android being open, but from google's poor design decisions like granting network access to apps by default.
Apple can do open platforms right if it wanted. It doesn't have to do them poorly like google.
It is a problem, there’s a bunch of malware on android.
Take New York Times. Last I checked, you can sign up online, but to cancel your subscription, you have to call and subject yourself to a slick sales pitch and all sorts of questions. It's inconvenient and borderline immoral.
One solution is, heh, the free hand / competition, but we clearly see that doesn't work all that well. A much simpler solution is to identify such behaviours and straight up outlaw that stuff. Which hasn't happened yet and probably won't for the foreseeable future.
Here's the thing: __The app store is in some ways like a government, and brings laws__. As long as that subscription were to run via the app store, you _CANNOT_ hide cancellation behind a phone number. Apple won't let you ship an app that works that way; in fact, apple does the billing.
I'm pretty sure that benefit pales in comparison to the problems that apple's sole ownership and onerous Judge Dredd-ian (judge, jury, _and_ executioner!) control over the fate of your apps on the apple app store bring.
But you paint the argument as zero cost to allowing alternate app stores, and __that is not true__.
Once alternate app stores or other enforced reduction in apple's abilities to enforce and police app store policy are in place, a bunch of apps WILL go sleazy on you where they wouldn't have otherwise.
NB: Of course, in practice, netflix etc. just do signups online, you get the same total lack of protection against sleazy stuff, and now the apps you download from the app store don't even tell you what you're supposed to do because apple won't let you explain that you need to sign up online and not in the app. Apple's solution / the current status quo sucks; probably sucks more than having alternate app stores available. All I'm saying is that having alternate app stores, whilst it brings a lot of upside, does bring downside, and that is (presumably) what the defenders of apple are trying to warn you about: Those downsides.
We don't need to imagine that scenario, that's Android, and Google still definitely holds massive control with it's play store rules.
> All I'm saying is that having alternate app stores, whilst it brings a lot of upside, does bring downside, and that is (presumably) what the defenders of apple are trying to warn you about: Those downsides.
So go ahead and pick your examples from the Android world.
I think a tentpole of Apple is that the billing should all flow through one source, clean and uncomplicated, along with a set guidelines of program coding/behavior. It happens to make Apple the gatekeeper, and there are deeper questions thereof, but that is the constraint inherent in the App Store.
i.e. how civil rights/discrimination law identifies how all laws are discriminatory, but which categories (i.e. race, religion, sex) are "protected" categories from discrimination/differentiation.
They asked me why I was cancelling. I said I don't really have time to get enough out of it to justify they cost. The "slick sales pitch" was to offer me a discount. I said I really don't have enough time for even that to be worth it. That was it.
I then made sure to tell him I was only cancelling the paper, not my crossword puzzle subscription, and mentioned that I realized this means that when my crossword subscription renewed (it was out of phase with my newspaper subscription) the price would be doubling because I would not longer get the 50% discount that newspaper subscribers get.
He informed me that this was not the case. Once you get the 50% of deal for the puzzle, you keep it as long as you maintain the puzzle subscription. I'd only lose it if I cancelled the puzzle, and later resubscribed while not having a newspaper subscription. I was pleasantly surprised.
There is no law in US that companies need to have online cancellation if they have online signup.
NY Times loves to abuse this.
I don’t want Apple to act like a government. I want the government to act like a government. Why isn’t the government doing more to stop companies from employing shady sales practices? Why doesn’t the government do more to protect my 92-year-old grandmother? Why is it so hard to cancel a gym membership? We should be able to get together and say, “as a society, we want to forbid predatory sales practices.”
The Apple approach has limited efficacy anyway. Sure, my grandmother can cancel subscriptions purchased through Apple—or she could, if she knew how to make them in the first place. But no, that requires a password.
So she has free apps like Duolingo. Those apps have ads. She taps the ads. They bring her to websites. She enters her credit card number. Bam, new scam subscription that she can’t cancel.
But Duolingo carries on, displaying the same scam ads, unimpeded by Apple or any government. Duolingo probably doesn’t even know about those ads. And if they did, “that’s the ad network’s problem.”
Some people will argue that it’s difficult to write legislation that covers all the bases. Of course it is. But a private company’s contracts and guidelines are no different in that regard.
That's a valid point, but: the US will probably require membership cancellations to not suck eventually. EU will too, maybe even earlier then US.
Japan? Not likely. Here the enterprise is king and individual is not a priority.
Russia? I don't even want to begin with this one.
And that's only 2 localities I had experiences living in, Apple & App Store probably operates in dozens of completely different jurisdictions, brining more or less the same rules everywhere.
And just like the laws made by the government some of those laws are unjust or even stupid.
Take the hemp prohibition as an example.
It is as stupid and useless as Apple's "law" which seems to make it impossible to provide open source apps in the app store.
Take a look at UTM: https://getutm.app/
Why on earth do you have to side load such a useful app? It does not make any sense.
The "we want your safety" statement is just useful for people who do not know any better. I do not want to be patronized like this as I am a professional user. As a person with some understanding about economics I know this is about money of course but I am very interested in the outcome of this behaviour towards professionals who will turn their back on Apple when they go on like this.
Now they even managed to further decrease the value of their desktop OS - starting an app with internet connection takes literally seconds whereas they started in the blink of an eye on older versions because of their background checks. Awesome job @Apple :thumbsup:
That said, I do think that 30% is excessive. Job's original announcement [1] suggested that the App Store's 30% was the cost of running the App Store; I don't believe that it is really costing that much to run now. Reducing the payment premium and/or allowing customer choice of paying the App Store rate, or the outside the store rate is maybe the least bad option here.
It's telling that there has been no substantive movement on margin from Apple or Google here. Steam is also 30% until you reach higher tiers, then it's 25%. Epic is only 12%. I think a lot of the current concerns would be allayed if the cut was only 12%.
If the guidelines are actually good for the end user, why does Apple violate so many of the app store guidelines in their own apps?
Or the browser: there is no technical reason for stopping alternative browsers from getting onto iOS, but it would make Safari commercially irrelevant.
I love the subjective memory / interpretation here. Apple didn’t block f.lux, there was no API available on iOS for it to work. Apple decided rather than provide a public API method, they’d just provide the feature itself. Sucks for f.lux, but far less than it did for LumaDisplay and Sidecar.
> there is no technical reason for stopping alternative browsers from getting onto iOS
1) alternative browsers exist on iOS. Chrome for example! Sure, you’d be fair to say “not real Chrome”, but then see point 2
2) the technical reason you claim doesn’t exist very much does. Web browsers require the ability to have dynamic code execution from untrusted sources. Look at all the OS compromises historically from browser bugs and you can potentially understand why Apple wants to try to exert control there. The counter argument of course is that Apple has also failed here, there’s been multiple jailbreaks which could be triggered by visiting a webpage, but I see Apple using that to justify their actions further (if even we can’t get it right always, no way others will). I’m not claiming that parenthetical mentality is justified, but it likely plays a part in what Apple thinks.
As for the browser: dynamic code execution is a red herring - there are plenty of runtimes like python available on the appstore, and they execute all sorts of crap just fine. Modern browser engines are sandboxed so hard, they are equivalent to (or better than) anything you find in an OS. The security angle nowadays is just a flimsy excuse to keep Safari (the IE6 of our times) from becoming utterly irrelevant overnight.
> they used a private API not allowed in appstore
So how did I have selective memory again?
(Will not reply to this thread further as it appears you aren’t debating in good faith)
Some people are easier to exploit and exploiting them online can be easy. My mother is in that group. It’s a very good feeling knowing I can tell her „just do it, as long as it is your iphone”.
We can have different edition of phones for both iOS and Android. One could be unlocked and allows side loading while the other doesn't.
Seems like an easy enough solution?
Mark the phones visibly so there is no way someone could mistake one for the other.
All iOS Devices allow side loading currently. You don’t even need the source to the app, you can sign any app binary (compiled yourself or from another) using a free Apple developer ID for 7 days. Don’t want to refresh every 7 days? Pay $100/year and not only can you run non-Apple approved apps for a year now, you can do the same for friends.
There’s even MacOS apps to make this trivially simple to do, even for lightly technical users.
If your mother is not that "technical" do you think Apple is so incompetent they could not make the enabling of side loading complex enough so is hard for this group of people to activate it? I am just 1 person and I am thinking at possible ways to do it for 1 minute and I have some solutions, Apple could do better.
Apple could create a "kid mode" that you can enable on your less technical family members, it could require someone else to authorize "unsafe" activity. There are solutions and is obvious that if the solution is for Apple interest is always found if the solution is against Apple interest is never found.
Other solution is to allow side loading only in EU, let EU people have the choice to be scammed or tricked to install apps that use the evil GPL but keep the US citizen "safe". Apple has done a lot of things to sell in China so doing different things for different markets is not something new for them. If this happens we can also then see the numbers and determine how stupid or not are the EU citizens that unlocked their phones but I have a permonition that even if things go well in EU I will see the comments that US is special, in US it will not work.
Interestingly, Apple already has 99% of this in place on iOS - if you have a "child" device in a family share account (maybe not the right word?), the "parent" has to approve even free app installs on iOS. Child hits install, it triggers a push message to the parent account to authorise the install (via touch ID/PIN).
So while it isn't quite there for authorising all unsafe activity (in fairness, maybe it is, perhaps I didn't find the options yet), but it certainly lets you control app store installs. In essence it feels like a personal version of lightweight MDM.
It would be straightforward for this to be extended to "Name wants to enable installing apps from outside the app store. This means you won't be able to approve what they install. Allow this?"
To me, if Apple were to allow sideloading, it would be controlled via this route, and manageable by MDM policies as well (so managed work devices can't run sideload apps).
I was also reminded how in the past if you got your phone from Vodafone it would be SIM locked and after your contract expired you could not use the phone on other networks, you had to find a phone service to unlock it, I am not sure if it was a national law or EU law that demanded that unlocking should be easy to do when the contract is over(you should ask for it and you should receive a code for free). With Apple you pay for the phone, you own it but you are still locked, we need a similar law that if you own the phone you should be allowed to unlock it.
They should at least allow optional sideloading on device versions they no longer support, e.g., "obsolete" iPhones and iPads. There should be an "official" way to "root" these devices that otherwise in effect can no longer use the AppStore (because most AppStore apps only work with the most recent iOS versions). Another idea would be to have an AppStore "archive" so older devices can still use an official AppStore.
Apple's "AppStore" is in effect a way to force obsolecence and mandate device upgrades.
Similarly, I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world. I am sure that the Apple services will also do better outside the Apple hardware group. There are plenty of innovations and certainly there is the tendency to use them to raise the prices for consumers (which is illegal) as opposed to grow the market. I will refrain to say if Apple if guilty in this case, just saying that if hypothetically it is, this is not the end. In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies instead of working around the laws.
Of course you can try and distort the meaning of monopoly but that isn't going to get you very far.
Are you arguing app developers have to see their apps to Apple? Which then sells them to consumers (as a monopoly)?
It's like having a monopoly in California. "Just sell in New York instead" doesn't work, because you already sell in New York and not selling in California doesn't get the California customers to the New York store.
Compare this to stores that actually have competition, e.g. three grocers on the same street corner. If you don't want to sell to one of them, the customers who want your product just go across the street and buy it there. If you sell to all of them they each represent a third of your sales. If you don't want to sell to one of them, you don't actually lose all of those sales because the same customers can still buy your product from the other stores.
If you don't sell to Apple, none of those app sales go to Android because people don't replace their $1000 phone to buy a $1 app. That's what makes it a different market, which is what makes it a monopoly.
The key to understanding this is to realize that you're talking about two different markets, which makes your question ambiguous.
Are you asking, do they have a monopoly over the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating? In that case the answer doesn't really matter, and I suspect this is the point you were trying to make, because the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating is not a meaningful market definition, since there could be other seating brands that compete for the same customers.
But the analogous question to the one I'm asking is, do they have a monopoly over seating for Mercedes vehicles? That could very well be a sensible market definition, because if you need a new seat for your Mercedes, one designed for a Chevy may not fit. And then the answer depends entirely on whether they have any competitors in that market. If five different companies make seats you can put in a Mercedes, none of them have a monopoly. If Mercedes -- or another company which isn't Mercedes, if Mercedes itself doesn't make them anymore -- is the only one making seats that fit in a Mercedes, then they have a monopoly on that market.
The question is whether the customer who has a Mercedes and needs a seat can only buy it from one place.
But everything you said would still hold true:
"They have a monopoly on iOS app stores." "This is a different market than Android app stores because the set of customers is completely different."
So clearly this definition cannot be the correct way to define what is and isn't a monopoly.
Maybe not to you but it is how the anti-monopoly law work in lots of countries. Funny that you can just say "Doesn't work, NEXT!" as if you know better than Telegram's lawyers. Apple will be fined or settle.
The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents.
In practice if the market was that small then nobody would care. It takes a certain market size before it's worth the effort of bringing a case against the monopolist. But that's a different question than whether there is one or not.
Your argument is essentially that if a small town with a population of 100 has only a single retail store within two hours drive, that store doesn't have a local monopoly because not enough people live there. But they still do. Even if they're too small for anybody to do anything about it in practice.
Apple, of course, is not that small.
That's incredibly tautological. Walmart has a monopoly on the distribution of products sold in Walmarts. Nintendo has a monopoly on the distribution of games on Nintendo products. Visa has a monopoly on Visa transactions.
These are not meaningful distinctions: the consumer has a choice not to shop at Walmart, not to buy a Nintendo product, and not to use a Visa card. Similarly, the consumer has a choice not to buy an Apple product.
The types of apps available on a particular phone are part of the purchasing decision of which phone to buy, just like which games are available for a gaming console might influence which console you buy.
A better analogy would be having a person with you all the time and told you what products you can buy or not buy from any of these stores and took a 30% either from you or the producers everytime you did.
Walmart is only a monopoly on walmart branded products sold on Walmart, for everything else you have the option to buy them somewhere else. Apple has monopoly on every single app sold on their app store, you can't buy them somewhere else without depending on the developer making a different version and forgoing the iPhone you had already bought.
> Apple has monopoly on every single app sold on their app store, you can't buy them somewhere else without depending on the developer making a different version and forgoing the iPhone you had already bought.
As I said elsewhere, both the hardware and software are part of the purchasing decision you make when you buy a phone. If you don't like the software, you can choose to buy a different phone.
It's not, because markets are defined by economics and not brands. People keep asserting over and over again that a brand is not a market, but nobody is claiming that, they just happen to coincide in this case.
What defines a market is whether there are substitutes. If you have an iPhone and need an app, and you could install an Android app on your iPhone, then iPhone apps and Android apps would be the same market. But since you can't, they're not.
Notice how this doesn't apply to random Walmart products. There may be a Walmart brand of motor oil that only Walmart sells, but you can go to Amazon and buy a different brand of motor oil and still use it in the same car. The relevant market is "motor oil of the spec that works with your car" rather than "Walmart motor oil" and Walmart doesn't have a monopoly on that.
But for the market "apps of the spec that works with your iPhone" you can only buy through Apple, so they do have a monopoly.
Sorry, that makes no sense. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all compete in the market of video games. They are not competing in three separate markets of "video games for Xbox", "video games for Playstations", and "video games for Nintendos". Nintendo games are substitutes for Xbox games, even though you can't take a Nintendo game and directly plug it into an Xbox.
As another commenter put it, you're gerrymandering the definition of the market to suit your argument.
That is precisely the point. iPhone has a market share of 45% in the US. Therefore Apple has absolute control on 45% of the US population's app provision, they are precisely a monopoly (etymology: single - provider) for that market. If 45% of the roads in the US was built by Apple and they had absolute control what cars run on it, they would still be a monopoly for all intents and purposes of why a monopoly is harmful and extractive.
Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with. Even if they were, at best it would mean we had a duopoly instead.
I'm only taking exception with claim that "Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores" based on reasoning that ignores market share, because that reasoning is tautological.
Also, Telegram's complaint was filed in the EU where Apple only has 25% market share and likely would not be considered to have a monopoly.
> Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with.
Competitors do not need to be 100% identical to be considered alternative products to each other. Xboxes, Playstations, and Nintendos have different hardware and software but they are all competing in the gaming console market.
I hope the investigation ends in telegrams favor.
Therefore, the legal options available to Apple are either 1) open up their platform, 2) permit Telegram to be sold on the App Store, or 3) rescind their false advertising. The ball is in the EU court.
[0] https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/03/14/privacy-thats-iph...
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/telegram-messenger/id686449807
The device is yours, the operating system is not, it has its own license and you even get regular updates of its terms. If you don't agree with them, you are free to jailbreak your device and use it at your own discretion & expense.
This may be true, but it seems hard to make the case that Apple is using monopoly power to stifle innovation in the CPU market, of all things.
> I am sure that the Apple services will also do better outside the Apple hardware group.
Really? I'm not at all sure that Apple Music, for instance, would be competitive with Spotify if it wasn't bundled with iOS devices -- I can't think of any other unbundled music service that's competitive with them. (And how many of your Android-using friends are Apple Music subscribers? It's technically possible, right?) Likewise, would lots of people be lining up to use iCloud if Macs, iPhones and iPads started with what amounts to "click here to use iCloud?" iMessage, maybe? Eh, maybe, but.
> In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies instead of working around the laws.
Sure, but I'm not convinced the problems with Apple's App Store policies are best addressed by forcing Apple to spin off "The App Store Company." They'd be much better addressed by forcing Apple to allow sideloading of apps (probably using the "Gatekeeper" technology they already have in place on Macs, which I naïvely thought would have come to iOS by now) and relaxing in-app purchase rules to the point where apps that don't -- or can't, like Amazon Kindle -- use Apple's in-app purchase framework can at least tell you how to buy content from it. Hell, as some HN nerds would tell you, you could get a huge chunk of the way there simply by forcing Apple to build full PWA support into WebKit. None of those things require Apple to be broken up in any material way.
Also, side note:
> Google executives were saying some years ago that if Android was not part of Google, it would have been one of hottest startups in the valley.
You know Android was one of the hottest startups in the Valley and that's why Google bought them, right? :) (Arguably hotter than PA Semi was when Apple bought them!)
All the big app stores that are also part of another purchase (e.g. hardware in this case) will almost inevitably have monopoly problems (nobody can compete with Apple on speed of devices so Apple can raise the "prices" of apps). You are talking about the technical aspect that sideloading should be allowed (i.e. some competition), but this is not enough - eventually this competition should have some form of an "equal" start, probably by allowing them to install the market from the App Store, which is what Telegram wanted in their case.
Just because someone has a different opinion to yours doesn't make them an "apologist".
Especially given that your opinion that every company needs to spin off their internal units into seperate companies is frankly insane.
When people dismiss the harm caused by the 30% tax, the lack of other ways to install software, the draconian rules and enforcement, the pain of developing for two completely different platforms, and the erosion of web tech, it's hard to see them as empathetic colleagues.
We're being shaken down here. It hurts. And we're mad.
How many stories have we seen about social networking apps being suspended from the app store because it's possible to view nude images? That's not really any concern of Apple's. How about when they started kicking out apps for controlling vaping devices? I detest people smoking/vaping around me as much as anyone, but I don't think Apple should be able to wield their vendor lock-in inflict their views on others.
This isn't even about markets or Apple choosing what they want to sell or other fluff. Apple has made themselves the gatekeeper of an expensive device tightly integrated into peoples' day-to-day lives, and is actively abusing that position to control individuals and profiteer egregiously by controlling what software is allowed in. It's as if the company that made your car blocked you from listening to metal or rap inside it, and took 30% of the cost of every gallon of fuel.
All your arguments apply equally to the US federal income tax. Try to sue the government on that and see where you end up. We all hate taxes as much as the next guy. Picking a stupid fight instead of focussing on your product will be detrimental to you and you will lose users. Just because you are part of a loud crowd doesn’t make you right or have the moral high ground.
I'm sorry you can't simply sink into a comfortable Google browser monopoly because one company has managed to ship something other than Chrome. But that's no bad thing.
Ouf, no, every company developers or buys technologies, which gives them competitive advantage and hence some margin.
This is not 'illegal' this is just normal business.
The App Store, however, is a different thing altogether, and there may be anti-trust issues there.
Finally - if Android was not part of Google, it's possibly they never would have seen the light of day. Android is not special. That it was free, backed by a massive company, chock full of all sorts of other services and 100's of millions in app development and R&D, promoted by the biggest software distributor in the world - is what made it 'special'. Danger was just a way for Google to move quickly into the space.
Without 'free Android' eating away at the bottom end of BlackBerry while the iPhone ate away at the top end ... we might be using iPhones and BlackBerries today.
The anti-trust case against Apple is legit, but it's also not perfectly straight forward. I hope Telegram wins, because if the EU requires Apps out of the App Store even just in Europe, I feel it would probably roil into the rest of thew world quickly enough and we can be free of that walled garden.
Who would buy their processor? Nobody.
Those people could leave now and build that startup. The valley is not known for its loyalty. Instead, ever more VLSI designers are parking themselves in the established companies.
There is a reason there have been almost no VLSI startups for 15+ years (what was the last "successful" one--Atheros?). It's a brutal business and takes multiple chunks of $100 million to succeed.
The margin, if it is indeed very high—and common sense says it must be very high—is just an indicator of how much power this control gets them and what the degree of harm might be.
No one forced anyone to buy an Apple product. Now if Apple tried to dictate what software you could use on platforms connected to your Apple product it would be an issue but they don't.
Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models.
Consoles being an obvious one.
I would argue that digital app stores should be treated as important and critical infrastructure. There should be a way for you to install (based on a contract) whatever you want from whoever you want.
I am all for capitalism but this is a monopolized area and deserves to be regulated.
So if Sony approves a non-gaming app suddenly their entire platform switches to critical infrastructure and must be opened up ?
And companies like Shopify run digital app stores. By what definition is their platform important and critical infrastructure ?
Pocket computers are generic compute devices. These should be the most open systems in the world, and yet, somehow we've been mind controlled into them becoming locked down fiefdoms.
People take pictures, make calls, make payments, find love, do business, arrange their schedule, take notes, post online, order food. Literally everything. On these devices.
For most, they've even taken the place of the PC.
They need to be open.
I continue to tell my representatives about this travesty.
How do we determine what is single-purpose and what isn't? Consoles have been used as everything from media servers (such as XBMC-turned-Kodi) to supercomputers (such as the Condor Cluster for the US Air Force). I'm certain there are more non-standard uses I haven't heard of, too.
There are dozens of choices for open smartphones in the market, just like there are multiple choices for open gaming solutions. However, only one choice runs iOS - just like only one choice runs the Playstation's OS.
I whole-heartedly agree that iPhones should be more open, I'm just curious why you're so quick to dismiss easier access to all consoles.
how about, "throwing all other computing devices away, can you get by with only using the one left?". If yes, it's propably a general purpose device.
Smartphones have become/are rapidly becoming the primary, often only computer people use to interact with the world, in the developing world in particular. It's a travesty that an entire generation will grow up without even the chance to have an open computation platform.
Just as an anecdote about how much damage this does in my opinion. When I was teaching first semester CS students a few years ago, an overwhelming majority already did not know how to boot from a USB stick or install an operating system on a machine.
Or why Apple's approach to mobile extends to PCs in general. Even though they have made crystal clear they will never have a completely locked down Mac.
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-storie...
Obviously PR speak is PR speak, but it goes to show that the narrative of Apple as an essential product is out there, and even courted by the company. The government usually has a hand in regulating such products.
What if microsoft app store became the only app store available on microsoft?
It's much harder to shoot yourself in the foot with iOS (and Android, I guess), and I'd say a considerable part of this stems from a relatively clean app store and few (or no) easy options to bypass that.
Of course, keeping app stores clean doesn't require the current predatory conditions, but for me it's a strong counter-argument to abolishing walled gardens completely, even though some, as power users, professionals, developers might desire the most open platform imaginable. I think especially app stores and the large walled gardens in general should be regulated a lot more strongly, though.
Many governments around the world are relying on apps to address the pandemic: how many of those government apps are released for Tesla or Sony?
Do you still think the importance of those companies/brands you listed are the same as iOS devices?
People keep bringing this up as if it wouldn't be better if they were required to allow competition too.
> Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models.
The illegality of murder destroys the business model of hitmen. Destroying harmful business models is the idea.
It's not as if consoles wouldn't exist under a different business model. The console itself would cost more (or just generate less profit) and the games would cost less. It's hard to see how that wouldn't be an improvement.
You might very well end up in a market where you could build your own console by plugging a game controller into a PC and installing SteamOS on it in addition to companies selling them pre-built like that, but what's so bad about that?
I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion.
How do you choose which group's harm is more important? And who do you trust to make that analysis?
It has a very specific meaning here. It means a market where the company is not subject to significant competitive pressure.
> I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion.
You are engaged in arbitrage. The company sold you a subsidized game console on the theory that you would buy games for it, and you didn't. If everyone did what you did the business model would fail anyway (or the company would devise a way to prevent you from doing that), so you're hardly in a position to argue against something else that attacks the same business model that you're attacking yourself. You would also have no recourse if the company implemented some method of preventing your arbitrage.
> How do you choose which group's harm is more important?
The one being deprived of the benefits of competition.
> And who do you trust to make that analysis?
You can make it yourself. Obviously you have to hire someone to actually do the enforcement, but if they come to the same conclusion as you then you know they're doing it right.
> Consoles being an obvious one.
Source?
Most of the latest consoles make profit from day 1 or after few months. It's not like PS3 anymore.
You can argue this model of extracting value and money in a roundabout way qualifies as predatory and should not exist. EU is already looking into it btw.
Check: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right
The argument itself is flawed too. It ignores that there are some things you cannot live with. That is your phone, not the console.
That’s some hyperbole from Telegram. How big is the App Store engineering and review team? I don’t know, but one report had at least 300 reviewers alone[1]. Add devops, engineering, management...this is easily a team of 500 people, almost certainly more. And then you’ve got to add hardware and opex costs.
Does Telegram seriously believe a team of that size costs “tens of millions”? Because I’ve never seen a project of that size and complexity come in at that level.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/how-apples-app-review-proces...
Telegram should rather make a convincing argument why Apple should be considered a monopolist, which is not clear to me given the overall <30% market share of Apple in the phone market.
It' doesn't matter than they're only ~11% marketshare of smartphones sold.
I can't install addons without going through their "app store".
We've been having this debate for the better part of the last decade because whether this constitutes a monopoly really isn't clear as either side insists that it is. There's not much precedent for this specific kind of maybe-monopoly out there, and it's unclear to me whether the semi-precedents I can think of really support the notion that the App Store is a monopoly.
Also, as people have pointed out elsewhere, a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. European antitrust law focuses on anti-competitive behavior, but American antitrust law focuses on perceived consumer harm. Look at antitrust suits against Apple's iBooks from years ago -- Apple's collusion with publishers was to break Amazon's de facto monopoly on ebooks. Giving pricing control back to publishers would have increased competition, but it would have raised prices for consumers, and that was what the courts cared about.
And this is actually a big thorn in the side of American antitrust action against Apple's app store. We can shout "walled garden" all we want (although I am getting super tired of that phrase, so let's not), but you need to find cases where this harmed consumers, not developers. Developers can line up around the block saying that Apple's policies are destroying their business, but unless America changes our standard of antitrust to be more like Europe's, that simply doesn't matter. Those cases are arguably out there -- I keep coming back to Apple's store policies that force Amazon to release a Kindle app that not only won't let you purchase books but can't even tell you a URL to go to -- but on the whole, this is a relatively high bar.
> It' doesn't matter than they're only ~11% marketshare of smartphones sold.
It very much does, because it means the consumer can choose to buy an alternative smartphone that is better suited to them.
Moreover, for the purposes of antitrust action, both the US and Europe have thresholds for the consideration of monopoly power that are well above 11%:
US: Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. [1]
Europe: The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market. [2]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
Mere exclusive purchase would be a problem if Apple is defined as a monopoly, and you are forced to use Apple as your vendor to release on iOS.
Also in the EU, having a monopoly is not illegal (as long as it was obtained fairly) - abuse of monopoly power is.
Surely being a monopolist means you are subject to additional rules, no doubt about that.
In any case, I think they can make a convincing argument that Apple is operating as an illegal trust. (If you alter the historical definition of "Trust" a bit.) I think that's more what they are going for here.
Whether the court will buy it? We'll see? I certainly would not plan on a win if I were Telegram, but it's worth a shot.
The trick is defining the market. Apple already has 90+% market share in many less broadly defined markets - e.g. for young consumers, or in higher priced apps - and what happens depends on who successfully segments the market in the eyes of regulators.
No, because in this case the alternative is not another phone but another app store.
Inconvenience is not a word in a definition of monopoly.
Can you clarify how it's hyperbole? Did you read it as being a yearly cost despite the quote referring to it as quarterly?
This reads funny since Telegram, after being banned by Russian authorities with a demand to disclose the E2E keys, got that ban lifted this June with Durov reportedly saying they can “catch and delete extremist and terrorist content”. In light of that I find it reckless not to presume that E2E chat content is among the “public content” Telegram “reviews”.
> Telegram said that in 2016 Apple restricted the messaging app from launching a gaming platform on the grounds that it went against App Store rules.
Ok, so they wanted to launch their own game store, basically? And what would their business model have been?
> In its complaint, Telegram took issue with Apple’s argument that the App Store commission keeps it running.
Why do I doubt that they were going to offer their gaming platform at-cost?
> Telegram, which has been used by demonstrators—most notably in Hong Kong—and drawn attacks from governments including China, has previously accused Apple of blocking updates as it faced mounting pressure in Russia. A two-year ban in the country for Telegram has recently been lifted.
I guess they want easier access to application in countries that telegram is banned and apple is helping
I would also be wary of letting the other party in a negotiation create strong incentives to never reach a new mutually beneficial agreement.
Source? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1chIByzDhsg
Telegram supposedly doesn't make a profit, but not having to pay corporate taxes also allows them to hide their profits. Where are they working from? How many employees are there? Also given that they had to return their ICO money and pay 18M USD in fines[1], how are they funding the supposedly free app when [2] estimates the running costs of the app are about 200M USD / year?
[1] https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/icos/sec-orde...
[2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/telegram-statistics/
if you're unfamiliar Pavel Durov created VK, which is a 'facebook-like' for Russia, although it's a bit more advanced than facebook, promoting piracy and some other stuff that wouldn't fly in the USA.
The Putin administration demanded Durov give access to personal data on the platform, Durov declined, went into self-imposed exile and the state confiscated his company. No VK is owned by the russian government, but Durov still had an enourmous personal wealth, something in the amount of 3 billion USD.
He started Telegram in exile from Russia in hopes of eventually making himself famous for being a free speech advocate, then using that fame to make money in other areas.
You can see his attempts with the TON blockchain thing and the new gaming platform. Adoption of telegram is failing, and his attempts at using telegram as a platform to gain wealth is also failing.
Any source on the amount?
"if you're unfamiliar Pavel Durov created VK"
Ah I see, what's the business VK is on? How did Pavel Durov make his money? Did he spy on VK users and display targeted ads like Facebook does? If, is it a good idea to trust him after that?
"went into self-imposed exile"
He returned to Russia two months later once the (possibly bogus) charges on driving over police officer's foot were dropped.
"something in the amount of 3 billion USD."
Source?
"in hopes of eventually making himself famous for being a free speech advocate"
So he set up to create a service that
* by default allows the server to see the content of all chats,
* that allows the server to always see the content of all group chats, and
* that allows the server to always see the content of all Windows/Linux desktop clients.
It's OK to be for free speech, but achieving that requires privacy for the activists, and Telegram is anything but.
"then using that fame to make money in other areas."
Are these business dealings public knowledge? Does Telegram publish anything regarding their business. I'd like to see if the records show that he indeed is not selling user data behind everyone's backs.
"his attempts at using telegram as a platform to gain wealth is also failing"
My concern is mainly, when there's so much valuable data that gets accumulated daily, what if he changes Telegram's business model once he runs out of money and it's time to cash in.
Even if Apple didn’t approve it, the statement “As a response we ported everything to a web based application” seems to imply the amount of “innovation hindering” isn’t that large.
A fully unrestricted phone might have cost more (because it is not cross subsidized by App Store profit), so it is unfair to demand full functionality at the subsidized price.
It's iPhones that subsidize everything else, including the AppStore. For all their talk of "going services", Apple is still first and foremost a hardware company.
(What would you say if your employer or client demands to pay a bit less after signing a contract with you?)
That's because they are facts. I mean, look up Apple reports, they are very readable.
> and the amount of the hypothetical subsidy
There is no such subsidy! Why would you "subsidize" something that makes 3-4 times as much money as you do...? The AppStore didn't even exist and the iPhone was already making money!
> The overall point is however that the App Store restriction was known at the time of purchase
Key point being was. One can just demand that new phones be sold without this restriction, if you really want to stick to the old rules.
> What would you say if your employer or client demands to pay a bit less
The government can mandate that your employer should pay you less from today, or even that it should pay you more for stuff done in the past (although retroactivity in law is pretty bad, it is still occasionally applied). Laws change every day, all over the world. Stuff that was legal yesterday might not be tomorrow, that's just a fact of life. And let's not even get into clients: cutting prices, credit notes, and discounts, are just the price of doing business and happen every minute of every day.
I write code for a living, and has had a MBP as my work machine for more than s decade, but each version is a worse experience for me.
Some hyperbole follows, but you know, I'm so, so, so fed up with this crap.
More code signing, triple click and spin around the Christmas tree to install an application, notarization, more things that you have turn off to be able to get things done, all of which essentially leaves me with a less secure computer since more and more of the security is based on the same things that makes using this +2000$ tool worse each iteration. The amazing time machine they were so proud of, isn't available for sale. The revolutionary magsafe, which I love, and as a contractor has saved my computer more than once, isn't en vogue any more. Keyboards that doesn't work.
One can't even just use the old version, as you are essentially forced to update the os/software, because things just stop working if you don't, and the nag screens never stop
However, changing platforms is not easy, or cheap. This wasn't anything that was easy to predict +10 years ago.
But then the iPhone, other mobile devices, and the app store started to pull in all the money. Since a few years, each release is a downgrade, but where to go?
People lauded Windows 10 for being so slick, but you essentially can't get the thing to not show random popups, nag you about "wrong live password", and just randomly reboot because it's decided you're not allowed to work right now, because this update has to run. Administration tools spread over 10 different apps and screens of various kinds.
Linux gives me heartache, most is not much different from when I ran Gentoo +10 years ago. Pseudo gui apps abounds, clipboard almost works, but there are 27 window managers, 97 different docks, oh, yes, seven different package managers that all really wants to be the only true package manager. Getting fonts to render readably in the majority of apps on a 4k screen was probably not more then a few days work. So many terrible apps. The kernel is of course rock solid, but no, still no drivers for many graphics cards, ati is quite good I heard, but exactly which card to buy? Touchpad support is also wonky, but it's like three guys mostly in their spare time, so that's not strange.
But no, I really didn't think the company that had been obsessed with user centricity and hci would stop caring about anything but the bank account, and which new fancy toy to try to entice people to buy. Making phones that are practically made to be easy to drop due to non-existent tactile feedback.
This year was the first year you could buy a non Apple machine with a touchpad that actually works. Embarrassing is what it is.
But no it's not a monopoly in one way, it's three different options that each are terrible in its own way.
Clearly, the market is not working. As everyone only tries to build walls around their piece of the cake instead of actually competing. While not a monopoly in name, the platforms are monopolies in anything but, because the cost, in time, skill, and money of changing platform is so high.
Apple products are beloved the way sports teams are.
Now you have to decide if those products should be tarnished (because that's what Apple would see it as) or not.
Can I buy porn from most mainstream retailers?
But by “porn” do you mean Playboy level nudity or more hard core?
Well, we don't know. But porn has historically been at the forefront of digital technology, so maybe some investment in sectors like AR and VR is being held back by the fact that Apple would never allow porn-related apps.
It's also not trivial to install Android apps outside the Play Store, for non-geeks.
"Meanwhile, the expenses required to host and review these apps are in the tens of millions, not billions of dollars."
As if the price a company charges for its product has to be tied strictly to the cost it incurs to make that product. Does Telegram follow the same rule in its business dealings?
As in so many disputes, the parties will claim this is about principles and yada yada yada, "Apple/Google exercises monopoly control, etc.
You can be guaranteed though, it's always just about the price and how the one party doesn't want to pay it, and the other party doesn't want to change it. Simple as that.
I guess giving a way like in Android where you hide the setting behind a flag in settings and explicitly keep warning the user when they install an app from outside is a decent middle ground.
I am not sure of this but I think recent version of either Android/Pixel do a check on apps even installed from outside for malicious activity.
This would not change the situation in HK where China could simply force Apple not to sign the Telegram app and instead sign their fake Telegram app.
Very few people know about this.
An arrangement like this would work fine on iOS too.
There is no technical motive behind Apple's refusal to allow sideloading. It's simply a monopolistic power-play.
It's a genuine questions since it's likely someone in hn can provide some peer reviewed data.
Probably better approach would be to develop better web APIs, so Telegram could be run in a browser with identical experience.
That would enable secret chats on desktop, so I am in.
I don't mind apple providing an official, supported by default, highly curated app store. But that shouldn't be the only way to install software.
On the other hand, there is one ecosystem which i wonder is comparable : the playstation one. Can you release a game on that console without explicit whiteflagging by sony ?
Nope. And the same goes for virtually all of the major video game consoles -- Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo's various consoles are all closed systems, with significantly more stringent rules than anything in the mobile market. In many cases, even starting to develop an application for the console requires the prior approval of the manufacturer.