Hacker News Reader

Comment by Johnny555 | Hacker News Reader

The law will prohibit the providers of Apple's iOS and Google's Android smartphone operating systems, app stores and payment platforms from preventing the sale of apps and services that directly compete with the native platforms' own.

I'm not sure what this means -- does this just mean that Apple can't prevent a third party from selling an app that does something an Apple app does, or does it mean they have to allow third party app stores? Or is it more about opening the payment platform so an app can take direct payments instead of having to go through Apple?

View on HN

I read this as Apple can't ban Spotify because they have Apple Music. The question is what happens when an app is competing with Apple but also is breaking Apple's TOS?

I think Apple might have to enforce the ToS on their own apps, if they want to levy them on competition, with such a law.

But that's me thinking common law thoughts, not sure whst Japan's legal system is like.

(There are alot lf things like this, such as when you are a distributor selling to more than your own stores.)

The issue that Spotify and others take with Apple is their 30% cut. So Spotify adds a payment processor that doesn't involve Apple, then what?

Then Apple will be forced to compete on merits

I think that is what you would like to happen but this would have to play out in court because Apple makes so much money from that 30% they would fight it tooth and nail.

No, Apple will still have the advantage of not being restricted like 3rd party apps when it comes to running background activities, access to hardware features they haven't published APIs for, and integration opportunities via private Apple only APIs amongst their various apps and platforms that 3rd party apps can't replicate since Apple literally doesn't make those knobs available to them.

Why can't my non-Apple laptop start a tethering session automatically with an iPhone when I open its lid? What good reason is there that a 3rd party tool can't generate an auto-reply to a notification from a chat app with my consent? Lots of user experience niceties that Apple keeps only for their 1st party apps to the detriment of us all.

Google does similar things on Android, but at least you can get most of these features through 3rd party stores like F-Droid.

Yeah, but the only reason devs are not using those "private" APIs is because Apple owns the only distribution possibility. For now, the 3rd party stores are a joke because Apple still has too much control (and the fees are a joke) but I hope the EU runs its course and finally forces them to allow installation of any potential software without any limitations.

It is extremely dumb and uncompetitive that iPhones cannot install any apps under the guise of security or whatever. Apple has rested on its laurel and made some stupid choices that seriously limit the potential of their hardware. It's funny how they announced many features that people have wanted for years at this WWDC; they are starting to feel the pressure, I guess.

The 30% fee is not (only) for payments. It's a royalty for the core platform.

Why doesn't the same logic apply to MacOS? Perhaps because that "royalty" has already been paid by users who bought the device?

No, because people wont accept it in the "old system".

Accept what? Greediness?

Apple used to charge for MacOS. And then they made it free because hardware sales more than made up for any costs of the platform.

Apple themselves claim they don't care if AppStore is profitable. Schiller himself suggested they cap AppStore revenue at 1 billion.

If it's so costly for them to run why don't they let devs and users use the alternatives? Alternative payment methods, alternative app distribution etc.?

Edit.

Here's Apple financial report for 2023: https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_earnings/2023/q4/fi...

- iPhone alone generated 200 billion in sales

- The entirety of their operational expenses is 54 billion

Apple's customers have already paid for whatever expenses Apple is incurring for the "core platform"

Couldn't they argue that these royalties don't apply if payments aren't routed through the core platform? Such as saying "oh, well, the user paid through the web version of Spotify, not the iOS one"?

Apple certainly looks at it that way, but is not legally entitled to collect a royalty simply for making apps that run on its operating system. Instead, they have created a technical mechanism to do so.

The EU and Japan have decided that's unfair.

Like every country that isn't Anglophone, Japan does not have a common law system, it's based on Germany's civil law system IIRC.

US is primarily English speaking and is not common law based. I assume the same is true for many Carribbean and Pacific island nations.

What universe do you live in? The US is absolutely a common law country.

Not Louisiana!

Depends on if you’re talking about civil or criminal law.

I guess its French origins might be related to that then.

I thought we were limiting it to English-speaking areas...

Maybe you're joking, but Louisiana is an English-speaking area. There's only a small part of the state where they commonly speak Cajun French.

The answer is obvious, because you can’t fairly resolve a conflict of interest like that - alignment between publishers and distributors in the same vertical should be banned.

The conclusion I think is they’d have to establish an independent arbitration panel and put them in charge. But they’ll lose control over their user experience then, so it’s full circle.

Thats the kind of regulation that inevitably fails for one reason or another, but usually capture. Ordering the break up the OS and App Store is a self-executing and relatively permanent solution that can’t be corrupted nearly as easily.

Realistically, no hardware manufacturer of a significant size (let's say 100k total devices) should be allowed to dictate what software can be distributed to users. It opens up all kinds of unfair business practices.

Realistically, including avionics and medical devices where the software is restricted by regulation (in theory) and where the manufacturer is legally liable for failure of their device?

More specifically, the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant?

>the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant?

I can see an argument for this. Nothing forced Apple to design their hardware this way: they could have built licensing/compliance limits into the hardware itself. But they didn't want to do that because they wanted to use the same HW for all markets, and different governments have different rules about which frequency bands are allowed. Of course, this then brings up the question: if they did make slightly different HW per-market (perhaps with 1-time fuses), what happens when someone brings their iPhone from one country to another and they've modified it to ignore any new region restrictions (Apple could still use SW to force new restrictions, though they can't allow anything new because of the HW restrictions) and it's broadcasting on an unallowed band?

My guess about roaming between different domestic and international regions: A handshake with the tower tells the phone what is the network type, then software (firmware) controls what frequencies to use. I just cannot believe in 2024 that this problem has not been solved many times over. What exactly is you qualm / concern?

The point is that someone could modify the software to broadcast on disallowed bands: this is one of the main arguments against allowing user-modifiable software on smartphones (or any radio device).

so what? broadcasting on unauthorized bands is essentially painting a "come fine me" beacon on yourself. surely the FCC (or it's Japanese equivalent) can handle these sorts of revenue opportunities without Apple's help.

If Johnny Nobucks makes an illegal broadcast using an Apple device - or rather if Johnny Nobucks makes an app for the express purpose of doing the illegal broadcast, and distributes it to 1 million other users on Apple devices — the FCC equivalent would faaaar prefer to sue 1 rich person (Apple) - with a chance of getting big bucks — than 1 million and 1 poor people — (Johnny no bucks and his users). But I’m pretty sure Apple would be able to put together a license model that makes them safe in this case, long before they were put in any legal danger.

Anyone who claims it’s an intractable is using it for a different purpose -/ either trying to keep their sweet monopoly - or wishing they could sue apple.

This is an interesting point. Is it not possible to buy a SDR (software-defined radio) and broadcast 4G/5G signal on disallowed bands? Also, I remember watching a video about repairing an ancient Nintendo Entertainment System. If you remove the faraday cage (metal box) around the video out signal, it accidentally broadcasts on disallowed bands. (I don't remember all the details.)

Watch them start distributing their programs through cartridges (hardware) to circumvent this type of law, or something ridiculous like that.

> Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant?

I mean, routers have worked like this for ages. OpenWRT has an entire page about tweaking your radio settings, and what could happen to you if you do. Why would Apple be held liable for something you did to your device?

https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/transmit.po...

>Why would Apple be held liable for something you did to your device

Because Apple is worth trillions of dollars

Yup. Regulators would rather sue Apple than the end users for the same reason John Dillinger chose to rob banks - “that’s where the money is.”

So is Cisco/Linksys

It is already legal to modify cars even though they are dangerous, so a working legal framework for that kind of stuff exists. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to handle the case where somebody chooses to run Doom on their pacemaker.

> It is already legal to modify cars even though they are dangerous

Not in places with regular inspection and mandated insurance. I.e. most civilised world.

That's not quite right. You can totally modify them. The restrictions are around what's allowed on public roads, not what you do with the car. (You can drive whatever you want on your land) And even then, many modifications are ok and you can get special classifications for "unsafe" cars (like vintage ones without any safety features)

Nearly all car mods pass inspection. Look at what is actually checked: safety and emissions. Nothing about speed, appearance, sound, horsepower, ride height, or stock state. And moreover: if you modify a car that fails inspection, it’s on you, not the manufacturer!

You are correct in the larger sense, I am just pointing out details. Sound checks are part of checks in some places where there are sound limits on vehicles. Some "mufflers" are more like megaphones.

> Realistically, including avionics and medical devices where the software is restricted by regulation (in theory) and where the manufacturer is legally liable for failure of their device?

Yes, absolutely. The responsible party is the operator of said equipment, and if they tinker with it, it's up to them to be compliant with FAA/FDA/HHS/etc. regulations or face proper legal reprecussions.

> More specifically, the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software.

See above. We can already do that today with WiFi chipsets that can be made to use frequencies that are illegal in a certain country. It's on the operator to ensure compliance. Alternatively, device manufacturers are free to use components that only work in a certain frequency spectrum - but that wouldn't prevent an operator from using them in another country.

We already solved those problems long ago.

>Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant?

no, because there's this weird concept that seems to be foreign to the modern software folk - Ownership.

Owner is held liable for that, not device manufacturer.

Careful: Before web apps were common, 3rd party applications on Windows would break all kinds of things.

The hardware manufacturer needs to ensure that software doesn't break the device.

Apple and Google are going well beyond any reasonable grey area, though. Demanding a cut if I buy a book through the Kindle app is absurd and has nothing to do with ensuring that Kindle doesn't break my smartphone.

> Demanding a cut if I buy a book through the Kindle app is absurd and has nothing to do with ensuring that Kindle doesn't break my smartphone.

"Ensuring that Kindle doesn't break my smartphone" requires time and effort. That's funded by the cut they take.

It is unfairly funded. The ensuring part requires the same time and effort for

Free apps, apps that make money off ads, apps that cost $1, apps that charge a monthly fee, apps that resell products where a 30% cut exceeds their margin.

Perhaps the stores should change to a model of choose your own adventure: pay per release or % cut. What would you say is a fair amount to charge per release - keeping in mind apple/google will want to maintain their insanely high profits from the app stores?

> That's funded by the cut they take.

Apple / Google do not need to take a 30% cut of every e-book ever sold to fund their review. That's absurd and illogical.

One estimate is that Amazon sells 487,000,000 ebooks a year. If we assume they cost $10 each, that's almost a $1.5 billion cut for Apple and Google.

It does not cost $1.5 billion for Apple and Google to review Kindle to make sure it doesn't damage devices.

Others have addressed why the price is ludicrous.

What if this is a service I don't? Why am I paying for it? The vendors selling in app items are certainly passing on some of the cost of this.

Windows 9x and classic Mac OS are extremely fragile compared to Windows NT, Darwin, or Linux. Doing anything non-trivial without breaking those systems required some skill.

That was in large part because the CPUs they run on lacked hardware memory protection and any process could crash and take everything else down with it. No hardware support and no support for those features in the OS. That changed quickly as the CPUs improved. All the UNIXes of the time run on CPUs with memory protection and never crashed.

As I understand it, the Intel 386 had it and would run Windows NT. Making Windows 95 (which required a 386 or better) a separate product was a business decision, not a technical one.

Without doing a bunch of research, it looks like things were more split on the Mac side; some Mac models had fancy MMUs while others didn't until the switch to PowerPC. Classic Mac OS didn't support memory protection, and Apple's quest for a replacement operating system cumulating in the acquisition of NeXT is well known.

The 386 was technically enough to run NT, but the additional features of the operating system demanded additional resources, making it sluggish on the hardware most home users actually had. NT also couldn't use drivers written for DOS or Windows 3.x.

Conversely, Windows 9x could have made more aggressive use of the processor's protected mode, but it would have broken a lot of programs that worked fine on Windows 3.x. Windows 9x was still capable of running most 16-bit real mode software and generally allowed it to access BIOS and hardware, which NT couldn't allow without breaking the security model. Many "enterprise" customers even stayed on 9x instead of NT simply because it ran the software they used.

It took another few years before the hardware got fast enough and the software base moved to mostly 32-bit protected-mode code to merge the two product lines. However, there were still problems when it finally happened with XP.

It was probably a good business decision. Microsoft is famous for commercial success despite the hacker crowd typically having unfavorable opinions about their products.

The best example that comes to mind for me is Windows 95 having a special case in its memory management to work around a bug in SimCity. From a technical perspective, that's nuts, but from a business perspective I imagine not doing that would have hurt both immediate sales and consumer trust in the brand.

I guess the line between "business" and "technical" reasons here is a little blurry. Keeping SimCity or any other widely used program working through "hacks" doesn't seem nearly as bonkers in the days before widespread high-speed Internet access. Even if Maxis did patch their game, most people would have no way to update their copy.

A process on Windows NT can do quite a lot of damage: Change registry values, change installed libraries...

A lot of the problems arose from shoddy installers that wouldn't clean themselves up correctly on uninstall; requiring periodic reinstalls.

I really don’t need Apple or Google protecting me, but thanks.

We all benefit from but having massive botnets and not having to worry that every app we install is copying all of our data to a server.

Do we really, though? It sounds a lot like buying short term security at the cost of freedom.

We buy that all the time, and ask for a second helping. All things are temporary, and often this is a reasonable tradeoff.

The problem isn't in that transaction, the problem is conflicts of interest. Platform vendors engaged in both gatekeeping and building their own apps have an inherent conflict of interest. I think that Apple in particular (but not Apple alone) abuses it quite brazenly.

The issue isn't that the police exist (a tradeoff of freedom for temporary security, we'd all be freer if they didn't), the issue is when they start shaking me down, or otherwise brutalizing me.

It's true that without Apple and Google's eye we'd have more cases of malware in our devices.

But I think it's also true that people are more than capable of adapting to such landscapes because we already do that with our desktop/laptop computers. Yes, malware exists and people do get their computers infected. But I believe the reliance of a sort of "watchful eye" also makes us lazy.

I mean, the ideal situation is not one where Apple doesn't have an app store. But imo more like what Google does with android where you can install anything if you really want.

I think the cuts these companies take from having a curated store is too high though. And in the case of apple there's simply no alternative (well, there's the nascent stage of an alternative forming in Europe I guess).

> But I believe the reliance of a sort of "watchful eye" also makes us lazy.

This is a common point, but similar to how there was widespread fear that seatbelts would encourage people to drive dangerously.

Security should be baked into the platform and not a task for an 89 year old grandfather to have to deal with.

You can bake security into the platform while still letting power users step over the guard rails. A better analogy than seatbelts would be child locks. Yes, they're great to have. Sure, maybe they should be enabled by default. But you probably wouldn't want to buy a car that had permanent child locks.

> The hardware manufacturer needs to ensure that software doesn't break the device.

Preventing software from breaking a device is a solved problem. All you need is a CPU that supports memory protection, and an appropriately designed OS.

If you want to only run software that's been OK'ed by a third party, that's certainly a choice you can make for yourself or your organization.

I don't like that this choice is imposed on almost-all cellphone users by monopoly.

What? I thought Androids whole thing is you can install arbitrary apks

> The hardware manufacturer needs to ensure that software doesn't break the device.

What about those of us who want to break our devices? (At least, according to the manufacturer's idea of what "broken" is.)

> Before web apps were common, 3rd party applications on Windows would break all kinds of things.

I use Windows since the 90's and would only agree with you in the context of buggy drivers or malware.

Even today I don't use the Windows Store (except for one time I when I installed a Bluetooth audio "bridge") and all the "apps" I install work just fine.

> The hardware manufacturer needs to ensure that software doesn't break the device.

The software manufacturer must make sure the software doesn't break the device, whatever "breaking the device" means (sounds almost like "don't brick the wifi chip").

I mean, it's also the responsibility of the user to not install shady software.

From what I always understood, the argument for the App Store was to ensure the hardware remained stable. While it's easy to say, "it's mine, I can do what I want," when that device is a persons life line to emergency services in the even something happens to them, that is not a responsibility a company should take lightly. I like to think Apple takes that seriously and acts in accordance with that responsibly. They've said as much publicly, but of course one can choose to believe them or not.

Even if someone wants to ignore this concept, where is the line drawn? Should a hardware manufacturer, or OS vendor, be allowed to make a product that blocks malware on their systems (like Windows Defender)? Windows was seen as a poor product because of all the adware that infected it in the early 2000s. That issue has largely been resolved, thanks to efforts from Microsoft. Should they not be allowed to solve the biggest issue that plagued the public perception of their product?

I realize I'm move the goalpost slightly, from hardware to OS vendor, but ultimately, it isn't Apple's hardware that's creating these controls, it's iOS, the operating system. And in the case of Google, it's clearly an OS vendor issue, as Android is installed on a wide variety of hardware from many different OEMs.

seems like a false dilemma to me. the platform owner should do all those responsible things that you mention. they should also offer an escape hatch for turning all those portions off, should the owner of the device so choose. I respect Apple's attitude much more than Google and Microsoft these days, but they really go too far with locking down iOS.

Your Windows Defender argument seems like apples and oranges. It doesn't fully prevent adware infection anyway, but regardless, the discussion is about whether a hardware maker (or platform owner if you're going to try to extend this to OSes) should be allowed to prevent 3rd-party software selected by the user from running on their platform.

Defender doesn't do this: it's an optional security application by MS that's included with Windows. Users are free to disable it if they wish. Nothing is preventing Windows users from running whatever software on top of Windows that they like. Defender will prevent some malware from running, and many users like this for obvious reasons, and the fact that it's included for free unlike competing anti-malware software, but it's not so baked into Windows that you can't turn it off. An antitrust argument could possibly be made, along the lines of Windows including IE and putting competing software out of business, but that's a different issue than what we're discussing.

So you're right about this being really an OS vendor issue, but Microsoft doesn't force anyone to use Defender, and doesn't prevent anyone from using competing products. Google also allows using competing app stores (or even side-loading .apk files), though only a tiny fraction of users take advantage of this. Apple is really the problem here because it doesn't allow these things at all.

I think it is reasonable for them to decide what software is available officially, in order to check for compatibility, quality, etc. However, users should be allow to load software that has not been approved and to write their own software too; and the software provided officially should not be required (if it is documented, you can write your own; if it is FOSS, then you can modify it and provide modified versions of the software). This does not excuse unfair business practices though, but it does ensure that users can easily override it if they do not like some of their business practices. The number of devices is not relevant. Even on many Linux systems there is a package manager, although you can also write your own software instead of using that in the package manager if you wish, and that should also be working with Apple, etc, just as well.

The question wasn't "should" but "can". Don't write inflammatory posts that don't answer the question.

Movie makers shouldn't own cinemas.

Car makers shouldn't own dealerships.

Hardware makers of general computing devices (non-appliances) shouldn't make Apps.

This game has played out a few times. Lets see how this one goes.

Where is the line? Because what you describe would block any plugin system in any software: AutoCad maker should not make autocad features because there could be third party extensions instead, and they can not make extensions themselves…? Or microsoft can not add nee features to VSCode as it competes with extensions, and they can not make their own extensions because they already on VSCode as a platform?

People shouldn't be dishonest, yet we can't just outlaw lies.

But we can outlaw lying in advertisements and product information.

It basically comes down to the scale and context. Things don't need to be completely morally black and white for us to see that something is generally bad.

All of those are common in Japan.

Yes, these are all good examples of things that actually shouldn't be done, under a certain interpretation of law.

They are perfectly reasonable under a certain interpretation of monopoly. It's just that the US definition and that in Europe (and elsewhere) differ quite profoundly.

United States anti-trust revolves around the idea of harms. You have to show that Mr Moneybag's empire causes material harm to customers - such as paying more than they could in a more efficient market.

The European (and it seems Japanese) take is directed at power. Even if it benefits consumers it's wrong to leverage dominance in one area to obtain power in another.

Re: movie makers owning cinemas, Sony just acquired Alamo Drafthouse yesterday (until 2020, this wasn’t allowed):

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/sony-pic...

Car makers shouldn't own dealerships.

Not an example I'd use to back up the pro-consumer argument you're making.

Being against vertical integration is not an explicitly pro-consumer argument. It's an argument in favor of regulating market power. Consumers may well pay a bit more in some cases, but they will be rewarded with healthier, more resilient markets.

Yeah, the car dealerships are one of the more toxic interests in politics due to their legally-protected niche, and are in general a horrible leach on the economy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_zWFGOSD28

It will have to go to court

Apple's TOS does not have the same standing as a law, so whenever Apple's TOS is incompatible with Japan's law it probably will not be able to be enforced in Japan

Considering this is a law, Apple's TOS becomes about not worth the toilet paper you could print it on.

Contracts can't contradict existing law. Even in the US, I think.

I hate Apple's app store policies as much as the next guy, but does this mean I can make malware that plays music and Apple has to allow it in the app store?

No because Malware breaks the law.

Presumably Apple could still legally restrict malware because they are not distributing their own versions of malware, yes?

But then they can restrict anything, on the basis that the software they're restricting does more than their software.

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek, but I find your premise very fun when thinking about how quickly it can be taken to extremes with criminal or civil damages.

Thankfully, our legal systems are much better equipped to deal with ambiguity like this than I think you are proposing.

I guess I was more saying that ambiguous laws can cause more harm than good, but then I was basing that on the title of the article of a summary of a translation of a summary of a law, so I'm probably wrong :P

Is filtering for malware forbidden by any law?

And btw, those apps that the app store is full of that trick you into a $80/month subscription aren't malware?

Yes, the law in question, which forbids Apple banning apps that share functionality with Apple's apps.

So Apple's apps are malware? :p

To clarify the original premise:

I release an app that BOTH plays music AND is malware. Under this law, Apple can't ban the app (because it's malware) because the law prevents it to (because the app plays music, competing with one of Apple's apps).

The app is already illegal because of whatever other laws apply to it. You don't even have to have digital specific laws, any law dealing with fraud or theft will apply.

Bonus: you haven't read the Japanese law in the original Japanese legalese*, just an english summary.

* And since it's in legalese, you probably couldn't even if you spoke some Japanese.

In all likelihood, some of the pro-competitive laws will render illegal those terms of the TOS which are anti-competitive. Any rule in a TOS that is illegal is effectively tossed.

Also wondering, since to be truly competitive (on iOS) developers would need access to APIs they can't currently use.

Like what?

It's rather dated, but https://github.com/nst/iOS-Runtime-Headers

JIT code execution, NFC access, ability to use microphone and webcam while multi-tasking, to name the ones I've encountered.

Pretty sure normal apps can use the mic when multitasking

Yep. The Cornell University bird identification app listens for birds just fine while the user is doing something else.

It's specifically the camera feed that cannot be used while doing split view or other multitasking modes on the iPad, unless the app has Apple's special blessing. This very clearly puts any new or small video chatting apps at a disadvantage compared to incumbents.

As a user, I don't want any apps to have direct access to sensing hardware without going through Apple's APIs that control prompt for access and respect user settings.

That's fine. I sure hope nobody is asking for apps to be able to ignore the user's intent. Currently, there is no way for a user to grant applications these permissions, only Apple can bless apps with them.

Of course, but that's not the issue that's being described here. The issue is 1st party APIs that only Apple or Google have access to, that 3rd party apps can't use, regardless of whether the use would like to grant them permission.

So apple are required to offer a stable API for everything their device can possibly do, from the get go?

Yes. Apple’s own apps should have no advantages over third-party apps.

Is it that big an advantage to test APIs that are still in beta and may change at any time? With their built in apps they can fix both pieces at once, but if they started breaking large numbers of apps every update I do not think developers would be happy.

Apple already has the API for it, they use it all the time themselves. They just lock out a lot of the features for third party developers.

IMO they should be required to offer the same API they use when they release an app that's using it. I don't think it has to be stable - it just has to be at the level of maturity that their internal apps are using. That does require a certain minimal level of security and inspectability - but that seems reasonable when you're selling a platform like this.

The Google acquisition of Fitbit was only approved by the EU under the stipulation that they can't offer any 1st party APIs for Fitbit/Google wearables that aren't available to 3rd party wearables.

Apple Watch doesn't have to play by the same rules.

As a user no apps outside of Apple's will be on your iphone if you don't explicitely install them. Make sure to install no such app and you'll be fine for the forseeable future.

If you think this is unamanageable and there needs to be more provision to protect your consumer rights, you should talk to the consumer rights regulators to ban the behaviors you need protection from, Apple isn't a proxy for that.

A technical solution that prevents the issue in the first place is better than a legal protection that slaps a company on the wrist if they are caught.

That's quite literally a technical solution to a social problem.

And as usual, the problem is not fixed, Apple just gets to chose who they get cosy with. Historically Japan Railways had privileges the France national railway didn't, for instance.

I think this is unmanageable, but I am happy with the status quo. If I want a device with an alternative marketplace, I can go go android. Instead I now have people who want to use the device that I bought under the terms and agreement that was available changing how I use the device because they think it impinges on their rights.

Apple has been serving as a fairly effective proxy based solely on the fact that they have developed the software, the developer tools, the hardware and the APIs and the distribution platform that developers use. The same thing that makes the iPhone lucrative for third party developers is also he same thing that makes it lucrative to bad actors, and part of the iPhone’s appeal is precisely because it is more locked down than Android. I can try out an app, find out the developer is an asshole that wants access to all my contacts based solely off the fact that I’m getting prompted by a system UI and delete the app and know that it is gone.

So yes, there is totally a place for private enforcement of a comprehensive developer agreement (read: contract) backed by automated review tools and human review. It’s not perfect, but it is pretty good.

But the apps by Apple and Google can do that. Why do you want their Apps to be able todo that and not others?

NFC is accessible through the API

Anything you’d be able to access on a general computing device. For example the Windows API.

Having the same APIs that Photos uses being accessible from any app on any platform would be as big of a leap in photography as the cellphone was.

Allowing people to choose an Apple News backend would save the news industry.

Apple’s P2P payments are a huge flop. Let any vendor do it.

Don’t even get me started on the App Store.

Come to think of it, almost every Apple app I use nowadays either sucks or is absolutely terrible. Notes might be the only thing I use that I would still choose to use despite alternatives, everything else is compulsory (or someone else’s compulsory thing). Like fuck Gmail for not blocking Promotions. So it’s all a win for consumers and producers alike.

The ability to sync data in the background with the screen off is one. For example, Google Photos and Spotify require the screen on and app open to sync, while the Apple apps sync anytime they need to.

I wonder if this compares to or will ever affect well known non-phone japanese platforms such as nintendo or sony

I would love to see Nintendo throwing a fit if they had to allow homebrew to run on their consoles.

And I think it would be good! Why don't they get a cut of every game sale and get to block other companies for producing software for their hardware.

An app store would be one of the cases where third parties might want to do what Apple does. Once that's done there's no case for payments to go through Apple.

I'm just waiting for someone to create a simple app (like notes perhaps?) that has the name "Japan sucks" or "overthrow Japan".

The problem lawmakers have (all lawmakers, not just in Japan), is that they don't understand second order effects. [0]

[0] - https://fs.blog/second-order-thinking/

Why shouldn't it be named Japan rocks since this is an extremely good law?

When looking at unintended consequences, you always go with the worst case when planning, not the best case. That's why.

This is sideloading mandate following EU regs. IANAL, details may vary, the spirit is the same.

That's not what it says at all though.

i suppose it means that apple+google can no longer ban third party stores too

Translator skill/bureaucracy issue. Japanese in Japanese out(btw vice versa). Texts written by a monolingual speaker in Japanese don't translate well, especially if done by the book. There's original Japanese source not linked from the article[0], and longer NHK News source taken from TV news script[1] is available too if you'd like to verify through machine translators.

0: https://nordot.app/1173382143705366598

1: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20240612/k10014478361000.ht...

> from preventing the sale of apps and services

I think the important keyword here is “services” which can mean a lot of things. App stores can be considered services. An alternative payment platform is fair game too.

Also, does this mean that you should be allowed to install different browser engines that compete with Safari?

Just waiting for Adobe Store, Amazon Store, Microsoft Store, Epic Games Store, etc. to be installed on every phones soon.

Current status isn't normal, but no one would complain about it if transaction fees weren't abusive.

> Current status isn't normal, but no one would complain about it if transaction fees weren't abusive.

This is an oft-repeated misconception.

Even if transaction fees were 0%, we'd be way better off with alternative stores.

You're just so used to how shitty things are that you can't conceive of a better alternative.

Consider that there are plenty of completely free games on Steam that are popular and help those creators find thriving communities. How? They have good discovery.

App Store and Google Play sucks in every way. Discovery is awful. Their approach is awful. Why even show download counts and top lists? Stupid, stupid stupid. But you have no choice as a consumer or developer. So the top developers will not complain. What's the point?

And anyway, you're complaining about a world where alternatives are viable. Why are alternatives being viable a bad thing. If EGS is paying up front for games and giving them away for free as cross-promo for Fortnite, better that than ad supported garbage.

What exactly is the bad thing here, for consumers? The negative aesthetic experience of having more icons? Everyone has to oppose this crushed-in-head line of thinking. One meaingless detail that impacts an extremely low brow part of the aesthetic experience - the fucking home screen icons - should not preclude the gain in meaning from 10k-100k more developers who could flourish in the mobile ecosystem if it were to have working discovery. It has the same energy as requiring Helldivers users to create PSN accounts - offensive only in a strictly aesthetic sense even though successful competition and cross promo benefits everyone. The users' fixation on meaningless aesthetics is wrong.

I mean Apple could make discovery pluggable too, all of it could be pluggable and have fewer "icons," this isn't even a real obstacle. There are many, many ideas in this space, and no permissions to do any of it.

As it is, the App Store and Google Play are glorified install wizards. Open, install TikTok, Google Maps, whatever. Never visit again. That is 98% of people. That's horrible and its Apple's fault. TikTok already does not pay any fees. This is just to show that you are not right in general, even if you are right about the one company you've heard of that went and took these people to court in this country for an outcome that you should be in favor of.

Free app stores like F-Droid are also great for stopping you from downloading crap software. Whenever I need "normal software" (music player, PDF reader, RSS feed, what have you) I search for it there and don't suffer through ads or microtransactions. It's like using Linux, free software is just what I default to now.

Using stock iOS and Android today, it feels like both sides have lost the script. The entire pipeline of "consumption" dominates both platforms, and demands you pay money or accept a competitor's inferior product. Google didn't even let F-Droid auto-update apps until recently, it's a racket on either side. We need to bring the hammer down and enable people to stop supporting shit businesses. The current loop of consumption is going to kill everything we love about computing with a long and painful extortion process.

Real question: How does F-Droid police malware?

By disallowing all proprietary software, building each application themselves, and then signing it with their key before the end-user receives it.

I was not aware. This is interesting to know. Let's go deeper about "malware". I'm sorry that I was not more specific. What about some dumb app that shows holiday calendars or "the weather", but actually uses your mobile to secretly mine Bitcoin? Does their process also stop that type of malware?

That sort of attack would need to take one of two forms:

1) Hijacking an already-approved application

2) Creating a forked/new fraudulent application and submitting it to the store

Option 1 requires you to fool the repository owner, first of all. That would mean submitting a pull-request with your malicious code, having that malicious code reviewed by the app author, and then getting it into a major release. In most apps with a significant userbase that's nigh-unimaginable; especially if there are testers or multiple contributors testing and debugging on recent builds.

Option 2 requires you to fool the F-Droid admins. This means one of two things. Either creating a forked application with plausible yet distinct features that make it necessary to be forked from the main project. Alternatively, you get ChatGPT (or just copy boilerplate ffs) and make a calculator app or whatever, commit it all to Github and send it in for review. Both of these routes are horribly suspicious - a reviewer is going to want to see if you have multiple contributors, a long history on Github, linked social media accounts or websites, other repositories, binary blobs, that sort of stuff. Maybe they aren't the most cautious, but suffice to say anyone making an attack like this is going to be covered in red flags.

So; it's a feasible attack. But it requires so much social manipulation for so little feasible gain (especially when F-Droid wasn't even auto-updating for most people) that it's not worth the effort. If you do manage such a daring attack, your reward is maybe 300-odd sideloading users that mistakenly clicked your install button instead of the other guy's.

> App Store and Google Play sucks in every way. Discovery is awful. Their approach is awful.

~30% of Apple's total value could be attributed to the App Store alone. That's a ~$1T company.

If you think the product is awful - I don't know what to tell you.

Next, are you going to tell me the iPhone is awful and Nvidia's GPUs, too?

Look, just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it's awful.

The App Store could be better. It doesn't suck.

99% of people opening the App Store are not opening it to solve a problem with software. They’re opening it because it is the only way to install Disney+, ChatGPT or whatever thing they’ve heard of through a $10m-$1b of ad budget and ubiquity in the discourse. Compare to Steam where most people opening it are doing so to launch games and learn more about other new games. The App Store sucks.

Lots of things suck and make money, tons of money. OPEC absolutely sucks and makes tons of money, are you going to tell me “OPEC could be better. It doesn’t suck.” Monopolies and cartels don’t just suck, they are horrible, they are the biggest antagonists in our lives, because everyone’s income is someone else’s expense, and we don’t all work for Apple or OPEC.

Your first paragraph raises some very good points. I am concerned about this last point:

    > The App Store sucks.

Can you give some specifics? Do any other app store do it better?

So much about it sucks. I am actually amazed when an app I want is actually on the app store.

It needs an iCloud log in, so you can't install free software on a kiosk without a throw away account. Which is hard to set up.

Why do you first need to 'get' an app and then install it?

How many affirmations do you need?

Ok, these are good points. I was not aware. Thanks to share. It sounds like the "friction" to use Apple AppStore is much too high. Do you think this is done in the name of security or tracking users' behaviour?

The value is in the lock in, though. This absolutely sucks for consumers and the profit is just an indication of market inefficiency. We need to be able to force competition to bring the valuation of the app store and the value the hardware provides users in line with the potential of the technology.

If apple truly is bringing the market what it wants at a price folks find reasonable surely this competition wouldn't impact anything!

My fear is that if I want to download Skype or Teams, I’ll need to first download the Microsoft Store app, and then sign in, and then download the app I want. And the store will be slow and shitty and packed with ads. Likewise for Meta, Adobe, every big game publisher, etc. And my subscriptions will end up spread across multiple different stores rather than all in one place.

That feels like the natural direction App Store competition would take us. But, on the other hand, it doesn’t seem to have happened on Android, so maybe I’m being overly pessimistic.

The PC gaming industry is a perfect example of this. In the last 5-6 years I have had to install and use the following game stores:

* Epic's Launcher

* EA's Origin

* Ubisoft Connect

* Steam

* GOG

* Xbox Store

* Battle.net

I had a brief Gatcha game phase (before I realized how pay-to-advance it was) and that game had its own damn game-specific "launcher" as well.

Each one of these required creating an account, installs its own "overlay", background windows services, anti-cheat system (more background services!), has its own "social" system, and defaults to running at startup and minimizing (not quitting) when you click the window-close button unless you dig through the options.

Of course, each one of these games also has at least one type of currency unique to the game, which you can only convert in one direction, nor is there any way to move currency in the "store". Often that currency, and anything you bought with it, is locked to the particular platform on which it was purchased.

It's a complete mess, and nearly every single one of them is worse than Steam in terms of UX design and features.

Do we see any competition, resulting in lower prices, better terms of use for customers, or better quality software? Nope. Games are as expensive as ever, have even worse day-of-release bugs, more cheaters, and more microtransactions. Games are exclusive to one particular store either indefinitely or during the period after its release.

But according to Epic, why...if Epic can make its own app store for iOS, consumers will benefit! Bullshit. All that will happen is we'll have to install multiple app store apps on our phones, having each one collect data constantly about us...

It’s actually worse than on PC imo. Apple have a set of standards (google do too but slightly less so) that means that every app has to support Apple Pay and login with apple. This means I’m not giving my details to random third party with popular game, and I can try it and even spend money on it. With this new order, you can bet that I now have three different subscription management platforms with different rules, for example

> Of course, each one of these games also has at least one type of currency unique to the game, which you can only convert in one direction, nor is there any way to move currency in the "store". Often that currency, and anything you bought with it, is locked to the particular platform on which it was purchased.

On steam and GoG you pay with government issued currency. If the others have a currency system just hard pass on them. If you could cure yourself of Gacha, you can do it.

> But according to Epic, why...if Epic can make its own app store for iOS, consumers will benefit! Bullshit. All that will happen is we'll have to install multiple app store apps on our phones, having each one collect data constantly about us...

Most of Epics arguments are that the developer will benefit by them taking a smaller cut then Apple/Google/Steam/etc so if they sell the game for the same price the developer gets to keep a couple percentage points more money.

I don't remember any argument they have made that has put the customer as the beneficiary though there probably are some.

> Do we see any competition, resulting in lower prices, better terms of use for customers, or better quality software? Nope. Games are as expensive as ever, have even worse day-of-release bugs, more cheaters, and more microtransactions. Games are exclusive to one particular store either indefinitely or during the period after its release.

The gaming industry has enormous amounts of monetization and gameplay innovation, with the huge and vibrant middle that is disappearing from movies, books and music, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. It has never been a better time to find games.

But it has sort of happened on Windows with gaming. I’ve got games on Steam, GOG, MS Store, and Epic. It’s annoying and I very much preferred the state of things a decade ago when it was just Steam.

Android has curated a market of users who don’t buy apps. I don’t know that we can extrapolate their alt-store outcome to iOS where the buyers are.

> I very much preferred the state of things a decade ago when it was just Steam.

Do you think you'd have all those sales every 2 months if Steam were still the only pc games store? :)

Steam was doing sales before the other stores popped up and I was acquiring games faster than I could play them even then. Increasing sales frequency means little to me, and is even a little annoying since I now feel like I should be constantly window shopping all the stores nearly year round to make sure I get the best sale price on something I'm after.

Epic has given a lot of free titles away, which is a big difference, but only because they're trying to buy favor and want to be the winner who takes all.

I very much preferred the state of things a decade ago when it was just Steam

Ok, but Steam is a third party store. The alternative isn't "just Steam", it's "just Microsoft". I'll gladly accept the occasional annoyance of multiple stores to avoid being locked into a monopoly.

Steam predates MS selling games within their first-party OS-bundled apps, so it's not the exact same situation to begin with.

>My fear is that if I want to download Skype or Teams, I’ll need to first download the Microsoft Store app, and then sign in, and then download the app I want. And the store will be slow and shitty and packed with ads

I'm not sure I see the problem here. If some apps are only available through shitty ad-packed vendor-controlled stores, then hopefully that'll push people to simply avoid them. I mean, if I want to video-chat with someone and to use Skype/Teams I have to download the Microsoft store app and suffer with all that, or I just could use Facebook Messenger on the regular Google Play store (assuming they don't force their own store like MS) and it's easy, I'm going to tell my friend, "let's use FB Messenger instead; these MS apps are a pain in the ass." And if someone insists on using some shitty MS app that I can only get through the shitty ad-laden MS Store, I might re-evaluate how much I really want to chat with them. Smarter app vendors are going to try to avoid putting their users through that experience.

(Also, this is just an example; for all I know, Meta/FB in this possible future would be the stupid one pushing an ad-laden store while MS might be the smarter one making it easier for users to install their apps.)

Plus, I'd add that this is only an issue for apps with a high network effect.

For everything else I'd expect publisher's to just put their app in my favorite place, or risk me choosing something else.

For example im not going to install a new store just to get a note-taking app, unless that app was in some definitive way superior to all the others. (Which seems unlikely for a note taking app.)

Yes, exactly: new stores means much higher friction for consumers, so they're much more likely to choose an easier-to-install alternative unless there's something about that app that either requires them to use it (e.g. work) or its reputation is so much better.

So if it doesn’t affect apps with low stickiness, and the network effect will ensure that large publishers benefit from it, what’s the benefit for me as a user?

If my workplace says I’m using teams, then I’m using teams. There’s no way to change that.

> And if someone insists on using some shitty MS app that I can only get through the shitty ad-laden MS Store, I might re-evaluate how much I really want to chat with them.

It’s comments like this that show a huge lack of understanding of how the majority of people feel. I don’t give a shit if my parents like WhatsApp, but I still want to talk to them. And it’s hard enough to get them to use technology, never mind navigating whatever is to come here.

Are you honestly telling me that you think Meta are going to not use this opportunity to skirt around the limits placed on their apps by the apple App Store? If you believe meta, or byte dance are going to have your best interests at heart, I have a bridge to sell you

The issue is many stores use dark patterns and you may not catch on until too late. - Subscriptions impossible to cancel - Silent auto-renewal - Silent price changes - Hidden Fees - Sales of purchase history - Apps released under known brand that are off brand knock offs. - Apps bundled with added cruft (think those download.com installers that installed toolbars and whatnot). - Pirate versions of Teams through off brand store causing licensing audits

A lot of dumber app vendors will just drain the suckers dry and rebrand and if Microsoft pulled their apps from the App Store some unfortunate souls would click the first Google hit and get sucked into the scam.

I think more likely: The app store would be embedded in the first app that you download. And could be seamlessly integrated like MS Teams or FB.

You assume that just because Apple maliciously complied with the EU law by implementing alternative app stores, it means this is the solution.

The solution is to allow sideloading by the user (which incidentally Google allows you to do).

> and the store will be slow and shitty and packed with ads.v

But both Apple and Googles stores are slow and packed with ads. Pretty much every search you do for an app even with the exact name gives you some ad supported shovelware as the first one or two results (ads).

So how is this meaningfully any worse? (outside of one more login you might need to setup).

Do you expect it from being different from Windows with the average person having at least a dozen game launchers, update services and downloaders running in the background?

"Average" is doing a lot of work here.

Gaming is surely popular on phones, but I suggest that AAA games on on a tiny minority of phones overall. (My mom has literally no games on her phone etc.)

For Windows the proportion of games-machines to others is tiny. The number of people with "a dozen game lauchers" would be a microscopic percentage.

Yes, there are home PCs that are dedicated to gaming. Yes they will likely have lots of shortcuts, launchers, auto updates etc. And in some demographics (think male, under 25 etc) there will be proportionally more games installed.

But "average" ? I'm not sure.

app stores have been around for decades now, time to regulate them like they do banks or retail stores

> Just waiting for Adobe Store, Amazon Store, Microsoft Store, Epic Games Store, etc. to be installed on every phones soon.

Why would it happen with iOS when it has not happened in the 15 years or so since Android exists?

There's basically just one relevant alternative app store which is F-Droid, and it's just all around much better than Google's Play Store, although of course it doesn't have any proprietary, closed-source apps.

Android does have other appstores though. Samsung has one for their phones, and Amazon has had an openly available one for well over a decade (wikipedia says 2011, which tracks with when I remember first using it). Epic wants one, but pursued a court case because they argued Google made it an uncompetitive environment to work within.

I would. The App Store censorship is abhorrent even if they charged nothing.

I should be able to install hacking tools, background apps that might kill my battery, sandbox breaking apps that allow adversarial interoperability, porn apps, protest apps that track cops, or apps that do legal things that nonetheless assist me in breaking the law.

Apple allows none of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com