Apple Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens To Destroy the iPhone As You Know It' (macrumors.com) 321
The North Dakota Senate recently introduced a new bill that would prevent Apple and Google from requiring developers to use their respective app stores and payment methods, paving the way for alternative app store options.
In response, Apple Chief Privacy Engineer Erik Neuenschwander said that it "threatens to destroy the iPhone as you know it" by requiring changes that would "undermine the privacy, security, safety, and performance" of the iPhone. Neuenschwander said that Apple "works hard" to keep bad apps from the App Store, and North Dakota's bill would "require us to let them in." MacRumors reports: According to Senator Kyle Davison, who introduced Senate Bill 2333 yesterday, the legislation is designed to "level the playing field" for app developers in North Dakota and shield customers from "devastating, monopolistic fees imposed by big tech companies," which refers to the cut that Apple and Google take from developers. Specifically, the bill would prevent Apple from requiring a developer to use a digital application distribution platform as the exclusive mode of distributing a digital product, and it would keep the company from requiring developers to use in-app purchases as the exclusive mode of accepting payment from a user. There's also wording preventing Apple from retaliating against developers who choose alternate distribution and payment methods.
Apple does not allow apps to be installed on iOS devices outside of the "App Store" and there are no alternate app store options that are available. Apple reviews every app that is made available for its customers to download, something that would not happen with a third-party app store option. Apple also does not let app developers accept payments through methods other than in-app purchase except in select situations, a policy that has led to Apple's legal fight with Epic Games.
No federal legislation has been introduced as of yet, and the North Dakota Senate committee did not take action on the bill. Senator Jerry Klein said that there's "still some mulling to be done" in reference to the bill.
In response, Apple Chief Privacy Engineer Erik Neuenschwander said that it "threatens to destroy the iPhone as you know it" by requiring changes that would "undermine the privacy, security, safety, and performance" of the iPhone. Neuenschwander said that Apple "works hard" to keep bad apps from the App Store, and North Dakota's bill would "require us to let them in." MacRumors reports: According to Senator Kyle Davison, who introduced Senate Bill 2333 yesterday, the legislation is designed to "level the playing field" for app developers in North Dakota and shield customers from "devastating, monopolistic fees imposed by big tech companies," which refers to the cut that Apple and Google take from developers. Specifically, the bill would prevent Apple from requiring a developer to use a digital application distribution platform as the exclusive mode of distributing a digital product, and it would keep the company from requiring developers to use in-app purchases as the exclusive mode of accepting payment from a user. There's also wording preventing Apple from retaliating against developers who choose alternate distribution and payment methods.
Apple does not allow apps to be installed on iOS devices outside of the "App Store" and there are no alternate app store options that are available. Apple reviews every app that is made available for its customers to download, something that would not happen with a third-party app store option. Apple also does not let app developers accept payments through methods other than in-app purchase except in select situations, a policy that has led to Apple's legal fight with Epic Games.
No federal legislation has been introduced as of yet, and the North Dakota Senate committee did not take action on the bill. Senator Jerry Klein said that there's "still some mulling to be done" in reference to the bill.
Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Apple wants you to think paying 30% extra is a necessity. It is clearly not.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-44Nh_QkrQ
Re:Apple (Score:4, Informative)
Think about it:
1. We don't have to worry about searching for an app. We can find the apps without all the SEO or anything, and they are all in one place.
2. Defending their trademark (fake apps don't exist in the App Store). How awful would it be if you searched Google for Bank of America iPhone App, you wouldn't know if its the official App.
3. There is the cost of hosting the downloads, managing the updates, and providing services like push notifications.
4. Refunds for illegitimate purchases or false advertising. The developer isn't the one with your money.
5. This one I can not stress enough. The Apple review process developers loathe make sure the Apps are doing what they advertise and nothing more. They cant steel your data, or mine crypto on your battery, or track you wherever you go and access your camera or mic on a whim.
Apple made a stupid mistake banning Parlor. They were asking for anti-competitive action be taken against them. There are legitimate reasons to kick an App off a platform, not agreeing with their messaging or ideas was not one of them.
While I hope Apple comes to its senses about what kind of moderating role it thinks we want it to play in our lives, I am not optimistic. I still however, do not want to see government intervene in that situation.
Re:Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Android has always allowed competing app stores, and you can even change a security setting yourself and just download apps directly from the web (just like how it works on a real computer). Amazingly, the sky has not fallen. In the face of Android already proving it can work, Apple's argument is just control freak bullshit.
I still however, do not want to see government intervene in that situation.
Sometimes Uncle Sam has to get out the belt, because businesses don't always play fair. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org], as an example from the automotive industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Android has not had as great an experience with Apps as iOS has. That much is clear.
I can get apps for my Android devices that would be unthinkable on iOS. Sure, that potentially opens the door for abuse, but I'm a grown man and last I checked the smartphone/tablet is mine, not Apples or Googles. I should be the one to decide what risks I' willing to take.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
but I'm a grown man and last I checked the smartphone/tablet is mine
And you get to use your phone within the bounds of what the vendor (Apple or Google) promised you. Nothing more. They promised you a piece of hardware with the certain capabilities that you got. Don't like it, buy something else. No vendor in the world is forced to open up their entire platform to you simply because you bought the device.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
And you get to use your phone within the bounds of what the vendor (Apple or Google) promised you. Nothing more.
Alas, poor Slashdot. I remember it well.
Was a time when slashdot would unite against being told what we can do with the devices we bought. Guess those days are over. So much for news for nerds. Now it's news for lames.
No vendor in the world is forced to open up their entire platform to you simply because you bought the device.
And you think that's great. TREAD ME HARDER DADDY.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're objecting to people trying to find a way to suck less dick. I understand the impulse to allow mature consenting developers to bargain away their rights, but North Dakota is a nice small laboratory to see how things work with the state taking the side of the consumer.
My suspicion is that this law is prompted by the nonavailability of a Parler app, rather than any genuine concern for consumer welfare. But maybe I am being unfair to North Dakota.
Re:Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
I can get apps for my Android devices that would be unthinkable on iOS. Sure, that potentially opens the door for abuse, but I'm a grown man and last I checked the smartphone/tablet is mine, not Apples or Googles. I should be the one to decide what risks I' willing to take.
I'm not only a grown man, I have actually been developing software for money for almost 40 years. And I tell you, I have no intention to put up with that shit of having to be careful what I put on my phone and what not. My time is too valuable for that.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Informative)
App store or not. Your choice... (Score:3)
Exactly. Law passes... and people can reduce risk by using app store for all the software (and it needs to be all), or not.
Actually an incentive for Big Fruit to tighten the walled garden a bit further and only accept user-friendly apps - so no ruler apps that need location and contacts.
Re: (Score:3)
And, yet, even iOS apps are not without shame. Some nasty stuff out there, from privacy compromises to outright fraudulent apps, form time to time.
No platform is perfect.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, so I wonder why the bill also aims at Android. (Although Android One may be an exception, I think Google was trying to close down sideloads.)
That being said, all the competing stores for Android are terrible. The Amazon Store is small, often out of date, and full of spam and questionable apps. APKMirror is just a copy of the Google Store. F-Droid does at least serve an open source nice that is distinct. All other stores are strictly worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Android has always allowed competing app stores, and you can even change a security setting yourself and just download apps directly from the web (just like how it works on a real computer). Amazingly, the sky has not fallen. In the face of Android already proving it can work, Apple's argument is just control freak bullshit.
One thing that might be good to do is to get Apple customer's input on this.
What is being lost by not allowing them to install software from anywhere?
Do they care? The customers I know rather like the vetting and the one stop shopping.
As for Android - I believe that if you want to install software from a North Korean website that you know harvests your credit card info, well, go ahead. It's a different culture.
Re: Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
As an Apple customer, advocate, and stockholder I want device security, privacy, and choice. Parler wasn't booted for any of those reasons. Apple made a huge tactical error IMO.
Android is built to better contain untrusted apps (Score:4, Informative)
By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied:
* Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies)
* Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups)
* A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC
* seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls
I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
Re: (Score:3)
iOS apps have to be vetted because there's only one proper layer of protection on iOS to stop apps from misbehaving. The iOS Sandbox provides all of the constraints using predefined mandatory access controls and a few helper processes. Any mistakes in this layer will cause a compromise across all apps. You can see how flimsy this can be by examining the large list of things Apple does not allow in sandboxed apps. Apple's sandbox is fantastic on macOS but is overstretched on iOS/iPadOS. Apple has every reason to be paranoid. By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied: * Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies) * Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups) * A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC * seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
Please explain to me then, kind sir, why my friends and coworkers Android phones are always ending up with spyware and miners and shit on them, while my friends, family and coworkers with iPhones simply don't understand why this situation exists to begin with? The only thing I can come up with is a No True Scotsman - all these phones must just be shitty Android phones and thus aren't representative of the One True Android that apparently "proves that the market forces work as intended" by the Good People th
Re:Apple (Score:5, Informative)
1) Yes that is because they have a monopoly
2) You mean like this: https://www.theverge.com/2021/... [theverge.com]
3) Yes seems fine to charge for services but the problem is you don't have any alternatives, so the prices are just made up, because you have no choices.
4) How can there be illegimate purchasing and false advertising if the Apple store review are rigoures and that's what you are paying for them to do?
5) If this is the case then how can 2) and 4) exist? And why is this: https://www.trendmicro.com/en_... [trendmicro.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"2. ...How awful would it be if you searched Google for Bank of America iPhone App, you wouldn't know if its the official App."
Just playing the Devil's advocate for a second...
For the past four years how did we know @realDonaldTrump was President's real account?
Could it be because the "store" offering the account gave their personal assurances it was legit. And could and would be held legally accountable if it wasn't?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point of the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
But why should Apple be obliged to do business with you as a developer? It's entitled to set terms for its business, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't pay 30% extra. You pay some smaller portion, because the 30% only comes out of the paid apps. The value you get from free apps which you wouldn't get if someone else had to cover the costs.
What sort of argument is that? In economics it is *expected* that value of goods you purchases may exceed their price, that's why you're buying them. The value has nothing to do with what you PAY. Value is a red herring when he's talking about payments.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens To Destroy the iPhone As You Know It'
Translation: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens To Destroy the iPhone As He Knows It'
(This is from the guy who's job is to make sure you have no privacy at all when you use an iPhone).
Re: Apple (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple wants you to think paying 30% extra is a necessity. It is clearly not. www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-44Nh_QkrQ
You could say the same thing about any store, digital or otherwise...
Re: Apple (Score:3)
They certainly have less overhead, as a percentage, than when they enacted the fee structure. That is just scales of economy. But overhead still exists, especially because of their stringent review process.
Not that it matters. Bloomingdales is allowed upsell their products at a dramatically higher rate than Walmart because our economy is premised on the idea that the market determines what is acceptable. Most of the people here who complain about the iOS ecosystem use Android or Pinephone or something. As s
Re: (Score:2)
Just make it opt-in (Score:5, Insightful)
Just make alternative appstores opt-in.
Works well for 3.5 billion of android users.
Re:Just make it opt-in (Score:5, Insightful)
But then they would have to make an effort to be the best App Store.
Re:Just make it opt-in (Score:5, Funny)
Fair competition, my god, nooo ...
Re: (Score:3)
That is not hard. The Google Store is by far the best store for Android, and the Apple Store is better.
They really should, if only to silence the criticism.
Re: Just make it opt-in (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just make alternative appstores opt-in.
Works well for 3.5 billion of android users.
It only works for Android users because there's no alternative. Google controlling what is distributed on a non-Google device would be a very severe anti-trust breach.
Also "works" is an interesting definition given the shitshow that is the Android store, and the amount of malware distributed outside of the Android store. I'm highly critical of Apple for their walled garden, but the reality is Android does have a malware problem precisely because it gives users enough rope with which they can hang themselves
Re: (Score:3)
Just make alternative appstores opt-in.
Works well for 3.5 billion of android users.
It only works for Android users because there's no alternative.
You have that literally backwards.
Android works well for users because there's alternatives... to Google.
Also "works" is an interesting definition given the shitshow that is the Android store,
Apple has delivered malware from their App store in the past, and certainly will again in the future.
and the amount of malware distributed outside of the Android store.
Which doesn't affect anyone not installing it by choice.
I'm highly critical of Apple for their walled garden,
No you aren't, you've been sucking their cock for them vigorously throughout this discussion.
but the reality is Android does have a malware problem precisely because it gives users enough rope with which they can hang themselves.
Android doesn't. Certain Android users do. The rest don't. There is no problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Android works well for users because there's alternatives... to Google.
I'm sorry to crush your fantasy but 99.9% of Android phones on the market (China excepted) do not have a single app installed that didn't come from Google or the vendor's own firmware.
Android doesn't "work well" because a tiny minority of geeks have the ability to exercise freedom. Android largely works well for the same reason Apple works well, and to my original point: Users flat out don't give a shit.
Apple has delivered malware from their App store in the past, and certainly will again in the future.
An anecdote does not data make. Comparing malware on Apple to the Play Store is like comparing swimming i
A load of utter BS (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill only threatens their insane fat margins and full control over what users can and cannot install on their phones.
The way iOS is designed "rogue" apps installed from 3d-party app stores can't really do any harm to the smartphone, secondly Apple can perfectly upload, analyze and disable the installed apps just like Google has been doing for many years now (Play Protect, which is even optional and can be disabled).
Re:A load of utter BS (Score:5, Insightful)
The existence of Android and the fact that Google does a pretty good job keeping it free of malware, at least as good as Apple is doing, basically proves that their argument for a walled garden is bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
The bill only threatens their insane fat margins
So you want the government to dictate how much profit a company can make? That doesn't sound very free market.
Re: (Score:2)
The way iOS is designed "rogue" apps installed from 3d-party app stores can't really do any harm to the smartphone
There are about 30 jailbreak authors who would like to have a word with you.
What you meant to say, of course, was:
"The way iOS is designed "rogue" apps installed from 3d-party app stores have one more hurdle that they can and have surpassed, repeatedly, to harm (free) the smartphone"
Re: (Score:2)
and full control over what users can and cannot install on their phones.
Exactly. This is the "iPhone as you know it". The iPhone isn't a phone. People buy into the ecosystem. People opt for the walled garden and it's protection.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, the claim that requiring users to be able to sideload destroys that is pure bullshit.
If you don't turn on sideloading (installation from "other sources") on Android, you can't sideload. As such, the feature presents zero danger.
Requiring iPhones to accept third party applications if the user requests it does not present a danger to the user, unless they are a colossal idiot.
The obvious solution is for iPhone users to be presented with a screen at setup time where they can swear that they are a
Bye bye North Dakota (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple solution: Apple should stop selling iPhones to anyone in North Dakota, instead of inflicting the shovelware and malware on the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
How does giving you the option of using another app store/other apps "inflict" them on you? Do you imagine someone forcing you to use the non-Apple services, as opposed to simply allowing you to?
Re:Bye bye North Dakota (Score:4, Insightful)
So Epic will not offer their games to you via the Apple app store, as they don't want to pay the 30% Apple tax. I imagine many other app providers will also stop offering their apps via the Apple play store. You won't have a choice to use the Apple store anymore as most apps aren't there but on some other repository that will devolve into something like the Android shit fest of infected spyware apps. That's how you are forced not to use the Apple store. No thanks. If you want that, don't buy an iPhone. Buy an Android phone.
Re: Bye bye North Dakota (Score:3)
Most apps won't have the mindshare to force anyone to go to an alternative app store and click through a scary warning.
Oh no! Not competition! (Score:3)
So you're saying Apple might have to actually offer competitive rates to software developers? That's horrible! Think of the eighth private jet that Tim Cook won't be able to buy!
Clarification (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Practically speaking, yes. Your pedantic use of "forcing" in this context is disingenuous.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple solution: Apple should stop selling iPhones to anyone in North Dakota, instead of inflicting the shovelware and malware on the rest of the world.
That's rich. You can imagine how the average privacy-respecting citizen feels with the amount of pre-installed shovelware and malware that comes on devices these days.
Perhaps Apple and others should stop being allowed to sell smartphones until they stop pulling that crap. When I buy a phone, I expect a phone, not a social media portal.
Re: (Score:2)
What social media apps are pre-loaded on an iPhone? None. What privacy-invading apps are pre-loaded on an iPhone? None.
Stop chatting shit
Just because Apple is the one collecting your private detail from their devices and keeping it to themselves, doesn't mean they're not still taking it. If Apple were sold tomorrow to Samsung because the lawsuit to end all lawsuits finally came down on the wrong side, would you be elated or concerned about your data being handed over to a new corporation to do so as they please?
And I specifically included others in my comment, because plenty of them do. If you don't want or can't afford iDevices, your pri
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is a scalable solution. How many states will they be able to try this with before it affects their bottom line enough for them to give up?
Re: (Score:2)
30% and draconian rules bite you back (Score:5, Informative)
Apple: "oh why is this happening!?"
Here's why:
* The 30% store charge (which is extremely high, 10% would be also high). Visa charge 3% - start there.
* No sideloading of software or alternative app stores (for *whatever* reason).
* Stupid, stupid draconian app store rules where your inept support staff shit on developers or 'one rule for you, another for xyz'. Blocking a ham radio app because 'voice quality is less than idea' (which is EXACTLY what you get with any ham transmission) is fuckwittery at it's best. from you.
That's why, apple.
Nintendo, You're next up, as is MS Xbox, and Sony.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you mentioned ham radio...If I remember correctly, didn't the iPhone/iPod Touch used to have an FM receiver chip in it but it wasn't activated. Supposedly because Apple thought if people could use it as a radio they'd lose music sales?
Re:30% and draconian rules bite you back (Score:5, Informative)
If I remember correctly, didn't the iPhone/iPod Touch used to have an FM receiver chip in it but it wasn't activated. Supposedly because Apple thought if people could use it as a radio they'd lose music sales?
For a while, most mobile devices did.
It came packaged on the Wifi/BT chip.
Broadcom part, usually.
The fact that the BCM part had an FM radio in it did not, however, mean that the mobile device was capable of using it (worth a damn)
The different radios on the chips require different amplifier circuitry to work. This is usually not hooked up for FM (due to it not being worth the price)
*most* companies don't enable the FM functionality of these chips (with the required circuitry) and most do not have a potential conflict of interest, so Apple does deserve the benefit of the doubt here.
You could install software support on Android phones using BCM radio chips, but without the circuitry it was pretty useless. Mostly sounded like listening to really static-ridden AM radio.
Re: (Score:3)
My cheapo phone, a new Moto E, about $100 unsubsidized, comes with the FM radio wired up, a nice FM radio app, Moto FM or such, highly recommended for a basic ad free radio app, and other then needing a headphone plugged in for an antenna, works very well. This cheap phone also has a headphone jack, something that the high priced phones also can't afford.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple: "oh why is this happening!?"
Here's why:
* The 30% store charge (which is extremely high, 10% would be also high). Visa charge 3% - start there.
* No sideloading of software or alternative app stores (for *whatever* reason).
* Stupid, stupid draconian app store rules where your inept support staff shit on developers or 'one rule for you, another for xyz'. Blocking a ham radio app because 'voice quality is less than idea' (which is EXACTLY what you get with any ham transmission) is fuckwittery at it's best. from you.
That's why, apple.
Nintendo, You're next up, as is MS Xbox, and Sony.
30% was actually rather low when Apple launched the App store - at the time, the phone companies (who distributed apps/games to the phones they controlled) took larger cuts. 30% is also what Steam [ign.com] has taken for a long time.
In general, I don't think 30% is too bad for general apps and useless fluff (like the in-app purchases from Epic). Where it is much more problematic is for media subscriptions or purchases, especially for the ones now competing with Apple. It's not exactly sustainstable for Spotify to l
Some good and bad parts there (Score:2)
requiring a developer to use a digital application distribution platform as the exclusive mode of distributing a digital product
Disagree with this first part. It's Apple's device, they should get to decide how content is distributed on it. No one owes you their customers. If they think the only way to put apps on the iPhone is the app store then so be it. Google can do the same with the Pixel (but critically no other Android phone), Samsung could do the same with the Galaxy, etc. Their devices, their rules.
and it would keep the company from requiring developers to use in-app purchases as the exclusive mode of accepting payment from a user
That however I agree with and is also how other content distribution platforms work. If a developer puts the effort to setup alt
Re:Some good and bad parts there (Score:5, Informative)
It's Apple's device...
No, it is not Apple's device. When you sell something to somebody, it becomes their property.
Re:Some good and bad parts there (Score:5, Insightful)
The device is Apple's product. Your particular device is your property. Apple can choose what to offer as their product, you can choose whether or not to own one, but your choice to buy does not include telling Apple what their product is.
Re:Some good and bad parts there (Score:5, Insightful)
The device is Apple's product. Your particular device is your property. Apple can choose what to offer as their product, you can choose whether or not to own one, but your choice to buy does not include telling Apple what their product is.
Let's be clear here. This is about expectations.
This "device", is sold as a phone. That means when I buy it, I expect that basic functionality.
This "device", is also being marketed and sold as a "smartphone". That means when I buy it, I expect that it has the capability of being "smart" and can install apps of my choosing, not come pre-infected with privacy-robbing bloatware that I do not want or need, and often now have no way of removing it, because Greed. MY "property"? Why do you even try and claim that?
We have allowed companies, to utterly warp expectations to corruptly drive profits. This is why your argument, is weak at best. As far as choice, point me in the direction of a major vendor who doesn't pull this crap.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're telling me all those people buying pipe cleaners when they don't even smoke a pipe are in the wrong? Is it OK to use a coat hanger as a TV antenna or does that violate the EULA? How about if I blow away pre-installed Windows and put Linux on a PC?
Re: (Score:3)
You know that makes sense. No wonder when I was growing up I could only get the Zenith Television Network on my set.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can choose what to offer as their product, you can choose whether or not to own one, but your choice to buy does not include telling Apple what their product is.
Yep, either don't own a smartphone or buy one that runs Android. It's so nice having so many choices in the marketplace, such competition!
It's like if there were only two car manufacturers, and one was Tesla (which actually works, because they're nearly as control-freaky as Apple), and the other was Yugo. "But I need a vehicle that I can just fill up at any gas station, electric won't work for me because X", well sorry, you're stuck with Yugo because somehow we allowed the entire industry to become a duop
Re: (Score:3)
You however hit specific parts of the US code once you use your product to influence a market. And the App Store for each platform is far beyond the point where it's questionable as to whether or not it's a market.
Specifically, these App Stores are now open to regulation.
If Apple doesn't like that, they can of course not sell phones that are used as interfaces to a market.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
True, it's not Apple's device any more. But it is Apple's brand, platforms, software -- all of which would be badly compromised if this shitfest went ahead
Re:Some good and bad parts there (Score:4, Interesting)
True, it's not Apple's device any more. But it is Apple's brand, platforms, software -- all of which would be badly compromised if this shitfest went ahead
Devices get compromised today, with nothing more than downloads or updates pushed from their official app stores.
Yes, the 30% tax is obviously a discussion point, but mega-corps with billions in cash reserves, have little excuse for allowing this to happen, and makes your argument practically worthless. In fact, if I were starting up a competing app store, privacy and security would be a top priority, in order to compete and actually prove it can be done better.
You assume, this would turn into a "shitfest". In reality, we could end up with a great alternative, at half the developer cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Let that be a lesson folks, putting GM gas in a Ford makes you a low down dirty skunk!....OH WAIT!
Re: (Score:2)
Badly compromised? You mean like a few months ago when Apple's own security update bricked people's computers?
The solution for many: A complete wipe and reinstallation.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the point on purpose? English requires context to aid in understanding. Please re-read the entire post and stop frothing at the mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
It's MY copy of the software. I can do whatever the hell I want with it other than handing out copies.
Auto makers can't tell you where you are allowed to drive your car.
Privacy? This is about Profits. (Score:5, Informative)
...and the 30% cut Apple takes for wanting to even enter their ecosystem, is what they truly want to protect.
Other app stores could set up just as good a scrutiny process, if not better. And they likely will. We all know the danger of rogue apps (like the ones we're still getting infected with from "official" app stores). Just like we all know the danger of monopolies.
Abide by Apples app scrutiny process as a minimum security standard. Then allow competition. It's healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
And they likely will.
Based on what? Google Play doesn't offer near as much scruitany. And the rest of the Android ecosystem as well as the Microsoft store show that app stores very quickly become fucking cesspool.
In fact I don't know of a single App Store that you could justifiably compare to Apple's scrutiny. Can you give examples?
'Threatens To Destroy the iPhone As You Know It' (Score:3, Interesting)
Why this conflict is bullsh/t (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly don,t get the issue. The store is free to sell for a 100% markup. The problem is that Apple is forcing everything to be 30% more expensive. It's like a tax.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly don,t get the issue. The store is free to sell for a 100% markup. The problem is that Apple is forcing everything to be 30% more expensive. It's like a tax.
Are you seriously suggesting that Tencent / Epic would reduce their prices by 30% if they didn't have to pay Apple? Maybe anyone who had the short-lived Fortnite version allowing to make in-app purchases can report whether the purchases were any cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting Apple could raise its fee from 30 to 50% without any impact on the resulting price to the end user and application offerings?
I don't care if Epic do not reduce the price. If they don't, they'd make more money and Apple would make less. Or someone else would offer an alternative game for cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
A good producer sells to walmart and others. They negociate a price with walmart. They couldn't care less if walmart take a 200% cut, because it's already sold to Walmart. And if Walmart asks for a margin which is too high, someone else is going to offer it for cheaper.
An iOS application is not sold yet. The 30% fee asked by Apple directly affect the number of sold copies. And you can't sell through a 3rd party store. The best you can do is offer it on Android-only.
Re:Why this conflict is bullsh/t (Score:4, Interesting)
Everything else that is sold in the real world gets a standard markup, which is 100%
That is in fact bullshit. Things in the real world get markups based on what the market will bear, it's not automatically 100%. For example, at my place of employment (an RV repair shop) some stuff gets marked up 100%, some 50%, some only 33%, depending on our cost and the median sales cost of the item on the "free" market.
Now, all of those examples are over 30%, so you might think that justifies Apple's 30% cut, right? Nope. Some items are marked up much more, but some are marked up much less. Cell phones themselves are only marked up about 8-10% for example, because of the competition in the market. Those who sell them either accept that they are getting only a small profit, or they expect to make their profits selling services, accessories, etc. New cars also are marked up similarly; they have high sticker prices so the profits remain substantial, and dealers again expect to make more in after sales.
App stores have a very small amount of overhead in comparison to their volume, so there is very little excuse for large markups. Apple has distributed malware through their store before, and almost certainly will again, so their claims of added value are questionable at best.
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at "markup" from COGS is irrelevant here. Apple does not pay for the development of the apps, this is not a grocery store where they have to buy an app copy to sell an app copy. I think the term you're actually looking for is "margin" which is the % profit on a product sold. Apple does have some costs running the app store and famously has high margins on all of its products.
10% margin is more or less the average. Apple is above 20% (sometimes well above that) which is considered high margin.
Enforcement (Score:2)
I wonder how North Dakota will be able to enforce this, and what the legal repercusions will be?
I'm surprised that some state has not already taken Apple to court over antitrust violations.
Re: (Score:2)
Many states have similar requirements of manufacturers for sale in their state.
I'm surprised that some state has not already taken Apple to court over antitrust violations.
We're in a very business-friendly time period right now after the neo-bizarro-Reagan revival hoisted upon us by the Republican primaries.
There's a pretty solid back log of antitrust litigation to get started on if any government agency ever gets the balls to enforce the law on the megacorps again.
Re: (Score:2)
By making it a crime to sell the devices in their state. Many states have similar requirements of manufacturers for sale in their state.
Apple could simply respond by not selling iPhones in ND. I doubt ND is a big enough market and Apple could simply cut off sales there and end resale agreements.
Or allow an app store but still require an Apple issued certificate, which they will issue, for a fee, of course.
Facebook (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"I am out here for you. You don't know what it's like to be ME out here for YOU. It is an up-at-dawn, pride-swallowing siege that I will never fully tell you about, ok? Help me... help you. Help me, help you." - Jerry "Apple" Maguire:
Competition? (Score:2)
Apple could work around this easy (Score:2)
Having read the law seriously it is 2 pages Apple has a pretty easy fix but they REALLY dont want to do it for financial reasons. Here is the workaround for apple that I can see:
1. Allow for sideloading of apps - Fulfills 2a. You dont have to use our App Store if you dont want. Also they could make it a pain (have to hook it up to the computer and use USB to copy it, special SideLoader application (like TestFlight), or something. To me I dont see apples "We have to let in other stores [boo hoo hoo wail]" ma
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking of other ways to play games while tiptoeing around 2c could they make it a policy that there is an additional "hosting fee" they charge developers? If you take their payment system you can earn credits towards paying off that fee quickly. Someone buys something? Ok a portion of the fees we take out reduces your yearly host. Take only outside payments? Expect to pay that hosting fee per year. You can apply as a "completely free" app to get that waived (no payments ANYWHERE) but yea that is hassle yo
if apple wants to sell cars in ND they better play (Score:2)
if apple wants to sell cars in ND they better play ball now or they may see car sales banned in ND and other places.
Anti-Trust (Score:2)
Protection (Score:2)
It's got some problems (Score:2)
So the US Constitution gives Congress power to regulate interstate commerce, which has famously been interpreted in a very broad fashion (e.g. growing your own food affects interstate commerce because it reduces how much out of state food you buy; operating a single motel or restaurant affects interstate commerce because of the things you order, and that interstate travelers might stop there; many federal crimes are premised on the use of the Mail or interstate telecommunications networks).
The clause has al
No, it would end the iStore as we know it (Score:2)
Apple doesn't want to lose its ability to change exhorbant fees, something like this keeps thier CEOs awake at night. I hope north dakota doesn't get paid off by apple and change thier mind
Free market in action (Score:2)
Charging a premium for a "superior" product, while sticking it to suppliers, only works if the product has a large enough market share. Free market 101.
No one is being forced to buy an IPhone, and there are lots of great alternatives on the market. If Apple's market share was 2 or 3 percent, no one would give a flying f..k about writing apps for it. However, Apple controls about 40 percent of the smartphone market. The phones are good, but, branding is a key factor in their succ
Re: This is about parlor and trump nazism. (Score:3)
Good riddance.