And we’re not done yet with the EU’s Digital Markets Act, since it contains another important and very consequential regulation: alternative application stores.
“We believe that the owner of a smartphone should have the freedom to choose how to use it,” said European Commission spokesperson Johannes Bahrke in an emailed statement. “This freedom includes being able to opt for alternative sources of apps on your smartphone. With the DMA, a smartphone owner would still be able to enjoy safe and secure services of the default app store on their smart phones. On top of that, if a user so chooses, the DMA would allow a smartphone owner to also opt for other safe app stores.”
In addition to allowing third-party stores on its platform, Apple would also be forced to allow users to install apps from third-party sources (a practice known as sideloading) and to allow developers to use the App Store without using Apple’s payment systems.
This is great news, and a massive step towards wrangling control over our devices back from big corporations. That being said – expect a coordinated onslaught of fear, uncertainty, and doubt towards this provision and the DMA in particular from US tech companies, their US Senators, and “independent” bloggers.
It’s going to be rough out there.
In other news Cupertino California is experiencing an unusual spike in heart attack cases.
Tried reading the proposal at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?qid=1608116887159&uri=COM%3A2020%3A842%3AFIN
Ugh … could someone who can read bureaucrat clarify: From what I am gathering this would also have implications for desktop ecosystems and, maybe, even gaming consoles?
As I understand it; yes – there’s no distinction between different markets and (e.g.) XBox will need to support third-party app stores (GOG, Steam. etc; if they feel like providing games for XBox); with the assumption that manufacturers (“gatekeepers”) don’t just lie about third party stores being “unsafe” so that they don’t have to bother supporting third-party app stores.
This has the side-effect of potentially ending subsidized hardware for everything except printers (which sadly aren’t mentioned – the old “sell the printer at cost and rip people off for ink” scam, which isn’t very different to the “sell game console at cost and rip people off for games” scam or the “sell phone at cost and rip people off for apps” scam).
Brendan,
I don’t have a problem with that outcome personally. Subsidies often make things more expensive in the long run. I absolutely despised the subsidized business model for mobile phones that we experienced in the US for ages. I was so happy to see that come to an end and consumers finally having the choice to buy phones and service separately.
I haven’t read the new laws, but hypothetically what the console makers might be able to do is charge unsubsidized prices for the consoles and give out coupons for their store. This way owners can pay a fair market price for the hardware but still have the choice to go to the game stores of their choosing. If they like the official store, great. But importantly they would never be blocked from trying out competing stores (GOG, Steam, etc).
I’m just thinking Steam games on PS5 would be amazing… then maybe I wouldn’t have to keep buying games on multiple platforms… as I end up doing because I play games with my brother, but he dislikes gaming on the computer. Granted the stream play thing on the PS5 is terrible, as you have to re-invite every hour…
@Mote
As far as I can tell the Desktop would be considered a diverse market already, as there is no strict limitation on the source and installation of Apps. Of course something like a Google Chromebook enforcing Playstore as a source App of installs, and perhaps Apple(iPads), Amazon(AppStore) and MS(Surface) with restrictions on installs for tablets, etc., etc.!
One potential problem I’ve heard is that it may force desktop developers to support a wider more diverse range of hardware platforms, if you want to publish an App you might be forced to publish ARM as well as x86. That would actually benefit the likes of Apple rather than do harm. What does that mean for various frameworks, Java, .Net, etc., etc.?
I’m not overly concerned, really it is bringing the phone and console market into line with the desktop.
cpcf,
I kind of doubt that many stores would require developers to support all platforms. Take steam for example, applications can be cross platform but they don’t have to be. Steam makes it clear which platforms are supported for a title.
That’s an interesting point. To the extent that apple had banned certain technologies like emulators, another store could allow them.
@Alfman
Sorry I wasn’t clear, I did not mean an App store is forced to support more than one architecture, I meant what if the EU Law once untangled requires the Dev to publish an App for more than one architecture, assuming that would be across multiple stores. It could be quite detrimental for the Devs and not really viable for the App stores either, you might get some platform specific Dev doing a half-arsed job of publishing to a secondary store just to obey the rules with a minimum of effort.
cpcf,
Ah, I completely misunderstood you. You are speaking hypothetically though right? Hopefully this gives owners the right to use independent stores & devs, but as far as I’m aware there’s no requirement for independent stores & devs to support users of all platforms (although it makes good business sense for them to do so IMHO).
Yes a hypothetical based on some legal commentary I’ve read, maybe though the comments were just a scare tactic from critics of the policy.
I expect this to backfire or to have unforseen consequences (remember IBM and AT&T antitrust?). Feels more like the EU punishing well-run businesses outside of their borders. If you don’t like an iPhone, don’t buy an iPhone – it’s trivial to *not* buy one.
I go back and forth on this issue. It’s not like Apple baited with sideloading and then removed it, right? That would be more egregious.
That’s a very bad argument though. You can say that about many forms of abuse. This corporate form of multilevel abuse is a confluence of being able to make a computing device and limit the ability of app makers to distribute their own apps by creating a bottle neck. This way of framing the issue also misses the fact that people don’t go into buying an item by assessing all the philosophical implications of it. Just because Apple didn’t bait and switch doesn’t mean they were right from the get go. Imagine applying this principle to anything else in life like personal relationships, laws, consumer goods. Even though we mostly are clear about personal relationships, laws, consumer goods and are mostly in agreement about them in society have agreed upon them for generations yet we still change our minds on them because we might find them bad after the fact. This changing of the mind after the fact is something I see commonly missed by the view that Apple was like that from the beginning.
DefineDecision,
It’s a matter of owners having rights over their property even after sale. If we allow manufacturers to strip those rights away, then it kills the competition for aftermarket goods and services. Whether it’s repairs, services, browsers, applications, etc. dictating what owners are allowed to do by fiat is extremely anti-competitive and should fall under anti-trust.
Exactly right, and the practice of preloading uninstallable shitware and locking owners out of their own property if they attempt to do anything that doesn’t have Dear Big Tech Leader’s blessing has gone on far too long. Sadly, you can fully expect a ton of money to be thrown at defeating this because people having rights interferes with maximizing profit.
friedchicken,
There is a technical aspect: It actually depends on their kernel and UI core coding standards.
I will do a comparison.
Microsoft allows sideloading apps onto your Xbox. Sony does not. The reason MS is confident, is that their consoles are very tough to hack. Thanks to hypervisors, and layered security, things work okay, while Sony’s could be joilbroken by just visiting a web site.
The same will play here.
I expect, but fear, iOS might have been lazy with their security practices, since all the apps were going though a check. Any app misbehaving could easily be pulled back.
On the other hand, if they start running random code, then we will have the actual test of the system.
One might say: but jail-breaking will no longer be necessary? Sure, that is the point of this rule. However securing apps from each other is still important. How soon do you think “[warez group] angry birdzz [crack]” will come with a hard to remove rootkit?
This is on Apple, though. They should have seen this day coming. And, to be hopeful: the kernel itself should be pretty secure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
@sukru
I get what you’re saying but the point is that users who own their hardware, own it. It’s their property. Whether they want to install a “[warez group] angry birdzz [crack]” on it or smash it with a rock is their decision to make, or at least should be. I don’t believe for a second that locking down hardware is an act to benefit users because companies just have your best interest at heart. It’s all about profit because it’s always all about profit. Apple makes money by forcing itself in between people and what they want. You want an app? Apple needs a cut. You want to make an in-app purchase? Apple wants a cut. Something broke in the hardware? Apple wants to profit off the part and profit off the repair. If you try to cut Apple out of any of this, they’ll intentionally inflict consequences.
At its core this is about ownership and rights. Can people use their property as they see fit, or should companies be allowed to dictate what you do so they can squeeze more money out of your wallet? Also, policing users is the job of legislature and the legal system, not Apple. It seems that companies are in need of policing far more than people are.
friedchicken,
I don’t disagree with your main point.
But it should have been open from day 1. Opening up the OS so late will also open up Pandora’s Box.
Anyway, Apple will need to ensure phones stay secure, while still complying with the requirements.
I wish there were “like” buttons on comments.
*Like*
sukru,
I believe one possible solution is the Microsoft approach. they have a mode in Windows that only allow apps to be installed from th eMS store. I think it’s “Secure” mode. If Apple took a similar approach and have the user decide on the mode they want iOS to be in, (ie: secure/insecure allowing sideloads)) then I believe that that dilemma is mitigated somewhat.
spiderdroid,
Yes, I had such a laptop, and immediately went out of that mode
However I can see its appeal. Especially for schools, workplaces, or just for people who don’t want to take risks.
Apple actually has a dev-unlock feature, but it comes with many strings. In other words, not helpful for end users:
https://medium.com/@samjh715/how-to-enable-developer-mode-on-your-iphone-1f98afa04de9
If you don’t want to install apps from alternative sources, don’t install them – it’s trivial to ‘not’ install them.
I just woke up from an unscheduled nap and can’t tell if I am dreaming right now or this is real life. I don’t think any government has the balls to regulate lack of sideloading and monopoly app stores, because that could disrupt the game console market where lack of sideloading and monopoly control over what apps the hardware can run are central to the business model.
Android always supported stores other than Google play. But every attempt, even by tech giants like Amazon, failed.
Why? People only want the store where the apps are. Apple store will always have more apps than any alternative on the platform, and as such will remain dominant. Will my banking app spend the extra time and effort to support osnewsAppStore. No. Why? Because it hasn’t got the users. Why hasn’t it got the users? No apps. The cycle is entirely predictable and why Android and Apple won the mobile phone battle. Blackberry, PalmOS, MeeGo, Windows Mobile. Loved each OS, but I’m not typing this comment on Android… Because that’s where the apps and users are…
This legislation will satisfy a tiny community that they Can use a different store but will ultimately have little impact on apple, Google nor end user.
Adurbe,
Actually the Cydia app store had more apps for IOS first. If apple hadn’t used it’s OS tentacles to block owners from using alternatives, the apple store could have faced much more competition.
While you are right that users play a critical role in adoption, I think you are wrong in assuming that content providers don’t have the numbers. When Epic sued apple, it was representing many millions of users. They clearly have a viable user base, but they cannot overcome the restrictions imposed by the apple monopoly.
I predict that cross platform app stores will prevail because consumers and developers will see value in cross platform stores. Think about it, if you’re allowed to buy a game in one store and then install it on all the platforms it’s been ported to (windows/mac/linux/android/ios/xbox/playstation)…that would be extremely compelling for most users! Being allowed to use the stores of your choice everywhere makes the competitive landscape a whole lot more interesting. IMHO the stores that offer this are going to be in demand.
So I hope the restrictions do end up being lifted.
Alfman,
You’ve made a very good point about cross-platform app stores. One of the reasons for app store lockin, is also platform lock-in. Say you have purchased an app on your iPhone that is also available on Android, you would have to purchase it again if you switch. If it were just a small few apps, sure not an issue, but what if it is a large collection of apps? Many users would be reluctant to switch, as it would mean purchasing all of them again, including app subscriptions.
I hope this legislation succeeds and cross-platform app stores emerge. This would put pressure on platforms to actually compete with each other to retain users, rather than just locking them in.
adkilla,
Yes exactly. Adurbe makes this point as well and I agree with him that the effects of past vendor locking will continue to propagate, but at least we can begin to make it right going forward.
Are you sure Cydia had more apps? It could be my memory, but I thought only a small % of users (those who jailbreaked)? Or was it 10m hello world apps?
While I’d Love to see cross platform stores (like steam) accend, I think the reality is that in currently entrenched markets like Mobile Apps, it simply won’t take hold against existing stores as people are already invested in them and (presumably) the new store wouldn’t honor apple store bought licences so users would need to buy again to take advantage, making it doa.
This may be different in the next technology market product ofc.
Adurbe,
It was a long time ago when the iphone was new. Jobs didn’t even plan on having an app store, his vision was based on HTML applications instead until he saw how popular Cydia was with iphone users.
https://www.wired.com/2009/08/cydia-app-store/
I understand your point. But regardless I think the law should side with owners having the right to choose.
There’s different parts to the law. Personally I think multiple app stores is going to have the least impact for all the reasons talked about in this thread.
However, the two big parts of it are:
1. allow developers to use the App Store without using Apple’s payment systems. This is very important in my view to allow developers to keep more of the money.
2. To allow side loading of applications.If there is an app, I really want to install, I should be able to do it. By all means, make it hard for me to do it. Make me change security settings in the phone. Throw up a warning message. Have me type in my pin… but i should be able to do it.
As to things like banking apps supporting rooted devices. Again, that’s for them to decide. Take it away from the platform. If enough people with rooted devices are annoyed that their bank won’t support them, then they can petition their bank to change their app… Or maybe the bank values it is so much. It’s further down the line, which is a good thing.
Yamin,
I don’t really expect apple to host apps if they’re not getting a cut. But apple should have to compete for app developers as well as app buyers. It is very problematic when a dominant company can force its own services to be used because it undermines the free market from every side.
I agree, the decision ultimately needs to be up to the owner.
I would really like to see more power tools to aid owners who are sideloading particularly with respect to letting owners control & monitor applications and tracking installations to the source store. It would be cool if apple really took sideloading to heart and went all out to make IOS a great platform for sideloading & 3rd party stores. There’s plenty of innovation to be done and frankly they could do it much better than google does if they wanted to. I would be happily surprised if apple were willing & able to get past it’s own selfish interests to deliver a strong sideloading platform for owners. I have my suspicions they’ll do the minimum possible and might even deliberately make things bad in an effort to sabotage alternatives.
Hopefully apple can use this opportunity to make IOS better for owner rights. We’ll see what happens.
This isn’t a big problem. Look at the cases between Apple against Spotify and Epic Games. When people want an app, they don’t rely on the store being popular but rather on how good their experience with the app maker is. Microsoft’s Xbox Cloud Gaming store app was blocked because Apple required every game to be submitted to the App Store which is absurd because this is a game streaming service. App billing will end up being a commodity that you can install in an app and not rely on Apple and app makers will not need Apple at all. The most sold apps are on Windows and there is no popular store for Windows more than the web and CDs and floppy disks before that. Stores on the internet are not important for apps, they really never were.
There is a difference between users preferring the default store and being locked to it. With Android, if Google doesn’t want something in their app store (for example an emulator called psx4droid), you can still go to the developer’s website, download it, and sideload it. Or even sideload an alternative app store that will then install the app for you and keep it updated, like Epic does for Fortnite. Because it’s your device and you decide what you can install on it. This keeps Google honest to a large degree, which is how we got emulators in the Play Store.
I don’t mind defaults, as long as I am not locked to them.
kurkosdr,
+1 Exactly. If people want to stick to defaults, it’s no problem at all, but it shouldn’t interfere with other people’s rights.
Still no USB-C iphone, so I’m sure they’ll get right on this in 5 years.
The sooner the better.
Apple will definitely offer downgraded user experience if this comes to pass to people who sideload apps.
Just like some banking apps refuse to run on rooted Android phones – on one hand I find this highly annoying, on another I partially understand why.
Apple always claimed to have highly secure devices, and now they might not be able to make such claims.
[email protected],
We’re talking about sideloading and not rooting. With sideloading applications continue to run isolated from each other just like always. Keep in mind that not even apple audits the submitted application code. Sure they might spend a few minutes to do rudimentary quality checks and stop spammy submissions but they really don’t know if there is hidden behavior that can be unlocked. They’ll scan for known malware but a knowledgeable adversary using original code will get through prescreening easily enough. It’s really up to the sandboxing and OS permission system to actually protect the device.
So would you elaborate how “Apple will definitely offer downgraded user experience if this comes to pass”?
They can claim what they want but the reality is that there’s tons of low quality crap in the apple store today. That’s the problem with apple’s one size fits all approach. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is demand for more selective stores that place a higher emphasis on quality and domain specific interests than apple can do.
sideloading would imply developers do not have to pay Apple to have their apps published on the store. because they would not be published on the store.
“In order to be able to submit apps to the App Store, you need to be enrolled in the Apple Developer Program. It costs $99/year”.
Apple is absolutely rabid when it comes to someone cutting into their profits. they are guaranteed to think of something more or less subtle to make you feel like your device is significantly downgraded by using sideloaded apps,
Additionally, it would be so much easier to install apps on older devices that go out of support. Which is in Apple’s case – very quickly.
[email protected],
Yes, as it should be.
Nobody questions why apple wants to force itself as the middleman. But once that strategy becomes illegal then apple may have to adjust it’s behaviors to reflect the new incentives and disincentives, which is the whole point of this law. Apple will still be fine even if it means having to compete on merits. This is a core principal of the free market.
It sounds like you are suggesting apple should or will try to subvert the laws. During its antitrust trial microsoft also tried to hurt competitors but the courts saw through that. Courts are likely to rule in favor of competitors who not only have the moral high ground but will now have the right to independently do business with owners explicitly protected under the law. The damages to apple could quickly add up if they choose not to comply in good faith. It will be interesting to see what happens.
This is where market competition helps consumers. If those apps are crappy on one platform like iOS and great on another like Android we very likely will have market pressures that force companies to create safer computing environments which by the way is available already on multiple computing environments like desktops and servers. I’m not knowledgeable of the specifics of mobile chips but this something easy to add if absent because I know how it’s done on desktop class chips and it isn’t a power hungry feature.
Apple’s obvious solution is to start charging apps for api access to specific apis. So sure, you can have an alternative app store, separate payments, but if you want your app to work efficiently or not be blamed for battery loss or something, you’d have to pay apple a per app install charge to use the “Don’t suck api” well that will be an extra charge. Microsoft literally wrote the book on this, you just need to take all of their dumb ideas to block competition, and just monetize that.
Bill Shooter of Bul,
Well, microsoft got into trouble for doing a lot of that.
Apple could try and circumvent the DMA, but it may not be productive depending on how rigorously the EU enforces it. Also fighting legislation protecting free markets and owner rights is not a good image. Honestly if apple’s store is even remotely competitive then they don’t have much to worry about. The more they fight, the more it appears they were protecting noncompetitive advantages.
I often don’t agree with EU antitrust legislation, but I do agree with this one. I miss the days of Google Talk, when I could host an XMPP server on my home computer, and connect all of my services together. It was like SMS/MMS or Email; I was often unaware of what server the other users logged in with, and all I saw was the name in my address book.
I am also excited to see resistance to the rise of app stores on PC. I love using Linux repositories because I can pick and choose any random 3rd party repository I want to trust; I would love to see the Microsoft Store, Apple App Store, and Play Store all move in that direction. Want your app to be managed by the software manager for some OS, great, just publish a URL for the official copy; no need to pay the Store a listing fee or commissions if you don’t want to.
That’s not nearly enough “judging by the title”. I’d like to see FRUs back in all devices, small and large. It’s amazing how laws changed o side with big Tech on soldering or sealing batteries(instead of standardized batteries), storage, fans, and memory inside the unit. These are the first things to go bad! You’re forced into extended warranty support, and, or purchase a new device , thus doubling the cost long before it’s effective EOL. the consumer clearly lost this battle. But I’m also glad to see this as a major step forward with the EU. Hopefully the US quickly follos suit in similar fashion and also have FRUs back (Field Replaceable Units).
spiderdroid,
Yes, being able to repair devices is extremely important as well to improve product lifespans. Right to repair bills are being introduced in many countries & states so I think legislators are hearing the message.
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/03/eu-introduces-right-to-repair-rules-for-electrical-goods/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-lawmakers-introduce-right-to-repair-bills-to-spur-competition/ar-AATr4GZ
Hopefully these get some teeth. The challenge is getting the bills passed because there’s tons of pressure from manufacturers to bury them. Standing up for owner rights isn’t exactly profitable. The sad reality is that most politicians have to worry about who’s going to fund their next campaign, most are dependent on corporate campaign financing which implicitly corrupts their incentives.
Yes, I have no doubt EU would start looking at stopping them, but they move slow.