And customers from ND would just get pissed at their elected representatives and pressure them to repeal the law. And in the meantime they'd go to another state to buy their iPhone or iPad or have an out-of-state relative buy it for them and mail it to them.
Unfortunately this kind of law needs to be from a state like CA or NY (or quite a few smaller states) for it to be effective.
B is the controversial one.
A provider of a digital application distribution platform may not:
B) Require a developer to use the provider's digital transaction platform or in application payment system as the exclusive means for accepting payment from a user to download the developer's software application, or purchase a digital or physical product or service created, offered, or provided by the developer through a software application.
It seems reasonable that the app store should be able set processing requirements the for apps within the store.
What should be legislated and allowed is the ability of users to download alternative app stores onto their devices if they want to live outside of the walled garden.
It's not apples phone after they sell. The user should be able to side load and use it as they see fit. Even if that means installing an other app store.
The payment processing not sure if that would be needed if users were not locked out of their own hardware. Just install the app directly or an other app store that is not as strict with payment processing.
Right to repair would be great, I am sure Apple has spent millions lobbying against it. Why do you think Apple shouldn't be singled out?
As an end user, I know knowing that stuff in Apple's App Store is reasonably vetted. It's not perfect, and when mistakes are made we ready about them here. But for the most part if I install an app that says it'll do X, it'll do X while generally not being to upload unrelated data to North Korea. I'm at a stage in life where I'd rather pay someone to make those investigations and decisions for me than invest the time to do it myself. Again, other people strongly feel otherwise, but that's OK!
As a family member, I have to worry a little less about what apps my kids are running, and have to spend a little less time fixing my older relatives' phones when I go home to visit. This gives me more time to do stuff I actually want to be doing.
As a security person, I have to worry a little less about what apps my coworkers are running, and I know there's a reasonably good sandbox keeping one app's data away from another's. If there were, say, a Facebook-encapsulated app store, I might have zero confidence that the game app they installed through it can't access data in the "add cat pics to your presentation!" app that they also installed through it.
I totally get why people want to have multiple app stores on their phone, and I can't say they're wrong. Still, I'm perfectly happy with the current state of affairs, and have no desire to have Epic and Facebook app stores on my kids' or coworkers' phones that I'm at least a little bit responsible for.
> The North Dakota state senate voted 36-11 on Tuesday not to pass a bill that would have required app stores to enable software developers to use their own payment processing software and avoid fees charged by Apple and Google.
You can keep your walled garden and still allow app developers to use a third party payment processer.
We have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". If there’s a problem a lot of us face, and we don’t have the individual leverage to solve it, then that’s what our government is for.
If that didn't happen, you would most likely be a Microsoft serf speaking into a Microsoft Windows Pocket PC Phone consumer edition.
Apple and Google has much tighter control over the platforms now than Microsoft ever dreamed of in wildest monopoly fantasies.
Government can use the same anti-trust regulations to break up Apple and Google and monopoly control over mobile app stores.
It's governments duty to keep fair competition in the marketplace, so innovation and free trade can happen for benefit of consumers.
Apple and Google were legitimately more competitive in digital music and web search/web advertising respectively without government intervention. They would also both go on to wreck Microsoft’s WinCE business under all of its various names and guises on both the high end and the low end. SanDisk and Yahoo were their biggest competitors in music and web services during this time. Microsoft’s attempts to purchase Yahoo were rebuffed by Yahoo management’s overvaluation of themselves.
Your premise for this alternate history is flawed.
I stand by my statement: this isn’t the government’s problem, any government’s problem, and especially not any American government’s problem.
Apple was failing as computer company. Apple only survived because Microsoft threw them a lifeline, licensing Office suite in Macs and investing in Apple. Microsoft wanted to show anti-trust regulators that there was software competition in PC market. If there was no anti-trust suit against Microsoft, Apple would have likely went bankrupt.
Microsoft was on the way to owning Desktop and web space, by tightly integrating IE into Windows. Left on own, Microsoft would have routed all default browser traffic to Microsoft search engine on MSN. Google would have remained some student research prototype into an algorithm about backlinks.
It was a tactic to deflect a DOJ suit, unsuccessfully, but again, this was likely not an appropriate use of the government’s authority. For the sake of argument, even if it were, that does not mean it would be today. Present circumstances are not a mirror of the past. If you want to make a good case for government intervention in the market, your best argument is not that the United States once sued Microsoft and now it is Apple’s turn.
Mind the DOJ has sued Apple (and publishers) once using antitrust law relating to the iBooks Store. The result further cemented Amazon’s market dominance in ebooks and increased ebook prices.
More innovation and competition are good things. When mobile app stores are freed, new baby Apple and baby Google type companies can be free to build new services and features.
I agree. That’s why this isn’t the government’s problem. Rather than trying to wrench away someone else’s golden goose, find your own.
I would be pleased if Apple just opened up side-loading, but not so pleased if that came about from the business end of a gun wielded by a tyrannical and envious mob or a career climbing prosecutor claiming to wield such a gun for their sake.
Apple teaches users to become assisted depended stupid individuals.
"Ohhh look at this nice shinny company that is here to take care of my best interests, lets withdraw all my rights to them".
That makes me think about the book "the animal farm" book also from Orwell.
Users that are almost begging to be put into servitude...
Imagine if real life was like that?
Like the post office looking at your mail and delivering only the one that they decide they approve (and serve their financial interests).
- "oh, I see that this person bought a Xiaomi phone, it is probably not a secure device, let refuse to deliver it."
- "Look, someone sent a 10e bill reimbursement inside a letter to their friend, they should have used our shitty money-remittance service, lets burn this letter"
When I go to my account -> subscriptions on an iPhone, I can see all of the subscriptions that I have. Oh, hey, I've got a subscription to Microsoft Office 365 Personal. Annual billing, next date May 4, 2021. I click on that, and I see how much it is and I can click "cancel subscription".
I've also got a subscription with Washington Post... somewhere... on some card. To cancel that involves going into WaPo's site and navigating to the account, and trying to find the billing and cancel and turn that off.
Additionally, I can see "This subscription for Microsoft Office 365 Personal". Compare seeing a charge on March 4th show up that is for "Microsoft" - where did that come from? How do I find out what service its associated with? How do I cancel it? What account do I log in to to cancel it?
Microsoft would be fairly clear... but what if it was for "Some Random Developer" - who even makes something that I'm getting billed for? What was it for? The name that something shows up for billing purposes doesn't always reflect the company that the billing is from. I've done "move everything off the card, and cancel the card" in the past to try to find out what reoccurring billing line item was hitting me for $20/month (years and years ago). I never figured it out as everything that I knew that I used that I transferred off didn't break or send me a "your monthly subscription didn't go through" ... it was probably for some service that I subscribed to but forgot about (though they didn't forget about me).
A larger threat IMO is teaching people to enter CC info or worse banking info into apps.
Things like tougher vehicle emissions regulations (than imposed at the federal level) work because large states like CA require them, so it ends up being cheaper for manufacturers to just build to the CA standard for all states.