US Senators Push For American Version of EU's Digital Markets Act (appleinsider.com) 40
U.S. lawmakers have reintroduced the bipartisan Open App Markets Act, aiming to curb Apple and Google's control over mobile app stores by promoting competition, supporting third-party marketplaces and sideloading, and safeguarding developer rights. AppleInsider reports: The Open App Markets Act seeks to do a number of things, including:
- Protect developers' rights to tell consumers about lower prices and offer competitive pricing;
- Protect sideloading of apps;
- Promote competition by opening the market to third-party app stores, startup apps, and alternative payment systems;
- Make it possible for developers to offer new experiences that take advantage of consumer device features;
- Give consumers greater control over their devices;
- Prevent app stores from disadvantaging developers; and
- Establish safeguards to preserve consumer privacy, security, and safety.
This isn't the first time we've seen this bill, either. In 2021, Senators Blumenthal, Klobuchar, and Blackburn had attempted to put forth the original version of the Open App Markets Act.However, the initial bill never made it to the floor for an office vote. Thanks to last-minute efforts by lobbying groups and appearances from chief executives, the bill eventually stalled out.
While the two bills are largely similar, the revised version introduces several key differences. Notably, the new version includes new carve-outs aimed at protecting intellectual property and addressing potential national security concerns.There's also a new clause that would prohibit punitive actions against developers for enabling remote access to other apps. The clause addition harkens back to the debacle between Apple and most game streaming services -- though in 2024, Apple loosened its App Store guidelines to allow cloud gaming and emulation.
There are a few new platform-protective clauses added, too. For instance, it would significantly lower the burden of proof for either Apple or Google to block platform access to a third-party app.Additionally, it reinforces the fact that companies like Apple or Google will not need to provide support or refunds for third-party apps installed outside of first-party app marketplaces. The full bill can be found here.
- Protect developers' rights to tell consumers about lower prices and offer competitive pricing;
- Protect sideloading of apps;
- Promote competition by opening the market to third-party app stores, startup apps, and alternative payment systems;
- Make it possible for developers to offer new experiences that take advantage of consumer device features;
- Give consumers greater control over their devices;
- Prevent app stores from disadvantaging developers; and
- Establish safeguards to preserve consumer privacy, security, and safety.
This isn't the first time we've seen this bill, either. In 2021, Senators Blumenthal, Klobuchar, and Blackburn had attempted to put forth the original version of the Open App Markets Act.However, the initial bill never made it to the floor for an office vote. Thanks to last-minute efforts by lobbying groups and appearances from chief executives, the bill eventually stalled out.
While the two bills are largely similar, the revised version introduces several key differences. Notably, the new version includes new carve-outs aimed at protecting intellectual property and addressing potential national security concerns.There's also a new clause that would prohibit punitive actions against developers for enabling remote access to other apps. The clause addition harkens back to the debacle between Apple and most game streaming services -- though in 2024, Apple loosened its App Store guidelines to allow cloud gaming and emulation.
There are a few new platform-protective clauses added, too. For instance, it would significantly lower the burden of proof for either Apple or Google to block platform access to a third-party app.Additionally, it reinforces the fact that companies like Apple or Google will not need to provide support or refunds for third-party apps installed outside of first-party app marketplaces. The full bill can be found here.
It's about time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: It's about time. (Score:3)
Let's fix the lead in line for the article.... (Score:2)
> U.S. lawmakers have reintroduced the bipartisan Open App Markets Act, aiming to curb Apple and Google's control over
> mobile app stores by promoting competition, supporting third-party marketplaces and sideloading, and safeguarding developer rights.
U.S. lawmakers have reintroduced a bipartisan bill to let them tax, regulate, and help lobbyists keep billing lobbying hours.....
Re: (Score:2)
This is what our Congressmen/women should be doing...
I can think of one or two things that require their more immediate attention...
Like growing a spine and preventing the nation's complete downfall into authoritarianism. But hey, you do you.
Re: (Score:2)
You're misinterpreting what they're doing. They're blackmailing Apple and Google into giving them more money/insider information/work-free jobs for relatives/etc. Then when the legislation fails because Big Tech bribed enough congresscritters they can tell their constituents, "We tried oh-so-hard, maybe next time we'll actually do something that benefits the average citizen rather than the mega-corps!" Then they'll snicker up their sleeves, "But don't count on it."
Re: (Score:3)
This is what our Congressmen/women should be doing... structuring markets to unleash the creative forces of competition while retarding rent-seeking extraction.
This is the US we're talking about, good ideas do not survive there. If this gets through it'll either be so watered down that Budweiser will start selling it as beer or completely co-opted by the companies it's meant to be protecting people against that it will be doing the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad they never do that. They can't. Government intervention only ever serves the interests of the people in government and/or the people paying for the people in government. On top of that, governments cannot create markets or 'encourage' anything. They can penalize people they don't like and artificially pump up others, but thats it. The result is always a more restrictive market environment that will advantage the big players who provide the nicest kickbacks.
Re:It's about time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell freeking no!
The reason we have nice platforms is because they are profitable. We would be pack to pushing windows CE binaries / J2ME / and various other trypes of shovelware onto our mobiles using some tethered PC serial link without the stores.
It sucked, even if it was open. It was horrid from a security perspective and only worked because most of us did not have anything other contacts and maybe e-mail on our phones, they were tied to payment processing etc like now. That is why you had to have companies like Good putting out whole sandboxes that completely replaced all the native apps, because who knew the status of any other software on the device.
Apple should be entitled to control their platform and take whatever percentage in the store they like, and make any rules for what you can and cannot do if you wish to sell thru the store.
The ONLY thing they ought to be forced to do is allow side loading.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should be entitled to control their platform and take whatever percentage in the store they like
ONLY if Apple follows the law. They are not above the law, including antitrust laws, and new digital markets laws that need to be written to close loopholes. The Apple app store is a marketplace in which Apple enjoys a monopoly. You can't use your monopoly in a marketplace to ban competing payment processors and force YOUR processing fee on all transactions.
Let the sausage making begin... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And they'll succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how they have _not_ succeeded in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how they have _not_ succeeded in the EU.
It's almost as if laws are in place to prevent it.
One of the best things any democracy can do to safeguard it's democracy is to limit the amount of money that can be given to politicians with strict punishments for attempting to circumvent them. Say 1,000 Dollars/Euros/Pounds per organisation and 10,000 Dollars/Euros/Pounds per individual/family to any one political party. Penaties will be multiple times that in fines for the first offence and increasing in severity from there on in.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I will not claim this works well in the EU, because it does not. It works somewhat acceptable. In the US, it is an abysmal failure though.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I will not claim this works well in the EU, because it does not. It works somewhat acceptable. In the US, it is an abysmal failure though.
Yep, it's not perfect in Oz either but serves to decentralise the money (and the power) so that political parties become dependent on local members campaigning and being noticed rather than headlines being commanded out of Canberra, Westminster, Washington, , et al. In a country as large and diverse as the UK, Westminster can easily get too disconnected from people, let alone in somewhere as physically as large as Australia or the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the things that makes the EU great. It's fairly resilient when it comes to lobbying and corporate interference, and actually works for the benefit of the citizens instead.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not from Europe, are you? The whole Digital Markets Act was made just because the GDPR is not enforced for large enough companies (and frankly, hardly enforced at all). And the GDPR is not enforced because the enforcement is left to agencies that are easily corrupted.
Also, the US has never been GDPR compliant, but the EU has made totally ridiculous deals with the US anyway. The first time such a deal was brought to court, we found out that the Irish Data Protection Agency (the agency set up for the e
Time for a handango revival (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, the place that had all the Palm and WinCE and and BlackBerry and even some J2ME crap back before Apple decided to show the world how to be an anticompetitive jerk.
Re: Time for a handango revival (Score:3)
In their defence, it did help a lot with app discovery. Of course, Google could have helped, but never seemed to, much like with PWAs...instead they seemed just join in, more or less. Other search engines haven't seemed help either.
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly knew Handango for Symbian apps. I didn't realise they did all the mobile platforms before we entered the locked-down era.
For every device, or only phones? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will this open up every device that is locked down to only one software store, or only smartphones? This could be applied to TVs, some car entertainment units, set top boxes or similar like Fire Stick, Roku, also game consoles, to name a few.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd much rather TVs just be monitors with speakers, TBH. On second thought, probably do without the speakers as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If they follow up the DMA approach then it has nothing to do with device, and everything to do with "platforms" which wield a certain amount of market power. It's why the Apple Store is covered under the DMA but no one gives a shit about MacBooks. It's why Facebook is covered under the DMA but Bluesky is not.
Do GDPR first! (Score:3)
But of course, it's easy to pound on Apple and Google. Shutting down the wider surveillance economy would gore a lot more oxen... THOSE do much more damage to actual end users than the Apple/Google duopoly. Apple & Google arguably hurt the big players like Epic, but as far as I'm personally concerned, that's A Feature.
Apple and wechat et al (Score:2)
How is it that apple allow wechat and alipay, and other "superapps" to run their own platforms, seemingly independent of the Apple app store?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple only enforces its rules when it's profitable. Allowing these superapps is more profitable than forbidding them, so the rule are not enforced.
Good luck! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true fascist: Kill everyone that does not do as you want. Or maybe that is giving you too much credit and you are just a murderous asshole.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't say to kill anyone.
Nor did I offer to kill anyone.
All I said was that if someone were to kill those fascist assholes, I wouldn't cry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes you a fasctist asshole.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, nobody is perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but now you started a race to the bottom. Current day MAGA is a great example. Can you be MAGA and disagree with anything dear leader does? Nope. You speak out and MAGA comes for you. You're either all or nothing. Another political party started doing shit like that back in Germany in the 1930s. First the economic and social problems were blamed on one particular group. Then when the blame ran out it shifted to another group. Eventually you're going to run out of purity.
Not Going To Happen (Score:2)
This is why you will soon own nothing. Oh, you'll pay for things; and pay dearly, but you won't own them.
And if you don't own it, they can control what you do.
Just need side loading on iPhones... (Score:1)
As it's always been available on Android phones. Right now a company can explain to any Android user how to enable side loading, how to download and install the app, and can build their own financial transaction system into the app. But I can't think of a company I would trust more than Google to vet apps in a store, i.e. has a strong enough financial interest to be vested in keeping apps secure and have sufficient technical knowledge of the platform. In any case, the bitching here is about easy of acces