NTIA recently calls changes for mobile app markets

[TheawesomeMCB]

Summary

  NTIA calls for changes to have more competition in mobile app markets, as where it currently stands can be harmful because gatekeeps policies can have potential to  harm consumers by inflating prices and reducing innovation.

 

Quote

“The report says that new legislation and additional antitrust enforcement actions will likely be necessary to remedy existing issues and boost competition in mobile app ecosystems.”

(Macrumors Website)

“The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) said in a new report Wednesday that the current mobile app store model is harmful to consumers and developers, and recommended policy changes to fix it.” 

(NTIA.gov website)

 

 

My thoughts:

So it looks like a second attempt is being made after the open act markets act failed before.  This could be a huge win for consumers. In my opinion I don’t think apple and google are happy. I think the only thing that apple and google did before was delay the inevitable. They have too much power, and I’m glad that serval countries want change better for competition.

 

Sources

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/02/03/biden-report-recommends-apple-ecosystem-changes/

https://ntia.gov/press-release/2023/ntia-calls-changes-boost-competition-mobile-app-markets

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by TheawesomeMCB
Moderators request to be less political 2nd edit

[Zando_]

Man. As someone who enjoys using an iPhone for the sheer simplicity and reliability of it, and has a lot of older/non-techie family members on them, I don't like the idea of 3rd party app stores, as companies will likely require them and refuse to publish a version to the native iOS app store. Basically, if you can get everything you need done in the walled garden, they are really nice.

[mr cheese]

7 minutes ago, Zando_ said:

Man. As someone who enjoys using an iPhone for the sheer simplicity and reliability of it, and has a lot of older/non-techie family members on them, I don't like the idea of 3rd party app stores, as companies will likely require them and refuse to publish a version to the native iOS app store. Basically, if you can get everything you need done in the walled garden, they are really nice.

I mean, if this was the case I think we'd have seen it already with Android, but save Epic Games making their own launcher in protest of The App Store Cut we haven't seen a lot of apps try to usurp Google's own Play store for their profit. I think for convenience's sake most developers are still gonna stick to the already established App/Play stores and at most we might have fringe cases of custom app delivery for certain apps/games or manufacturers going absolutely the fuck wild on Android distributing their own stores either primarily or exclusively (we're already seeing this with Samsung and, if only for the political climate, Huawei)

 

TL;DR even if this passes I think for the convenience a lot of devs are gonna stick to the already established stores, at least for most mainstream apps

[williamcll]

56 minutes ago, Zando_ said:

Man. As someone who enjoys using an iPhone for the sheer simplicity and reliability of it, and has a lot of older/non-techie family members on them, I don't like the idea of 3rd party app stores, as companies will likely require them and refuse to publish a version to the native iOS app store. Basically, if you can get everything you need done in the walled garden, they are really nice.

I can't get ad blockers on the current app store and must sideload it weekly. 

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Zando_ said:

I don't like the idea of 3rd party app stores, as companies will likely require them and refuse to publish a version to the native iOS app store.

This is ridiculous. Android has had sideloading since the start, where's this onslaught of third parties requiring their own sideloaded store? Only apps that are already extremely popular could maybe afford to ask this of the average user without losing their entire marketshare and in most cases they have no reason to anyway.

[whispous]

On the one hand, Apples' walled garden really does give them the ability to set some strong standards in app quality*, leading to another layer of "you already know how to use this new app".

On the other hand, owning a vital platform AND owning the only road into it with exorbitant leeching fees is pure unhindered monopolistic behaviour.

 

*inconsistent

[HenrySalayne]

15 hours ago, Zando_ said:

Man. As someone who enjoys using an iPhone for the sheer simplicity and reliability of it, and has a lot of older/non-techie family members on them, I don't like the idea of 3rd party app stores, as companies will likely require them and refuse to publish a version to the native iOS app store. Basically, if you can get everything you need done in the walled garden, they are really nice.

You're lying to yourself and everybody else.

 

 

"You're safe here, we don't lure our costumers into downloading the wrong apps" is walled garden marketing BS that couldn't be further from the truth.

I dare you to search for "whatsapp" on the PlayStore and compare the process. Apple's predatory practices are among the worst especially with the emphasis you and many others are placing on the "walled garden". "using an iPhone for the sheer simplicity and reliability" is certainly a fatal overdose of marketing nonsense,

 

16 hours ago, TheawesomeMCB said:

NTIA calls for changes to have more competition in mobile app markets, as where it currently stands can be harmful because gatekeeps policies can have potential to  harm consumers by inflating prices and reducing innovation.

BTT: EU regulation already passed the parliament so I would say the NTIA is late to the party. It sounds like they will take the homework of their neighbours and just change it a little.

[Zando_]

16 hours ago, mr cheese said:

TL;DR even if this passes I think for the convenience a lot of devs are gonna stick to the already established stores, at least for most mainstream apps

Fair point, hopefully true. 

15 hours ago, williamcll said:

I can't get ad blockers on the current app store and must sideload it weekly. 

That isn't one of the things I need to do, so hasn't been an issue for me. Allowing proper sideloading would be handy for such utilities though, can agree on that. 

14 hours ago, Sauron said:

This is ridiculous. Android has had sideloading since the start, where's this onslaught of third parties requiring their own sideloaded store? Only apps that are already extremely popular could maybe afford to ask this of the average user without losing their entire marketshare and in most cases they have no reason to anyway.

Also fair, I think I overreacted a bit. I do know Epic is chomping at the bit to escape paying anyone else anything, not sure how many other devs are or can afford to though. 

14 hours ago, whispous said:

On the other hand, owning a vital platform AND owning the only road into it with exorbitant leeching fees is pure unhindered monopolistic behaviour.

Tis standard rate. Epic's rate is a similar 25% or so (standard is 30%) if you make them cover payment processing, it's only super low if you handle that yourself. 

5 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

You're lying to yourself and everybody else.

? I use Apple's ecosystem for work, because for me it does everything I need it to with minimal assfuckery. I use Windows at home for games and general browsing, and pretty regularly use Linux. Most recently for general use on a box that won't run Windows 11 (I prefer 11 to 10) and commonly for various VM projects for pihole and other such tinkering. Always Ubuntu based distros because they do what I need them to with minimal assfuckery (you'll notice a common theme here) and are easy to find guides for any issues.

 

Point being, I use whatever OS works best for what I want out of X device, for my phone that's iOS because while Android is very tweakable, it's too busy and the app experience is too much of a clusterfuck for me to bother with. That could be related to my experience being with samsungs, and specifically a Verizon one. That gets you a Samsung, Verizon, and Google app for most common smartphone apps vs just one that works and has a cohesive UI. I find older folks have a much easier time learning iOS as well. 

11 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

"You're safe here, we don't lure our costumers into downloading the wrong apps" is walled garden marketing BS that couldn't be further from the truth.

I dare you to search for "whatsapp" on the PlayStore and compare the process. Apple's predatory practices are among the worst especially with the emphasis you and many others are placing on the "walled garden". "using an iPhone for the sheer simplicity and reliability" is certainly a fatal overdose of marketing nonsense,

I see clearly marked ads and then whatsapp as the first proper result. Don't have anything that runs the playstore to test and compare with. Seems fine on the desktop version: 

 

Not sure where the marketing nonsense bit is coming from. I fucking hate marketing and Apple's product pages annoy me with their smug bullshit. I buy hardware because I want to use it. I want to use iPhones because in my experience they have been simple and reliable. I don't have to worry about whether the screen is good, or if the chip is fast and efficient, whether the camera is good, if the speakers are shit or not, or if it supports the LTE bands for my carrier, or if bla bla bla. I buy the one with the big screen and it's a good phone, does everything I need it to and nothing I don't. A bit more expensive than other options sure, but similarly built flagships from other OEMs commonly reach the same price point with more downsides for what I want out of a phone. Apple tends to support phones for far longer than I enjoy them with software updates also. My dad doesn't mind his phone being slow so he only finally upgraded from an iPhone 6S as they dropped support for it with iOS 16. Not bad for a phone from 2015. 

 

TLDR: marketing bullshit has nothing to do with it, I've just found iPhones give me less crap while doing the job I expect a smartphone to do.

[Kisai]

17 hours ago, Zando_ said:

Man. As someone who enjoys using an iPhone for the sheer simplicity and reliability of it, and has a lot of older/non-techie family members on them, I don't like the idea of 3rd party app stores, as companies will likely require them and refuse to publish a version to the native iOS app store. Basically, if you can get everything you need done in the walled garden, they are really nice.

Look no further than the crappy Ubisoft, EA and the dozens of crappy "launchers" for games on steam to see exactly why third party stores are a bad thing.

 

"You mean I gotta login to yet another program to play this game I already purchased? What the crap?"

 

Ubisoft connect and EA Origin absolutely suck. If you buy a game that is Ubisoft or EA, you have to login to yet a second store, and have this piece of crap running in the background, sucking up resources. So if you have your games fragmented across Steam, EGS, GOG, Ubisoft, and Origin, you now have 5 useless programs running just to play the game. Then you have individual games that have their sub launcher for steam, which is used to bypass Steam's patching the game and to launch anti-cheat programs.

 

Now imagine this crap on your phone. If you want a third party store, you better be developing your own damn phone.

 

[mr cheese]

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

"You mean I gotta login to yet another program to play this game I already purchased? What the crap?"

I think this trivializes the issue far too much. I see the point you're trying to make but what this kind of rhetoric is actually highlighting is the fact that developers are kind of forced to use mainstream distribution for applications just to have reach and ease of use because that's all there is. So developers who want to use their own launchers to redirect in-game purchases through their own payment systems are forced to make it super inconvenient for the EU because they're all gonna complain about having to get the app through any other standardized medium like Steam. Epic Games was the first active challenge to the Steam monopoly.

 

Your highlighting the entire problem we have in the first place, it's extremely hard to flesh out the developer's bottom line with existing monopolies in place. I think at this point we've been spoiled by the ease of access Steam has given us without recognizing how this can actually be damaging. I think larger companies can definitely do without that cut and they're just kinda selfish for forcing users to use their launchers, but this is money smaller devs don't have much availability to access without risking the health of their game by not having it available in a major distribution source.

 

On top of this, again, some stores have crazy restrictions. Lots of good tools have been relegated to either the painfully involved process of sideloading on iOS, and Android already has established third-party stores like F-Droid to get open-source apps out there and actively distributed way easier than the Play Store would allow, even in some situations bypassing needless Play Store blocks due to flippant Google policy actions

 

Tl;DR you're minimizing the issue by complaining about how complicated certain games can be to use. We've been spoiled by the monopoly of distribution of games and apps alike without realizing how it's money taken out of dev's pockets that they simply don't have control over without risking the health of their projects. Major developers are still incentivized to use major distribution platforms and I don't think it's gonna be as huge an issue as you assume.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, mr cheese said:

 

 

Tl;DR you're minimizing the issue by complaining about how complicated certain games can be to use. 

No no, the problem is, on the PC, you have "choice of nothing"

If I want to play a game, and it's on ONE store only, eg Microsoft store, I can only play it from THAT store. I can't play the Steam version or EGS version, despite these games being the exact same game other than this store integration. This isn't choice, this is just making you buy the game 5 more times when one store stops updating.

 

I've bought stuff that was originally on Steam, and then for some reason became EGS or GOG exclusive. So now if I want the updated version of the game, I have to buy it AGAIN.

 

Do you not see the problem?

 

The correct, and only proper fix is to eliminate the "Store" itself.

 

The store should be a means to tell the OS you purchased something, and the OS itself should manage the download, install and patching of that program from there on, like it does on MacOS and iOS. That is the correct way it should have always worked.

 

If I buy a game once, it should be available on all my devices without having to buy it again. That way you can have 40 stores, but they all ultimately tell the OS "here's the download ticket, here's the name of the binary package for your OS, here's the main (already patched) asset package that works on all versions. If you switch from an Intel to an ARM device, then the OS package manager goes "whoops, you have the wrong binary" and downloads the binary package for that device, without having to buy the game again, and using the same asset package you already downloaded. And what if the developer permits modding the game? Well now you have a "mod patch" option where mods the developer of the game can approve mods to the game, and developing/unapproved mods just go onto the modder's "store" and goes "requires having purchased X" and links you back to that store.

 

That way, if a store goes out of business, which they will, you still have the download tickets, and Microsoft/Apple/Google/etc will still have the binary in their download ticket archives. If the updated asset package is gone, then the last package developed is downloaded.

 

Right now, if Steam were go go extinct tomorrow, every single game you did not install before it shutdown, is gone, overnight. Same with EGS and GOG. Meanwhile Apple, Microsoft are not going to shut down their stores on a whim. Nintendo and Sony? THEY ALREADY DO THAT. Microsoft? Still hasn't.

 

Quote

"This message was posted in error and we can confirm the Xbox 360 marketplace will not close in May 2023. As a reminder, beginning on February 7, 2023, a limited set of games, add-ons, and in-game content will no longer be purchasable in select markets via the Xbox 360 Store."

You buy a game, or it's DLC for a platform, that the manufacturer no longer wants to maintain? Tough, buy the game again on a newer console , PC or mac? Oh wait, the developer went out of business, sucks to be you.

 

That is why I don't want 40 "eshop"'s, I want "one time purchase, any device, in perpetuity", even if I have to compile a Nintendo Wii/WiiU, PS/PS2/PS3, Xbox 360 emulator to play it, I want to boot up that emulator, have it look at the download tickets I have, and download everything I want it to. If the developer decides to come out with a native Windows or ARM Mac version later, I should not be penalized into having to buy it, yet again.

 

So perhaps the solution here is not to put download tickets into Microsoft/Apple's hands, but into a digital "vault" that your bank, credit card, or cell phone carrier can unlock. There is no reason why the credit card/bank can not track this already, they get copies of your receipts.

 

[mr cheese]

Spoiler

20 minutes ago, Kisai said:

No no, the problem is, on the PC, you have "choice of nothing"

If I want to play a game, and it's on ONE store only, eg Microsoft store, I can only play it from THAT store. I can't play the Steam version or EGS version, despite these games being the exact same game other than this store integration. This isn't choice, this is just making you buy the game 5 more times when one store stops updating.

 

I've bought stuff that was originally on Steam, and then for some reason became EGS or GOG exclusive. So now if I want the updated version of the game, I have to buy it AGAIN.

 

Do you not see the problem?

 

The correct, and only proper fix is to eliminate the "Store" itself.

 

The store should be a means to tell the OS you purchased something, and the OS itself should manage the download, install and patching of that program from there on, like it does on MacOS and iOS. That is the correct way it should have always worked.

 

If I buy a game once, it should be available on all my devices without having to buy it again. That way you can have 40 stores, but they all ultimately tell the OS "here's the download ticket, here's the name of the binary package for your OS, here's the main (already patched) asset package that works on all versions. If you switch from an Intel to an ARM device, then the OS package manager goes "whoops, you have the wrong binary" and downloads the binary package for that device, without having to buy the game again, and using the same asset package you already downloaded. And what if the developer permits modding the game? Well now you have a "mod patch" option where mods the developer of the game can approve mods to the game, and developing/unapproved mods just go onto the modder's "store" and goes "requires having purchased X" and links you back to that store.

 

That way, if a store goes out of business, which they will, you still have the download tickets, and Microsoft/Apple/Google/etc will still have the binary in their download ticket archives. If the updated asset package is gone, then the last package developed is downloaded.

 

Right now, if Steam were go go extinct tomorrow, every single game you did not install before it shutdown, is gone, overnight. Same with EGS and GOG. Meanwhile Apple, Microsoft are not going to shut down their stores on a whim. Nintendo and Sony? THEY ALREADY DO THAT. Microsoft? Still hasn't.

 

You buy a game, or it's DLC for a platform, that the manufacturer no longer wants to maintain? Tough, buy the game again on a newer console , PC or mac? Oh wait, the developer went out of business, sucks to be you.

 

That is why I don't want 40 "eshop"'s, I want "one time purchase, any device, in perpetuity", even if I have to compile a Nintendo Wii/WiiU, PS/PS2/PS3, Xbox 360 emulator to play it, I want to boot up that emulator, have it look at the download tickets I have, and download everything I want it to. If the developer decides to come out with a native Windows or ARM Mac version later, I should not be penalized into having to buy it, yet again.

 

So perhaps the solution here is not to put download tickets into Microsoft/Apple's hands, but into a digital "vault" that your bank, credit card, or cell phone carrier can unlock. There is no reason why the credit card/bank can not track this already, they get copies of your receipts.

 

 

 

So you said a whole lot of stuff there that I don't necessarily have the time to respond to, which is fair, but I'm still stuck trying to relate on a fundamental level the ability to own a video game in perpetuity and where I can download an app for my cellular device.

Also, you've just created a case for developer-priority distribution, where developers can be expected to maintain and distribute their products outside common distributive means in the event of a failure or moderation of/by said distribution platform. Which, therein lies the problem. how do when store control entire platform.

[Kisai]

31 minutes ago, mr cheese said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

So you said a whole lot of stuff there that I don't necessarily have the time to respond to, which is fair, but I'm still stuck trying to relate on a fundamental level the ability to own a video game in perpetuity and where I can download an app for my cellular device.

Also, you've just created a case for developer-priority distribution, where developers can be expected to maintain and distribute their products outside common distributive means in the event of a failure or moderation of/by said distribution platform. Which, therein lies the problem. how do when store control entire platform.

Well that solution exists. Open source the binary, separately licence the asset bundle. When you buy the game as a complete thing, you get a download ticket that downloads the binary. If 30 years you want to play it, the source code to the game engine has hopefully been maintained over time, and you use the same asset download that should still exist.

 

Most legacy games pre-win95 have been ham-fisted emulations of their game engines via SCUMM, or wrappers over the game console version either direct (as in SEGA's collections) or indirect (eg Megaman X/Z/ZX collections, and other CAPCOM games, and the crappy versions of Chrono Trigger and Square Enix's FF4/5/6 mobile ports) 

 

In the case of the previous CT/FF4/5/6 mobile ports, they were using the GBA ROM, which was extractable from the game. The "Final Fantasy Legend" aka SaGa, are actually a GB emulator implemented in Unity, rather than any kind of remaster.

 

Which again, I say that the problem with the current system is that you are forced to rebuy, the EXACT SAME game, multiple times, and the only difference between a version on one store and another is the STORE integration for the fluff features like trophies and achievements. That is a different problem to solve, and not one really worth caring about since cheating the Steam, Xbox and Playstation achievement systems is trivial. It matters when you get it, not that you have it.

 

Detach the store from the actual packaging, and you get your "I  can buy the game form another store" without a risk of a store going extinct and taking the software with it. When you have games using their own launchers, that launcher ceases to work if the developer decides to shut it down. But the OS should let you download the last version provided you have the download ticket.

 

And download tickets are a solved problem, when you redeem things from Humble Bundle, you get codes to activate games on all games stores. This is just proposing reversing who has it. The store lets you buy the download ticket, like with humble bundle, keeps track of purchases, but you should be able to select the download ticket  and put it into the OS and have the OS download it. Not activate a second store.

 

 

 

[mr cheese]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Well that solution exists. Open source the binary, separately licence the asset bundle.

okay I understand this but once again we are talking about phones and you still have to be an advanced user to sideload anything on an iPhone so we've abstracted pretty far from the original point of the thread here

[BuckGup]

20 hours ago, williamcll said:

I can't get ad blockers on the current app store and must sideload it weekly. 

That's just not true at all. Adblocking came out years ago. You can even use custom DNS blocking locally. 

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, mr cheese said:

okay I understand this but once again we are talking about phones and you still have to be an advanced user to sideload anything on an iPhone so we've abstracted pretty far from the original point of the thread here

Presumably someone has put in the effort to build and maintain the binary or build it into something like SCUMMVM by that point. Which is why I said 30 years. How many software companies from 30 years ago still exist and still sell the games or software they sold 30 years ago in some form? Street Fighter II Turbo, Disney's Aladdin, and Dragon quest I&II were the top games of that year. SF2 is Capcom, Aladdin is Virgin Megagames, and DQ I&II are remakes of their 1986/1987 Famicom versions for the SNES.

 

Of those, all three of those games were re-released in some shape. Dragon Quest was released again on the Wii in 2011, iOS in 2014, and Switch in 2019. Street Fighter II originated in the arcade, but the SNES version was re-released on the Wii and WiiU's emulators, and continues to exist in, PS4, XB1, Switch and Windows versions in 2018. Disney's Aladdin on the PC for Steam is also just a wrapped Mega Drive emulator in 2019-2021. 

 

But what about "Gunstar Heroes", another game that won awards that year? No remake or ports are forthcoming and the company barely exists today.

 

Most of the time you stumble across something like a "fan remake", which exist for Mario 64 and The Legend of Zelda, a Link to the past, and in order to compile it, you need a dump of the original game. This has also been the case with many fan-translation projects. These still rely on the original game being available, even if the original hardware has ceased to exist, in order to run them.

 

At any rate, we're basically at a point in time that there is enough existing software that is going to be lost, because the publisher's own greed, but maybe we have to lose a few high profile games before these companies realize they could make more money by getting more people to play the original version in some shape without having to remake them.

[williamcll]

2 hours ago, BuckGup said:

That's just not true at all. Adblocking came out years ago. You can even use custom DNS blocking locally. 

Adguard still has its limits.