Today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing will explore competition in app stores

To understand the enormous value created by app stores, you have to look back at the world before they existed

We explain how app stores benefitted both users & developers
techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…
The value app stores create isn't primarily economic: it's ensuring user trust by protecting the privacy of user data, the security of their devices, and even users' physical safety against those who might stalk them
App stores are especially important for families, protecting kids against a variety of threats, and empowering parents to decide what apps & media are appropriate for their kids

Parents simply did not have such powerful control before app stores launched in 2008
Some complain about commissions (15-30%) on leading app stores

But it wasn't so long ago that most software was distributed in physical media, and middlemen took 50-70%

App stores made distribution vastly more efficient, radically boosting developers' net revenues
Apple & Google's app stores are integral parts of their operating systems. Since launching in 2008, they've created an entirely new market for downloadable apps
The market for downloadable *desktop* software in 2008 was tiny. Even on the leading proto-app store, only one app had more than a million downloads web.archive.org/web/2008071117…
App stores addressed consumers' need for trust and convenience in multiple dimensions, vetting regular updates to apps and pushing them out to users' phones for automatic installation, and offering a unified, trusted payment system and mechanism for resolving disputes/refunds
While Apple and Google charged a higher commission (30%) than Download .com did (8-12%), they *created* an infinitely larger market, provided development tools, and easy ways to reach consumers
Some claim that Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon abuse "gatekeeper" power over their app stores

But the commissions they charge have only fallen: both Apple and Google recently cut their commission in half, to 15%, for the first million in revenue
Meanwhile, Aptoide, a leading competing app store, charges 25% across the board

And in China, where the Play store is not available, alternative app stores can charge commissions as high as 50% inc42.com/features/the-m…
In short, there's no reason to think that app stores are earning monopoly rents in how they split revenue with developers
Innovation is steadily eroding the importance of getting app into app stores

Progressive Web Applications PWAs now offer much of the functionality of apps, and are actually much cheaper to develop

They run in the browser (even iOS), so don't require approval or commissions
Various pending state bills would force OS makers to allow "sideloading": installation of unverified apps from the Internet

Sideloading creates serious privacy and security risks

Android, Windows and MacOS already allows this today while iOS does not. That's the market at work.
Requiring the installation of third-party app stores creates the same risks as sideloading--unless those stores screen apps just as carefully. Amazon tries to do that but other alternative app stores just can't. It's a hugely costly and complex undertaking.
Finally, some have proposed to require app stores to allow developers to use alternative payment systems. This would have the same effect as price caps: allowing developers to free-ride off the app store and OS that is supported by revenues from the app store
Congress (and states) shouldn't rush into legislating around app stores. The market is thriving, and there's too much at stake for consumers to risk getting this wrong

At a minimum, let the #antitrust suits over market power in app stores play out in court before legislating
Tune in at 2:30 eastern for the Senate Judiciary hearing on app stores: judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/antit…
For livetweeting about the ongoing app store competition hearing, follow our own @BerinSzoka

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with TechFreedom

TechFreedom Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TechFreedom

13 Oct 20
Justice Thomas jumped into the #Section230 debate to embrace GOP arguments for narrowing protections for content moderation. He might think differently in a case where the issues he raised were actually briefed by both sides—unlike this very narrow case

techfreedom.org/justice-thomas…
Thomas often issues such statements when SCOTUS decides not to take a case—to vent his frustrations about the state of the law

But this is the first time SCOTUS has ever considered taking a case involving #Section230. The briefs here did not even address the issues Thomas raises
Justice Thomas is free to call for fuller briefing on Section 230’s meaning in, as he says, “an appropriate case,” but this is not that case. Justice Thomas had no need to express his own views, in extensive dicta, without the benefit of the briefing he acknowledges is needed.
Read 19 tweets
5 Jun 20
Sen @HawleyMO is so painfully wrong about #Section230, someone oughta sue Yale Law School for his opinions

Just kidding. That’s not how law works! But it’s about as nuts as suing websites for what users say

Let’s start with why Rep. Chris Cox (𝙍-CA) wrote 230 back in 1995...
#Section230 protects “tech platforms” just as it protects National Review’s site, or a user’s (ahem, Trump's) retweet of someone else’s defamatory statements

230 DOES Internet media differently from other print & broadcasting, because they ARE different
Traditional publishers review content pre-publication but Internet media just can’t b/c:
—SCALE: billions of pieces of content created daily
—SPEED: much content is real-time

Instead they rely on inherently imperfect content moderation AFTER “publication”
techdirt.com/blog/?tag=cont…
Read 23 tweets
28 May 20
BREAKING: Trump’s new Executive Order purports to protect free speech online techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…

That’s not how the Constitution works. The First Amendment protects Twitter from Trump—not Trump from Twitter

And #Section230 doesn’t change that

Here’s why...
WEBSITES AREN’T PUBLIC FORA: Supreme Court jurisprudence and case law DOES NOT support the EO’s claims that they are. The EO cites two cases that don’t apply to social media platforms:
1) Pruneyard (1980) was limited to shopping malls (very different from websites) and definitely wouldn’t be upheld by the Court today anyway, as made clear in Johnson v Twitter (2018)
2) Packingham (2017) is about restrictions on Internet imposed by STATE LAW, not private actors
Read 12 tweets
31 Jan 20
1/6 @LindseyGrahamSC's #EARNIT Act would give AG Barr a blank check—via #Section230—to crack down on Internet services, effectively ban secure #encryption & impose other de facto mandates that could never get through Congress as legislation

Could be worse than #FOSTASESTA!
2/6 AG Barr could use Graham’s bill to force Apple to give law enforcement a backdoor on iMessage, iCloud or even iPhones—effectively banning end-to-end encryption Image
3/6 #Section230 has never shielded child porn (CSAM) traffickers from federal prosecution, but Graham's bill would create vast new legal liability for websites—then use that liability to force them to do whatever the AG commands Image
Read 7 tweets
9 Aug 19
CNN reports on a leaked summary of the White House's draft Executive Order about anti-conservative bias

Ironically, for all Republicans' complaints about "censorship," this order would ACTUALLY create an Internet speech police at the FCC & FTC

Our take: techfreedom.org/draft-social-m…
Trump’s order would transform the FCC & FTC from consumer protection agencies into regulators of online speech

Rs complain about ‘censorship’ by private companies. But this order would mean REAL censorship, empowering regulators to decide what kinds of speech are allowed online
That the GOP, after decades of fighting government meddling in broadcasting, now wants its own Fairness Doctrine for the Internet is staggeringly hypocritical

Read our April 2018 testimony to the House Judiciary Committee (the @DiamondAndSilk hearing):
docs.techfreedom.org/Szoka_Testimon…
Read 8 tweets
11 Jul 19
Anyone thinking about amending #Section230 to make online intermediaries responsible for content they didn't create...

should read the 7 principles released today—supported by 50 academics/experts and 27 civil society orgs across the political spectrum

techfreedom.org/academics-civi…
We value the balance between freely exchanging ideas, fostering innovation, & limiting harmful speech. Because this is an exceptionally delicate balance, #Section230 reform poses a substantial risk of failing to address policymakers’ concerns and harming the Internet overall.
Principle #1: Content creators bear primary responsibility for their speech and actions.

#Section230
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!