Thread by @BerinSzoka

Livetweeting this hearing on app store competition

The central premise, that app stores have "gatekeeper" control, is greatly exaggerated, if not wrong

https://twitter.com/TechFreedom/status/1384925070410223617

Klobuchar emphasizes that Apple won't allow sideloading of apps onto iOS photos (as Google does)

But Apple has, since 2018, allowed progressive web apps (PWAs) to run in the Safari mobile browser

And PWAs are increasingly able to duplicate the functionality of "native" apps

PWAs have some significant advantages over native apps (found in app stores): notably, you can build the same app to run on all major web browsers (except Firefox), so you don't have to build separate Android and iOS versions

PWAs don't require "installation"

You load them in your browser, like websites, but they are hugely more functional than websites

Like native apps, they get updated regularly and you can save them to your homescreen

They're used by Twitter, FT, WaPo &c

mobiloud.com/blog/progressi…

Here ten examples of PWAs doing all the things you assume only "native" apps can do mofluid.com/blog/10-best-p…

Also, "gatekeeping" is a scary way of talking about protecting consumers from very real threats to their privacy and security

Gatekeeping also helps parents to protect kids from content they don't want them to see and services they don't want them to use

https://twitter.com/ashleydrixey/status/1384944228657152006

Predictably, @SenMikeLee is accusing Google and Apple of abusing their "gatekeeper" power by taking down the Parler app

Parler, the site that refuses to filter/block images of children being raped, or overt Nazi shit, or incitement to violence, or Holocaust denial, and so on

While some people today may frame "gatekeeper" control in terms of revenue share between app stores and developers, for Republicans, it's clear that what they're really focused on is forcing tech companies to host the most appalling content imaginable

Because it helps them

Lee: I'm pleased with the outcome (Apple putting the Parler app back in its store)

He leaves out the important part: all Parler had to do was start abiding by Apple's requirement that it filter out content like CSAM ("child porn"), Nazi shit, hate speech and so on

Lee is doing a masterful job of eliding over the crucial constitutional distinction here: the gov't can police the abuse of economic power (higher prices, etc) but NOT the exercise of editorial judgment, however "unfair," "non-neutral" or "mean" conservatives might think it is

ugh "mowlware"

Mais non. "Mal" is pronounced "mahl"

Ironically, the Spotify guy hasn't turned his mic on, so it's really hard to hear him

Spotify...

Netflix had the same problems Spotify is complaining about

It solved them easily: by simply requiring users to sign up and set up their subscription on the Netflix website (before using the app)

So Netflix avoided having to share *any* revenue with Apple

So... bfd...

"Information Superhighway" mentioned *twice* in <1 minute

Hey, 1978 called. They want Al Gore's folksy futurist metaphors back mmmkay?

"This is the same behavior as the robber barrons before them"

Really? Pretty sure John D Rockefeller would have charged all developers fee for using their store instead of splitting *revenue* from purchases (96.7% of Android apps are free and few involve in-app purchases)

Rockefeller would have *raised* his commissions over time, instead of lowering them, as Google and Apple both have -- recently cutting their 30% commission in half for the first million in revenue

Which, per Google, is 99% of all developers

That's NOT how "Robber Barrons" work

Match's Jared Sine raises two excellent points about child protection:
First, Apple apparently doesn't prevent users it knows are <18 from lying on apps (eg dating apps) to claim they're 18+

First I've heard of this, so I'm not sure why Apple doesn't but could be a privacy issue

Second, Match would block known sex offenders but needs help identifying them. They want Google & Apple to ID users for them.

Again, not sure why they don't but this probably requires legislation, which Match has been pushing for

Justice Kennedy all but called on Congress to pass legislation convicted sex offenders from using social media back in Packingham (2017--the case Republicans keep citing as if it held that social media are public fora that can't take down speech, which is NOT what the court said)

I've never understood why lawmakers, for all they love *talking* about "protecting the children" haven't gotten a federal law passed to keep convicted sex offenders off social media

Appropriately crafted, such a law would be both constitutional and very long overdue

But you can well imagine why Apple and Google are, absent legislation that authorizes them to do it and immunizes them for making mistakes, reluctant to start trying to identify sex offenders and then telling app developers who they *think* those users are

That's the gov't job

Just imagine the due process problems if private companies started generating their own lists of (people they think are) convicted sex offenders, then banning people from using certain services/apps

Again, the states/feds need to do this

Which requires legislation

Hawley insists Apple should spend *all* its App Store revenue on security

But that's not the only thing Apple screens apps for--also privacy, performance, not draining batteries, child protection, and policing unlawful content like terrorism, drug sales, CSAM, etc

And both Apple and Google have to fund the development tools they make available (at no charge) to developers

Google, in particular, needs to fund the ongoing development of the Android operating system. That, rather than selling its own phones, is its primary business model

Apple: 85% of apps pay nothing at all

That's a key state. Public data shows that 92.9% of iOS apps are free, but I could find no public data showing which free apps offer in-app purchases

Now we know: a mere 15% of apps fund the entire ecosystem for ALL apps

🚨🚨🚨 Marsha Blackburn now recycling her "So who owns the virtual you?" line from 2009🚨🚨🚨

Klobuchar: what benefits do app developers get for their commissions besides security and payment processing?

Apple: investments in opening up the iPhone for developers (from 10k APIs to 250k), resources to help developers to build app, unique storefronts in 175 countries...

WHY is it so hard for lawmakers to understand that the Apple and Google app stores are integral parts of iOS and Android? The app stores fund the operating systems, which compete fiercely with each other

If you limit revenues from app stores, users will pay more for devices

Klobuchar: you're not suggesting that the app stores shouldn't charge anything, you're just saying they shouldn't charge developers so much, right?

Mark Cooper: there should be a normal rate of profit on that line of business

Oh, ok, so public utility regulation—NDB, right?🤦‍♂️

This is the heart of this entire hearing: we're dancing around the notion that the government should dictate the rates and terms of how app stores do business

We already know what that model of regulation produces: stagnation and regulatory capture by incumbents

No thanks!

tl;dr on today's hearing: "app stores have taken over the Internet and they're charging tolls!"

1) Um, when it came to installing someone else's code onto your device, the Internet actually really sucked. Someone needed to fix the security & trust problem, as app stores did

2) The Internet sucked in many ways: not being able to control what you kids did, having no one to turn to when you want a refund of a purchase, not having common platforms & APIs for development, etc

App stores/mobile OSs created today's app market by solving these problems