Skip to content

Bipartisan Open App Markets Act revived to challenge Apple's App Store control

Technology
5 4 61
  • 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.

  • 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.

    It's rare when I agree with Marsha Blackburn on anything, but broken clocks and all that.

  • 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.

    deleted by creator

  • 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.

    Apple being sued by shareholders and now this, I wonder if this could cause their CEO to resign.

  • deleted by creator

    What if everyone started talking about how “woke” Apple, Amazon, and Google are? Maybe it would pass, then. Remember, we don’t need to define woke, we just need to point and say the magic word and GOP politicians will vote against it.

  • 36 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    153 Aufrufe
    naur@tech.pr0n.plN
    That was a feature where you could attach an analog receiver to their Goggles v2. They have since removed it in newer Goggle versions. Their system is basically a walled garden now.
  • 1k Stimmen
    126 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    S
    AI now offers to post my ads for me on Kijiji. I provide pictures and it has been accurate on price, condition, category and description. I have a lot of shit to sell and was dreading it, but this use removes the biggest barrier for me getting it done. Even helped me figure out some things I was struggling to find online for reference. Saved me at least an hour of tedium yesterday. Excellent use case.
  • Firefox 140 Brings Tab Unload, Custom Search & New ESR

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    234 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    537 Aufrufe
    S
    Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".
  • 17 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    97 Aufrufe
    T
    That's why it's not brute force anymore.
  • One-Click RCE in ASUS's Preinstalled Driver Software

    Technology technology
    9
    30 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    86 Aufrufe
    M
    Yeah, Lemmy has a VERY large Linux user base, which means Windows discussions tend to get mocked or dismissed. But the reality is that Windows is still the dominant OS for the vast majority of users, by leaps and bounds. Linux runs the world’s infrastructure, but Windows is what the average user boots up every day. “This exploit only works on the average user’s OS. And it only works if the user clicks the “yes” button to escalate permissions, which they have been conditioned to always do without question. Obviously this isn’t an exploit to worry about.”
  • Ai Code Commits

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    164 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    461 Aufrufe
    M
    From what I know, those agents can be absolutely fantastic as long as they run under strict guidance of a senior developer who really knows how to use them. Fully autonomous agents sound like a terrible idea.
  • 35 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 92 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    346 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?