The exclusivity of the app stores of iOS and Android is once again under the spotlight of the world debate. And this time it is not a question of mere random arguments. Last week, the Senate Justice Commission approved the Open App Markets Act , a bill that is part of a broader context of tightening by legislators towards the power confiscated over the years by large technology companies. The first big step targets App Store and Play Store , the markets where you can download apps for iOS and Android devices. That from a closed enclosure (especially the first one) would be transformed, if the bill were approved as it is, into platforms open to the monopolistic thrust of competition, irremediably losing that exclusivity that has always distinguished them and that some great developers ( including Epic Games , engaged in the legal battle against Apple) have repeatedly contested.
In the few pages full of meaning, the Open App Markets Act or S. 2710 draws some guidelines that could change the iOS app stores forever and Android as we know them, pushing for greater openness for competition in the mobile computing industry. The incipit that outlines the structure of the bill, presented last August 10 by Senators Richard Blumental, Marsha Blackburn and Amy Klobuchar, is that the companies that personally manage app stores with over 50 million users in the United States, must maintain and respect certain behaviors deemed potentially anti-competitive.
The recipients are mainly Apple and Google , taking into account that the rules provided for by the bill apply to the app stores defined by the same Open App Markets Act as «websites, software applications or other publicly available electronic service that distributes third party developer apps to users of a computer, mobile device or any other general purpose computing device». This definition would seem to leave out the Microsoft Xbox and Sony PlayStation console stores.
The implicit subjects of the legislative project are above all App Store of iOS and Play Store of Android: platforms, which according to the data of the specialized research company App Annie, generated in 2021 a turnover of more than 133 billion dollars , taking into account the global expenditure deriving from downloads on both platforms
The behaviors imposed by the Open App Markets Act provide for some very important conditions in the relationship between store owners and developers and could revolutionize the same operating system on which they are installed, especially if the company which controls the app store also owns the underlying platform. In particular:
- It is not possible to ask developers to use the in-app purchase mechanisms (with the corresponding policies, including above all commissions) as a condition for using the market;
- It is not possible to penalize one development only because it has offered better prices on another store;
- It is not possible to prevent developers from contacting customers directly, offering them commercial offers;
- It is not possible to unreasonably prefer your own apps in the search results, obscuring similar proposals from third-party developers.
As we said before, if the App Store owner also controls the underlying operating system, he will have to comply with additional conditions:
- It is not It is possible to prohibit the installation on the mobile device of third-party apps without using the app store;
- It is not possible to prevent the removal, by consumers, of pre-installed apps (the so-called “ bloatware “);
- We must encourage and not hinder the free choice of the user, with particular reference to the type of app to be set as default, without thereby compromising the position of those of third parties.
These last three conditions would seem to apply mainly to Apple , which has always maintained a critical position towards the so-called « sideloading ) », Namely the ability to install applications bypassing the internal iOS and iPadOS stores. But also pay attention to Android , where the phenomenon of « bloatware » has been criticized several times by users.
In a perspective of relationship between cause and effect, the Open App Markets Act provides that in case of violation of the above rules, companies could be subject to the application of antitrust by the Federal American Trade Commission (FTT), the Attorney General and the Attorney General of the State. But not only that: they could also suffer civil lawsuits brought by any developer deemed damaged, and this almost seems to recall the example of the legal battle between Apple and Epic Games .
By the same admission as the sponsoring senators, the Open App Markets Act responds to the need to foster competition in the mobile computing sector, but also eliminate the monopolistic approach of the big companies in the sector, pointing the finger above all at Apple and Google. The bill is also a response to the concerns of iOS and Android app developers, who have always complained about the monopolistic position taken by the two giants and the commissions charged on in-app purchases. The approval of the bill has found several positive comments and there are those who exhort not to stray from the path taken ( since it is still a first step ). Microsoft president and vice president Bradford Lee Smith said on Twitter that the bill “would promote competition and ensure equity and innovation in the app economy”.
Different feelings for Apple and Google, which instead showed a critical attitude towards the bill. Apple said it was “deeply concerned” about user privacy; the vice president of public policy, Mark Isakowitz, explained that this bill could “destroy many advantages of current payment systems and distort competition in a highly competitive market.”
There are several negative comments. Tech group NetChoice has taken a tough critical stance against the Open App Markets Act , especially in the part where it overlooks the security risks resulting from the opening of platforms. A coalition of researchers and advocacy groups has instead explained that the bill could even provoke, in the perspective of abuse, a incitement to hatred and disinformation through tricks adopted by third-party companies. As? For example, by exploiting the provisions of the Open App Markets Act and masking disinformation purposes through the violation of competition. In a constructive perspective, the coalition suggests the inclusion of some changes to the text: the developers would be entitled to file a lawsuit for violation of the rules of the Open App Markets Act relating to competition only for economic reasons , and not for mere editorial choices.
The cut in fees withheld by Apple and Google also collides with another problematic figure, As reported by The Verge , Apple has already proposed to reduce fees on revenue that comes from dating apps on its store. In fact, we reported in a previous article that the Dutch competition regulator had imposed on the American company to allow developers of dating apps (and only these) to use alternative systems of in-app payment in the Netherlands. For its part, Apple has made it known its intention to reduce by three percentage points the fees that Apple normally charges to developers who use its payment method (30%), while appealing against the sentence. Savings that correspond to the failure of the Cupertino company to manage payment processing and related activities. Note that commissions will always remain at the 27% threshold, not taking into account developer revenues.
Issues that confirm the existence of some “obscure” points that the Open App Markets Act is called upon to resolve. On the other hand, the bill is still far from finding its implementation and will have to pass in the Senate chamber before final approval. But the debate on the opening of app stores becomes more and more intense and with it the sideloading , amidst Apple's fears and critical positions.
