# App Store Oligopoly FAQ

Apple and the App Store desperately need regulation. The "why" is outlined below, and I'll briefly describe the "how" right now. There are two proposed solutions:

1. Apple is forced to allow competition in the form of alternative app stores. This would effectively be "GateKeeper for iOS" which would give developers an avenue to distribute their own apps from Safari as well, similar to how software is distributed on computers. Ideally a CA would emerge to distribute certificates for developers to use so that users could trust apps on a per-developer basis. This "GateKeeper" would have settings similar to those on macOS, with the default state being "Only allow apps from the App Store," and another option "Only allow apps from Trusted developers." It would obviously have a setting under Parental Controls as well.
2. The App Store becomes regulated by some government body, either by antitrust laws being passed or by direct oversight. Antitrust laws are what will lead to #1 anyway.

### Common questions and arguments against App Store regulation

- ***How is the App Store anti-competitive?***

    1. Apple takes a massive 30% cut from all in-app purchases, while simultaneously restricting apps from directing users to their website to make purchases. This gives Apple an advantage over direct competitors who either have to give Apple 30% of their sales on the platform or hope users are willing and smart enough figure out how to sign up online. This makes apps harder to use as a side effect.
    2. Apps that compete directly with Apple services seem to get extra scrutiny on the App Store.
    3. Vendors who wish to sell or distribute their app on iOS only have once choice: the App Store. Apple disallows and blocks any avenue for competing App Stores, as well as avenues for distributing individual apps. The closest thing to being able to freely distribute an app is for a vendor to purchase an enterprise developer account and use their certificate to sign the app. Apple can revoke this certificate for any reason, though, effectively killing apps signed with it.
    4. Apple gives their own apps and services special treatment. They make the rules, so they can break them, too. For example, Apple Music sends promotional notifications which is against the App Store guidelines, and Apple controls App Store search results so they are able to place their own apps (however relevant they may be) above the competition.
    5. Since they own the App Store, Apple doesn't have to pay for ad space in the store.

- ***Why shouldn't I trust Apple to play fair?***

    They've shown time and time again that they can't play fair, and that they don't understand what fair means. Every App Store policy serves to give Apple apps and services an advantage over the competition.

- ***It's their store and their platform, they can do whatever they want and that seems fair to me!***

    It *would* be fair if they allowed competing stores on their platform, or even another avenue for apps to be distributed in an unmoderated fashion. Then, they'd be entitled to whatever fee they wish to charge. *Today’s Apple believes that customers have no inherent right to install software on their devices, and further that any revenue related to using such devices owes a rent to the platform vendor. This is like Dixon Ticonderoga making rules for what you can write with your pencil and then demanding a cut if you sell any of your work.* — Michael Tsai

    If they want to operate a closed platform like this, then they need to drop every anti-competitive practice listed above. Otherwise, they need to allow competing stores on iOS.

- ***If you don't like how Apple operates the App Store, you can just leave the platform.***

    While this is not a logical fallacy, it is very obviously an option that no one would want to take, and it ignores the much better possible options. This is usually a bad faith argument made in an attempt to shut down real discussion. Here's why it's not a good option:

    - It ignores the fact that I would have to ditch my $1000 phone and the 100's of dollars I've put into App Store apps
    - It ignores the cost associated with switching platforms (buying a new phone and new apps)
    - Someone making this argument likely assumes there is no better alternative, but there are many. To name a few:
        - Apple could be forced to allow alternative app stores
        - The App Store could become regulated by law
        - Apple could willingly change their anti-competitive practices

- ***You own the phone, but you don't own the OS!***

    We own our phones, and we currently have the right to run whatever software we want on them. The main law that affects the legality of this is the DCMA, which says "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the DMCA.]" Every three years, the law allows the public to propose exemptions for legitimate reasons for circumvention. An exemption related to "jailbreaking" personal devices has been made every 3 years since 2010.

---

At this point, we see the antagonist begin to shift from *"Apple shouldn't have to allow real competition"* to *"it would be a bad idea to allow competition."*

- ***The App Store is the only thing keeping me, my children, and my relatives safe from malware and viruses!***

    The App Store has a history of letting malware sneak in from time to time. Not to mention that this malware you're so afraid of already has a means of making its way onto your device (via the enterprise certificate route discussed above). If you haven't been affected by now, you are no more likely to be affected than if a GateKeeper feature were to emerge, as you could simply leave it on.

    - ***Malicious apps will find a way to get my elderly relatives to disable GateKeeper and install their app!***

        Again, they can already do this via enterprise certificates. Additionally, if you're that worried, you could disable GateKeeper in Parental Controls.

- ***Look at what Fortnite has done over on Android. They forced users to circumvent default security settings to install an app from a third party store. This compromises security, and that's what will happen to iOS if GateKeeper arises.***

    You're right, that's exactly what will happen. Many large companies will leave the app store and find another means of distributing their apps. As long as each company is using their own certificate, though, this doesn't give much room for malware to make its way onto your device unless you form a habit of "trusting" anything that asks you to. At the end of the day, a feature like GateKeeper is a tradeoff between convenience and security. And the technological negligence of children and the elderly are not valid arguments against moving iOS into a more open platform that everyone would benefit from.

- ***Developers on Android don't make any money, and everyone pirates apps. Is that what you want to happen to iOS?***

    There are already dozens of "cracked app stores" anyone can install on iOS. Users who want to pirate apps are already doing so. Apple apparently doesn't care that much about developers' lost revenue, or even protecting your loved ones from malware, because these stores are only possible in the first place because it is so easy to apply for an enterprise account under a fake company name. Anyway, things wouldn't be much different than they are now I imagine. DRM solutions might arise if necessary.

- ***The App Store provides the best possible user experience, there doesn't need to be any other stores.***

    *That's just, like, your opinion, man.* If Apple is so confident in their ability to deliver the best possible app marketplace experience, then they shouldn't have a problem with competing stores on the same platform. If anything, competition would strive them to *improve* the store.

- ***If you bought the phone, you knew what you signed up for. You could have bought a different phone.***

    This argument boils down to *"it's always been this way, so it doesn't have to change,"* which is a logical fallacy. This is saying that because the iPhone has always been popular and there are still tons of people buying iPhones that there is no reason for Apple to change how it operates the store. This is not true, though. Many people, like me, buy the iPhone because we know Apple continually improves it, and that Apple's rules change from time to time. So buying an iPhone doesn't mean that I'm content with how every aspect of the phone and OS works *right now*, or that I expect it to always work that way. I jailbreak my phone hoping that one day I won't have to, because one day Apple will (willingly or otherwise) provide a means for alternative app stores to emerge.

- ***It’s not the job of the government to fix product flaws. If the App Store's oligopoly on iOS becomes an issue for consumers, they'll move to other platforms, and Apple will respond accordingly.***

    Any basic economics class will teach you that when oligopolies or monopolies arise, government must intervene to stop them and correct this free market failure. The free market is not perfect. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to find out why. Additionally, this is a very conservative mindset; much of the world *does* see it as the job of the government to regulate parts of the private sector, that it is the government's job to protect the consumer from anti-competitive scenarios such as this.