Apple Gives Chinese Government What It Wants (Again); Pulls Quran App From Chinese App Store

from the consequences-of-heavy-buy-in dept

Apple has generally been pretty good about protecting users from government overreach, its recent voluntary (and misguided) foray into client-side scanning of users' images notwithstanding. But that seemingly only applies here in the United States, which is going to continue to pose problems for Apple if it chooses to combat local overreach while giving foreign, far more censorial governments greater and greater control.

Like many other tech companies, Apple has no desire to lose access to one of the largest groups of potential customers in the world. Hence its deference to China, which has seen the company do things like pull the New York Times app in China following the government's obviously bullshit claim that the paper was a purveyor of "fake news."

Since then, Apple has developed an even closer relationship with the Chinese government, which culminated in the company opening data centers in China to comply with the government's mandate that all foreign companies store Chinese citizens' data locally where it's much easier for the government to demand access.

On a smaller scale, Apple pulled another app -- one that encrypted text messages on platforms that don't provide their own encryption -- in response to government demands. Once again, Apple left Chinese citizens at the mercy of their government, apparently in exchange for the privilege of selling them devices that promised them security and privacy while actually offering very little of either.

The latest acquiescence by Apple will help the Chinese government continue its oppression of the country's Uighur minority -- Muslim adherents that have been subjected to religious persecution for years. Whoever the government doesn't cage, disappear, or genocide into nonexistence will see nothing but the bottom of a jackboot for years to come. Apple is aiding and abetting the jackboot, according to this report by the BBC.

Apple has taken down one of the world's most popular Quran apps in China, following a request from officials.

Quran Majeed is available across the world on the App Store - and has nearly 150,000 reviews. It is used by millions of Muslims.

The BBC understands that the app was removed for hosting illegal religious texts.

The app is developed by Pakistan Data Management Services, a software company that dates back nearly 50 years. China pretty much owns Pakistan at this point, but this has nothing to do with Pakistan's purchased allegiance to the Chinese government, and everything to do with punishing religious beliefs (and believers) the Chinese government doesn't like.

Apple's compliance cuts off access to nearly 1 million Chinese users of the app, as the BBC reports. This is happening despite the fact the Chinese government pays lip service to a limited form of religious freedom.

The Chinese Communist Party officially recognises Islam as a religion in the country.

And yet, it claims the primary religious text of the faith is "illegal.

Apple is also at least partly owned by China, albeit not in any formal sense. It relies heavily on Chinese manufacturing to produce its devices. This means Apple faces both upline and downline issues if it refuses to comply with the Chinese government's demands. The company is in a difficult position, what with shareholders in the US (and all over the world) expecting continued growth and profitability. But it's not as though it's an impossible situation. Sometimes you have to sacrifice profits for principle.

Apple -- with its reliance on Chinese manufacturing -- may be in too deep to make a principled stand. China has the upper hand for now. If Apple wants to continue to be seen as a world leader in device security and personal privacy protections, it needs to start figuring out how to end its abusive relationship with the Chinese government.

Filed Under: app store, china, content moderation, ios, quran, religion
Companies: apple

Google Facing Yet Another Antitrust Lawsuit Over Its App Store Practices, Even Though Android Is Quite Permissive

from the not-sure-I-get-this-one dept

Another day, another antitrust lawsuit against Google. This one, filed by 36 states and Washington DC, says that the company's practices regarding its Android app store violate antitrust law. This is now the fourth antitrust lawsuit filed by various governments in the US against Google. There's the DOJ lawsuit, one from nine state AGs, another from 10 state AGs, and now this new one. I get that everyone wants to hate on the big tech companies these days, and they also want to throw a bunch of things at the wall, but would it really have been that difficult to go through all of this in one single lawsuit?

As with the previous lawsuits, this one leaves me scratching my head. I kept expecting there to be some bombshell or some smoking gun. But, once again, this lawsuit seems to take things that were done for perfectly reasonable reasons and attack them as anti-competitive.

The oddest thing, of course, is that of any "app store" out there, Android is the most permissive around. Apple's iOS is much more restrictive. You can't get apps onto an iPhone without first getting them approved by Apple. Ditto for other proprietary platforms like video game consoles. Google, on the other hand, allows users to sideload apps and also to install alternative app stores entirely. For example, Amazon has long had its own Android app store (and, notably, in the new version of Windows, users will be able to install Android apps on their desktop machines via Amazon's app store). That's a lot more open than most similarly situated platforms.

The complaint makes a big deal about how Google "discourages" people from sideloading apps or using alternative app stores:

Although Google leaves open the technical possibility for Android consumers to acquire some apps without using the Play Store, this can only be accomplished through a competing app store installed on the device (either through preloading by an OEM or through the user sideloading the store), or through sideloading of individual apps. Google takes various steps to discourage OEMs from directly competing or sponsoring any app store competition. Google makes the sideloading process unnecessarily cumbersome and impractical by adding superfluous, misleading, and discouraging security warnings and by deterring users by requiring them to grant permission multiple times for a single app installation (discussed in more detail in Sections I.C. and I.D. below). The effect of Google’s conduct is to practically eliminate competition in Android app distribution.

But, uh, this kinda leaves out some of the details here -- which is that earlier, when Google was much more permissive about sideloading apps, there were lots of complaints about the dangers of sideloading and third party app stores. Indeed, some device makers used to refer to Android allowing sideloading as creating a "chaotic cesspool" of security problems and piracy.

In response, Google did get more serious about making sure users really understood the risks and really wanted to install 3rd party apps. But, again, it still does allow this -- much more readily than others. And yes, it's true that this probably makes it more difficult for third party app stores to survive, but if Google didn't do this it would also be slammed left, right, and center by everyone for not "policing" its phones and allowing security risks and piracy to run rampant. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I don't disagree that it would be nice if Google were more open to 3rd party app stores, and didn't necessarily make you jump through so many hoops, but is that seriously an antitrust violation? Even the market definition (the key to any antitrust case) is... weird. Obviously, how you define the market will show whether or not there's a monopoly -- and if you define the market as "the products that only this company makes" then of course that's a monopoly. But that's not really relevant for a question of whether or not there is anti-competitive behavior. But here, these states have come up with a market definition that is basically just Android. They're not even doing the "mobile operating system" market. Instead, they claim that the relevant market is specifically "the licensable mobile OS market" -- meaning that Apple iOS (which is not licensable from Apple) is excluded.

The licensable mobile OS market also excludes OSs that are unsuitable for mobile devices, such as OSs for simple cell phones, “flip phones,” or feature phones, or for other electronic devices (such as laptop computers, desktop computers, and gaming consoles, e.g., Nintendo DS, Xbox, PlayStation) that are not mobile devices.

If I'm reading this right, they're actually suggesting that if Google had decided not to license its OS, and not to let competing device manufacturers build their own competing phones, then they would have less of an antitrust case against Google. And that seems... weird? And kind of nonsensical.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like Apple's control of iOS is a lot more strict, ditto for Nintendo, Microsoft with Xbox, and Sony with the PlayStation. Google's decision to license its OS and enable much wider competition, as well as allowing some sideloading and 3rd party app stores, seems a hell of a lot more competitive than all those other services -- and yet that's all being used against Google, but not the others?

It also seems like this lawsuit may run into the same problem that resulted in various states' lawsuits against Facebook to get tossed: why now? Android has acted this way for years, and why are these state AGs suddenly deciding it's a problem?

I'm all for having more competition at every level of the stack, but I'm confused as to how this is a legitimate antitrust claim.

Filed Under: 3rd party app stores, android, antitrust, app store, competition, licensable mobile operating system, market definition, mobile operating systems, play store, sideloading
Companies: google

Apple Tells Congress That It Will Reallow Parler's App In The App Store, Now That It Has A Moderation Plan In Place

from the because-that's-it's-decision dept

Parler is coming back to the Apple iOS app store. As you'll recall, Apple (and Google) removed Parler's app from their mobile app stores back in January, saying that the app ran afoul of their requirements that platform apps must have reasonable content moderation policies. Parler, of course, falsely claimed not to do any moderation, but the company's then CEO admitted that he enjoyed banning leftist trolls from his site.

After Parler was banned, there was a lot of wasted air screaming about how this was "anti-competitive" and "biased" against conservatives, and all of that was utter garbage. Google and Apple have policies in place, and if you violate them, you can lose access to Google's and Apple's platforms. And, of course, it's since come out that there was quite a battle inside Parler regarding its moderation strategies. While the founder and former CEO, John Matze, had promised more moderation when the service came back, in a lawsuit that Matze has since filed against the company, he claims that he was fired for trying to put in place that moderation policy.

When Parler came back online with new hosting in February, the temporary CEO Mark Meckler had claimed that the service was coming back with AI and human moderators to deal with trolling, but insisted that it would not remove "content that attacks someone based on race, sex, sexual orientation or religion."

It's unclear how much has changed, or how effective such a filter will be, but Apple has apparently decided it's good enough. In response to a demand letter from Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Ken Buck, Apple has said that it will reinstate Parler to the iOS app store. The letter explains, in great detail, how Parler was not following Apple's developer policies, leading to the ban, and how it has now come into compliance.

Apple has in the past communicated with Parler regarding failures in its content moderation efforts, as well as its desire stated at various times to not moderate content at all. Earlier this year Apple was again alerted to posts in the Parler app that violated Apple’s policies with respect to user generated content. In particular, Guideline 1.1.1 (“Objectionable Content”) states in relevant part that apps should not include offensive or discriminatory content, including that which is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Guideline 1.2 (“User Generated Content”) requires apps with user-generated content to include the following features to prevent abuse:

1. a method for filtering objectionable material from being posted to the app;
2. a mechanism to report offensive content and timely responses to concerns;
3. the ability to block abusive users from the service; and
4. published contact information so users can easily reach the developer.

Apple’s App Review Team found a significant number of posts on the Parler app that clearly violated Guideline 1.1.1, including posts that encouraged violence, denigrated various ethnic groups, races and religions, glorified Nazism, and called for violence against specific people. Apple has provided some examples of these posts to your staff. The volume and types of prohibited content available in the Parler app further indicated that Parler also was out of compliance with Guideline 1.2 since their moderation practices were clearly inadequate to protect users from this harmful and dangerous content.

On January 8, 2021, Apple sent a communication to Parler, requesting that it remove specifically identified prohibited content, as well as any similar content. Apple also asked Parler to explain how Parler would improve its content moderation practices to comply with the Guidelines. Given that Apple had previously notified Parler of similar compliance failures on multiple occasions, and in light of the egregiousness of the violations and ongoing potential for further harm, Apple asked Parler to respond within 24 hours. This private developer communication, which is on a secure portal available only to the developer, became public when it was first reported by The Federalist and shared on Twitter by individuals associated with Parler.

In response, Parler did not communicate a sufficient plan to improve its moderation of user-generated content in the app. Thereafter, and consistent with standard app review processes, Apple’s app review team, ARB, and ERB decided to remove the Parler app from the App Store for non-compliance with the Guidelines. Customers who had already downloaded the Parler app prior to its removal from the App Store could still access the app, and Apple understands that Parler’s website is accessible on the Internet, including through a web browser on an Apple device.

In the period since Apple removed the Parler app from the App Store, Apple’s App Review Team has engaged in substantial conversations with Parler in an effort to bring the Parler app into compliance with the Guidelines and reinstate it in the App Store. As a result of those conversations, Parler has proposed updates to its app and the app’s content moderation practices, and the App Review Team has informed Parler as of April 14, 2021 that its proposed updated app will be approved for reinstatement to the App Store. Apple anticipates that the updated Parler app will become available immediately upon Parler releasing it.

It's unclear how this fits with Meckler's earlier statement saying that the app would not block content that attacks people on the basis of race and other characteristics, but perhaps Parler's moderation plans have... been modified.

Either way, this should get people to stop making false claims about "bias" against "conservatives" or how Apple was "too scared" of competition or whatever other garbage excuses will come down -- but of course it won't. The victim-playing culture warriors who now run the Republican Party will not let go, and will insist that, despite all this evidence that it was a straight up contractual violation that was ended when the breach was solved, this was actually some grand scheme to "silence" them. That's not how it works and going around making up lies to play the victim is a silly way to go through life.

Filed Under: app store, apps, content moderation, ios store, policies
Companies: apple, parler

The Fortnite App Store Battle: A Real Antitrust Conundrum, Or Just A Carefully Planned Out Contract Negotiation?

from the a-little-from-column-a... dept

Last week there was quite a lot of news paid to Apple kicking Fortnite out of the iOS app store for violating the rules by avoiding Apple's in-app payment setup (out of which Apple takes 30%). Epic, who had been hinting at this for a while, introduced a direct payment offering that effectively avoided the 30% charge that Apple (and Google) require from developers.

There have been arguments over the last decade or so since Apple implemented its policy requiring subscription revenue to go through Apple's system -- but this is probably the biggest fight yet. Epic was clearly expecting Apple to do this because almost immediately after Fortnite was removed from the app store, Epic first released a Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite parody ad, mocking Apple's infamous 1984 Superbowl ad.

Almost immediately, Epic also sued Apple over the removal in a legal complaint that was clearly prepared well in advance. Represented by some of the top antitrust lawyers in the country, and weighing in at 65 pages, Epic had spent some time preparing for this fight. To drive this point home, the lawsuit itself references 1984 in the opening paragraph, tying into Epic's marketing campaign:

In 1984, the fledgling Apple computer company released the Macintosh—the first mass-market, consumer-friendly home computer. The product launch was announced with a breathtaking advertisement evoking George Orwell’s 1984 that cast Apple as a beneficial, revolutionary force breaking IBM’s monopoly over the computing technology market. Apple’s founder Steve Jobs introduced the first showing of the 1984 advertisement by explaining, “it appears IBM wants it all. Apple is perceived to be the only hope to offer IBM a run for its money . . . . Will Big Blue dominate the entire computer industry? The entire information age? Was George Orwell right about 1984?”

Fast forward to 2020, and Apple has become what it once railed against: the behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation. Apple is bigger, more powerful, more entrenched, and more pernicious than the monopolists of yesteryear. At a market cap of nearly $2 trillion, Apple’s size and reach far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history.

The coordination between product, marketing, and legal shows that Epic was well aware of what it was doing.

And, almost immediately after all of that, Google also kicked Fortnite out of its app store, and Epic sued Google too. Rather than opening with the 1984 line (which wouldn't apply to Google), in this case, Epic's lawyers leaned on the "Don't Be Evil" line:

In 1998, Google was founded as an exciting young company with a unique motto: “Don’t Be Evil”. Google’s Code of Conduct explained that this admonishment was about “how we serve our users” and “much more than that . . . it’s also about doing the right thing more generally”. Twenty-two years later, Google has relegated its motto to nearly an afterthought, and is using its size to do evil upon competitors, innovators, customers, and users in a slew of markets it has grown to monopolize. This case is about doing the right thing in one important area, the Android mobile ecosystem, where Google unlawfully maintains monopolies in multiple related markets, denying consumers the freedom to enjoy their mobile devices—freedom that Google always promised Android users would have.

Google acquired the Android mobile operating system more than a decade ago, promising repeatedly over time that Android would be the basis for an “open” ecosystem in which industry participants could freely innovate and compete without unnecessary restrictions.2 Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, represented in 2014 that Android “is one of the most open systems that I’ve ever seen”.3 And Andy Rubin, an Android founder who is described by some as the “Father of Android”, said when he departed Google in 2013 that “at its core, Android has always been about openness”.4 Since then, Google has deliberately and systematically closed the Android ecosystem to competition, breaking the promises it made. Google’s anti-competitive conduct has now been condemned by regulators the world over.

Both lawsuits argue that this is an antitrust violation. Also, in both cases, Epic makes it clear (again, strategic marketing at work) that it's not seeking monetary damages, but is demanding that both companies change their practices regarding what cut they take from in-app payments via the app stores. Of course, if it gets rid of having to hand over 30% to Apple and Google, Epic stands to make a lot more money (even if it then discounts in-app purchases that are done directly, as it did with this update).

Of course, when various mutli-billion dollar giants battle in court, you know there's a lot happening behind the scenes. From a pure narrative perspective, you can see Epic's point. Fortnite's success on mobile is not about the benefits provided by the app stores on either of the major mobile operating systems. And, to be clear, Epic had explored this area in the past. Two years ago it tried to avoid the Google Play Store to protest the 30% cut (which is possible, though clunky, on Android), but eventually gave in and went back into the Play Store.

From Apple's standpoint, Epic's move put it in a no-win position. If it let Epic do this with Fortnite, tons of other developers would claim that Epic was getting preferential treatment, and thus letting Epic's move slide would create massive problems in its own way. But pulling Fortnite down from app store created a new set of problems as well (including this antitrust suit). Then Google was similarly put in an impossible situation. Right after seeing what happened with Apple, Google basically had to make a similar call, knowing that it had to decide if it was going to stand firm like Apple (and face a certain lawsuit) or cave and create a whole host of other problems.

From Epic's vantage point, this was a shot that the company had to take. The company's CEO, Tim Sweeney, has a history of not liking rent-seeking by middlemen. And while the antitrust fight can be costly, a win (either by settlement or by the results of litigation) would be a huge win, and a loss would effectively leave Epic in the same position it's in now (though with some quite hefty legal bills that the company can easily afford).

As for the legal arguments... I think it's an uphill climb. The public narrative may sound good, but the actual antitrust laws are going to make this quite difficult to win.

To some extent, this comes down to one of the key differences between the mobile universe -- which is much more closed, limited, and controlled by gatekeepers -- and the wider, more open internet ecosystem. And, to their credit, both Apple and Google have done a lot to build the entire smartphone/tablet ecosystem with iOS and Android, though it is disappointing that over time Google has progressively moved away from its more "open" promises regarding Android. That said, being more closed and proprietary has allowed both companies (and especially Apple) to argue that their devices are a lot more secure than computers and an internet where anything goes.

Also, much of this fight ignores that in the console world, 30% is also the standard fee. It certainly looks like, pretty much across the board, devices used for gaming have decided that the entrance fee to get on a device is about 30% of any in-app purchases. As John Gruber notes, Sweeney seems to handwave around the dedicated gaming consoles argument -- suggesting that somehow the 30% makes sense there, because of the nature of those consoles. But that does seem to undermine his overall argument (and may also doom his legal argument).

I don't know what the right answer is here, and I don't find myself particularly rooting for any one of these giant companies in this fight. I wish mobile platforms were more open, but I understand why they're not. I also don't think that the activity Google and Apple engage in will trip the wire under current antitrust law. And thus, if Apple and Google do stand firm, I think Epic loses in the long run. But it can be a very long run, and it might just be worth it for Epic to try to force its view of the mobile app market onto that world.

But, of course, to some extent, everything is a negotiation. And there's a part of me that wonders if Epic isn't just hoping to use this as an "initial offer" to get Apple and Google to agree to a favorable deal to allow Fortnite back into the app stores. That, of course, would raise a bunch of other questions -- including other developers demanding similar treatment. But I could see some sort of tiered system worked out, whereby Apple and Google agree that at certain levels of revenue, the cuts they take drop. Just to get this lawsuit out of the way.

No matter how you feel though, this is going to be a big fight to watch over the coming months and years. It's almost as fascinating as Fortnite itself.

Filed Under: 30%, antitrust, app store, fortnite, marketplaces, play store, tim sweeney
Companies: apple, epic, google

Apple Helps China Censor Citizens By Pulling The Plug On A Keyboard App That Encrypted Text Messages

from the don't-be-Big-Brother's-little-brother dept

China keeps being China, despite all the problems it has at home. The coronavirus traces back to Wuhan, China, and it has become clear the Chinese government is doing what it can to suppress reporting on the outbreak.

The country has a fine-tuned censorship machine that works in concert with its overbearing surveillance apparatus to ensure the government maintains control of the narrative. "Ensures" is perhaps too strong a term because, despite its best efforts, information always leaks out around the edges.

Citizens of China have found numerous ways to dodge censorship and surveillance over the years. But they're not being helped much by American companies, which have more often than not complied with government demands for apologies, takedowns, and other efforts that ensure access to the Chinese market at the expense of their Chinese users.

The latest news is more of the same. A clever keyboard app that encrypted messages has been nuked from the Chinese app store by Apple following a takedown demand from the Chinese government.

Apple yesterday removed Boom the Encryption Keyboard, an app that allowed Chinese internet users to bypass censorship, from the China app store, according to its developer.

[...]

According to an email sent by Apple to [app developer] Wang Huiyu, the app was removed because it contained “content that is illegal in China.” The app is still available in other regions, including Hong Kong, he said.

Boom encrypted messages by changing the originating English or Chinese to a blend of emoji, Japanese, and Korean characters. To decrypt the messages, users simply copied the characters sent to them, which were reverted to their original state on the keyboard below. Not enough to thwart targeted surveillance, but more than enough to dodge blanket censorship efforts like keyword blacklists.

The app's developer suspects Boom was targeted by the Chinese government because it was being used to spread an article about the virus that was censored by the government shortly after its publication.

The article in question is an interview with Ai Fen, a Wuhan doctor who said she was reprimanded for alerting other people about the novel coronavirus. The article, published on March 10 by China’s Ren Wu magazine, was deleted within hours of its publication. Various versions of the article, including those reproduced in emoji, English, and even Hebrew, emerged after the deletion as people scrambled to save Ai’s story…

This is the sort of information American companies should be helping to spread, not shutting down at the behest of the parties who want to see this information buried. If this were a one-off, it would be worrying. But it's just another data point in a long string of incidents where American tech companies have endangered users in foreign countries, seemingly for the single purpose of maintaining market share.

Filed Under: app store, boom, censorship, china, codes, content moderation, emoji, encryption, keyboard
Companies: apple

Supreme Court Says iPhone Users Can Pursue Antitrust Claims Against Apple Over App Store

from the could-get-intereseting dept

Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled (mostly as expected, though with some caveats) in Apple v. Pepper, a case concerning whether or not iPhone users could sue Apple for antitrust concerning how it controls pricing in the iOS App Store. Most of the news on this focuses either on how this could have a big impact on Apple and other marketplaces, or on how this case (somewhat oddly) split between the two Justices appointed by President Trump, with Justice Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) and the dissent written by Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas and Alito).

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but my first impression is that this case may not prove to be that big of a deal long term. It is not saying anything, really, concerning whether or not Apple's practices are an antitrust violation. It is merely letting a case go forward. And, to some extent, I think that Justice Gorsuch may be correct that all that this case will end up doing in the long run is getting Apple and other platforms to change their contracts in terms of how the money flow officially goes.

The key in this case is that Apple sought to have the antitrust case tossed, saying that iPhone owners were not the "direct purchasers" from Apple, and thus had no standing to sue. An earlier case, Illinois Brick v. Illinois, said that only direct purchasers could sue for antitrust violations, rather than those further down the supply chain. Here, the majority said that Illinois Brick doesn't exclude iPhone users, because they did, in fact, make the purchase from Apple, and thus were "direct purchasers."

The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick. At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws.

This does seem fairly straightforward, but Apple's counter-argument was that, as the market controller, it is merely setting the percentage fee that goes back to Apple, and not the actual price of the app:

Apple’s theory is that Illinois Brick allows consumers to sue only the party who sets the retail price, whether or not that party sells the good or service directly to the complaining party. Apple says that its theory accords with the economics of the transaction. Here, Apple argues that the app developers, not Apple, set the retail price charged to consumers, which according to Apple means that the consumers may not sue Apple.

The majority rejects this ruling, saying that it is not actually supported by the law (which says that injured parties can sue), that Apple is stretching the meaning of the Illinois Brick ruling from one about "direct purchasers" to one about "who sets the price," and finally that under Apple's interpretation of the rule, any market operator could strategically structure their market to avoid being liable to any antitrust effort:

...if accepted, Apple’s theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic retailers to structure transactions with manufacturers or suppliers so as to evade antitrust claims by consumers and thereby thwart effective antitrust enforcement.

The dissent, by Gorsuch, more or less suggests that this ruling, as opposed to the reverse, is actually what will allow market operators to avoid antitrust, just by strategically structuring deals in a different way:

To evade the Court’s test, all Apple must do is amend its contracts. Instead of collecting payments for apps sold in the App Store and remitting the balance (less its commission) to developers, Apple can simply specify that consumers’ payments will flow the other way: directly to the developers, who will then remit commissions to Apple. No antitrust reason exists to treat these contractual arrangements differently, and doing so will only induce firms to abandon their preferred—and presumably more efficient—distribution arrangements in favor of less efficient ones, all so they might avoid an arbitrary legal rule.

This is why, frankly, I'm not convinced this case is that big of a deal, despite some general concerns that people have raised about the ruling. As a gut reaction, it does seem to make sense that those injured by supposedly monopolistic behavior should have the right to sue over that harm, but this ruling seems more technical than anything else, and is fairly early on in the process of what appears to be a very long case that has no end in sight. Apple, and other large companies, would obviously have liked to have seen it go the other way, and to face less of a threat of antitrust lawsuits from the users of the markets they set up, but that, alone, isn't a sensible reason for blocking these cases.

For what it's worth, if I were Apple, I would preempt this issue entirely by no longer requiring that the App Store be the only way to get apps on the phone. Google allows competing marketplaces on Android, but they really don't get much usage -- in part because Google (correctly) notes that you're likely to have better security by going through the official Google Play store, rather than alternatives. However, it has still allowed alternatives, and a few of them (including Amazon's) have been able to build up a niche in the market.

Filed Under: antitrust, app store, brett kavanaugh, direct purchaser, ios, neil gorsuch, standing, supreme court
Companies: apple

Single Choke Point Problems: Apple Removes NY Times App From Chinese App Store After Chinese Gov't Complains

from the censorship-made-easy dept

One of the wonders of the internet was that it was supposed to be a distributed computer system, meaning that it would be harder to take down and harder to censor. But, over time, things keep getting more and more centralized. And that's especially true in the mobile ecosystem, and doubly so for the Apple iOS mobile ecosystem (at least on Android it's much easier to sideload apps). The latest demonstration of this is that Apple agreed to remove apps from the NY Times from its iOS app store in China, complying with demands from the Chinese government:

Apple removed both the English-language and Chinese-language apps from the app store in China on Dec. 23. Apps from other international publications, including The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal, were still available in the app store.

“We have been informed that the app is in violation of local regulations,” Fred Sainz, an Apple spokesman, said of the Times apps. “As a result, the app must be taken down off the China App Store. When this situation changes, the App Store will once again offer the New York Times app for download in China.”

The article about this -- in the NY Times, naturally -- says that the paper has asked Apple to reconsider. No one is clear on exactly why this is happening, but the (reasonable) assumption is that it has to do with the new regulations China put in place over the summer that demand all internet news providers must be approved by the Chinese government -- which the Chinese are spinning as part of its effort to crack down on "fake news."

Of course, this really just highlights two separate, but equally worrisome trends: (1) the increasing centralization of connected ecosystems, that creates a single chokepoint to target with censorship demands; and (2) the ability to use hyped up claims about "fake news" to censor legitimate and critical investigative reporting. Neither of these are good to see, and both need to be counteracted.

Filed Under: app store, censorship, china, news
Companies: apple, ny times

Apple, Arbiters Of Art, Say Game About Surviving The Gaza Strip Isn't A Game, Even Though It Is

from the art-thou-kidding? dept

Search for stories about Apple's App Store in the Techdirt archives and you will quickly notice a theme. That theme is that Apple routinely appoints itself as the arbiter of artistic quality and morality when it comes to content within the app store, particularly gaming content, and that its application of these standards swings like some kind of absurd pendulum. Ban a game over here for telling a bible story that includes violence against children, but allow the actual bible to be sold as well. React to the South Carolina massacre by pulling down games about the Civil War because they include images of the Confederate flag. Reject a wargaming simulation, then approve it, and nobody knows how the company might decide to react tomorrow. You often hear that stability breeds a good ground for business, whereas Apple runs its App Store like some kind of experiment in chaos.

And in order to apply its standards in a way that apparently makes the folks at Apple feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it occasionally has to truly lower its explanations to absurd levels of outright lying. For instance, Apple recently disallowed a game about surviving on the Gaza Strip in its store, claiming it wasn't a game at all, but a news publication, even though the briefest review of the app reveals that it's obviously a game.

A game about the Palestine/Israel conflict, Liyla and The Shadows of War, has proved too political for Apple. The technology giant ordered the developer, Rasheed Abueideh, to remove Liyla from the games section of its iTunes app store, claiming it isn't a game and should sit in the news section.

The real question is, is Liyla and The Shadows of War a game? I played it last night, as Liyla is available from Google Play. It's a short platformer with a powerful message and stunning graphics.

The writer goes on from there to describe the plot, the inclusion of reactions to real life events, the graphical elements of the game, and the, well, gameplay. Because it's a game. You have to play to get either a win or lose scenario, there are choices to be made, puzzles to be solved, and stages to complete. It's a platformer, like Mario Bros..

So, why the ban and the lies to support it? Well, one can understand that the Middle East conflict and the ongoing crisis between the Palestinians and the Israelis is among the most touchy of subjects. For a company that wants to keep its brand and its App Store squeaky clean, at least in its own mind, one can imagine that this kind of thing is something Apple wouldn't want to touch. But, misguided as this already is, it becomes all the more so when it can't even bother to stay consistent on the matter. The App Store has available for purchase, for instance, Israeli Heroes, which appears to be an Angry Birds clone in which you lob missiles at bombs that reside under a crescent moon and oh my god, I think I'm about to have an embolism, because come on.

As always, in the midst of this nonsense, the game is available for Android devices, because that garden has no wall around it.

For once, the phrase 'relax, it's just a game' seems apt. Apple take note. Liyla and The Shadows of War is available for Android on Google Play – it's free, it's short and it's definitely a game worth playing.

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: it'd be best if Apple would get out of the art critique business. They're not very good at it.

Filed Under: app store, censorship, games, gaza strip, itunes, video games, walled garden
Companies: apple