Facebook, LinkedIn, Friendster and others typically provide value by capturing information as you enter it: your birthday, your e-mail address, your likes, and links indicating who is friends with whom and who is in which photograph. The sites assemble these bits of data into brilliant databases and reuse the information to provide value-added service—but only within their sites. Once you enter your data into one of these services, you cannot easily use them on another site. Each site is a silo, walled off from the others. Yes, your site’s pages are on the Web, but your data are not. You can access a Web page about a list of people you have created in one site, but you cannot send that list, or items from it, to another site. The isolation occurs because each piece of information does not have a URI. Connections among data exist only within a site. So the more you enter, the more you become locked in. Your social-networking site becomes a central platform—a closed silo of content, and one that does not give you full control over your information in it. The more this kind of architecture gains widespread use, the more the Web becomes fragmented, and the less we enjoy a single, universal information space. A related danger is that one social-networking site—or one search engine or one browser—gets so big that it becomes a monopoly, which tends to limit innovation. (2010) source Verified

I’m in league with Doctorow and EFF on some of these things, but also find myself thinking they go much too far in other ways. At root, their work and advocacy raise a profound question: should there be any general right to exclude on digital platforms? Although he doesn’t always come right out and say it, Doctorow’s work often seems like an outright rejection of any sort of property rights in networks or platforms. [...] Where we differ is that I would still leave the door open for Apple to exercise various other common law contractual rights or property rights in court. Why not take that logic further and just say Apple’s App Store is tantamount to a natural monopoly or digital essential facility that Epic and everyone else is entitled to on whatever terms they want? [...] I think that would end miserably, but would like to hear Doctorow’s preferred approach before saying more. [...] Thus, I prefer to work at the margins and think through how to balance these competing claims of access / interoperability rights versus contractual / property rights. [...] Taken too far, adversarial interoperability threatens to undermine this goal. (2020) source Unverified

But too much friction exists today between creators and gamers; app store policies and practices on mobile devices restrict what and how creators can offer games and what and how gamers can play them. Our large investment to acquire Activision Blizzard further strengthens our resolve to remove this friction on behalf of creators and gamers alike. We want to enable world-class content to reach every gamer more easily across every platform. We want to encourage more innovation and investment in content creation and fewer constraints on distribution. Put simply, the world needs open app markets, and this requires open app stores. The principles we’re announcing today reflect our commitment to this goal. We will continue to enable developers to choose whether they want to deliver their apps for Windows though our app store, from someone else’s store, or “sideloaded” directly from the internet. We will continue to give developers timely access to information about the interoperability interfaces for Windows that our own apps use. We will enable Windows users to use alternative app stores and third-party apps, including by changing default settings in appropriate categories. (2022) source Unverified

This, to me, is perhaps the key point that sideloading proponents ignore. Arguments in favor of allowing sideloading on iOS, from users, tend to boil down to “It’s my device, I should be allowed to install whatever I want. If most users want to stick with the App Store, that’s fine for them and they’ll keep all the benefits as they currently stand, while I and others will have the freedom to install whatever we want.” That argument is not wrong! There would be benefits to allowing sideloading, exactly along the lines of how there are benefits to being able to install apps outside the App Store via TestFlight, enterprise distribution, and compiling apps from source code with Xcode. [...] But many non-technical users would inevitably wind up installing undesirable apps via work/school requirements or trickery that they could not be required or tricked into installing today. Consider just the example of “proctoring apps” that students are required to install for remote test taking. They’re a surveillance menace, as the EFF reported in August. Technically, yes, on platforms that allow it, sideloading is the user’s choice. But socially and psychologically, it often isn’t. I’ll admit it: if Mac-style sideloading were added to iOS, I’d enable it, for the same reason I enable installing apps from outside the App Store on my Mac: I trust myself to only install trustworthy software. But it doesn’t make me a hypocrite to say that I think it would be worse for the platform as a whole. The iPhone is the converse: designed first and foremost for the non-savvy user, and tries to accommodate power users as best it can within the limits of that primary directive. (2021) source Unverified

WASHINGTON – The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) said in a new report Wednesday that the current mobile app store model is harmful to consumers and developers, and recommended policy changes to fix it. Mobile apps have become an essential tool for participation in much of daily life. Two companies – Apple and Google – act as gatekeepers over the apps that people and businesses rely on, NTIA found in its “Competition in the Mobile Application Ecosystem” report. The companies’ policies have the potential to harm consumers by inflating prices and reducing innovation. While the current app store policies do offer some benefits to consumers, including the potential for tighter security controls, the report found that the costs far outweigh the benefits and that privacy and security protections can still be achieved in a more competitive environment. The report recommends several changes to improve the app ecosystem for users, including: * Consumers should have more control over their devices. They should be able to choose their own apps as defaults, use alternative mobile app stores, and delete or hide pre-installed apps. * App store operators should not be able to “self-preference” their apps in an anticompetitive manner. Operators should not be able to favor their own apps in how they appear in search results or discriminate against other apps that are similar to their own. * Operators should lift restrictions on alternative ways for consumers to download and install apps. While still preserving appropriate latitude for privacy and security safeguards, legislative and regulatory measures should prohibit restrictions on sideloading, alternative app stores and web apps. * Addressing limits on in-app purchasing options. This can be done by banning requirements that developers use the app store operators’ in-app payment system. (2023) source Unverified

Under Theme 2, we have examined the extent to which Apple and Google, as owners of the main app stores in their respective ecosystems, have market power in the distribution of native apps. This includes the extent to which there are suitable alternatives to the main app stores through which consumers can download and app developers can distribute native apps, as well as alternative methods through which a user can access the same content (for example, web-based alternatives and alternative devices such as games consoles). The App Store on iOS and Play Store on Android are the key gateways through which app developers can distribute apps to users on mobile devices. Our initial findings are that the App Store and Play Store face a lack of competition from within and outside of their respective ecosystems as a method of delivering native apps to users: * in Apple’s ecosystem, the App Store is the only method of native app distribution and so 100% of native apps downloaded on iOS devices are through the App Store * the App Store and Play Store do not face significant competition from alternative devices, such as desktops or games consoles, largely because they are used differently to mobile devices, which can be used ‘on the go’. Therefore, non-mobile devices are not seen as a viable alternative option for mobile app developers Apple and Google are able to exercise the market power of their app stores through their processes for reviewing which apps can be listed on their app stores. Apple and Google set the rules to be followed by app developers and have discretion over whether to approve or reject apps. This control has enabled Apple to block certain types of apps being present on iOS altogether (such as cloud gaming services) and for other types of apps, the app review process for the App Store and Play Store provides an incentive or ability for Apple and Google to confer an advantage over their own apps and services and, more widely, can mean uncertainty and increased development costs for app developers. For Apple, we have identified the following potential interventions to create alternative distribution channels on iOS for native apps: * Requiring Apple to allow alternative app stores on iOS: alternative app stores could be made available through sideloading from the web, or Apple could be required to allow app stores to be available for download from its App Store. Enabling alternative channels through which users can discover and engage with apps could lead to greater choice for users and increase competitive pressures on the App Store. In turn, this could also lead to better terms of use for developers, including on price, and better outcomes for consumers including lower prices for apps. * Requiring Apple to allow sideloading of native apps on iOS: as is already technically possible on Android devices, a requirement to allow sideloading of apps on iOS would provide an additional source of potential competition to the App Store. (2021) source Unverified

That’s a great misunderstanding – and one we have tried to explain over and over. The reality of what the alternative distribution requirements enable is that software that users in Europe need to use – sometimes business software, other times personal software, social software, things that they want to use – may only be available outside of the store, alternatively distributed. In that case, those users don’t have a choice to get that software from a distribution mechanism that they trust. And so, in fact, it is simply not the case that users will retain the choice they have today to get all of their software from the App Store. (2023) source Unverified

So, on an open platform like Android should be. And it was advertised as being… All stores should operate at parity. Right? Once you’ve decided to install another store like the Epic Games store, it should have equal access the system software, as Google’s own store has, so that it should be able to install and update software as seamlessly as Google Play does. I mean, this is just a basic principle of competition. These stores need to be opened up. Open to let each developer choose which components to use in their software. They want to use Epic’s friends system, they can use Epic’s friend system and they want to use PayPal instead of Apple payment service. They should be free to use that. So you really have two principles. Number one is real open platforms where users can install software and developers can release software without permission of a mega corp. And number two is just the ability for apps from any source to be able to use services of their choosing and not be forced through compulsion and tying to to use, you know, especially use noncompetitive services like the iOS App Store. source Unverified

Allow sideloading. Apple doesn’t allow “sideloading” — that is, installing apps on a device without going through the app store — at all on its iOS devices. (The exceptions are enterprise certificates, mentioned above, and developers can install apps that they have compiled themselves using Xcode on a Mac.) Sideloading also implies that users can install third-party app stores, which are just apps that install other apps — neither Apple nor Google, for example, allow third-party app stores in their own app stores at all. Devices running Android do allow sideloading, though the feature is off by default. [...] Apple’s Mac platform, however, points to a better approach than either iOS or Android currently follows — users should be able to sideload apps, but it should be significantly easier to sideloaded apps that are cryptographically signed by developers. The signing requirement does not mean that signed apps get the same level of vetting as app store apps, but it does mean that malicious apps can be remotely disabled if they become known. [...] Another approach would be to allow multiple entities to issue developer certificates instead of just the platform owner. [...] To be clear, sideloading (like web apps) simply creates a release valve of sorts — it does not by itself solve every competition issue with app stores. But it does ensure that no single company is an unavoidable gatekeeper for what apps a user might put on her phone. (2019) source Unverified

The main risk is that you might get to use software and services that you will enjoy more. The gatekeeper is no longer going to be able to dictate what you use or try to force you to use software you do not like, such as Edge. If the idea is that it is a lot safer to have software be downloaded from the App Store, I think the history of bad apps in the store tells a different story. It is always prudent to evaluate the software you install, independent from where you download it. It is always a good idea to download software from reliable sources, whether it is the company website or a quality download site or App Store. (2023) source Unverified

But it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about private contracts. Just about all human (commercial) activity requires interaction with others, and that means contracts and licenses. You don’t see anyone complaining about the “permission” required to rent space from a landlord. But that some form of “permission” may be required to use someone else’s creative works or other property (including broadband networks) is no different. Don’t get me wrong – there may be some net welfare-enhancing regulatory limits that might require forms of government permission. But the real concern is the pervasive abuse of these limits, imposed without anything approaching a rigorous welfare determination. There might even be instances where private permission, imposed, say, by a true monopolist, might be problematic. But this idea that any contractual obligation amounts to a problematic impediment to innovation is absurd, and, in fact, precisely backward. “Permissionless innovation” is a great phrase and, well developed (as Adam Thierer has done), a useful concept. But its bastardization to justify interference with private contracts is unsupported and pernicious. (2014) source Unverified

Before the DMA’s enactment, I raised serious concerns about how its rules would affect user privacy and security, as I argued that mandated interoperability is a key concern that poses significant risks for users. I also noted that mandating an option of app “sideloading” entails taking away from users the choice of the enhanced security features offered by the “walled garden” model. Indeed, privacy and security concerns were largely sidelined in the DMA’s legislative process. Instead of genuinely considering the very real tradeoffs, legislators resorted to a “pass the buck” strategy. The DMA’s text offers a few grudging and vague permissions (not even obligations) for gatekeepers to do only what is “strictly necessary” for some (not all) aspects of service privacy and security. It is hard to avoid the impression that the legislators hoped that, when something does ultimately go wrong, the blame will fall on the gatekeepers, and not on poorly thought-through legislation. (2024) source Unverified

But the Web is fun. The Web is so easy to use and inviting that millions of people are putting interesting things online; in many ways pouring a digital representation of their lives into the Web. New features are being invented and added into the technology because one does not need permission to create in this system. All in all, the openness of the Web has led to the participation of many. This is important because software on phones, tablets, and laptops are becoming more difficult to install without the permission of a company, such as Apple. [...] We do not need to wait for Apple, Microsoft or Google to allow us to build this. (2015) source Unverified

HiQ points out that data scraping is a common method of gathering information, used by search engines, academic researchers, and many others. According to hiQ, letting established entities that already have accumulated large user data sets decide who can scrape that data from otherwise public websites gives those entities outsized control over how such data may be put to use. We agree with the district court that giving companies like LinkedIn free rein to decide, on any basis, who can collect and use data—data that the companies do not own, that they otherwise make publicly available to viewers, and that the companies themselves collect and use—risks the possible creation of information monopolies that would disserve the public interest. (2019) source Unverified

How do you tell your phone who you want to talk to, and how does the phone find that person? There is no way to allow for end-to-end encryption without trusting every provider to handle the identity management... If the goal is for all of the messaging systems to treat each other’s users exactly the same, then this is a privacy and security nightmare. (2022) source Unverified

She was able to do all the things she did because the technology is oblivious to whether she had permission to do what she did. The Internet was not built with permissions in mind. Free access was the rule. We can see the first by returning to the picture of what made this network amazing — interoperability. Widespread DRM would disable that interoperability. Or at least, it would disable interoperability without permission first. We could remix, or add, or criticize, using digital content, only with the permission of the content controller. And that requirement of permission first would certainly disable a large part of the potential that the Internet could realize. (2005) source Unverified

In practice though, the current App Store situation has some significant problems which are getting harder and harder to ignore — several of which Congress’ antitrust report explicitly call out, such as requiring developers to implement in-app purchases or risk being thrown out of the App Store. [...] So to celebrate AltStore’s first birthday, I decided to finally write up my thoughts on the App Store — including why I went through all this effort in the first place and why I believe sideloading is ultimately the right long-term solution for iOS. I know my opinions won’t be shared by everyone, but hopefully my perspective will at least shine some light on the real value sideloading adds today to the platform, not just in a hypothetical future. (2020) source Unverified

Data scraping, or third parties taking personal data from your profile without permission, is a breach of our policies and when necessary we take legal action as part of our efforts to combat it. We will continue to fight on behalf of our members to stop illegal scraping. From taking legal action against unauthorized scraping to making significant investments in technical defenses, we are committed to keeping the control of data where it belongs - with our members. (2025) source Unverified

If you use Social Plugins, Facebook SDKs, or operate a Platform app or website, you must follow our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and these additional rules unless you have our written permission to do otherwise. [...] You may not use Facebook Platform to promote, or to export user data to, a product or service that replicates a core Facebook product or service without our permission. [...] You must not include data obtained from us in any search engine or directory without our written permission. (2013) source Unverified

I know some people have compared your concept of "adversarial interoperability" with my concept of "protocols, not platforms," and I think that they come from similar places and are looking at similar goals, but there’s one element of the adversarial interoperability concept that I like that is not included in my protocols approach: which is that it doesn’t require convincing the big companies to go along. With my Protocols paper, I recognized that sooner or later the various other pressures might force the big social networks to say "hey, this approach gets rid of a bunch of headaches, and even if it means giving up control, it’s doing so in a way that is worth it, because that control we give up takes away a bunch of costly problems." [...] However, it’s still waiting for them to have an epiphany. The adversarial interop approach gets around that, and more or less forces the incumbent to open up. And that’s… compelling. (2020) source Unverified

One of the controversial things we did with Signal early on was to build it as an unfederated service. Nothing about any of the protocols we’ve developed requires centralization; it’s entirely possible to build a federated Signal Protocol‑based messenger, but I no longer believe that it is possible to build a competitive federated messenger at all. In some circles, this has not been a popular opinion. When someone recently asked me about federating an unrelated communication platform into the Signal network, I told them that I thought we’d be unlikely to ever federate with clients and servers we don’t control. [...] It creates a climate of uncertainty, never knowing whether things will work or not. In the consumer space, fractured client support is often worse than no client support at all, because consistency is incredibly important for creating a compelling user experience. (2016) source Unverified

The App Store dispute can be boiled down to one big question: Is the iPhone a computer or not? If it’s a computer, we ought to have the right to compute. Like consumers have won the right to repair. If it’s a computer, it ought to be yours, and you ought to have the right to install whatever software you should so choose. But I think most people, when it comes down to it, believe that their smartphone is indeed a real computer. And that after paying $1,000 for this computer, they should be able to install whatever software they should so choose. Without having to ask Apple or Google for permission. (2024) source Unverified

Interoperability between the products and services of different firms promotes competition by lowering switching costs. Requiring dominant firms to make their products interoperable, or reducing barriers to interoperability, are important components of competition policy for the digital age. [...] It explains the problem of “gatekeeper” firms in Internet-related markets, and describes the ways that Internet services can interoperate with one another, including through “competitive compatibility” achieved without permission from an incumbent firm. Interoperability frequently happens without significant coordination between an incumbent firm and a challenger. Many entrepreneurs build new products or services to be compatible with existing ones by reverse-engineering the existing product and deriving the technical requirements for interoperability, often without permission from the incumbent. Many important innovations have come from such “competitive compatibility.” For example, Cydia was a long‑running alternative app store for Apple devices that featured software programs that were not available from Apple or Apple‑authorized developers. (2022) source Unverified

Here in Washington and elsewhere, policymakers are taking steps in the name of competition that would force Apple to let apps onto iPhone that circumvent the App Store through a process called sideloading. That means data‑hungry companies would be able to avoid our privacy rules and once again track our users against their will. It would also potentially give bad actors a way around the comprehensive security protections we’ve put in place, putting them in direct contact with our users. Proponents of these regulations argue that no harm would be done by simply giving people a choice. But taking away a more secure option will leave users with less choice, not more. If we are forced to let unvetted apps onto iPhone, the unintended consequences will be profound. (2022) source Unverified

Interoperability lowers switching costs. Interoperability allows us, the users of technology, to set the terms on which we use that technology. It allows us to use the parts of products and services that benefit us, and block the parts that don’t. There are a lot of things we should do to fix Big Tech: change the rules for mergers, pass comprehensive privacy legislation, ban deceptive “dark patterns” and break up big companies into smaller, competing firms These will take a long time. How long? It took sixty-­ nine years for the US government to break up AT&T. By contrast, interop is immediate. Make it legal for new tech- nologies to plug into existing ones—that is, make it legal to blast holes in every walled garden—and users (that’s us) get imme- diate, profound relief: relief from manipulation, high-­ handed moderation, surveillance, price-­ gouging, disgusting or misleading algorithmic suggestions … the whole panoply of technology’s sins. (2023) source Verified

It could open up a Pandora's box of unreviewed malware and software. Sideloading is a criminal's best friend. (2021) source Unverified

This work is technically possible, but it requires a very different regulatory environment than the one we currently have, one that mandates interoperability and protects adversarial interoperability, the ability to build a product that announces “I’m going to be compatible with you whether you like it or not.” The ecosystem my friends and I are building includes both large and small social networks. I don’t just want you to have control over Smalltown — I want to give you control over Facebook, as well, using the tools you choose to determine what content you see. (2022) source Unverified

Apple demanded that Epic revert Fortnite to exclusively use Apple payments. Their proposal was an invitation for Epic to collude with Apple to maintain its monopoly over in-app payments on iOS, suppressing free market competition and inflating prices. As a matter of principle, we refused to do so. You, as a mobile device owner, have the right to install apps from sources of your choosing. Software makers have the right to freely express their ideas and to compete in a fair marketplace. Apple’s policies take these freedoms away. (2020) source Unverified

Under Article 6(7) of the DMA, Apple must provide developers and businesses with free and effective interoperability with hardware and software features controlled by its operating systems iOS and iPadOS. The objective of Article 6(7) DMA is that devices, apps and products from third parties can be used on an iPhone as seamlessly as Apple’s own products. The specification decisions adopted today support Apple in achieving this objective, by detailing how to securely allow third parties to use certain features that are so far only available to Apple devices. (2025) source Unverified

We’ve always run the App Store to be a safe and trusted marketplace for our users, and to create an incredible business opportunity for developers. Due to the DMA, our EU users are experiencing the following impacts: More risks when downloading apps and making payments: The DMA requires Apple to allow sideloading, other app marketplaces, and alternative payment systems — even if they don’t meet the same high privacy and security standards as the App Store. On other mobile platforms, users face scams spread through fake banking apps, malware disguised as games, and third-party payment systems that overcharge them with no way to get their money back. The DMA’s requirements make it more likely our EU users will be exposed to similar risks. A less intuitive experience: Instead of one trusted place to get apps, EU users now face multiple marketplaces, each with their own design, rules, and review standards. On other mobile platforms, that leads to harmful look-alike apps that slip through with fewer checks, and marketplaces where users don’t know where to turn if something goes wrong. Apple users in the EU are now more likely to face those same risks. (2025) source Unverified