September 2, 2025 • 13 mins
The App Store Freedom Act
Episode Description: In this episode of Upwardly Mobile, we unpack the App Store Freedom Act, a landmark bipartisan bill aiming to reform the highly concentrated mobile app marketplace dominated by tech giants like Apple and Google. Introduced by Representative Kat Cammack (R-FL) and co-sponsored by Representative Lori Trahan (D-MA), this legislation addresses significant concerns about anti-competitive practices, consumer choice, and developer freedom.
The Coalition for App Fairness (CAF), an independent nonprofit advocating for consumer choice and a level playing field for app developers, applauds the bill's bipartisan support, seeing it as a crucial step to dismantle "mobile walled gardens". We explore the bill's key provisions, which include allowing users to choose third-party app stores, install apps outside of official stores, and delete pre-installed applications. The Act also seeks to remove limitations on communication between developers and users, cap commissions on payments outside default systems, and mandate data sharing for app developers.
However, the App Store Freedom Act isn't without its critics. We delve into the concerns raised by the American Action Forum, particularly regarding potential overlaps with existing antitrust law and recent rulings like Apple v. Epic Games. A major point of contention is the security implications: opening up app stores could lead to a significant influx of fraudulent apps, data theft, and unverified third-party providers, potentially compromising the "walled garden" security benefits that currently protect users. We also discuss how while the bill might expedite FTC enforcement, it could bypass crucial antitrust requirements, potentially overlooking pro-consumer behaviors by app store providers. Join us as we explore the multifaceted debate surrounding this pivotal piece of tech legislation.
Key Discussion Points:
• The Problem: Anti-competitive practices and lack of consumer freedom in mobile app stores controlled by Apple and Google.
• The Bill's Purpose: To foster competition, enhance consumer choice, and create a level playing field for app developers globally.
• Core Provisions of the App Store Freedom Act (H.R.3209):
◦ Interoperability: Users can choose default third-party app stores, install apps from outside sources, and hide/delete pre-installed apps.
◦ Open App Development: Requires covered companies to provide developers with access to interfaces, hardware, and software features on equivalent terms.
◦ Prohibitions: Bans requirements for specific in-app payment systems, prevents punitive actions against developers using alternative pricing or payment methods, and protects legitimate business communications between developers and users.
◦ Nonpublic Business Information: Prohibits covered companies from using developer data to compete against those apps.
• Enforcement: Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with potential civil penalties up to $1,000,000 per violation. State attorneys general can also bring civil actions.
• Overlap with Existing Law & Apple v. Epic Games: Discussion on whether new legislation is fully necessary given previous court rulings that addressed similar anti-steering practices.
• Security Concerns: Analysis of how opening the "walled garden" could impact user safety, potentially leading to fraudulent apps, stolen data, and unverified third-party providers.
• Balancing Act: The trade-offs between promoting competition and maintaining user security and convenience.
Relevant Source Materials for this Summary:
• "CAF Applauds Bipartisan Support for App Store Freedom Act - Coalition for App Fairness"
• "Evaluating the App Store Freedom Act - AAF"
• "Text - H.R.3209 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): App Store Freedom Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress"
Sponsor: This episode of Upwardly Mobile is brought to you by Approov.io. Secure your APIs and mobile apps against fraud and abuse. Visit approov.io to learn more.
Keywords: App Store Freedom Act, digital markets, app store regulation, Apple, Google, anti-competitive practices, consumer choice, app developers, mobile apps, Open App Markets Act, Apple v. Epic Games, FTC, security concerns, H.R.3209, mobile walled gardens, competition policy, tech legislation, digital monopoly, software development, consumer protection, privacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificia
Episode Description: In this episode of Upwardly Mobile, we unpack the App Store Freedom Act, a landmark bipartisan bill aiming to reform the highly concentrated mobile app marketplace dominated by tech giants like Apple and Google. Introduced by Representative Kat Cammack (R-FL) and co-sponsored by Representative Lori Trahan (D-MA), this legislation addresses significant concerns about anti-competitive practices, consumer choice, and developer freedom.
The Coalition for App Fairness (CAF), an independent nonprofit advocating for consumer choice and a level playing field for app developers, applauds the bill's bipartisan support, seeing it as a crucial step to dismantle "mobile walled gardens". We explore the bill's key provisions, which include allowing users to choose third-party app stores, install apps outside of official stores, and delete pre-installed applications. The Act also seeks to remove limitations on communication between developers and users, cap commissions on payments outside default systems, and mandate data sharing for app developers.
However, the App Store Freedom Act isn't without its critics. We delve into the concerns raised by the American Action Forum, particularly regarding potential overlaps with existing antitrust law and recent rulings like Apple v. Epic Games. A major point of contention is the security implications: opening up app stores could lead to a significant influx of fraudulent apps, data theft, and unverified third-party providers, potentially compromising the "walled garden" security benefits that currently protect users. We also discuss how while the bill might expedite FTC enforcement, it could bypass crucial antitrust requirements, potentially overlooking pro-consumer behaviors by app store providers. Join us as we explore the multifaceted debate surrounding this pivotal piece of tech legislation.
Key Discussion Points:
• The Problem: Anti-competitive practices and lack of consumer freedom in mobile app stores controlled by Apple and Google.
• The Bill's Purpose: To foster competition, enhance consumer choice, and create a level playing field for app developers globally.
• Core Provisions of the App Store Freedom Act (H.R.3209):
◦ Interoperability: Users can choose default third-party app stores, install apps from outside sources, and hide/delete pre-installed apps.
◦ Open App Development: Requires covered companies to provide developers with access to interfaces, hardware, and software features on equivalent terms.
◦ Prohibitions: Bans requirements for specific in-app payment systems, prevents punitive actions against developers using alternative pricing or payment methods, and protects legitimate business communications between developers and users.
◦ Nonpublic Business Information: Prohibits covered companies from using developer data to compete against those apps.
• Enforcement: Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with potential civil penalties up to $1,000,000 per violation. State attorneys general can also bring civil actions.
• Overlap with Existing Law & Apple v. Epic Games: Discussion on whether new legislation is fully necessary given previous court rulings that addressed similar anti-steering practices.
• Security Concerns: Analysis of how opening the "walled garden" could impact user safety, potentially leading to fraudulent apps, stolen data, and unverified third-party providers.
• Balancing Act: The trade-offs between promoting competition and maintaining user security and convenience.
Relevant Source Materials for this Summary:
• "CAF Applauds Bipartisan Support for App Store Freedom Act - Coalition for App Fairness"
• "Evaluating the App Store Freedom Act - AAF"
• "Text - H.R.3209 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): App Store Freedom Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress"
Sponsor: This episode of Upwardly Mobile is brought to you by Approov.io. Secure your APIs and mobile apps against fraud and abuse. Visit approov.io to learn more.
Keywords: App Store Freedom Act, digital markets, app store regulation, Apple, Google, anti-competitive practices, consumer choice, app developers, mobile apps, Open App Markets Act, Apple v. Epic Games, FTC, security concerns, H.R.3209, mobile walled gardens, competition policy, tech legislation, digital monopoly, software development, consumer protection, privacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificia
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome everyone to another session of Upwardly Mobile API and
App Security. I'm George and I'm sky great to be
here today. We're diving into something that could really shake
things up for mobile developers. It's a piece of US
legislation called the Act Store Freedom Act. That's Hr three
two zero nine.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Yeah, it's definitely got people talking. It's aiming to reshape
the mobile app marketplace quite significantly.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Exactly, So our goal today is to unpack this bill.
We want to look at what it actually says, why
it's gaining traction now, and importantly, what it could mean
for you, you know, the developers building for iOS, Android,
maybe even HarmonyOS, whether you're native or using frameworks like
Flutter or React Native.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Right, we want to give you a clear picture the
potential opportunities, but also let's be real the challenges this
could bring.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Because for a long time, the conversation has been about
these dominant app stores, a few big players setting the rules.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
The walled gardens as they're often.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Called, precisely, and this Act, it feels, make a serious
attempt to rewrite those rules.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
It really does, and what's striking George is how directly
it tackles these long standing developer complaints. You have groups
like the Coalition for App Fairness UAF.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yeah, they represent a lot of developers.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Hundreds, and they've been vocal about what they call a
broken marketplace. For years. Developers have navigated these powerful ecosystems,
mainly Apple and Google's, and their rules, well they affect everything.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
Don't know, oh absolutely, how you distribute your app, how
you make money from it, even.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
How you talk to your own users. It all comes
under the platform's perview and that scrutiny.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
It feels like it's reached a boiling point years of
developers voicing concerns, but now it's landing on legislative desks
with real bipartisan support. That feels different.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
It is different. This act introduced by Representative camac Co,
sponsored by Representative Trey Hann. The fact that it has
support from both sides of the aisle signals I think
a clear consensus. As CAA put it, there's agreement that
something needs to change.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So what's the core aim?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Then fundamentally ensuring consumer choice, boosting competition, and this is
key for our listeners, opening the door wider for alternative
app marketplaces. Imagine having more viable options for distribution, maybe
reaching niche audiences more effectively. That could really change the
game for developers, less dependence on just one or two gatekeepers.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
To really get why this is happening now, though, we
probably need to look back a bit, the legal fights
definitely set the stage.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Well. For sure, you can't talk about this without mentioning
Apple v.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Epic Games, Right, that was a landmark case. Remind us
what was the key takeaway there?
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Well? The Ninth Circuit Court found Apple was illegally stopping
developers from telling users about other payment options outside the app,
basically anti steering rules.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
And didn't they also get dinged later for how they
tried to comply something about a commission.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Yes, exactly. Just this past May, a court found Apple
violated the injunction because they tried to impose a what
was it a twenty seven percent commission on those third
party payments anyway.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Wow, So not exactly embracing the spirit of the ruling.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Not quite, And that whole case really highlighted the specific
practices this new bill is targeting. It showed the courts
could step in, but.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
It's slow and expensive.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Incredibly slow. Apple v. Epic has been dragging on for
over four years. Think about the resources involved. The App
Store Freedom Act aims for a more comprehensive and potentially
much faster regulatory fix than relying solely on antitrust lawsuits.
It provides a clearer framework.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Okay, so that that's the scene. Let's get into the
specifics of the act itself. What's it actually proposing? First off,
who does it apply to?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Good question, It's targeted. It applies specifically to app store
providers with over one hundred million US users.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
So we're basically talking Apple and Google primarily.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Yes, those are the main players it hits.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Right, Let's break down the key parts. Section two a
one deals with interoperability and user choice. What's in there?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
This is a big one for user experience. It would
require these big companies to let users pick a third
party app store as their default.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Oh. Interesting, so you wouldn't be locked into the pre
installed store potentially yes.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
And it also says users must be allowed to install
third party apps directly, sideloading basically, and even higher delete
pre installed apps they don't want.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
That addresses a lot of common frustrations like not being
able to easily install apps from outside the main store,
especially on iOS.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Absolutely and for developers, think about the possibilities. Suddenly, alternative
app stores become much more viable.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Like specialized stores.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Exactly, maybe a store just for indie games or one
focused on privacy first apps or open source tools. It
could create new avenues for discovery, perhaps less reliant on
complex algorithms, more.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Distribution channels, potentially reaching users who are specifically looking.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
For what you offer, and more user freedom generally, which
could lead to more app adoption. If those third party
options are good. It breaks down the garden.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Walls a bit okay on sections two, A, two and
three cover open app development. This sounds crucial for leveling
the playing field.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
It really is. This mandates that covered companies give developers timely,
cost free and equivalent.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Access equivalent access to what to.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Os interfaces, hardware features, software features, documentation, development info basically
the tools needed to build great apps.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
So if Apple or Google's own app gets special access
to say a camera API or a specific sensor.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Then third party developers should get that same access at
the same time and without extra cost. No more privileged
access for the platform's own apps or select partners.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
That feels like a direct shot at the walled garden
advantage it is.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
It's about making the full toolkit available to everyone. But
there's an important safety catch here.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Ah okay, what's the exception.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Companies are not required to give this access or information
to known thread agents like scammers exactly, or to foreign
adversaries specifically mentioning the government of the People's Republic of
China as defined in the Act.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
So it tries to balance openness with security, protecting users
and national security.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Interests precisely, which you know is crucial in our world
of API and app security. You want openness, but not
at the expense of safety.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Makes sense. Now, let's talk money. Section two B one
tackles prohibiting anti competitive practices. This seems to go right
after the Commission fees and payment systems.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
It does. This section would forbid covered companies from forcing
developers to use their specific in app payment system just
to get their app lifted or stay accessible.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
So no more mandatory fifteen percent or thirty percent cut
on every transaction through their system.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
That's the goal. Developers could potentially integrate their own payment
solutions or use third party ones without penalty.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
And it also mentions pricing parity.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Right, Yes, it prohibits companies from demanding that developers charge
the same price everywhere, So you could offer a lower
price on your website or in another app store without
fear of retaliation from Apple or Google.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
That could dramatically change monetization strategies. Developers could avoid high commissions,
maybe offer better prices directly to users, which.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Could mean lower in app purchase costs for consumers too.
It really shifts the power dynamic around how digital goods
are sold in apps. Imagine the flexibility direct subscriptions, bundles,
things that are difficult.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Now definitely a game changer if it passes like this.
Related to that is freedom of communication in section two
B two. What does that cover?
Speaker 2 (07:29):
This part stops platforms from restricting or charging fees for
how developers communicate with their users about legitimate business offers.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Meaning you could email your users about a special offer
or mention a discount available on your website directly within
the app.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Yes, discussing pricing, different terms, new products. All that direct
communication would be protected, no more needing to be super
careful with wording to avoid breaking platform rules.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
That sounds like it would allow for much better, more
direct relationships with users. Customer service market.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
For sure, building that community connection without the platform acting
as a constant intermediary or gatekeeper. Think about loyalty programs
or direct feedback channels.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Is there a catcher to privacy concerns.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
There's a clarification. User consent is still key. If the
platform's own apps need user consent for data collection or
sharing for communication, then third party apps need that same consent.
It's about consistency and respecting user privacy.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Okay, fair enough. One more key provision Section two B
three Protection of non public business information. This sounds important
for trust.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
It's huge for trust. This prohibits the platform owner Apple
or Google from using non public business data they get
from your app to build their own competing app or feature.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Ah, so they can't look at your success metrics behind
the scenes and then launch a clone.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
That's exactly what it aims to prevent. It addresses that
major fear many developers have that the platform itself is
your biggest potential competitor using your own data against you.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Yeah, I can see why that would be a big
point of contention. So bringing this all together, what's the
bottom line for developers and users? It seems like a
trade off.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
It absolutely is a balancing act. On one hand, the
arguments for the Act are pretty clear. More competition, definitely,
more consumer choice, much more freedom for developers in how
they price, distribute and monetize.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Their apps, and a faster way for regulators like the
FTC to step in compared to those long court cases.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Exactly. It aims for that level playing field developers been
asking for, and arguably more competition could even drive innovation
in areas like app security itself as developers take on
more direct responsibility.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Okay, that's the pro competition view, but what about the
other side. The current walled garden, while restrictive, does offer
some security advantages right.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
It certainly aims to the platforms invest heavily in vetting developers,
scanning apps for malware, providing secure payment processing, and controlling
communication channels to try and protect users from scams and
data theft.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
That curated controlled environment gives many users a sense of safety.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
It does, and that's where the concerns come in. Policy
groups like the American Action Forum the AAF. They've raised flags,
well kind of flags. They worry that opening things up
too much, especially with sideloading a third party stores, could
lead to an influx of fraudulent apps, stolen data, and
unverified store providers if not managed very carefully.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
So the convenience and perceived safety of the current model
versus the potential chaos of a completely open market, that's
the fear.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
The AAF points out that things like having the main
app store pre installed and set is default makes devices
ready to operate and simple for consumers, even if it
looks anti competitive.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
It's a tough balance. How do you get the benefits
of competition and freedom without sacrificing the security structures people
rely on, even if those structures are imperfect.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
That is the billion dollar question for lawmakers. The Act
tries to open things up, but critics worry it might
restrict some of those existing, arguably pro consumer security practices
because they also look anti competitive. It's navigating a minefield.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
So, assuming this Act becomes law, how would it actually
be enforced? What are the consequences for say, Apple or
Google if they don't comply.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Violations would be treated as unfair or deceptive acts under
the FTC Act. Federal Trade Commission could impose civil penalties,
how much up to a million dollars per violation, which
could add up very quickly depending on the scale.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
And it's not just the FTC, No.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
State attorney general could also bring civil actions. So there's
enforcement power at both federal and state levels that have teeth.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
And what's the timeline when would developers actually see these changes?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
The Act takes effect once the FTC issues specific guidance
on how to implement it, and the FTC is required
to issue that guidance within one hundred and eighty days
after the Act is officially enacted, so.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
There'd be roughly a six month period after it becomes
law before the rules fully kick in while the FTC
figures out the details, correct.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
A period of a jug clarification and likely preparation for
developers to understand the new landscape, including any new security
or interoperability standards that might emerge. Staying informed then will
be critical.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
This has been really insightful. It really boils down to
this fundamental pension, doesn't it The drive for openness, competition,
and developer freedom versus the existing security models and the
user safety concerns that come with changing them.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
It's the core challenge lawmakers have to weigh the benefits
of fostering innovation and a fairer market against the risks
of potentially weakening user protections.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
It leaves us with the big question really thinking about
the future of this act in visions in a world
where mobile app security is frankly more critical than ever,
how does the industry step up? How do we find
new ways to protect users effectively while embracing the open
competition and choice this legislation is pushing for.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
That's the challenge ahead. It's not just about compliance, it's
about innovating security solutions that work in a more fragmented
open eCos. That's where the real work will begin for developers, platforms,
and security providers alike. It's a fascinating problem to solve.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Indeed, it is something for all of us in the
mobile space to think about. This discussion was made possible
with human sources and assisted with AI.
Welcome everyone to another session of Upwardly Mobile API and
App Security. I'm George and I'm sky great to be
here today. We're diving into something that could really shake
things up for mobile developers. It's a piece of US
legislation called the Act Store Freedom Act. That's Hr three
two zero nine.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Yeah, it's definitely got people talking. It's aiming to reshape
the mobile app marketplace quite significantly.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Exactly, So our goal today is to unpack this bill.
We want to look at what it actually says, why
it's gaining traction now, and importantly, what it could mean
for you, you know, the developers building for iOS, Android,
maybe even HarmonyOS, whether you're native or using frameworks like
Flutter or React Native.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Right, we want to give you a clear picture the
potential opportunities, but also let's be real the challenges this
could bring.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Because for a long time, the conversation has been about
these dominant app stores, a few big players setting the rules.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
The walled gardens as they're often.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Called, precisely, and this Act, it feels, make a serious
attempt to rewrite those rules.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
It really does, and what's striking George is how directly
it tackles these long standing developer complaints. You have groups
like the Coalition for App Fairness UAF.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yeah, they represent a lot of developers.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Hundreds, and they've been vocal about what they call a
broken marketplace. For years. Developers have navigated these powerful ecosystems,
mainly Apple and Google's, and their rules, well they affect everything.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
Don't know, oh absolutely, how you distribute your app, how
you make money from it, even.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
How you talk to your own users. It all comes
under the platform's perview and that scrutiny.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
It feels like it's reached a boiling point years of
developers voicing concerns, but now it's landing on legislative desks
with real bipartisan support. That feels different.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
It is different. This act introduced by Representative camac Co,
sponsored by Representative Trey Hann. The fact that it has
support from both sides of the aisle signals I think
a clear consensus. As CAA put it, there's agreement that
something needs to change.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So what's the core aim?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Then fundamentally ensuring consumer choice, boosting competition, and this is
key for our listeners, opening the door wider for alternative
app marketplaces. Imagine having more viable options for distribution, maybe
reaching niche audiences more effectively. That could really change the
game for developers, less dependence on just one or two gatekeepers.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
To really get why this is happening now, though, we
probably need to look back a bit, the legal fights
definitely set the stage.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Well. For sure, you can't talk about this without mentioning
Apple v.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Epic Games, Right, that was a landmark case. Remind us
what was the key takeaway there?
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Well? The Ninth Circuit Court found Apple was illegally stopping
developers from telling users about other payment options outside the app,
basically anti steering rules.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
And didn't they also get dinged later for how they
tried to comply something about a commission.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Yes, exactly. Just this past May, a court found Apple
violated the injunction because they tried to impose a what
was it a twenty seven percent commission on those third
party payments anyway.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Wow, So not exactly embracing the spirit of the ruling.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Not quite, And that whole case really highlighted the specific
practices this new bill is targeting. It showed the courts
could step in, but.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
It's slow and expensive.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Incredibly slow. Apple v. Epic has been dragging on for
over four years. Think about the resources involved. The App
Store Freedom Act aims for a more comprehensive and potentially
much faster regulatory fix than relying solely on antitrust lawsuits.
It provides a clearer framework.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Okay, so that that's the scene. Let's get into the
specifics of the act itself. What's it actually proposing? First off,
who does it apply to?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Good question, It's targeted. It applies specifically to app store
providers with over one hundred million US users.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
So we're basically talking Apple and Google primarily.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Yes, those are the main players it hits.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Right, Let's break down the key parts. Section two a
one deals with interoperability and user choice. What's in there?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
This is a big one for user experience. It would
require these big companies to let users pick a third
party app store as their default.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Oh. Interesting, so you wouldn't be locked into the pre
installed store potentially yes.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
And it also says users must be allowed to install
third party apps directly, sideloading basically, and even higher delete
pre installed apps they don't want.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
That addresses a lot of common frustrations like not being
able to easily install apps from outside the main store,
especially on iOS.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Absolutely and for developers, think about the possibilities. Suddenly, alternative
app stores become much more viable.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Like specialized stores.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Exactly, maybe a store just for indie games or one
focused on privacy first apps or open source tools. It
could create new avenues for discovery, perhaps less reliant on
complex algorithms, more.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Distribution channels, potentially reaching users who are specifically looking.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
For what you offer, and more user freedom generally, which
could lead to more app adoption. If those third party
options are good. It breaks down the garden.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Walls a bit okay on sections two, A, two and
three cover open app development. This sounds crucial for leveling
the playing field.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
It really is. This mandates that covered companies give developers timely,
cost free and equivalent.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Access equivalent access to what to.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Os interfaces, hardware features, software features, documentation, development info basically
the tools needed to build great apps.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
So if Apple or Google's own app gets special access
to say a camera API or a specific sensor.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Then third party developers should get that same access at
the same time and without extra cost. No more privileged
access for the platform's own apps or select partners.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
That feels like a direct shot at the walled garden
advantage it is.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
It's about making the full toolkit available to everyone. But
there's an important safety catch here.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Ah okay, what's the exception.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Companies are not required to give this access or information
to known thread agents like scammers exactly, or to foreign
adversaries specifically mentioning the government of the People's Republic of
China as defined in the Act.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
So it tries to balance openness with security, protecting users
and national security.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Interests precisely, which you know is crucial in our world
of API and app security. You want openness, but not
at the expense of safety.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Makes sense. Now, let's talk money. Section two B one
tackles prohibiting anti competitive practices. This seems to go right
after the Commission fees and payment systems.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
It does. This section would forbid covered companies from forcing
developers to use their specific in app payment system just
to get their app lifted or stay accessible.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
So no more mandatory fifteen percent or thirty percent cut
on every transaction through their system.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
That's the goal. Developers could potentially integrate their own payment
solutions or use third party ones without penalty.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
And it also mentions pricing parity.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Right, Yes, it prohibits companies from demanding that developers charge
the same price everywhere, So you could offer a lower
price on your website or in another app store without
fear of retaliation from Apple or Google.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
That could dramatically change monetization strategies. Developers could avoid high commissions,
maybe offer better prices directly to users, which.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Could mean lower in app purchase costs for consumers too.
It really shifts the power dynamic around how digital goods
are sold in apps. Imagine the flexibility direct subscriptions, bundles,
things that are difficult.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Now definitely a game changer if it passes like this.
Related to that is freedom of communication in section two
B two. What does that cover?
Speaker 2 (07:29):
This part stops platforms from restricting or charging fees for
how developers communicate with their users about legitimate business offers.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Meaning you could email your users about a special offer
or mention a discount available on your website directly within
the app.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Yes, discussing pricing, different terms, new products. All that direct
communication would be protected, no more needing to be super
careful with wording to avoid breaking platform rules.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
That sounds like it would allow for much better, more
direct relationships with users. Customer service market.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
For sure, building that community connection without the platform acting
as a constant intermediary or gatekeeper. Think about loyalty programs
or direct feedback channels.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Is there a catcher to privacy concerns.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
There's a clarification. User consent is still key. If the
platform's own apps need user consent for data collection or
sharing for communication, then third party apps need that same consent.
It's about consistency and respecting user privacy.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Okay, fair enough. One more key provision Section two B
three Protection of non public business information. This sounds important
for trust.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
It's huge for trust. This prohibits the platform owner Apple
or Google from using non public business data they get
from your app to build their own competing app or feature.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Ah, so they can't look at your success metrics behind
the scenes and then launch a clone.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
That's exactly what it aims to prevent. It addresses that
major fear many developers have that the platform itself is
your biggest potential competitor using your own data against you.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Yeah, I can see why that would be a big
point of contention. So bringing this all together, what's the
bottom line for developers and users? It seems like a
trade off.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
It absolutely is a balancing act. On one hand, the
arguments for the Act are pretty clear. More competition, definitely,
more consumer choice, much more freedom for developers in how
they price, distribute and monetize.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Their apps, and a faster way for regulators like the
FTC to step in compared to those long court cases.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Exactly. It aims for that level playing field developers been
asking for, and arguably more competition could even drive innovation
in areas like app security itself as developers take on
more direct responsibility.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Okay, that's the pro competition view, but what about the
other side. The current walled garden, while restrictive, does offer
some security advantages right.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
It certainly aims to the platforms invest heavily in vetting developers,
scanning apps for malware, providing secure payment processing, and controlling
communication channels to try and protect users from scams and
data theft.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
That curated controlled environment gives many users a sense of safety.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
It does, and that's where the concerns come in. Policy
groups like the American Action Forum the AAF. They've raised flags,
well kind of flags. They worry that opening things up
too much, especially with sideloading a third party stores, could
lead to an influx of fraudulent apps, stolen data, and
unverified store providers if not managed very carefully.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
So the convenience and perceived safety of the current model
versus the potential chaos of a completely open market, that's
the fear.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
The AAF points out that things like having the main
app store pre installed and set is default makes devices
ready to operate and simple for consumers, even if it
looks anti competitive.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
It's a tough balance. How do you get the benefits
of competition and freedom without sacrificing the security structures people
rely on, even if those structures are imperfect.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
That is the billion dollar question for lawmakers. The Act
tries to open things up, but critics worry it might
restrict some of those existing, arguably pro consumer security practices
because they also look anti competitive. It's navigating a minefield.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
So, assuming this Act becomes law, how would it actually
be enforced? What are the consequences for say, Apple or
Google if they don't comply.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Violations would be treated as unfair or deceptive acts under
the FTC Act. Federal Trade Commission could impose civil penalties,
how much up to a million dollars per violation, which
could add up very quickly depending on the scale.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
And it's not just the FTC, No.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
State attorney general could also bring civil actions. So there's
enforcement power at both federal and state levels that have teeth.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
And what's the timeline when would developers actually see these changes?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
The Act takes effect once the FTC issues specific guidance
on how to implement it, and the FTC is required
to issue that guidance within one hundred and eighty days
after the Act is officially enacted, so.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
There'd be roughly a six month period after it becomes
law before the rules fully kick in while the FTC
figures out the details, correct.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
A period of a jug clarification and likely preparation for
developers to understand the new landscape, including any new security
or interoperability standards that might emerge. Staying informed then will
be critical.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
This has been really insightful. It really boils down to
this fundamental pension, doesn't it The drive for openness, competition,
and developer freedom versus the existing security models and the
user safety concerns that come with changing them.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
It's the core challenge lawmakers have to weigh the benefits
of fostering innovation and a fairer market against the risks
of potentially weakening user protections.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
It leaves us with the big question really thinking about
the future of this act in visions in a world
where mobile app security is frankly more critical than ever,
how does the industry step up? How do we find
new ways to protect users effectively while embracing the open
competition and choice this legislation is pushing for.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
That's the challenge ahead. It's not just about compliance, it's
about innovating security solutions that work in a more fragmented
open eCos. That's where the real work will begin for developers, platforms,
and security providers alike. It's a fascinating problem to solve.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Indeed, it is something for all of us in the
mobile space to think about. This discussion was made possible
with human sources and assisted with AI.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.