> I'm not really seeing how regulation would really fix the scenario in the OP. What regulations that are likely to pass would prevent Apple and Google from removing apps arbitrarily?

Regulate the markets by letting other stores compete, not by regulating the current monopolistic stores. Force OS developers to make it easy and practical to use alternative app stores, and able to compete fairly with the first-party ones. On iOS, you can't do so at all without jailbreaking, and on Android, there's tons of scary warnings, and there's some stuff like automatic background updates that are impossible for anything but the Play Store unless you root.

Why would regulation result in more permissiveness? From my reading most implemented regulation has resulted in more restrictiveness, and things like DRM.

If that happened I'd love it though, as the precedent would presumably allow for all stores, like game consoles, appliances, etc. to open up their operating systems to allow any arbitrary software to be installed.

Even if there were more app stores I bet it would result in all apps having to be signed by Google, in the same way anyone can purchase their own domain but are still limited in that DNS is centralized.

This may be the case nowadays with the pretty severe regulatory capture we have going on, but in the 60s, the FCC decreed that any lawful device may be electronically connected to the telephone network, despite what AT&T wanted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone) Without it, we wouldn't have modems, fax machines, answering machines, etc. etc. etc.

Regulation can most certainly result in permissiveness.

> Even if there were more app stores I bet it would result in all apps having to be signed by Google

That's the kind of thing I'd want the regulation to ban.

I'm sure, but what I'm saying what proposals that are realistically going to pass do that? Look at the history of software regulation, it generally restricts things.

The whole point of regulating app markets is so that monopolies aren't the only ones capable of doing regulating.

I can see where the disagreement stems from. What you're attributing to regulation, is more accurately attributed to who is lobbying for that regulation. You are giving up on a useful tool, because you don't like how someone else is using it.

So there is precedent, OFC it doesn't exist in a vacuum, but whem Microsoft was forced to provide browser alternatives, most people went with other browsers. Sure, some used IE or edge still, but it meant people knew it was even an option, which was arguably big.

Of course, we are currently in danger of Chrome being the monopoly, and seeing already all the awful things that brings. But this is in part directly related to the scam going on with device lockin - it's not just Android, but that plays a large part in Chrome takimg majority market share.

Demanding app stores are allowed, or better that devices can be repaired by anyone, would mean more alt OS installs, more aftermarket devices, healthier software ecosystem, more economic activity.

The Irony of these tools not being widely available, means in Western countries there is not much of a third party market, not much software support, whereas countries like China can have built up the infrastructure to manufacture novel phones almost overnight...

> From my reading most implemented regulation has resulted in more restrictiveness, and things like DRM.

What reading is that?

DMCA for one

The DMCA gave websites carte blanche to host user uploaded content with practically zero copyright liability as long as they responded to DMCA requests and let the third parties fight over it in court. I wouldn't call that restrictive.

That was already possible before DMCA. All it did was give power to corporations to remove content. The DMCA is restrictive by definition

That is incorrect. Without the DMCA, the company running a site is liable for everything on the site if it does any moderation at all, and they wouldn't just be ordered to remove content, the financial penalties would be massive. Yes, the DMCA is deeply flawed, but it was passed to solve real problems.

Even with the DMCA in practice the safe harbor provisions have proven ineffective and sites in practice are still liable for content, see YouTube v Viacom. The main benefit for DMCA is for the ISPs, mainly.

In practice DMCA simply made it easier to take down supposed infringers of copyright violations and spread the popularity of drm. In theory, yes it’s good, and it probably made companies like YouTube and Facebook more comfortable with user content. The other benefit is that because you can accept DMCA requests and assume they are correct as long as you respond promptly your liability should be limited

In any case you’re probably right but haven’t heard of any high profile lawsuits prior to DMCA regarding internet content so it’s hard to really say.

What the law says though is that DMCA criminalizing circumventing drm and other access control and related technologies, services or tools.

> Why would regulation result in more permissiveness?

Why assume that people who have bought into devices with closed ecosystems want more permissiveness? Who does this benefit?

Most of this seems like question begging for ad-tech and similarly scummy business models.

> I'm not really seeing how regulation would really fix the scenario in the OP. What regulations that are likely to pass would prevent Apple and Google from removing apps arbitrarily?

Forcing them to allow alternative app stores for starters. The only reason they can get away with doing this stuff is because they each have 100% market share.

> regulations that are likely to pass would prevent Apple and Google from removing apps arbitrarily?

Any proposals?

> I'm not really seeing how regulation would really fix the scenario in the OP. What regulations that are likely to pass would prevent Apple and Google from removing apps arbitrarily?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...