This legislation seems to want things both ways.
Freedom to load apps outside the Store, but also safety, security, etc.
The two seem to be mutually exclusive.
If a third party Store opens, users will have an expectation that apps sold there will be safe (not spyware, not malware, won’t ransom their phone, hack their Mac when connected, etc.). This will require vetting apps, which requires people, who require salaries. Now the apps that people won’t even pay $0.99 on the App Store will again be $0.99 (if they are lucky), and the same gatekeeping concerns can be raised.
Or, it’s a free for all Caveat Emptor App Store, and when word gets out that the apps do bad things, or are just worthless, the Store will fold.
I would like to hear arguments to the contrary.
There was no mention of jail breaking, which gives users the Wild West experience if they are so inclined.
We live with this everyday in our Macs and the world has not ended. I install apps that Apple would NEVER allow in the App Store. Hazel anyone? The third party apps would still have to follow the security rules in place for the OS, sandboxing, etc. The OS could also be protected from alteration exactly like is being done on the Mac. If someone uses apps like Facebook outside of the AppStore, thats on them. Sorry, I just don’t see a downside to this. If it scares someone, they can stick to the AppStore. Its that simple. Of course, the AppStore is full on scam apps also…
Here’s hoping that Apple just loosens the App Store guidelines, allowing alternative payment methods and linking account registration webpages. I know it is very unlikely but it would already solve most of the antitrust issues. 
That argument sounds familiar 
great minds… or I pulled it out of my memory.,., 
I don’t think this would satisfy Congress.
There’s a lot more iOS devices than Macs, pulling iOS might just stop the world from turning.
iOS devices seem different to me. Kind of a black box, or at least very opaque. We can’t really get in and troubleshoot things. I’m still processing what I think about it.
the fact that apple is allowed to sell “chargers” without the brick is something that the government should have scrutinized.
There was a time when Apple could have avoided all of this, but the money was just too good. If they had lowered their fees and/or allowed alternative payment methods, etc. those calling for side loading would have had a much weaker argument.
But that time is long past. Now there are major political points to be gained by taking on “Big Tech”. This probably isn’t going to be pretty.
People will also be screaming when the prices of iPhones go up because they aren’t subsidized by App Store revenue, and/or to make up for lost revenue.
meh. a new phone every year is not a right. everyone will have to just suffer with their 12 for two or three years.
Some will definitely scream, as they pay for their new phone. Others will just wait another year or two. I think someone on a recent podcast (the Verge?) questioned if the price people are willing to pay may have peaked. I guess if things get tough Apple could start charging for turn by turn directions.
Even Frederico Viticci is now promoting 3rd party AppStores and the delicious apps available there.
Some governments did - wasn’t the EU pushing for tech companies to remove the bricks due to e-waste concerns?
Yes, and also (pushing for) common charge cable connectors (at the time, micro-usb, now apparently usb-c).
From what I’ve read the EU doesn’t like proprietary charging cables and "is fundamentally critical of wireless charging”. They don’t like that wireless charging is inefficient and may damage batteries in the long run. That would seem to suggest the iPhone’s future will be USB-C and rule out a portless design, which would be good for me. Wireless only charging is a show stopper.