Informing the European Commission on Apple's monopoly abuse

[jwdietrich]

OK, I wish that your ideas were successful.

[pasquale]

... in a free market a company should have the freedom to become richer than its competitors. It cannot be the task of the European Commission to cut these normal market mechanisms (and even incentives).

Trying to become richer than one's competitors is legitimate as long as one does not use unfair means (i.e. monopoly abuse) to achieve such a target.

[pasquale]

It will be a long road, and without Apple coming down from its current cloud (pun intended) will make them flexible and actually simply need 3rd party programmers again, nothing will happen. And, if the previous situation is anything to go  by, that can take a very, very long time.

That's why we must act now. The sooner we start standing up for our rights, the sooner Apple may be forced to give up their disgusting money-hungry policy.

[pasquale]

On second thoughts, I think that the "app dictatorship" which is present in iOS should also be reported in the complaint letter as it is an integral part of Apple's monopoly abuse -- probably the most serious.

In my opinion, the fact that, so far, the European Commission has not yet fined Apple for monopoly abuse does not mean that the crime is not being committed.

The monopoly abuse lies in Apple's management of the application market for both iOS and OS X. In the latter case, companies that so far have been making a living selling their privately distributed software for Mac are now obliged to pay their annual fee to Apple to get a code-signature.

Well, extorting money is a serious crime in my country and this is exactly what Apple are doing: developers who do not pay Apple are just out of the market, independently of how good their applications may be.

[pasquale]

I've just received a commercial e-mail from Apple informing me about the introduction of GateKeeper and the advantages of using the App Store (see attached file).

They say that "Gatekeeper is a new feature in OS X Mountain Lion that helps protect users from downloading and installing malicious software. Signing your applications, plug-ins, and installer packages with a Developer ID certificate lets Gatekeeper verify that they are not known malware and have not been tampered with."

My question is, how can GateKeeper protect the user from malicious software if all it does is make sure the developer has bought an ID certificate from Apple? Of all the nerve!

[marcov]

My question is, how can GateKeeper protect the user from malicious software if all it does is make sure the developer has bought an ID certificate from Apple? Of all the nerve!

It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict their answer. If signed malicious software is encountered, the said certificate is put on the certificate revocation list. (*)

So if malware is released, and the corresponding key ends up on the CRL, after a while the malware will die out, except for systems that don't download updates (to the CRL).

(*) in cases like this, appealing against unjust revocation of an ID is often terribly hard.

[pasquale]

What if a certificate is put on the CRL by mistake? Suppose a developer makes an error in his application code in such a way that his software may seem malicious even though it isn't. If his certificate is put on the black list, will all of his apps stop working?

[marcov]

What if a certificate is put on the CRL by mistake?

See the (*) in my previous message. Probably you will be very f*cked, since even if there is an appeal, the burden of proof is yours, and nobody is going to compensate your losses. (Apple's conditions probably indemnify them in such case)

 

[pasquale]

What if a certificate is put on the CRL by mistake?

See the (*) in my previous message. Probably you will be very f*cked, since even if there is an appeal, the burden of proof is yours, and nobody is going to compensate your losses. (Apple's conditions probably indemnify them in such case)

This absurd situation reminds me of George Orwell's Big Brother. Apple experts consider themselves infallible and decide who deserves to survive and who must disappear from the market. And people are still wondering if we are in the presence of monopoly abuse...

What about my second question? (If a developer's certificate is put on the black list, will all of his apps stop working... or will Apple just disable the presumed malicious one?)

[marcov]

What about my second question? (If a developer's certificate is put on the black list, will all of his apps stop working... or will Apple just disable the presumed malicious one?)

Blocking the malicious one is useless, since if the key is compromised, arbitrarily mutated binaries can be signed. Also CRLs usually work on key level.

My guess would be that all his apps would stop working. Unless you are a big boy of course, in bed with Apple, then most rules don't apply (I doubt they would kill Angry Birds if their key was compromised)

[pasquale]

I'm speechless.

[jwdietrich]

These developments are very sad.

The dictatorship over the owner already arrived at iOS. Soon it will also affect Mac OS X, and in the future also Windows will be jailed, there are strong tendencies to introduce similar technologies there (see http://getwired.com/2012/02/17/windows-8-should-have-gatekeeper/). Interestingly, similar developments are emerging even in the hardware sector (see e.g. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/126235-soc-vs-cpu-the-battle-for-the-future-of-computing). I don't need to mention the ongoing controversies about freedom vs. control on the level of the internet.

These are only the precursors of an upcoming war on general computing. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg&feature=youtu.be for an excellent talk by Cory Doc­to­row.

What we need now are initiatives for democratizing the computing infrastructures that we become more and more dependent from. As customers, we have some power, and we still have the choice to use open hardware like the Raspberry Pi and open operating systems. Lazarus and Free Pascal are also some of the very few bright spots that help to escape the spreading depression. However, the power of market demand is, although strong, not infinite, and the situation is quite cloudy on the levels of network providers (cloud computing is a quite fitting word for surrendering personal freedom to nebulous and unimaginable structures).

Therefore, we have to complement market mechanisms by political activity, preferably both on regional and national levels, but also by supranational, global coordinated actions.

[pasquale]

I agree with you entirely. Something must be done as soon as possible to try to limit and hopefully put an end to these forms of monopoly abuse which go to the detriment of the average producer and consumer.

As software developers, the members of the Lazarus Forum should have enough technical expertise to put such a complaint in writing and inform one or more governmental organizations about this abuse.

Hence, this thread.

Thanks to this discussion, I think we now have a lot of irons in the fire and it's time we put our concepts in a formal document addressed to the European Commission, just to begin with.

Personally, I don't have any qualifications in legal matters and for this reason I was wondering if there is someone in this Forum who is capable of producing at least a first draft copy of a complaint letter that could later be sent to the European Commission, through e-mail, individually by each one of us who shares this cause.

It may be only a drop in the ocean but, if you ask me, I tend to agree with those who suggest everybody should do their part. As felipemdc said "Each does his part. Not to mention that such a request is not really 1 request. It is one of many requests. If enough people send, they will surely consider it."

And if they really consider it and put an end to the "app dictatorship", we will have done something good not only for ourselves but for the world community of developers. It would certainly be something to be proud of.

[jwdietrich]

I share most of your positions. However, the way is long, dangerous and difficult.

Moreover, it are not only our interests as software developers, the problem is part of a much larger complex, the emerging war on general computing that concerns governments, consumers, employees and environment as well.

Therefore, we should first think and talk before beginning any actions.

Possible steps in this preparatory process could be:

First you should come to a clear standpoint, also considering all relevant facts and marginal conditions. You should also try to understand Apple's position. Could they have other reasons for their restrictive behaviour, apart from the (understandable) goal to make money? Could these goals (e.g. quality assurance) also be achieved by other, possibly better means?

Secondly, you should consult experts in European and possibly also international law. You should elaborately explain your positions and interests and carefully hear what they say to you. It would be the better, if we had some lawyers here in the Lazarus community. Don't forget that addressing this topic should not be limited to the European Union, it is a global problem.

Thirdly, as this is also a brisant political issue, we should join with other initiatives. Although we are a quite large community (with more than 7000 members of this forum today), it would be advisable to pool our resources with other initiatives that have similar goals in these questions. Possible partners could be the Chaos Computer Club, the largest hackers' union in Europe, and the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, to give only an example of two associations.

[pasquale]

Please consider that sending a complaint letter to the European Commission does not mean that you personally are moving a legal action against Apple. Indeed, you are only informing the Directorate-General for Competition that, in your opinion, we are in the presence of monopoly abuse. It will be up to them to decide whether to bring the case to court or not.