https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/apple-and-google-seem-spooked-by-bill-requiring-more-app-stores-and-sideloading/?comments=1 Skip to main content * Biz & IT * Tech * Science * Policy * Cars * Gaming & Culture * Store * Forums Subscribe [ ] Close Navigate * Store * Subscribe * Videos * Features * Reviews * RSS Feeds * Mobile Site * About Ars * Staff Directory * Contact Us * Advertise with Ars * Reprints Filter by topic * Biz & IT * Tech * Science * Policy * Cars * Gaming & Culture * Store * Forums Settings Front page layout Grid List Site theme Black on white White on black Sign in Comment activity Sign up or login to join the discussions! [ ] [ ] [Submit] [ ] Stay logged in | Having trouble? Sign up to comment and more Sign up App store war -- Apple and Google seem spooked by bill requiring more app stores and sideloading Bill would make iOS and Android more open to 3rd-party stores and sideloaded apps. Jon Brodkin - Aug 12, 2021 4:38 pm UTC iPhone home screen with the App Store icon displayed. Enlarge Getty Images | NurPhoto reader comments 221 with 121 posters participating Share this story * Share on Facebook * Share on Twitter * Share on Reddit Apple and Google seem to be worried about legislation that would force iOS and Android to be more open to third-party app stores and sideloaded apps. US Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) introduced their Open App Markets Act yesterday. Shortly after the senators announced the bill, a group funded by Apple and Google sent a statement to media claiming that the proposed law "is a finger in the eye of anyone who bought an iPhone or Android because the phones and their app stores are safe, reliable, and easy to use." The statement came from the "Chamber of Progress," which calls itself "a new center-left tech industry policy coalition promoting technology's progressive future." "I don't see any consumers marching in Washington demanding that Congress make their smartphones dumber. And Congress has better things to do than intervene in a multi-million dollar dispute between businesses," said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich, who was formerly a longtime Google lobbyist. Kovacevich played key role at Google The Chamber of Progress' website lists 20 "corporate partners," with Apple and Google being the most relevant ones in this case. Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter are also funders. The group says its "partners do not sit on our board of directors and do not have a vote on or veto over our positions" and that "we do not speak for individual partner companies and remain true to our stated principles even when our partners disagree." But the group's lobbying against the new app-store legislation neatly matches the positions of Apple and Google, which have been fighting attempts to make their mobile operating systems more open. Apple issued a statement yesterday that conveyed the same basic message in a less combative way. "At Apple, our focus is on maintaining an App Store where people can have confidence that every app must meet our rigorous guidelines and their privacy and security is protected," the company said, according to CNBC. Google declined to comment when contacted by Ars today but has pointed out that Android is more open to app stores and sideloaded apps than iOS. The Chamber of Progress became active a few months ago and also lobbied against antitrust legislation that could prohibit platform operators like Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook from favoring their own products and services and even break up Big Tech companies. Kovacevich's bio on the Chamber of Progress website says he "previously led Google's 15-person US policy strategy and external affairs team" and approvingly quotes a June 2019 Wall Street Journal article that said Kovacevich "helped build [Google's] influence operation into one of the largest in the nation's capital" and was "a central player in Google's efforts to shape perceptions and rules in ways that have been favorable to the business of the search and advertising giant." The bio also says Kovacevich "ran Google's work to close its 2011-2013 FTC antitrust investigation." Advertisement "Tear down coercive anticompetitive walls" The lawmakers' announcement of their bill said that "Google and Apple have gatekeeper control of the two dominant mobile operating systems and their app stores that allow them to exclusively dictate the terms of the app market, inhibiting competition and restricting consumer choice." The lawmakers summarize the legislation as follows: The Open App Markets Act would protect developers' rights to tell consumers about lower prices and offer competitive pricing; protect sideloading of apps; open up competitive avenues for startup apps, third party app stores, and payment services; make it possible for developers to offer new experiences that take advantage of consumer device features; give consumers more control over their devices; prevent app stores from disadvantaging developers; and set safeguards to continue to protect privacy, security, and safety of consumers. Blackburn said that "Apple and Google want to prevent developers and consumers from using third-party app stores that would threaten their bottom line," while Blumenthal said the two companies "have squashed competitors and kept consumers in the dark--pocketing hefty windfalls while acting as supposedly benevolent gatekeepers of this multi-billion dollar market." "This legislation will tear down coercive anticompetitive walls in the app economy, giving consumers more choices and smaller startup tech companies a fighting chance," Blumenthal said. What the bill does The bill covers companies that own or control an app store with at least 50 million US users, obviously targeting Apple and Google. The companies would have to "allow and provide the readily accessible means for users" to "choose third-party Apps or App Stores as defaults for categories appropriate to the App or App Store" and "install third-party Apps or App Stores through means other than its App Store." Apple and Google would also have to let users "hide or delete Apps or App Stores provided or preinstalled by the App Store owner or any of its business partners." Android does allow sideloading and third-party app stores, while Apple locks iOS down more strictly, but both companies could have to change business practices to different degrees if the legislation becomes law. Despite Android's openness relative to iOS, 36 states sued Google last month, claiming it worked to "preemptively quash" competing app stores. The Open App Markets Act would prohibit the app-store operators from requiring developers to use the Apple and Google in-app payment systems and from imposing terms that block or penalize developers who offer the same app at a different price elsewhere. Apple and Google also would not be allowed to preference their own apps in search "unreasonably," which is defined as "applying ranking schemes or algorithms that prioritize apps" simply because they are owned by Apple and Google or their business partners. Clearly disclosed advertising is exempt from that provision. To help third-party software developers, the bill says Apple and Google must provide "access to operating system interfaces, development information, and hardware and software features" to developers "on a timely basis and on terms that are equivalent or functionally equivalent" to the terms that apply to Apple and Google or their business partners. Violations of the bill would be considered unfair methods of competition under US law. The Federal Trade Commission, US attorney general, and state attorneys general would be able to sue companies over violations. Developers who are "injured by reason of anything forbidden in this act" would be able to sue the companies for damages and injunctive relief. Advertisement Addressing security Apple and Google would likely object to the bill on security grounds. Apple in particular has touted the security benefits of the iOS app model that generally prevents the installation of software from outside the App Store. To address this issue, the Open App Markets Act allows the companies to impose restrictions designed solely for security purposes, although this is nebulously defined. The bill says that actions by app-store operators would not violate the proposed law if they are "necessary to achieve user privacy, security, or digital safety; taken to prevent spam or fraud; or taken to prevent a violation of, or comply with, federal or state law." To obtain this exemption, Apple and Google would have to establish "by clear and convincing evidence that the action described is applied on a demonstrably consistent basis to apps of the covered company or its business partners and to other apps; not used as a pretext to exclude, or impose unnecessary or discriminatory terms on, third-party apps, in-app payment systems, or app stores; and narrowly tailored and could not be achieved through a less discriminatory and technically possible means." App battle on the way The quick response from the Apple- and Google-funded group to yesterday's announcement foreshadows another battle on Capitol Hill if the bill moves forward. Apple in June "launched a substantial public-relations push" against "calls from regulators to open the gates to alternative app stores and sideloaded apps on the iPhone," as we wrote at the time. CEO Tim Cook said that sideloading is "not in the best interests of the user," while another Apple executive claimed that "sideloading in this case is actually eliminating choice" and described sideloading as the app-installation equivalent of "some dark alley or side road." When the 36 states filed their antitrust lawsuit against Google last month, Google called the complaint meritless and said it is "strange that a group of state attorneys general chose to file a lawsuit attacking a system that provides more openness and choice than others." Meanwhile, a "Coalition for App Fairness," with members such as Spotify, Epic Games, Match Group, Basecamp, ProtonMail, and Deezer, is on board with the Open App Markets Act. "The Open App Markets Act would fix a broken app marketplace by barring app stores from requiring apps to use their in-app payment systems, through which they charge exorbitant fees and block communications between developers and their own customers," the group said. "It would also strengthen consumer freedom by allowing people to choose and install the app store and default apps that make the most sense for them and easily delete preinstalled apps they don't want to use." reader comments 221 with 121 posters participating Share this story * Share on Facebook * Share on Twitter * Share on Reddit Jon Brodkin Jon is Ars Technica's senior IT reporter, covering the FCC and broadband, telecommunications, tech policy, and more. Email jon.brodkin@arstechnica.com // Twitter @JBrodkin Advertisement 221 Reader Comments [Sort comments by...] * Page * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 Next 1. NeinNeinNein Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:39 am + Popular German proverb: Whose bread I eat his song I sing. 162 posts | registered Oct 16, 2013 2. raxadian Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:41 am + Popular Yes please, I want dumber Smartphones 3803 posts | registered Jun 2, 2017 3. Defenestrar Ars Praefectus et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:42 am + Popular Growing up, when I wanted to buy a new computer game, I could go to lots of stores: Egghead, K-Mart, Target, Fred Meyers, Software etc., even Sears (I picked up a game once when my parents drove us up there to get a new appliance). If my kids want to buy a new computer game for their Android/iOS devices... Just sayin'. Edit: I could also buy an old game at some of these stores, plus pretty much every pawn shop, garage sale, and video rental shop around. 3568 posts | registered May 10, 2012 4. Soulforged Smack-Fu Master, in training et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:45 am + Popular the harder apple and google push back, the less inclined i am to believe their arguments on subjects such as this. 38 posts | registered Jan 18, 2018 5. Jakelshark Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:46 am + Popular If Marsha Blackburn says it's a good idea, that's all you need to know to be against it. It's probably about letting AT&T/Verizon/ et al finally put crap on iPhones. 1259 posts | registered Mar 11, 2008 6. Fabermetrics Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:47 am Perhaps apple can simple scan any side loaded binaries against a database of malicious binary fingerprints. I dont see why the app store is needed in that model. 3174 posts | registered Sep 26, 2016 7. fknuckles Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:48 am Jakelshark wrote: If Marsha Blackburn says it's a good idea, that's all you need to know to be against it. It's probably about letting AT&T/Verizon/ et al finally put crap on iPhones. You can always not buy the AT&T phone to avoid their crap. If you gain multiple app stores on ios for example, you might one day be able to buy ebooks from the kindle or kobo apps due to competition. Just saying. 1727 posts | registered Sep 16, 2016 8. razzmatazz Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:49 am + Popular That statement from the "Chamber of Progress" (woof) is so unbelievably pandering and stupid. If anyone really purchased an iPhone or Android phone for the "safe" app stores, they can just choose to continue not using other app stores. Giving other people options doesn't harm them in the slightest. 176 posts | registered Jul 18, 2012 9. foofoo22 Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:49 am What about gaming platform digital stores, they are given a pass? Id love to see some digital store competition especially as more consoles move to being digital only (such as the new Xbox without a Blu-Ray drive) Last edited by foofoo22 on Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:55 am 1077 posts | registered Jul 29, 2007 10. jbrader Ars Centurion reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:49 am The argument that allowing people to use this particular subset of computers and install software however they like, in exactly the same way they've used almost every other kind of computer ever is obviously total garbage on its face. As usual the only reasonable response is to eat the executives responsible and take over the company's assets ourselves. Edit: Fixed some apostrophe chicanery Last edited by jbrader on Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:50 am 234 posts | registered Apr 2, 2009 11. TruckQuey Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:49 am + Popular Huh? How does allowing 3rd party apps make something dumber? I mean that is the really the only way to use Windows now is to get things that aren't in the store. 36 posts | registered May 19, 2021 12. luckydob Ars Praetorian reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:50 am Jakelshark wrote: If Marsha Blackburn says it's a good idea, that's all you need to know to be against it. It's probably about letting AT&T/Verizon/ et al finally put crap on iPhones. Well, if you actually RTFA, you would know that one of the things being pushed is: " Apple and Google would also have to let users "hide or delete Apps or App Stores provided or preinstalled by the App Store owner or any of its business partners." 420 posts | registered Sep 24, 2009 13. realwarder Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:50 am + Popular I see no issue giving consumers choice. If you want a safe and simple experience, use the built in store. If you accept you might be introducing malware into your phone, install something from an unknown source. Apple and Google have abused their stores by removing apps they or a government doesn't agree with. When a consumer buys a $1000 phone, they should be the one who has that choice. 1141 posts | registered Oct 8, 2009 14. Sifaka Ars Praefectus reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:51 am As an Apple user I absolutely don't want a new app store. It would just be back door for companies like Facebook to release apps that are overly aggressive in tracking. If I wanted the wild west I would be on Android. 3035 posts | registered Apr 16, 2001 15. TruckQuey Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:51 am + Popular Sifaka wrote: As an Apple user I absolutely don't want a new app store. It would just be back door for companies like Facebook to release apps that are overly aggressive in tracking. If I wanted the wild west I would be on Android. Facebook is already over aggressive with their tracking. 36 posts | registered May 19, 2021 16. orangpelupa Ars Tribunus Militum reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:51 am Seems the majority of the requirements (allowing other app store, etc) is already fulfilled by goooge android, except the alternative billing and the search ranking/result. But then the next paragraph explains that Google will actively squash alternative stores. Yikes. 2458 posts | registered Jun 7, 2012 17. autostop Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:51 am + Popular Fabermetrics wrote: Perhaps apple can simple scan any side loaded binaries against a database of malicious binary fingerprints. I dont see why the app store is needed in that model. Apple does that on MacOS with the "XProtect" feature. It's somewhat effective against known malware, certainly better than nothing, but it's a purely reactive measure that is always playing catch-up. 203 posts | registered Sep 14, 2020 18. ZippyPeanut Ars Praefectus reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:52 am + Popular "Shortly after the senators announced the bill, a group funded by Apple and Google sent a statement to media claiming that the proposed law 'is a finger in the eye of anyone who bought an iPhone or Android because the phones and their app stores are safe, reliable, and easy to use.'" Nothing is in the bill that REQUIRES users to go outside the curated Apple and Goggle stores. You want "safe, reliable, and easy to use"? Then don't change how you use your phone. If you're a protester in Hong Kong and you want HKmap (after Apple told you that you can't have it), then sideload it. 11161 posts | registered Jan 13, 2015 19. IamBase Ars Praetorian reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:53 am + Popular I understand the security point, apps going through their stores are less likely to contain malware but that should be a selling point to use their app stores over other app stores not a reason to stop the ability to use other ones. *as an iPhone user I would likely stick with their store anyway rather than some upstart store ...for the time being anyway 421 posts | registered Oct 12, 2017 20. egoebelbecker Wise, Aged Ars Veteran et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:54 am + Popular Sifaka wrote: As an Apple user I absolutely don't want a new app store. It would just be back door for companies like Facebook to release apps that are overly aggressive in tracking. If I wanted the wild west I would be on Android. How would a different store allow them to overcome the new tracking permissions in iOS? How would a new store that you don't want hurt you? Don't use it. 183 posts | registered Oct 28, 2013 21. jhodge Ars Praefectus et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:55 am + Popular The bill, as described here, sounds reasonable. I'm not actually in favor of forcing open the IOS platform, because I'm happy to trade off the flexibility of an open platform for the (limited, obviously) assurance that Apple maintains a level of control over all the software and developers within the ecosystem. I'm also convinced that, once forced open, we will see key application pulled from the App store and only offered in the Amazon/Disney/Verizon/Epic/Steam/whatever store, so using third-party stores won't really be optional. OTOH, since the winds are clearly blowing against my position, at least the bill sounds as if it will apply to Apple & Google alike and will have reasonable carve-outs for legitimate security needs. What I'd really like to see is the same logic applied to Sony, MS, and Nintendo since that's where I really do feel like 'exclusives' serve to tie customers to a particular platform - much more so that IOS or Android, where most major apps are available for both. EDIT: typo Last edited by jhodge on Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:14 pm 3218 posts | registered May 13, 2011 22. Rick C. Ars Centurion reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:56 am TruckQuey wrote: Sifaka wrote: As an Apple user I absolutely don't want a new app store. It would just be back door for companies like Facebook to release apps that are overly aggressive in tracking. If I wanted the wild west I would be on Android. Facebook is already over aggressive with their tracking. Well, yes, the bastards. 369 posts | registered Mar 12, 2019 23. BatCrapCrazy Ars Praefectus et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:56 am This is a weird feeling for me, on one hand i think app stores should be "locked down" by Apple and Google (i know it's not so much with droid as mentioned in the article) in the name of security yet on the other hand i also believe a start up app store should have the ability to side load their apps they have for sale to iPhones and droids. 4327 posts | registered May 5, 2015 24. jmauro Ars Centurion et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:57 am + Popular Defenestrar wrote: Growing up, when I wanted to buy a new computer game, I could go to lots of stores: Egghead, K-Mart, Target, Fred Meyers, Software etc., even Sears (I picked up a game once when my parents drove us up there to get a new appliance). If my kids want to buy a new computer game for their Android/iOS devices... Just sayin'. Edit: I could also buy an old game at some of these stores, plus pretty much every pawn shop, garage sale, and video rental shop around. Back in the old days the software developer was getting maybe 20% of the final retail sale price. Maybe. Probably closer to 10% for some of them. Everyone along the chain had to take their own cut which left next to nothing left at the end. 293 posts | registered Sep 2, 1999 25. ChosenName Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:57 am Presumably use of alternate stores will be optional - in which case those worried about security can choose not to use them. I strongly suspect that the "concern" from Apple and Google is more related to lost store revenue rather than the security of the users of the phones with their operating systems on them.... 119 posts | registered Jul 26, 2017 26. Photon_plumber Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:58 am TruckQuey wrote: Sifaka wrote: As an Apple user I absolutely don't want a new app store. It would just be back door for companies like Facebook to release apps that are overly aggressive in tracking. If I wanted the wild west I would be on Android. Facebook is already over aggressive with their tracking. Facebook will burn in hell for their misdeeds. 1573 posts | registered Apr 14, 2017 27. graylshaped Ars Legatus Legionis et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:58 am + Popular Blackburn is involved. Huh. Apparently one of her large donors wants a cut of the app store pie. 37497 posts | registered Jan 7, 2008 28. orangpelupa Ars Tribunus Militum reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:58 am realwarder wrote: I see no issue giving consumers choice. If you want a safe and simple experience, use the built in store. If you accept you might be introducing malware into your phone, install something from an unknown source. Apple and Google have abused their stores by removing apps they or a government doesn't agree with. When a consumer buys a $1000 phone, they should be the one who has that choice. Dunno with Apple but Google has been getting better and better at giving explanations for app removals. They even goes to the specifics in their reasoning/explanation and even provides screenshot. On the other hand, Google is super vague with YouTube rules, and provides vague reasoning and explanation when taking videos down and or demonetizing a channel. Just like Google play store from many years ago. Full disclosure: I'm a small time android dev and youtuber that has been in "fights" with Google multiple times for app removals, admob issues, and YouTube video issues and channel demonetazion. Pardon my English Last edited by orangpelupa on Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:59 am 2458 posts | registered Jun 7, 2012 29. breze Ars Tribunus Militum reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:58 am I don't particularly want another paid app store. There's already enough junk even on the more selective Apple store. But I don't really see any reason having other stores out there would be harmful to me. And this would shut up Epic I guess, which would be nice. Also, maybe a GNU store would open up. Heck, I'd probably even load an Ubuntu store onto my phone. 1948 posts | registered Jan 16, 2014 30. JohnCarter17 Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:58 am I think Chamberpot of Progress would be a more apt description. 2618 posts | registered Aug 16, 2017 31. Hezio Ars Tribunus Militum reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:59 am + Popular Sifaka wrote: As an Apple user I absolutely don't want a new app store. It would just be back door for companies like Facebook to release apps that are overly aggressive in tracking. If I wanted the wild west I would be on Android. Yeah! Only backdoors created by Apple that are made for the purpose of scanning through all your pictures are acceptable! (/s) 3634 posts | registered Jul 19, 2016 32. Jakelshark Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:59 am + Popular fknuckles wrote: Jakelshark wrote: If Marsha Blackburn says it's a good idea, that's all you need to know to be against it. It's probably about letting AT&T/Verizon/ et al finally put crap on iPhones. You can always not buy the AT&T phone to avoid their crap. If you gain multiple app stores on ios for example, you might one day be able to buy ebooks from the kindle or kobo apps due to competition. Just saying. You already can use Kindle on the iPhone... The only difference is you have to buy them through the web browser instead of the App edit: and also what happens when a major player says you have to install this store to use this app? This isn't a fight about user freedom. It's corporate juggernauts fighting over their slice of the pie Last edited by Jakelshark on Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:01 pm 1259 posts | registered Mar 11, 2008 33. MrWalrus Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:59 am + Popular graylshaped wrote: Blackburn is involved. Huh. Apparently one of her large donors wants a cut of the app store pie. Yeah, her involvement is the only thing that gives me pause about this. Like, it seems like probably a good idea, but if Blackburn touched an actual good idea, I think both would explode like a matter/antimatter reaction. 886 posts | registered Sep 2, 2014 34. NWade Smack-Fu Master, in training et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:00 pm Sifaka wrote: As an Apple user I absolutely don't want a new app store. It would just be back door for companies like Facebook to release apps that are overly aggressive in tracking. If I wanted the wild west I would be on Android. Sifaka - No one is forcing people to use the alternative stores. Those that want to go for the highest level of trust can stick with the official Apple App Store (although have you looked at the app store lately? The bar for quality and safety isn't what it used to be...) And yes, with alternative app stores/mechanisms you might have uneducated users making poor choices and winding up with "suspect" apps on their device; but that's the result of their actions/choices. If parents are worried about their kids doing this, then they can enable parental controls on the device. 57 posts | registered Nov 30, 2018 35. JohnCarter17 Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:00 pm + Popular Sifaka wrote: As an Apple user I absolutely don't want a new app store. It would just be back door for companies like Facebook to release apps that are overly aggressive in tracking. If I wanted the wild west I would be on Android. Clearly, the lack of a Facebook appstore has held them at bay. 2618 posts | registered Aug 16, 2017 36. nononsense Ars Tribunus Militum et Subscriptor reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:00 pm As long as Apple makes it very clear to the average consumer that they are voluntarily giving up all security on their phones by sideloading, I don't have a problem with this. I just hope the average consumer understands what they are giving up. 1803 posts | registered May 9, 2011 37. DaveSimmons Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius reply Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:01 pm Quote: a group funded by Apple and Google sent a statement to media claiming that the proposed law "is a finger in the eye of anyone who bought an iPhone or Android because the phones and their app stores are safe, reliable, and easy to use." Because all users will be forced to buy a minimum of 3 unsafe apps from the alternative stores? Orrrr, monopolists spreading lying FUD to protect their 30% rake-off? 7930 posts | registered Aug 8, 2005 * Page * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 Next You must login or create an account to comment. Channel Ars Technica - Previous story Next story - Related Stories Today on Ars * Store * Subscribe * About Us * RSS Feeds * View Mobile Site * Contact Us * Staff * Advertise with us * Reprints Newsletter Signup Join the Ars Orbital Transmission mailing list to get weekly updates delivered to your inbox. Sign me up - CNMN Collection WIRED Media Group (c) 2021 Conde Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 1/1/20) and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement (updated 1/1 /20) and Ars Technica Addendum (effective 8/21/2018). Ars may earn compensation on sales from links on this site. Read our affiliate link policy. Your California Privacy Rights | Do Not Sell My Personal Information The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Conde Nast. Ad Choices