New report from NTIA examines competition in the mobile app ecosystem
On Wednesday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a new report on Competition in the Mobile Application Ecosystem.
While the bulk of the report explores the privacy, security, and content moderation tradeoffs of the iOS and Android ecosystems, the report ultimately dismisses those concerns and endorses “sideloading” mandates that would allow malicious and hateful apps to evade app store review.
“Unfortunately, NTIA dismisses the reality that many Americans like the option of buying a new smartphone with greater security and content moderation safeguards,” said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich. “Competition is important, but consumer benefits and choice shouldn’t take a backseat to the desire of big app developers for more revenue.”
Kovacevich added that the report would break open the curated, controlled devices that many consumers value, saying, “It’s like the choice between visiting Disneyland and Yosemite National Park – one is a controlled environment while the other is more open. Both have their benefits, but consumers would lose out if the government mandated that Disneyland operate like Yosemite.”
In December, Chamber of Progress released a new analysis of the biggest beneficiaries if Congress were to pass the Open App Markets Act (OAMA). The study found that app store legislation would primarily benefit large app developers, with OAMA’s top ten beneficiaries worth a combined $1.57 trillion. Last year, as NTIA developed its report on the mobile app ecosystem, Chamber of Progress submitted comments highlighting the benefits of consumer choice and the ability of app marketplaces to moderate content.
Chamber of Progress (progresschamber.org) is a center-left tech industry policy coalition promoting technology’s progressive future. We work to ensure that all Americans benefit from technological leaps, and that the tech industry operates responsibly and fairly.
Our corporate partners do not have a vote on or veto over our positions. We do not speak for individual partner companies and remain true to our stated principles even when our partners disagree.