Recently there was a new bill introduced that requires Apple and Google to allow more, third party applications to be distributed on their mobile devices.

The carriers and device manufacturers have fought against this, warning that it would limit their ability to do what they do best, which is to sell cell phones and smartphones. The carriers claim that allowing apps to run on the iPhone and Android would take away from the experience that subscribers to cell phone services have gotten used to.

The companies counter that allowing the customers the freedom to download apps of their choice would increase sales of their service.

The carriers and wireless providers are in an incredibly competitive environment. They have to provide more services, offer more value and reduce costs if they want to continue to be successful. It is no wonder therefore that they would fight against any attempts by wireless subscribers to increase the choices that they have. There are two sides to every story, and when it comes to the New Bill to Require Apple and Google to Allow Thread Partitioning, there are pro’s and con’s to it. Let’s look at each of them and try to come to a conclusion.

First, lets look at the pro’s of the bill. Basically, it would open up competition for both carriers and would force them to try out new services and apps before they launch their full-service plans. For the most part, this would benefit customers who would be able to choose the app of their choice that would be available through their carrier. It would also force both companies to compete with each other to give customers the best experience possible.

But on the other side of the argument, there are some problems with the bill. For example, those who would be affected the most are those who currently have an iPhone and use the iPhone App Store. The reason being, that with any luck, within a year or so (certainly within a year or two) all of the major app stores will have moved on to either iOS6 or iOS7. If these companies don’t move their platforms first, then those who have invested in iPhone and iPad apps would have no choice but to accept lower commission payouts or to upgrade to use the new platforms.

In fact, many will simply be forced to sell their current products and that may mean fewer iPhone and iPad apps become available.

On the flip side, there would also be winners and losers with this new regulation. For example, the top two companies would be required to allow at least some part of the marketplace for their competitors. Naturally, those competitors would have to allow some of their apps to appear on their platform. They would also be required to allow at least a certain amount of apps to be distributed through other channels. Of course, the competition would be both good news for consumers and bad news for carriers, because it means that they would be competing for a smaller portion of the market.

Also, this bill would also require the carriers to give consumers an opportunity to opt out of apps that they do not want. For instance, if an individual did not want to be charged for apps that they did not want, then they could simply not permit that particular carrier to charge them for it. As long as the carrier provided an uninstall facility, the customer could do whatever they wanted. As long as the carrier provided an effective mechanism for getting rid of unwanted apps, customers would generally not opt-out of apps that they did not want.

Another part of the new rules would require that the carriers provide for a way for customers to opt-in to get updates to apps. Once the customer’s contact information and preferences are logged into the mobile computing device, the carrier would be able to send out notifications about upcoming updates to apps. This will allow people to opt-in to receive updates even when they are not on the program. The carrier could send out this notification before the app is updated, or even after the update has been released.

As long as the carrier provides for a way for people to opt-in, this could help users avoid apps that are not receiving updates.

This bill would also eliminate the need for carriers to make apps available for free. As long as people want an application to run on their mobile device, they would have to purchase it. On one hand this could be considered good news for some consumers, while others could question whether companies like Apple and Google would really have to make an app available for free. If they truly want to create a great mobile experience for the consumer, they would not do so for free

If they did make an app available for free, however, it might take some time before it launched.

Provided by Antonio Westley

---

Disclaimer: This article is meant to be seen as an overview of this subject and not a reflection of viewpoints or opinions as nothing is definitive. So, make sure to do your research and feel free to use this information at your own discretion.