4 ms·

If you build in the ability to censor, you can't disclaim responsibility when a state makes you do it. We'll see the same sort of thing in Russia, the UK, and s

If you build in the ability to censor, you can't disclaim responsibility when a state makes you do it. We'll see the same sort of thing in Russia, the UK, and so on. Apple can still act, if they wish, by not locking down their users. I know that'd be a big step for them.

skybrian 9y ago
To be clear, "ability to censor" is basically just having an app store. Companies can decide what they'll include in their store, which means governments can also regulate what they're allowed to sell (or block the app store altogether in that country). That doesn't mean app stores are inherently evil; they still do a lot of good by making sure people can easily find and pay for high-quality apps. As you say, a reasonable alternative would be to allow side loading of apps, so that people can find and load apps distributed via various peer-to-peer ways, without Apple being responsible.
- abecedarius 9y ago
  Yes, a curated app store is a great option to have. It's been said that the app-store-only model is not basically different because you can still buy an unrestricted competing device. I kind of agree, but that's sort of like saying people in China can still decide to move to another country. The cheaper such options are, the more weight to give such an argument. Most people aren't going to carry two phones around.
- Darthy 9y ago
  To be clear, what you mean by "having an app store" is "reverting 40 years of established software usage best practice and downgrade to dictatorial way where a central company can control everything". Words have power. "App store" sounds up-beat, friendly and inclusive. But the rules behind what Apple has established that "App store" actually means are anything but.
  - skybrian 9y ago
    Apple didn't invent the app store and weren't many mobile phones before the iPhone (running J2ME or whatever) even more restrictive? Also, Android doesn't restrict side-loading in this way so I disagree that restricting side-loading is an essential feature of an app store as commonly understood.
    - Darthy 9y ago
      No, phones before the iPhone running J2ME had side-loading. Some carrier turned that off, but if you bought directly from the manufacturers you got a phone that you could control and do anything with by yourself, without any third party stopping you. Manufacturers felt confident that their J2ME sandboxing stopped apps from doing anything evil. I feel like you didn't really answer my point, though. I criticize you for using an upbeat word to make a dictatorial system sound good. And you counter by talking about something entirely else, word definition and word history.
Darthy 9y ago
That is the most important comment here. Tim Cook, you have inherited the rules of the app store, but by now it's clear that with good sand-boxing, we wouldn't need any of your control mechanisms. If you would relinquish this control, one billion people could exercise their human rights. Mister Cook, tear down this app store wall!

skybrian 9y ago

To be clear, "ability to censor" is basically just having an app store. Companies can decide what they'll include in their store, which means governments can also regulate what they're allowed to sell (or block the app store altogether in that country). That doesn't mean app stores are inherently evil; they still do a lot of good by making sure people can easily find and pay for high-quality apps. As you say, a reasonable alternative would be to allow side loading of apps, so that people can find and load apps distributed via various peer-to-peer ways, without Apple being responsible.

abecedarius 9y ago
Yes, a curated app store is a great option to have. It's been said that the app-store-only model is not basically different because you can still buy an unrestricted competing device. I kind of agree, but that's sort of like saying people in China can still decide to move to another country. The cheaper such options are, the more weight to give such an argument. Most people aren't going to carry two phones around.
Darthy 9y ago
To be clear, what you mean by "having an app store" is "reverting 40 years of established software usage best practice and downgrade to dictatorial way where a central company can control everything". Words have power. "App store" sounds up-beat, friendly and inclusive. But the rules behind what Apple has established that "App store" actually means are anything but.
- skybrian 9y ago
  Apple didn't invent the app store and weren't many mobile phones before the iPhone (running J2ME or whatever) even more restrictive? Also, Android doesn't restrict side-loading in this way so I disagree that restricting side-loading is an essential feature of an app store as commonly understood.
  - Darthy 9y ago
    No, phones before the iPhone running J2ME had side-loading. Some carrier turned that off, but if you bought directly from the manufacturers you got a phone that you could control and do anything with by yourself, without any third party stopping you. Manufacturers felt confident that their J2ME sandboxing stopped apps from doing anything evil. I feel like you didn't really answer my point, though. I criticize you for using an upbeat word to make a dictatorial system sound good. And you counter by talking about something entirely else, word definition and word history.

Darthy 9y ago

That is the most important comment here. Tim Cook, you have inherited the rules of the app store, but by now it's clear that with good sand-boxing, we wouldn't need any of your control mechanisms. If you would relinquish this control, one billion people could exercise their human rights. Mister Cook, tear down this app store wall!