3 ms·

I wonder if there should be a similar law to the “right to repair” automotive laws, but for general software installation or removal for other devices? If a co

by mlthoughts2018 8y ago

I wonder if there should be a similar law to the “right to repair” automotive laws, but for general software installation or removal for other devices? If a company both controls the production of the device and the sole means by which a user can install software on the device, then maybe the company should be legally obligated to host some app, or jump through hoops to get approval to ban an app, or the app can go through an appeal process to argue if the ban is anti-consumer. I’m not saying this applies to Google or Amazon right now, under the current mechanisms for installing software on devices. I’m sure it’s a complicated issue. But I think it’s a fair and important question.

hendersoon 8y ago
It indeed does not apply to Google or Amazon, as both Android and FireOS allow sideloading. It does effectively apply to Apple/iOS, as it doesn't. (With a bunch of caveats.)
on_and_off 8y ago
I completely agree, although it would only apply to Apple right now.
- JackCh 8y ago
  That's only true if you limit your focus to phones. There are a lot of other consumer electronics that only let you download software from their appstore. Game consoles are a big one (as I understand it, purchasing physical media from 3rd party stores isn't an exception to this because in order for a company to publish their software for these platforms on physical media they must still go through Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's approval process.
  - on_and_off 8y ago
    True, I should have expanded my line of thought : I don't think that consumers are majorly hurt when a game console can only install apps/games under its manufacturer's approval. Sure, it is not a black and white situation and indies are certainly hurt by this. Also you can install general purpose apps on consoles nowadays; so the line is blurring. When we are talking about a general purpose device like a phone or a desktop computer though; it really irks me that you need an approval to distribute your app. We have already seen OS creators forbid an app before sherlocking it, or refusing to validate a satirical app. Recently both Valve and Telegram have been unable to get their apps approved. I have worked in the music industry and this is sadly really common .. if you work on a music streaming service, it is a huge PITA to get your app approved. It is almost if the people in charge of the OS do not want the competition.. I make this distinction because I think it is way more hurtful when communication or news apps are impacted by this kind of practices and these are pretty vital. Entertainment apps being hit by this also hurt the consumers by artificially distorting the competition. Ads Blocker are an edge case. They interfere with other apps, which I feel is ok to forbid. I think that all apps should be obligated to provide a tracking + ads free version but I don't think they should be mandated to make that version free. Especially when ads blockers are often a racket to get your ads networks whitelisted as long as you pay.
__david__ 8y ago
That's actually startling close to the GNU/FSF ethos. The whole Free Software movement is about being able to control the software that runs on your devices (and be able to fix/modify that software as well). The difference is that they don't seek to do it through legislation, but instead through advocacy.

hendersoon 8y ago

It indeed does not apply to Google or Amazon, as both Android and FireOS allow sideloading. It does effectively apply to Apple/iOS, as it doesn't. (With a bunch of caveats.)

on_and_off 8y ago

I completely agree, although it would only apply to Apple right now.

JackCh 8y ago
That's only true if you limit your focus to phones. There are a lot of other consumer electronics that only let you download software from their appstore. Game consoles are a big one (as I understand it, purchasing physical media from 3rd party stores isn't an exception to this because in order for a company to publish their software for these platforms on physical media they must still go through Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's approval process.
- on_and_off 8y ago
  True, I should have expanded my line of thought : I don't think that consumers are majorly hurt when a game console can only install apps/games under its manufacturer's approval. Sure, it is not a black and white situation and indies are certainly hurt by this. Also you can install general purpose apps on consoles nowadays; so the line is blurring. When we are talking about a general purpose device like a phone or a desktop computer though; it really irks me that you need an approval to distribute your app. We have already seen OS creators forbid an app before sherlocking it, or refusing to validate a satirical app. Recently both Valve and Telegram have been unable to get their apps approved. I have worked in the music industry and this is sadly really common .. if you work on a music streaming service, it is a huge PITA to get your app approved. It is almost if the people in charge of the OS do not want the competition.. I make this distinction because I think it is way more hurtful when communication or news apps are impacted by this kind of practices and these are pretty vital. Entertainment apps being hit by this also hurt the consumers by artificially distorting the competition. Ads Blocker are an edge case. They interfere with other apps, which I feel is ok to forbid. I think that all apps should be obligated to provide a tracking + ads free version but I don't think they should be mandated to make that version free. Especially when ads blockers are often a racket to get your ads networks whitelisted as long as you pay.

__david__ 8y ago

That's actually startling close to the GNU/FSF ethos. The whole Free Software movement is about being able to control the software that runs on your devices (and be able to fix/modify that software as well). The difference is that they don't seek to do it through legislation, but instead through advocacy.