4 ms·

It's not so simple as that. Not at all. For one thing, a platform is a concept. As far as ownership is concerned, the users own their respective devices, not Ap

It's not so simple as that. Not at all. For one thing, a platform is a concept. As far as ownership is concerned, the users own their respective devices, not Apple. Moreover, it is not "fair" to exploit a monopoly (in this case, one unethically created by means of a closed platform with undisclosed and inconsistent app approval rules), and as such, many countries have laws preventing the unethical exploitation of monopoly-derived power. Anyway, I find it very odd to speak of Apple's "rights" whilst simultaneously ignoring those that actually have rights: the users. The philosophy that organizations can have rights independent of and greater in extent than any of its constituent persons is, to say the least, bizarre to me. Oh, and as for liking the terms of the platform: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/quotes?qt0358500 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/quotes?qt0358500)

rhygar 16y ago
Theaters don't allow food that was purchased elsewhere to be brought inside the building. Same principle. Sorry but you're just wrong on this.
- cgranade 16y ago
  That analogy only works if the theatre was also owned by the moviegoer. A better analogy would be a DVD player that wouldn't play movies if you ate the wrong brand of popcorn while watching in your living room. If you're going to call someone out as "just wrong" by using an analogy, please make sure your analogy says what you want it to say first.
- runevault 16y ago
  Maybe if you spent $500 dollars for rights to use the theater while being told you could bring your own food in, then the rules changed it'd be comparable. Otherwise not even close.
  - rhygar 16y ago
    You just don't get it. Apple owns the App Store. Apple therefore has the right to dictate the terms of the App Store, because they own it. Developers get to choose to use the app store and agree to Apple's terms if they want. End of story.
- dablya 16y ago
  I've seen similar arguments a lot lately. People are comparing ownership of the iPad to rent or lease type arrangements. Sorry, but you're the one who's just wrong on this.
relic17 16y ago
"A monopoly", "unethically created"... Apple's platform and its success are the result of the work of Apple's employees - the platform is good, this is why developers like it and use it. Any great innovation that comes first to market is alone there. Why? Because no-else had the same skill and vision to create it. It is successful. Why? Because it is good. If you classified the above as an unethical monopoly and killed it, we would still live in the dark ages.
- cgranade 16y ago
  There's a vast, vast difference between being first to market, and using that advantage to unethically create a monopoly by cryptographically locking users out of their own devices. If we fail to take a stand against such blatant violations of user rights, then that is what will undo the wonders of computing. Under the Apple model, innovation must follow asking your competitor for permission. Truly disruptive innovation cannot be sustained as long as Apple has unilateral control over the devices that they make, even after they are long past sold.
  - relic17 16y ago
    Apple has the right to do whatever it wants with its first-to-market product, as long as it does not break the law. There is nothing unethical about that. Also, there is no such thing as user rights. The only right a user has is to sue Apple if he/she thinks Apple is in violation of its explicit written contract with any individual user. Before purchasing an Apple device, a customer knows that he/she may be "locked" out of the device, but he/she buys it anyways. A user knows all the conditions before the purchase. Apple does not guarantee that after you buy a device they will always provide a great variety of apps at a price you find acceptable. Apple does not guarantee a wonderful service, it does not guarantee great partnerships with developers, it does not even guarantee that it will be in business in a few months. All of that is perfectly clear to anyone who buys a device in almost any market. Apple also has no obligation whatsoever to help any of its competitors innovate. If they cannot "innovate" without Apple, it is their problem to solve, they have to be smarter and more resourceful, create something on their own or convince Apple to work with them by demonstrating a compelling product. This is how a free economy operates. What a user can do is vote with his/her wallet.

rhygar 16y ago

Theaters don't allow food that was purchased elsewhere to be brought inside the building. Same principle. Sorry but you're just wrong on this.

cgranade 16y ago
That analogy only works if the theatre was also owned by the moviegoer. A better analogy would be a DVD player that wouldn't play movies if you ate the wrong brand of popcorn while watching in your living room. If you're going to call someone out as "just wrong" by using an analogy, please make sure your analogy says what you want it to say first.
runevault 16y ago
Maybe if you spent $500 dollars for rights to use the theater while being told you could bring your own food in, then the rules changed it'd be comparable. Otherwise not even close.
- rhygar 16y ago
  You just don't get it. Apple owns the App Store. Apple therefore has the right to dictate the terms of the App Store, because they own it. Developers get to choose to use the app store and agree to Apple's terms if they want. End of story.
dablya 16y ago
I've seen similar arguments a lot lately. People are comparing ownership of the iPad to rent or lease type arrangements. Sorry, but you're the one who's just wrong on this.

relic17 16y ago

"A monopoly", "unethically created"... Apple's platform and its success are the result of the work of Apple's employees - the platform is good, this is why developers like it and use it. Any great innovation that comes first to market is alone there. Why? Because no-else had the same skill and vision to create it. It is successful. Why? Because it is good. If you classified the above as an unethical monopoly and killed it, we would still live in the dark ages.

cgranade 16y ago
There's a vast, vast difference between being first to market, and using that advantage to unethically create a monopoly by cryptographically locking users out of their own devices. If we fail to take a stand against such blatant violations of user rights, then that is what will undo the wonders of computing. Under the Apple model, innovation must follow asking your competitor for permission. Truly disruptive innovation cannot be sustained as long as Apple has unilateral control over the devices that they make, even after they are long past sold.
- relic17 16y ago
  Apple has the right to do whatever it wants with its first-to-market product, as long as it does not break the law. There is nothing unethical about that. Also, there is no such thing as user rights. The only right a user has is to sue Apple if he/she thinks Apple is in violation of its explicit written contract with any individual user. Before purchasing an Apple device, a customer knows that he/she may be "locked" out of the device, but he/she buys it anyways. A user knows all the conditions before the purchase. Apple does not guarantee that after you buy a device they will always provide a great variety of apps at a price you find acceptable. Apple does not guarantee a wonderful service, it does not guarantee great partnerships with developers, it does not even guarantee that it will be in business in a few months. All of that is perfectly clear to anyone who buys a device in almost any market. Apple also has no obligation whatsoever to help any of its competitors innovate. If they cannot "innovate" without Apple, it is their problem to solve, they have to be smarter and more resourceful, create something on their own or convince Apple to work with them by demonstrating a compelling product. This is how a free economy operates. What a user can do is vote with his/her wallet.