5 ms·
Which is similarly unacceptable, you own it, you decide what runs on it. Madness that it could ever come to this.
by toxik 7y ago
Which is similarly unacceptable, you own it, you decide what runs on it. Madness that it could ever come to this.
- DenisM 7y agoI own it, and I delegated it to Apple to decide what can run on it.
- anoncake 7y agoNo, you didn't. Else you could stop "delegating".
- ASalazarMX 7y agoMore like accepted their terms. You can't delegate what isn't yours to begin with.
- pdkl95 7y agoYou could still delegating the decision to Apple without restricting other people use of their general purpose computer[1] if Apple simply ran a curation service. Your choice to only use apps that have Apple's stamp of approval doesn't require forbidding other people from making a different choice. A curation service that forbids people from using competing services (or making their own decisions without any curator) is a monopolist trying to control a new market. edit: [1] https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html
- jsjddbbwj 7y agoEverybody who's chosen to use an iPhone has done so freely and without being coerced. Alternatives exist, including one that's wildly more popular than the iPhone itself.
- pdkl95 7y agoYes, we did. So what? Someone that buys an iPhone can use their property as they desire. Apple is selling a general purpose computer (even if they wish they were selling an appliance with a specific limited set of features). They can (and should) make recommendations about how to use their product safely, but they don't have any right to forbid people from using what is now the customer's property for an "unapproved" purpode. A manufacturer looses control of their product after the first sale[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
- scarface74 7y agoHow is everything with a processor not a general purpose computer? By definition Apple isn’t selling a device that you can do with as you please like a general purpose computer. If you don’t like Apple’s policies you are free to buy an Android device. The free market is great isn’t it? It’s surprising what intelligent people can do without giving the government more power.
- sjwright 7y agoI would go further and reject the phrase “general purpose computer” as overly vague to the point of being meaningless. Is a bicycle a general purpose vehicle? Who decides what qualifies as a general purpose?
- pdkl95 7y ago> Who decides what qualifies as a general purpose Alan Turing and Alanzo Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness However, my use of the term is an explicit (my previous [2]) reference to these important talks by Cory Doctorow about the War on General Purpose Computing, which I strongly recommend watching/reading: https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html
- kristianc 7y ago> You could still delegating the decision to Apple without restricting other people use of their general purpose computer[1] if Apple simply ran a curation service. Your choice to only use apps that have Apple's stamp of approval doesn't require forbidding other people from making a different choice. You have a much greater ability to inspect any code / processes that run on a general purpose computer running Windows and the like. With an iOS device, you have it on trust that the app isn’t doing anything nefarious. In that context, Apple’s role as benevolent guardian as to what is and isn’t allowed makes more sense.
- DenisM 7y agoSure thing, I would not object to your freedom to root your phone or something. I object to being portrayed as a victim [1] - I like the arrangement as it is, and I entered it willingly, having a choice. [1] "Which is similarly unacceptable, you own it, you decide what runs on it. Madness that it could ever come to this."
- twojacobtwo 7y agoThat quote does not portray you as the victim. In fact, it reinforces that you should have the right to choose as you like. If everyone had the choice, there would be nothing wrong with anyone choosing, just as you have, to give up your control.
- archontes 7y agoIf you believe this, then surely you believe that what is delegated to Apple can be relegated back to you, which is what the company in question was attempting.
- api 7y agoThen don't buy an iOS device. This is no different from game consoles.
- anonymousab 7y agoOr a tractor that refuses to run with custom modifications/repairs.
- paulryanrogers 7y agoUntil it's impossible because all tractor makers sell with the same terms. And they've enough money to buy or sue any liberal alternatives out of existence.
- tal8d 7y agoFor those who haven't been paying attention to the comedic effects of intellectual property taken to the extreme (or logical conclusion, I'd argue): just punch "tractor dmca" into your favorite search engine. We often take for granted that people in this sphere are aware of this sort of insanity, but unfortunately that really isn't even close to being true.
- fit2rule 7y agoIt is madness. What's the solution? We can always go back to older computing platforms that don't have this problem with a third party exercising arbitrary its iron grip over our possessions.