4 ms·

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 servic

by pdkl95 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. 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 ago
Everybody 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 ago
  Yes, 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 ago
    How 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 ago
      I 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
        ben509 7y ago
        That means a (properly) relational DBMS can be completely locked down because the relational model is not Turing complete.
        ben509 7y ago
        The goal here is to find a criteria under which you can require that manufacturers open up general purpose systems. And the proposal is that a system that is Turing complete is also general purpose. The relational model is hugely expressive, and yet it is not Turing complete. So you have something that is plainly general purpose, but would be exempt from such a law. That you can modify the relational model to make it Turing complete is irrelevant, it's already hugely expressive. And that you'd typically run it on a machine that is Turing complete doesn't save you. If a manufacturer wanted to bypass that restriction, they'd design a system that is entirely dedicated to it.
        pdkl95 7y ago
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 ago
Sure 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 ago
  That 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.

by pdkl95 7y ago

jsjddbbwj 7y ago

Everybody 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
  How 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 ago
    I 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
      - ben509 7y ago
        That means a (properly) relational DBMS can be completely locked down because the relational model is not Turing complete.
        ben509 7y ago
        The goal here is to find a criteria under which you can require that manufacturers open up general purpose systems. And the proposal is that a system that is Turing complete is also general purpose. The relational model is hugely expressive, and yet it is not Turing complete. So you have something that is plainly general purpose, but would be exempt from such a law. That you can modify the relational model to make it Turing complete is irrelevant, it's already hugely expressive. And that you'd typically run it on a machine that is Turing complete doesn't save you. If a manufacturer wanted to bypass that restriction, they'd design a system that is entirely dedicated to it.
        pdkl95 7y ago

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 ago

Sure 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 ago
That 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.