9 ms·

> To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy

by Niten 16y ago

> To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Apple's enforcement of what can and can not run on these devices is not some fundamental property right, but an artificial construct.

rimantas 16y ago
There was another part that you omitted "and your channel". Or did people buy that also?
- Kylekramer 16y ago
  That is part of the artificial construct. There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's except that they enforce ridiculous rules like this rejection to maintain complete control. And the channel loses value every time they pull something like this.
  - rimantas 16y ago
    I don't get your argument. > There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? I am also not sure about ridiculousness of the rules; and finally "losses value"—it depends. One can argue that this is true for some segment wanting to participate in Apples ecosystem, but it is offset by another, larger, segment which actually benefits from it.
    - gaustin 16y ago
      >How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? The only viable channel at this point is Apple's. If there were a way to access non-Apple blessed applications without rooting your device, then people might not complain so much. Savvy consumers don't appreciate monopolies.
      - jammur 16y ago
        I'm not sure it's reasonable to use the monopoly argument at arbitrary level of granularity. For instance, while Apple has a monopoly on iOS app by definition, Ford also has a monopoly on Ford cars. Monopolies are only a problem when there is no viable competition. In this case, the competition is Android et al. By saying you only want an iPhone, you are restricting your own choice. That said, it's perfectly fine to complain about the policies Apple implements. Complaints are part of the free market process, and in many cases bring about change for the better.
      - montagg 16y ago
        iOS is like a magazine, Apple are the editors, and the developers are the writers. Apple has every right to do whatever they want with their channel, even if it's a stupid move. You wouldn't tell "Time" they have no right to publish who they want and keep others out, would you? Likewise, I don't buy a magazine and then demand that I be able to print my own stories in it. I buy the magazine because it has stories in it already that I want to read. That said, Readability's claim that this "smacks of greed" is totally right. Apple is not acting in its users' best interest, because more than other moves, this actually affects their developers' business models, and it's going to drive high quality, innovative apps away from the App Store. There are two viable moves Apple can make: 1) Allow subscriptions outside the app without requiring one in the app OR 2) Lowering the 30% fee for in-app subscriptions Both of these options keep value in the App Store while providing Apple with some benefit. If they don't adopt one of these, the long term viability of the App Store is in jeopardy.
        lwhi 16y ago
        No .. iOS is a global marketplace and Apple are the gatekeepers for that marketplace. Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger. I think all markets should involve a certain amount of freedom - and Apple's decision making process actively inhibits market freedom. EDIT: iOS/App Store
        neutronicus 16y ago
    - Kylekramer 16y ago
      It is kind of a circular argument to answer "there is no reason for Apple to own the channel" with "But Apple owns the channel". I know Apple does. And Apple should place their own rules on their channel, I don't deny that. My problem is there is no competition allowed. And who is this larger segment that benefits from this decision (besides Apple employees and shareholders)? Is there a group of people who hate to have the chance to use Readability?
    - lambda 16y ago
      The issue is that Apple is artificially tying their channel to your hardware; they sold the hardware to you, but they sold it, not leased it, so its still your hardware. However, they've artificially retained control of the channel via DRM, software that doesn't allow you to install whatever you want on your own hardware. If you had the option of buying apps through another channel, this wouldn't be a problem. Most people don't have much of a problem with any of the Android Market's policies, since you can install other apps or even other markets on your own phone if you so choose.
      - jammur 16y ago
        As another person commented, it may be your hardware, but it's not your OS. You license the right to use iOS, but you don't own it. The app distribution channel is tied to the OS, not the device. If you want to install a different firmware on the device, and can figure out how to do it, there's nothing Apple can do about that.
        natrius 16y ago
        Have EULAs been upheld in court? The idea that I need special permission to use software that I've purchased seems a bit ridiculous. Kind of like a EULA on a car that restricts my driving to Ford toll roads.
        jammur 16y ago
        You didn't purchase the software. You purchased a license to use it, which included agreeing to Apple's terms. To use your car analogy, it would be more like renting a car, and the rental company saying you have to stay in your state/province/country/etc., which is perfectly legal and pretty standard. You didn't buy the car, but instead purchased the right to use it.
        natrius 16y ago
        That's not true. Before you rent a car, you sign a long contract agreeing to all the various restrictions. When you buy software, you typically don't agree to anything until you run the software. At that point, you already own the software, and as far as I know, no court has held that you must abide by the license in order to use the software.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      The only channel possible on iPhones without jailbreak is Apple's. Users own the iPhones bought. Therefore Apple should either let users subscribe to third-party channels, or release their channel in the hands of users (i.e. let them approve or ban apps). Otherwise, if there will ever come a day when Apple will have a monopoly on his hands, a big lawsuit will also happen. And really, I can see why Apple wants to control their channel, but why should I be restricted to their channel only? Why should I jailbreak my phone, which is dependent on kernel / various other exploits and risk bricking my device and losing the warranty if I want to be freed from Apple's channel?
      - xentronium 16y ago
        Imagine a phone without third-party apps / any kind of app-store. Does your manufacturer have to provide some kind of software channel for your phone? No. It's just another service, separate from the phone, you're free to use it, or not use it. The answer to your why's is probably "because they can".
        bad_user 16y ago
        That's not what's happening here. iOS is a platform for third-party apps. That's how it's now sold (right on their website: "The world’s largest collection of mobile apps"). That's a lock-in mechanism. Switching between phones with no third-party apps is a lot cheaper that switching between the iPhone and a Blackberry. They could do this if they wouldn't have allowed any third-party apps at all; if the popularity of the platform for third-party apps wouldn't be one of the reasons iPhones are selling like crazy. And I also don't get this apologetic behavior from people in regards to Apple's actions. Do you miss the 90s when all you could use and target was Microsoft's OS? Do you miss the whims of Microsoft and the iron grip they had on the industry? What, do you feel too much freedom of choice now? You think it's unhealthy or something?
        xentronium 16y ago
        I personally think that apple's behaviour sucks; I just argued that they don't have any obligation to put whatever third-party apps they don't like.
- generalk 16y ago
  No, of course they didn't buy the channel. But that's not the point. When Apple sells you an iPhone, it ceases to become their phone and becomes your phone. You're not leasing it, you aren't renting it, you've paid for it and it's yours. This is somewhat orthogonal to the original point, which was that Apple is free to reject whatever applications they like from their application delivery channel, just as I'm free to choose my clients, but it's important to remember.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    You are free to do whatever you want to your iPhone/iPad hardware. You can build a Linux distro and install it, there's already an Android distro for it, you can smash it, tear it apart, put it back together, wallpaper your room with them, etc. Nothing prevents you from doing those things. It's not Apple's duty to make it easier for you by building a boot loader into the device, adding double sided tape on the back so it will stick to your wall or putting a hammer in the package to make smashing it easier.
    - generalk 16y ago
      > It's not Apple's duty to make it easier for you by building > a boot loader into the device [...]" Nobody said it was. In fact, I think for the most part nobody has ever said that it's Apple's duty to do anything. A bunch of folks have said it'd be nice if Apple did allow third-party distribution channels, and a handful of hackers went ahead and made one, but I don't think anyone's ever claimed that Apple had a responsibility to make that easy.
      - OpieCunningham 16y ago
        I've seen plenty of people in this very thread claiming they own the hardware so they should be able to do whatever they want. But all of those people already have that right. So the complaint is: Apple is required to do more to allow me to do things I can't manage on my own. It is an implicit claim that Apple is duty bound to provide features that Apple has no interest in providing. My toaster doesn't make ice, nor does it heat my living room. Simply because I own the toaster doesn't mean there is any logic in my complaining that the manufacturer didn't provide a means for me to do those things with my toaster. If the toaster manufacturer decides there is a market it wants to be in for a toaster that makes ice, it can build that toaster. It's not obligated to build that ice-making toaster even if there is a huge market for it.
brk 16y ago
It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might own the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it. A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not run on "your" hardware. But in the current scenario you're buying iron-wrapped software (or I guess plastic-and-glass-wrapped software). Apple is really controlling what happens with the software, not the hardware. This is an importnat distinction, IMO, because I don't believe any of the "I paid for it so it's mine" arguments out there really pass muster until you also create your own (not jailbroken) software stack.
- lamnk 16y ago
  I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - nkassis 16y ago
      A monopoly isn't required to act anti competitively. Creating monopoly takes time and many anti-comptitive moves. Apple's rule of not letting a app vendor charge more on iPhone direct sale than on a web or android sale is anti competitive in my book. It prevents Android from competing by only asking 5% or something and making the in app subscription cheaper.
      - rimantas 16y ago
        What? Offer your app for Android only, and charge whatever you want.
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    You mean like Zune, Windows Phone, and Xbox?
fauigerzigerk 16y ago
All contracts are artificial constructs. There are no natural contracts. So the question is simply whether the kind of contract Apple has with its customers is legal or not and if it is whether the law should be changed.
- quizbiz 16y ago
  > There are no natural contracts. Do not kill?
  - bartonfink 16y ago
    More than almost anything else, killing seems fundamental to nature as I understand nature. I would, in fact, say that "kill or be killed" is THE natural contract.
    - siglesias 16y ago
      Oh, please. We are advanced beings with complex neocortexes that are capable of ethical reasoning. Surely we can agree on an system in which we can find solutions to our fundamental needs without resorting to killing one another.
      - bartonfink 16y ago
        Of course, but said system would be unnatural and artificial. Real, yes - but artificial.
        siglesias 16y ago
        I think your use of the term artificial, while apt in the sense of "not existing in non-human nature," is really banking on a series of connotations of artificial that don't apply to the non-natural sense of artificial. Artificial, for example, connotes: unnecessary, inferior to the non-artificial, superfluous, inauthentic. Your point is really something along the lines of linking an ethical system of non-killing to these connotations, which really have nothing to do with whether ethics can be found in non-human nature (which is, of course, a trivial point). What really matters is why we should inform our thinking with how animals treat each other.
relic17 16y ago
Sure, the hardware belongs to the people buying the device. They can sell it, give it as a gift, break it. But they can't use the device every way they want. The device does only so much. The fact is: everyone bought a device in the full knowledge of all its limitations. Before purchase, Apple never promised a stream of wonderful applications and content at a price that the customer deems appropriate. They did not guarantee a great App Store, they did not even guarantee that they won't shut down the App Store and let the device be just a piece of hardware. The customer knew the limitations and bought the device anyways.
- tygorius 16y ago
  Changing the rules once you have a large installed base is always a delicate issue. How many current iPad owners knew their Kindle app (and others) might be deactivated by Apple in a couple of months because Apple decided it wanted a 30% cut?
Synaesthesia 16y ago
I suppose you'll have to do the Android on iPhone thing though. They're still kind of struggling with a lot of issues, like power management for one.
nhangen 16y ago
I tend to think of it as Verizon/ATT's hardware, because they are subsidizing the purchase of it. Maybe it's a stretch, but I don't feel like I own it until my 2 years is up.
adsr 16y ago
It has nothing to do with the hardware. Apple gives access to a sales platform, similar to let's say Amazon. They charge for the use of that platform. And are now preventing someone to use it as a mere "springboard" to somewhere else. Nothing is stoping anyone from creating a web app to take care of this by them selves, independent of the app store.
cma 16y ago
Property rights are artificial constructs too.

by Niten 16y ago

rimantas 16y ago

There was another part that you omitted "and your channel". Or did people buy that also?

Kylekramer 16y ago
That is part of the artificial construct. There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's except that they enforce ridiculous rules like this rejection to maintain complete control. And the channel loses value every time they pull something like this.
- rimantas 16y ago
  I don't get your argument. > There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? I am also not sure about ridiculousness of the rules; and finally "losses value"—it depends. One can argue that this is true for some segment wanting to participate in Apples ecosystem, but it is offset by another, larger, segment which actually benefits from it.
  - gaustin 16y ago
    >How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? The only viable channel at this point is Apple's. If there were a way to access non-Apple blessed applications without rooting your device, then people might not complain so much. Savvy consumers don't appreciate monopolies.
    - jammur 16y ago
      I'm not sure it's reasonable to use the monopoly argument at arbitrary level of granularity. For instance, while Apple has a monopoly on iOS app by definition, Ford also has a monopoly on Ford cars. Monopolies are only a problem when there is no viable competition. In this case, the competition is Android et al. By saying you only want an iPhone, you are restricting your own choice. That said, it's perfectly fine to complain about the policies Apple implements. Complaints are part of the free market process, and in many cases bring about change for the better.
    - montagg 16y ago
      iOS is like a magazine, Apple are the editors, and the developers are the writers. Apple has every right to do whatever they want with their channel, even if it's a stupid move. You wouldn't tell "Time" they have no right to publish who they want and keep others out, would you? Likewise, I don't buy a magazine and then demand that I be able to print my own stories in it. I buy the magazine because it has stories in it already that I want to read. That said, Readability's claim that this "smacks of greed" is totally right. Apple is not acting in its users' best interest, because more than other moves, this actually affects their developers' business models, and it's going to drive high quality, innovative apps away from the App Store. There are two viable moves Apple can make: 1) Allow subscriptions outside the app without requiring one in the app OR 2) Lowering the 30% fee for in-app subscriptions Both of these options keep value in the App Store while providing Apple with some benefit. If they don't adopt one of these, the long term viability of the App Store is in jeopardy.
      - lwhi 16y ago
        No .. iOS is a global marketplace and Apple are the gatekeepers for that marketplace. Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger. I think all markets should involve a certain amount of freedom - and Apple's decision making process actively inhibits market freedom. EDIT: iOS/App Store
        neutronicus 16y ago
  - Kylekramer 16y ago
    It is kind of a circular argument to answer "there is no reason for Apple to own the channel" with "But Apple owns the channel". I know Apple does. And Apple should place their own rules on their channel, I don't deny that. My problem is there is no competition allowed. And who is this larger segment that benefits from this decision (besides Apple employees and shareholders)? Is there a group of people who hate to have the chance to use Readability?
  - lambda 16y ago
    The issue is that Apple is artificially tying their channel to your hardware; they sold the hardware to you, but they sold it, not leased it, so its still your hardware. However, they've artificially retained control of the channel via DRM, software that doesn't allow you to install whatever you want on your own hardware. If you had the option of buying apps through another channel, this wouldn't be a problem. Most people don't have much of a problem with any of the Android Market's policies, since you can install other apps or even other markets on your own phone if you so choose.
    - jammur 16y ago
      As another person commented, it may be your hardware, but it's not your OS. You license the right to use iOS, but you don't own it. The app distribution channel is tied to the OS, not the device. If you want to install a different firmware on the device, and can figure out how to do it, there's nothing Apple can do about that.
      - natrius 16y ago
        Have EULAs been upheld in court? The idea that I need special permission to use software that I've purchased seems a bit ridiculous. Kind of like a EULA on a car that restricts my driving to Ford toll roads.
        jammur 16y ago
        You didn't purchase the software. You purchased a license to use it, which included agreeing to Apple's terms. To use your car analogy, it would be more like renting a car, and the rental company saying you have to stay in your state/province/country/etc., which is perfectly legal and pretty standard. You didn't buy the car, but instead purchased the right to use it.
        natrius 16y ago
        That's not true. Before you rent a car, you sign a long contract agreeing to all the various restrictions. When you buy software, you typically don't agree to anything until you run the software. At that point, you already own the software, and as far as I know, no court has held that you must abide by the license in order to use the software.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    The only channel possible on iPhones without jailbreak is Apple's. Users own the iPhones bought. Therefore Apple should either let users subscribe to third-party channels, or release their channel in the hands of users (i.e. let them approve or ban apps). Otherwise, if there will ever come a day when Apple will have a monopoly on his hands, a big lawsuit will also happen. And really, I can see why Apple wants to control their channel, but why should I be restricted to their channel only? Why should I jailbreak my phone, which is dependent on kernel / various other exploits and risk bricking my device and losing the warranty if I want to be freed from Apple's channel?
    - xentronium 16y ago
      Imagine a phone without third-party apps / any kind of app-store. Does your manufacturer have to provide some kind of software channel for your phone? No. It's just another service, separate from the phone, you're free to use it, or not use it. The answer to your why's is probably "because they can".
      - bad_user 16y ago
        That's not what's happening here. iOS is a platform for third-party apps. That's how it's now sold (right on their website: "The world’s largest collection of mobile apps"). That's a lock-in mechanism. Switching between phones with no third-party apps is a lot cheaper that switching between the iPhone and a Blackberry. They could do this if they wouldn't have allowed any third-party apps at all; if the popularity of the platform for third-party apps wouldn't be one of the reasons iPhones are selling like crazy. And I also don't get this apologetic behavior from people in regards to Apple's actions. Do you miss the 90s when all you could use and target was Microsoft's OS? Do you miss the whims of Microsoft and the iron grip they had on the industry? What, do you feel too much freedom of choice now? You think it's unhealthy or something?
        xentronium 16y ago
        I personally think that apple's behaviour sucks; I just argued that they don't have any obligation to put whatever third-party apps they don't like.
generalk 16y ago
No, of course they didn't buy the channel. But that's not the point. When Apple sells you an iPhone, it ceases to become their phone and becomes your phone. You're not leasing it, you aren't renting it, you've paid for it and it's yours. This is somewhat orthogonal to the original point, which was that Apple is free to reject whatever applications they like from their application delivery channel, just as I'm free to choose my clients, but it's important to remember.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  You are free to do whatever you want to your iPhone/iPad hardware. You can build a Linux distro and install it, there's already an Android distro for it, you can smash it, tear it apart, put it back together, wallpaper your room with them, etc. Nothing prevents you from doing those things. It's not Apple's duty to make it easier for you by building a boot loader into the device, adding double sided tape on the back so it will stick to your wall or putting a hammer in the package to make smashing it easier.
  - generalk 16y ago
    > It's not Apple's duty to make it easier for you by building > a boot loader into the device [...]" Nobody said it was. In fact, I think for the most part nobody has ever said that it's Apple's duty to do anything. A bunch of folks have said it'd be nice if Apple did allow third-party distribution channels, and a handful of hackers went ahead and made one, but I don't think anyone's ever claimed that Apple had a responsibility to make that easy.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      I've seen plenty of people in this very thread claiming they own the hardware so they should be able to do whatever they want. But all of those people already have that right. So the complaint is: Apple is required to do more to allow me to do things I can't manage on my own. It is an implicit claim that Apple is duty bound to provide features that Apple has no interest in providing. My toaster doesn't make ice, nor does it heat my living room. Simply because I own the toaster doesn't mean there is any logic in my complaining that the manufacturer didn't provide a means for me to do those things with my toaster. If the toaster manufacturer decides there is a market it wants to be in for a toaster that makes ice, it can build that toaster. It's not obligated to build that ice-making toaster even if there is a huge market for it.

brk 16y ago

It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might own the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it. A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not run on "your" hardware. But in the current scenario you're buying iron-wrapped software (or I guess plastic-and-glass-wrapped software). Apple is really controlling what happens with the software, not the hardware. This is an importnat distinction, IMO, because I don't believe any of the "I paid for it so it's mine" arguments out there really pass muster until you also create your own (not jailbroken) software stack.

lamnk 16y ago
I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - nkassis 16y ago
    A monopoly isn't required to act anti competitively. Creating monopoly takes time and many anti-comptitive moves. Apple's rule of not letting a app vendor charge more on iPhone direct sale than on a web or android sale is anti competitive in my book. It prevents Android from competing by only asking 5% or something and making the in app subscription cheaper.
    - rimantas 16y ago
      What? Offer your app for Android only, and charge whatever you want.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  You mean like Zune, Windows Phone, and Xbox?

fauigerzigerk 16y ago

All contracts are artificial constructs. There are no natural contracts. So the question is simply whether the kind of contract Apple has with its customers is legal or not and if it is whether the law should be changed.

quizbiz 16y ago
> There are no natural contracts. Do not kill?
- bartonfink 16y ago
  More than almost anything else, killing seems fundamental to nature as I understand nature. I would, in fact, say that "kill or be killed" is THE natural contract.
  - siglesias 16y ago
    Oh, please. We are advanced beings with complex neocortexes that are capable of ethical reasoning. Surely we can agree on an system in which we can find solutions to our fundamental needs without resorting to killing one another.
    - bartonfink 16y ago
      Of course, but said system would be unnatural and artificial. Real, yes - but artificial.
      - siglesias 16y ago
        I think your use of the term artificial, while apt in the sense of "not existing in non-human nature," is really banking on a series of connotations of artificial that don't apply to the non-natural sense of artificial. Artificial, for example, connotes: unnecessary, inferior to the non-artificial, superfluous, inauthentic. Your point is really something along the lines of linking an ethical system of non-killing to these connotations, which really have nothing to do with whether ethics can be found in non-human nature (which is, of course, a trivial point). What really matters is why we should inform our thinking with how animals treat each other.

relic17 16y ago

Sure, the hardware belongs to the people buying the device. They can sell it, give it as a gift, break it. But they can't use the device every way they want. The device does only so much. The fact is: everyone bought a device in the full knowledge of all its limitations. Before purchase, Apple never promised a stream of wonderful applications and content at a price that the customer deems appropriate. They did not guarantee a great App Store, they did not even guarantee that they won't shut down the App Store and let the device be just a piece of hardware. The customer knew the limitations and bought the device anyways.

tygorius 16y ago
Changing the rules once you have a large installed base is always a delicate issue. How many current iPad owners knew their Kindle app (and others) might be deactivated by Apple in a couple of months because Apple decided it wanted a 30% cut?

Synaesthesia 16y ago

I suppose you'll have to do the Android on iPhone thing though. They're still kind of struggling with a lot of issues, like power management for one.

nhangen 16y ago

I tend to think of it as Verizon/ATT's hardware, because they are subsidizing the purchase of it. Maybe it's a stretch, but I don't feel like I own it until my 2 years is up.

adsr 16y ago

It has nothing to do with the hardware. Apple gives access to a sales platform, similar to let's say Amazon. They charge for the use of that platform. And are now preventing someone to use it as a mere "springboard" to somewhere else. Nothing is stoping anyone from creating a web app to take care of this by them selves, independent of the app store.

cma 16y ago

Property rights are artificial constructs too.