4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- Natsu 16y ago
  > But all of those people already have that right. Not legally. A limited amount of iPhone jailbreaking has been exempted under the DMCA, but that won't absolve you for the offense of trafficking in the tools to do so. And there are a million other EULAs and such that at least purport to take away that very right. IANAL, but I've seen people dragged into court over them. Whether or not they're legal is pretty much academic if you have to go through the expense of fighting it out in court against a giant company. The point is that the vendors are taking away our legal right to do all these things and occasionally adding some screw-you technology to make them technically difficult as well. They're not passively thwarting your ability to do what you like, they're actively opposing it both technically and legally and that's why people worry. My response has been not to buy devices like that and to boycott those vendors wholesale, but the way the market is going, that's not going to be possible forever. We need a good first sale type right to eliminate all this nonsense. We would never have made it this far if those nonsense book licenses that publishers tried back in the day had actually been successful.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    You're correct, but the limitations you are referring to are specific to software.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      It's their control of the software that allows them to control what people do with the hardware both via technical and legal means. It is, after all, a computing device. While I suppose that people wouldn't have this problem if they were using it as, say, a doorstop, that's not really the issue people are having here.
      - OpieCunningham 16y ago
        That's not accurate. Apple's only control of the hardware is how you use it via their software. The hardware is not sold to you under the provision that you must only use Apple's software with it. Replace their software with your own and Apple has no control over the hardware. Therefore, Apple has no control over the hardware - you do. The claim "I bought the hardware, I own it, therefore I should be able to do what I want with it and Apple is preventing me", which is the general argument being made, is fundamentally false. You bought the hardware, you own it and you can do what you want with it.
        Natsu 16y ago
        > Apple's only control of the hardware is how you use it via their software. The hardware is not sold to you under the provision that you must only use Apple's software with it. You have to jailbreak an iPhone to install other software, or so claims PC World. That's definitely a technical barrier, just like I explained. And a legal one, with the DMCA "trafficking" problem. Having established that their opposition is not merely passive, your complaint rings hollow, unless when you said that, you were trying to say that they were less than upfront about disclosing the restrictions? No link will be given to those instructions. They're incredibly easy to find, but I don't want to run afoul of the nebulous contributory infringement claims like "inducement." My recommendation is for people like me with a problem with this to avoid buying the products to begin with. It's the approach I have selected.

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.

Natsu 16y ago
> But all of those people already have that right. Not legally. A limited amount of iPhone jailbreaking has been exempted under the DMCA, but that won't absolve you for the offense of trafficking in the tools to do so. And there are a million other EULAs and such that at least purport to take away that very right. IANAL, but I've seen people dragged into court over them. Whether or not they're legal is pretty much academic if you have to go through the expense of fighting it out in court against a giant company. The point is that the vendors are taking away our legal right to do all these things and occasionally adding some screw-you technology to make them technically difficult as well. They're not passively thwarting your ability to do what you like, they're actively opposing it both technically and legally and that's why people worry. My response has been not to buy devices like that and to boycott those vendors wholesale, but the way the market is going, that's not going to be possible forever. We need a good first sale type right to eliminate all this nonsense. We would never have made it this far if those nonsense book licenses that publishers tried back in the day had actually been successful.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  You're correct, but the limitations you are referring to are specific to software.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    It's their control of the software that allows them to control what people do with the hardware both via technical and legal means. It is, after all, a computing device. While I suppose that people wouldn't have this problem if they were using it as, say, a doorstop, that's not really the issue people are having here.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      That's not accurate. Apple's only control of the hardware is how you use it via their software. The hardware is not sold to you under the provision that you must only use Apple's software with it. Replace their software with your own and Apple has no control over the hardware. Therefore, Apple has no control over the hardware - you do. The claim "I bought the hardware, I own it, therefore I should be able to do what I want with it and Apple is preventing me", which is the general argument being made, is fundamentally false. You bought the hardware, you own it and you can do what you want with it.
      - Natsu 16y ago
        > Apple's only control of the hardware is how you use it via their software. The hardware is not sold to you under the provision that you must only use Apple's software with it. You have to jailbreak an iPhone to install other software, or so claims PC World. That's definitely a technical barrier, just like I explained. And a legal one, with the DMCA "trafficking" problem. Having established that their opposition is not merely passive, your complaint rings hollow, unless when you said that, you were trying to say that they were less than upfront about disclosing the restrictions? No link will be given to those instructions. They're incredibly easy to find, but I don't want to run afoul of the nebulous contributory infringement claims like "inducement." My recommendation is for people like me with a problem with this to avoid buying the products to begin with. It's the approach I have selected.