10 ms·
I don't think this should be regulated at all. Apple should be able to impose their rules in their systems. Let's be clear about this, if people are choosing to
by Findeton 6y ago
I don't think this should be regulated at all. Apple should be able to impose their rules in their systems. Let's be clear about this, if people are choosing to buy these black-box closed handheld computing devices, there are consequences that come with that choice.
- mmm_grayons 6y agoExactly. There are pros and cons to this sort of model. The pro is that the security model of an iphone is better than probably anything else one could buy. The con is that apple makes the rules about what goes and stays. Given the popularity of this app, I could see a kid wanting an android instead for this reason. On the other hand, Apple could easily make the case that this is to prevent scams, maintain parental controls, etc.
- heavyset_go 6y ago> The pro is that the security model of an iphone is better than probably anything else one could buy. Exploits for iOS are cheaper than exploits for Android because exploits for iOS are so plentiful.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- infinityplus1 6y agoPlenty of people have no idea what they are getting into when they buy Apple devices as a status symbol.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoYeah, so let's impose our will upon them. For their own good!
- mulmen 6y agoPlease. Whatever strawman you are trying to construct is missing the point. I do not buy Apple products as a status symbol. I buy them because they work. I won't even say the products are good, there are a lot of things I'd like to see change. But they are the best thing on the market for getting my work done. My laptop and phone are my hammer and workbench. The iPhone and MacBook are far and away the best product for the work I do, which is not iOS or MacOS development. They're simply the best general computing solution on the market right now.
- infinityplus1 6y agoI never said all Apple users don't know what they are getting into. There must be other users who want Apple to have full control over its devices. If it works great for them then there's no issue.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoFirstly, you are not the representative sample, I can testify that in much of russia they are definately a status symbol and most of their customers are not developers. My sample size is still not great, but at least i am not talking about myself. Secondly, this narrow-minded attitude is reflected in you calling MacBook the best general computing solution. There are a large variety of requirements for general computing solution, the most common ones that macbook can't satisfy are cost and gaming performance. Indeed no one product can satisfy them.
- pier25 6y agoI disagree. The model makes sense for a console, as it's a very specialized device. A smartphone or a tablet are much closer to a general computing device. How many times has Apple said the iPad is a laptop replacement?
- grawprog 6y agoI disagree it makes sense on a console. Phones can be used to: -communicate -consume media -browse the web -play games Consoles can be used to: -play games -consume media -browse the web -communicate I fail to see the difference to be honest.
- ultrarunner 6y agoThe difference is the spirit of the purpose they're purchased "for." Which is why (while I hate some of the walled garden) I'm skeptical of arguments to break up Apple or force them to generalize their products. Regulating the relationship between an offering and the supposed intention behind a purchase seems speculative at best, and, again, a win mostly reserved for the lawyers.
- paxys 6y agoThe point isn't can be used to, but rather are used to.
- filleduchaos 6y agoPeople use consoles to do all those things. As just one example, Netflix makes and maintains an app for the Playstation platform and it's not because they have nothing else to do.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoAre you purposefully conflating them? I used a phone to call an ambulance, provide the police with video evidence of a crime, navigate when I am lost, file company accounts, banking, and to aid in mapping for architecture and subsequently applying for planning permission. What do you do on a console that could cost you life and limb or render you bancrupt?
- ProAm 6y agoWho's device is it? Apple's or the customer that paid for it in full?
- javert 6y agoApple's, basically. That's OK. Let Apple screw people. It's a good opportunity for competition to develop. Or we can regulate Apple and competition won't develop.
- coldcode 6y agoThe device may be yours but the App Store belongs to Apple. Can you walk into a Walmart and start selling your stuff?
- david-cako 6y agoTrue, but there are other places to buy things than Walmart. The internet is reasonably open and accessible on iOS, but utilizing the full capability of an iOS device requires the App Store. Stallman spent a ton of time crusading about how some things are appliances, and other things are computers; those things that are computers should offer flexibility (and ideally openness) in terms of what software you can run on them. In this case, the largest manufacturer of computing devices and software wants 30% of every transaction from native software run on their devices. Epic was basically looking for preferential treatment, but now they're stepping up to the plate and saying the App Store is not market-friendly. It seems like they could be right, seeing as large as Apple is, and what role they actually have in computing.
- blkhp19 6y ago> The internet is reasonably open and accessible on iOS, but utilizing the full capability of an iOS device requires the App Store. As it should be. If people want open and crazy, then they can flounder around on the web and try to get it to do what native apps do. That's their problem and Apple shouldn't have to bend over backwards to support that route. Developers get to make a choice - make a web app, or make a native app that gets all the benefits of Apple's curated ecosystem. As a consumer and developer, I'll take the latter any day. Others feel differently, and can choose Android.
- swiley 6y agoApple is more than welcome to put whatever rules they want on their systems. My phone is not their system though, it’s mine! If I want to run tmux/fetchmail/ocamlc on it then it’s my problem not theirs!
- Findeton 6y agoI'm sure if you install some version of Linux in your iPhone you can do whatever you want. But you're probably using iOS.
- swiley 6y agoI would install desktop Linux on my iPhone if I could but there are no drivers in mainline and they work hard to lock the bootloader down (and before someone suggests android, the intention there is just as bad but tends to be less well executed and there still aren’t suitable drivers available.)
- dessant 6y agoPeople often accept restrictions on their freedom, but that does not mean those limitations aren't harmful. We should be able to install what we want on a general purpose computing device. You can already see the Apple mentality creeping into other companies like Mozilla, who suddenly find it acceptable to limit user freedom for questionable reasons, and the normalization of stripped user liberties that Apple champions is worrying.
- __d 6y agoThere's no law preventing anyone selling a smart phone without the limitations on your freedom you find objectionable. But similarly, there's no law requiring anyone to sell products that allow you to do whatever you want with them once they've been bought. You can argue for such a law, but competition law is a pretty weak place to start. Arguably, Apple is creating a market by their policies: the fact that it's not filled with competitors indicates only that most people don't care.
- growse 6y agoThe current legal position / ambiguity is less interesting than the moral and principled question: do we want to live in a free market captialist society where manufacturers (typically with the upper hand in the retail power imbalance) get to continue to exert control over my property once I've come to own it through a legal transaction? Either we do, in which case what Apple is doing in perfectly reasonable, as is Walmart selling fridges that explode when you put someone else's milk in them ("It's in the contract!"), or it isn't. Things like the first sale doctrine give an insight into past legal thinking suggesting the latter. But it's far from simple to discern by just looking at the law.
- __d 6y agoI agree that the principle is interesting. The music/video industry asserts that you're not allowed to play/show some media item that you've bought. Amazon doesn't allow you to resell or bequeath Kindle books. Caterpillar doesn't let you repair your own tractor. The first sale doctrine was established in a very different time.
- Jellyd 6y agoYou are thinking unilaterally on a multilateral issue...
- a9entroy 6y agoI don't agree. Millions (maybe even billions) of people user their devices and the country absolutely should regulate their systems. As an extreme example imagine if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut and all customers have to pay $20/month to use Wifi or internet on their iPhone. Obviously this is unlikely to happen but then I would expect the govt. to intervene. If Apple want to impose rules without any government oversight, they are free to start their own country with their own government and impose their own rules.
- Zelphyr 6y agoThat's a pretty big straw man argument. If Apple said all apps have to pay a 95% cut and all customers have to pay $20/mo to use Internet on their phones then they'd nearly instantly lose massive market share and the backlash would be so severe that they'd never regain that market share. In other words; they'd never do that.
- antaviana 6y agoI wonder if you are having in mind the same government that wants a hefty cut of the sale of TikTok to Microsoft.
- AgentME 6y ago>As an extreme example imagine if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut and all customers have to pay $20/month to use Wifi or internet on their iPhone. If they did they did this with the app store as used by existing iphones, then that would probably cause them to get in trouble, but if they made a new app store with these policies that was only used by a new model of iphone, then while extreme, I'd think it's within their rights. It's not that long ago that feature phones with limited app selection and internet browsing as a premium feature were a thing.
- cafed00d 6y ago>if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut But Apple could easily say "no more 3rd party apps" -- again, equally unlikely given the values those apps bring. But zero 3rd party apps is precisely what the iPod was, no?
- ohashi 6y agoLike Microsoft pushing internet explorer on Windows?
- cosmojg 6y agoRegulation often does more harm than good, and I'd agree with you if intellectual property didn't exist. Apple's entire business model rests on copyright and patents which make it impossible for competition to challenge their position. (Think about the products which would emerge if people were free to reverse engineer, modify, and redistribute Apple's technology.) This artificial advantage comes with a price, and that price happens to manifest as regulation by the same entity which enforces its ability to make its insane profits. If the government thinks they've taken their artificial advantage too far, they're ethically free, or even obligated, to artificially limit that advantage.
- jeromenerf 6y agoRegulation and "disruption" are not mutually exclusive in theory. Smartphones and "apps services" come as a whole and are commodity (drug?) enough to be somehow regulated. Then, again, I'm french :) Choice for non hackers feels pretty much limited to choosing apple|google|huawei|... poison pill or rejecting the whole smartphone+cloud+5g+... stuff.