11 ms·

> Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the

> Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system I fundamentally disagree and this is also a misrepresentation of the current situation. If I buy an open operating system which advertises that I can run on it what pleases me then I should have the right to carry out this freedom of choice. However, if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines (which are also open for me to assess myself) and I buy a product for its benefits doing this, then I have a right as a consumer that the company will stick to this and not be forced to change in order to please some dodgy companies or gaming apps which I honestly couldn't care less. It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. The packaging says secure, long battery life, high quality phone because of walled garden, so I fucking expect Apple to deliver the walled garden promise so I don't have to do the vetting myself. When I buy an iPhone for my kids or parents, then I pay more for it because of Apple's walled garden, because it means I have to spend less time doing dumb things for them which I'd have to do on another operating system.

lub 6y ago
> It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. Though it's not really uncommon to modify a car for autogas or electric. Often it's also possible to change the radio receiver to e.g. one with android car. I kinda expect the same freedom to modify other products including smartphones.
- jhasse 6y ago
  You're free to jailbreak your iPhone.
  - hanselot 6y ago
    It's not like car manufacturers go out of their way to update their new models with anti-conversion technology with each new release. Unless the car is a piece of agricultural equipment, in which case, we can see exactly why walled ecosystems are bad.
    - minerjoe 6y ago
      That's a good point. Many farmers are as frustrated and stymied as many iphone users. Locked out of repairing a device that their livelihood depends apon.
  - wickedsickeune 6y ago
    Jailbreaking voids my warranty, could be impossible, and disables a lot of features (OS security updates). It is unreasonable to compare this with another app store.
    - dustinmoris 6y ago
      Modding your car from petrol to Diesel also voids your warranty.
  - dx034 6y ago
    Jailbreaking uses vulnerabilities, there is no way to jailbreak a phone officially. Whereas Android allows sideloading apps officially.
    - ghosty141 6y ago
      There is also no official way to convert your car to diesel/electric...
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        The car doesn't have cryptographic locks on its bonnet.
WA 6y ago
But your kids want Fortnite as a product on their smartphone. They want a customer relationship with Epic Games. Apple prevents that to a certain degree. This is not a two-way relationship. It’s three-way. People expect businesses to have a store front in the App Store. If there is none, they don’t think it’s Apple‘s fault.
wickedsickeune 6y ago
> if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines Could you please show me such an advertisement? I do not really follow Apple, and have failed to encounter it. Further, what if I'm a user, who wants to purchase the hardware (and even operating system), but does not want the added security. Mind you that Apple has their own CPU and OS which is unlike anything in the competition. Don't I also buy the product for those benefits, and don't I have a right as a consumer to opt out of arbitrary limitations that I have no option but accepting? In the past, you had no option but accepting tracking cookies in every website, GDPR showed that as a society, we decided to force companies to provide an option.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  > Further, what if I'm a user, who wants to purchase the hardware (and even operating system), but does not want the added security. Mind you that Apple has their own CPU and OS which is unlike anything in the competition. Tough luck my friend. I mean only because you want something unreasonable doesn't make it a right. Example: What if I want to buy the engine of a Ferrari but not pay the price for a Ferrari and just have it inside a Volkswagen? The answer to that is also tough luck. You want a Ferrari engine, well it only comes in a bloody Ferrari so either buy the whole thing and then mod it yourself or tough luck. Same for Apple hardware. If you want just want one piece then you'll have to buy the whole thing and mod it yourself. Nothing in this world gives you a right to have all your wishes fulfilled by others.
  - blackoil 6y ago
    If Ferrari and Volkswagen are only two companies in world and Ferrari disallows changing Radio and Car Seat without authorization from company. I would say screw them, law should prohibit this. If you don't like the law you are free to go sale somewhere else.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      If Ferrari and Volkswagen are the only two companies in the world, you just go and build a third company with a unique proposition. There's enough capital around to build a new car maker, the problem is the lack of appealing value and necessity for another clone.
everfree 6y ago
> It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. A much more apt analogy would be a Keurig machine that's only designed to take official k-cups, and your legal right to make it work with off-brand k-cups.
- BillinghamJ 6y ago
  You do have that right, but Keurig is under no obligation to help you do it
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    There's a difference between "we won't help you do something" and "we'll actively hinder your efforts at doing something".
    - BillinghamJ 6y ago
      Keurig does actively hinder doesn't it? Don't they have some kind of DRM/capsule authentication?
blackoil 6y ago
If a company informs in advance, a job of 12 hours a day paying less then minimum wages, should they be allowed to hire people against it?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  That’s not an apt comparison because it’s questionable whether what Apple is doing is illegal or not. OTOH, paying below minimum is explicitly illegal. A better comparison would be hiring people at a maximum of 10 hours a week, and then the employee getting upset they don’t get 11+ hours.
erostrate 6y ago
This argument works as long as there is healthy competition, so that consumer's preferences get reflected in the offer. If the market is a monopoly or duopoly you could get very undesirable outcomes.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  The point is unlike a real monopoly which is due to real entry barriers (e.g. train operators need train tracks, internet companies need cables, phone operators need antennas and satellites, etc.) the mobile OS isn't a monopoly or duopoly. Neither Apple or Android were ever the only mobile OS providers. There was Microsoft over a long period of time, Blackberry, Nokias own operating system and many other smaller ones. Neither Apple or Google have any advantage which Microsoft or Nokia didn't have either in consumer base and market share of mobile phones. Same for Blackberry. The only difference is that consumers have actively rejected the competition because Apple (and Google) exactly delivers what they want. Now arguing that consumers are disadvantaged because they don't get what they want is falsifying the actual state of the market, when really they get exactly what they want and it's only some bad actors like addictive abusive gaming companies or other dodgy businesses which are doing more harm than help to our society and they want to force Apple or Google into opening more up to allow them even shadier practices. Nothing stops anyone to create a more open mobile OS. There is no actual barrier to enter like in what real monopolies or duopolies have. EDIT: It's also important to remember that Apple hasn't invented their strict walled garden after Microsoft, Nokia and Blackberry left the competition. They always had their walled garden as a feature, and that is proof that customers actively chose to use Apple despite having a healthy competition of other open marketplaces, which clearly didn't deliver what consumers wanted. Consumers don't have the time to vet everything themselves. They value Apple's proposition and are even willing to pay more for an app on average than on any other mobile system. People change their phones every 1-2 years and if the walled garden wouldn't appeal to consumers then we'd see everyone have an Android by now for a very long time.
  - rini17 6y ago
    So you say: if Apple rejects your app, just ask users to reinstall another OS or buy another device?
McDyver 6y ago
> It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's not, no. It's like buying a petrol car and being limited to using BP to fill it up, and not being able to use Q8, or Shell, or whatever. No one buys Apple/iOS and expects it to run Windows (although arguably you can, and you should be able to, if you weren't locked-in)
- lemmonii 6y ago
  Interesting question, would this be legal? Could BP or Shell make a cheap car but with the caveat that it could only be filled at their stations?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

lub 6y ago

> It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. Though it's not really uncommon to modify a car for autogas or electric. Often it's also possible to change the radio receiver to e.g. one with android car. I kinda expect the same freedom to modify other products including smartphones.

jhasse 6y ago
You're free to jailbreak your iPhone.
- hanselot 6y ago
  It's not like car manufacturers go out of their way to update their new models with anti-conversion technology with each new release. Unless the car is a piece of agricultural equipment, in which case, we can see exactly why walled ecosystems are bad.
  - minerjoe 6y ago
    That's a good point. Many farmers are as frustrated and stymied as many iphone users. Locked out of repairing a device that their livelihood depends apon.
- wickedsickeune 6y ago
  Jailbreaking voids my warranty, could be impossible, and disables a lot of features (OS security updates). It is unreasonable to compare this with another app store.
  - dustinmoris 6y ago
    Modding your car from petrol to Diesel also voids your warranty.
- dx034 6y ago
  Jailbreaking uses vulnerabilities, there is no way to jailbreak a phone officially. Whereas Android allows sideloading apps officially.
  - ghosty141 6y ago
    There is also no official way to convert your car to diesel/electric...
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      The car doesn't have cryptographic locks on its bonnet.

WA 6y ago

But your kids want Fortnite as a product on their smartphone. They want a customer relationship with Epic Games. Apple prevents that to a certain degree. This is not a two-way relationship. It’s three-way. People expect businesses to have a store front in the App Store. If there is none, they don’t think it’s Apple‘s fault.

wickedsickeune 6y ago

> if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines Could you please show me such an advertisement? I do not really follow Apple, and have failed to encounter it. Further, what if I'm a user, who wants to purchase the hardware (and even operating system), but does not want the added security. Mind you that Apple has their own CPU and OS which is unlike anything in the competition. Don't I also buy the product for those benefits, and don't I have a right as a consumer to opt out of arbitrary limitations that I have no option but accepting? In the past, you had no option but accepting tracking cookies in every website, GDPR showed that as a society, we decided to force companies to provide an option.

dustinmoris 6y ago
> Further, what if I'm a user, who wants to purchase the hardware (and even operating system), but does not want the added security. Mind you that Apple has their own CPU and OS which is unlike anything in the competition. Tough luck my friend. I mean only because you want something unreasonable doesn't make it a right. Example: What if I want to buy the engine of a Ferrari but not pay the price for a Ferrari and just have it inside a Volkswagen? The answer to that is also tough luck. You want a Ferrari engine, well it only comes in a bloody Ferrari so either buy the whole thing and then mod it yourself or tough luck. Same for Apple hardware. If you want just want one piece then you'll have to buy the whole thing and mod it yourself. Nothing in this world gives you a right to have all your wishes fulfilled by others.
- blackoil 6y ago
  If Ferrari and Volkswagen are only two companies in world and Ferrari disallows changing Radio and Car Seat without authorization from company. I would say screw them, law should prohibit this. If you don't like the law you are free to go sale somewhere else.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    If Ferrari and Volkswagen are the only two companies in the world, you just go and build a third company with a unique proposition. There's enough capital around to build a new car maker, the problem is the lack of appealing value and necessity for another clone.

everfree 6y ago

> It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. A much more apt analogy would be a Keurig machine that's only designed to take official k-cups, and your legal right to make it work with off-brand k-cups.

BillinghamJ 6y ago
You do have that right, but Keurig is under no obligation to help you do it
- josephcsible 6y ago
  There's a difference between "we won't help you do something" and "we'll actively hinder your efforts at doing something".
  - BillinghamJ 6y ago
    Keurig does actively hinder doesn't it? Don't they have some kind of DRM/capsule authentication?

blackoil 6y ago

If a company informs in advance, a job of 12 hours a day paying less then minimum wages, should they be allowed to hire people against it?

colejohnson66 6y ago
That’s not an apt comparison because it’s questionable whether what Apple is doing is illegal or not. OTOH, paying below minimum is explicitly illegal. A better comparison would be hiring people at a maximum of 10 hours a week, and then the employee getting upset they don’t get 11+ hours.

erostrate 6y ago

This argument works as long as there is healthy competition, so that consumer's preferences get reflected in the offer. If the market is a monopoly or duopoly you could get very undesirable outcomes.

dustinmoris 6y ago
The point is unlike a real monopoly which is due to real entry barriers (e.g. train operators need train tracks, internet companies need cables, phone operators need antennas and satellites, etc.) the mobile OS isn't a monopoly or duopoly. Neither Apple or Android were ever the only mobile OS providers. There was Microsoft over a long period of time, Blackberry, Nokias own operating system and many other smaller ones. Neither Apple or Google have any advantage which Microsoft or Nokia didn't have either in consumer base and market share of mobile phones. Same for Blackberry. The only difference is that consumers have actively rejected the competition because Apple (and Google) exactly delivers what they want. Now arguing that consumers are disadvantaged because they don't get what they want is falsifying the actual state of the market, when really they get exactly what they want and it's only some bad actors like addictive abusive gaming companies or other dodgy businesses which are doing more harm than help to our society and they want to force Apple or Google into opening more up to allow them even shadier practices. Nothing stops anyone to create a more open mobile OS. There is no actual barrier to enter like in what real monopolies or duopolies have. EDIT: It's also important to remember that Apple hasn't invented their strict walled garden after Microsoft, Nokia and Blackberry left the competition. They always had their walled garden as a feature, and that is proof that customers actively chose to use Apple despite having a healthy competition of other open marketplaces, which clearly didn't deliver what consumers wanted. Consumers don't have the time to vet everything themselves. They value Apple's proposition and are even willing to pay more for an app on average than on any other mobile system. People change their phones every 1-2 years and if the walled garden wouldn't appeal to consumers then we'd see everyone have an Android by now for a very long time.
- rini17 6y ago
  So you say: if Apple rejects your app, just ask users to reinstall another OS or buy another device?

McDyver 6y ago

> It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's not, no. It's like buying a petrol car and being limited to using BP to fill it up, and not being able to use Q8, or Shell, or whatever. No one buys Apple/iOS and expects it to run Windows (although arguably you can, and you should be able to, if you weren't locked-in)

lemmonii 6y ago
Interesting question, would this be legal? Could BP or Shell make a cheap car but with the caveat that it could only be filled at their stations?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]