4 ms·

> What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation? I have a Playstation that only allows me to play games that comply with DRM, unless I roo

> What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation? I have a Playstation that only allows me to play games that comply with DRM, unless I root the Playstation (if that's even possible). I have a coffee machine, that only accepts cups from a specific manufacturer, because they own the patent. I own a car that only allows me to run maps supplied by the manufacturer and the updates are expensive. I knew all of this when I bought this stuff. Complaining about the app store when you buy an iPhone is like complaining about the airplanes after you bought a house near an airport.

bluescrn 6y ago
I think there’s a line that needs to be drawn between ‘general purpose computing device’ and ‘content consumption device’ One of these is OK to be all locked down and centered around a monopolistic content store. The other one really isn’t. Smartphones and tablets have been trying to move from one category to the other, and this is where the problem lies.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  The problem is that the difference between those two devices boils down ENTIRELY to the addition of DRM. The only thing stopping a game console from being a general purpose computer are the platform creators preventing you from running the code of your choice on hardware you own. This distinction is purely arbitrary, user-hostile, and monopolistic, and so it is not worth respecting.
- manojlds 6y ago
  Also, consoles are sold at a loss. Would be happier with Apple if they too sell at a loss. Another point - Kindles are also content consumption (and sold at a loss or were) but they still allow me to load any book that I have.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    > Also, consoles are sold at a loss. Which means they're to cheap. Customers need accurate price information or they will buy things that were more expensive to produce than they're worth.
- valvar 6y ago
  Why should corporations be allowed to trample all over our freedoms just because the devices can be classified as primarily being for consuming content? Should we have no agency in how we choose to consume content?
Talanes 6y ago
"Complaining about the airplaines after you bought a house near an airport." Someone in my grandparent's neighborhood brought that suit and the airport had to pay to install soundproof windows in everyone's houses.
craftinator 6y ago
I'd totally pay like, maybe $100 for a smartphone that only allowed Apple approved apps. Maybe $150 if it came bedazzled.
- hirako2000 6y ago
  But you don't need to pay for such feature. It's called approved software, with signatures from multiple authorities you can get all sort of filtering you want. That's just not what the manufacturer wants, they want to be the sole authority, treating us like kids with restriction and cows at the same time with this 30% cut.
scandox 6y ago
That is the argument that slaves cannot assert their freedom, they can only become recalcitrant slaves because they at one moment in time accepted their slavery.
- hirako2000 6y ago
  It's a great analogy, that's why we banned slavery altogether and allowed personal declaration of bankruptcy, we learned from history and it took us centuries to get the slave drivers to comply.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Have we? Gig economy and offshoring practices are mostly disguised slavery.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  I don’t think this comparison is apt. At least in regards to slavery in America. Weren’t many slaves forcibly taken from Africa (either by force or by purchasing from parents (and then using force))?
  - scandox 6y ago
    Well I was thinking of King Agrippa counselling the Jews prior to their rebellion against the Romans: "However, as to the desire of recovering your liberty, it is unseasonable to indulge it so late; whereas you ought to have labored earnestly in old time that you might never have lost it; for the first experience of slavery was hard to be endured, and the struggle that you might never have been subject to it would have been just; but that slave who hath been once brought into subjection, and then runs away, is rather a refractory slave than a lover of liberty; " So yes a fairly different context.
valvar 6y ago
Just because we are forced to accept such limitations on some devices, that does not mean that it is necessarily acceptable. I own a PlayStation because I want to partake in entertainment exclusively available on the system. That does not mean that I don't get to hate the fact that it's a locked-down piece of crap. I really think they should be forced to open up the platform and not have any barriers for people who want to execute arbitrary code on hardware they paid for. The same should also be true for all computing devices - why should you not be able to change the software in your fridge? It's yours, and the manufacturer should be forced to respect that or very explicitly state that you are actually renting it and do not own it if they don't want to open up the hardware to its owner.

bluescrn 6y ago

I think there’s a line that needs to be drawn between ‘general purpose computing device’ and ‘content consumption device’ One of these is OK to be all locked down and centered around a monopolistic content store. The other one really isn’t. Smartphones and tablets have been trying to move from one category to the other, and this is where the problem lies.

Karunamon 6y ago
The problem is that the difference between those two devices boils down ENTIRELY to the addition of DRM. The only thing stopping a game console from being a general purpose computer are the platform creators preventing you from running the code of your choice on hardware you own. This distinction is purely arbitrary, user-hostile, and monopolistic, and so it is not worth respecting.
manojlds 6y ago
Also, consoles are sold at a loss. Would be happier with Apple if they too sell at a loss. Another point - Kindles are also content consumption (and sold at a loss or were) but they still allow me to load any book that I have.
- anoncake 6y ago
  > Also, consoles are sold at a loss. Which means they're to cheap. Customers need accurate price information or they will buy things that were more expensive to produce than they're worth.
valvar 6y ago
Why should corporations be allowed to trample all over our freedoms just because the devices can be classified as primarily being for consuming content? Should we have no agency in how we choose to consume content?

Talanes 6y ago

"Complaining about the airplaines after you bought a house near an airport." Someone in my grandparent's neighborhood brought that suit and the airport had to pay to install soundproof windows in everyone's houses.

craftinator 6y ago

I'd totally pay like, maybe $100 for a smartphone that only allowed Apple approved apps. Maybe $150 if it came bedazzled.

hirako2000 6y ago
But you don't need to pay for such feature. It's called approved software, with signatures from multiple authorities you can get all sort of filtering you want. That's just not what the manufacturer wants, they want to be the sole authority, treating us like kids with restriction and cows at the same time with this 30% cut.

scandox 6y ago

That is the argument that slaves cannot assert their freedom, they can only become recalcitrant slaves because they at one moment in time accepted their slavery.

hirako2000 6y ago
It's a great analogy, that's why we banned slavery altogether and allowed personal declaration of bankruptcy, we learned from history and it took us centuries to get the slave drivers to comply.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Have we? Gig economy and offshoring practices are mostly disguised slavery.
colejohnson66 6y ago
I don’t think this comparison is apt. At least in regards to slavery in America. Weren’t many slaves forcibly taken from Africa (either by force or by purchasing from parents (and then using force))?
- scandox 6y ago
  Well I was thinking of King Agrippa counselling the Jews prior to their rebellion against the Romans: "However, as to the desire of recovering your liberty, it is unseasonable to indulge it so late; whereas you ought to have labored earnestly in old time that you might never have lost it; for the first experience of slavery was hard to be endured, and the struggle that you might never have been subject to it would have been just; but that slave who hath been once brought into subjection, and then runs away, is rather a refractory slave than a lover of liberty; " So yes a fairly different context.

valvar 6y ago

Just because we are forced to accept such limitations on some devices, that does not mean that it is necessarily acceptable. I own a PlayStation because I want to partake in entertainment exclusively available on the system. That does not mean that I don't get to hate the fact that it's a locked-down piece of crap. I really think they should be forced to open up the platform and not have any barriers for people who want to execute arbitrary code on hardware they paid for. The same should also be true for all computing devices - why should you not be able to change the software in your fridge? It's yours, and the manufacturer should be forced to respect that or very explicitly state that you are actually renting it and do not own it if they don't want to open up the hardware to its owner.