5 ms·

Why should they not have that right? Does Sony not have the right to prevent users from using alternative game stores to run unofficial games on their PS4? Do

Why should they not have that right? Does Sony not have the right to prevent users from using alternative game stores to run unofficial games on their PS4? Does Nintendo not have the right to prevent users from using an alternative to the eShop to download games for their Switch? Does Tesla not have the right to prevent users from downloading and running whatever random applications they wish on their Tesla?

stale2002 6y ago
> Why should they not have that right? Because the phone belongs to the consumer, and the courts have already said that it is perfectly legal to jailbreak your phone, even though apple attempted to sue people who were doing this. It is pretty horrible that Apple was trying to sue people, for modifying property that the consumer owned, and it required the courts to get involved, to clarify that it is perfectly legal to jail break your own property.
- yazaddaruvala 6y ago
  All products even with ownership come with rules and regulations. Houses can’t be arbitrarily changed. Cars have governors. Scissors shouldn’t be run with. Ownership of an iPhone is not different. It just has special rules attached. If you don’t mind breaking the warranty, please jailbreak your iPhone and install whatever apps you’d prefer.
  - kalleboo 6y ago
    > Houses can’t be arbitrarily changed. Cars have governors. Scissors shouldn’t be run with. None of these regulations are decided by the company that manufactured the device, they are all decided democratically by an elected state. How about... Houses can't have arbitrary appliances installed that weren't made by someone approved by the house-builder Cars can't fill up gas from a stand not paying 30% by the car manufacturer Scissors can't cut paper sold by someone unaffiliated by the scissor manufacturer. Sounds reasonable to me! > If you don’t mind breaking the warranty, please jailbreak your iPhone and install whatever apps you’d prefer. No, Apple wanted jailbreaking to be "go to jail" illegal, not just voiding your warranty.
    - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
      Maybe I should have clarified. The Strata/HOA regulates the appliances, the customizations, even the “look and feel” of my patio.
    - dylan-m 6y ago
      > Scissors can't cut paper sold by someone unaffiliated by the scissor manufacturer. Of course, going by evidence in these threads, people would defend Scissors Corp to the death, arguing "but that's a feature which makes these scissors safe so people don't injure themselves, and sure they own half of the scissors (and paper) market but you can always bring your own scissors (and paper) and avoid interacting with people who use Scissors Corp stuff, so what's the problem?"
      - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
        If I bought scissors that could only cut certain types of paper, thickness or proprietary paper, I wouldn’t later complain about their inability to cut all paper. “Ownership” of a tool has always been limited to the feature set the manufacturer originally intended for it. This entitlement over the tools Apple creates, accurately advertises, and legal sells is the only problem I see. [1] https://www.sliceproducts.com/safety-scissors https://www.sliceproducts.com/safety-scissors
        stale2002 6y ago
        > If I bought scissors that could only cut certain types of paper If there was a scissors duopoly, in which a company that controls 50% of the market, implemented practices that are anti-competitive, then this could be illegal. > has always been limited to the feature set the manufacturer originally intended for it. Actually, no. Once you purchased the item, you can do whatever you want with it, regardless of what the manufacture wants. > This entitlement This is about anti-trust law. Apple should follow the law. They are not entitled to break the law, without consequences.
        yazaddaruvala 6y ago
  - stale2002 6y ago
    The US courts have consistently held that it is perfectly legal to do anything to your privated owned things that are not public. Your house example is wrong, because that has public viewing concerns on a plot of land. And your car example is incorrect. I could make any changes at all to a car, that is not put on public roads. That has nothing to do with the manufacturer putting restrictions on your car.
    - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
      iPhones are put on “public” internet and therefore is restricted for the safety of the user and the safety of society. If you want to cherry pick arguments we can do this all day. The reality is Apple is just doing what every manufacturer has done for millennia!
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > The reality is Apple is just doing what every manufacturer has done for millennia! Certain actions are illegal if a company has too much market power. Anti trust law does not require a literal, singular monopoly, in order for some anti-competitive behaviors to be illegal. Instead, Apple has ~50% of the market share in the US, and that is within the realm where certain actions become illegal, according to anti-trust law.
    - MichaelZuo 6y ago
      This is false, modern cars contain equipment capable of transmitting EM waves and thus regulated by the FCC and equivalent agencies in most other countries. These regulations apply even on private property. You can not arbitrarily change that legally. The same applies to all private houses, installing in a home a powerful transmitter to broadcast noise is certainly illegal without approval.
kalleboo 6y ago
No they shouldn't. All computing devices should be free and open. Stallman was right. The world is trending toward a corporate-owned hellhole.

stale2002 6y ago

> Why should they not have that right? Because the phone belongs to the consumer, and the courts have already said that it is perfectly legal to jailbreak your phone, even though apple attempted to sue people who were doing this. It is pretty horrible that Apple was trying to sue people, for modifying property that the consumer owned, and it required the courts to get involved, to clarify that it is perfectly legal to jail break your own property.

yazaddaruvala 6y ago
All products even with ownership come with rules and regulations. Houses can’t be arbitrarily changed. Cars have governors. Scissors shouldn’t be run with. Ownership of an iPhone is not different. It just has special rules attached. If you don’t mind breaking the warranty, please jailbreak your iPhone and install whatever apps you’d prefer.
- kalleboo 6y ago
  > Houses can’t be arbitrarily changed. Cars have governors. Scissors shouldn’t be run with. None of these regulations are decided by the company that manufactured the device, they are all decided democratically by an elected state. How about... Houses can't have arbitrary appliances installed that weren't made by someone approved by the house-builder Cars can't fill up gas from a stand not paying 30% by the car manufacturer Scissors can't cut paper sold by someone unaffiliated by the scissor manufacturer. Sounds reasonable to me! > If you don’t mind breaking the warranty, please jailbreak your iPhone and install whatever apps you’d prefer. No, Apple wanted jailbreaking to be "go to jail" illegal, not just voiding your warranty.
  - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
    Maybe I should have clarified. The Strata/HOA regulates the appliances, the customizations, even the “look and feel” of my patio.
  - dylan-m 6y ago
    > Scissors can't cut paper sold by someone unaffiliated by the scissor manufacturer. Of course, going by evidence in these threads, people would defend Scissors Corp to the death, arguing "but that's a feature which makes these scissors safe so people don't injure themselves, and sure they own half of the scissors (and paper) market but you can always bring your own scissors (and paper) and avoid interacting with people who use Scissors Corp stuff, so what's the problem?"
    - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
      If I bought scissors that could only cut certain types of paper, thickness or proprietary paper, I wouldn’t later complain about their inability to cut all paper. “Ownership” of a tool has always been limited to the feature set the manufacturer originally intended for it. This entitlement over the tools Apple creates, accurately advertises, and legal sells is the only problem I see. [1] https://www.sliceproducts.com/safety-scissors https://www.sliceproducts.com/safety-scissors
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > If I bought scissors that could only cut certain types of paper If there was a scissors duopoly, in which a company that controls 50% of the market, implemented practices that are anti-competitive, then this could be illegal. > has always been limited to the feature set the manufacturer originally intended for it. Actually, no. Once you purchased the item, you can do whatever you want with it, regardless of what the manufacture wants. > This entitlement This is about anti-trust law. Apple should follow the law. They are not entitled to break the law, without consequences.
        yazaddaruvala 6y ago
- stale2002 6y ago
  The US courts have consistently held that it is perfectly legal to do anything to your privated owned things that are not public. Your house example is wrong, because that has public viewing concerns on a plot of land. And your car example is incorrect. I could make any changes at all to a car, that is not put on public roads. That has nothing to do with the manufacturer putting restrictions on your car.
  - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
    iPhones are put on “public” internet and therefore is restricted for the safety of the user and the safety of society. If you want to cherry pick arguments we can do this all day. The reality is Apple is just doing what every manufacturer has done for millennia!
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > The reality is Apple is just doing what every manufacturer has done for millennia! Certain actions are illegal if a company has too much market power. Anti trust law does not require a literal, singular monopoly, in order for some anti-competitive behaviors to be illegal. Instead, Apple has ~50% of the market share in the US, and that is within the realm where certain actions become illegal, according to anti-trust law.
  - MichaelZuo 6y ago
    This is false, modern cars contain equipment capable of transmitting EM waves and thus regulated by the FCC and equivalent agencies in most other countries. These regulations apply even on private property. You can not arbitrarily change that legally. The same applies to all private houses, installing in a home a powerful transmitter to broadcast noise is certainly illegal without approval.

kalleboo 6y ago

No they shouldn't. All computing devices should be free and open. Stallman was right. The world is trending toward a corporate-owned hellhole.