8 ms·

> Scissors can't cut paper sold by someone unaffiliated by the scissor manufacturer. Of course, going by evidence in these threads, people would defend Scissor

> 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
    And the courts agreed! I agree! If you want to jailbreak your iPhone you can and you should! I even agree Apple should be forced to create more tools to create jailbroken iPhones. However, the warranty should be void. Same as if you use scissors as a hammer, which is your right, the warranty is void. Expecting the original warranty to hold, or expecting the manufacturer to help you misuse the tool is the entitlement.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > expecting the manufacturer to help If their actions are anti-competitive, then they absolutely have obligations, under anti-trust law, which does not require a literal monopoly, and only instead requires significant market power for these laws to apply. Apple is subject to the law. They have to follow it, or they will suffer consequences.
      - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
        If then yes. But it seems unlikely and my preference is to live in a world where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf. I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely. But that would definitely be better than the alternatives of allowing sideloading.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > If then yes. This is the entire point of the lawsuit and the debate.... That Apple's action were anti-competitive. You haven't actually given any reason as for why thats not true. > where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf. They will still be able to do that. They simple won't be allowed to make it extremely difficult for alternative app stores to be installed on the iPhone, if another user chooses to do so, if and when the lawsuit is resolved. You will still be perfectly allowed to continue to not install any other app stores that you don't want installed on your phone. > I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely They won't. Instead, as long as it is simple and easy for competitors to install apps stores on the iPhone, then the anti-competitive arguments will go away. > than the alternatives of allowing sideloading If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. Its pretty simple. Your rights are not infringed on, if Apple is forced to allow people who are not you, to install competing app stores.
        yazaddaruvala 6y ago
        > If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. This is my position on this matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24287042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24287042 Meanwhile, we clearly disagree. It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit. Best of luck to you and Epic’s position, but I truly hope the court isn’t misled by the short term “needs” of some iOS developers at the expense of the long term needs of Apple’s customers.

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
  And the courts agreed! I agree! If you want to jailbreak your iPhone you can and you should! I even agree Apple should be forced to create more tools to create jailbroken iPhones. However, the warranty should be void. Same as if you use scissors as a hammer, which is your right, the warranty is void. Expecting the original warranty to hold, or expecting the manufacturer to help you misuse the tool is the entitlement.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > expecting the manufacturer to help If their actions are anti-competitive, then they absolutely have obligations, under anti-trust law, which does not require a literal monopoly, and only instead requires significant market power for these laws to apply. Apple is subject to the law. They have to follow it, or they will suffer consequences.
    - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
      If then yes. But it seems unlikely and my preference is to live in a world where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf. I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely. But that would definitely be better than the alternatives of allowing sideloading.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > If then yes. This is the entire point of the lawsuit and the debate.... That Apple's action were anti-competitive. You haven't actually given any reason as for why thats not true. > where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf. They will still be able to do that. They simple won't be allowed to make it extremely difficult for alternative app stores to be installed on the iPhone, if another user chooses to do so, if and when the lawsuit is resolved. You will still be perfectly allowed to continue to not install any other app stores that you don't want installed on your phone. > I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely They won't. Instead, as long as it is simple and easy for competitors to install apps stores on the iPhone, then the anti-competitive arguments will go away. > than the alternatives of allowing sideloading If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. Its pretty simple. Your rights are not infringed on, if Apple is forced to allow people who are not you, to install competing app stores.
        yazaddaruvala 6y ago
        > If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. This is my position on this matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24287042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24287042 Meanwhile, we clearly disagree. It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit. Best of luck to you and Epic’s position, but I truly hope the court isn’t misled by the short term “needs” of some iOS developers at the expense of the long term needs of Apple’s customers.