4 ms·

If I build an operating system + hardware, should I be legally mandated to provide tooling to make it easy for users to find and install arbitrary software?

singularity2001 6y ago
It should be mandatory to allow installing arbitrary apps, which has recently become nigh impossible, at least I couldn't find any way to distribute my rejected app.
- jakeva 6y ago
  Any justification for forcing a hardware maker to allow arbitrary apps on their hardware, aside from your personal experience with being rejected?
  - ajconway 6y ago
    A single entity that only serves its shareholders is able to singlehandedly terminate almost any IT business out there... Sounds dangerous.
  - inigoalonso 6y ago
    I don't care about their hardware, I care about the hardware I own.
    - jakeva 6y ago
      Then it seems the rational thing for you to do is to buy hardware that allows arbitrary software to be run
grahamburger 6y ago
There's quite a lot of grey area between "legally mandated to make it easy" and "legally mandated to not make it impossibly difficult."
- karpierz 6y ago
  I agree, but the fundamental question is do you want the government to regulate what kind of OS interface should be legal?
  - criddell 6y ago
    When it's good for consumers, sure. At one point AT&T was required to allow consumers to buy and connect their own handsets rather than only allowing them to rent from AT&T. Isn't that similar?
    - M4v3R 6y ago
      > Isn't that similar? No, what you described was a simple change in how the product was distributed. Forcing Apple to engineer a way to add 3rd party app stores on their platform would require significant engineering effort from them and changing their operating system internals significantly.
      - criddell 6y ago
        So to stick with the telecom example, if you want to sell telecom equipment or operate a phone company you must include intercept capability for law enforcement. That involves engineering changes in the hardware and software, business operations changes to manage and execute the intercept requests, etc... Is that a closer example? For Apple it might be less expensive to just make a single policy change - allow apps to use alternate payment providers. That feels somewhat close to forcing AT&T to allow alternate telephone providers.
      - grahamburger 6y ago
        How much engineering does Google do to make sure F-droid or Amazon App Store works android? I would be surprised if it's very much.
  - izacus 6y ago
    Sure, but that's not new. Here in our EU country, governmennt dictates the railroad owner to allow other railroad companies to drive freight on it (although it fought tooth and nails to continue fleecing everyone by noncompetitive prices). Competition is the basis of functional free market - and forces which prevent it are driving it to be abusive and not force of progress anymore.
ajconway 6y ago
There are all sorts of regulations in other fields, some of them serve public interest (as all of them should). Forcing a very powerful company into making their platform more open might be OK.
- karpierz 6y ago
  It might be, but you can make same argument about any curated platform. I also don't think this serves the public interest. App developers have much less interest in maintaining the privacy of users and making it easy to cancel subscriptions, among other things.
  - ajconway 6y ago
    This is a difficult issue because it involves restricting the freedom of a service provider to develop their product as they see fit. Ideally, the market itself should force companies to make things that are beneficial to the customers. Unfortunately, real customers can be manipulated, that is why there are regulations. I don't have a good answer to why there needs to be a regulation in this case, but it wouldn't be the first. As I mentioned in another reply, both Apple and Google, despite not being monopolists, can arbitrarily restrict competition, because they have the power to refuse serving some apps. I would argue that it is dangerous, and corporations should not have that kind of power.
onion2k 6y ago
I don't think you should be legally mandated to make it easy, but if you sell a product to someone you shouldn't be allowed to stop them using it in the way they want to. If you do choose to retain control over how they can use the device then you should accept there might need to be regulation over what limits you can put in place in order to stop you doing things that are anti-competitive.
- karpierz 6y ago
  If users want to jailbreak their devices, that's up to them. Apple doesn't stop you from doing anything with your device, Apple thugs won't break your kneecaps if you subvert their restrictions.
  - izacus 6y ago
    > Apple doesn't stop you from doing anything with your device, Apple thugs won't break your kneecaps if you subvert their restrictions. Apple has added code that's explicitly built just to prevent running code without their approval. They even add code that prevents usage of compatible periphelas that don't have their own DRM chip. They've built dedicated hardware just to lock you out of doing "anything" with your device. That's a really really bizarre definition of "doesn't stop you".
  - orangecat 6y ago
    If users want to jailbreak their devices, that's up to them. Only because of a temporary DMCA exemption that Apple has consistently opposed. If they had their way, jailbreaking would be a federal crime.
izacus 6y ago
In ideal world, yes. OS vendor should not dictate what runs on the OS and under which conditions. Same for HW vendors. This is a prerequirement for free market to work - the option for new competition to crop up in different fields and give you more options, more innovation and the ability to beat the platform owner at their own stagnation. This does not exclude the platform owner from launching their own stack and competing on its merits. It's the forceful blocking that's anticompetitive and prevents innovation and improvement.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  And if there were no App Store at all would Apple have been obligated to allow one? Or any third party software? That seems to be the argument being made. Frankly, if it's between opening up iOS to all software or no third-party software at all, I'd take the latter. That's the peace of mind I wanted when I bought my iOS item. Having a singular, curated App Store is the next best thing for that kind of platform. There are other platforms available for other designs and purposes.
dooglius 6y ago
Roughly, what you shouldn't be able to do is distribute a product with that requires a contract in order to build upon it or extend it. You'd have to tease out the nuance of this more in legalese for sure, but that's the gist of it. The application to OS+software is a special case, the same principle applies in e.g. why Keurig's K-Cups DRM scheme should not be legal.
ksk 6y ago
If you build an OS + hardware, how are you assuming apriori that you have users and also developers who write software that targets your platform? But anyway, the answer is no you should not be legally mandated in your case of boutique products. The rules are different when free-markets fail, and one product or service dominates the entire market segment or exerts a large influence on the market (as determined by a legal authority). The entire purpose of government is to serve our needs, if its no longer doing that we should amend laws/rules/policies as necessary. Everyone should be free to make an argument for their case.
cblconfederate 6y ago
if you want your IP protections, yes. Companies don't exist in vacuum, they are subject to laws of the land, some of them advocated by people called programmers. If it's fine for companies to demand IP protection, it's fine for developers to demand fair access to that market.
oscargrouch 6y ago
"arbitrary software"... Take the world "arbitrary" and we can see the truth. Now let me rephrase this in the right way, to avoid the language tricks used on your question. Should the user have the right to install software on the device they bough and therefore, they own? Its not "legally mandating" the provider to be "forced" to do anything. Its just a matter of rights of the user who buy stuff from anyone. Its a pure ethical thing to do, that protects the user freedom, and thats what the law should do, to protect the rights of the party with the least power in a negotiation between two parties. Especially if the concept of property and ownership is involved. I dont get the half of the comments in this thread. If we depended on your point of views, we would be stuck with the Intels, Microsoft's, Apples and the likes with absolute control into our digital lifes. Remember Prism and the collusion of goverment spy agencies and tech companies to know everything everyone was doing? Now imagine how much power this represents? Imagine a modern fascist with that much power on his hands? What would he would be able to do? You dont even need to get into conspiracy theories, but just think about the rights and freedoms of the users against the effort of tech companies to control them. But to avoid the centralization of power and control would be a side-effect of people standing for those simple right's.

singularity2001 6y ago

It should be mandatory to allow installing arbitrary apps, which has recently become nigh impossible, at least I couldn't find any way to distribute my rejected app.

jakeva 6y ago
Any justification for forcing a hardware maker to allow arbitrary apps on their hardware, aside from your personal experience with being rejected?
- ajconway 6y ago
  A single entity that only serves its shareholders is able to singlehandedly terminate almost any IT business out there... Sounds dangerous.
- inigoalonso 6y ago
  I don't care about their hardware, I care about the hardware I own.
  - jakeva 6y ago
    Then it seems the rational thing for you to do is to buy hardware that allows arbitrary software to be run

grahamburger 6y ago

There's quite a lot of grey area between "legally mandated to make it easy" and "legally mandated to not make it impossibly difficult."

karpierz 6y ago
I agree, but the fundamental question is do you want the government to regulate what kind of OS interface should be legal?
- criddell 6y ago
  When it's good for consumers, sure. At one point AT&T was required to allow consumers to buy and connect their own handsets rather than only allowing them to rent from AT&T. Isn't that similar?
  - M4v3R 6y ago
    > Isn't that similar? No, what you described was a simple change in how the product was distributed. Forcing Apple to engineer a way to add 3rd party app stores on their platform would require significant engineering effort from them and changing their operating system internals significantly.
    - criddell 6y ago
      So to stick with the telecom example, if you want to sell telecom equipment or operate a phone company you must include intercept capability for law enforcement. That involves engineering changes in the hardware and software, business operations changes to manage and execute the intercept requests, etc... Is that a closer example? For Apple it might be less expensive to just make a single policy change - allow apps to use alternate payment providers. That feels somewhat close to forcing AT&T to allow alternate telephone providers.
    - grahamburger 6y ago
      How much engineering does Google do to make sure F-droid or Amazon App Store works android? I would be surprised if it's very much.
- izacus 6y ago
  Sure, but that's not new. Here in our EU country, governmennt dictates the railroad owner to allow other railroad companies to drive freight on it (although it fought tooth and nails to continue fleecing everyone by noncompetitive prices). Competition is the basis of functional free market - and forces which prevent it are driving it to be abusive and not force of progress anymore.

ajconway 6y ago

There are all sorts of regulations in other fields, some of them serve public interest (as all of them should). Forcing a very powerful company into making their platform more open might be OK.

karpierz 6y ago
It might be, but you can make same argument about any curated platform. I also don't think this serves the public interest. App developers have much less interest in maintaining the privacy of users and making it easy to cancel subscriptions, among other things.
- ajconway 6y ago
  This is a difficult issue because it involves restricting the freedom of a service provider to develop their product as they see fit. Ideally, the market itself should force companies to make things that are beneficial to the customers. Unfortunately, real customers can be manipulated, that is why there are regulations. I don't have a good answer to why there needs to be a regulation in this case, but it wouldn't be the first. As I mentioned in another reply, both Apple and Google, despite not being monopolists, can arbitrarily restrict competition, because they have the power to refuse serving some apps. I would argue that it is dangerous, and corporations should not have that kind of power.

onion2k 6y ago

I don't think you should be legally mandated to make it easy, but if you sell a product to someone you shouldn't be allowed to stop them using it in the way they want to. If you do choose to retain control over how they can use the device then you should accept there might need to be regulation over what limits you can put in place in order to stop you doing things that are anti-competitive.

karpierz 6y ago
If users want to jailbreak their devices, that's up to them. Apple doesn't stop you from doing anything with your device, Apple thugs won't break your kneecaps if you subvert their restrictions.
- izacus 6y ago
  > Apple doesn't stop you from doing anything with your device, Apple thugs won't break your kneecaps if you subvert their restrictions. Apple has added code that's explicitly built just to prevent running code without their approval. They even add code that prevents usage of compatible periphelas that don't have their own DRM chip. They've built dedicated hardware just to lock you out of doing "anything" with your device. That's a really really bizarre definition of "doesn't stop you".
- orangecat 6y ago
  If users want to jailbreak their devices, that's up to them. Only because of a temporary DMCA exemption that Apple has consistently opposed. If they had their way, jailbreaking would be a federal crime.

izacus 6y ago

In ideal world, yes. OS vendor should not dictate what runs on the OS and under which conditions. Same for HW vendors. This is a prerequirement for free market to work - the option for new competition to crop up in different fields and give you more options, more innovation and the ability to beat the platform owner at their own stagnation. This does not exclude the platform owner from launching their own stack and competing on its merits. It's the forceful blocking that's anticompetitive and prevents innovation and improvement.

52-6F-62 6y ago
And if there were no App Store at all would Apple have been obligated to allow one? Or any third party software? That seems to be the argument being made. Frankly, if it's between opening up iOS to all software or no third-party software at all, I'd take the latter. That's the peace of mind I wanted when I bought my iOS item. Having a singular, curated App Store is the next best thing for that kind of platform. There are other platforms available for other designs and purposes.

dooglius 6y ago

Roughly, what you shouldn't be able to do is distribute a product with that requires a contract in order to build upon it or extend it. You'd have to tease out the nuance of this more in legalese for sure, but that's the gist of it. The application to OS+software is a special case, the same principle applies in e.g. why Keurig's K-Cups DRM scheme should not be legal.

ksk 6y ago

If you build an OS + hardware, how are you assuming apriori that you have users and also developers who write software that targets your platform? But anyway, the answer is no you should not be legally mandated in your case of boutique products. The rules are different when free-markets fail, and one product or service dominates the entire market segment or exerts a large influence on the market (as determined by a legal authority). The entire purpose of government is to serve our needs, if its no longer doing that we should amend laws/rules/policies as necessary. Everyone should be free to make an argument for their case.

cblconfederate 6y ago

if you want your IP protections, yes. Companies don't exist in vacuum, they are subject to laws of the land, some of them advocated by people called programmers. If it's fine for companies to demand IP protection, it's fine for developers to demand fair access to that market.

oscargrouch 6y ago

"arbitrary software"... Take the world "arbitrary" and we can see the truth. Now let me rephrase this in the right way, to avoid the language tricks used on your question. Should the user have the right to install software on the device they bough and therefore, they own? Its not "legally mandating" the provider to be "forced" to do anything. Its just a matter of rights of the user who buy stuff from anyone. Its a pure ethical thing to do, that protects the user freedom, and thats what the law should do, to protect the rights of the party with the least power in a negotiation between two parties. Especially if the concept of property and ownership is involved. I dont get the half of the comments in this thread. If we depended on your point of views, we would be stuck with the Intels, Microsoft's, Apples and the likes with absolute control into our digital lifes. Remember Prism and the collusion of goverment spy agencies and tech companies to know everything everyone was doing? Now imagine how much power this represents? Imagine a modern fascist with that much power on his hands? What would he would be able to do? You dont even need to get into conspiracy theories, but just think about the rights and freedoms of the users against the effort of tech companies to control them. But to avoid the centralization of power and control would be a side-effect of people standing for those simple right's.