6 ms·

> Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. I have the choice of buying a completely controllable android device

> Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. I have the choice of buying a completely controllable android device if I want to install mystery apps willy-nilly. I'm not interested in that, and there are millions like me. I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check. This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past, where Firefox users complained that the browser was slow. People didn't really take into account that the slowness wasn't fault of Firefox, but of the zillion janky browser extensions people freely installed. Chrome came along, and people were wowed by how fast it was, not realizing it was 'fast' because they hadn't installed 47 browser extensions yet. Apple doesn't want to be Firefox, and I don't blame them. I want my phone to be like a Nintendo, I don't really care about the freedom to install any random code I download (even though I really could if I wanted to install something I built locally with XCode). First and foremost I want developers to be terrified of getting their publishing privileges yanked if they step out of line.

nwienert 6y ago
So, let’s apply this same logic to accessibility. Let’s say the government says “devices must have voice over functionality”. Ok, great. Apple puts that as an option, and we’re done. The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. Apple adds a setting in the settings menu. You still get your locked down device by default, and much like blind people, people who care about controlling their device are given that option, too. What you’re arguing is akin to saying, “I’m not blind, so Apple shouldn’t ever even have a Voice Over option, because it’s not my preference, even if it’s just in the settings”. There’s a false dichotomy - Apple can still keep it locked down by default. You still get your device just as safe and sound. And much like accessibility settings, most people wouldn’t bother to find the setting, and if they did, they would have a big warning (and of course Apple could have another big warning on every install, as well as keep all their sand boxing and permissions access rules active). There’s no loser here. If grandma digs deep into the settings and ignores multiple warnings, it seems she is proficient enough to take on the risk. Forcing blind people to not have any voice over because grandma may accidentally turn it on and have a bad outcome is a weak argument.
- auggierose 6y ago
  you cannot apply the same logic to something entirely different
- Terretta 6y ago
  Except that DRM is legal, and Apple devices are consoles / appliances: "What's a computer?"
- moenzuel 6y ago
  Isn’t one of the points Epic is suing Google for because Google has a ton of warnings when side loading? I’m curious if there is a middle ground where grandma is protected but developers don’t feel they are described as potential malware.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. I don't like the idea that the government can force you to build things you don't want to build. If I don't want to build a general purpose computing device, why should the government be able to force me to? There's a compelling argument for requiring building in handicapped-accessible features, but that is relevant to the equal protection clause of the constitution. There's no implied constitutional right to general-purpose computing.
  - madrox 6y ago
    I think that was an analogy where Apple was the government
  - dml2135 6y ago
    I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it is relevant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, not the Constitution.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Our justice system is good at drawing squiggly lines. It’s luckily based on intent and outcome and not exact wording. There’s no reason the law couldn’t carve out a class of devices as “general purpose computing devices” which would exclude fine homemade / artisanal / hyper-focused kindles, gaming consoles, etc. of course these lines get moved around and tested in many ways. Much like how assault weapons are hard to define, and yet regulated in many places. But laws like this exist all over, and many do great good for the common cause. Accessibility is one example. If unlocking general purpose computing devices drove trillions in GDP and innovation, didn’t harm anyone, and generally improved consumers lives, I don’t see why we need a direct precedent. We have laws on return policies, lemons, telephone usage, and all sorts of consumer driven things. There’s plenty of indirect precedent.
wraptile 6y ago
> I have the choice A lot of people don't or aren't even aware of the dangers of walled gardens. Like it or not goverments job is to regulate and protect people and the economy: be it monopolies, user data or anti-competitive practices. Libertarians aren't ios target, it's average casual tech ignorant people who'll blindly trusts the system because they don't care.
luhn 6y ago
> This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past, where Firefox users complained that the browser was slow. People didn't really take into account that the slowness wasn't fault of Firefox, but of the zillion janky browser extensions people freely installed. Chrome came along, and people were wowed by how fast it was, not realizing it was 'fast' because they hadn't installed 47 browser extensions yet. Not really relevant to your point, but Chrome was legitimately faster than Firefox for a long time. It wasn't just extension bloat, V8 was a huge leap in JS speed and Chrome optimized the hell out of rendering. Firefox wasn't able to bridge that gap until their recent Quantum initiative.
Barrin92 6y ago
> I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check. That's fine but how does from that statement follow that it's a good idea to let Apple do it to everyone? You don't want things, that's fine, don't get them. Nobody is asking to add anything to the things you already like, ruining them for you. People are asking for freedom of choice. It's like saying you want to live under permanent surveillance, which you can do, you can have a security company install a camera in every room of your house, but why does that need to apply to the entire city block? How are you worse off if Apple is required to say, allow third party app stores, which you don't need to touch? In the same vein, why was Firefox ruined for you by addons if you didn't need to install any?

nwienert 6y ago

So, let’s apply this same logic to accessibility. Let’s say the government says “devices must have voice over functionality”. Ok, great. Apple puts that as an option, and we’re done. The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. Apple adds a setting in the settings menu. You still get your locked down device by default, and much like blind people, people who care about controlling their device are given that option, too. What you’re arguing is akin to saying, “I’m not blind, so Apple shouldn’t ever even have a Voice Over option, because it’s not my preference, even if it’s just in the settings”. There’s a false dichotomy - Apple can still keep it locked down by default. You still get your device just as safe and sound. And much like accessibility settings, most people wouldn’t bother to find the setting, and if they did, they would have a big warning (and of course Apple could have another big warning on every install, as well as keep all their sand boxing and permissions access rules active). There’s no loser here. If grandma digs deep into the settings and ignores multiple warnings, it seems she is proficient enough to take on the risk. Forcing blind people to not have any voice over because grandma may accidentally turn it on and have a bad outcome is a weak argument.

auggierose 6y ago
you cannot apply the same logic to something entirely different
Terretta 6y ago
Except that DRM is legal, and Apple devices are consoles / appliances: "What's a computer?"
moenzuel 6y ago
Isn’t one of the points Epic is suing Google for because Google has a ton of warnings when side loading? I’m curious if there is a middle ground where grandma is protected but developers don’t feel they are described as potential malware.
mullingitover 6y ago
> The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. I don't like the idea that the government can force you to build things you don't want to build. If I don't want to build a general purpose computing device, why should the government be able to force me to? There's a compelling argument for requiring building in handicapped-accessible features, but that is relevant to the equal protection clause of the constitution. There's no implied constitutional right to general-purpose computing.
- madrox 6y ago
  I think that was an analogy where Apple was the government
- dml2135 6y ago
  I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it is relevant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, not the Constitution.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Our justice system is good at drawing squiggly lines. It’s luckily based on intent and outcome and not exact wording. There’s no reason the law couldn’t carve out a class of devices as “general purpose computing devices” which would exclude fine homemade / artisanal / hyper-focused kindles, gaming consoles, etc. of course these lines get moved around and tested in many ways. Much like how assault weapons are hard to define, and yet regulated in many places. But laws like this exist all over, and many do great good for the common cause. Accessibility is one example. If unlocking general purpose computing devices drove trillions in GDP and innovation, didn’t harm anyone, and generally improved consumers lives, I don’t see why we need a direct precedent. We have laws on return policies, lemons, telephone usage, and all sorts of consumer driven things. There’s plenty of indirect precedent.

wraptile 6y ago

> I have the choice A lot of people don't or aren't even aware of the dangers of walled gardens. Like it or not goverments job is to regulate and protect people and the economy: be it monopolies, user data or anti-competitive practices. Libertarians aren't ios target, it's average casual tech ignorant people who'll blindly trusts the system because they don't care.

luhn 6y ago

> This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past, where Firefox users complained that the browser was slow. People didn't really take into account that the slowness wasn't fault of Firefox, but of the zillion janky browser extensions people freely installed. Chrome came along, and people were wowed by how fast it was, not realizing it was 'fast' because they hadn't installed 47 browser extensions yet. Not really relevant to your point, but Chrome was legitimately faster than Firefox for a long time. It wasn't just extension bloat, V8 was a huge leap in JS speed and Chrome optimized the hell out of rendering. Firefox wasn't able to bridge that gap until their recent Quantum initiative.

Barrin92 6y ago

> I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check. That's fine but how does from that statement follow that it's a good idea to let Apple do it to everyone? You don't want things, that's fine, don't get them. Nobody is asking to add anything to the things you already like, ruining them for you. People are asking for freedom of choice. It's like saying you want to live under permanent surveillance, which you can do, you can have a security company install a camera in every room of your house, but why does that need to apply to the entire city block? How are you worse off if Apple is required to say, allow third party app stores, which you don't need to touch? In the same vein, why was Firefox ruined for you by addons if you didn't need to install any?