6 ms·

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 o

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.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > 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. If this was really such a boon, wouldn't the devices where you can already do this have a huge market advantage? If so then why are we talking about forcing it on consumers and manufacturers?
threeseed 6y ago
Apps will simply require users to enable this "unlock device" setting. And people just do whatever the app says since they assume Apple has vetted it.
nuker 6y ago
> 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, Users will just flip it off for the first evil app they told to install by friends. Think about 95% of all users.
- nwienert 6y ago
  It’s still sandboxed. What evil thing would it be doing?
  - eqtn 6y ago
    Do you need the outside app to have access to bluetooth, location, storage etc? And if apple restricts the storage, then a company will sue apple again for the restrictions saying that the iOS photos app have unrestricted access to photos, whereas an outside app doesn't.
    - nwienert 6y ago
      Apple sandboxes each thing granularly. Even with photos you can choose to only let the app see just the photo you pick.
eqtn 6y ago
Then epic games, netflix, spotify and several other apps will have a tutorial on how to remove the lock, so that they can install the app or alternative appstores. And if apple makes it incredibly difficult to remove the lock, then company like Epic will sue again for making it so difficult to install 3rd party app stores (eg: Google play store)

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.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > 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. If this was really such a boon, wouldn't the devices where you can already do this have a huge market advantage? If so then why are we talking about forcing it on consumers and manufacturers?

threeseed 6y ago

Apps will simply require users to enable this "unlock device" setting. And people just do whatever the app says since they assume Apple has vetted it.

nuker 6y ago

> 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, Users will just flip it off for the first evil app they told to install by friends. Think about 95% of all users.

nwienert 6y ago
It’s still sandboxed. What evil thing would it be doing?
- eqtn 6y ago
  Do you need the outside app to have access to bluetooth, location, storage etc? And if apple restricts the storage, then a company will sue apple again for the restrictions saying that the iOS photos app have unrestricted access to photos, whereas an outside app doesn't.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Apple sandboxes each thing granularly. Even with photos you can choose to only let the app see just the photo you pick.

eqtn 6y ago

Then epic games, netflix, spotify and several other apps will have a tutorial on how to remove the lock, so that they can install the app or alternative appstores. And if apple makes it incredibly difficult to remove the lock, then company like Epic will sue again for making it so difficult to install 3rd party app stores (eg: Google play store)