4 ms·

> 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 bui

> 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?
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Well Android has 80% market share, but there’s too many confounding factors to know why. I’m certain there would be a new generation of startups especially focused on selling digital goods. Further, you need to look at incentives. Apple would almost certainly respond by lowering their fees as a move to stay competitive. That extra cash trickling downstream would enrich many more people, who then would go on to create new things. Not sure you have an argument that it would already have happened if it was so much better.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      > Well Android has 80% market share, but there’s too many confounding factors to know why. If the vast majority of devices already have this capability, what difference is it really going to make forcing it on the remaining 20%? Why hasn't Apple already been forced to lower their fees if they are the underdog in terms of market share? For that matter, why hasn't Google been forced to, given how easy it is to sideload?
      - nwienert 6y ago
        I think you've moved the goalposts quite a bit in this thread and I've engaged just to refute the sub-points, but the main points stand. Apple has dominance in many markets, like the US. In fact you could say the reason Android has such global market-share is because they commoditized their OS, ie, allowing for competition to drive down prices. So you're claiming the same forces wouldn't affect software? Android apps are generally cheaper, as well, though it's hard to pin why. The general principle of competition = lower prices applies here. I'd rather debate on what's right for consumers not whether some technical definition of a monopoly applies or anything like that. But to be honest there's not much more to be said - if you are against the legislation, then fine, it's a perfectly valid opinion. I think legislating allowing more freedom on personal general computing devices would be a good thing with many benefits to society as I've enumerated already.
        mullingitover 6y ago
Teever 6y ago
> I don't like the idea that the government can force you to build things you don't want to build. Oh but you do. Otherwise you'd choose to live in a country without a food code or electrical code or engineering standards for roads and bridges.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Public Heath and safety standards are irrelevant to product features, which is what we're taking about here.
  - Teever 6y ago
    How are health and safety standards irrelevant to product features?
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      Better question: how are they at all relevant? The health and safety regulations are proscriptive: you must not harm consumers. On the other hand, product features are creative expression. It would be like the government telling you that your novel must include at least three references to other writers' works.
      - ece 6y ago
        Anti-trust is about anti-competitive practices and consumer benefit. Carterfone and Microsoft are possibly the most relevant examples. Google and Apple are a duopoly in the phone market, and Apple's (and Google's in the case of Epic) behaviour towards these companies could be seen as anti-competitive. If you want to run a platform business, you'll need to be mindful of anti-trust law more than anything else. The Apple platform is perfectly capable of anti-competitive behaviour given it's market share, and doubly so given Apple and Google control 99% of the phone market.

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?
- nwienert 6y ago
  Well Android has 80% market share, but there’s too many confounding factors to know why. I’m certain there would be a new generation of startups especially focused on selling digital goods. Further, you need to look at incentives. Apple would almost certainly respond by lowering their fees as a move to stay competitive. That extra cash trickling downstream would enrich many more people, who then would go on to create new things. Not sure you have an argument that it would already have happened if it was so much better.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > Well Android has 80% market share, but there’s too many confounding factors to know why. If the vast majority of devices already have this capability, what difference is it really going to make forcing it on the remaining 20%? Why hasn't Apple already been forced to lower their fees if they are the underdog in terms of market share? For that matter, why hasn't Google been forced to, given how easy it is to sideload?
    - nwienert 6y ago
      I think you've moved the goalposts quite a bit in this thread and I've engaged just to refute the sub-points, but the main points stand. Apple has dominance in many markets, like the US. In fact you could say the reason Android has such global market-share is because they commoditized their OS, ie, allowing for competition to drive down prices. So you're claiming the same forces wouldn't affect software? Android apps are generally cheaper, as well, though it's hard to pin why. The general principle of competition = lower prices applies here. I'd rather debate on what's right for consumers not whether some technical definition of a monopoly applies or anything like that. But to be honest there's not much more to be said - if you are against the legislation, then fine, it's a perfectly valid opinion. I think legislating allowing more freedom on personal general computing devices would be a good thing with many benefits to society as I've enumerated already.
      - mullingitover 6y ago

Teever 6y ago

> I don't like the idea that the government can force you to build things you don't want to build. Oh but you do. Otherwise you'd choose to live in a country without a food code or electrical code or engineering standards for roads and bridges.

mullingitover 6y ago
Public Heath and safety standards are irrelevant to product features, which is what we're taking about here.
- Teever 6y ago
  How are health and safety standards irrelevant to product features?
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    Better question: how are they at all relevant? The health and safety regulations are proscriptive: you must not harm consumers. On the other hand, product features are creative expression. It would be like the government telling you that your novel must include at least three references to other writers' works.
    - ece 6y ago
      Anti-trust is about anti-competitive practices and consumer benefit. Carterfone and Microsoft are possibly the most relevant examples. Google and Apple are a duopoly in the phone market, and Apple's (and Google's in the case of Epic) behaviour towards these companies could be seen as anti-competitive. If you want to run a platform business, you'll need to be mindful of anti-trust law more than anything else. The Apple platform is perfectly capable of anti-competitive behaviour given it's market share, and doubly so given Apple and Google control 99% of the phone market.