4 ms·

We've been seeing these blog posts for over a decade and this doesn't offer anything particularly new. It would be nice to see one that actually offered constr

We've been seeing these blog posts for over a decade and this doesn't offer anything particularly new. It would be nice to see one that actually offered constructive and workable legal solutions other than "make iPhones general computing devices" even though the concept has no meaning in law and would bleed into other industries.

lux 6y ago
My point was to collect the arguments in one place (to clarify my own thinking), and that we need to establish that legal definition already. We've run the "unregulated app stores" experiment for long enough, now it's time to do the work of defining these things and regulating them properly. I'm interested in the bleed into other industries though, and would love some examples. It's important that laws be general enough not to be too targeted against particular actors but also to avoid side effects that adversely affect others in the process.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  to clarify my own thinking If it was just to clarify your own thinking, then why did you submit it to HN?
  - lux 6y ago
    Essays by definition are to clarify one's own thinking. Why does anyone share them with others? Because we think they contribute something of value to others.
- lovemenot 6y ago
  BeMye
lukifer 6y ago
> bleed into other industries And what would be so bad about this exactly? The comparison is oft made with closed stores for gaming consoles; but I don't see why regulating console manufacturers to require side-loading or third-party stores would be such a bad thing. There's no law of the universe which dictates that their business model be per-unit loss-leaders for game revenue splits.
- judge2020 6y ago
  In my opinion, it's an issue with the way it's being portrayed - not mentioning consoles, smart TVs, etc. can lead a reader to think that Apple is alone in these practices, when mentioning the other devices might provide more perspective.
  - callalex 6y ago
    When you are at the top of so many wealth lists you are subject to intense criticism that may not be directly attributed to you, but you are still taking advantage of. This is a good feature of the system.
- GloriousKoji 6y ago
  While some good and unique homebrew stuff certainly exists, I'm willing to bet the VAST majority of side loading and 3rd party stores on consoles would overwhelmingly be used for piracy if available.
  - lukifer 6y ago
    It's merely an accident of history that we have general-purpose computing at all [0], let alone anything like FOSS. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a universe where all consumer computers were locked-down appliances, and general computing was limited to a small number of credentialed researchers and professionals. In such a universe, similar claims would be made about the only purpose for general computing being piracy, crime, etc. At any rate, while I'd prefer fully open devices, it's also a false choice: strategies like Apple's code signing on MacOS could allow for authenticating binaries for the purposes of detecting piracy/malware, without requiring a monopoly on distribution. [0] https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
    - chii 6y ago
      > merely an accident of history that we have general-purpose computing at all [0] and a good accident. But because it's such a good outcome for society, the society in question _should_ look to create more of this. Like how democracy is a mere accident, but it's a good outcome, and society should work to replicate it and improve it. If parties under the current system don't stand to benefit, but the over all benefit is greater, then it's a good choice. Apple isn't entitled to own their walled garden - it's not a right. It's their privilege they built, but society can tear it down by decree if tearing it down leads to better outcome for society.
m3kw9 6y ago
Agreed. People that ask Apple to let iPhone to be completely open has no idea that their entire business model is based on vertical integration. Pretty much the opposite of completely open
- m4rtink 6y ago
  So that means their businesses model is based on shipping closed devices that infringe on user freedom & they can't survive without doing that ? Well, asbestos selling companies also didn't last long after the true danger of the material became widely known.
  - HatchedLake721 6y ago
    Have you forgotten to add /s at the end?! Please tell me you have.
  - spsful 6y ago
    Two completely unrelated sentiments but... ok
e_y_ 6y ago
I think this is one area where legal theory is not up to date with how society interacts with technology. For example, I strongly believe that Internet should be considered something akin to a utility, because it's such an integral part of our lives. If an ISP were allowed to filter the internet however it pleased, it could have a substantial impact on our personal freedom. Same goes for smartphones. Given that there's only two realistic choices, the Apple/Google duopoly means there are real restrictions on what kinds of apps/services you're allowed to access. Yes Google allows you to sideload apps, but if you use the same arguments about "they built the platform, they can charge/restrict whatever they want" that people use for Apple, what happens if Google takes that away and you're left with no real choice? I would have a hard time defining a legal principle of which industries are so critical that they deserve regulation, but I would say there's definitely an argument for applying it to smartphones, and less for something like game consoles. Ultimately it comes down to political discussions to decide what is worthy of regulation; over time, we've decided that things like transportation, finance, communications, food, medicine, and so forth require regulation, while other areas are very loosely regulated if at all.

lux 6y ago

My point was to collect the arguments in one place (to clarify my own thinking), and that we need to establish that legal definition already. We've run the "unregulated app stores" experiment for long enough, now it's time to do the work of defining these things and regulating them properly. I'm interested in the bleed into other industries though, and would love some examples. It's important that laws be general enough not to be too targeted against particular actors but also to avoid side effects that adversely affect others in the process.

reaperducer 6y ago
to clarify my own thinking If it was just to clarify your own thinking, then why did you submit it to HN?
- lux 6y ago
  Essays by definition are to clarify one's own thinking. Why does anyone share them with others? Because we think they contribute something of value to others.
lovemenot 6y ago
BeMye

lukifer 6y ago

> bleed into other industries And what would be so bad about this exactly? The comparison is oft made with closed stores for gaming consoles; but I don't see why regulating console manufacturers to require side-loading or third-party stores would be such a bad thing. There's no law of the universe which dictates that their business model be per-unit loss-leaders for game revenue splits.

judge2020 6y ago
In my opinion, it's an issue with the way it's being portrayed - not mentioning consoles, smart TVs, etc. can lead a reader to think that Apple is alone in these practices, when mentioning the other devices might provide more perspective.
- callalex 6y ago
  When you are at the top of so many wealth lists you are subject to intense criticism that may not be directly attributed to you, but you are still taking advantage of. This is a good feature of the system.
GloriousKoji 6y ago
While some good and unique homebrew stuff certainly exists, I'm willing to bet the VAST majority of side loading and 3rd party stores on consoles would overwhelmingly be used for piracy if available.
- lukifer 6y ago
  It's merely an accident of history that we have general-purpose computing at all [0], let alone anything like FOSS. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a universe where all consumer computers were locked-down appliances, and general computing was limited to a small number of credentialed researchers and professionals. In such a universe, similar claims would be made about the only purpose for general computing being piracy, crime, etc. At any rate, while I'd prefer fully open devices, it's also a false choice: strategies like Apple's code signing on MacOS could allow for authenticating binaries for the purposes of detecting piracy/malware, without requiring a monopoly on distribution. [0] https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
  - chii 6y ago
    > merely an accident of history that we have general-purpose computing at all [0] and a good accident. But because it's such a good outcome for society, the society in question _should_ look to create more of this. Like how democracy is a mere accident, but it's a good outcome, and society should work to replicate it and improve it. If parties under the current system don't stand to benefit, but the over all benefit is greater, then it's a good choice. Apple isn't entitled to own their walled garden - it's not a right. It's their privilege they built, but society can tear it down by decree if tearing it down leads to better outcome for society.

m3kw9 6y ago

Agreed. People that ask Apple to let iPhone to be completely open has no idea that their entire business model is based on vertical integration. Pretty much the opposite of completely open

m4rtink 6y ago
So that means their businesses model is based on shipping closed devices that infringe on user freedom & they can't survive without doing that ? Well, asbestos selling companies also didn't last long after the true danger of the material became widely known.
- HatchedLake721 6y ago
  Have you forgotten to add /s at the end?! Please tell me you have.
- spsful 6y ago
  Two completely unrelated sentiments but... ok

e_y_ 6y ago

I think this is one area where legal theory is not up to date with how society interacts with technology. For example, I strongly believe that Internet should be considered something akin to a utility, because it's such an integral part of our lives. If an ISP were allowed to filter the internet however it pleased, it could have a substantial impact on our personal freedom. Same goes for smartphones. Given that there's only two realistic choices, the Apple/Google duopoly means there are real restrictions on what kinds of apps/services you're allowed to access. Yes Google allows you to sideload apps, but if you use the same arguments about "they built the platform, they can charge/restrict whatever they want" that people use for Apple, what happens if Google takes that away and you're left with no real choice? I would have a hard time defining a legal principle of which industries are so critical that they deserve regulation, but I would say there's definitely an argument for applying it to smartphones, and less for something like game consoles. Ultimately it comes down to political discussions to decide what is worthy of regulation; over time, we've decided that things like transportation, finance, communications, food, medicine, and so forth require regulation, while other areas are very loosely regulated if at all.