4 ms·

The issue isn't that apple made jailbreaking harder, its that apple shouldn't be the sole controller of what apps people can install on their phone. For example

The issue isn't that apple made jailbreaking harder, its that apple shouldn't be the sole controller of what apps people can install on their phone. For example, if you have a company with millions of users and Apple decides you are a threat to their business, (or whatever reason they make up), they can ban your apps from the store, (e.g. Epic Games). This is monopolistic behavior. If apple were to allow third party store options, (without jailbreaking required), there wouldn't be an issue. The root issue isn't jailbreaking, (that's still possible and required to install non-store apps), but rather the requirement that ONLY store apps can be installed in the first place.

dkonofalski 6y ago
That would be a completely legitimate argument except that people buy their devices with the understanding that APple is the sole controller of what they can install. It's not monopolistic behavior because Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set. The only unique thing in this lawsuit is that Cydia is claiming to be a competitor to the App Store and I firmly believe that it'll be tossed because Cydia's entire existence is predicated on a process that, at the time it was operating, is illegal and violates the DMCA. I don't necessarily think Cydia is bad and people should be able to jailbreak their devices if they want but that can't be used as the basis for a lawsuit that alleges monopolistic behavior or even anti-trust.
- restingrobot 6y ago
  That's not true though, Apple does make the devices, but the user owns them, and therefore has the legal right to install whatever they wish. Apple does not have control over this, as evidenced by the legality ruling of jailbreaking. >Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set. This is false. As proven time and time again, the Device Owner has full legal control after purchase. It is monopolistic behavior due to the scope of the control from Apple. The devices are the owner's property, and it is monopolistic for them to implement software/policies/hardware blocks, that prevent users from using the devices as they see fit. Take a simplistic example, Keurig. Keurig tried to prevent users from using any other coffee pod besides theirs. There is precedent to these monopoly lawsuits. https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/ https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/ https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/beverages/keurig-agrees-to-settle-indirect-buyers-antitrust-class-action-lawsuits-for-31m/#:~:text=Keurig%20has%20agreed%20to%20a,September%202010%20and%20August%202020 https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-pro....
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    >has the legal right to install whatever they wish Absolutely. But people buy the devices knowing that that's not an option. It's not like Apple locked down these devices and changed them after people bought them. You can absolutely jailbreak your device and put whatever you want on it and I fully support that. That doesn't make Apple's behavior monopolistic or an anti-trust violation. Your Keurig example isn't relatable or similar at all since Keurig both did have a monopoly on single-use coffee pods and that was the single purpose of the device. An optional App Store is not the same thing at all.
    - restingrobot 6y ago
      >But people buy the devices knowing that that's not an option. A manufacturer cannot dictate the consumer's options regarding the owned devices, even though they have it in their terms and conditions. Apple is currently being gobsmacked by right to repair claims under this very principle.
  - zepto 6y ago
    You are right that the legal owner has the right to install whatever they want. However Apple is under no obligation to do the work to build a mechanism to help them do so.
- chungus_khan 6y ago
  Jailbreaking absolutely does not violate the DMCA, nor is it illegal. Circumvention that isn't related to copyright infringement is not covered under the DMCA, and jailbreaking mobile devices has been ruled explicitly exempt on those grounds: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-23241.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-2... Stop spreading fud.
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    I'm not spreading FUD. That decision was made in 2018. At the time of Cydia's release, in 2008, it was a violation of the DMCA. You can't apply a ruling that happened 10 years later to argue that.
    - restingrobot 6y ago
      Before the decision, jailbreaking was not considered a violation of the DMCA. Apple sued and lost trying to make it one. So your premise that Cydia was somehow in violation of DMCA at the time is completely false.
    - chungus_khan 6y ago
      It was not made in 2018, that's just the latest renewal of the ruling (which was originally made in 2010). Apple's attempts to make it illegal were denied at the time too, because even without the ruling it fairly obviously falls under exemption. The ruling also just makes it explicit, the DMCA already doesn't cover things like jailbreaking because they don't relate to copyright, and do relate to the user enabling interoperability of their device with legally obtained software (17 U.S. Code § 1201 (f)). These rulings are not proclamations in contrast with the law, they are bound by it and must be valid interpretations of it. Apple's attempts to classify it otherwise were a clear attempt to abuse copyright law and were rejected as illegitimate. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
    - kmeisthax 6y ago
      The Copyright Office didn't construct an exemption out of whole cloth - they cannot do that, and they'd be overruled by Congress if they did. It's a recognition of the underlying fact that the DMCA does not cover TPMs that do not control access to a copyrighted work. The actual text of the law says that.
- biaachmonkie 6y ago
  Do "people" really have that understanding? I'd posit that that vast majority of Apple's userbase has given zero consideration to the issue at all. I suggest that if presented the choice of When you buy a phone would you rather ... A. that the maker of the phone has total and final control over what apps are available for you to install via it's own store. B. that the maker of the phone has a store pre-installed for you to install apps from, but you have the the choice to install apps from other 3rd party stores or directly yourself I'm pretty sure if put in that type of context most people would choose B. But they are never given that choice. The choice they get is over the maker of the device, Apple and option A or an Android based device that has some variation of B.
russli1993 6y ago
What you are saying is that such business model, where a company creates a computing device, sells the device, and then continue to own the customer funnel for software experiences on top of the device is illegal. If this sets a precedent, and does become the new "interpretation" for anti-monopoly laws, it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business model illegal. I could also make the same argument for any kind of "platform" like business. Essentially, when an entity sales one category of products, it cannot use this product's platform effect to control the sale of another category of products. What about leveraging bundling and network effect? For example, Apple Watch only works with iPhone. A person bought Apple Watch a year ago cannot buy a Android phone a year later and have the Apple Watch work as advertised when he/she first bought it. This would also be illegal under this precedent. I think this is a positive thing. But it does invalidate a lot of business model's tech companies are using right now and the higher valuations software/platform companies currently getting. It would also results in fundamental re-calculation of margins and business model for a lot of companies. Might lead to decreased valuations and revenue. This would negatively impact the shareholders, employees and company, who are also stakeholders in this discussion. And you also cannot look at this law from an ideology perspective, you need to look at the practical affects as well. Going forward, companies will also spent energy to design how their product will interoperate with other products especially those from competitors. For example, if iOS is going to have third party App Stores, it has to be designed in the OS. It cannot be an afterthought. Comparing iOS and Android, you realize when Google built Android it actually has to spent the time and the energy to design the system that enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App Store and install any app package" system. Google has also to spend energy to maintain and support the system every year since Android's release. I know that there are instances where Google want to make changes to Android to better support their own use cases but is not able to because Google has to support these flexibility points. If you look at a from angle of "how much benefit do I get from a fixed amount of effort", flexibility and interoperability becomes significant features. I think a lot of people underestimate just how much effort it is to design, engineer, test and maintain interoperability. From a business perspective, they need to think do I spend the time to engineer and maintain systems to enable interoperability? Or to enable my business use case and enable me to make more money? By changing the law interpretation, the law is making the decision for the business. It's forcing the business to say "hey you have to spend time to build things that might end up benefiting your competitors, and perhaps you don't have time to build this feature that would benefit your bottom line instead ". Not sure where your political spectrum lies, but this definitely doesn't sit well with political conservatism that advocates for less government control over private affairs. Again, ideally this new interpretation will be good, but I feel there will be a lot of resistance for this "reform" to go forward. btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to offer users application packages to download and install freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant size is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking users download Exe's or their own app launchers. Want to play Fortnite, download Epic store and Epic game launcher. Want to use Facebook and play Oculus games? Download Facebook store. Want to use Lightroom, download Adobe CC store. It will change the Apple's user experience, which is part of brand and product proposition. I know some people actually buy Apple because of this user experience. So is it okay for government to dictate such user experience is not allowed anymore? The private entity wants to design this kind of user experience, is it ideologically okay for the government to say "you cannot design a product this way anymore"? Maybe private entity should be able to design a product anyway they see fit, and let the market decide. Look at before there is a market for closed sourced developer tools and software. Now, there is no market for you if you don't open source your developer tools. People rather write apps for open source dbs and frameworks than some companies proprietary stuff. This is an example of market demanding openness and interoperability and making the producers change their behavior.

dkonofalski 6y ago

That would be a completely legitimate argument except that people buy their devices with the understanding that APple is the sole controller of what they can install. It's not monopolistic behavior because Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set. The only unique thing in this lawsuit is that Cydia is claiming to be a competitor to the App Store and I firmly believe that it'll be tossed because Cydia's entire existence is predicated on a process that, at the time it was operating, is illegal and violates the DMCA. I don't necessarily think Cydia is bad and people should be able to jailbreak their devices if they want but that can't be used as the basis for a lawsuit that alleges monopolistic behavior or even anti-trust.

restingrobot 6y ago
That's not true though, Apple does make the devices, but the user owns them, and therefore has the legal right to install whatever they wish. Apple does not have control over this, as evidenced by the legality ruling of jailbreaking. >Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set. This is false. As proven time and time again, the Device Owner has full legal control after purchase. It is monopolistic behavior due to the scope of the control from Apple. The devices are the owner's property, and it is monopolistic for them to implement software/policies/hardware blocks, that prevent users from using the devices as they see fit. Take a simplistic example, Keurig. Keurig tried to prevent users from using any other coffee pod besides theirs. There is precedent to these monopoly lawsuits. https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/ https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/ https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/beverages/keurig-agrees-to-settle-indirect-buyers-antitrust-class-action-lawsuits-for-31m/#:~:text=Keurig%20has%20agreed%20to%20a,September%202010%20and%20August%202020 https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-pro....
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  >has the legal right to install whatever they wish Absolutely. But people buy the devices knowing that that's not an option. It's not like Apple locked down these devices and changed them after people bought them. You can absolutely jailbreak your device and put whatever you want on it and I fully support that. That doesn't make Apple's behavior monopolistic or an anti-trust violation. Your Keurig example isn't relatable or similar at all since Keurig both did have a monopoly on single-use coffee pods and that was the single purpose of the device. An optional App Store is not the same thing at all.
  - restingrobot 6y ago
    >But people buy the devices knowing that that's not an option. A manufacturer cannot dictate the consumer's options regarding the owned devices, even though they have it in their terms and conditions. Apple is currently being gobsmacked by right to repair claims under this very principle.
- zepto 6y ago
  You are right that the legal owner has the right to install whatever they want. However Apple is under no obligation to do the work to build a mechanism to help them do so.
chungus_khan 6y ago
Jailbreaking absolutely does not violate the DMCA, nor is it illegal. Circumvention that isn't related to copyright infringement is not covered under the DMCA, and jailbreaking mobile devices has been ruled explicitly exempt on those grounds: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-23241.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-2... Stop spreading fud.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  I'm not spreading FUD. That decision was made in 2018. At the time of Cydia's release, in 2008, it was a violation of the DMCA. You can't apply a ruling that happened 10 years later to argue that.
  - restingrobot 6y ago
    Before the decision, jailbreaking was not considered a violation of the DMCA. Apple sued and lost trying to make it one. So your premise that Cydia was somehow in violation of DMCA at the time is completely false.
  - chungus_khan 6y ago
    It was not made in 2018, that's just the latest renewal of the ruling (which was originally made in 2010). Apple's attempts to make it illegal were denied at the time too, because even without the ruling it fairly obviously falls under exemption. The ruling also just makes it explicit, the DMCA already doesn't cover things like jailbreaking because they don't relate to copyright, and do relate to the user enabling interoperability of their device with legally obtained software (17 U.S. Code § 1201 (f)). These rulings are not proclamations in contrast with the law, they are bound by it and must be valid interpretations of it. Apple's attempts to classify it otherwise were a clear attempt to abuse copyright law and were rejected as illegitimate. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
  - kmeisthax 6y ago
    The Copyright Office didn't construct an exemption out of whole cloth - they cannot do that, and they'd be overruled by Congress if they did. It's a recognition of the underlying fact that the DMCA does not cover TPMs that do not control access to a copyrighted work. The actual text of the law says that.
biaachmonkie 6y ago
Do "people" really have that understanding? I'd posit that that vast majority of Apple's userbase has given zero consideration to the issue at all. I suggest that if presented the choice of When you buy a phone would you rather ... A. that the maker of the phone has total and final control over what apps are available for you to install via it's own store. B. that the maker of the phone has a store pre-installed for you to install apps from, but you have the the choice to install apps from other 3rd party stores or directly yourself I'm pretty sure if put in that type of context most people would choose B. But they are never given that choice. The choice they get is over the maker of the device, Apple and option A or an Android based device that has some variation of B.

russli1993 6y ago

What you are saying is that such business model, where a company creates a computing device, sells the device, and then continue to own the customer funnel for software experiences on top of the device is illegal. If this sets a precedent, and does become the new "interpretation" for anti-monopoly laws, it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business model illegal. I could also make the same argument for any kind of "platform" like business. Essentially, when an entity sales one category of products, it cannot use this product's platform effect to control the sale of another category of products. What about leveraging bundling and network effect? For example, Apple Watch only works with iPhone. A person bought Apple Watch a year ago cannot buy a Android phone a year later and have the Apple Watch work as advertised when he/she first bought it. This would also be illegal under this precedent. I think this is a positive thing. But it does invalidate a lot of business model's tech companies are using right now and the higher valuations software/platform companies currently getting. It would also results in fundamental re-calculation of margins and business model for a lot of companies. Might lead to decreased valuations and revenue. This would negatively impact the shareholders, employees and company, who are also stakeholders in this discussion. And you also cannot look at this law from an ideology perspective, you need to look at the practical affects as well. Going forward, companies will also spent energy to design how their product will interoperate with other products especially those from competitors. For example, if iOS is going to have third party App Stores, it has to be designed in the OS. It cannot be an afterthought. Comparing iOS and Android, you realize when Google built Android it actually has to spent the time and the energy to design the system that enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App Store and install any app package" system. Google has also to spend energy to maintain and support the system every year since Android's release. I know that there are instances where Google want to make changes to Android to better support their own use cases but is not able to because Google has to support these flexibility points. If you look at a from angle of "how much benefit do I get from a fixed amount of effort", flexibility and interoperability becomes significant features. I think a lot of people underestimate just how much effort it is to design, engineer, test and maintain interoperability. From a business perspective, they need to think do I spend the time to engineer and maintain systems to enable interoperability? Or to enable my business use case and enable me to make more money? By changing the law interpretation, the law is making the decision for the business. It's forcing the business to say "hey you have to spend time to build things that might end up benefiting your competitors, and perhaps you don't have time to build this feature that would benefit your bottom line instead ". Not sure where your political spectrum lies, but this definitely doesn't sit well with political conservatism that advocates for less government control over private affairs. Again, ideally this new interpretation will be good, but I feel there will be a lot of resistance for this "reform" to go forward. btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to offer users application packages to download and install freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant size is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking users download Exe's or their own app launchers. Want to play Fortnite, download Epic store and Epic game launcher. Want to use Facebook and play Oculus games? Download Facebook store. Want to use Lightroom, download Adobe CC store. It will change the Apple's user experience, which is part of brand and product proposition. I know some people actually buy Apple because of this user experience. So is it okay for government to dictate such user experience is not allowed anymore? The private entity wants to design this kind of user experience, is it ideologically okay for the government to say "you cannot design a product this way anymore"? Maybe private entity should be able to design a product anyway they see fit, and let the market decide. Look at before there is a market for closed sourced developer tools and software. Now, there is no market for you if you don't open source your developer tools. People rather write apps for open source dbs and frameworks than some companies proprietary stuff. This is an example of market demanding openness and interoperability and making the producers change their behavior.