3 ms·

The legislative solution to that would be to force all devices sold in the mass market to have the ability to use any operating system.

_fat_santa 6y ago
That just won't work. I see your point regarding laptops and mobile phones, but what about embedded devices and things like smart speakers? What's next? Amazon gets sued because a customer can't run Windows Vista on their Alexa. I'm being hyperbolic here but you get my point.
- thereddaikon 6y ago
  Those aren't general purpose compute devices. But the legislation shouldn't compel Apple to support arbitrary software. Simply to not prevent its use on the hardware they sell. So T2 has to go. Just like how the upcoming right to repair in the UK is getting it wrong. Compelling hardware makers to sell replacement parts for a set time frame is an unfair burden on them. The law should simply create the framework to allow the aftermarket to support the devices like it already does with cars. For example Ford will eventually stop selling parts for its cars but I can still go to Autozone and get parts for an old Ford that aftermarket companies have made. And Ford doesn't sue them into oblivion for doing so.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    If I recall correctly they don't prevent Apple from telling their suppliers to stop selling parts to 3rd parties and I think that's the key. Parts need to be available with documentation and it should be up to repair businesses or individual users if they want to stock it on their own. If I recall correctly it is enough if e.g. stores a stack of complete motherboards and makes it available to purchase at a price similar to a new laptop, rendering this legislation akin to virtue signalling.
- bubblethink 6y ago
  The legislation only makes it possible to do whatever you want (i.e., no tivoization). It doesn't entitle you to support.
- varispeed 6y ago
  It should be possible to install any operating system that is capable of running on given platform and manufacturer should not necessarily be required to contribute to those 3rd party operating systems, but they should provide all necessary documentation for 3rd party developers to adapt their operating systems to work on the device. For smart speakers I'd like to see that the device should have JTAG or similar ports exposed and basic documentation of how I/O is connected to microcontroller and how to boot your own firmware.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  The burden of porting the software is on whoever is trying to run it on a device. The burden of letting the consumer run whatever code they wish on the device should be on the hardware manufacturer (aka document how to upload the firmware and pass any boot signature checks). They have no responsibility beyond that. To suggest that the manufacturer should be forced into porting arbitrary software to their device frankly smacks of a strawman argument at best, and at worst feels like a deliberate misrepresentation of those who wish to have fully hackable devices in order to ridicule them.

_fat_santa 6y ago

That just won't work. I see your point regarding laptops and mobile phones, but what about embedded devices and things like smart speakers? What's next? Amazon gets sued because a customer can't run Windows Vista on their Alexa. I'm being hyperbolic here but you get my point.

thereddaikon 6y ago
Those aren't general purpose compute devices. But the legislation shouldn't compel Apple to support arbitrary software. Simply to not prevent its use on the hardware they sell. So T2 has to go. Just like how the upcoming right to repair in the UK is getting it wrong. Compelling hardware makers to sell replacement parts for a set time frame is an unfair burden on them. The law should simply create the framework to allow the aftermarket to support the devices like it already does with cars. For example Ford will eventually stop selling parts for its cars but I can still go to Autozone and get parts for an old Ford that aftermarket companies have made. And Ford doesn't sue them into oblivion for doing so.
- varispeed 6y ago
  If I recall correctly they don't prevent Apple from telling their suppliers to stop selling parts to 3rd parties and I think that's the key. Parts need to be available with documentation and it should be up to repair businesses or individual users if they want to stock it on their own. If I recall correctly it is enough if e.g. stores a stack of complete motherboards and makes it available to purchase at a price similar to a new laptop, rendering this legislation akin to virtue signalling.
bubblethink 6y ago
The legislation only makes it possible to do whatever you want (i.e., no tivoization). It doesn't entitle you to support.
varispeed 6y ago
It should be possible to install any operating system that is capable of running on given platform and manufacturer should not necessarily be required to contribute to those 3rd party operating systems, but they should provide all necessary documentation for 3rd party developers to adapt their operating systems to work on the device. For smart speakers I'd like to see that the device should have JTAG or similar ports exposed and basic documentation of how I/O is connected to microcontroller and how to boot your own firmware.
selfhoster11 6y ago
The burden of porting the software is on whoever is trying to run it on a device. The burden of letting the consumer run whatever code they wish on the device should be on the hardware manufacturer (aka document how to upload the firmware and pass any boot signature checks). They have no responsibility beyond that. To suggest that the manufacturer should be forced into porting arbitrary software to their device frankly smacks of a strawman argument at best, and at worst feels like a deliberate misrepresentation of those who wish to have fully hackable devices in order to ridicule them.