6 ms·

Hopefully one day companies like Apple will be forced to disclose documentation to the devices they sell so that consumers can make the full use of them and won

Hopefully one day companies like Apple will be forced to disclose documentation to the devices they sell so that consumers can make the full use of them and won't have to waste time on reverse engineering.

enos_feedler 6y ago
that would put a lot of obligation on the vendor to honor some kind of contract they don't need to do today. They can change anything they want with zero cost today.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Zero cost to them perhaps. However, those costs often prove quite high for others. Right now increasing numbers of things are, "works until it doesn't" and that imposes risks and costs to everyone. Perhaps those get high enough to warrant legislative solutions.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  hah, bring up a good point but get downvoted because it doesn't jive.
- gpm 6y ago
  They could change what they want afterwards too presumably, they'd just need to publish the new documentation along side it.
  - ece 6y ago
    This is what Intel/AMD have done for multiple generations of their GPU hardware now for a decade or more. Hasn't stopped them from innovating. Nvidia has PTX with a proprietary steam assembler underneath which can retarget any hardware changes. Either way, Apple can offer more documentation than it currently does.
- NoSorryCannot 6y ago
  Does documentation necessarily create such an obligation? That would jeopardize most open-source projects, most of which explicitly promise no warranty.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    Isn’t a warranty of merchantability thing? If something is described as doing X, and you take X away, you’ve taken value from my property.
    - e3bc54b2 6y ago
      Which makes an excellent case for mandatory docs. I don't want my speakers to stop working because I stopped paying subscription.
      - phs318u 6y ago
        As long as they are "your" speakers. Subscription sounds like you're renting speakers. I know that's probably a facetious/pedantic point but it strikes to the heart of the fact that we should be calling for more accurate description of the relationship between a consumer and the hardware they acquire i.e. calling a spade a spade. You're not buying a laptop, or an M1 CPU in a metal case. You're buying a magic Apple service delivery box that happens to permit certain other uses. Customer expectations should match description should match function. I say this as a longstanding iPhone user, and up until recently, Mac user.
  - hishnash 6y ago
    The big issue with this is apple does not own all of the IP in a any of their hardware, much of it is a mixture of licenses from many vendors some of it owned by apple much of it just licensed. Apples licenses for these will include very strict NDA clauses that make it impossible for apple to share the documentation they are provided but that vendor.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
- _ph_ 6y ago
  No, this applies only to APIs, which are documented as such. The users of such APIs might have a certain expectation of long-term support. This is talking about documentation of the device which is sold, the software equivalent of providing schematics to eletrical devices. Which for a long time was quite common. You could buy stereo amplifiers with complete schematics. They don't create an obligation that future products have the same schematics, their purpose is solely for the repair of the device sold.
- gspr 6y ago
  > that would put a lot of obligation on the vendor to honor some kind of contract they don't need to do today. They can change anything they want with zero cost today. So why can't we just allow them to keep making those changes, but still have to document them? I'm sure they document them internally anyway.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    We could have a tax on documents which are non-public. For example, the tax could be 1 cent per page per day which is non-public. It would apply to source code, images, or anything else that might be reasonably printed on a page. Then companies could pay the government to keep their employees work secret, or publish it. It should help innovation as far more work done by humans gets made available for others to build from.
    - gspr 6y ago
      That's an interesting idea! Do you know if anyone has explored this further?
    - varispeed 6y ago
      It will only make products more expensive and less accessible and people still won't be able to fully use _their_ devices.
      - londons_explore 6y ago
        Except it won't - companies which are fully open source won't have any additional costs, and their products can be priced the same as normal. It's only companies who have fully closed tech will have to pay the tax, and really that tax is compensating the rest of the country for the work and knowledge that company wants to keep secret.
      - gspr 6y ago
        That might happen to some products, yes. No different from any other tax. I don't see a fundamental problem.
meibo 6y ago
Then you'll probably get a link to a zip on the very bottom of the "legal >> open source" section of their website with badly auto-generated API docs without any comments or context, knowing big closed-source software orgs.
- pthariensflame 6y ago
  That’s more or less what they currently do: https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/
troutmskreplica 6y ago
Under what legal principle would this be based on, and why haven’t we already seen this happen over say the last 50 years of consumer electronics?
- notafraudster 6y ago
  I mean, we also haven't seen it in the last 150 years of consumer mechanical parts either!
- gpm 6y ago
  Eh, lots of potential future legal principles. Right to repair. Hasn't happened because it's not a right yet. Alternatively maybe anti trust, since using your monopoly on hardware to get a monopoly on software which is the essence of anti trust anyways. Hasn't happened because anti trust enforcement is really weak. Probably also doesn't force documentation. Alternatively copyright and patent misuse, which is using your government granted monopoly on creating the exact hardware (copyright), or some of the features in the hardware (patents) to get a monopoly in an adjacent area (running software on that hardware) voiding the copyrights and patents. Hasn't happened because while the law exists (in common law) the courts apply it very conservatively. Also probably doesn't get documentation, just the right to run things on it. Alternatively an interpretation of the quid quo pro of intellectual property (i.e. you disclose something in exchange for a temporary monopoly) being interpreted more strongly, such that you have to disclose the details of the internals to get intellectual property rights. Hasn't happened yet because today the quid quo pro isn't interpreted that strongly.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Probably also doesn't force documentation. Samba was able to get documentation for SMB/CIFS this way.
  - simondotau 6y ago
    > Right to repair. The interactions between a silicon chip and software drivers has nothing to do with right to repair. Never has been. > Alternatively maybe anti trust, since using your monopoly on hardware to get a monopoly on software Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any hardware, except insofar as any company has a natural monopoly on their own products, as made explicitly legal by copyright and patent laws. Furthermore, one has to remember that there's a world outside of commodity PC hardware. The notion of hardware and software being separate is the rare exception, not the rule. Other than commodity PC computer hardware, nearly every product sold is both software and hardware bundled as a unit, with no marketplace expectation of end users replacing the software with an alternative. Whether you're talking about a car, washing machine, television, digital camera, microwave oven, garage door opener, CD player, indoor-outdoor thermometer, label printer, or an air conditioner, the software that comes with it is seen as part of the product. In fact, this is even true for many computer components—companies like Nvidia aren't being any more helpful about their GPUs as Apple is with theirs. Apple's computers straddle an interesting boundary between consumer devices and commodity PCs. But make no mistake, Apple isn't obligated to do anything here. You're not entitled to something because you want it. > using your government granted monopoly on creating the exact hardware (copyright), or some of the features in the hardware (patents) to get a monopoly in an adjacent area (running software on that hardware) Obviously legal. See above. > Alternatively an interpretation of the quid quo pro of intellectual property Obviously legal. See above.
inopinatus 6y ago
Reading documentation? Where's the fun in that? Or to put it less insolently: I've learned my craft by reverse engineering; as a auto-didactic tool it's a primary learning tool, definitely beats reading the manual.
kevingadd 6y ago
They'd just abuse patents to stop you from doing it anyway.

enos_feedler 6y ago

that would put a lot of obligation on the vendor to honor some kind of contract they don't need to do today. They can change anything they want with zero cost today.

ddingus 6y ago
Zero cost to them perhaps. However, those costs often prove quite high for others. Right now increasing numbers of things are, "works until it doesn't" and that imposes risks and costs to everyone. Perhaps those get high enough to warrant legislative solutions.
enos_feedler 6y ago
hah, bring up a good point but get downvoted because it doesn't jive.
gpm 6y ago
They could change what they want afterwards too presumably, they'd just need to publish the new documentation along side it.
- ece 6y ago
  This is what Intel/AMD have done for multiple generations of their GPU hardware now for a decade or more. Hasn't stopped them from innovating. Nvidia has PTX with a proprietary steam assembler underneath which can retarget any hardware changes. Either way, Apple can offer more documentation than it currently does.
NoSorryCannot 6y ago
Does documentation necessarily create such an obligation? That would jeopardize most open-source projects, most of which explicitly promise no warranty.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Isn’t a warranty of merchantability thing? If something is described as doing X, and you take X away, you’ve taken value from my property.
  - e3bc54b2 6y ago
    Which makes an excellent case for mandatory docs. I don't want my speakers to stop working because I stopped paying subscription.
    - phs318u 6y ago
      As long as they are "your" speakers. Subscription sounds like you're renting speakers. I know that's probably a facetious/pedantic point but it strikes to the heart of the fact that we should be calling for more accurate description of the relationship between a consumer and the hardware they acquire i.e. calling a spade a spade. You're not buying a laptop, or an M1 CPU in a metal case. You're buying a magic Apple service delivery box that happens to permit certain other uses. Customer expectations should match description should match function. I say this as a longstanding iPhone user, and up until recently, Mac user.
- hishnash 6y ago
  The big issue with this is apple does not own all of the IP in a any of their hardware, much of it is a mixture of licenses from many vendors some of it owned by apple much of it just licensed. Apples licenses for these will include very strict NDA clauses that make it impossible for apple to share the documentation they are provided but that vendor.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
_ph_ 6y ago
No, this applies only to APIs, which are documented as such. The users of such APIs might have a certain expectation of long-term support. This is talking about documentation of the device which is sold, the software equivalent of providing schematics to eletrical devices. Which for a long time was quite common. You could buy stereo amplifiers with complete schematics. They don't create an obligation that future products have the same schematics, their purpose is solely for the repair of the device sold.
gspr 6y ago
> that would put a lot of obligation on the vendor to honor some kind of contract they don't need to do today. They can change anything they want with zero cost today. So why can't we just allow them to keep making those changes, but still have to document them? I'm sure they document them internally anyway.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  We could have a tax on documents which are non-public. For example, the tax could be 1 cent per page per day which is non-public. It would apply to source code, images, or anything else that might be reasonably printed on a page. Then companies could pay the government to keep their employees work secret, or publish it. It should help innovation as far more work done by humans gets made available for others to build from.
  - gspr 6y ago
    That's an interesting idea! Do you know if anyone has explored this further?
  - varispeed 6y ago
    It will only make products more expensive and less accessible and people still won't be able to fully use _their_ devices.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      Except it won't - companies which are fully open source won't have any additional costs, and their products can be priced the same as normal. It's only companies who have fully closed tech will have to pay the tax, and really that tax is compensating the rest of the country for the work and knowledge that company wants to keep secret.
    - gspr 6y ago
      That might happen to some products, yes. No different from any other tax. I don't see a fundamental problem.

meibo 6y ago

Then you'll probably get a link to a zip on the very bottom of the "legal >> open source" section of their website with badly auto-generated API docs without any comments or context, knowing big closed-source software orgs.

pthariensflame 6y ago
That’s more or less what they currently do: https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/

troutmskreplica 6y ago

Under what legal principle would this be based on, and why haven’t we already seen this happen over say the last 50 years of consumer electronics?

notafraudster 6y ago
I mean, we also haven't seen it in the last 150 years of consumer mechanical parts either!
gpm 6y ago
Eh, lots of potential future legal principles. Right to repair. Hasn't happened because it's not a right yet. Alternatively maybe anti trust, since using your monopoly on hardware to get a monopoly on software which is the essence of anti trust anyways. Hasn't happened because anti trust enforcement is really weak. Probably also doesn't force documentation. Alternatively copyright and patent misuse, which is using your government granted monopoly on creating the exact hardware (copyright), or some of the features in the hardware (patents) to get a monopoly in an adjacent area (running software on that hardware) voiding the copyrights and patents. Hasn't happened because while the law exists (in common law) the courts apply it very conservatively. Also probably doesn't get documentation, just the right to run things on it. Alternatively an interpretation of the quid quo pro of intellectual property (i.e. you disclose something in exchange for a temporary monopoly) being interpreted more strongly, such that you have to disclose the details of the internals to get intellectual property rights. Hasn't happened yet because today the quid quo pro isn't interpreted that strongly.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Probably also doesn't force documentation. Samba was able to get documentation for SMB/CIFS this way.
- simondotau 6y ago
  > Right to repair. The interactions between a silicon chip and software drivers has nothing to do with right to repair. Never has been. > Alternatively maybe anti trust, since using your monopoly on hardware to get a monopoly on software Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any hardware, except insofar as any company has a natural monopoly on their own products, as made explicitly legal by copyright and patent laws. Furthermore, one has to remember that there's a world outside of commodity PC hardware. The notion of hardware and software being separate is the rare exception, not the rule. Other than commodity PC computer hardware, nearly every product sold is both software and hardware bundled as a unit, with no marketplace expectation of end users replacing the software with an alternative. Whether you're talking about a car, washing machine, television, digital camera, microwave oven, garage door opener, CD player, indoor-outdoor thermometer, label printer, or an air conditioner, the software that comes with it is seen as part of the product. In fact, this is even true for many computer components—companies like Nvidia aren't being any more helpful about their GPUs as Apple is with theirs. Apple's computers straddle an interesting boundary between consumer devices and commodity PCs. But make no mistake, Apple isn't obligated to do anything here. You're not entitled to something because you want it. > using your government granted monopoly on creating the exact hardware (copyright), or some of the features in the hardware (patents) to get a monopoly in an adjacent area (running software on that hardware) Obviously legal. See above. > Alternatively an interpretation of the quid quo pro of intellectual property Obviously legal. See above.

inopinatus 6y ago

Reading documentation? Where's the fun in that? Or to put it less insolently: I've learned my craft by reverse engineering; as a auto-didactic tool it's a primary learning tool, definitely beats reading the manual.

kevingadd 6y ago

They'd just abuse patents to stop you from doing it anyway.