6 ms·

I guess we need a congressional bill that lets people sideload apps on their phone. It seems ridiculous to have to get to that level but apparently that’s the o

I guess we need a congressional bill that lets people sideload apps on their phone. It seems ridiculous to have to get to that level but apparently that’s the only way. We have some progress now on right to repair. Next up, right to use.

ericmay 5y ago
If you want to do whatever to your phone there are already lots of options. I’m not sure what a law is going to do here that you can’t already do today.
- Renaud 5y ago
  People are stuck in their ecosystem. The monetary coat of changing platform is quite high if you’re already invested in that ecosystem. Everyone is paying a lot of money for a system they basically own nothing about. You keep paying, for apps, for hardware, that’s forever tied up to the whims of that platform’s owner (not you). Not in favour of more laws, but forcing the hands of these platforms so they provide more control to their customers is not a bad thing. At the moment none of them have any incentive to do it.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > People are stuck in their ecosystem. The monetary coat of changing platform is quite high if you’re already invested in that ecosystem. What are the costs? I can buy an iPhone or an Android phone and switch pretty easily can’t I? > Not in favour of more laws, but forcing the hands of these platforms so they provide more control to their customers is not a bad thing. Maybe more control isn’t a good thing? But even so aren’t there phones in the market they cater to those who want more control.
    - pschastain 5y ago
      > What are the costs? I can buy an iPhone or an Android phone and switch pretty easily can’t I? Software would need to be repurchased if it's even available on the other platform. Maybe you could but I know I couldn't easily or cheaply switch.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Don’t people do this now with game consoles for example? I could easily switch. I guess maybe we should all make sure we buy software that is device independent or something too. If you want regulation, then I think thats a good starting point. Software doesn’t have to be made for every device, but if you buy it for one you buy it for all. Or we can just let things go too. Seems to be working mostly fine.
      - rstupek 5y ago
        Aren't most apps on phones now free anyways? Can't remember the last time I bought an app on my phone
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tgv 5y ago
I'm totally opposed. My parents (who are rather old) use an iPhone and iPad, and I'm happy they have no option to fuck things up more than they already do. If you're talking about "freedom": nobody forces you to buy Apple.
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  "Side loading" (what a terrible word for what should be the normal way of installing software) could be disabled by default, and behind an extra scary warning screen in the settings which explicitely warns the user about the consequences. At some age (maybe starting at 16 or so?), people should be allowed to make their own decisions without "helicopter companies" hovering above them all the time telling them what to do.
  - tlholaday 5y ago
    > … people should be allowed to make their own decisions … Should they be allowed to decide to buy a device whose manufacturer maintains a sole-source app retailer?
    - flohofwoe 5y ago
      The problem is that there isn't really a choice, because it's either the Apple- or the Google-ecosystem and both are "walled gardens" (at least Android still allows "side loading" though). The third choice is not owning a mobile phone at all but that's nearly impossible these days.
    - alerighi 5y ago
      Most people don't know this thing when they go to buy the device, and of course nobody will tell you about that. If on the box there is written "THIS DEVICE WILL ONLY RUN SOFTWARE APPROVED BY APPLE", how many people would buy that? In reality most people don't know this thing. They discover it later, when they ask some more expert friend "can you install me an app to do so, like the one you have on your phone", and you have to explain that no, you can't because Apple didn't approve it for the store. And then they understand that they made a bad choice, but it's too late. Or when someone goes to you asking for an iOS app and you have to explain that putting it on the store (the only way they can install it permanently, even if they need it only on one phone) they will have to spend a lot of money. While with Android you just give them the .apk and you are done. And most of the time these customer will buy Android phones because it's cheaper to buy a new phone than get the app on the store.
deelowe 5y ago
No. Just no... We need another PC revolution for phones. Not every problem has to be solved by force or coercion.
- idle_zealot 5y ago
  Not every problem, no. But I don’t see the invisible hand of the market fixing this one. I don’t think most users care about how open their technology is; the downsides are too nebulous and distant to drive consumer spending away from walled gardens.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    If most users don't care about how open their technology is, why would such a change benefit them/why would they agree to it? Surely they would choose a more open system if they really wanted one (especially since Android phones that can sideload apps from the internet are going to be cheaper than iPhone anyways).
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The problem with the iPhone is a problem of coercion. Apple is exerting legal power and the threat of force to prevent you from doing what you want with your phone pursuant to the DMCA. If there were no legal restrictions with what you're doing with you're phone, Apple would have a very hard time preventing you from doing what you want. Anyone could buy an exploit for iOS for a million and sell unlocks for 50$. There is force and coercion involved, so a governmental intervention is much more necessary. It would also make it way easier to transfer your apps from platform to platform and to switch OSes.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > Apple is exerting legal power and the threat of force to prevent you from doing what you want with your phone pursuant to the DMCA. No. https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/ https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/ They simply make it technically infeasible to jailbreak since jailbreaks run untrusted code that bypasses security restrictions (eg. adware that survives resets).
varispeed 5y ago
Right to repair for software. If you buy software that has bugs, company should have to hand over documentation and source code, so that you can get someone to fix it, if they don't want to. Plus companies should be required to give tools to unlock and lock a bootloader plus any documentation to help write your own.

ericmay 5y ago

If you want to do whatever to your phone there are already lots of options. I’m not sure what a law is going to do here that you can’t already do today.

Renaud 5y ago
People are stuck in their ecosystem. The monetary coat of changing platform is quite high if you’re already invested in that ecosystem. Everyone is paying a lot of money for a system they basically own nothing about. You keep paying, for apps, for hardware, that’s forever tied up to the whims of that platform’s owner (not you). Not in favour of more laws, but forcing the hands of these platforms so they provide more control to their customers is not a bad thing. At the moment none of them have any incentive to do it.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > People are stuck in their ecosystem. The monetary coat of changing platform is quite high if you’re already invested in that ecosystem. What are the costs? I can buy an iPhone or an Android phone and switch pretty easily can’t I? > Not in favour of more laws, but forcing the hands of these platforms so they provide more control to their customers is not a bad thing. Maybe more control isn’t a good thing? But even so aren’t there phones in the market they cater to those who want more control.
  - pschastain 5y ago
    > What are the costs? I can buy an iPhone or an Android phone and switch pretty easily can’t I? Software would need to be repurchased if it's even available on the other platform. Maybe you could but I know I couldn't easily or cheaply switch.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Don’t people do this now with game consoles for example? I could easily switch. I guess maybe we should all make sure we buy software that is device independent or something too. If you want regulation, then I think thats a good starting point. Software doesn’t have to be made for every device, but if you buy it for one you buy it for all. Or we can just let things go too. Seems to be working mostly fine.
    - rstupek 5y ago
      Aren't most apps on phones now free anyways? Can't remember the last time I bought an app on my phone
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tgv 5y ago

I'm totally opposed. My parents (who are rather old) use an iPhone and iPad, and I'm happy they have no option to fuck things up more than they already do. If you're talking about "freedom": nobody forces you to buy Apple.

flohofwoe 5y ago
"Side loading" (what a terrible word for what should be the normal way of installing software) could be disabled by default, and behind an extra scary warning screen in the settings which explicitely warns the user about the consequences. At some age (maybe starting at 16 or so?), people should be allowed to make their own decisions without "helicopter companies" hovering above them all the time telling them what to do.
- tlholaday 5y ago
  > … people should be allowed to make their own decisions … Should they be allowed to decide to buy a device whose manufacturer maintains a sole-source app retailer?
  - flohofwoe 5y ago
    The problem is that there isn't really a choice, because it's either the Apple- or the Google-ecosystem and both are "walled gardens" (at least Android still allows "side loading" though). The third choice is not owning a mobile phone at all but that's nearly impossible these days.
  - alerighi 5y ago
    Most people don't know this thing when they go to buy the device, and of course nobody will tell you about that. If on the box there is written "THIS DEVICE WILL ONLY RUN SOFTWARE APPROVED BY APPLE", how many people would buy that? In reality most people don't know this thing. They discover it later, when they ask some more expert friend "can you install me an app to do so, like the one you have on your phone", and you have to explain that no, you can't because Apple didn't approve it for the store. And then they understand that they made a bad choice, but it's too late. Or when someone goes to you asking for an iOS app and you have to explain that putting it on the store (the only way they can install it permanently, even if they need it only on one phone) they will have to spend a lot of money. While with Android you just give them the .apk and you are done. And most of the time these customer will buy Android phones because it's cheaper to buy a new phone than get the app on the store.

deelowe 5y ago

No. Just no... We need another PC revolution for phones. Not every problem has to be solved by force or coercion.

idle_zealot 5y ago
Not every problem, no. But I don’t see the invisible hand of the market fixing this one. I don’t think most users care about how open their technology is; the downsides are too nebulous and distant to drive consumer spending away from walled gardens.
- judge2020 5y ago
  If most users don't care about how open their technology is, why would such a change benefit them/why would they agree to it? Surely they would choose a more open system if they really wanted one (especially since Android phones that can sideload apps from the internet are going to be cheaper than iPhone anyways).
sudosysgen 5y ago
The problem with the iPhone is a problem of coercion. Apple is exerting legal power and the threat of force to prevent you from doing what you want with your phone pursuant to the DMCA. If there were no legal restrictions with what you're doing with you're phone, Apple would have a very hard time preventing you from doing what you want. Anyone could buy an exploit for iOS for a million and sell unlocks for 50$. There is force and coercion involved, so a governmental intervention is much more necessary. It would also make it way easier to transfer your apps from platform to platform and to switch OSes.
- judge2020 5y ago
  > Apple is exerting legal power and the threat of force to prevent you from doing what you want with your phone pursuant to the DMCA. No. https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/ https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/ They simply make it technically infeasible to jailbreak since jailbreaks run untrusted code that bypasses security restrictions (eg. adware that survives resets).

varispeed 5y ago

Right to repair for software. If you buy software that has bugs, company should have to hand over documentation and source code, so that you can get someone to fix it, if they don't want to. Plus companies should be required to give tools to unlock and lock a bootloader plus any documentation to help write your own.