4 ms·

buying something usually makes you the owner of that thing. And as such to use it the way you want, even if that means breaking it ( you may just loose the wara

by bsaul 5y ago

buying something usually makes you the owner of that thing. And as such to use it the way you want, even if that means breaking it ( you may just loose the waranty, which is perfectly acceptable). If you buy a mac and an iOS app, i don't see any reason why you couldn't try to have the two work together if that's technically possible. Apple may add additional code to prevent that, and then you should be allowed to remove it. It's the regular way things work with ownership.

viktorcode 5y ago
Apple simply allowed developers to decide whether their software will be available on M1. By default it is, so they have to opt-out if they don't want to. You may dislike the way it works, but developers clearly want to control the deployment platforms.
codetrotter 5y ago
> If you buy a mac and an iOS app, i don't see any reason why you couldn't try to have the two work together if that's technically possible. Apple may add additional code to prevent that, and then you should be allowed to remove it. From the point of view of Apple I can see at least three reasons why they'd want to prevent arbitrary iOS apps from running on macOS. - The developer of the iOS app may not want people to use the iOS version on macOS, because they already have a version of the software made for macOS that they want people to buy instead. - Software made for iOS does not necessarily work all that well on macOS. Both because of the difference between touch screen and mouse paradigms, and because of iOS apps being made to run in a more constrained environment. - Beyond the above point being harmful both to end-users and to Apple, it's also harmful to the developers of the app because they have to deal with support requests and negative reviews from people running the software in a way it was not designed to be run. Similar to the way that it was with Linux users for this one game developer: "Game dev: Linux users were only 0.1% of sales but 20% of crashes and tickets", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 And what I am saying is, if you want the freedom, why invest into proprietary software in the first place? Or if you want the proprietary software, why insist on being able to do whatever you want with it? And as for ownership, when you license proprietary software you are almost never being sold ownership of the software. You are paying for a license to use it. And if you think that this is bad, again, open source is much better in line with your desires.
- bsaul 5y ago
  the drift from purchasing a software copy to a software license to use is an interesting one from a historical POV. I'm 100% convinced most people purchasing apps on the store don't realize the distinction until they're suddenly prevented from launching the app the way they want...
marcellus23 5y ago
Don't developers have the right to decide when and how people can run their software?
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  First-sale doctrine says probably not, although I'm aware that legally they may be able to work around that.
- bsaul 5y ago
  i don't see why though.. once they've sold the software copy ( through the channel they want), it doesn't belong to them anymore

by bsaul 5y ago

viktorcode 5y ago

Apple simply allowed developers to decide whether their software will be available on M1. By default it is, so they have to opt-out if they don't want to. You may dislike the way it works, but developers clearly want to control the deployment platforms.

codetrotter 5y ago

> If you buy a mac and an iOS app, i don't see any reason why you couldn't try to have the two work together if that's technically possible. Apple may add additional code to prevent that, and then you should be allowed to remove it. From the point of view of Apple I can see at least three reasons why they'd want to prevent arbitrary iOS apps from running on macOS. - The developer of the iOS app may not want people to use the iOS version on macOS, because they already have a version of the software made for macOS that they want people to buy instead. - Software made for iOS does not necessarily work all that well on macOS. Both because of the difference between touch screen and mouse paradigms, and because of iOS apps being made to run in a more constrained environment. - Beyond the above point being harmful both to end-users and to Apple, it's also harmful to the developers of the app because they have to deal with support requests and negative reviews from people running the software in a way it was not designed to be run. Similar to the way that it was with Linux users for this one game developer: "Game dev: Linux users were only 0.1% of sales but 20% of crashes and tickets", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 And what I am saying is, if you want the freedom, why invest into proprietary software in the first place? Or if you want the proprietary software, why insist on being able to do whatever you want with it? And as for ownership, when you license proprietary software you are almost never being sold ownership of the software. You are paying for a license to use it. And if you think that this is bad, again, open source is much better in line with your desires.

bsaul 5y ago
the drift from purchasing a software copy to a software license to use is an interesting one from a historical POV. I'm 100% convinced most people purchasing apps on the store don't realize the distinction until they're suddenly prevented from launching the app the way they want...

marcellus23 5y ago

Don't developers have the right to decide when and how people can run their software?

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
First-sale doctrine says probably not, although I'm aware that legally they may be able to work around that.
bsaul 5y ago
i don't see why though.. once they've sold the software copy ( through the channel they want), it doesn't belong to them anymore