14 ms·

> I’m developing an app of my own creation to install on a device in my own possession, and now I have to prostrate myself before some review committee to use a

by yholio 5y ago

> I’m developing an app of my own creation to install on a device in my own possession, and now I have to prostrate myself before some review committee to use a staple of TCP/IP? That's funny, he believes he owns an Apple device. Sorry, no. Apple locks down the device with strong crypto and rents you limited permissions, they sell a computing service, not a device. Apple are the only ones who get to say what code ultimately runs on their hardware. The confusion is common due to the specific way the lease agreement is structured: you pay a lump sum for the device custody and future rent, you lose that sum if you damage the device, and you are responsible for recycling the outdated hardware instead of returning it to the owner.

simonh 5y ago
It's the same model that has been the mainstream for games consoles and mobile games platforms for decades. iOS devices are pretty well locked down pro/consumer products that come with a managed application distribution system. If that's not what you want, there are other options. It seems to me that if Apple had no more than 10% of the mobile market anywhere this just wouldn't be an issue. If that's what some people wanted, fine, they could get it. The reason it's a problem is, as it turns out, this model works really well for a lot of people and is fantastically popular.
- praptak 5y ago
  The problem is the false marketing around this.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  There are no options - there are no longer any mobile devices you actually own and control. The right to private property has been cancelled by, ironically, free market extremists.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    That's a rather extremist viewpoint but it does have a nice rhyme to it.
  - teekert 5y ago
    PinePhone?
  - yholio 5y ago
    At least with Android, you have the option to install external APKs, as cumbersome as that is.
    - vbezhenar 5y ago
      Also you can install AOSP which is open source android operating system on some devices. And some other open source Android flavours. Yes, may be with few driver blobs, but that's not a restriction, you still can do anything with your device on every level.
    - contravariant 5y ago
      Well and at least some suppliers offer you the option to install your own OS on it. At which point any restrictions the phone has are at least technically self-imposed.
    - techrat 5y ago
      7 steps isn't cumbersome. -- 1) Open Chrome. -- 2) Find and Download APK. https://i.imgur.com/ZFZb1uE.png https://i.imgur.com/ZFZb1uE.png -- 3) Accept warning and Open APK. -- 4) Go to settings. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/R8FzTzP.png https://i.imgur.com/R8FzTzP.png -- 5) Toggle Install Unknown Apps for Chrome. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/K0ADO2q.png https://i.imgur.com/K0ADO2q.png -- 6) Click back (This only has to be done once) -- 7) Click install. https://i.imgur.com/xVSndex.png https://i.imgur.com/xVSndex.png -- Done. https://i.imgur.com/fyasTK9.png https://i.imgur.com/fyasTK9.png Once you do this for the first time, the process reduces down to 4 steps each time after: Open Chrome, Download APK, Open APK, Click Install. Done.
      - throw0101a 5y ago
        -- 8) Wait for a call from Aunt Susan after she installs some malware that told her it would boost her cell signal. :) * https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/infected-apkpure/39273/ https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/infected-apkpure/39273/
        5y ago
  - simonh 5y ago
    I really don't consider myself a free market extremist. I fully support regulation for health and safety reasons, mandatory accurate and informative product descriptions, minimum quality requirements in many areas, consumer protection laws such as minimum warranty periods. There are many areas where it makes sense for us collectively, through our governments, to make sure we as consumers are not getting ripped off and get a fair deal. It's just balancing out the power disparity between vendors and individual customers. So I am open to arguments for regulating mobile phone platforms, if that proves to be necessary. I just don't think it is, none of the arguments Ive seen so far are compelling. They mostly seem to be sour grapes. "I want to buy X product with P, Q, R features and nobody is making one, we should force them to by law". No, that's not how that works.
    - beckman466 5y ago
      > They mostly seem to be sour grapes. "I want to buy X product with P, Q, R features and nobody is making one, we should force them to by law". No, that's not how that works. I think it’s closer to: I bought a 10% black box (90% open) widget in the 1990s, and now in 2020 that same widget (with a few more functions) is 80% closed. And: why can I no longer use a generic computer for what I want to use it for? We’ve forgotten that an open distributed learning web is possible, and how instead computer literacy (programming) is very low because most of us can no longer follow our curiosity and look inside technological systems; only ‘experts' are allowed to do that (someone wrote about that recently, that whenever he talked to older/earlier computer hobbyists, how most of them mention that they are pretty disappointed by today‘s black box world/web). And no they’re not ‘sour grapes‘, they’re just sensing the painful ways in which the commons has been plundered, and feeling frustrated by the way people such as yourself pretend that there are still many benefits to be found in locked down/black box platforms and devices, which there aren't. The completely ludicrous part is how normalized all this is today. How much our tools are now over-engineered, non-modular and non-repairable; how much black box shit we produce. Literal shit. Single use shit. Biological systems have no waste, yet our current production systems produce the most toxic, anti-life sludge the world has seen (see Baotou -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_UdqZdFr-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_UdqZdFr-w). Today we produce coffee machines that have iPads sitting in a dock with virtual buttons to choose options. An iPad. What the fuck. What is that? Infinitely less complex technology was used to send people to the moon. What a complete and total waste of valuable resources and laborers' time! I'm talking about how we could have so many more open standards and decide to produce only high quality stuff. But no, our culture teaches us to discredit those who came before and to commoditize tiny incremental updates, slapping our own names on them (‘branding’) to please our neglected and alienated souls. I’m so tired of this false story of the need for competition. Humans are copying machine. It’s ok to copy! It’s how we learn and grow. Anyways, to get closer to a 'universal basic inheritance' - a commons that respects actual scarcity, and thus also the abundance of digital resources (scientific knowledge and technological blueprints), we need a new system for accounting. I believe http://valueflo.ws http://valueflo.ws can offer us a very possible way forward https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymAHXGSM14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymAHXGSM14: they are radically distributed supply chain systems using the Resource-Event-Agent ontology, built on fully distributed tech, e.g. holochain and activitypub. To see an exciting future that has been buried yet not forgotten (it's a new Cybersyn documentary): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0
  - sbuttgereit 5y ago
    > The right to private property has been cancelled by, ironically, free market extremists. This line of argument is frankly incoherent. That many, not all, available mobile devices remain firmly under the control of their makers after purchase is not because some free marketeer (or cabal thereof) foisted these devices onto unwilling recipients. This situation came about because the majority of mobile device users saw the deal on offer and decided they were better off taking it that walking. The real source of the status quo is the average consumer... no matter their ideology. That buyers weigh promises of "Just Works", the status of owning the cool new device that's in fashion, and some guardian supposedly lurking in the background keeping them safe over your own (seemingly apparent) priorities is a matter of each individual choice. Private property rights haven't been cancelled at all or by anyone. There simply aren't enough people interested in owning devices that they fully control. Insofar as there are few alternatives to the status quo... blame the privacy activists and those clamoring for "full control" for not better convincing the masses that what they're giving up for iOS & Android is more than they're getting by buying these devices. As a free market extremist myself, I guarantee you: if people stop buying these devices because the deal is perceived as bad the situation will change. Finally, if I try to infer what you might be for (rather than what you're against), which I do because it's the only reason to call out "free market extremists", is that you want a small group of "our betters" to decide what exactly a mobile device should be, over and above all those that find the current deal sufficiently satisfactory. You would have your priorities made the only choice over the interests of the majority of consumers. Ironically, perhaps, you'd eliminate the broader spectrum of choices by forcing what choices were allowed... wanted and valued or not. Naturally, I'm reading a lot into your short comment... but what solution do you really see that isn't a free market extremist position that doesn't come close to what I think you're saying?
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Its so ironic to see 'freedom people' defend a system that would make Stalin green with envy. "saw the deal on offer and decided they were better off taking it that walking" The same reasoning applies to loan sharks, drug dealers and mafia. 'Unlimited' free market always degrades into oligopoly or Mafia rule. "you want a small group of "our betters" to decide what exactly a mobile device should be" You want that, and you have that- a small group of powerfull men decide to do with your device. Tomorrow your device uodates and startps reporting you to police for speeding, and there is fuck all you can do. I am not asking for a communist mobile pgone comitee, I am asking for the word ownership to mean something. It's not a difficult concept.
- spideymans 5y ago
  This situation leaves me so conflicted on the whole antitrust, “just force iOS open” thing. On one hand, the locked down iOS clearly hurts a lot of businesses and broader market competition. On the other hand, Apple has been open and honest (and rather boastful) of the locked down nature of iOS since Day 1. Consumers have very clearly voted with their wallet time and time again that this system (and it’s tradeoffs) is the one they prefer. To force iOS open is to undo the choices that consumers have made. But to leave iOS restricted is to harm broader business competitiveness. You’re right that if Apple had marginal market share, this behaviour would not be problematic. Broadly speaking, I’m not all that sympathetic to the plight of the big-name developers like Facebook and Match Group. They’ve collectively made users so cynical about privacy, security and the general trustworthiness of software that it’s prompted users to take refuge behind these hardened walled gardens. I just hate to see good independent developers have to be harmed as a consequence of that as well.
  - spyder 5y ago
    Just because you buy something for some of the features, it doesn't mean you want all the features it has.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - Joeri 5y ago
    Isn’t it rather reductionist to say that the closed nature of iOS is why people buy it? I chose iphone because a string of bugs left a sour taste in my mouth with android, and inertia locked me in. I definitely don’t want this level of locking it down, and I doubt a majority of iphone buyers want this.
    - spideymans 5y ago
      Security, privacy, reliability and “it just works” was always a major selling point of the iPhone. The various software restrictions were a major part of delivering that assurance that some third party software wouldn’t mess with your device. It might not have been a motivating factor for you, but it certainly was for a lot of consumers. And regardless, Apple has never hidden the nature of iOS. These consumers have clearly decided that the tradeoffs of the walled garden were acceptable, despite there being plenty of more open alternatives on the market in the early days of the iPhone.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > The reason it's a problem is, as it turns out, this model works really well for a lot of people and is fantastically popular. Turns out a lot of people don't want to deal with the responsibilities of completely owning a device (updates, anti-malware, app origin), and are willing to give up some control/ownership in exchange for convenience and being able to get on with life. (Certainly not everyone of course.) Whether this view of convenience is short-sighted and will be regretted long-term remains to be seen.
  - nixpulvis 5y ago
    There is absolutely no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too.
    - api 5y ago
      That would require solving hard security problems instead of punting on them by whitelisting. Apple’s policies are guided in part by profit motive but also by security nihilism.
      - skohan 5y ago
        There’s no reason these security measures couldn’t be opt-out
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - simonh 5y ago
    If we regret it long term, people will start buying different products with the features they want.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      They won't, if those products aren't available on the market. Which they won't be, because currently the "managed" approach yields more revenue. "Voting with your wallet" doesn't work on most technology markets, where products and services are not commodities, and where the barriers to entry are insanely high. Yes - insanely high. Sure, you can get a $100 computer and a $10/month Internet connection and start writing software for millions, except it won't do you much good - software is the easy part. To compete with Facebook, you need to bootstrap a whole social network. To compete with Apple and Google on the phone market, you'll need to bootstrap your own hardware manufacturing, because all the smartphone vendors are into the same user-hostile crap these days. Projects like PinePhone are probably as far as you can reasonably get on the "smartphone, except not user hostile" front. It's worth looking into why they don't succeed. It's not as simple as "people must not truly want it because they aren't paying the premium to get it".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Grustaf 5y ago
Hilarious, but not real. You can install whatever you want on your phone, but you can't do it through the app store.
- techrat 5y ago
  With a host MacOS computer and a certificate that expires after 7 days. Whereas on Android you can simply download the APK from within the device. No host PC needed. No developer cert. No expiry.
- deergomoo 5y ago
  I believe the way these "by request only" entitlements work is that the OS locks you out of the functionality entirely if you don't hold them.
ricardobeat 5y ago
Your argument gets us nowhere. Because we accept the control Apple currently has, we are entitled to nothing and should accept any arbitrary change? No, that's not how it works. We accept the walled garden in a mutually beneficial exchange.
- veeti 5y ago
  I think you're a little confused about the role of a peasant in a dictatorship.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- yholio 5y ago
  > Because we accept the control Apple currently has, we are entitled to nothing and should accept any arbitrary change? Nothing has changed, Apple maintained full control all the time. You have absolutely no power in this matter and no rights, you are simply a revenue source, the only thing you can do is cease supplying money to Apple. I fully support Apple remote bricking all hardware past a certain age to drive the sales of newer models. It's just a matter of time until you will start to see phones with "3 years limited software support". Once the 3 years are done, a splashscreen appears warning you that the device is no longer supported and insecure, thus unusable.
smichel17 5y ago
What galls me about this model is not that it exists, but that companies are allowed to use the words "buy" and "own" in their marketing and contracts around this. The distinction between buying and renting a house, or buying and leasing a car, is well understood. But when it comes to renting a console or a license to a piece of music, we use the same words as for ownership. Maybe we need a new word to describe the "lump sum up front but not for ownership" model.
- yholio 5y ago
  Maybe someone can mount a legal challenge and establish case law. Document the whole buying process, copious advertising where Apple says you can purchase the device, then request the unlock code from Apple to run custom software. If they refuse to provide it for purely commercial reasons despite having full technical ability to do so, you might have a case that you were misled into purchasing a subscription service. Ideally, you would find some advertised capability that is only enabled for apps sold though the App Store, a hidden subscription fee especially considering its onerous value.
  - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    Currently in progress: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399008/apple-lawsuit-over-buy-and-rent-labels-for-digital-content-can-continue-rules-federal-judge https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399008/apple-lawsuit-ov... As much as I want the court to decide that “buy” cannot mean anything less than “indefinite and irrevocable license” I’m expecting the judge to decide the case in Apple’s favour on the basis that consumer expectations have changed over the past 15 and that no “reasonable person” would expect a $15 impulse-buy of an intangible product to _last_. After all, you may have your VHS tapes from K-Mart you bought 30 years ago, but can you actually watch them? And you are “buying” a license to DRM’d content after-all and “buy” isn’t legally defined that way (Yes, I recognise it’s a terrible argument, just playing Devils’ advocate) …or Apple will just change “Buy” to “Get” and it won’t make a difference to their bottom-line at all. I’ll bet that Apple’s profits - or even revenues - from purchases on iTMS for movies and TV shows are a rounding error compared to AppleTV+ subscriptions - and iPhone hardware sales, of course.
captainmuon 5y ago
Well, no. Legally you do own the device with all it's molecules. It is just a limited, damaged device. This is one of thoses cases where I agree with the free market people that competition is good. If there were more companies that made Apple devices, then you would be able to buy a non-defective Apple device, too. And: In a rational society, I could just download the source code and make the change myself. Actually, in a rational society the people that make the computers would not be incentivized to artifically restrict them!
canadianfella 5y ago
> Apple are the only ones Is this a British thing? Implicitly referring to a company as a group of people?
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
And only if he wants to publish it in the store; with a developer certificate he can install his own app on his own device whenever he pleases. But if you make something for the world at large, you should stick to the rules. They're not unreasonable, and they are one reason why iOS devices are some of the most secure devices out there.
jb1991 5y ago
> That's funny, he believes he owns an Apple device. Sorry, no. Apple locks down the device with strong crypto and rents you limited permissions, they sell a computing service, not a device. Apple are the only ones who get to say what code ultimately runs on their hardware. If you buy a car, is it your car? You very possibly cannot do things with it independently, on your own, without manufacturer involvement or without voiding any warranties you have. The same idea extends to many things. I'm defending Apple here, but this idea that it's not your own device is silly IMO. (prediction: I'll probably get downvoted)
- nullwarp 5y ago
  I'm not really sure I follow this logic as when you buy a car you can do whatever you want to it without effecting the warranty as proven by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 which states that only if the modification is directly responsible for the issue could it be grounds to not service under warranty.
  - jb1991 5y ago
    What if you mess around with, say, the OS on a Tesla? My argument is not about cars, really, it's just a point I'm trying to make.
    - H1Supreme 5y ago
      If it doesn't cause an accident, I don't see the issue. I'd love to hack on a Tesla OS.
    - belorn 5y ago
      The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 was likely created for a reason. If the same reason is valid for modifying the OS on a Tesla, then either the law still apply or the law need to be updated to include the words "also valid if done in software".
  - skydhash 5y ago
    I heard you cannot remove the seatbelt.
inopinatus 5y ago
I don’t believe the author is under any such illusion or confusion. It seems clear from the precisely worded text of the article that he’s perfectly aware of the circumstances, doesn’t like them, and is willing to articulate that in public with a specific example. By all means throw shade at Apple for tripping on a power complex that puts Battersea to shame, but insulting this writer’s awareness doesn’t fly. They are not such a fool as suggested.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> and you are responsible for recycling the outdated hardware instead of returning it to the owner You're not telling the truth. Apple will recycle any device for you for free. They may even pay you for it if it's in reasonable condition and reasonably recent.
snowwrestler 5y ago
Honda does not give me an SDK and API to run arbitrary software on the computers in my Civic either. But obviously I own it. The state of federal law is that you own your iPhone and can run whatever software you want on it. Jailbreaking is legal, largely because you own your iPhone. The law just doesn’t force Apple to make it easy for you. On a practical note, I’m interested in thoughts on why Apple might try to lock down multicast, specifically, but I have to scroll through dozens of comments arguing about a software system (iOS + App Store) that is now over 13 years old. Is there anyone on HN today who does not understand how iPhone software works? Why do we have to rehash a decade-old conversation on every single iPhone/iOS Apple story? EDIT - Since I’m still in the edit window, I might as well link to a comment that seems actually useful and relevant to this blog post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28287064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28287064 There are other interesting and useful comments if you scroll down…
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > Why do we have to rehash a decade-old conversation on every single iPhone/iOS Apple story? Because this is the possibility of people to cash in on their "I told you so". Also, it is not too late to either change direction or jump ship; if we take this without complaining, the situation will only get worse.
- grishka 5y ago
  > Honda does not give me an SDK and API to run arbitrary software on the computers in my Civic either. But obviously I own it. Cars and their infotaiment systems aren't marketed as general-purpose computing devices in the first place. iOS devices very much are.
  - calvinmorrison 5y ago
    Plus there's far more mods available for honda than there ever will be for Apple. Modding them, tuning the ECUs, aftermarket hardware and software, you bet baby. The car hacker community is very alive
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
upearly2 5y ago
>That's funny, he believes he owns an Apple device. Sorry, no. It sounds remarkably like a video game console or a stereo receiver. That makes sense really since the main purpose of a consumer computer at this point is to, well, 'consume'. It's funny to think back on an era when the average privately-owned computer was bought to actually do something useful.
andrekandre 5y ago
> they sell a computing service if anything its becoming more like "consumption" service than "computing"
SkyMarshal 5y ago
> and you are responsible for recycling the outdated hardware instead of returning it to the owner. I grokked everything up to this comment. Apple has extensive trade-in and recycle programs [1],[2]. Or did you mean something else? [1]:https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in [2]:https://www.apple.com/recycling/nationalservices/ https://www.apple.com/recycling/nationalservices/
devwastaken 5y ago
Sounds like it needs regulation.
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
It's funny - because we ALSO have folks posting on HN upset that things like tiktok want multi-cast permissions / local device discovery. In particular, the author complains about "prostrating" themselves, when they actually want to write apps that would run on ANY users device that could have relatively serious privacy implications because instead of providing a specific service they want to do a wildcard discovery.
tzs 5y ago
You are confusing the hardware with the software. You own the hardware. You license but do not own the software (as is the case with almost all software nowadays, including FOSS software). If the software from Apple is not to your liking, jailbreak the hardware and install software that is more to your liking. This might take some effort as newer releases of Apple software are harder to jailbreak so you might have to stop installing new Apple OS releases to give the jailbreaks a chance to catch up to what is on your phone.
thomasahle 5y ago
> The confusion is common due to the specific way the lease agreement is structured Also the button on apple.com says "Buy now" not "Rent now".
lisper 5y ago
It's a very similar scam to buying a timeshare. The marketing pitch is "ownership" but what you are really buying is a contractual commitment to pay rent in perpetuity.

by yholio 5y ago

simonh 5y ago

It's the same model that has been the mainstream for games consoles and mobile games platforms for decades. iOS devices are pretty well locked down pro/consumer products that come with a managed application distribution system. If that's not what you want, there are other options. It seems to me that if Apple had no more than 10% of the mobile market anywhere this just wouldn't be an issue. If that's what some people wanted, fine, they could get it. The reason it's a problem is, as it turns out, this model works really well for a lot of people and is fantastically popular.

praptak 5y ago
The problem is the false marketing around this.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
There are no options - there are no longer any mobile devices you actually own and control. The right to private property has been cancelled by, ironically, free market extremists.
- noduerme 5y ago
  That's a rather extremist viewpoint but it does have a nice rhyme to it.
- teekert 5y ago
  PinePhone?
- yholio 5y ago
  At least with Android, you have the option to install external APKs, as cumbersome as that is.
  - vbezhenar 5y ago
    Also you can install AOSP which is open source android operating system on some devices. And some other open source Android flavours. Yes, may be with few driver blobs, but that's not a restriction, you still can do anything with your device on every level.
  - contravariant 5y ago
    Well and at least some suppliers offer you the option to install your own OS on it. At which point any restrictions the phone has are at least technically self-imposed.
  - techrat 5y ago
    7 steps isn't cumbersome. -- 1) Open Chrome. -- 2) Find and Download APK. https://i.imgur.com/ZFZb1uE.png https://i.imgur.com/ZFZb1uE.png -- 3) Accept warning and Open APK. -- 4) Go to settings. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/R8FzTzP.png https://i.imgur.com/R8FzTzP.png -- 5) Toggle Install Unknown Apps for Chrome. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/K0ADO2q.png https://i.imgur.com/K0ADO2q.png -- 6) Click back (This only has to be done once) -- 7) Click install. https://i.imgur.com/xVSndex.png https://i.imgur.com/xVSndex.png -- Done. https://i.imgur.com/fyasTK9.png https://i.imgur.com/fyasTK9.png Once you do this for the first time, the process reduces down to 4 steps each time after: Open Chrome, Download APK, Open APK, Click Install. Done.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      -- 8) Wait for a call from Aunt Susan after she installs some malware that told her it would boost her cell signal. :) * https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/infected-apkpure/39273/ https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/infected-apkpure/39273/
      - 5y ago
- simonh 5y ago
  I really don't consider myself a free market extremist. I fully support regulation for health and safety reasons, mandatory accurate and informative product descriptions, minimum quality requirements in many areas, consumer protection laws such as minimum warranty periods. There are many areas where it makes sense for us collectively, through our governments, to make sure we as consumers are not getting ripped off and get a fair deal. It's just balancing out the power disparity between vendors and individual customers. So I am open to arguments for regulating mobile phone platforms, if that proves to be necessary. I just don't think it is, none of the arguments Ive seen so far are compelling. They mostly seem to be sour grapes. "I want to buy X product with P, Q, R features and nobody is making one, we should force them to by law". No, that's not how that works.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    > They mostly seem to be sour grapes. "I want to buy X product with P, Q, R features and nobody is making one, we should force them to by law". No, that's not how that works. I think it’s closer to: I bought a 10% black box (90% open) widget in the 1990s, and now in 2020 that same widget (with a few more functions) is 80% closed. And: why can I no longer use a generic computer for what I want to use it for? We’ve forgotten that an open distributed learning web is possible, and how instead computer literacy (programming) is very low because most of us can no longer follow our curiosity and look inside technological systems; only ‘experts' are allowed to do that (someone wrote about that recently, that whenever he talked to older/earlier computer hobbyists, how most of them mention that they are pretty disappointed by today‘s black box world/web). And no they’re not ‘sour grapes‘, they’re just sensing the painful ways in which the commons has been plundered, and feeling frustrated by the way people such as yourself pretend that there are still many benefits to be found in locked down/black box platforms and devices, which there aren't. The completely ludicrous part is how normalized all this is today. How much our tools are now over-engineered, non-modular and non-repairable; how much black box shit we produce. Literal shit. Single use shit. Biological systems have no waste, yet our current production systems produce the most toxic, anti-life sludge the world has seen (see Baotou -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_UdqZdFr-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_UdqZdFr-w). Today we produce coffee machines that have iPads sitting in a dock with virtual buttons to choose options. An iPad. What the fuck. What is that? Infinitely less complex technology was used to send people to the moon. What a complete and total waste of valuable resources and laborers' time! I'm talking about how we could have so many more open standards and decide to produce only high quality stuff. But no, our culture teaches us to discredit those who came before and to commoditize tiny incremental updates, slapping our own names on them (‘branding’) to please our neglected and alienated souls. I’m so tired of this false story of the need for competition. Humans are copying machine. It’s ok to copy! It’s how we learn and grow. Anyways, to get closer to a 'universal basic inheritance' - a commons that respects actual scarcity, and thus also the abundance of digital resources (scientific knowledge and technological blueprints), we need a new system for accounting. I believe http://valueflo.ws http://valueflo.ws can offer us a very possible way forward https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymAHXGSM14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymAHXGSM14: they are radically distributed supply chain systems using the Resource-Event-Agent ontology, built on fully distributed tech, e.g. holochain and activitypub. To see an exciting future that has been buried yet not forgotten (it's a new Cybersyn documentary): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0
- sbuttgereit 5y ago
  > The right to private property has been cancelled by, ironically, free market extremists. This line of argument is frankly incoherent. That many, not all, available mobile devices remain firmly under the control of their makers after purchase is not because some free marketeer (or cabal thereof) foisted these devices onto unwilling recipients. This situation came about because the majority of mobile device users saw the deal on offer and decided they were better off taking it that walking. The real source of the status quo is the average consumer... no matter their ideology. That buyers weigh promises of "Just Works", the status of owning the cool new device that's in fashion, and some guardian supposedly lurking in the background keeping them safe over your own (seemingly apparent) priorities is a matter of each individual choice. Private property rights haven't been cancelled at all or by anyone. There simply aren't enough people interested in owning devices that they fully control. Insofar as there are few alternatives to the status quo... blame the privacy activists and those clamoring for "full control" for not better convincing the masses that what they're giving up for iOS & Android is more than they're getting by buying these devices. As a free market extremist myself, I guarantee you: if people stop buying these devices because the deal is perceived as bad the situation will change. Finally, if I try to infer what you might be for (rather than what you're against), which I do because it's the only reason to call out "free market extremists", is that you want a small group of "our betters" to decide what exactly a mobile device should be, over and above all those that find the current deal sufficiently satisfactory. You would have your priorities made the only choice over the interests of the majority of consumers. Ironically, perhaps, you'd eliminate the broader spectrum of choices by forcing what choices were allowed... wanted and valued or not. Naturally, I'm reading a lot into your short comment... but what solution do you really see that isn't a free market extremist position that doesn't come close to what I think you're saying?
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Its so ironic to see 'freedom people' defend a system that would make Stalin green with envy. "saw the deal on offer and decided they were better off taking it that walking" The same reasoning applies to loan sharks, drug dealers and mafia. 'Unlimited' free market always degrades into oligopoly or Mafia rule. "you want a small group of "our betters" to decide what exactly a mobile device should be" You want that, and you have that- a small group of powerfull men decide to do with your device. Tomorrow your device uodates and startps reporting you to police for speeding, and there is fuck all you can do. I am not asking for a communist mobile pgone comitee, I am asking for the word ownership to mean something. It's not a difficult concept.
spideymans 5y ago
This situation leaves me so conflicted on the whole antitrust, “just force iOS open” thing. On one hand, the locked down iOS clearly hurts a lot of businesses and broader market competition. On the other hand, Apple has been open and honest (and rather boastful) of the locked down nature of iOS since Day 1. Consumers have very clearly voted with their wallet time and time again that this system (and it’s tradeoffs) is the one they prefer. To force iOS open is to undo the choices that consumers have made. But to leave iOS restricted is to harm broader business competitiveness. You’re right that if Apple had marginal market share, this behaviour would not be problematic. Broadly speaking, I’m not all that sympathetic to the plight of the big-name developers like Facebook and Match Group. They’ve collectively made users so cynical about privacy, security and the general trustworthiness of software that it’s prompted users to take refuge behind these hardened walled gardens. I just hate to see good independent developers have to be harmed as a consequence of that as well.
- spyder 5y ago
  Just because you buy something for some of the features, it doesn't mean you want all the features it has.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Joeri 5y ago
  Isn’t it rather reductionist to say that the closed nature of iOS is why people buy it? I chose iphone because a string of bugs left a sour taste in my mouth with android, and inertia locked me in. I definitely don’t want this level of locking it down, and I doubt a majority of iphone buyers want this.
  - spideymans 5y ago
    Security, privacy, reliability and “it just works” was always a major selling point of the iPhone. The various software restrictions were a major part of delivering that assurance that some third party software wouldn’t mess with your device. It might not have been a motivating factor for you, but it certainly was for a lot of consumers. And regardless, Apple has never hidden the nature of iOS. These consumers have clearly decided that the tradeoffs of the walled garden were acceptable, despite there being plenty of more open alternatives on the market in the early days of the iPhone.
throw0101a 5y ago
> The reason it's a problem is, as it turns out, this model works really well for a lot of people and is fantastically popular. Turns out a lot of people don't want to deal with the responsibilities of completely owning a device (updates, anti-malware, app origin), and are willing to give up some control/ownership in exchange for convenience and being able to get on with life. (Certainly not everyone of course.) Whether this view of convenience is short-sighted and will be regretted long-term remains to be seen.
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  There is absolutely no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too.
  - api 5y ago
    That would require solving hard security problems instead of punting on them by whitelisting. Apple’s policies are guided in part by profit motive but also by security nihilism.
    - skohan 5y ago
      There’s no reason these security measures couldn’t be opt-out
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- simonh 5y ago
  If we regret it long term, people will start buying different products with the features they want.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    They won't, if those products aren't available on the market. Which they won't be, because currently the "managed" approach yields more revenue. "Voting with your wallet" doesn't work on most technology markets, where products and services are not commodities, and where the barriers to entry are insanely high. Yes - insanely high. Sure, you can get a $100 computer and a $10/month Internet connection and start writing software for millions, except it won't do you much good - software is the easy part. To compete with Facebook, you need to bootstrap a whole social network. To compete with Apple and Google on the phone market, you'll need to bootstrap your own hardware manufacturing, because all the smartphone vendors are into the same user-hostile crap these days. Projects like PinePhone are probably as far as you can reasonably get on the "smartphone, except not user hostile" front. It's worth looking into why they don't succeed. It's not as simple as "people must not truly want it because they aren't paying the premium to get it".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Grustaf 5y ago

Hilarious, but not real. You can install whatever you want on your phone, but you can't do it through the app store.

techrat 5y ago
With a host MacOS computer and a certificate that expires after 7 days. Whereas on Android you can simply download the APK from within the device. No host PC needed. No developer cert. No expiry.
deergomoo 5y ago
I believe the way these "by request only" entitlements work is that the OS locks you out of the functionality entirely if you don't hold them.

ricardobeat 5y ago

Your argument gets us nowhere. Because we accept the control Apple currently has, we are entitled to nothing and should accept any arbitrary change? No, that's not how it works. We accept the walled garden in a mutually beneficial exchange.

veeti 5y ago
I think you're a little confused about the role of a peasant in a dictatorship.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
yholio 5y ago
> Because we accept the control Apple currently has, we are entitled to nothing and should accept any arbitrary change? Nothing has changed, Apple maintained full control all the time. You have absolutely no power in this matter and no rights, you are simply a revenue source, the only thing you can do is cease supplying money to Apple. I fully support Apple remote bricking all hardware past a certain age to drive the sales of newer models. It's just a matter of time until you will start to see phones with "3 years limited software support". Once the 3 years are done, a splashscreen appears warning you that the device is no longer supported and insecure, thus unusable.

smichel17 5y ago

What galls me about this model is not that it exists, but that companies are allowed to use the words "buy" and "own" in their marketing and contracts around this. The distinction between buying and renting a house, or buying and leasing a car, is well understood. But when it comes to renting a console or a license to a piece of music, we use the same words as for ownership. Maybe we need a new word to describe the "lump sum up front but not for ownership" model.

yholio 5y ago
Maybe someone can mount a legal challenge and establish case law. Document the whole buying process, copious advertising where Apple says you can purchase the device, then request the unlock code from Apple to run custom software. If they refuse to provide it for purely commercial reasons despite having full technical ability to do so, you might have a case that you were misled into purchasing a subscription service. Ideally, you would find some advertised capability that is only enabled for apps sold though the App Store, a hidden subscription fee especially considering its onerous value.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  Currently in progress: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399008/apple-lawsuit-over-buy-and-rent-labels-for-digital-content-can-continue-rules-federal-judge https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399008/apple-lawsuit-ov... As much as I want the court to decide that “buy” cannot mean anything less than “indefinite and irrevocable license” I’m expecting the judge to decide the case in Apple’s favour on the basis that consumer expectations have changed over the past 15 and that no “reasonable person” would expect a $15 impulse-buy of an intangible product to _last_. After all, you may have your VHS tapes from K-Mart you bought 30 years ago, but can you actually watch them? And you are “buying” a license to DRM’d content after-all and “buy” isn’t legally defined that way (Yes, I recognise it’s a terrible argument, just playing Devils’ advocate) …or Apple will just change “Buy” to “Get” and it won’t make a difference to their bottom-line at all. I’ll bet that Apple’s profits - or even revenues - from purchases on iTMS for movies and TV shows are a rounding error compared to AppleTV+ subscriptions - and iPhone hardware sales, of course.

captainmuon 5y ago

Well, no. Legally you do own the device with all it's molecules. It is just a limited, damaged device. This is one of thoses cases where I agree with the free market people that competition is good. If there were more companies that made Apple devices, then you would be able to buy a non-defective Apple device, too. And: In a rational society, I could just download the source code and make the change myself. Actually, in a rational society the people that make the computers would not be incentivized to artifically restrict them!

canadianfella 5y ago

> Apple are the only ones Is this a British thing? Implicitly referring to a company as a group of people?

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

And only if he wants to publish it in the store; with a developer certificate he can install his own app on his own device whenever he pleases. But if you make something for the world at large, you should stick to the rules. They're not unreasonable, and they are one reason why iOS devices are some of the most secure devices out there.

jb1991 5y ago

> That's funny, he believes he owns an Apple device. Sorry, no. Apple locks down the device with strong crypto and rents you limited permissions, they sell a computing service, not a device. Apple are the only ones who get to say what code ultimately runs on their hardware. If you buy a car, is it your car? You very possibly cannot do things with it independently, on your own, without manufacturer involvement or without voiding any warranties you have. The same idea extends to many things. I'm defending Apple here, but this idea that it's not your own device is silly IMO. (prediction: I'll probably get downvoted)

nullwarp 5y ago
I'm not really sure I follow this logic as when you buy a car you can do whatever you want to it without effecting the warranty as proven by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 which states that only if the modification is directly responsible for the issue could it be grounds to not service under warranty.
- jb1991 5y ago
  What if you mess around with, say, the OS on a Tesla? My argument is not about cars, really, it's just a point I'm trying to make.
  - H1Supreme 5y ago
    If it doesn't cause an accident, I don't see the issue. I'd love to hack on a Tesla OS.
  - belorn 5y ago
    The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 was likely created for a reason. If the same reason is valid for modifying the OS on a Tesla, then either the law still apply or the law need to be updated to include the words "also valid if done in software".
- skydhash 5y ago
  I heard you cannot remove the seatbelt.

inopinatus 5y ago

I don’t believe the author is under any such illusion or confusion. It seems clear from the precisely worded text of the article that he’s perfectly aware of the circumstances, doesn’t like them, and is willing to articulate that in public with a specific example. By all means throw shade at Apple for tripping on a power complex that puts Battersea to shame, but insulting this writer’s awareness doesn’t fly. They are not such a fool as suggested.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> and you are responsible for recycling the outdated hardware instead of returning it to the owner You're not telling the truth. Apple will recycle any device for you for free. They may even pay you for it if it's in reasonable condition and reasonably recent.

snowwrestler 5y ago

Honda does not give me an SDK and API to run arbitrary software on the computers in my Civic either. But obviously I own it. The state of federal law is that you own your iPhone and can run whatever software you want on it. Jailbreaking is legal, largely because you own your iPhone. The law just doesn’t force Apple to make it easy for you. On a practical note, I’m interested in thoughts on why Apple might try to lock down multicast, specifically, but I have to scroll through dozens of comments arguing about a software system (iOS + App Store) that is now over 13 years old. Is there anyone on HN today who does not understand how iPhone software works? Why do we have to rehash a decade-old conversation on every single iPhone/iOS Apple story? EDIT - Since I’m still in the edit window, I might as well link to a comment that seems actually useful and relevant to this blog post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28287064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28287064 There are other interesting and useful comments if you scroll down…

Sebb767 5y ago
> Why do we have to rehash a decade-old conversation on every single iPhone/iOS Apple story? Because this is the possibility of people to cash in on their "I told you so". Also, it is not too late to either change direction or jump ship; if we take this without complaining, the situation will only get worse.
grishka 5y ago
> Honda does not give me an SDK and API to run arbitrary software on the computers in my Civic either. But obviously I own it. Cars and their infotaiment systems aren't marketed as general-purpose computing devices in the first place. iOS devices very much are.
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  Plus there's far more mods available for honda than there ever will be for Apple. Modding them, tuning the ECUs, aftermarket hardware and software, you bet baby. The car hacker community is very alive
- snowwrestler 5y ago

upearly2 5y ago

>That's funny, he believes he owns an Apple device. Sorry, no. It sounds remarkably like a video game console or a stereo receiver. That makes sense really since the main purpose of a consumer computer at this point is to, well, 'consume'. It's funny to think back on an era when the average privately-owned computer was bought to actually do something useful.

andrekandre 5y ago

> they sell a computing service if anything its becoming more like "consumption" service than "computing"

SkyMarshal 5y ago

> and you are responsible for recycling the outdated hardware instead of returning it to the owner. I grokked everything up to this comment. Apple has extensive trade-in and recycle programs [1],[2]. Or did you mean something else? [1]:https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in [2]:https://www.apple.com/recycling/nationalservices/ https://www.apple.com/recycling/nationalservices/

devwastaken 5y ago

Sounds like it needs regulation.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

It's funny - because we ALSO have folks posting on HN upset that things like tiktok want multi-cast permissions / local device discovery. In particular, the author complains about "prostrating" themselves, when they actually want to write apps that would run on ANY users device that could have relatively serious privacy implications because instead of providing a specific service they want to do a wildcard discovery.

tzs 5y ago

You are confusing the hardware with the software. You own the hardware. You license but do not own the software (as is the case with almost all software nowadays, including FOSS software). If the software from Apple is not to your liking, jailbreak the hardware and install software that is more to your liking. This might take some effort as newer releases of Apple software are harder to jailbreak so you might have to stop installing new Apple OS releases to give the jailbreaks a chance to catch up to what is on your phone.

thomasahle 5y ago

> The confusion is common due to the specific way the lease agreement is structured Also the button on apple.com says "Buy now" not "Rent now".

lisper 5y ago

It's a very similar scam to buying a timeshare. The marketing pitch is "ownership" but what you are really buying is a contractual commitment to pay rent in perpetuity.