5 ms·

> I fully support Eleftheriou on this just for the principle, but if I were in his place I would have agreed at a very large sum from Apple (even lower from wha

> I fully support Eleftheriou on this just for the principle, but if I were in his place I would have agreed at a very large sum from Apple (even lower from what I had in mind) just so that we could all be happy right now ;-) Seems like Apple has a very anti-competitive position, no? To me this goes all the way back to the walled garden argument. Apple sat on, what some may consider, a straw man arguing that they couldn't deliver security to their customers without it. Fast forward all these years and Apple's walled garden seems to be failing rather regularly for the trifecta of their: users, developers and the system in general. Users get less choice in the app store when Apple wants to compete directly, developers with good ideas who aren't willing to sell out to Apple will pay the price of their livelihood drying up over night if you don't give Apple what they want and finally we get things like no-click zero days on a routine basis these days.

Terretta 5y ago
> walled garden argument A watch is now a walled garden? Does Casio have to open its OS? Either these are not general computing devices or there's no line, a fridge or microwave or a console are general computing as well -- and device makers have no rights to make a product from digital parts as well as mechanical parts without having to make it open to digital fiddling, and secure it dragging in that new threat model.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  If you gatekeep applications on your device then it's a walled garden. Simple, no?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Razengan 5y ago
    So why has there never been a horde of torches and pitchforks outside Castle Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo yet? And don’t squeeze out that “cOnSoLeS aReNt cOmPuTeRs” bullshit. They’re closer to computers than a goddamn wristwatch.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      I honestly could not tell you, but that's a 'whataboutism' argument, we are not talking about Xbox, PlayStation or Nintendo here. But to the extent that they determine what can and can not be shipped on their platform they are - to me - just as much a walled garden.
    - JohnTHaller 5y ago
      I'd wager a lot of it has to do with history. Gaming consoles were always proprietary hardware that could only do things approved by the manufacturer, and were purchased with that understanding, unless you did some hacking. Computers were always open platforms that you purchased and then could do what you wanted with, no hacking required. iOS was the first major market computing platform that broke this general understanding.
      - sircastor 5y ago
        > iOS was the first major market computing platform that broke this general understanding. I think the reason this worked, and the reason it’s still sort of confusing to people, is that the iPhone is a phone, and showed up at phone stores. People viewed as a super-powered iPod, not a computer.
        JohnTHaller 5y ago
        The phone computers that came before it didn't have walled gardens either. Palm, for instance.
      - rasz 5y ago
        Consoles were pretty open at the beginning. 2600 had plenty of third party games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Early_years_(1980%E2%80%931982) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Early_years_(1980%E... and even crazy futuristic peripherals like modem (online game renting service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine. Same for Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade. Atari f** up on NES by committing blatant copyright infringement and scamming Patent Office <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_...> if not for the method they used it would of been fine too.
  - Terretta 5y ago
    No. Half Life was not a walled garden before opening up to modders, and was not a walled garden after. It was just a game opened to modders. If we get over ourselves, and allow that there's new category of thing, devices made of mechanical and digital parts both, that the maker may or may not selectively open for mods as a legitimate part of their business model they're within their rights to choose, then we'd be less religiously militant in ways that harm innovation and consumers.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Half Life is not a device, modders are not application programmers targeting that device.
      - OneTimePetes 5y ago
        No, a device is more stable when it comes to APIs and Configurations.
      - Terretta 5y ago
        > [Software] is not a device. Then what are you engineering? --- Edit to elaborate: I'm convinced this is the essence of the debate that has intensified as parts that move at the speed of light are devouring physical parts. Switch, transistor, if statement -- a maker should be able to convert one type of part to another type of part without losing their rights, or accidentally triggering a "oh, look, general computing, therefore it's no longer up to you to decide!" flag of some sort. Ease of reconfiguring electrons shouldn't change right to design and distribute a product with whatever blend of physical and digital one wants, facilitating whatever purpose one wants, and not being forced to facilitate other purposes.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Sorry, but you really can't just define some arbitrary alternative universe and then expect the debate to take place on your terms.
- atatatat 5y ago
  I'd agree with you 100% conceptually, if not for the fact I've been personally left to improve the security on every phone and computer I've been offered by the market since my birth.
- shawnz 5y ago
  Why was AT&T forced to allow third party landline telephones on their network? Those aren't general purpose computing devices either, right?
- kurikuri 5y ago
  The line might be able to be drawn between devices which have support, or intend to have support and will accept applications/plans, for 3rd party software and those who don’t. By accepting third party software, the third party now becomes dependent upon (and in this case: a customer to) Apple. In these situations, the device producer has knowledge about and leverage over on-device application competitors which other third parties would not.

Terretta 5y ago

> walled garden argument A watch is now a walled garden? Does Casio have to open its OS? Either these are not general computing devices or there's no line, a fridge or microwave or a console are general computing as well -- and device makers have no rights to make a product from digital parts as well as mechanical parts without having to make it open to digital fiddling, and secure it dragging in that new threat model.

jacquesm 5y ago
If you gatekeep applications on your device then it's a walled garden. Simple, no?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Razengan 5y ago
  So why has there never been a horde of torches and pitchforks outside Castle Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo yet? And don’t squeeze out that “cOnSoLeS aReNt cOmPuTeRs” bullshit. They’re closer to computers than a goddamn wristwatch.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I honestly could not tell you, but that's a 'whataboutism' argument, we are not talking about Xbox, PlayStation or Nintendo here. But to the extent that they determine what can and can not be shipped on their platform they are - to me - just as much a walled garden.
  - JohnTHaller 5y ago
    I'd wager a lot of it has to do with history. Gaming consoles were always proprietary hardware that could only do things approved by the manufacturer, and were purchased with that understanding, unless you did some hacking. Computers were always open platforms that you purchased and then could do what you wanted with, no hacking required. iOS was the first major market computing platform that broke this general understanding.
    - sircastor 5y ago
      > iOS was the first major market computing platform that broke this general understanding. I think the reason this worked, and the reason it’s still sort of confusing to people, is that the iPhone is a phone, and showed up at phone stores. People viewed as a super-powered iPod, not a computer.
      - JohnTHaller 5y ago
        The phone computers that came before it didn't have walled gardens either. Palm, for instance.
    - rasz 5y ago
      Consoles were pretty open at the beginning. 2600 had plenty of third party games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Early_years_(1980%E2%80%931982) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Early_years_(1980%E... and even crazy futuristic peripherals like modem (online game renting service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine. Same for Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade. Atari f** up on NES by committing blatant copyright infringement and scamming Patent Office <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_...> if not for the method they used it would of been fine too.
- Terretta 5y ago
  No. Half Life was not a walled garden before opening up to modders, and was not a walled garden after. It was just a game opened to modders. If we get over ourselves, and allow that there's new category of thing, devices made of mechanical and digital parts both, that the maker may or may not selectively open for mods as a legitimate part of their business model they're within their rights to choose, then we'd be less religiously militant in ways that harm innovation and consumers.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Half Life is not a device, modders are not application programmers targeting that device.
    - OneTimePetes 5y ago
      No, a device is more stable when it comes to APIs and Configurations.
    - Terretta 5y ago
      > [Software] is not a device. Then what are you engineering? --- Edit to elaborate: I'm convinced this is the essence of the debate that has intensified as parts that move at the speed of light are devouring physical parts. Switch, transistor, if statement -- a maker should be able to convert one type of part to another type of part without losing their rights, or accidentally triggering a "oh, look, general computing, therefore it's no longer up to you to decide!" flag of some sort. Ease of reconfiguring electrons shouldn't change right to design and distribute a product with whatever blend of physical and digital one wants, facilitating whatever purpose one wants, and not being forced to facilitate other purposes.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Sorry, but you really can't just define some arbitrary alternative universe and then expect the debate to take place on your terms.
atatatat 5y ago
I'd agree with you 100% conceptually, if not for the fact I've been personally left to improve the security on every phone and computer I've been offered by the market since my birth.
shawnz 5y ago
Why was AT&T forced to allow third party landline telephones on their network? Those aren't general purpose computing devices either, right?
kurikuri 5y ago
The line might be able to be drawn between devices which have support, or intend to have support and will accept applications/plans, for 3rd party software and those who don’t. By accepting third party software, the third party now becomes dependent upon (and in this case: a customer to) Apple. In these situations, the device producer has knowledge about and leverage over on-device application competitors which other third parties would not.