4 ms·

(Not a lawyer, but this is the correct answer) As much as people might look at this and think Apple is being heavy-handed, it comes down to the fact that iClou

(Not a lawyer, but this is the correct answer) As much as people might look at this and think Apple is being heavy-handed, it comes down to the fact that iCloud, iOS, and the App Store are their IP and they can (within legal limits) set whatever terms they please. Especially for these sorts of arrangements, it seems like a problem to me if the platform/IP owner doesn't have absolute, final discretion over what happens. Giving them the right to destroy your business at any time or at least try very hard to make it unprofitable shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

rektide 5y ago
This sits so unwell with me, gives such limitless tyrannical & dictatorial control to a company. > As much as people might look at this and think Apple is being heavy-handed, it comes down to the fact that iCloud, iOS, and the App Store are their IP and they can (within legal limits) set whatever terms they please. Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. It seems to me like the law is immoral. The law is heavy handed, an idiot, and wrong. And it seems like Apple is a user/abuser of unjust power which it does not have any moral or ethical right to wield. > Especially for these sorts of arrangements, it seems like a problem to me if the platform/IP owner doesn't have absolute, final discretion over what happens. This sounds like a nightmare hell world to me. It contravenes the idea that any of us can ever be owners of anything. This sounds like the logic that says that only Tesla can repair Tesla cars, the logic that says only John Deere can repair John Deere tractors. This is an anti-human world, this is a bad world, this is immoral, this is wrong, this destroys & rots away at humanity as a can-do toolmaker, as an improver of the world about them. It consigns power away to fragile, remote, limited corporations. That is not a world I ever want to let happen to us. I tend towards aethism/agnosticism, but if there is a god, this flies against what graces the gods have given us to let ourselves be constrained so. It is unnatural & against the spirit of the human enterprise. I have no love for NSO Group. It feels great seeing such a group of shady, underhanded, anti-democratic punks get served. But this is absolutely going to be yet another move in the ongoing shift towards top-down combined technocratic/legal control. It's absolutely a demonstration of Apple wielding legal power to obstruct & defend that which it simply doesn't want to have to deal with, brushing aside something inconvenient. It's absolutely a battle over what terms of service mean & whether the world has any rights of their own. I for one am not cheering for Apple's victory in having their massive iron-clad armor further enhanced.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  >Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. I'm not a big proponent of IP, but you're basically saying it is immoral, unjustifiable, and sickening as hell that Apple enforces the rules that Apple wants on Apple products/services, which were created and offered by Apple? Who should be making the rules if not the creator and maintainer of the product/service? Why is using another product/service not an acceptable alternative? I agree with the general direction of your comment, but certainly not with the same voracity that wouldn't allow my own company to create the rules for my own service offerings (within the confines of state/national law).
  - catlikesshrimp 5y ago
    The law works fine when there is no monopoly. But since Apple has 50% of the market share, the law doesn't work well anymore.
    - rektide 5y ago
      This and more. I find it beyond farce that Apple & it's adherents chief defense seems to be that there are other people making products that aren't Lawful-Evil to humanity. If Google one day woke up and said, we're just going to try to do what Apple does to it's users, there would be nothing left. This pretense that Apple's behavior is anything but anti-competitive, anti-trust worthy rings so hollow to me. The excuses that there are other places to go completely fail to wash for me. It's as if these folks are saying the Carterphone victory was only won because AT&T was a monopoly. That's not how consumer rights work. That's not a solid enough platform for humanity to remain upright.
    - danaris 5y ago
      ...50% of what market?
      - tentacleuno 5y ago
jacquesm 5y ago
They can try. But that's not the same as succeeding, let's not get ahead of the lawsuit, which will likely take a long time to resolve.
- chrisfinazzo 5y ago
  Fair enough. My issue here is that every time this kind of thing comes up, it becomes a sounding board for how (any) company has too much power... Ever wonder why that is? The laws are written in such a way to allow it to happen, and they are more or less required to do what is in the best interest of shareholders. If this doesn't suit you, bug your Congressperson to work to change the laws - just don't take a page from Newt Gingrich and burn the house down.

rektide 5y ago

This sits so unwell with me, gives such limitless tyrannical & dictatorial control to a company. > As much as people might look at this and think Apple is being heavy-handed, it comes down to the fact that iCloud, iOS, and the App Store are their IP and they can (within legal limits) set whatever terms they please. Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. It seems to me like the law is immoral. The law is heavy handed, an idiot, and wrong. And it seems like Apple is a user/abuser of unjust power which it does not have any moral or ethical right to wield. > Especially for these sorts of arrangements, it seems like a problem to me if the platform/IP owner doesn't have absolute, final discretion over what happens. This sounds like a nightmare hell world to me. It contravenes the idea that any of us can ever be owners of anything. This sounds like the logic that says that only Tesla can repair Tesla cars, the logic that says only John Deere can repair John Deere tractors. This is an anti-human world, this is a bad world, this is immoral, this is wrong, this destroys & rots away at humanity as a can-do toolmaker, as an improver of the world about them. It consigns power away to fragile, remote, limited corporations. That is not a world I ever want to let happen to us. I tend towards aethism/agnosticism, but if there is a god, this flies against what graces the gods have given us to let ourselves be constrained so. It is unnatural & against the spirit of the human enterprise. I have no love for NSO Group. It feels great seeing such a group of shady, underhanded, anti-democratic punks get served. But this is absolutely going to be yet another move in the ongoing shift towards top-down combined technocratic/legal control. It's absolutely a demonstration of Apple wielding legal power to obstruct & defend that which it simply doesn't want to have to deal with, brushing aside something inconvenient. It's absolutely a battle over what terms of service mean & whether the world has any rights of their own. I for one am not cheering for Apple's victory in having their massive iron-clad armor further enhanced.

ziddoap 5y ago
>Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. I'm not a big proponent of IP, but you're basically saying it is immoral, unjustifiable, and sickening as hell that Apple enforces the rules that Apple wants on Apple products/services, which were created and offered by Apple? Who should be making the rules if not the creator and maintainer of the product/service? Why is using another product/service not an acceptable alternative? I agree with the general direction of your comment, but certainly not with the same voracity that wouldn't allow my own company to create the rules for my own service offerings (within the confines of state/national law).
- catlikesshrimp 5y ago
  The law works fine when there is no monopoly. But since Apple has 50% of the market share, the law doesn't work well anymore.
  - rektide 5y ago
    This and more. I find it beyond farce that Apple & it's adherents chief defense seems to be that there are other people making products that aren't Lawful-Evil to humanity. If Google one day woke up and said, we're just going to try to do what Apple does to it's users, there would be nothing left. This pretense that Apple's behavior is anything but anti-competitive, anti-trust worthy rings so hollow to me. The excuses that there are other places to go completely fail to wash for me. It's as if these folks are saying the Carterphone victory was only won because AT&T was a monopoly. That's not how consumer rights work. That's not a solid enough platform for humanity to remain upright.
  - danaris 5y ago
    ...50% of what market?
    - tentacleuno 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

They can try. But that's not the same as succeeding, let's not get ahead of the lawsuit, which will likely take a long time to resolve.

chrisfinazzo 5y ago
Fair enough. My issue here is that every time this kind of thing comes up, it becomes a sounding board for how (any) company has too much power... Ever wonder why that is? The laws are written in such a way to allow it to happen, and they are more or less required to do what is in the best interest of shareholders. If this doesn't suit you, bug your Congressperson to work to change the laws - just don't take a page from Newt Gingrich and burn the house down.