12 ms·

Senate panel approves antitrust bill restricting big tech platforms

143 points by clairity 5y ago

sto_hristo 5y ago
- zepto 5y ago
  > Every new model is just like the model from 10 years ago This statement is totally false.
- dang 5y ago
  "Please don't fulminate." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
sneak 5y ago
The real question here is will it allow you to sideload without an Apple ID? Right now, to get any app onto an iPhone, you have to use an Apple ID, which requires providing a phone number (verified with sms), an email (verified with a code), and some other stuff that's not verified (name, country, street address, etc). It also sends the serial number of the device when you create the ID (and you can only create so many per device). There's really no privacy on Apple devices unless you can a) buy a device without providing PII, and b) load apps onto the device without providing PII (including VPN/DNS apps, so that you can block all the phone-home crap it constantly does to Apple). I'm in the process of a painful switch to Graphene and the no-good, very-bad Android ecosystem as a result. I don't like the approach to solving the problem, here, but if Apple devices become usable again without compromising privacy it would be nice to be able to continue to use them. Sideloading is sort of enabled already, in that you can use any Apple ID to get signatures for self-built apps (or downloaded apps) to load on to your own device (registered to that Apple ID). If they comply with such legislation by allowing sideloading for ID-identified customers only, it's little comfort for those that care about privacy or freedom/choice. (It also means they can turn off sideloading on a per-person or per-country basis from Central Command during wartime, or if you become persona non grata for some reason.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ortusdux 5y ago
  It sounds like this might apply to Oculus/Meta head-sets as well. I would buy one tomorrow if they didn't require a facebook account in good standing.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > if they didn't require a facebook account in good standing. They're reverting to letting you create a non-social account. (they're ending oculus branding, but allowing alt logins)
    - ortusdux 5y ago
      I ordered one, so we will see how the non-social account process goes. They dumped their stock of new unopened 64gb units through Walmart for $200 by labeling them refurbished. Too good of a deal to pass up, and I'll have a month to return it to the store if dissatisfied with the account setup process.
- clairity 5y ago
  yes, tying sideloading to an apple ID would be a real blow to privacy and freedom, but sideloading at all would be a meaningful improvement. it'd be a win to be able to install and run an application- & network-level (outbound & inbound) firewall for everything on the phone, not just some subset of web content on safari.
nullifidian 5y ago
The senators will get their donations from the affected companies, and nothing will come out of it.
- topspin 5y ago
  I share your cynicism. My suspicion is that it's in the bill specifically to motivate campaign donations. Like you I doubt this survives. If it does Apple et al. will ensure the mandated sideloading capability is accompanied by scary warnings, unnecessary downsides and any other dark patterns they can get away with inflicting.
- pm90 5y ago
  Absolutely. Big Tech is already spending a lot, they will just spend more. However, it is upto the electorate (us) to vote in people who don't make decisions that way, and there are quite a few of them today.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Senators don't get donations for passing laws, companies establish annual donations which then may be revoked if the right laws aren't passed.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Yet laws are passed, and antitrust happens - and has happened for a century.
xoa 5y ago
Very glad to see some consideration of this sort of thing. That said I'd really like a minimally crafted law to start that created new options for consumers while also recognizing the value the existing situation brings, as well as tying corporate power to responsibility which seems like it'd do a better and more flexible job of getting finding the right dynamic balances in the market. Dealing with externalities is always really important as well. Using as Apple as an example: - In terms of cryptographic chain, I'd like to see it mandated there be an option at buy time to allow owner access to software root key store, hardware root key store, or both. Many people would be best served in their threat models by the current situation of leaving Apple in charge, which also means they can't be socially engineered or pressured into offering access. It also unionizes diffuse buying power into one actor with different incentives than other powerful actors. It is unlikely that Apple's advertising privacy changes vs Facebook say could have happened in a fully open environment for example since Facebook has enough pull to get people to sideload whether they like it or not. Others would really like full stack access. And many would fall into one bucket or the other. Those less technical in areas with poor Apple support options might still want the software side of things as a walled garden but be able to allow arbitrary 3rd party hardware repairs. Conversely, I at least would like full software side control, but I'm more concerned about evil maid attacks than I am about the rare need to go to an Apple store for a hardware repair. There isn't really a one-size-fits-all here, but that doesn't have to be mandated either. - In terms of power and responsibility, I think that'd be a great way to handle repair, and it has the advantage of not singling out just "big companies". If a product creator wants to maintain full hardware and software control, it should also have to fully support the product. If after X years it no longer wishes to offer support, it should also be required to give up control (in terms of necessary crypto keys and documentation). Then everyone gets to decide where the right balance is in terms of support. An open source startup doing a risky new product also avoids being on the hook for much support if things go pear shaped because everything is fully available to the community. At the opposite end a company like Apple could maintain total control for 10 years if they wanted, but only if they offered 10 years of updates and hardware repair or replacement. At any point they could get off the hook for that, but then they'd have to let owners take it over themselves. No having cake and eating it too. And everything in between. An Android OEM only wants to support a phone for 18 months? Fine (maybe, within below), but no locked bootloader after that, they need to have full docs for it etc. There would be room for all kinds of brands fitting all kinds of needs and price points. - The above said, I do think there is an externality/information asymmetry situation when it comes to warranty repair. There is a general expectation amongst the public is that there is some tie between buying something decent and how long it will last. Imagine if an iPhone said "this product will break after two years four months" on the label at buy time, that'd pretty radically change the market reaction to it. But some small percentage of people get screwed, and the standard warranty doesn't match expectation at all. Essentially the consumers are all gambling, and the side with the best information on risk keeps it to themselves and gets to sell "extended warranties" at enormous profit. The sticker price doesn't accurately reflect all the potential costs. That shouldn't be allowed. Standard warranty coverage should either be longer period, or have some sort of tie to pricing/tier. If someone wants something ultra dirt cheap and disposable that should be ok, but if someone buys something where a reasonable expectation would be it lasts 4-6 years at least that should be part of the price. Or if nothing else, there should be a requirement that all repair/replacement data is public with a clear standardized "% failure by year for first 5 years" infographic or something of that nature. Special warranties should only be for truly extended business support periods, or stuff like advanced replacement or SLAs. When people compare prices, they should be able to have upkeep factor into that easily. Hidden pricing is the bane of good markets.
formvoltron 5y ago
How about standardizing battery replacements as well as standardizing on battery packs for power tools?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I’m surprised no one has made a series of adapters for this so you can use any battery on any tool.
  - bin_bash 5y ago
    yes they have https://badaptor.com/us/ https://badaptor.com/us/
  - twblalock 5y ago
    Some of the modern batteries are electronically controlled by the tool. It's not as simple as just an electrical connection anymore.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  I mean, there's always going to be more things. This one is a huge step and I hope it goes through.
- twblalock 5y ago
  I'd rather not. Competition in the power tool market has resulted in very impressive batteries over the last few years. Combined with the new brushless motor tech, consumers of cordless power tools are better off now than they have ever been. If we had standardized on the old 18v-style batteries, with the stick that goes up into the tool handle, we might still be stuck with them. Similarly, if the EU had gone through with standardizing on micro-USB plugs for smartphones several years ago, as it threatened to do, I doubt we would now have phones with USB-C which is so much better.
  - inetknght 5y ago
    You can innovate in batteries while standardizing on form factor. I very much don't want to have to buy ten different batteries for devices and have none of them work with each other. AAA, AA, C, D, 9V... these are all very much handy to have. You can find them with Alkaline, NiCad, NiMH, Li-ion, and the only thing is whether you can, and if so then how often, you can recharge them
eatonphil 5y ago
> Sideloading would "hurt competition and discourage innovation" by making it "much harder" to protect the privacy and security of personal devices in the United States, according to Apple. Taking Apple at their word here, I still don't get it. Can anyone explain the argument they're trying to make? As written it just sounds so ridiculous (but I'm still trying to understand it).
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Can anyone explain the argument they're trying to make? If Facebook removes their app from the App Store (or cripples it), and says you have to side load this app, most Americans will do so. Even if that app violates a number of user-friendly policies. The OS, of course, could enforce that at a technical level, which weakens the argument significantly. Also lots of people will click links and side load spam apps, but that’s par for the course.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > The OS, of course, could enforce that at a technical level, which weakens the argument significantly. This is simply not true. An app can lie about what it does, and nothing at a technical level can prevent that.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > An app can lie about what it does, and nothing at a technical level can prevent that I was thinking of the tracking restrictions when I wrote this. The OS simply doesn’t give the app the data.
      - zepto 5y ago
        It’s much harder than that to prevent fingerprinting, or the use of legitimate APIs for illegitimate purposes. In any case the idea that you can achieve privacy and security solely through managing APIs is simply false.
    - 5y ago
kart23 5y ago
I think the headline is wrong. Sideloading or alternate app stores wouldn't be required, thats not the purpose of the bill. Sideloading and alternate app stores is a legitimate privacy/security problem that will be exempted under the bill. >"unless necessary for the security or functioning of the covered platform," from https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/299... I think it would actually be very good for the app store, outlawing a lot of the restriction that Apple places on things like payments. I really don't know what to think about the bill overall. It would definitely have the largest impact on Amazon, their basics line would pretty much be killed by the law. Google rankings would also be overhauled, no more flights at the top of the page. The testimony in support of the bill by Sonos [0] and Tile [1] is also a good read. [0] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Eddie%20Lazarus%20Written%20Testimony.pdf https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Eddie%20Lazar... [1] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/04.21.21%20Kirsten%20Daru%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Testimony%20Final.pdf https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/04.21.21%20Ki...
- dang 5y ago
  The headline was originally "U.S. Senate panel approves antitrust bill that would allow sideloading" (before we changed the URL from https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloading-bill-advances/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloadin....
- sebow 5y ago
  Using terms like sideloading is precisely why the vast majority of the public doesn't give a damn about this issue.Free 'social experiment' idea: ask everyone who was a smartphone what is sideloading, what is installing, what's the difference and what's common. Altering our language to appease companies and somehow pretend like sideloading means something different than installing is why we're losing, precisely because it's a tactic to erase correlation of the word and the meaning.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
    As part of the general public I feel the same way about these made-up terms. However, I believe if there is an increase in litigation, as a result of new "anti-tech" laws, that is allowed to proceed through to discovery, then lawyers will cut through the BS. The made-up terms will be translated to "plain English" that the general population, including judges, can understand. It is part of the job. There is an old theory that settlement may actually be averse to justice. In the case of "tech" companies and their nefarious practices, questions have been allowed to remain unanswered and issues to remain unresolved for the general public. This has been going on for a very long time. Uncertainty has been allowed to persist for decades. Who benefits from that uncertainty.
repiret 5y ago
You know where else I can side-load apps? Desktop PCs. You know what my in-law's desktop PCs are full of? Spy-ware and search bars and other crap they got tricked into side-loading. Here's how I think this will go down: 1. Some indie developers and hobbyists will be enabled by not having to pay $99/year and jump through hoops to distribute apps. That will be good. 2. Some mainstream apps will require side-loading to get around the Apple tax for purchases, but they won't lower their prices. That will redirect some money from Apple to Amazon or EA or whoever. Thats bad for Apple, good for those companies, but I don't think it will affect most people very much, except for a better flow for in-app purchases where you're current directed to the web-site. 3. The mainstream apps eventually condition people that side-loading is an okay way to get legitimate app. Then publishers will leave the app-store in mass, and the crapware will be as prolific as on PCs. This will be bad. 4. Side-loading will enable piracy, and so honest users will suddenly become more burdened by software DRM type crap. This will be bad. I am honestly not convinced the good that comes from #1, and the connivence that come from #2 are worth the costs of #3 and #4.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  I'm less convinced that piracy^wcopyright infringement is as much of a problem as the people who stand to profit most from its demonization claim it is.
  - repiret 5y ago
    I don't think copyright infringement is a big problem either, but many software publishers do, and that fear leads them to make the software worse for all of us.
endisneigh 5y ago
> Senator Dianne Feinstein criticized the bill and said that it targets a "small number of specific companies," and Senator Alex Padilla said that it was difficult to "see the justification for a bill that regulates the behavior of only a handful of companies while allowing everyone else to continue engaging in that exact same behavior." This bill should pass but that’s also a good point. More fundamentally there should be a bill that affectively taxes the top 10% of companies in all industries and credits the bottom 25%. Call it an innovation bill. In addition the bottom 25% percent should get discounts on all licensing fees charged by the top. More generally our government should use financial incentives and disincentives for creating the behaviors we want.
- eps 5y ago
  > Call it an innovation bill. This will result in a boatload of scam and zero innovation.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    How so?
    - DerpyBaby123 5y ago
      Not op, but I can imagine it would be easy to be in the 'bottom' tier of an industry by revenue/sales/etc - if I want to be credited, just make a tiny barely functioning company and collect the credits
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        A well operated implementation would probably be in the form of reduced taxes, not a check as the point is to help grow smaller competitors, not create zombie companies.
- syshum 5y ago
  Why do you believe that taking money from the top 10% and gifting it to the bottom would result in innovation? Is is not possible that the bottom 25% is there for a reason, that they failed or their product is not viewed as innovative by the public? I fail to see how this wealth redistribution scheme would be effective or produce the stated outcome. Like most wealth redistribution scheme it is lofty on the goal, but unclear on the results with no objective measurements and not real way to assess its value. It is more a "do it and assume it was successful" program like many government program are
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/q31Xz https://archive.is/q31Xz
dang 5y ago
Url changed from https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloading-bill-advances/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloadin..., which points to this. Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
LatteLazy 5y ago
More poorly defined legislation with no predictable outcomes that will spend decades with judges who never used a computer trying to guess their way through?
throwawaymanbot 5y ago
bearbearbear 5y ago

143 points by clairity 5y ago

zepto 5y ago
> Every new model is just like the model from 10 years ago This statement is totally false.
dang 5y ago
"Please don't fulminate." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The real question here is will it allow you to sideload without an Apple ID? Right now, to get any app onto an iPhone, you have to use an Apple ID, which requires providing a phone number (verified with sms), an email (verified with a code), and some other stuff that's not verified (name, country, street address, etc). It also sends the serial number of the device when you create the ID (and you can only create so many per device). There's really no privacy on Apple devices unless you can a) buy a device without providing PII, and b) load apps onto the device without providing PII (including VPN/DNS apps, so that you can block all the phone-home crap it constantly does to Apple). I'm in the process of a painful switch to Graphene and the no-good, very-bad Android ecosystem as a result. I don't like the approach to solving the problem, here, but if Apple devices become usable again without compromising privacy it would be nice to be able to continue to use them. Sideloading is sort of enabled already, in that you can use any Apple ID to get signatures for self-built apps (or downloaded apps) to load on to your own device (registered to that Apple ID). If they comply with such legislation by allowing sideloading for ID-identified customers only, it's little comfort for those that care about privacy or freedom/choice. (It also means they can turn off sideloading on a per-person or per-country basis from Central Command during wartime, or if you become persona non grata for some reason.)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ortusdux 5y ago
It sounds like this might apply to Oculus/Meta head-sets as well. I would buy one tomorrow if they didn't require a facebook account in good standing.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > if they didn't require a facebook account in good standing. They're reverting to letting you create a non-social account. (they're ending oculus branding, but allowing alt logins)
  - ortusdux 5y ago
    I ordered one, so we will see how the non-social account process goes. They dumped their stock of new unopened 64gb units through Walmart for $200 by labeling them refurbished. Too good of a deal to pass up, and I'll have a month to return it to the store if dissatisfied with the account setup process.
clairity 5y ago
yes, tying sideloading to an apple ID would be a real blow to privacy and freedom, but sideloading at all would be a meaningful improvement. it'd be a win to be able to install and run an application- & network-level (outbound & inbound) firewall for everything on the phone, not just some subset of web content on safari.

nullifidian 5y ago

The senators will get their donations from the affected companies, and nothing will come out of it.

topspin 5y ago
I share your cynicism. My suspicion is that it's in the bill specifically to motivate campaign donations. Like you I doubt this survives. If it does Apple et al. will ensure the mandated sideloading capability is accompanied by scary warnings, unnecessary downsides and any other dark patterns they can get away with inflicting.
pm90 5y ago
Absolutely. Big Tech is already spending a lot, they will just spend more. However, it is upto the electorate (us) to vote in people who don't make decisions that way, and there are quite a few of them today.
whatshisface 5y ago
Senators don't get donations for passing laws, companies establish annual donations which then may be revoked if the right laws aren't passed.
wolverine876 5y ago
Yet laws are passed, and antitrust happens - and has happened for a century.

xoa 5y ago

Very glad to see some consideration of this sort of thing. That said I'd really like a minimally crafted law to start that created new options for consumers while also recognizing the value the existing situation brings, as well as tying corporate power to responsibility which seems like it'd do a better and more flexible job of getting finding the right dynamic balances in the market. Dealing with externalities is always really important as well. Using as Apple as an example: - In terms of cryptographic chain, I'd like to see it mandated there be an option at buy time to allow owner access to software root key store, hardware root key store, or both. Many people would be best served in their threat models by the current situation of leaving Apple in charge, which also means they can't be socially engineered or pressured into offering access. It also unionizes diffuse buying power into one actor with different incentives than other powerful actors. It is unlikely that Apple's advertising privacy changes vs Facebook say could have happened in a fully open environment for example since Facebook has enough pull to get people to sideload whether they like it or not. Others would really like full stack access. And many would fall into one bucket or the other. Those less technical in areas with poor Apple support options might still want the software side of things as a walled garden but be able to allow arbitrary 3rd party hardware repairs. Conversely, I at least would like full software side control, but I'm more concerned about evil maid attacks than I am about the rare need to go to an Apple store for a hardware repair. There isn't really a one-size-fits-all here, but that doesn't have to be mandated either. - In terms of power and responsibility, I think that'd be a great way to handle repair, and it has the advantage of not singling out just "big companies". If a product creator wants to maintain full hardware and software control, it should also have to fully support the product. If after X years it no longer wishes to offer support, it should also be required to give up control (in terms of necessary crypto keys and documentation). Then everyone gets to decide where the right balance is in terms of support. An open source startup doing a risky new product also avoids being on the hook for much support if things go pear shaped because everything is fully available to the community. At the opposite end a company like Apple could maintain total control for 10 years if they wanted, but only if they offered 10 years of updates and hardware repair or replacement. At any point they could get off the hook for that, but then they'd have to let owners take it over themselves. No having cake and eating it too. And everything in between. An Android OEM only wants to support a phone for 18 months? Fine (maybe, within below), but no locked bootloader after that, they need to have full docs for it etc. There would be room for all kinds of brands fitting all kinds of needs and price points. - The above said, I do think there is an externality/information asymmetry situation when it comes to warranty repair. There is a general expectation amongst the public is that there is some tie between buying something decent and how long it will last. Imagine if an iPhone said "this product will break after two years four months" on the label at buy time, that'd pretty radically change the market reaction to it. But some small percentage of people get screwed, and the standard warranty doesn't match expectation at all. Essentially the consumers are all gambling, and the side with the best information on risk keeps it to themselves and gets to sell "extended warranties" at enormous profit. The sticker price doesn't accurately reflect all the potential costs. That shouldn't be allowed. Standard warranty coverage should either be longer period, or have some sort of tie to pricing/tier. If someone wants something ultra dirt cheap and disposable that should be ok, but if someone buys something where a reasonable expectation would be it lasts 4-6 years at least that should be part of the price. Or if nothing else, there should be a requirement that all repair/replacement data is public with a clear standardized "% failure by year for first 5 years" infographic or something of that nature. Special warranties should only be for truly extended business support periods, or stuff like advanced replacement or SLAs. When people compare prices, they should be able to have upkeep factor into that easily. Hidden pricing is the bane of good markets.

formvoltron 5y ago

How about standardizing battery replacements as well as standardizing on battery packs for power tools?

endisneigh 5y ago
I’m surprised no one has made a series of adapters for this so you can use any battery on any tool.
- bin_bash 5y ago
  yes they have https://badaptor.com/us/ https://badaptor.com/us/
- twblalock 5y ago
  Some of the modern batteries are electronically controlled by the tool. It's not as simple as just an electrical connection anymore.
aaomidi 5y ago
I mean, there's always going to be more things. This one is a huge step and I hope it goes through.
twblalock 5y ago
I'd rather not. Competition in the power tool market has resulted in very impressive batteries over the last few years. Combined with the new brushless motor tech, consumers of cordless power tools are better off now than they have ever been. If we had standardized on the old 18v-style batteries, with the stick that goes up into the tool handle, we might still be stuck with them. Similarly, if the EU had gone through with standardizing on micro-USB plugs for smartphones several years ago, as it threatened to do, I doubt we would now have phones with USB-C which is so much better.
- inetknght 5y ago
  You can innovate in batteries while standardizing on form factor. I very much don't want to have to buy ten different batteries for devices and have none of them work with each other. AAA, AA, C, D, 9V... these are all very much handy to have. You can find them with Alkaline, NiCad, NiMH, Li-ion, and the only thing is whether you can, and if so then how often, you can recharge them

eatonphil 5y ago

> Sideloading would "hurt competition and discourage innovation" by making it "much harder" to protect the privacy and security of personal devices in the United States, according to Apple. Taking Apple at their word here, I still don't get it. Can anyone explain the argument they're trying to make? As written it just sounds so ridiculous (but I'm still trying to understand it).

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Can anyone explain the argument they're trying to make? If Facebook removes their app from the App Store (or cripples it), and says you have to side load this app, most Americans will do so. Even if that app violates a number of user-friendly policies. The OS, of course, could enforce that at a technical level, which weakens the argument significantly. Also lots of people will click links and side load spam apps, but that’s par for the course.
- zepto 5y ago
  > The OS, of course, could enforce that at a technical level, which weakens the argument significantly. This is simply not true. An app can lie about what it does, and nothing at a technical level can prevent that.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > An app can lie about what it does, and nothing at a technical level can prevent that I was thinking of the tracking restrictions when I wrote this. The OS simply doesn’t give the app the data.
    - zepto 5y ago
      It’s much harder than that to prevent fingerprinting, or the use of legitimate APIs for illegitimate purposes. In any case the idea that you can achieve privacy and security solely through managing APIs is simply false.
  - 5y ago

kart23 5y ago

I think the headline is wrong. Sideloading or alternate app stores wouldn't be required, thats not the purpose of the bill. Sideloading and alternate app stores is a legitimate privacy/security problem that will be exempted under the bill. >"unless necessary for the security or functioning of the covered platform," from https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/299... I think it would actually be very good for the app store, outlawing a lot of the restriction that Apple places on things like payments. I really don't know what to think about the bill overall. It would definitely have the largest impact on Amazon, their basics line would pretty much be killed by the law. Google rankings would also be overhauled, no more flights at the top of the page. The testimony in support of the bill by Sonos [0] and Tile [1] is also a good read. [0] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Eddie%20Lazarus%20Written%20Testimony.pdf https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Eddie%20Lazar... [1] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/04.21.21%20Kirsten%20Daru%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Testimony%20Final.pdf https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/04.21.21%20Ki...

dang 5y ago
The headline was originally "U.S. Senate panel approves antitrust bill that would allow sideloading" (before we changed the URL from https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloading-bill-advances/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloadin....
sebow 5y ago
Using terms like sideloading is precisely why the vast majority of the public doesn't give a damn about this issue.Free 'social experiment' idea: ask everyone who was a smartphone what is sideloading, what is installing, what's the difference and what's common. Altering our language to appease companies and somehow pretend like sideloading means something different than installing is why we're losing, precisely because it's a tactic to erase correlation of the word and the meaning.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  As part of the general public I feel the same way about these made-up terms. However, I believe if there is an increase in litigation, as a result of new "anti-tech" laws, that is allowed to proceed through to discovery, then lawyers will cut through the BS. The made-up terms will be translated to "plain English" that the general population, including judges, can understand. It is part of the job. There is an old theory that settlement may actually be averse to justice. In the case of "tech" companies and their nefarious practices, questions have been allowed to remain unanswered and issues to remain unresolved for the general public. This has been going on for a very long time. Uncertainty has been allowed to persist for decades. Who benefits from that uncertainty.

repiret 5y ago

You know where else I can side-load apps? Desktop PCs. You know what my in-law's desktop PCs are full of? Spy-ware and search bars and other crap they got tricked into side-loading. Here's how I think this will go down: 1. Some indie developers and hobbyists will be enabled by not having to pay $99/year and jump through hoops to distribute apps. That will be good. 2. Some mainstream apps will require side-loading to get around the Apple tax for purchases, but they won't lower their prices. That will redirect some money from Apple to Amazon or EA or whoever. Thats bad for Apple, good for those companies, but I don't think it will affect most people very much, except for a better flow for in-app purchases where you're current directed to the web-site. 3. The mainstream apps eventually condition people that side-loading is an okay way to get legitimate app. Then publishers will leave the app-store in mass, and the crapware will be as prolific as on PCs. This will be bad. 4. Side-loading will enable piracy, and so honest users will suddenly become more burdened by software DRM type crap. This will be bad. I am honestly not convinced the good that comes from #1, and the connivence that come from #2 are worth the costs of #3 and #4.

Karunamon 5y ago
I'm less convinced that piracy^wcopyright infringement is as much of a problem as the people who stand to profit most from its demonization claim it is.
- repiret 5y ago
  I don't think copyright infringement is a big problem either, but many software publishers do, and that fear leads them to make the software worse for all of us.

endisneigh 5y ago

> Senator Dianne Feinstein criticized the bill and said that it targets a "small number of specific companies," and Senator Alex Padilla said that it was difficult to "see the justification for a bill that regulates the behavior of only a handful of companies while allowing everyone else to continue engaging in that exact same behavior." This bill should pass but that’s also a good point. More fundamentally there should be a bill that affectively taxes the top 10% of companies in all industries and credits the bottom 25%. Call it an innovation bill. In addition the bottom 25% percent should get discounts on all licensing fees charged by the top. More generally our government should use financial incentives and disincentives for creating the behaviors we want.

eps 5y ago
> Call it an innovation bill. This will result in a boatload of scam and zero innovation.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  How so?
  - DerpyBaby123 5y ago
    Not op, but I can imagine it would be easy to be in the 'bottom' tier of an industry by revenue/sales/etc - if I want to be credited, just make a tiny barely functioning company and collect the credits
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      A well operated implementation would probably be in the form of reduced taxes, not a check as the point is to help grow smaller competitors, not create zombie companies.
syshum 5y ago
Why do you believe that taking money from the top 10% and gifting it to the bottom would result in innovation? Is is not possible that the bottom 25% is there for a reason, that they failed or their product is not viewed as innovative by the public? I fail to see how this wealth redistribution scheme would be effective or produce the stated outcome. Like most wealth redistribution scheme it is lofty on the goal, but unclear on the results with no objective measurements and not real way to assess its value. It is more a "do it and assume it was successful" program like many government program are

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/q31Xz https://archive.is/q31Xz

dang 5y ago

Url changed from https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloading-bill-advances/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloadin..., which points to this. Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

LatteLazy 5y ago

More poorly defined legislation with no predictable outcomes that will spend decades with judges who never used a computer trying to guess their way through?

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

bearbearbear 5y ago