4 ms·

You can, however, take apart your car and replace the parts. Your analogy fails because nobody has any expectation of replacing or changing the software in a ca

by cryptoz 15y ago

You can, however, take apart your car and replace the parts. Your analogy fails because nobody has any expectation of replacing or changing the software in a car, the way nobody expects to be able to change the logic in a GPS chip in your phone. However, when people purchase a small computer, it's reasonable to assume that the ability to modify the software on it is something that could define "ownership", just the way car tinkerers own their cars and show that by fiddling around with the insides.

anamax 15y ago
> You can, however, take apart your car and replace the parts. However, if you do certain mods, said car is no longer street legal. > Your analogy fails because nobody has any expectation of replacing or changing the software in a car Not so fast. There are lots of folks who want to change the engine control software, specifically the software related to engine performance. There's even an industry that serves (and sometimes cheats) such people. See http://www.goapr.com/support/chip_tuning_faqs.html http://www.goapr.com/support/chip_tuning_faqs.html .
- baddox 15y ago
  Certain car mods being illegal is a safety (or perhaps environmental) issue, not an intellectual property issue. It's completely unanalogous.
  - anamax 15y ago
    The "street legal" bit is almost always environmental, but neither the car companies nor Apple have police. Does Apple claim that jail breaking is breaking the law or breaking a contract? FWIW, the car companies do go after (some) folks who produce "mods" on intellectual property grounds. They haven't yet gone after users but there doesn't seem to be any any reason why they couldn't, using exactly the same reasoning as Apple. > It's completely unanalogous. It may not be exactly the same, but there are significant similarities. In both cases, we have IP claims and (some) users want to "not manufacturer" software mods.
    - wnight 15y ago
      >Does Apple claim that jail breaking is breaking the law or breaking a contract? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_... Apple claimed it was illegal under the DMCA. They were shot down, and now only claim it voids the warranty. > It may not be exactly the same, but there are significant similarities. Don't defend broken analogies. And yes, it is broken. They're supposed to help in making a point, not prove it, anyways.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > Don't defend broken analogies. And yes, it is broken. Since apple isn't claiming a law violation, the only remaining difference is that some people don't know about chipping cars. Is that a serious problem?
        wnight 15y ago
        > Since apple isn't claiming a law violation They were. Steve Jobs and everyone who still works at Apple would have been okay with it if you were in prison for tinkering with your iPad.
        anamax 15y ago
        > They were. That's an argument that the analogy didn't work before. We're talking about now.
        wnight 15y ago
        It doesn't matter. You can''t compare some car mods to all iPhone mods, and you can't assume that the companies' claims have any weight. Even if your analogy didn't stink, and it does, it would still be meaningless because it's just a thing you said, not a validated and useful model. So give it up.
        15y ago
illumin8 15y ago
The navigation system in my car has a 20GB hard drive, runs Linux, and arguably has more power than an iPhone. I'm still not regretting the fact that I can't load software on it. When I'm trying to get somewhere, I just want the GPS to work - I really don't want to see it crash because I loaded a dodgy piece of crapware on it. Likewise, the first time a customer tries to make a phone call and instead gets a pop up ad saying "YOUR PHONE IS AT RISK!!!!1!!!11!1!" you will know you failed at delivering a successful smartphone experience.
CountSessine 15y ago
Others have pointed out that there are a lot of things that we 'own', but that fail this definition for regulatory or safety reasons. I don't think that this is a good definition. To most people, ownership means legal control over physical possession, and the right to transfer 'ownership'. Apple can't legally require that I return my iPhone to them, just as Toyota can't legally require that I return my minivan to one of their dealers. They 'belong' to me - I 'own' them and control who possesses them.

by cryptoz 15y ago

anamax 15y ago

> You can, however, take apart your car and replace the parts. However, if you do certain mods, said car is no longer street legal. > Your analogy fails because nobody has any expectation of replacing or changing the software in a car Not so fast. There are lots of folks who want to change the engine control software, specifically the software related to engine performance. There's even an industry that serves (and sometimes cheats) such people. See http://www.goapr.com/support/chip_tuning_faqs.html http://www.goapr.com/support/chip_tuning_faqs.html .

baddox 15y ago
Certain car mods being illegal is a safety (or perhaps environmental) issue, not an intellectual property issue. It's completely unanalogous.
- anamax 15y ago
  The "street legal" bit is almost always environmental, but neither the car companies nor Apple have police. Does Apple claim that jail breaking is breaking the law or breaking a contract? FWIW, the car companies do go after (some) folks who produce "mods" on intellectual property grounds. They haven't yet gone after users but there doesn't seem to be any any reason why they couldn't, using exactly the same reasoning as Apple. > It's completely unanalogous. It may not be exactly the same, but there are significant similarities. In both cases, we have IP claims and (some) users want to "not manufacturer" software mods.
  - wnight 15y ago
    >Does Apple claim that jail breaking is breaking the law or breaking a contract? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_... Apple claimed it was illegal under the DMCA. They were shot down, and now only claim it voids the warranty. > It may not be exactly the same, but there are significant similarities. Don't defend broken analogies. And yes, it is broken. They're supposed to help in making a point, not prove it, anyways.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > Don't defend broken analogies. And yes, it is broken. Since apple isn't claiming a law violation, the only remaining difference is that some people don't know about chipping cars. Is that a serious problem?
      - wnight 15y ago
        > Since apple isn't claiming a law violation They were. Steve Jobs and everyone who still works at Apple would have been okay with it if you were in prison for tinkering with your iPad.
        anamax 15y ago
        > They were. That's an argument that the analogy didn't work before. We're talking about now.
        wnight 15y ago
        It doesn't matter. You can''t compare some car mods to all iPhone mods, and you can't assume that the companies' claims have any weight. Even if your analogy didn't stink, and it does, it would still be meaningless because it's just a thing you said, not a validated and useful model. So give it up.
        15y ago

illumin8 15y ago

The navigation system in my car has a 20GB hard drive, runs Linux, and arguably has more power than an iPhone. I'm still not regretting the fact that I can't load software on it. When I'm trying to get somewhere, I just want the GPS to work - I really don't want to see it crash because I loaded a dodgy piece of crapware on it. Likewise, the first time a customer tries to make a phone call and instead gets a pop up ad saying "YOUR PHONE IS AT RISK!!!!1!!!11!1!" you will know you failed at delivering a successful smartphone experience.

CountSessine 15y ago

Others have pointed out that there are a lot of things that we 'own', but that fail this definition for regulatory or safety reasons. I don't think that this is a good definition. To most people, ownership means legal control over physical possession, and the right to transfer 'ownership'. Apple can't legally require that I return my iPhone to them, just as Toyota can't legally require that I return my minivan to one of their dealers. They 'belong' to me - I 'own' them and control who possesses them.