3 ms·

There's a trend in this whole thread that I don't understand. After pointing out that the users are licensing the ability to use the proprietary operating syste

by cryptoz 15y ago

There's a trend in this whole thread that I don't understand. After pointing out that the users are licensing the ability to use the proprietary operating system rather than "owning" it, the main rebuttal is: nobody cares, so it doesn't matter. I don't understand that. For example, few people care about taxes, war, or clean energy policies (less than 50% vote in much of North America). Does that mean the work done in these areas doesn't matter? The fact that most people don't care has little to do with the truth of the matter. Only Apple owns iPhones. It doesn't matter that nobody cares about this, they still don't own their phone.

ugh 15y ago
But – so what? That’s the point. So you don’t own the phone. Is that a bad thing? Why? That’s the point of disagreement. I don’t understand what’s so bad about it.
- cryptoz 15y ago
  Ah. I see. I only came in here to correct the statements about ownership. It matters to me that HN is not the kind of place where people think they own their iPhones - after all the news about software patents, free software, mobile platforms, etc, I think it's an important distinction to make on this site. The people here care (obviously, hence this debate) about this issue and I just wanted the definitions to be set right: jailbreaking != ownership. As to why it's good or bad, that's entirely personal preference. For me, I want to own it because I want the option to change it. That's all. Therefore, for me, it's terrible to buy a device I don't own. That should answer your question about why it's bad. Maybe it's not bad for you. Maybe it's good for you to not own the device. That's fine; I'm only here to remind you that you don't own it (after it was erroneously suggested up top that you do own it)
  - rimantas 15y ago
    Ok, you choose what software you run, then along comes the other guy and claims that you don't own your phone unless you control what hardware is running your software. Some just cannot tell owning and controlling apart.
  - atonse 15y ago
    My point is only that, do you feel like you own the other appliances in your home any less, if they had parts that were tougher for you to fix without voiding a warranty? Or are we only having this discussion because we all here collectively care more about the hackability of electronics?
- mrgordon 15y ago
  Do you remember when Amazon deleted books off of peoples' kindles? Remote control of your phone is one obvious way in which Apple owns it and you do not. And the average person might not think they would care but when their copy of 1984 disappears they get angry!
  - ugh 15y ago
    I think it’s necessary to be ever vigilant when companies create an infrastructure for doing just that and to really scream bloody murder when they actually use it. I also can understand people who refuse to buy devices that actually support moves like that (Apple has the capability for remotely removing apps.) It’s a valid reason. I, however, like to be more pragmatic. 1. As far as I know Apple never used that capability. They removed apps from the store, they never remotely removed apps from devices. (I think Apple claims that they only want to use this capability for removing maleware. Now, you might not believe them but their track record is pretty clean in that regard.) 2. Shitstorms will make anyone with such a capability think long and hard about actually using it. (I think Amazon at least apologized for what happened, I don’t know what else they did for the customers who lost their copies.) Apple can’t just treat their customers like crap. It’s right to be vigilant about theoretical capability but I don’t think I’m completely irresponsible when I recognize factors that will prevent Apple from using their theoretical capability to its full extent.
atonse 15y ago
I understand the need to confuse "ownership" with hackability, for the purposes of philosophizing on this site. We are all tinkerers. But by every definition of ownership recognized by society and our laws (at least in the United States), you completely own your phone. You are lawfully allowed to do the following: - crush it, destroy it, put it in the dishwasher, or drive over it - open it up all you want - sell it to someone else - Install alternate software on it You are under no obligation to anyone once you have purchased that phone. It is, by ANY definition, legally your property. The WORST thing Apple can do to you, is void your warranty. And that is completely acceptable. Whether you think it should be less or more difficult is a philosophical discussion. The fact is, you have all the same protections under any laws that most people who "own" things have. Reply to VladRussian Below (I couldn't find a reply link): Won't get me to disagree with you on anything related to the DMCA. I think it is a pigheaded piece of evil legislation. :) But most of the things I'm talking about aren't related to the DMCA (at least I hope not).
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >The WORST thing Apple can do to you, is void your warranty. before that the "WORST" was much worse http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/26/library-of-congress-adds-dmca-exception-for-jailbreaking-or-root/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/26/library-of-congress-adds-... And this is the main point of all these discussions. It isn't about technical obstacles put in place by Apple and difficulty to break them as it only adds more interest to process, It is about criminalizing the very act of analysis of the system, ie. an act of mental activity, applied to the system you're supposedly own. >I understand the need to confuse "ownership" with hackability, for the purposes of philosophizing on this site. We are all tinkerers. Nobody tries to confuse ownership and hackability. They are orthogonal. What people still trying to bend their minds around is the ownership and off-limit (for your mind) holes in that ownership established by DMCA.

by cryptoz 15y ago

ugh 15y ago

But – so what? That’s the point. So you don’t own the phone. Is that a bad thing? Why? That’s the point of disagreement. I don’t understand what’s so bad about it.

cryptoz 15y ago
Ah. I see. I only came in here to correct the statements about ownership. It matters to me that HN is not the kind of place where people think they own their iPhones - after all the news about software patents, free software, mobile platforms, etc, I think it's an important distinction to make on this site. The people here care (obviously, hence this debate) about this issue and I just wanted the definitions to be set right: jailbreaking != ownership. As to why it's good or bad, that's entirely personal preference. For me, I want to own it because I want the option to change it. That's all. Therefore, for me, it's terrible to buy a device I don't own. That should answer your question about why it's bad. Maybe it's not bad for you. Maybe it's good for you to not own the device. That's fine; I'm only here to remind you that you don't own it (after it was erroneously suggested up top that you do own it)
- rimantas 15y ago
  Ok, you choose what software you run, then along comes the other guy and claims that you don't own your phone unless you control what hardware is running your software. Some just cannot tell owning and controlling apart.
- atonse 15y ago
  My point is only that, do you feel like you own the other appliances in your home any less, if they had parts that were tougher for you to fix without voiding a warranty? Or are we only having this discussion because we all here collectively care more about the hackability of electronics?
mrgordon 15y ago
Do you remember when Amazon deleted books off of peoples' kindles? Remote control of your phone is one obvious way in which Apple owns it and you do not. And the average person might not think they would care but when their copy of 1984 disappears they get angry!
- ugh 15y ago
  I think it’s necessary to be ever vigilant when companies create an infrastructure for doing just that and to really scream bloody murder when they actually use it. I also can understand people who refuse to buy devices that actually support moves like that (Apple has the capability for remotely removing apps.) It’s a valid reason. I, however, like to be more pragmatic. 1. As far as I know Apple never used that capability. They removed apps from the store, they never remotely removed apps from devices. (I think Apple claims that they only want to use this capability for removing maleware. Now, you might not believe them but their track record is pretty clean in that regard.) 2. Shitstorms will make anyone with such a capability think long and hard about actually using it. (I think Amazon at least apologized for what happened, I don’t know what else they did for the customers who lost their copies.) Apple can’t just treat their customers like crap. It’s right to be vigilant about theoretical capability but I don’t think I’m completely irresponsible when I recognize factors that will prevent Apple from using their theoretical capability to its full extent.

atonse 15y ago

I understand the need to confuse "ownership" with hackability, for the purposes of philosophizing on this site. We are all tinkerers. But by every definition of ownership recognized by society and our laws (at least in the United States), you completely own your phone. You are lawfully allowed to do the following: - crush it, destroy it, put it in the dishwasher, or drive over it - open it up all you want - sell it to someone else - Install alternate software on it You are under no obligation to anyone once you have purchased that phone. It is, by ANY definition, legally your property. The WORST thing Apple can do to you, is void your warranty. And that is completely acceptable. Whether you think it should be less or more difficult is a philosophical discussion. The fact is, you have all the same protections under any laws that most people who "own" things have. Reply to VladRussian Below (I couldn't find a reply link): Won't get me to disagree with you on anything related to the DMCA. I think it is a pigheaded piece of evil legislation. :) But most of the things I'm talking about aren't related to the DMCA (at least I hope not).

VladRussian 15y ago
>The WORST thing Apple can do to you, is void your warranty. before that the "WORST" was much worse http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/26/library-of-congress-adds-dmca-exception-for-jailbreaking-or-root/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/26/library-of-congress-adds-... And this is the main point of all these discussions. It isn't about technical obstacles put in place by Apple and difficulty to break them as it only adds more interest to process, It is about criminalizing the very act of analysis of the system, ie. an act of mental activity, applied to the system you're supposedly own. >I understand the need to confuse "ownership" with hackability, for the purposes of philosophizing on this site. We are all tinkerers. Nobody tries to confuse ownership and hackability. They are orthogonal. What people still trying to bend their minds around is the ownership and off-limit (for your mind) holes in that ownership established by DMCA.