23 ms·

Yes, they are responsible, because the chose to design the product that way, and they chose to misrepresent it, and they chose to forbid competitors to interact

Yes, they are responsible, because the chose to design the product that way, and they chose to misrepresent it, and they chose to forbid competitors to interact in their privileged space. I still fail to see how engineering your own cryptographic monopoly and abusing it is different from abusing any other sort of monopoly.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
> Yes, they are responsible, because the chose to design the product that way, Are you going to blame every stabbing that's occurred on knife manufacturers? It's silly to think that people have enough agency to voluntary part with their own money yet somehow lack any to know and decide on what they're purchasing. No one's stopping anyone from buying a Jolla/Sailfish phone if their heart desires. > and they chose to misrepresent it, and they chose to forbid competitors to interact in their privileged space. I agree with you that Tim Cook has misrepresented his claimed stance on treating all developers equally. I can't speak for the others. Even so, that doesn't make Apple a monopoly. And forbidding competitors on its own store is well within the company's rights. > I still fail to see how engineering your own cryptographic monopoly and abusing it is different from abusing any other sort of monopoly. Cryptography is intellectual property. Proprietary computational cryptography existed years before the transistor. Just ask the NSA. It's not abuse to keep one's mouth shut on the specifications or refuse to integrate into an interoperable standard. That is one's right as a property holder.
- disintegore 4y ago
  It's disheartening that while I can point at demonstrable harm and conduct which matches what we commonly understand to be "anti-competitive" in both intent and effect, what I get in return is a handful of facile value statements. Yes, it may be that Apple has a legal right to sell you a walled garden system. Price fixing was also legal for most of human history. If your rights are harmful, they are abolished. That's how it's always been. As it happens, the implementation details of platform security are typically not secret. It's the keys that are. The "intellectual property" in question is only the solution to a very well understood but computationally infeasible problem. It has no use or worth beyond protecting the vendor's restrictions on your device. This has precisely nothing to do with the tech being proprietary. You could implement a platform monopoly with nothing but FOSS tech. I'm starting to think you don't understand the technology very well. For instance, It's not terribly difficult for security hackers to blow the door open on these systems even when they're proprietary and no public documentation or datasheet is supplied. George Hotz famously published the private keys for the PS3 and was sued into oblivion. You'll find this isn't about technology at all, but law. The "just buy a Jolla/Sailfish phone" argument is a non-sequitur. For starters, who says I haven't? That doesn't mean I need to accept that my friends and family are getting fleeced. Let's assume I'm also purely self-interested, who do you suppose they go to when they can't get basic computing tasks done because it conflicts with their hardware vendor's interests?

Dracophoenix 4y ago

> Yes, they are responsible, because the chose to design the product that way, Are you going to blame every stabbing that's occurred on knife manufacturers? It's silly to think that people have enough agency to voluntary part with their own money yet somehow lack any to know and decide on what they're purchasing. No one's stopping anyone from buying a Jolla/Sailfish phone if their heart desires. > and they chose to misrepresent it, and they chose to forbid competitors to interact in their privileged space. I agree with you that Tim Cook has misrepresented his claimed stance on treating all developers equally. I can't speak for the others. Even so, that doesn't make Apple a monopoly. And forbidding competitors on its own store is well within the company's rights. > I still fail to see how engineering your own cryptographic monopoly and abusing it is different from abusing any other sort of monopoly. Cryptography is intellectual property. Proprietary computational cryptography existed years before the transistor. Just ask the NSA. It's not abuse to keep one's mouth shut on the specifications or refuse to integrate into an interoperable standard. That is one's right as a property holder.

disintegore 4y ago
It's disheartening that while I can point at demonstrable harm and conduct which matches what we commonly understand to be "anti-competitive" in both intent and effect, what I get in return is a handful of facile value statements. Yes, it may be that Apple has a legal right to sell you a walled garden system. Price fixing was also legal for most of human history. If your rights are harmful, they are abolished. That's how it's always been. As it happens, the implementation details of platform security are typically not secret. It's the keys that are. The "intellectual property" in question is only the solution to a very well understood but computationally infeasible problem. It has no use or worth beyond protecting the vendor's restrictions on your device. This has precisely nothing to do with the tech being proprietary. You could implement a platform monopoly with nothing but FOSS tech. I'm starting to think you don't understand the technology very well. For instance, It's not terribly difficult for security hackers to blow the door open on these systems even when they're proprietary and no public documentation or datasheet is supplied. George Hotz famously published the private keys for the PS3 and was sued into oblivion. You'll find this isn't about technology at all, but law. The "just buy a Jolla/Sailfish phone" argument is a non-sequitur. For starters, who says I haven't? That doesn't mean I need to accept that my friends and family are getting fleeced. Let's assume I'm also purely self-interested, who do you suppose they go to when they can't get basic computing tasks done because it conflicts with their hardware vendor's interests?