5 ms·

The literal most obvious start is apple, who doesn't allow users to even install another app store, or even an unapproved app at all. After that sure, they can

The literal most obvious start is apple, who doesn't allow users to even install another app store, or even an unapproved app at all. After that sure, they can try to go after Google.

isodev 3y ago
Why is suddenly “able to install another App Store” a thing or even a necessity? I think this entire situation has been blown out of proportion. There are a few “loud” voices lobbying for stuff that are of no consequence or just false.
- error503 3y ago
  It seems like a fundamental right that I should have full control of a device which I own outright. That control, over something I paid for and ostensibly 'own' will be used against me, as in the case of App Store cuts and digital payments. Why should that be allowed? If I own it, it is mine, and control over its technology should be mine as well.
  - m463 3y ago
    you can't even secure your own device. You have no ability to see what is running, what it is talking to, or prevent the communication in or out.
    - isodev 3y ago
      That would be really nice to have in general. I don’t think an antitrust action is helpful to achieve it though. Why not some legislation instead? For example, I have a friend who likes to tinker and they would love to be able to “own” their Tesla car, or Samsung smart TV (both also currently running as a black box of sorts… with even less security and transparency than iOS).
  - isodev 3y ago
    So you’re saying Apple should put a sticker on the box saying it’s a device designed to operate with a specific OS? Then you can make an informed decision and purchase something else?
    - error503 3y ago
      No, I'm saying they should be forced to give me access to run the code I want to run on the device I bought from them. Ford can't geofence my Bronco to only drive to stores that pay them off, why should Apple be allowed to enforce what I can run on my iPhone?

The literal most obvious start is apple, who doesn't allow users to even install another app store, or even an unapproved app at all. After that sure, they can try to go after Google.

isodev 3y ago

Why is suddenly “able to install another App Store” a thing or even a necessity? I think this entire situation has been blown out of proportion. There are a few “loud” voices lobbying for stuff that are of no consequence or just false.

error503 3y ago
It seems like a fundamental right that I should have full control of a device which I own outright. That control, over something I paid for and ostensibly 'own' will be used against me, as in the case of App Store cuts and digital payments. Why should that be allowed? If I own it, it is mine, and control over its technology should be mine as well.
- m463 3y ago
  you can't even secure your own device. You have no ability to see what is running, what it is talking to, or prevent the communication in or out.
  - isodev 3y ago
    That would be really nice to have in general. I don’t think an antitrust action is helpful to achieve it though. Why not some legislation instead? For example, I have a friend who likes to tinker and they would love to be able to “own” their Tesla car, or Samsung smart TV (both also currently running as a black box of sorts… with even less security and transparency than iOS).
- isodev 3y ago
  So you’re saying Apple should put a sticker on the box saying it’s a device designed to operate with a specific OS? Then you can make an informed decision and purchase something else?
  - error503 3y ago
    No, I'm saying they should be forced to give me access to run the code I want to run on the device I bought from them. Ford can't geofence my Bronco to only drive to stores that pay them off, why should Apple be allowed to enforce what I can run on my iPhone?