7 ms·

We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.
- arrrg 3y ago
  It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is? It would be perfectly sensible to force large platform vendors to let you install arbitrary software. No problem at all. Doesn’t mean that also has to apply to, I don’t know, refrigerators with WiFi. Or cars.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - wvenable 3y ago
    Why not WiFi refrigerators or cars? I would love to tweak the software in my car -- it's hopelessly out of date.
    - rekoil 3y ago
      Conflicting regulations when it comes to cars, and for WiFi refrigerators (meaning any gadget that runs some sort of OS) I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it makes sense to make different regulation for general-purpose computing devices and purpose-specific devices. Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.
      - wtallis 3y ago
        How would you classify a PlayStation: general-purpose computing that should be required to be open, or purpose-specific that can be allowed looser regulations?
        rekoil 3y ago
        PlayStation is a games console, it's a purpose-specific device. I think there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android, or whatever Apple are slowly trying to turn MacBooks into. I don't pretend to know all the answers, my stance is that the reason our society is where it is today is at least in part because computers have been computers, and not this "my way or the highway" approach Apple has for the iPhone.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > PlayStation is a games console, it's a purpose-specific device Why isn't the iPhone a smartphone, a purpose-specific device? > there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android This shifts the game from defining what Apple can and cannot do to what a general-purpose computing device is. And that's the point. That's why this framing is great if you're Apple. A specific discussion regarding tangible outcomes morphs into an arcane debate over jargon and philosophy.
        rekoil 3y ago
        > Why isn't the iPhone a smartphone, a purpose-specific device? Because it can be extended via software to support whole new categories of apps. Sure, a games console technically is a computer and the above statement is true for it as well, but it wasn't marketed as such.
        wvenable 3y ago
        What about my obsolete car software?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is General-purpose computing is workable. General-purpose computing on any hardware you own is not. Government regulations prohibit tampering with most emissive hardware, for instance.
    - rekoil 3y ago
      General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators. Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access. I still think even in those cases there needs to be some regulation that ensures manufacturers allow independent, qualified, repair shops to effectively repair broken tech.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators Since when have iPhones been marketed as such? Apple goes out of its way to promote its walled garden. > Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access Delineating this is hard. iPhones contain modem chips, for instance. Again, I'm not arguing against the principle in general nor even specifically when it comes to Apple. Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."
        rekoil 3y ago
        > Since when have iPhones been marketed as such? Prove to me that Apple has never marketed the App Store or the fact that you can run non-Apple software on an iPhone. If you can do that I'll drop this argument immediately. > Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own." But I'm specifically not saying that, I'm saying hardware sold to me with the promise that I'll be able to expand its functionality via software. Regardless how you want to try to spin it that's what general-purpose computing means. I'm saying that if you want to sell a product which relies on software written by other people (that are not the vendor) to be successful, then you have to go the whole way, you can't then say "ah but see actually I'm the only one that can decide WHAT can run on your device, and you have to pay ME forever for the pleasure of running anything on it!". You can put up road blocks if you want, but you've sold me a device intended to be expandable via software, a general-purpose computing device, not a purpose-specific device.
- itg 3y ago
  >it's practically unworkable I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"? The unworkable bit is the breadth. Being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own" means every computer is a general computer. That includes the one in your cable box, on your cellular modem chip, in your car.
    - rekoil 3y ago
      Not if those devices aren't marketed as "being able to install new software".
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Not if those devices aren't marketed as "being able to install new software" What does that mean, though? My thermostat updates itself OTA. So does my modem chip. And I can configure, to a degree, optional add-ons on my Subaru. This is the problem with changing the argument to being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own." It's unworkable not because it's fundamentally flawed, but because its edges are fractally messy. You can absorb an infinite amount of time into delineating it. In the meantime, the thing you were actually going for--a competitive App Store--is forgotten.
        rekoil 3y ago
        > My thermostat updates itself OTA. I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse. It's pretty obvious from the discussion I am not talking about anything that has updatable software, I'm talking about things sold with the promise to be able to add broad new functionality in multiple fields. A thermostat may be able to add new methods of scheduling, energy saving, other means of control, integrations with other smart devices, but all with the singular purpose of controlling a radiator, under-floor heating or other heating device. But if we're gonna entertain the notion somewhat, yes, if the thermostat allowed installation of non-thermostat related things like video streaming services, games, Twitter, or other apps that were allowed to run on the device to give it more use than at point of sale, and it was also marketed as such when sold, then yes, it was being sold as a (rather silly) general-purpose computing device and should be required to give users access to what they need to build their own software and run it on it, sans manufacturer control.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- realusername 3y ago
  > it's practically unworkable That's how almost everything worked before the user hostile mobile takeover, not sure why it's not possible anymore. It's the previous state of affair and worked fine.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  Gosh I guess general purpose computers have never existed seeing as installing software is so "practically unworkable".
- rekoil 3y ago
  This is certainly one of the takes of all time. I want some of what you're smoking mate.
b112 3y ago
I agree, but... That can also mean "wipe the device of the OS, and install your own". Ownership of hardware, has never implied ownership of software. Usage rights, with first sale in most countries, but not ownership of the software. But where do usage rights end, and where does "right to use the device as purchased" start? Certainly, Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem. I suspect Apple's next move might be disabling their apps, and ecosystem, leaving a bare OS, if you move to a competing app store. Or maybe leaving core apps, and prohibiting installation of other apps while removing their app store. They might have a case for that. And Google for the longest time, will not allow the play store in a legit way, unless the OS is validated by them. So in this Apple wouldn't be an outlier.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  > Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem Unfortunately this advertisement is just an illusion designed to lure naive customers, as has been amply proven by the long list of CVE's revealed at the end of 2023, due to which the Apple devices have been completely insecure against those who had known them many years before the public. After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    Forget CVEs. The App Store itself is a hive of scum and villainy[1]. How this stuff gets past review while email and calendar apps have to raise a public stink[2] to get in is beyond me. [1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/in-app_purchase_scams_in_the_app_store https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/in-app_purchase_scams_in_... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/apples-response-hey-showcases-whats-most-broken-about-apple-app-store https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/apples-response-hey-sh...
    - b112 3y ago
      This isn't relevant for the legal premise of what the goal is. And more importantly, what people are told, and their expectations when purchasing. Apple can easily argue that people full well know its ecosystem is a walled garden, and that it is a selling point.
kj99 3y ago
Yeah - that could be solved by a one way fuse that unlocks the bootloader but prevents you from ever reinstalling iOS. I’m not actually kidding. I’d be quite happy to be able to install Linux on my old iOS devices that Apple no longer supports so that I can repurpose them as hobby devices.
- causi 3y ago
  Even doing it on Android is a minefield of trying to pick the right device with the right compatibilities.
- wvenable 3y ago
  Why does reinstalling iOS need to be prevented?
  - rekoil 3y ago
    I think they are referring to like a really simple scorched-earth solution that Apple could make which would scare off literally 99% of users but would technically be fully compliant. Unlockable bootloader should 100% be a thing, but I doubt it'll happen, and in its absence Apple will probably need to open up their walled garden more to actually be DMA compliant.
    - kj99 3y ago
      There are all kinds of poor customer experience edge cases that arise if people can go back and forth, and Apple wants to protect the customer experience and brand from that. Whether you agree with their reasoning or not, it is what it is. On the other hand I understand why people (myself being one of them) want to use the hardware they bought for something other than running iOS. This seems especially important once Apple drops support for the device. My solution is meant to solve for this situation.

> We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.

arrrg 3y ago
It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is? It would be perfectly sensible to force large platform vendors to let you install arbitrary software. No problem at all. Doesn’t mean that also has to apply to, I don’t know, refrigerators with WiFi. Or cars.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wvenable 3y ago
  Why not WiFi refrigerators or cars? I would love to tweak the software in my car -- it's hopelessly out of date.
  - rekoil 3y ago
    Conflicting regulations when it comes to cars, and for WiFi refrigerators (meaning any gadget that runs some sort of OS) I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it makes sense to make different regulation for general-purpose computing devices and purpose-specific devices. Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      How would you classify a PlayStation: general-purpose computing that should be required to be open, or purpose-specific that can be allowed looser regulations?
      - rekoil 3y ago
        PlayStation is a games console, it's a purpose-specific device. I think there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android, or whatever Apple are slowly trying to turn MacBooks into. I don't pretend to know all the answers, my stance is that the reason our society is where it is today is at least in part because computers have been computers, and not this "my way or the highway" approach Apple has for the iPhone.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > PlayStation is a games console, it's a purpose-specific device Why isn't the iPhone a smartphone, a purpose-specific device? > there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android This shifts the game from defining what Apple can and cannot do to what a general-purpose computing device is. And that's the point. That's why this framing is great if you're Apple. A specific discussion regarding tangible outcomes morphs into an arcane debate over jargon and philosophy.
        rekoil 3y ago
        > Why isn't the iPhone a smartphone, a purpose-specific device? Because it can be extended via software to support whole new categories of apps. Sure, a games console technically is a computer and the above statement is true for it as well, but it wasn't marketed as such.
        wvenable 3y ago
        What about my obsolete car software?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is General-purpose computing is workable. General-purpose computing on any hardware you own is not. Government regulations prohibit tampering with most emissive hardware, for instance.
  - rekoil 3y ago
    General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators. Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access. I still think even in those cases there needs to be some regulation that ensures manufacturers allow independent, qualified, repair shops to effectively repair broken tech.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators Since when have iPhones been marketed as such? Apple goes out of its way to promote its walled garden. > Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access Delineating this is hard. iPhones contain modem chips, for instance. Again, I'm not arguing against the principle in general nor even specifically when it comes to Apple. Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."
      - rekoil 3y ago
        > Since when have iPhones been marketed as such? Prove to me that Apple has never marketed the App Store or the fact that you can run non-Apple software on an iPhone. If you can do that I'll drop this argument immediately. > Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own." But I'm specifically not saying that, I'm saying hardware sold to me with the promise that I'll be able to expand its functionality via software. Regardless how you want to try to spin it that's what general-purpose computing means. I'm saying that if you want to sell a product which relies on software written by other people (that are not the vendor) to be successful, then you have to go the whole way, you can't then say "ah but see actually I'm the only one that can decide WHAT can run on your device, and you have to pay ME forever for the pleasure of running anything on it!". You can put up road blocks if you want, but you've sold me a device intended to be expandable via software, a general-purpose computing device, not a purpose-specific device.
itg 3y ago
>it's practically unworkable I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"? The unworkable bit is the breadth. Being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own" means every computer is a general computer. That includes the one in your cable box, on your cellular modem chip, in your car.
  - rekoil 3y ago
    Not if those devices aren't marketed as "being able to install new software".
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Not if those devices aren't marketed as "being able to install new software" What does that mean, though? My thermostat updates itself OTA. So does my modem chip. And I can configure, to a degree, optional add-ons on my Subaru. This is the problem with changing the argument to being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own." It's unworkable not because it's fundamentally flawed, but because its edges are fractally messy. You can absorb an infinite amount of time into delineating it. In the meantime, the thing you were actually going for--a competitive App Store--is forgotten.
      - rekoil 3y ago
        > My thermostat updates itself OTA. I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse. It's pretty obvious from the discussion I am not talking about anything that has updatable software, I'm talking about things sold with the promise to be able to add broad new functionality in multiple fields. A thermostat may be able to add new methods of scheduling, energy saving, other means of control, integrations with other smart devices, but all with the singular purpose of controlling a radiator, under-floor heating or other heating device. But if we're gonna entertain the notion somewhat, yes, if the thermostat allowed installation of non-thermostat related things like video streaming services, games, Twitter, or other apps that were allowed to run on the device to give it more use than at point of sale, and it was also marketed as such when sold, then yes, it was being sold as a (rather silly) general-purpose computing device and should be required to give users access to what they need to build their own software and run it on it, sans manufacturer control.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
realusername 3y ago
> it's practically unworkable That's how almost everything worked before the user hostile mobile takeover, not sure why it's not possible anymore. It's the previous state of affair and worked fine.
mvdtnz 3y ago
Gosh I guess general purpose computers have never existed seeing as installing software is so "practically unworkable".
rekoil 3y ago
This is certainly one of the takes of all time. I want some of what you're smoking mate.

b112 3y ago

I agree, but... That can also mean "wipe the device of the OS, and install your own". Ownership of hardware, has never implied ownership of software. Usage rights, with first sale in most countries, but not ownership of the software. But where do usage rights end, and where does "right to use the device as purchased" start? Certainly, Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem. I suspect Apple's next move might be disabling their apps, and ecosystem, leaving a bare OS, if you move to a competing app store. Or maybe leaving core apps, and prohibiting installation of other apps while removing their app store. They might have a case for that. And Google for the longest time, will not allow the play store in a legit way, unless the OS is validated by them. So in this Apple wouldn't be an outlier.

adrian_b 3y ago
> Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem Unfortunately this advertisement is just an illusion designed to lure naive customers, as has been amply proven by the long list of CVE's revealed at the end of 2023, due to which the Apple devices have been completely insecure against those who had known them many years before the public. After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Forget CVEs. The App Store itself is a hive of scum and villainy[1]. How this stuff gets past review while email and calendar apps have to raise a public stink[2] to get in is beyond me. [1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/in-app_purchase_scams_in_the_app_store https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/in-app_purchase_scams_in_... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/apples-response-hey-showcases-whats-most-broken-about-apple-app-store https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/apples-response-hey-sh...
  - b112 3y ago
    This isn't relevant for the legal premise of what the goal is. And more importantly, what people are told, and their expectations when purchasing. Apple can easily argue that people full well know its ecosystem is a walled garden, and that it is a selling point.

kj99 3y ago

Yeah - that could be solved by a one way fuse that unlocks the bootloader but prevents you from ever reinstalling iOS. I’m not actually kidding. I’d be quite happy to be able to install Linux on my old iOS devices that Apple no longer supports so that I can repurpose them as hobby devices.

causi 3y ago
Even doing it on Android is a minefield of trying to pick the right device with the right compatibilities.
wvenable 3y ago
Why does reinstalling iOS need to be prevented?
- rekoil 3y ago
  I think they are referring to like a really simple scorched-earth solution that Apple could make which would scare off literally 99% of users but would technically be fully compliant. Unlockable bootloader should 100% be a thing, but I doubt it'll happen, and in its absence Apple will probably need to open up their walled garden more to actually be DMA compliant.
  - kj99 3y ago
    There are all kinds of poor customer experience edge cases that arise if people can go back and forth, and Apple wants to protect the customer experience and brand from that. Whether you agree with their reasoning or not, it is what it is. On the other hand I understand why people (myself being one of them) want to use the hardware they bought for something other than running iOS. This seems especially important once Apple drops support for the device. My solution is meant to solve for this situation.