4 ms·

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 insta

by 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 I would love to tweak the software in my car -- it's hopelessly out of date.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?
        rekoil 3y ago
        That's a little different, but an interesting topic to discuss! In my opinion there are 3 ways forward in such situations. 1. The manufacturer designs the car so that the infotainment unit is replaceable when they stop updating the original. Replacements not certified as "road safe" would be illegal to install. 2. The manufacturer literally never stops updating the software... (yeah, obviously this isn't a real alternative, but it's technically acceptable if a manufacturer wants to attempt to make that promise) 3. The manufacturer, after ceasing updates, provides the necessary documentation for an alternative software to be built, but it wouldn't be obviously legal to install just anything, the software would need to be certified "road safe" and how you would assert that you're not running unsafe software is not obvious to me.
    - izacus 3y ago
      PlayStation 3 ran Linux just fine so it can be classified as a computer and forcefully opened. Not sure why do you all think this is some "gotcha" when the corpos you defend proved you otherwise already.
      - wtallis 3y ago
        I'm not defending the corporations, just bringing up an important borderline case that any regulatory proposal needs an answer for. On the one hand, the hardware of a PlayStation is pretty close to a general purpose PC and some iterations have been claimed as such by Sony for tax reasons. On the other hand, a great many PlayStation customers would be up in arms if regulators forced the platform open in any way that weakened the security that their competitive multiplayer experiences are built to rely on.
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.

by arrrg 3y ago

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?
        rekoil 3y ago
        That's a little different, but an interesting topic to discuss! In my opinion there are 3 ways forward in such situations. 1. The manufacturer designs the car so that the infotainment unit is replaceable when they stop updating the original. Replacements not certified as "road safe" would be illegal to install. 2. The manufacturer literally never stops updating the software... (yeah, obviously this isn't a real alternative, but it's technically acceptable if a manufacturer wants to attempt to make that promise) 3. The manufacturer, after ceasing updates, provides the necessary documentation for an alternative software to be built, but it wouldn't be obviously legal to install just anything, the software would need to be certified "road safe" and how you would assert that you're not running unsafe software is not obvious to me.
  - izacus 3y ago
    PlayStation 3 ran Linux just fine so it can be classified as a computer and forcefully opened. Not sure why do you all think this is some "gotcha" when the corpos you defend proved you otherwise already.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      I'm not defending the corporations, just bringing up an important borderline case that any regulatory proposal needs an answer for. On the one hand, the hardware of a PlayStation is pretty close to a general purpose PC and some iterations have been claimed as such by Sony for tax reasons. On the other hand, a great many PlayStation customers would be up in arms if regulators forced the platform open in any way that weakened the security that their competitive multiplayer experiences are built to rely on.

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.