8 ms·

A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies

by anfilt 3y ago

A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with iDevices violate this fundamental right by controlling what software can run on the device, even before someones does anything with their device they bought. They do this not via legal means but by using cryptography to reserve the right of exclusion for themselves (they claim its for your security though...). Part of the problem is when someone sells something that in most cases that means a complete transfer of all property rights to the buyer, but Apple is preventing that via extralegal means. Consider this scenario: you purchase a new iPhone with the intention of not even using iOS and installing something like Linux. However, Apple's control over the boot-ROM prevents the hardware from booting any unsigned code without even opening the box. This gives Apple the ability to exclude or allow software to run on a device they no longer own. The thing is, Apple legally does not have the right of exclusion, but only reserves it via cryptography. This effectively restricts the exercise of your own property rights since you no longer can fully choose what to include or exclude from execution on that ARM processor you own. The fact that this control persists post-sale demonstrates a blatant infringement on individual property rights from Apple. In summary, Apple is intruding upon individuals' personal property rights, notably the right of exclusion. Through the use of cryptography after purchase, Apple retains the right of exclusion which lets them determine which software can and can not operate on a device they no longer own. For a more in-depth exploration of the right of exclusion, I highly recommend reading the paper titled "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf].

MilaM 3y ago
Also worth mentioning are the numerous intellectual property rights that companies like Apple enjoy and skillfully use to stave off competition. If Apple wants lawmakers to drop market regulations like the DMA, then maybe we should consider cutting IP protections. Only then can we have a conversation about free markets and government intervention.
Ajedi32 3y ago
Yeah, this is the fundamental issue at play here. I don't care what fees or rules Apple puts in place for developer access to its app store. I care that I'm digitally restricted from running anything other than software approved by Apple on my device. If that problem was solved and Apple had to compete with other app stores on a level playing field, that would naturally resolve any issues with their rules or fee structure. The DMA (seemingly) didn't target root of the problem, so Apple was able to easily just sidestep the legislation by saying "okay, you can use alternative app stores now, but the app stores and all software on them still has to be reviewed and approved by us, and we're going to continue to impose conditions (including payment) on that approval". If they had been completely stripped of the ability to exclude software from my device, then they wouldn't have the leverage to impose these new rules in the first place.
- turtlebits 3y ago
  It's just a different business model. See: game consoles.
  - LamaOfRuin 3y ago
    This is generally viewed as okay for game consoles because they are sold at cost or at loss for a large portion of their lifetime. This is very much not true of any Apple hardware.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      They also are not as crucial as mobile internet devices for people’s daily lives, or at the center of wide ranging critical ecosystems.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    You can play games on an iPhone, but I hardly consider a gaming console.
  - Ajedi32 3y ago
    Hot take: I don't think this is okay for game consoles either. If I want to install a GameCube emulator on my PS5 I should be able to and there's nothing Sony should be able to do to stop me. If that means they eventually end up having to charge more for their hardware to make up for reduced software sales, so be it. If they really insist on trying to force their customers to only install stuff through their app store, they can make them sign an explicit contract to that effect. Doing the same thing implicitly via extralegal means isn't an improvement.
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
I don't think it is super complicated . You can enshrine a company's right to define its market or the price for its products, hold those rights sacrosact and still punish apple. The issue at the core is not a company's right to X. Instead, it is: Has this company thru dominance of their market have achieved a monopolistic power ? If so, that's the avenue you take to undo their abuse. If the abuse cannot be rectified by market actors or new entrants, they you slap the anticompetitive monopoly with restrictions of what they can or cannot do. EDIT: I personally think that there should be straightforward threshold criteria to be defined as a monopoly automatically, such as (numbers made up) exceeding: - 0.1% of revenue in aggregate political donations, or - 0.5% of profits in aggregate political donations, or - Annual Revenue > US per capita x 100,000, or - Annual profits > US per capita x 10,000 - Etc.
- fooker 3y ago
  The issue with straightforward thresholds is you can escape those with creative accounting. There’s is a reason it’s more subjective.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
    YEs, its to give large monopolistic or corrupt companies a way out . You can do it an OR statement so its either the accounting threshold, or the subjective. The point is large companies should prepare to divest themselves before they get too large. Right now power is too tempting and its not a viable strategy for CEOs to think about. At least in tech there is some turnover at the top. For traditional industries its the same (fewer) names at the top.What is happening in banking, in automotive, in insurance, in pharma, is not an accident.
- realusername 3y ago
  > If the abuse cannot be rectified by market actors or new entrants, they you slap the anticompetitive monopoly with restrictions of what they can or cannot do. That's pretty clear in the Google / Apple case, the only change of tariffs ever made was made as a reaction to an antitrust lawsuit and copied over.
- 3y ago
rhelz 3y ago
Wouldn't the best way to look at this to be that the phone is Apple's property, and therefore they have the right to do anything with it? Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? For me, the central contradiction of this kind of rights-based argument is this--the stronger you make property rights, the more justified actions like Apples seems to be, because, after all, they are the ones who really own the phone. I really don't think a property rights argument has any suasion here at all.
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  > Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? They could do that, but they don't. I don't recall having to sign a rental agreement stating that I don't actually own the phone and I'm only allowed to purchase Apple-approved applications in order to get an iPhone. If Apple was forced make their customers go through that process then the downsides and anti-trust problems associated with such restrictions would be far more explicit.
  - rhelz 3y ago
    Consider that the phone is useless w/o its operating system, etc, and you did not purchase that software; you only bought a license to use it, according to some terms and conditions.
- zuhsetaqi 3y ago
  They did own the phone until they sold it to a customer. After the customer bought it Apple no longer owns the phone but the customer does.
  - rhelz 3y ago
    I mean, you are talking as if the rules governing the use of property are a natural kind. As if there is one and only one set of terms and conditions which apply to any sale of anything at anytime. The concept of "property" and the specific set of rights and obligations surrounding it are created by people, and can (and have been) rewritten all the time.
SirMaster 3y ago
How does this apply to any electronic device with a computer inside though? Can you run your own software on your television, car, smart fridge, etc? The default expectation seems to be no, you can't.
- anfilt 3y ago
  In theory it should, but most common people probably would never try anyways. Also on lot those devices if you open them up there are probably some JTAG pins somewhere that can let you do a lot and even change things if you wanted. Not a lot a devices are locked down to the extent of iDevice. The chips Apple makes has fuses they blow inside the chip that prevent it booting/running unsigned code. You can't load your own keys or anything unless you have apples private key or get them somehow to sign some software for you. A lot micros do have fuses that are similar to prevent firmware from being dumped to protect IP, but when you talk to such devices via like JTAG you can often still tell it load code from external memory and such and not from ROM. This of course depends on the chip, but in my experience most the time it's not as insanely locked down as apple does. --EDIT-- Like if you look here on this wiki article on JTAG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTAG#Connectors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTAG#Connectors You can see two pictures of some netgear products that have JTAG pins that you can connect to that then let you take control of the device with. This how you have to some times load alternative firmware on some Routers and such. If people didn't do this projects like OpenWrt would not exist. Although, for a lot routers you don't have to connect to jtag pins directly.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"Consider this scenario: you purchase a new iPhone with the intention of no even using iOS and installing something like Linux." Instead of a hardware compatibility list, it's a software compatibility list and every entry must be Apple-approved. How did they ever pull this off. No one ever questioned it. For decades, I have wanted option to remove the Apple OS and use non-Apple operating system. Seemed like no one else ever wanted to do that. People have been content to multi-boot, leaving the Apple OS installed.
- anfilt 3y ago
  I would say most people don't realize that some of their property rights are being violated. How many people let alone common people would even try run code without an OS on an iDevice which is what you need to be able to do to run an other OS. They don't realize at a base level some their rights for property they bought have been locked down behind cryptography, and thus instead under control of apple. The thing is the boot rom does not need to shipped like this. Apple does have such devices that even they loan out to security researchers https://security.apple.com/research-device/ https://security.apple.com/research-device/. The only difference between that device and one they sell is some eFuses on the chip have not been blown yet (oh and some software to make poking around easier, but that's besides the point here). What I find crazy is apple only loans such devices out because they don't want to sell any hardware where they don't effectively reserve the right of exclusion.

by anfilt 3y ago

MilaM 3y ago

Also worth mentioning are the numerous intellectual property rights that companies like Apple enjoy and skillfully use to stave off competition. If Apple wants lawmakers to drop market regulations like the DMA, then maybe we should consider cutting IP protections. Only then can we have a conversation about free markets and government intervention.

Ajedi32 3y ago

Yeah, this is the fundamental issue at play here. I don't care what fees or rules Apple puts in place for developer access to its app store. I care that I'm digitally restricted from running anything other than software approved by Apple on my device. If that problem was solved and Apple had to compete with other app stores on a level playing field, that would naturally resolve any issues with their rules or fee structure. The DMA (seemingly) didn't target root of the problem, so Apple was able to easily just sidestep the legislation by saying "okay, you can use alternative app stores now, but the app stores and all software on them still has to be reviewed and approved by us, and we're going to continue to impose conditions (including payment) on that approval". If they had been completely stripped of the ability to exclude software from my device, then they wouldn't have the leverage to impose these new rules in the first place.

turtlebits 3y ago
It's just a different business model. See: game consoles.
- LamaOfRuin 3y ago
  This is generally viewed as okay for game consoles because they are sold at cost or at loss for a large portion of their lifetime. This is very much not true of any Apple hardware.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    They also are not as crucial as mobile internet devices for people’s daily lives, or at the center of wide ranging critical ecosystems.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  You can play games on an iPhone, but I hardly consider a gaming console.
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  Hot take: I don't think this is okay for game consoles either. If I want to install a GameCube emulator on my PS5 I should be able to and there's nothing Sony should be able to do to stop me. If that means they eventually end up having to charge more for their hardware to make up for reduced software sales, so be it. If they really insist on trying to force their customers to only install stuff through their app store, they can make them sign an explicit contract to that effect. Doing the same thing implicitly via extralegal means isn't an improvement.

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago

I don't think it is super complicated . You can enshrine a company's right to define its market or the price for its products, hold those rights sacrosact and still punish apple. The issue at the core is not a company's right to X. Instead, it is: Has this company thru dominance of their market have achieved a monopolistic power ? If so, that's the avenue you take to undo their abuse. If the abuse cannot be rectified by market actors or new entrants, they you slap the anticompetitive monopoly with restrictions of what they can or cannot do. EDIT: I personally think that there should be straightforward threshold criteria to be defined as a monopoly automatically, such as (numbers made up) exceeding: - 0.1% of revenue in aggregate political donations, or - 0.5% of profits in aggregate political donations, or - Annual Revenue > US per capita x 100,000, or - Annual profits > US per capita x 10,000 - Etc.

fooker 3y ago
The issue with straightforward thresholds is you can escape those with creative accounting. There’s is a reason it’s more subjective.
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  YEs, its to give large monopolistic or corrupt companies a way out . You can do it an OR statement so its either the accounting threshold, or the subjective. The point is large companies should prepare to divest themselves before they get too large. Right now power is too tempting and its not a viable strategy for CEOs to think about. At least in tech there is some turnover at the top. For traditional industries its the same (fewer) names at the top.What is happening in banking, in automotive, in insurance, in pharma, is not an accident.
realusername 3y ago
> If the abuse cannot be rectified by market actors or new entrants, they you slap the anticompetitive monopoly with restrictions of what they can or cannot do. That's pretty clear in the Google / Apple case, the only change of tariffs ever made was made as a reaction to an antitrust lawsuit and copied over.
3y ago

rhelz 3y ago

Wouldn't the best way to look at this to be that the phone is Apple's property, and therefore they have the right to do anything with it? Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? For me, the central contradiction of this kind of rights-based argument is this--the stronger you make property rights, the more justified actions like Apples seems to be, because, after all, they are the ones who really own the phone. I really don't think a property rights argument has any suasion here at all.

Ajedi32 3y ago
> Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? They could do that, but they don't. I don't recall having to sign a rental agreement stating that I don't actually own the phone and I'm only allowed to purchase Apple-approved applications in order to get an iPhone. If Apple was forced make their customers go through that process then the downsides and anti-trust problems associated with such restrictions would be far more explicit.
- rhelz 3y ago
  Consider that the phone is useless w/o its operating system, etc, and you did not purchase that software; you only bought a license to use it, according to some terms and conditions.
zuhsetaqi 3y ago
They did own the phone until they sold it to a customer. After the customer bought it Apple no longer owns the phone but the customer does.
- rhelz 3y ago
  I mean, you are talking as if the rules governing the use of property are a natural kind. As if there is one and only one set of terms and conditions which apply to any sale of anything at anytime. The concept of "property" and the specific set of rights and obligations surrounding it are created by people, and can (and have been) rewritten all the time.

SirMaster 3y ago

How does this apply to any electronic device with a computer inside though? Can you run your own software on your television, car, smart fridge, etc? The default expectation seems to be no, you can't.

anfilt 3y ago
In theory it should, but most common people probably would never try anyways. Also on lot those devices if you open them up there are probably some JTAG pins somewhere that can let you do a lot and even change things if you wanted. Not a lot a devices are locked down to the extent of iDevice. The chips Apple makes has fuses they blow inside the chip that prevent it booting/running unsigned code. You can't load your own keys or anything unless you have apples private key or get them somehow to sign some software for you. A lot micros do have fuses that are similar to prevent firmware from being dumped to protect IP, but when you talk to such devices via like JTAG you can often still tell it load code from external memory and such and not from ROM. This of course depends on the chip, but in my experience most the time it's not as insanely locked down as apple does. --EDIT-- Like if you look here on this wiki article on JTAG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTAG#Connectors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTAG#Connectors You can see two pictures of some netgear products that have JTAG pins that you can connect to that then let you take control of the device with. This how you have to some times load alternative firmware on some Routers and such. If people didn't do this projects like OpenWrt would not exist. Although, for a lot routers you don't have to connect to jtag pins directly.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"Consider this scenario: you purchase a new iPhone with the intention of no even using iOS and installing something like Linux." Instead of a hardware compatibility list, it's a software compatibility list and every entry must be Apple-approved. How did they ever pull this off. No one ever questioned it. For decades, I have wanted option to remove the Apple OS and use non-Apple operating system. Seemed like no one else ever wanted to do that. People have been content to multi-boot, leaving the Apple OS installed.

anfilt 3y ago
I would say most people don't realize that some of their property rights are being violated. How many people let alone common people would even try run code without an OS on an iDevice which is what you need to be able to do to run an other OS. They don't realize at a base level some their rights for property they bought have been locked down behind cryptography, and thus instead under control of apple. The thing is the boot rom does not need to shipped like this. Apple does have such devices that even they loan out to security researchers https://security.apple.com/research-device/ https://security.apple.com/research-device/. The only difference between that device and one they sell is some eFuses on the chip have not been blown yet (oh and some software to make poking around easier, but that's besides the point here). What I find crazy is apple only loans such devices out because they don't want to sell any hardware where they don't effectively reserve the right of exclusion.