4 ms·

I would add that nobody asked them to create the need to have a business relation with the external appstore. Although I don’t necessarily think it’s a good th

by zuppy 3y ago

I would add that nobody asked them to create the need to have a business relation with the external appstore. Although I don’t necessarily think it’s a good thing to allow external appstores, this is the law now and they have to comply with it.

lettergram 3y ago
> this is the law now and they have to comply with it. lol ugh, it’s the law to wear a seatbelt, I can choose to ignore it. One ironic part I like to mention about this is that tractors tell you not to wear a seat belt. That lets you bail if it’s tipping over. The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt. Ironically, riding a motorbike requires no seatbelt… and overall is more unsafe, but totally fine apparently. The point I’m making is laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs and you can choose to ignore them. There may be consequences to ignoring them. But the calculus for Apple is that it’s worth it to them and to ignore. Much like the farmer with the tractor, minimal risk to ignore. High risk to follow law.
- josefx 3y ago
  > The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt Check if the law in your state actually applies to a tractor. Some states explicitly list which motor vehicles the law applies to.
- tpm 3y ago
  > laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs As is Apple, the company. It only exists on paper. It can be barred from existing in a jurisdiction by another human construct, a court ruling. It can choose to ignore EU laws, but there would be consequences.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  The farmer do whatever he wants within its field, the road laws don't apply there. But he has to follow the laws when he is on the road where a tractor has no reason to tip over. Your analogy is not relevant here.

4 ms·

I would add that nobody asked them to create the need to have a business relation with the external appstore. Although I don’t necessarily think it’s a good th

by zuppy 3y ago

lettergram 3y ago
> this is the law now and they have to comply with it. lol ugh, it’s the law to wear a seatbelt, I can choose to ignore it. One ironic part I like to mention about this is that tractors tell you not to wear a seat belt. That lets you bail if it’s tipping over. The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt. Ironically, riding a motorbike requires no seatbelt… and overall is more unsafe, but totally fine apparently. The point I’m making is laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs and you can choose to ignore them. There may be consequences to ignoring them. But the calculus for Apple is that it’s worth it to them and to ignore. Much like the farmer with the tractor, minimal risk to ignore. High risk to follow law.
- josefx 3y ago
  > The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt Check if the law in your state actually applies to a tractor. Some states explicitly list which motor vehicles the law applies to.
- tpm 3y ago
  > laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs As is Apple, the company. It only exists on paper. It can be barred from existing in a jurisdiction by another human construct, a court ruling. It can choose to ignore EU laws, but there would be consequences.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  The farmer do whatever he wants within its field, the road laws don't apply there. But he has to follow the laws when he is on the road where a tractor has no reason to tip over. Your analogy is not relevant here.