6 ms·

Maybe I read too much philosophy, but why doesnt anyone see that when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral(If you subscribe

Maybe I read too much philosophy, but why doesnt anyone see that when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral(If you subscribe to ethical institution). Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human population with these anti-consumer acts. What I can't understand is: If a single human lobbied the government for a selfish cause, they would be an a-hole. Why is this different? I'm all for an equal playing field, lets all go Realpolitik, everyone goes amoral. I just find it odd and a bit frustrating that corporations can commit immoral acts but humans cannot. I imagine this causes inequality.

Drakim 3y ago
Modern capitalism has created a sort of new type of nobility out of corporations, a layer of entities above that of citizens. Just as you say, their actions are not judged by the same standard we'd use for normal people, and they can actually just get away with fines for breaking laws that would land normal people in jail. And actions we'd deep deeply immoral for normal people to engage in are morally acceptable for them.
- sQL_inject 3y ago
  I would refine your statement slightly, it's modern corporatism, not capitalism. We hold corporations in too high of regard and have intermingled what should be free and open exchange of money and goods with governmental power, lobbying.
  - Drakim 3y ago
    Sure, but names aren't what's important here. It's the logical conclusion to capitalism, even if it's more fitting to call it corporatism. Either the government is big and the corporations lobbies and gets undue influence over how society and it's laws operates though the government, or the government is small and the corporations get undue influence over how society and it's law operates though sheer unregulated societal power. The group who controls your means of getting food, shelter, medicine, and information will have power over your life, and will bend the rules to their advantage using that power.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Boss: "If you don't like the pay they can find another job" You: "I found another job" Boss: "What about loyalty? Are you a job hopper?" You feel bad for some reason. The morality we were taught in preschool largely serves the interests of the elite. Things like "if someone does you wrong, don't seek revenge, forgive them" are really helpful messages to have ingrained in society when you are a corporate looter with a name and a address.
latexr 3y ago
You’re starting from the assumption that no one thinks what Apple is doing is wrong or immoral, but that isn’t true. They have been and continue to be criticised to no end, for this very matter and others, including on Hacker News. Search for Apple and Right to Repair as keywords and see for yourself. Add Louis Rossmann to the mix and you can’t miss it.
alistairSH 3y ago
Personally, I'm just jaded. Corporations have acted this way as long as I can remember. I just accept that corporations act like sociopaths and the people running the large corporations are more interested in buying a new yacht than doing the right thing.
- sumtechguy 3y ago
  Apple changed in about 1996. When Steve Jobs came back he ended all of that 3rd party business. It was costing his company money. They went from a starting to thrive secondary clone market. To a closed off eco system pretty much overnight. It used to be fairly easy to get info on parts and what to do from Apple. That singular act saved Apple from becoming the next IBM. However, it doomed the rest of us to this weird dynamic of Apple choosing when to help the little guy out or not. Usually it seems to fall on the 'not' side. If Apple had always been this way it would not be as frustrating.
makeitdouble 3y ago
To play the devil's advocate, the US economic system doesn't have a clear notion of what is selfish or not. One reason why lobbying is allowed in the first place is to let corporations express what is good and bad for them and have their interests in the balance. The assumption is what's good for corporations increases the overall market and benefits society. Doubting that assumption is probably out of the current overtone window[edited]
Workaccount2 3y ago
Knowing both sides of the argument around this topic and apple, it's not hard to understand why apple has a compelling argument and why it still deserves to be heard. You have to remember that tons of people have near zero tech awareness, and regardless of the laws, will just bring their iPhone to the Apple store if it breaks. The same way people still go to dealers to fix their car, even out of warranty. This means Apple can say "Hey, give us full control of your phone repairs, and we can kill the theft market for iPhones. You are going to come to us anyway, so might as well let us end iPhone theft too" So this is why lawmakers still sit down with Apple. And the generous lunches. (Apple DRM'ing all the internal hardware does effectively make stolen iphones completely worthless, in whole or in parts.) -For the record, I have personally written my senator before asking him to support right to repair laws.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I wonder what would happen if the law required devices with unpaired parts to be available, but still allowing the sale of devices with paired parts.
  - Someone 3y ago
    If there would be enough unpaired devices in the wild, both types of devices would get stolen (or, worse, robbed, with risk of bodily harm). Thieves would not return the ones that are worthless to them to their owners (why would they take that risk?). So, it would make the protection worthless for those willing to opt-in. And no, making it somewhat easy to check whether a phone is locked down wouldn’t help. Thieves and robbers won’t spend even a second to do that check while still near the crime scene. It would have to be absolutely obvious (say by having orange and black devices) for thieves to not steal the locked-down ones.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      Presumably the unpaired parts would pair after being installed
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
This comes across as teenage thoughts masquerading as philosophy. “Neurotransmitters signalling pain…”. What? Massive citation needed. Words mean things. “People get sad about things, yet things happen” is thought-terminating nonsense. Nobody, not even Tim Cook, considers themselves the Bad Guy. The real world doesn’t work like that. This situation is certainly more nuanced than you’re making it out to be. If you’ve been part of basically any discussion about this topic, you’d see that there are multiple sides. Starting from a position of “my preconceived view is correct and no other view exists” is intellectually dishonest and wilful ignorance.
yungporko 3y ago
does anybody not see it? isn't the issue just that we're powerless to stop it?
Goronmon 3y ago
...when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral Would you consider this to be true if the government was on the wrong side of an issue? Say politicians wanted to pass a law that every internet search query needed to reviewed and approved by a human before search results could be displayed. Would it be "measurably immoral" for Google to lobby against this law?
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  [flagged]
ribit 3y ago
Why would you think that replacement part authentication is immoral? Quite in contrary, I’d say it’s an important safety feature for devices that have access to extremely sensitive data. It’s just important that the user has the authorization rights, and not the company.
- goku12 3y ago
  Did anyone mention parts authentication? Regardless, you seem to have answered the question you raised. Concepts like parts authentication and secure boot are great in theory. The immoral part is their implementation. They're designed to wrestle the post-sale control of devices away from the customer and consolidate it in the hands of the manufacturer. Besides the subversion of the concept of ownership itself, this leads to increased cost of device ownership in many different ways.
  - jajko 3y ago
    Its a bit like PR stunt for the techies here, while giving master keys to whole cloud to NSA behind the doors. And to claim this will never-ever-pinky-promise-happen we shall show it on some highly publicized FBI case. Maybe there were good intentions in the beginning and path was truly a good one, but not for a nanosecond do I believe they really made it 100%. Phone is simply not a secure device, doesn't matter who manufactures it, period. Neither are all the networks used to connect anywhere. If all this lowers theft its a good strategy overall, but with terrible misguided marketing.
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      Actual techies are interested in the inner workings and can see past marketing. The group you're referring to is either the wider public that doesn't have the technical expertise to analyze the claims made, or Apple loyalists who uncritically accept and defend Apple's reasoning. If this had anything to do with theft, Apple would only blacklist parts which were inside the device at the time of theft, and otherwise provide "pairing" tools for free.
finnjohnsen2 3y ago
> Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human population I love this formulation
CharlesW 3y ago
> Maybe I read too much philosophy… Or maybe not enough? Several philosophical frameworks are perfectly compatible with Apple doing legal things to benefit themselves and their customers.
throwaway48476 3y ago
Companies are just a trick to make you think they're not made of of people when in fact it's just a mask for decisions made by real fleshy humans. When a company does something immoral it is because a human at the company did something immoral.

Drakim 3y ago

Modern capitalism has created a sort of new type of nobility out of corporations, a layer of entities above that of citizens. Just as you say, their actions are not judged by the same standard we'd use for normal people, and they can actually just get away with fines for breaking laws that would land normal people in jail. And actions we'd deep deeply immoral for normal people to engage in are morally acceptable for them.

sQL_inject 3y ago
I would refine your statement slightly, it's modern corporatism, not capitalism. We hold corporations in too high of regard and have intermingled what should be free and open exchange of money and goods with governmental power, lobbying.
- Drakim 3y ago
  Sure, but names aren't what's important here. It's the logical conclusion to capitalism, even if it's more fitting to call it corporatism. Either the government is big and the corporations lobbies and gets undue influence over how society and it's laws operates though the government, or the government is small and the corporations get undue influence over how society and it's law operates though sheer unregulated societal power. The group who controls your means of getting food, shelter, medicine, and information will have power over your life, and will bend the rules to their advantage using that power.
willcipriano 3y ago
Boss: "If you don't like the pay they can find another job" You: "I found another job" Boss: "What about loyalty? Are you a job hopper?" You feel bad for some reason. The morality we were taught in preschool largely serves the interests of the elite. Things like "if someone does you wrong, don't seek revenge, forgive them" are really helpful messages to have ingrained in society when you are a corporate looter with a name and a address.

latexr 3y ago

You’re starting from the assumption that no one thinks what Apple is doing is wrong or immoral, but that isn’t true. They have been and continue to be criticised to no end, for this very matter and others, including on Hacker News. Search for Apple and Right to Repair as keywords and see for yourself. Add Louis Rossmann to the mix and you can’t miss it.

alistairSH 3y ago

Personally, I'm just jaded. Corporations have acted this way as long as I can remember. I just accept that corporations act like sociopaths and the people running the large corporations are more interested in buying a new yacht than doing the right thing.

sumtechguy 3y ago
Apple changed in about 1996. When Steve Jobs came back he ended all of that 3rd party business. It was costing his company money. They went from a starting to thrive secondary clone market. To a closed off eco system pretty much overnight. It used to be fairly easy to get info on parts and what to do from Apple. That singular act saved Apple from becoming the next IBM. However, it doomed the rest of us to this weird dynamic of Apple choosing when to help the little guy out or not. Usually it seems to fall on the 'not' side. If Apple had always been this way it would not be as frustrating.

makeitdouble 3y ago

To play the devil's advocate, the US economic system doesn't have a clear notion of what is selfish or not. One reason why lobbying is allowed in the first place is to let corporations express what is good and bad for them and have their interests in the balance. The assumption is what's good for corporations increases the overall market and benefits society. Doubting that assumption is probably out of the current overtone window[edited]

Workaccount2 3y ago

Knowing both sides of the argument around this topic and apple, it's not hard to understand why apple has a compelling argument and why it still deserves to be heard. You have to remember that tons of people have near zero tech awareness, and regardless of the laws, will just bring their iPhone to the Apple store if it breaks. The same way people still go to dealers to fix their car, even out of warranty. This means Apple can say "Hey, give us full control of your phone repairs, and we can kill the theft market for iPhones. You are going to come to us anyway, so might as well let us end iPhone theft too" So this is why lawmakers still sit down with Apple. And the generous lunches. (Apple DRM'ing all the internal hardware does effectively make stolen iphones completely worthless, in whole or in parts.) -For the record, I have personally written my senator before asking him to support right to repair laws.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 3y ago
I wonder what would happen if the law required devices with unpaired parts to be available, but still allowing the sale of devices with paired parts.
- Someone 3y ago
  If there would be enough unpaired devices in the wild, both types of devices would get stolen (or, worse, robbed, with risk of bodily harm). Thieves would not return the ones that are worthless to them to their owners (why would they take that risk?). So, it would make the protection worthless for those willing to opt-in. And no, making it somewhat easy to check whether a phone is locked down wouldn’t help. Thieves and robbers won’t spend even a second to do that check while still near the crime scene. It would have to be absolutely obvious (say by having orange and black devices) for thieves to not steal the locked-down ones.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Presumably the unpaired parts would pair after being installed

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

This comes across as teenage thoughts masquerading as philosophy. “Neurotransmitters signalling pain…”. What? Massive citation needed. Words mean things. “People get sad about things, yet things happen” is thought-terminating nonsense. Nobody, not even Tim Cook, considers themselves the Bad Guy. The real world doesn’t work like that. This situation is certainly more nuanced than you’re making it out to be. If you’ve been part of basically any discussion about this topic, you’d see that there are multiple sides. Starting from a position of “my preconceived view is correct and no other view exists” is intellectually dishonest and wilful ignorance.

yungporko 3y ago

does anybody not see it? isn't the issue just that we're powerless to stop it?

Goronmon 3y ago

...when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral Would you consider this to be true if the government was on the wrong side of an issue? Say politicians wanted to pass a law that every internet search query needed to reviewed and approved by a human before search results could be displayed. Would it be "measurably immoral" for Google to lobby against this law?

lnxg33k1 3y ago
[flagged]

ribit 3y ago

Why would you think that replacement part authentication is immoral? Quite in contrary, I’d say it’s an important safety feature for devices that have access to extremely sensitive data. It’s just important that the user has the authorization rights, and not the company.

goku12 3y ago
Did anyone mention parts authentication? Regardless, you seem to have answered the question you raised. Concepts like parts authentication and secure boot are great in theory. The immoral part is their implementation. They're designed to wrestle the post-sale control of devices away from the customer and consolidate it in the hands of the manufacturer. Besides the subversion of the concept of ownership itself, this leads to increased cost of device ownership in many different ways.
- jajko 3y ago
  Its a bit like PR stunt for the techies here, while giving master keys to whole cloud to NSA behind the doors. And to claim this will never-ever-pinky-promise-happen we shall show it on some highly publicized FBI case. Maybe there were good intentions in the beginning and path was truly a good one, but not for a nanosecond do I believe they really made it 100%. Phone is simply not a secure device, doesn't matter who manufactures it, period. Neither are all the networks used to connect anywhere. If all this lowers theft its a good strategy overall, but with terrible misguided marketing.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    Actual techies are interested in the inner workings and can see past marketing. The group you're referring to is either the wider public that doesn't have the technical expertise to analyze the claims made, or Apple loyalists who uncritically accept and defend Apple's reasoning. If this had anything to do with theft, Apple would only blacklist parts which were inside the device at the time of theft, and otherwise provide "pairing" tools for free.

finnjohnsen2 3y ago

> Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human population I love this formulation

CharlesW 3y ago

> Maybe I read too much philosophy… Or maybe not enough? Several philosophical frameworks are perfectly compatible with Apple doing legal things to benefit themselves and their customers.

throwaway48476 3y ago

Companies are just a trick to make you think they're not made of of people when in fact it's just a mask for decisions made by real fleshy humans. When a company does something immoral it is because a human at the company did something immoral.