3 ms·

Other people have picked up on factual inaccuracies so I'll pick on the commodore 64 one. It was blocked for the BASIC interpreter, then Apple review it's rules

Other people have picked up on factual inaccuracies so I'll pick on the commodore 64 one. It was blocked for the BASIC interpreter, then Apple review it's rules and guidance again, and allow people to include interpreters. So yeah, Apple blocked it, carefully reviewed it's policies, admitted they made a mistake and rectified it. I'm not saying I disagree with the crux of the argument, if people want it to be open then I think Apple should at least allow some mechanism, but lets look at it objectively. Can I currently install non-App Store apps on my phone/access at a root level? Yeah, sure, I jailbreak it and open it up. Can I install a non-iOS release on there? Sure, if I have an iPhone 3G I can. Should Apple honour a warranty for hardware failure if my phone is jailbroken? They should, but I wouldn't expect they would if they can't guarantee it wasn't something in the software. That's unlikely, but if Apple can save the repair costs well, they're a business and that doesn't stun me. It's open to the people who want it open, by exploring the boundaries and pushing people forward. Imagine if Apple opened the platform up, they'd give the Dev Team nothing to do. They'd be sad, all the joy of exploring the edges and adding another point on the score board gone.

saurik 14y ago
This argument makes about as much sense as claiming that in practice a minority of slaves already have reasonable lives if (a big if) they are tending to a benevolent family (remember that most people simply don't have an iPhone 3G: the iPhone 4S is a vastly different story with respect to the exploits we have; even most of the 3GS's in the wild don't have permanent untethers), those that don't can always escape (as if it were a simple process to do so, or there aren't other tradeoffs and risks), and that giving people general civil liberties would be a sad day as it would deny freedom fighters something to do while playing what is trivialized to a board game (ignoring that there are either other front-lines they could then moving the battle to, and forgetting that there are things more valuable to do in life than spend all of your time and energy fighting for something that should already be true).
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  (I'll preface, I'm a big fan of your work and think you're a super clever guy). Equating it to slavery is pushing us towards a Godwin-esque territory. You, as a person, as an individual, as a consumer have the right to pick and choose what device you want. If you want an open platform it is your right to pick it, it's not your right to expect it, yet anyway. You, as a slave, as private property, as owned goods would not have a choice. You're defined by a lack of choice. I'm all for giving people civil liberties, and I think it'd be nice for Apple to open their platform. But they don't need to, or have to, and as far as we can tell don't want to. This isn't a strict case of it being a civil liberty as Apple hasn't taken away your right to choose, they've simplified it. You want low-level access, the ability to go outside our App Store, you can have it by fighting against us or going elsewhere. Like I say, I'm a big fan of the work both you and the Dev Team do, and I think everyone would be sad if you all went 'we've had enough' and moved on and the platform was shut down to it's initial state, but unless Apple has a massive change of heart they'll always say 'we're not actively pursuing jailbreaking as a crime, but we're not going to make it easy' and then we're always going to have a situation where a dedicated group want access, and will do anything to have it.
  - saurik 14y ago
    Your response ignored my arguments and went in a different direction. Your original argument was that this set of devices, in specific, were already effectively open: I demonstrated (I maintain clearly by my point-by-point analogy) that that was a twisted way of looking at what it meant to be open. This response seems to have dropped that line of thought and is now claiming that the ecosystem as a whole is open because I can always choose another device and that Apple has a right to decide to make a closed system. This is an entirely unrelated argument, and one I will not respond to as harshly as the other. Responding to this different argument, I will point out that I don't really have the ability to pick a different device, as of devices that are available almost every single one of them is equally closed. The exceptions are the irritatingly small handful of Android devices that support "fastboot oem unlock" in their bootloader. Your second point, that this currently is not my right to demand, is obvious: that's why the EFF is lobbying for changes in laws. Claiming that the changes in law we want to see are not currently laws and thereby we should not be demanding them as we are not entitled to them is a non-sensical argument structure. (For more information on argument paths related to the overall lack of choice, how it has come to happen, and what it means for related markets, I will direct you to read the comments I provided the copyright office for this years' round of DMCA exemptions.) http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/Jay_Freeman.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/Jay_Freeman.pdf
chj 14y ago
this emulator has been crippled to only run a handful of bundled roms, because apple don't want their users to run custom executables, despite that they are interpreted.

saurik 14y ago

This argument makes about as much sense as claiming that in practice a minority of slaves already have reasonable lives if (a big if) they are tending to a benevolent family (remember that most people simply don't have an iPhone 3G: the iPhone 4S is a vastly different story with respect to the exploits we have; even most of the 3GS's in the wild don't have permanent untethers), those that don't can always escape (as if it were a simple process to do so, or there aren't other tradeoffs and risks), and that giving people general civil liberties would be a sad day as it would deny freedom fighters something to do while playing what is trivialized to a board game (ignoring that there are either other front-lines they could then moving the battle to, and forgetting that there are things more valuable to do in life than spend all of your time and energy fighting for something that should already be true).

nicholassmith 14y ago
(I'll preface, I'm a big fan of your work and think you're a super clever guy). Equating it to slavery is pushing us towards a Godwin-esque territory. You, as a person, as an individual, as a consumer have the right to pick and choose what device you want. If you want an open platform it is your right to pick it, it's not your right to expect it, yet anyway. You, as a slave, as private property, as owned goods would not have a choice. You're defined by a lack of choice. I'm all for giving people civil liberties, and I think it'd be nice for Apple to open their platform. But they don't need to, or have to, and as far as we can tell don't want to. This isn't a strict case of it being a civil liberty as Apple hasn't taken away your right to choose, they've simplified it. You want low-level access, the ability to go outside our App Store, you can have it by fighting against us or going elsewhere. Like I say, I'm a big fan of the work both you and the Dev Team do, and I think everyone would be sad if you all went 'we've had enough' and moved on and the platform was shut down to it's initial state, but unless Apple has a massive change of heart they'll always say 'we're not actively pursuing jailbreaking as a crime, but we're not going to make it easy' and then we're always going to have a situation where a dedicated group want access, and will do anything to have it.
- saurik 14y ago
  Your response ignored my arguments and went in a different direction. Your original argument was that this set of devices, in specific, were already effectively open: I demonstrated (I maintain clearly by my point-by-point analogy) that that was a twisted way of looking at what it meant to be open. This response seems to have dropped that line of thought and is now claiming that the ecosystem as a whole is open because I can always choose another device and that Apple has a right to decide to make a closed system. This is an entirely unrelated argument, and one I will not respond to as harshly as the other. Responding to this different argument, I will point out that I don't really have the ability to pick a different device, as of devices that are available almost every single one of them is equally closed. The exceptions are the irritatingly small handful of Android devices that support "fastboot oem unlock" in their bootloader. Your second point, that this currently is not my right to demand, is obvious: that's why the EFF is lobbying for changes in laws. Claiming that the changes in law we want to see are not currently laws and thereby we should not be demanding them as we are not entitled to them is a non-sensical argument structure. (For more information on argument paths related to the overall lack of choice, how it has come to happen, and what it means for related markets, I will direct you to read the comments I provided the copyright office for this years' round of DMCA exemptions.) http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/Jay_Freeman.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/Jay_Freeman.pdf

chj 14y ago

this emulator has been crippled to only run a handful of bundled roms, because apple don't want their users to run custom executables, despite that they are interpreted.