4 ms·

Apple should be allowed to block whatever they want from their app store. And users should be allowed to run whatever software they wish on their devices not in

Apple should be allowed to block whatever they want from their app store. And users should be allowed to run whatever software they wish on their devices not installed through Apple's store.

zzo38computer 2y ago
Yes, I agree, with both.
SergeAx 2y ago
"Their devices"? The owner of the device is the one with root privileges.
- jb1991 2y ago
  "Their" is referring to the owner of the phone in that comment. Or perhaps that is what you mean?
  - SergeAx 2y ago
    Yes, that is exactly my point. Apple hardware users don't have root privileges on those devices; ergo, they do not own them.
jb1991 2y ago
It really is a simple as this. People often make it more complicated than this fundamental issue.
postalrat 2y ago
Show apple be able to block apps from third party stories like in the article?
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Apple should allowed to block apps from third party app stores on devices they paid for.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    Apple does not pay for devices. They sell them. The users pay.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Yes. The users pay for them, the users own them, the users are entitled to run whatever software they wish on devices they paid for, own, and control.
      - croon 2y ago
        You stated the opposite above, which is what GP argued against.
        Jowsey 2y ago
        I assume there's just a "not be" missing somewhere
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        I believe I was consistent. Perhaps you believe that because apple had once paid for the devices that they should still be able to exercise control of them post sale to a user. This is a violation of ownership and of the first sale doctrine.
        croon 2y ago
        I believe the same, but that is besides the point. I think the misunderstanding stems from your original post, which I think you should reread. You state that "Apple should allowed [sic] to block apps from third party app stores on devices they paid for". No mention of users or owners rights post purchase. Did you mean "should not be"? But long thread about nothing, I was just trying to clear up the misunderstanding.
immibis 2y ago
Only if Apple's app store doesn't have any special placement. Remember when the EU wouldn't let phone have default browsers? The first time you started the phone, it had to show you 5 browsers in a randomized order and you picked one.
- zzo38computer 2y ago
  It should not require you to even install one of five; if you do not want to install a browser at all (or if you wish to install one other than those five, possibly some time in future) then it should not be required. Although, I think it would be better to just not install any browser by default and not even ask; you can install it yourself later if you wish to do so, and can install any one you want (or more than one, if you wish) instead of having to pick one from the provided list.
- pmontra 2y ago
  Those were Windows PCs, not phones.
cobbal 2y ago
I'll go a step further and say that users should be able to distribute software without needing to get apple's approval. Instead we get the lie of "_ is damaged and can't be opened. You should move it to the Trash."
SkyBelow 2y ago
Is a person* able to sell something while restricting how it can be used? This is before we even get into the issues of selling software vs. selling the right to use a copy of the software. Things like copyright laws, IP laws, and even ownership ends up getting complicated when deciding what is just or not. I think we mostly agree you shouldn't be able to resell copies of a book if you buy a book, but selling your own specific copy of a book is fine. But why does this distinction exist? Do you really own the book if you can't resell copies of it? *or company. Perhaps part of the answer is that sometimes we say yes for people but no for companies.
- zzo38computer 2y ago
  I think that copyright (and patents) is no good, and should be abolished. They should not restrict making copies of books, selling copies, and other stuff, by copyright. What you should not be allowed to do is to make an inexact copy and then sell it and then claim that the inexact copy is the same as the original, if it is not the same as the original; however, it can still be allowed if you do not make such invalid claims.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  >Is a person* able to sell something while restricting how it can be used? Of course, this is the domain of contract law. Often car companies restrict how soon a desirable model can be resold and for how much. edit: And robust anti trust enforcement keeps contract terms reasonable. Contracts are limited by unconscionability and superseded by legislation but otherwise fair game.

Apple should be allowed to block whatever they want from their app store. And users should be allowed to run whatever software they wish on their devices not installed through Apple's store.

zzo38computer 2y ago

Yes, I agree, with both.

SergeAx 2y ago

"Their devices"? The owner of the device is the one with root privileges.

jb1991 2y ago
"Their" is referring to the owner of the phone in that comment. Or perhaps that is what you mean?
- SergeAx 2y ago
  Yes, that is exactly my point. Apple hardware users don't have root privileges on those devices; ergo, they do not own them.

jb1991 2y ago

It really is a simple as this. People often make it more complicated than this fundamental issue.

postalrat 2y ago

Show apple be able to block apps from third party stories like in the article?

throwaway48476 2y ago
Apple should allowed to block apps from third party app stores on devices they paid for.
- hulitu 2y ago
  Apple does not pay for devices. They sell them. The users pay.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Yes. The users pay for them, the users own them, the users are entitled to run whatever software they wish on devices they paid for, own, and control.
    - croon 2y ago
      You stated the opposite above, which is what GP argued against.
      - Jowsey 2y ago
        I assume there's just a "not be" missing somewhere
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        I believe I was consistent. Perhaps you believe that because apple had once paid for the devices that they should still be able to exercise control of them post sale to a user. This is a violation of ownership and of the first sale doctrine.
        croon 2y ago
        I believe the same, but that is besides the point. I think the misunderstanding stems from your original post, which I think you should reread. You state that "Apple should allowed [sic] to block apps from third party app stores on devices they paid for". No mention of users or owners rights post purchase. Did you mean "should not be"? But long thread about nothing, I was just trying to clear up the misunderstanding.

immibis 2y ago

Only if Apple's app store doesn't have any special placement. Remember when the EU wouldn't let phone have default browsers? The first time you started the phone, it had to show you 5 browsers in a randomized order and you picked one.

zzo38computer 2y ago
It should not require you to even install one of five; if you do not want to install a browser at all (or if you wish to install one other than those five, possibly some time in future) then it should not be required. Although, I think it would be better to just not install any browser by default and not even ask; you can install it yourself later if you wish to do so, and can install any one you want (or more than one, if you wish) instead of having to pick one from the provided list.
pmontra 2y ago
Those were Windows PCs, not phones.

cobbal 2y ago

I'll go a step further and say that users should be able to distribute software without needing to get apple's approval. Instead we get the lie of "_ is damaged and can't be opened. You should move it to the Trash."

SkyBelow 2y ago

Is a person* able to sell something while restricting how it can be used? This is before we even get into the issues of selling software vs. selling the right to use a copy of the software. Things like copyright laws, IP laws, and even ownership ends up getting complicated when deciding what is just or not. I think we mostly agree you shouldn't be able to resell copies of a book if you buy a book, but selling your own specific copy of a book is fine. But why does this distinction exist? Do you really own the book if you can't resell copies of it? *or company. Perhaps part of the answer is that sometimes we say yes for people but no for companies.

zzo38computer 2y ago
I think that copyright (and patents) is no good, and should be abolished. They should not restrict making copies of books, selling copies, and other stuff, by copyright. What you should not be allowed to do is to make an inexact copy and then sell it and then claim that the inexact copy is the same as the original, if it is not the same as the original; however, it can still be allowed if you do not make such invalid claims.
throwaway48476 2y ago
>Is a person* able to sell something while restricting how it can be used? Of course, this is the domain of contract law. Often car companies restrict how soon a desirable model can be resold and for how much. edit: And robust anti trust enforcement keeps contract terms reasonable. Contracts are limited by unconscionability and superseded by legislation but otherwise fair game.