7 ms·

The answer is obvious, because you can’t fairly resolve a conflict of interest like that - alignment between publishers and distributors in the same vertical s

• cromka 2y ago
  The conclusion I think is they’d have to establish an independent arbitration panel and put them in charge. But they’ll lose control over their user experience then, so it’s full circle.
  • arrosenberg 2y ago
    Thats the kind of regulation that inevitably fails for one reason or another, but usually capture. Ordering the break up the OS and App Store is a self-executing and relatively permanent solution that can’t be corrupted nearly as easily.
• alwayslikethis 2y ago
  Realistically, no hardware manufacturer of a significant size (let's say 100k total devices) should be allowed to dictate what software can be distributed to users. It opens up all kinds of unfair business practices.
  • InitialLastName 2y ago
    Realistically, including avionics and medical devices where the software is restricted by regulation (in theory) and where the manufacturer is legally liable for failure of their device? More specifically, the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant?
    • shiroiushi 2y ago
      >the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? I can see an argument for this. Nothing forced Apple to design their hardware this way: they could have built licensing/compliance limits into the hardware itself. But they didn't want to do that because they wanted to use the same HW for all markets, and different governments have different rules about which frequency bands are allowed. Of course, this then brings up the question: if they did make slightly different HW per-market (perhaps with 1-time fuses), what happens when someone brings their iPhone from one country to another and they've modified it to ignore any new region restrictions (Apple could still use SW to force new restrictions, though they can't allow anything new because of the HW restrictions) and it's broadcasting on an unallowed band?
      • throwaway2037 2y ago
        My guess about roaming between different domestic and international regions: A handshake with the tower tells the phone what is the network type, then software (firmware) controls what frequencies to use. I just cannot believe in 2024 that this problem has not been solved many times over. What exactly is you qualm / concern?
        • shiroiushi 2y ago
          The point is that someone could modify the software to broadcast on disallowed bands: this is one of the main arguments against allowing user-modifiable software on smartphones (or any radio device).
          • leetcrew 2y ago
            so what? broadcasting on unauthorized bands is essentially painting a "come fine me" beacon on yourself. surely the FCC (or it's Japanese equivalent) can handle these sorts of revenue opportunities without Apple's help.
            • 2y ago
    • wibbily 2y ago
      > Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? I mean, routers have worked like this for ages. OpenWRT has an entire page about tweaking your radio settings, and what could happen to you if you do. Why would Apple be held liable for something you did to your device? https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/transmit.power.limits https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/transmit.po...
      • intrasight 2y ago
        >Why would Apple be held liable for something you did to your device Because Apple is worth trillions of dollars
        • LeonB 2y ago
          Yup. Regulators would rather sue Apple than the end users for the same reason John Dillinger chose to rob banks - “that’s where the money is.”
        • callalex 2y ago
          So is Cisco/Linksys
    • adrianN 2y ago
      It is already legal to modify cars even though they are dangerous, so a working legal framework for that kind of stuff exists. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to handle the case where somebody chooses to run Doom on their pacemaker.
      • dzhiurgis 2y ago
        > It is already legal to modify cars even though they are dangerous Not in places with regular inspection and mandated insurance. I.e. most civilised world.
        • viraptor 2y ago
          That's not quite right. You can totally modify them. The restrictions are around what's allowed on public roads, not what you do with the car. (You can drive whatever you want on your land) And even then, many modifications are ok and you can get special classifications for "unsafe" cars (like vintage ones without any safety features)
        • freeone3000 2y ago
          Nearly all car mods pass inspection. Look at what is actually checked: safety and emissions. Nothing about speed, appearance, sound, horsepower, ride height, or stock state. And moreover: if you modify a car that fails inspection, it’s on you, not the manufacturer!
          • sqeaky 2y ago
            You are correct in the larger sense, I am just pointing out details. Sound checks are part of checks in some places where there are sound limits on vehicles. Some "mufflers" are more like megaphones.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
    • MenhirMike 2y ago
      > Realistically, including avionics and medical devices where the software is restricted by regulation (in theory) and where the manufacturer is legally liable for failure of their device? Yes, absolutely. The responsible party is the operator of said equipment, and if they tinker with it, it's up to them to be compliant with FAA/FDA/HHS/etc. regulations or face proper legal reprecussions. > More specifically, the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. See above. We can already do that today with WiFi chipsets that can be made to use frequencies that are illegal in a certain country. It's on the operator to ensure compliance. Alternatively, device manufacturers are free to use components that only work in a certain frequency spectrum - but that wouldn't prevent an operator from using them in another country. We already solved those problems long ago.
    • Xelbair 2y ago
      >Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? no, because there's this weird concept that seems to be foreign to the modern software folk - Ownership. Owner is held liable for that, not device manufacturer.
  • gwbas1c 2y ago
    Careful: Before web apps were common, 3rd party applications on Windows would break all kinds of things. The hardware manufacturer needs to ensure that software doesn't break the device. Apple and Google are going well beyond any reasonable grey area, though. Demanding a cut if I buy a book through the Kindle app is absurd and has nothing to do with ensuring that Kindle doesn't break my smartphone.
    • ChoHag 2y ago
      [dead]
    • devoutsalsa 2y ago
      > Demanding a cut if I buy a book through the Kindle app is absurd and has nothing to do with ensuring that Kindle doesn't break my smartphone. "Ensuring that Kindle doesn't break my smartphone" requires time and effort. That's funded by the cut they take.
      • chrisan 2y ago
        It is unfairly funded. The ensuring part requires the same time and effort for Free apps, apps that make money off ads, apps that cost $1, apps that charge a monthly fee, apps that resell products where a 30% cut exceeds their margin. Perhaps the stores should change to a model of choose your own adventure: pay per release or % cut. What would you say is a fair amount to charge per release - keeping in mind apple/google will want to maintain their insanely high profits from the app stores?
      • gwbas1c 2y ago
        > That's funded by the cut they take. Apple / Google do not need to take a 30% cut of every e-book ever sold to fund their review. That's absurd and illogical. One estimate is that Amazon sells 487,000,000 ebooks a year. If we assume they cost $10 each, that's almost a $1.5 billion cut for Apple and Google. It does not cost $1.5 billion for Apple and Google to review Kindle to make sure it doesn't damage devices.
      • sqeaky 2y ago
  • al_borland 2y ago
    From what I always understood, the argument for the App Store was to ensure the hardware remained stable. While it's easy to say, "it's mine, I can do what I want," when that device is a persons life line to emergency services in the even something happens to them, that is not a responsibility a company should take lightly. I like to think Apple takes that seriously and acts in accordance with that responsibly. They've said as much publicly, but of course one can choose to believe them or not. Even if someone wants to ignore this concept, where is the line drawn? Should a hardware manufacturer, or OS vendor, be allowed to make a product that blocks malware on their systems (like Windows Defender)? Windows was seen as a poor product because of all the adware that infected it in the early 2000s. That issue has largely been resolved, thanks to efforts from Microsoft. Should they not be allowed to solve the biggest issue that plagued the public perception of their product? I realize I'm move the goalpost slightly, from hardware to OS vendor, but ultimately, it isn't Apple's hardware that's creating these controls, it's iOS, the operating system. And in the case of Google, it's clearly an OS vendor issue, as Android is installed on a wide variety of hardware from many different OEMs.
    • leetcrew 2y ago
      seems like a false dilemma to me. the platform owner should do all those responsible things that you mention. they should also offer an escape hatch for turning all those portions off, should the owner of the device so choose. I respect Apple's attitude much more than Google and Microsoft these days, but they really go too far with locking down iOS.
    • shiroiushi 2y ago
      Your Windows Defender argument seems like apples and oranges. It doesn't fully prevent adware infection anyway, but regardless, the discussion is about whether a hardware maker (or platform owner if you're going to try to extend this to OSes) should be allowed to prevent 3rd-party software selected by the user from running on their platform. Defender doesn't do this: it's an optional security application by MS that's included with Windows. Users are free to disable it if they wish. Nothing is preventing Windows users from running whatever software on top of Windows that they like. Defender will prevent some malware from running, and many users like this for obvious reasons, and the fact that it's included for free unlike competing anti-malware software, but it's not so baked into Windows that you can't turn it off. An antitrust argument could possibly be made, along the lines of Windows including IE and putting competing software out of business, but that's a different issue than what we're discussing. So you're right about this being really an OS vendor issue, but Microsoft doesn't force anyone to use Defender, and doesn't prevent anyone from using competing products. Google also allows using competing app stores (or even side-loading .apk files), though only a tiny fraction of users take advantage of this. Apple is really the problem here because it doesn't allow these things at all.
  • zzo38computer 2y ago
    I think it is reasonable for them to decide what software is available officially, in order to check for compatibility, quality, etc. However, users should be allow to load software that has not been approved and to write their own software too; and the software provided officially should not be required (if it is documented, you can write your own; if it is FOSS, then you can modify it and provide modified versions of the software). This does not excuse unfair business practices though, but it does ensure that users can easily override it if they do not like some of their business practices. The number of devices is not relevant. Even on many Linux systems there is a package manager, although you can also write your own software instead of using that in the package manager if you wish, and that should also be working with Apple, etc, just as well.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• mlindner 2y ago
  The question wasn't "should" but "can". Don't write inflammatory posts that don't answer the question.
• _carbyau_ 2y ago
  Movie makers shouldn't own cinemas. Car makers shouldn't own dealerships. Hardware makers of general computing devices (non-appliances) shouldn't make Apps. This game has played out a few times. Lets see how this one goes.
  • rahkiin 2y ago
    Where is the line? Because what you describe would block any plugin system in any software: AutoCad maker should not make autocad features because there could be third party extensions instead, and they can not make extensions themselves…? Or microsoft can not add nee features to VSCode as it competes with extensions, and they can not make their own extensions because they already on VSCode as a platform?
    • Drakim 2y ago
      People shouldn't be dishonest, yet we can't just outlaw lies. But we can outlaw lying in advertisements and product information. It basically comes down to the scale and context. Things don't need to be completely morally black and white for us to see that something is generally bad.
  • bdowling 2y ago
    All of those are common in Japan.
  • nonrandomstring 2y ago
    Yes, these are all good examples of things that actually shouldn't be done, under a certain interpretation of law. They are perfectly reasonable under a certain interpretation of monopoly. It's just that the US definition and that in Europe (and elsewhere) differ quite profoundly. United States anti-trust revolves around the idea of harms. You have to show that Mr Moneybag's empire causes material harm to customers - such as paying more than they could in a more efficient market. The European (and it seems Japanese) take is directed at power. Even if it benefits consumers it's wrong to leverage dominance in one area to obtain power in another.
  • smugma 2y ago