6 ms·

Whats the difference between mobsters owning a city , demanding money from all shops and Apple? There is none. Leadership at Apple is no different. Criminals wh

Whats the difference between mobsters owning a city , demanding money from all shops and Apple? There is none. Leadership at Apple is no different. Criminals who need be charged with jail penalties. Only then things will change. Will that ever happen? No. Governments are more or less controlled by lobbyists representing the same evil companies.

hk__2 2y ago
> Whats the difference between mobsters owning a city , demanding money from all shops and Apple? Apple produces and sells the device. Without Apple, you wouldn’t be able to build these apps; whereas the shops would exist without the mobsters. (not trying to defend Apple, just answering the question)
- halayli 2y ago
  Consumers buy these devices. Apple doesn't give them away for free. A consumer should be able to run whatever they want on the devices they have purchased. We are a long way from achieving this basic goal.
  - rozal 2y ago
    But the market has voted with their wallet. iPhones are extremely popular and desired, and people voted for it, in its current state. If people didn’t like what Apple was doing, they can just buy Android. Awfully simple
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    > A consumer should be able to run whatever they want on the devices they have purchased. That has probably never been the case for any product in any category. Your car can't fly, even though you think that the customer is always right.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      That has zero connection to running the code of your choice on your car. Which you can do.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        The manufacturer will not help you to run your car on the wrong fuel or run any code on your car. Just like Apple or any other device manufacturer.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        The problem is when there's DRM getting in the way of the natural right to mess with your own belongings. Cars have traditionally not had that, and I think it should not be allowed.
        carlosjobim 2y ago
        Physically, Apple does not hinder you from doing anything you want with your device. If you take out the chips and put in other components, that's your business, not Apples. If you manage to hack the software on the Apple chip to work exactly as you prefer, Apple cannot do anything. But what hackers are demanding is that Apple alter their software to work exactly as they want and assist them with this, even though most of them will not ever purchase an Apple device. To the detriment of normal customers who want devices that work well. Why are these requirements not levied against other product manufacturers? Why don't you try to force Tesla to make their cars run on diesel? Why don't you try to force McDonalds to make you a Whopper?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        First off, not putting in DRM is less work. And user control over keys is not hard. They wouldn't need to make anything worse. But really it's about reasonable fit-for-use regulations. That burger needs to be edible. The restaurant has to follow fire codes, even though that takes extra work. Both of those are orders of magnitude harder, as a percentage of cost, than letting the user control their own device. An even closer comparison is a rule that Tesla has to work with other chargers, which would be a good rule if it doesn't already exist. DRM is a special new thing that didn't traditionally exist, and we shouldn't let it be used as a way to remove the ability to tinker. It's almost as bad as physically hindering.
  - audunw 2y ago
    I don’t want to buy a device that can run any code, even if it’s apparently (hacking or force can be a factor) by my own choice. Especially for a device that I also use for contactless payment. I want full confidence that I can buy a second hand device without any malicious software installed (even if I’m not smart enough to know how to properly and fully reset it). And I want people that buy my second hand phone to have full confidence in that device so I get a good resale value for it. Maintaining this resale value is also important to avoid e-waste, since if people don’t get a good price for their phone it just gets left in a drawer. Apple provides this product. So I buy it. If you don’t want these guarantees for a device you’re buying, just don’t buy an iPhone. I think we’re going about lack of choice completely wrong. Yeah, it may be hard to get certain apps that don’t rely on iOS or Google Play Services. So legislation should target that problem instead: government and key public service apps should be published in an open app format that can be run on any device that implements the open standard.
- marenkay 2y ago
  So you also dispute fuel stations selling fuel for all car brands and would prefer fuel stations only supporting one car brand instead of the generic standard? And yes, this is the same. Why should BMW allow Exxon or Shell to fuel the cars when they don't get a sweet 30% tax for every refuel happening? Considering the same company is often using the idea of free markets, yet does everything to avoid that free market where it can, the irony here is pretty strong.
  - hk__2 2y ago
    > So you also dispute […] As I wrote in the comment you responded to, I’m "not trying to defend Apple, just answering the question". > So you also dispute fuel stations selling fuel for all car brands and would prefer fuel stations only supporting one car brand instead of the generic standard? And yes, this is the same. Why should BMW allow Exxon or Shell to fuel the cars when they don't get a sweet 30% tax for every refuel happening? This seems a strawman argument to me. The situation is not the same at all: fuelling a BMW or a Mercedes car is exactly the same thing for the gaz station; all gaz stations sell the same oil; the road that brings all these cars to the gaz station does not belong to a car manufacturer; there are countless car manufacturers and not only two giants; etc. Can’t we reason about the situation without having to resort to dubious analogies?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Whats the difference between mobsters owning a city , demanding money from all shops and Apple? Violence. Seriously?
throwAGIway 2y ago
Apple built the city and you're free to go anywhere else.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  "free to go anywhere else" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in a state/province with 2 "cities". Google isn't being hit as hard by the DMA, but they didn't get off scot-free either.
  - throwAGIway 2y ago
    That still doesn't give you any right to just take what Apple built for free. Maybe there's no right option for you - I know there isn't for me, I'd prefer to have Windows Mobile (not Phone) again.
    - hu3 2y ago
      Apple didn't build it for free and isn't giving it away for free either. These are $1000+ devices. It's like buying a house and still not owning it.
      - throwAGIway 2y ago
        Indeed, and they saw that software of sufficient quality can't be funded merely by sales of these devices, and decided to create a platform where the software publishers share the cost with the end users. I yearn for Windows Mobile but it has suffered from this problem greatly. Same with early Nokia and Sony Ericsson phones with smarter features like J2ME.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >and they saw that software of sufficient quality can't be funded merely by sales of these device I don't think Microsoft of the 90's, pre-"I take 30% as a gatekeeper" crashed and burned because it didn't leech enough funds from developers. Quite the contrary, It encouraged and empowered future entrepreneurs and customers alike, thinikg in the long term. . >i yearn for Windows Mobile but it has suffered from this problem greatly. Pricing wasn't the issue. Remember that this was the days where phone carriers subsidized phones with contracts, so no one was paying 600-1000 outright like today. It was a mix of lacking tech and UX needed. And a gargantuan marketing campaign.

hk__2 2y ago

> Whats the difference between mobsters owning a city , demanding money from all shops and Apple? Apple produces and sells the device. Without Apple, you wouldn’t be able to build these apps; whereas the shops would exist without the mobsters. (not trying to defend Apple, just answering the question)

halayli 2y ago
Consumers buy these devices. Apple doesn't give them away for free. A consumer should be able to run whatever they want on the devices they have purchased. We are a long way from achieving this basic goal.
- rozal 2y ago
  But the market has voted with their wallet. iPhones are extremely popular and desired, and people voted for it, in its current state. If people didn’t like what Apple was doing, they can just buy Android. Awfully simple
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  > A consumer should be able to run whatever they want on the devices they have purchased. That has probably never been the case for any product in any category. Your car can't fly, even though you think that the customer is always right.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    That has zero connection to running the code of your choice on your car. Which you can do.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      The manufacturer will not help you to run your car on the wrong fuel or run any code on your car. Just like Apple or any other device manufacturer.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        The problem is when there's DRM getting in the way of the natural right to mess with your own belongings. Cars have traditionally not had that, and I think it should not be allowed.
        carlosjobim 2y ago
        Physically, Apple does not hinder you from doing anything you want with your device. If you take out the chips and put in other components, that's your business, not Apples. If you manage to hack the software on the Apple chip to work exactly as you prefer, Apple cannot do anything. But what hackers are demanding is that Apple alter their software to work exactly as they want and assist them with this, even though most of them will not ever purchase an Apple device. To the detriment of normal customers who want devices that work well. Why are these requirements not levied against other product manufacturers? Why don't you try to force Tesla to make their cars run on diesel? Why don't you try to force McDonalds to make you a Whopper?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        First off, not putting in DRM is less work. And user control over keys is not hard. They wouldn't need to make anything worse. But really it's about reasonable fit-for-use regulations. That burger needs to be edible. The restaurant has to follow fire codes, even though that takes extra work. Both of those are orders of magnitude harder, as a percentage of cost, than letting the user control their own device. An even closer comparison is a rule that Tesla has to work with other chargers, which would be a good rule if it doesn't already exist. DRM is a special new thing that didn't traditionally exist, and we shouldn't let it be used as a way to remove the ability to tinker. It's almost as bad as physically hindering.
- audunw 2y ago
  I don’t want to buy a device that can run any code, even if it’s apparently (hacking or force can be a factor) by my own choice. Especially for a device that I also use for contactless payment. I want full confidence that I can buy a second hand device without any malicious software installed (even if I’m not smart enough to know how to properly and fully reset it). And I want people that buy my second hand phone to have full confidence in that device so I get a good resale value for it. Maintaining this resale value is also important to avoid e-waste, since if people don’t get a good price for their phone it just gets left in a drawer. Apple provides this product. So I buy it. If you don’t want these guarantees for a device you’re buying, just don’t buy an iPhone. I think we’re going about lack of choice completely wrong. Yeah, it may be hard to get certain apps that don’t rely on iOS or Google Play Services. So legislation should target that problem instead: government and key public service apps should be published in an open app format that can be run on any device that implements the open standard.
marenkay 2y ago
So you also dispute fuel stations selling fuel for all car brands and would prefer fuel stations only supporting one car brand instead of the generic standard? And yes, this is the same. Why should BMW allow Exxon or Shell to fuel the cars when they don't get a sweet 30% tax for every refuel happening? Considering the same company is often using the idea of free markets, yet does everything to avoid that free market where it can, the irony here is pretty strong.
- hk__2 2y ago
  > So you also dispute […] As I wrote in the comment you responded to, I’m "not trying to defend Apple, just answering the question". > So you also dispute fuel stations selling fuel for all car brands and would prefer fuel stations only supporting one car brand instead of the generic standard? And yes, this is the same. Why should BMW allow Exxon or Shell to fuel the cars when they don't get a sweet 30% tax for every refuel happening? This seems a strawman argument to me. The situation is not the same at all: fuelling a BMW or a Mercedes car is exactly the same thing for the gaz station; all gaz stations sell the same oil; the road that brings all these cars to the gaz station does not belong to a car manufacturer; there are countless car manufacturers and not only two giants; etc. Can’t we reason about the situation without having to resort to dubious analogies?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Whats the difference between mobsters owning a city , demanding money from all shops and Apple? Violence. Seriously?

throwAGIway 2y ago

Apple built the city and you're free to go anywhere else.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
"free to go anywhere else" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in a state/province with 2 "cities". Google isn't being hit as hard by the DMA, but they didn't get off scot-free either.
- throwAGIway 2y ago
  That still doesn't give you any right to just take what Apple built for free. Maybe there's no right option for you - I know there isn't for me, I'd prefer to have Windows Mobile (not Phone) again.
  - hu3 2y ago
    Apple didn't build it for free and isn't giving it away for free either. These are $1000+ devices. It's like buying a house and still not owning it.
    - throwAGIway 2y ago
      Indeed, and they saw that software of sufficient quality can't be funded merely by sales of these devices, and decided to create a platform where the software publishers share the cost with the end users. I yearn for Windows Mobile but it has suffered from this problem greatly. Same with early Nokia and Sony Ericsson phones with smarter features like J2ME.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >and they saw that software of sufficient quality can't be funded merely by sales of these device I don't think Microsoft of the 90's, pre-"I take 30% as a gatekeeper" crashed and burned because it didn't leech enough funds from developers. Quite the contrary, It encouraged and empowered future entrepreneurs and customers alike, thinikg in the long term. . >i yearn for Windows Mobile but it has suffered from this problem greatly. Pricing wasn't the issue. Remember that this was the days where phone carriers subsidized phones with contracts, so no one was paying 600-1000 outright like today. It was a mix of lacking tech and UX needed. And a gargantuan marketing campaign.