19 ms·

The biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system. It's the death of physical media and the rise of the "app store" model. I have p

The biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system. It's the death of physical media and the rise of the "app store" model. I have programs for my Apple //e computer that are over 30 years old. Most of the companies that made the software have long since disappeared, and the computer hasn't been supported since the '80s, but I can still use them. That software is my property. I own it, and I can use it for as long as the disks hold out. By contrast, the software on my iPad isn't really mine, in any practical sense. I'm licensing it, and it can be taken away, or I can be forced into "updates" that may change it in ways I don't want. Sure, I can avoid updating my apps, keep the iPad offline, and only use apps that run 100% locally, but that's an impractical solution, at best. Consumers are becoming trained to think of their devices as barely more than hermetically sealed dumb terminals (although they wouldn't use that phrase). The notion of "owning" things by paying for them is fading. "Cloud" apps that are free or subscription-based, music and movies that you stream rather than buy, the books on your Kindle, even the seeds that farmers buy from Monsanto aren't theirs to own and use as they please. Steven Hawking famously continued using the same 1980s-era speech synthesizer for decades because he felt the voice was part of his identity. The company that made it went out of business, but he didn't lose his voice. He could have gone for constant updates, a new and "better" voice every year, but he chose not to. Because he owned his speech synthesizer, it was his choice to make. There is a lot of obvious benefit to the app store model, from convenience to cost savings to ease of use. There are also many cases where it's vitally important that people own their software and their data. I don't know if it means we need more options for physical media and manual installs, or legislation protecting people's purchases from unwanted updates and removals, or something else, but I see this as a problem that's not limited to just this one situation.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jkn 14y ago
It is a bit easy on Apple to blame not them but the "app store" model they created for their devices and control completely. Apple has been a leader in this industry shift. Also it is not a question of physical media vs. downloaded software. Even physical media software now routinely call home to check for a valid license. So I suppose it is indeed legislation that we need, to prevent companies from revoking licenses.
- gbog 14y ago
  That is a weak workaround. There real solution is to fully recognize that information is power, and to have a separation of powers similar to the three powers of Montesquieu's. Hardware companies should no be allowed to make or sell or control software. Software companies should not be allowed to produce, sell or control hardware. The same way we, user, citizen, forbade our physicians to sell us the drug they prescribe, we should forbid information processing companies to sell us the devices where this information is processed on. I'm looking at you, Google, Apple and contenders. Everyone belived 1984 was targeted at totalitarian government, but maybe the dark prophecy is being fulfilled under our eyes. If I were a good pamphletist, I would write a punchy call for arms on the topic.
  - adrianN 14y ago
    Where does hardware end where does software start? Is the code in your BIOS still hardware? How about the driver for your graphics card? Is it still hardware if the processor only executes code signed by its manufacturer? Forbidding hardware companies like Apple to sell software is not sufficient to prevent them from only running things they approve. And besides, a law like that would likely cripple a large part of the industry and stifle innovation.
    - gbog 14y ago
      I am sure there have been many objections against separation of executive, legislative and judiciary powers, also in the name of efficiency. > a law like that I don't see it as a law. I think it should be to the constitutional level. Laws, if necessary, would get into details on how to enforce the constitution, and these details may vary with place and time. > would likely cripple a large part of the industry and stifle innovation On the opposite, I think it would in long term be better enforced by such a separation of (information) powers. One of the reason could be that it would require open formats for any communication between hardware and software. Then any other company could compete in the field, and innovate in directions either not allowed or not deemed interesting by the bigger companies. > not sufficient to prevent [Apple] from only running things they approve I do not think Apple or any other hardware provider is the least entitled to prevent me, the owner of the device I bought, from using any software I like. In my mind, current users of these devices when not unlocked do not own them, they rent them really, and should be aware of this.
lloeki 14y ago
> That software is my property. I own it Technically, no. I'm pretty sure that if you cashed for a copy of WordPerfect on Apple II, that software was licensed to you for unlimited time use and you don't own any bit of it.
- mbreese 14y ago
  It would be more correct to say that they own the physical media and a license to use the software on the media.
- rmc 14y ago
  That depends. Usually, yes the person owns it, in the same way you own a book or a VHS or a DVD. Copyright law prevents you from copying your software/book (Driving licencing law prevents you from driving the car you own without doing a test for example). This "licence" thing is usually a fiction sold to consumers by big companies to try to pull the wool over their eyes.
  - singlow 14y ago
    The license is not a fiction. It grants you powers that you would otherwise not have, only holding the installation media. For example, it grants you the right to make copies of the software - usually one for installation, one for execution and one for backup. It does not, usually, grant you permission to make additional copies for execution on other computers (without deleting the first one). Your use of this software is not limited by the license, it is extended. Without a license, installation media for copyrighted software has no legal value.
  - bitwize 14y ago
    Vernor v. Autodesk says otherwise.
- ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
  Well, this is really getting down to a philosophical level. You can't technically "own" any land at all in the United States, for example, the most you can get is unlimited use rights in perpetuity. Stop paying your property taxes for a few months and you'll find out who actually "owns" your land real quick.
omegaworks 14y ago
Are we really blaming the technology here? You're neglecting the reality: that a person--a living, breathing, thinking person--is behind the switch or lever that eliminates access. Connected computing is the inevitable future. We will always hold less physical computing capability in our hands then can be beamed to us from afar on-demand. What is ridiculous is the systems--the people systems--we have built that fostered this ethical failure. The social system of law that constrains Apple's behaviors. The internal social system at Apple whose 'conservative' default behavior is to remove rather then remit. There's a dude at Apple whose fear for losing his job overrides any sense of disgust he may have felt doing this. The technology is not at fault. Our contemporary framework for regulating that technology--our society's response to that technology--is at fault.
- gaius 14y ago
  a living, breathing, thinking person--is behind the switch or lever that eliminates access. A living, breathing, thinking person also did the research that this technology is based on, possibly risking their own capital (livelihood) to do so. Are they not entitled to earn anything? Should all researchers be starving artists in garrets? Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.
  - PGenes 14y ago
    This is what I don't get about the patent system. It should not be about denying others access, but ensuring that those who use the patent pay their dues to the originator. Then nobody but the greedy loses.
  - HolyHaddock 14y ago
    > Are they not entitled to earn anything? Should all researchers be starving artists in garrets? Do you mean the creators of SfY, who seem to claim to have done at least some of the research that went into it themselves, or do you discount their effort and risk merely because another company accused them of infringing a software patent?
  - jopt 14y ago
    Nobody is entitled to earn anything. Perhaps your great idea can't make money without a special legal monopoly, but that is not in itself a reason for the legal monopoly to exist. Being creative is not a license to get rich off your ideas.
astrodust 14y ago
They're two different worlds. On one hand you have an App Store where an infinite number of copies of an application can be legally obtained even when it'd be impractical or impossible to make physical copies. This enables individuals to produce apps used by millions. How many people were able to pull of what the founders of Sierra and Elecronic Arts did back when they had to hand-copy floppies and find distribution in sparsely scattered retail stores? Then it was exceptional. Today it's almost routine. On the down-side you have the rather transient nature of the platform where bit-rot happens much faster. Theoretically you can keep your iPad in its frozen state in perpetuity, backed up and re-imaged onto a replacement device if necessary. If you start upgrading, the half-life of applications kicks in and you're going to start losing some of them over time. It's not clear which is better in the end. The solution to this software problem could be to make an open-source version or one that side-steps the patents, whatever those are, as cleverly as possible. Then it can be distributed, instantly, to those who want or need it.
pjmlp 14y ago
> The biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system. The biggest culprit are the customers that blindly accept this model to buy applications and give to such companies money to pursue their practices.
- bambax 14y ago
  But what are they to do...?!?
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Start organisations that make cool stuff, or join those that already are. If you think something is missing from the world, the best way to do something about it is to build it.
fadzlan 14y ago
Even without the "app store" model, the company in question could still prevent the access to the said application by court injunction. It is not to the stage yet now, and while you can say that Apple acted prematurely, it is a matter of time that such injunction happen. And with the App Store model, the application is took down from the store. You still have the local copy. There is no updates from the App Store anymore, but do you think there will be updates from the developer when the court injunction finally happens? Bad laws need to be fixed.
flyinRyan 14y ago
> I'm licensing it, and it can be taken away, or I can be forced into "updates" that may change it in ways I don't want. So, iOS apps are like web apps then?
- freehunter 14y ago
  That was the originally stated intention. iOS 1 didn't have an app market. Everything was supposed to be written in HTML5+JS and accessed via a browser.
Karunamon 14y ago
>and it can be taken away Except this has never, ever been done to anything but malware. Not even apps that flagrantly and blatantly violated the store rules and got taken down are removed from end user devices. Not even apps which were pulled down for patent or copyright infringement. It isn't going to happen. Until such time as the killswitch is abused, this remains a slippery slope argument with no basis in reality. If you're worried about your apps, back up the IPA's. You kept your //e floppies around somewhere, didn't you? Is the problem that once apps are removed from the appstore, you can't redownload them? Can you buy Oregon Trail for the original Apple 2 officially anymore?
- randallsquared 14y ago
  Unless you think that Apple is immune to injunction, the mere existence of the capability to remove apps from customers' devices is a sort of attractive nuisance. Now, it could be that precedent will be established that removing infringing or other undesirable content or applications from third-party computers is not permissible. Until that precedent exists, though, the risk seems high that precedent will go the other way.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    The capability to remove apps from customer's devices has always existed in desktops since the internet, even for those you keep in CDs, as long as you are connected and receiving OS updates.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      Really. Could you provide an example of this?
      - ricardobeat 14y ago
        It is technically possible, doesn't mean it has been done (or maybe it has, Apple issued a patch a few weeks ago to remove malware on OSX?). OS updates could install anything onto your machine, including a tool that removes/blocks whatever it wants.
Uchikoma 14y ago
How is an offline iPad more impractical as your 1980 computer? (I'm against software patents, I'm against media licensing instead of ownership for the record)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jkn 14y ago

It is a bit easy on Apple to blame not them but the "app store" model they created for their devices and control completely. Apple has been a leader in this industry shift. Also it is not a question of physical media vs. downloaded software. Even physical media software now routinely call home to check for a valid license. So I suppose it is indeed legislation that we need, to prevent companies from revoking licenses.

gbog 14y ago
That is a weak workaround. There real solution is to fully recognize that information is power, and to have a separation of powers similar to the three powers of Montesquieu's. Hardware companies should no be allowed to make or sell or control software. Software companies should not be allowed to produce, sell or control hardware. The same way we, user, citizen, forbade our physicians to sell us the drug they prescribe, we should forbid information processing companies to sell us the devices where this information is processed on. I'm looking at you, Google, Apple and contenders. Everyone belived 1984 was targeted at totalitarian government, but maybe the dark prophecy is being fulfilled under our eyes. If I were a good pamphletist, I would write a punchy call for arms on the topic.
- adrianN 14y ago
  Where does hardware end where does software start? Is the code in your BIOS still hardware? How about the driver for your graphics card? Is it still hardware if the processor only executes code signed by its manufacturer? Forbidding hardware companies like Apple to sell software is not sufficient to prevent them from only running things they approve. And besides, a law like that would likely cripple a large part of the industry and stifle innovation.
  - gbog 14y ago
    I am sure there have been many objections against separation of executive, legislative and judiciary powers, also in the name of efficiency. > a law like that I don't see it as a law. I think it should be to the constitutional level. Laws, if necessary, would get into details on how to enforce the constitution, and these details may vary with place and time. > would likely cripple a large part of the industry and stifle innovation On the opposite, I think it would in long term be better enforced by such a separation of (information) powers. One of the reason could be that it would require open formats for any communication between hardware and software. Then any other company could compete in the field, and innovate in directions either not allowed or not deemed interesting by the bigger companies. > not sufficient to prevent [Apple] from only running things they approve I do not think Apple or any other hardware provider is the least entitled to prevent me, the owner of the device I bought, from using any software I like. In my mind, current users of these devices when not unlocked do not own them, they rent them really, and should be aware of this.

lloeki 14y ago

> That software is my property. I own it Technically, no. I'm pretty sure that if you cashed for a copy of WordPerfect on Apple II, that software was licensed to you for unlimited time use and you don't own any bit of it.

mbreese 14y ago
It would be more correct to say that they own the physical media and a license to use the software on the media.
rmc 14y ago
That depends. Usually, yes the person owns it, in the same way you own a book or a VHS or a DVD. Copyright law prevents you from copying your software/book (Driving licencing law prevents you from driving the car you own without doing a test for example). This "licence" thing is usually a fiction sold to consumers by big companies to try to pull the wool over their eyes.
- singlow 14y ago
  The license is not a fiction. It grants you powers that you would otherwise not have, only holding the installation media. For example, it grants you the right to make copies of the software - usually one for installation, one for execution and one for backup. It does not, usually, grant you permission to make additional copies for execution on other computers (without deleting the first one). Your use of this software is not limited by the license, it is extended. Without a license, installation media for copyrighted software has no legal value.
- bitwize 14y ago
  Vernor v. Autodesk says otherwise.
ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
Well, this is really getting down to a philosophical level. You can't technically "own" any land at all in the United States, for example, the most you can get is unlimited use rights in perpetuity. Stop paying your property taxes for a few months and you'll find out who actually "owns" your land real quick.

omegaworks 14y ago

Are we really blaming the technology here? You're neglecting the reality: that a person--a living, breathing, thinking person--is behind the switch or lever that eliminates access. Connected computing is the inevitable future. We will always hold less physical computing capability in our hands then can be beamed to us from afar on-demand. What is ridiculous is the systems--the people systems--we have built that fostered this ethical failure. The social system of law that constrains Apple's behaviors. The internal social system at Apple whose 'conservative' default behavior is to remove rather then remit. There's a dude at Apple whose fear for losing his job overrides any sense of disgust he may have felt doing this. The technology is not at fault. Our contemporary framework for regulating that technology--our society's response to that technology--is at fault.

gaius 14y ago
a living, breathing, thinking person--is behind the switch or lever that eliminates access. A living, breathing, thinking person also did the research that this technology is based on, possibly risking their own capital (livelihood) to do so. Are they not entitled to earn anything? Should all researchers be starving artists in garrets? Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.
- PGenes 14y ago
  This is what I don't get about the patent system. It should not be about denying others access, but ensuring that those who use the patent pay their dues to the originator. Then nobody but the greedy loses.
- HolyHaddock 14y ago
  > Are they not entitled to earn anything? Should all researchers be starving artists in garrets? Do you mean the creators of SfY, who seem to claim to have done at least some of the research that went into it themselves, or do you discount their effort and risk merely because another company accused them of infringing a software patent?
- jopt 14y ago
  Nobody is entitled to earn anything. Perhaps your great idea can't make money without a special legal monopoly, but that is not in itself a reason for the legal monopoly to exist. Being creative is not a license to get rich off your ideas.

astrodust 14y ago

They're two different worlds. On one hand you have an App Store where an infinite number of copies of an application can be legally obtained even when it'd be impractical or impossible to make physical copies. This enables individuals to produce apps used by millions. How many people were able to pull of what the founders of Sierra and Elecronic Arts did back when they had to hand-copy floppies and find distribution in sparsely scattered retail stores? Then it was exceptional. Today it's almost routine. On the down-side you have the rather transient nature of the platform where bit-rot happens much faster. Theoretically you can keep your iPad in its frozen state in perpetuity, backed up and re-imaged onto a replacement device if necessary. If you start upgrading, the half-life of applications kicks in and you're going to start losing some of them over time. It's not clear which is better in the end. The solution to this software problem could be to make an open-source version or one that side-steps the patents, whatever those are, as cleverly as possible. Then it can be distributed, instantly, to those who want or need it.

pjmlp 14y ago

> The biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system. The biggest culprit are the customers that blindly accept this model to buy applications and give to such companies money to pursue their practices.

bambax 14y ago
But what are they to do...?!?
- ktizo 14y ago
  Start organisations that make cool stuff, or join those that already are. If you think something is missing from the world, the best way to do something about it is to build it.

fadzlan 14y ago

Even without the "app store" model, the company in question could still prevent the access to the said application by court injunction. It is not to the stage yet now, and while you can say that Apple acted prematurely, it is a matter of time that such injunction happen. And with the App Store model, the application is took down from the store. You still have the local copy. There is no updates from the App Store anymore, but do you think there will be updates from the developer when the court injunction finally happens? Bad laws need to be fixed.

flyinRyan 14y ago

> I'm licensing it, and it can be taken away, or I can be forced into "updates" that may change it in ways I don't want. So, iOS apps are like web apps then?

freehunter 14y ago
That was the originally stated intention. iOS 1 didn't have an app market. Everything was supposed to be written in HTML5+JS and accessed via a browser.

Karunamon 14y ago

>and it can be taken away Except this has never, ever been done to anything but malware. Not even apps that flagrantly and blatantly violated the store rules and got taken down are removed from end user devices. Not even apps which were pulled down for patent or copyright infringement. It isn't going to happen. Until such time as the killswitch is abused, this remains a slippery slope argument with no basis in reality. If you're worried about your apps, back up the IPA's. You kept your //e floppies around somewhere, didn't you? Is the problem that once apps are removed from the appstore, you can't redownload them? Can you buy Oregon Trail for the original Apple 2 officially anymore?

randallsquared 14y ago
Unless you think that Apple is immune to injunction, the mere existence of the capability to remove apps from customers' devices is a sort of attractive nuisance. Now, it could be that precedent will be established that removing infringing or other undesirable content or applications from third-party computers is not permissible. Until that precedent exists, though, the risk seems high that precedent will go the other way.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  The capability to remove apps from customer's devices has always existed in desktops since the internet, even for those you keep in CDs, as long as you are connected and receiving OS updates.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Really. Could you provide an example of this?
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      It is technically possible, doesn't mean it has been done (or maybe it has, Apple issued a patch a few weeks ago to remove malware on OSX?). OS updates could install anything onto your machine, including a tool that removes/blocks whatever it wants.

Uchikoma 14y ago

How is an offline iPad more impractical as your 1980 computer? (I'm against software patents, I'm against media licensing instead of ownership for the record)