5 ms·

It's a really important point, because it clarifies what this change really means: developers are now being given the final say about how their application is i

It's a really important point, because it clarifies what this change really means: developers are now being given the final say about how their application is installed (i.e. through what intermediary, if any) on the end user's device. In short: it's DRM in different clothes. Luckily, it appears the developers have to opt-in (at least for now).

toasterlovin 2y ago
I mean, it is the developer’s intellectual property, so they should have a say in how it’s used, right?
- GauntletWizard 2y ago
  Yes, they should have a say. This is "the final word". There's a large gap of rationality in between them.
  - bitwize 2y ago
    Copyright is often bound up with the moral rights of authors, one of which is final control of whether and how their work is exhibited, because the author's reputation is bound up with the exhibition of the work. This is more explicit in jurisdictions like European countries, where authors rights are more encoded into IP law. In the USA, you have things like the first sale doctrine, which applies to things like books and audio recordings, but DOES NOT apply to software, especially not software that makes use of services provided by the author (as most mobile apps do). Do not expect, in general, to have a right to use a piece of software, especially a mobile app, in ways not explicitly authorized by the app's vendor. Yes, this also means video games as things you can play forever are going away. Get used to it.
    - NoGravitas 2y ago
      [flagged]
- type0 2y ago
  > so they should have a say in how it’s used users should, that's why feedback forms exist
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  With traditional property, the vendor never had this right. I could buy a hammer and use it hammer in nails or use it to break windows and the hammer manufacturer couldn't stop me. It was one thing when intellectual property was entertainment and media but now that it's come to encompass tools needed to interact with the world users need to have something more akin to traditional consumer rights for apps they "own".
  - toasterlovin 2y ago
    But intellectual property has traditionally been property for a long time. Copyright isn’t a recent invention.
    - beeflet 2y ago
      You're applying copyright to something functional like a computer program versus a piece of art. And what these companies are doing is making the (hardware or external) functionality dependent on that copy-written computer program. So now it's impossible to modify your device without modifying software and thus breaking copyright. Take a look at the US constitution copyright clause: [the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. How does this use case of copyright promote the progress of science and useful arts? Copyright was clearly intended to make it temporarily difficult to publish information, not to make it impossible to modify machines.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  Property is a bundle of rights, not a single unified monolith. But regardless of whether they should have that say, they empirically do seem to have it. Which is why the solution is free software, and why the FSF has always understood the threat of hardware and encryption being used against the user rather than for them.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Not at all. I reject any and all notions of "intellectual property". Especially when their implementation requires the sacrifice of free computing as we know it, the destruction of everything the word "hacker" ever stood for. I'd very much prefer that creators have zero say over anything, if that is the cost of computers remaining free.
- 7jjjjjjj 2y ago
  No.
MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
I wonder to what extent the supposed user benefits of central control of apps are true. Maybe arbitrary programs on a phone is akin to a random .exe on Windows 95, but instead of Windows 95 it's a computing platform that a majority of human beings have in their pocket and that can provide direct or indirect access to almost all personal and financial information. I mean, you have to grant the privileges, but of course you will. Maybe having a locked down library of programs is good, I'm just too much of a cynic to see it as anything but a power grab. On the other hand, maybe the support and legal headaches of customers "screwing themselves up" also plays a part, especially when there's a whole dark industry to trick people into screwing themselves up.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  If locking the user's data was the goal, Google would many a non-negative amount of effort locking the user's data from malicious apps. Instead, they work on mixing the data so much users can't tell what is being accessed, blocking data-redacting apps, and making sure term changes are invisible.
- beeflet 2y ago
  >Maybe arbitrary programs on a phone is akin to a random .exe on Windows 95 No, it isn't because there is already sandboxing. >that can provide direct or indirect access to almost all personal and financial information. Windows 95 computers also used to have web browsers and bank information. The risk has not progressed
matheusmoreira 2y ago
There is no reason whatsoever for a developer looking to publish apps on a proprietary app store to ever opt out of this.

toasterlovin 2y ago

I mean, it is the developer’s intellectual property, so they should have a say in how it’s used, right?

GauntletWizard 2y ago
Yes, they should have a say. This is "the final word". There's a large gap of rationality in between them.
- bitwize 2y ago
  Copyright is often bound up with the moral rights of authors, one of which is final control of whether and how their work is exhibited, because the author's reputation is bound up with the exhibition of the work. This is more explicit in jurisdictions like European countries, where authors rights are more encoded into IP law. In the USA, you have things like the first sale doctrine, which applies to things like books and audio recordings, but DOES NOT apply to software, especially not software that makes use of services provided by the author (as most mobile apps do). Do not expect, in general, to have a right to use a piece of software, especially a mobile app, in ways not explicitly authorized by the app's vendor. Yes, this also means video games as things you can play forever are going away. Get used to it.
  - NoGravitas 2y ago
    [flagged]
type0 2y ago
> so they should have a say in how it’s used users should, that's why feedback forms exist
AlexandrB 2y ago
With traditional property, the vendor never had this right. I could buy a hammer and use it hammer in nails or use it to break windows and the hammer manufacturer couldn't stop me. It was one thing when intellectual property was entertainment and media but now that it's come to encompass tools needed to interact with the world users need to have something more akin to traditional consumer rights for apps they "own".
- toasterlovin 2y ago
  But intellectual property has traditionally been property for a long time. Copyright isn’t a recent invention.
  - beeflet 2y ago
    You're applying copyright to something functional like a computer program versus a piece of art. And what these companies are doing is making the (hardware or external) functionality dependent on that copy-written computer program. So now it's impossible to modify your device without modifying software and thus breaking copyright. Take a look at the US constitution copyright clause: [the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. How does this use case of copyright promote the progress of science and useful arts? Copyright was clearly intended to make it temporarily difficult to publish information, not to make it impossible to modify machines.
ants_everywhere 2y ago
Property is a bundle of rights, not a single unified monolith. But regardless of whether they should have that say, they empirically do seem to have it. Which is why the solution is free software, and why the FSF has always understood the threat of hardware and encryption being used against the user rather than for them.
matheusmoreira 2y ago
Not at all. I reject any and all notions of "intellectual property". Especially when their implementation requires the sacrifice of free computing as we know it, the destruction of everything the word "hacker" ever stood for. I'd very much prefer that creators have zero say over anything, if that is the cost of computers remaining free.
7jjjjjjj 2y ago
No.

MathMonkeyMan 2y ago

I wonder to what extent the supposed user benefits of central control of apps are true. Maybe arbitrary programs on a phone is akin to a random .exe on Windows 95, but instead of Windows 95 it's a computing platform that a majority of human beings have in their pocket and that can provide direct or indirect access to almost all personal and financial information. I mean, you have to grant the privileges, but of course you will. Maybe having a locked down library of programs is good, I'm just too much of a cynic to see it as anything but a power grab. On the other hand, maybe the support and legal headaches of customers "screwing themselves up" also plays a part, especially when there's a whole dark industry to trick people into screwing themselves up.

marcosdumay 2y ago
If locking the user's data was the goal, Google would many a non-negative amount of effort locking the user's data from malicious apps. Instead, they work on mixing the data so much users can't tell what is being accessed, blocking data-redacting apps, and making sure term changes are invisible.
beeflet 2y ago
>Maybe arbitrary programs on a phone is akin to a random .exe on Windows 95 No, it isn't because there is already sandboxing. >that can provide direct or indirect access to almost all personal and financial information. Windows 95 computers also used to have web browsers and bank information. The risk has not progressed

matheusmoreira 2y ago

There is no reason whatsoever for a developer looking to publish apps on a proprietary app store to ever opt out of this.