2 ms·

What argument? Ok, let's say it "should". Now what? Do you agree with state coercion forcing Apple to misdesign its products? If so, that's where you've lost

What argument? Ok, let's say it "should". Now what? Do you agree with state coercion forcing Apple to misdesign its products? If so, that's where you've lost me.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
State coercion? You mean do I think that legal fictional entities (corporations) that exist by virtue of rules and laws, and benefits from the protection of those rules and laws, should also have to be subject to restrictions imposed by those rules and laws? Hell, we even forced Microsoft to offer third party browsers from their competitors at one point. Yes, I do think that is a good idea. We use state coercion to force Apple to not design products that burst into flames, to repair or replace products that the courts have deemed to be defective, we have even forced apple to use USB-C connectors, or as you say, to "misdesign" their products. Apple can and has used the App store to hurt consumers and competitors. The terms and conditions aren't static, so what I agreed to when I bought my phone isn't the same as the current policy. I absolutely think that the state should "coerce" them to "misdesign" their software by removing an artificial limitation and to allow apps sourced from different servers than their own when it harms consumers and restricts competition.
- welferkj 2y ago
  I think the harm to consumers would be greater if iOS were forced to adopt the "1998 Linux box" software distribution model. The danger is prominent apps ditching the app store in favour of their own distribution solutions. This is, in fact, exactly what Epic intended when it launched its lawfare to force apple to misdesign its products. The forced misdesign also increases cost (inevitably passed onto the consumers) as Apple is forced to either develop separate solutions for every relevant jurisdiction, or universally apply the most restrictive misdesign dictates.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    I don't know what you mean by "1998 linux box" sotware distribution. I'm typing this on MacOS, which can install software from any source, including the app store. It works fine for all of my purposes, and any purpose I can imagine. I have never worried that Apple will suddenly get into a disagreement with an App maker and disable my ability to buy their software. > The forced misdesign also increases cost (inevitably passed onto the consumers) as Apple is forced to either develop separate solutions for every relevant jurisdiction, or universally apply the most restrictive misdesign dictates. They already have to design solutions for their app store for every jurisdiction, tax compliance and payment for just the app store probably has a team devoted to it. If a Brazilian court orders apple to stop distributing Twitter in Brazil, they will absolutely comply. I'm not asking for them to 'misdesign' anything. I'm asking for it to be possible to run a package downloaded from anywhere. I'm not asking them to distribute it via their store.

What argument? Ok, let's say it "should". Now what? Do you agree with state coercion forcing Apple to misdesign its products? If so, that's where you've lost me.

dghlsakjg 2y ago

State coercion? You mean do I think that legal fictional entities (corporations) that exist by virtue of rules and laws, and benefits from the protection of those rules and laws, should also have to be subject to restrictions imposed by those rules and laws? Hell, we even forced Microsoft to offer third party browsers from their competitors at one point. Yes, I do think that is a good idea. We use state coercion to force Apple to not design products that burst into flames, to repair or replace products that the courts have deemed to be defective, we have even forced apple to use USB-C connectors, or as you say, to "misdesign" their products. Apple can and has used the App store to hurt consumers and competitors. The terms and conditions aren't static, so what I agreed to when I bought my phone isn't the same as the current policy. I absolutely think that the state should "coerce" them to "misdesign" their software by removing an artificial limitation and to allow apps sourced from different servers than their own when it harms consumers and restricts competition.

welferkj 2y ago
I think the harm to consumers would be greater if iOS were forced to adopt the "1998 Linux box" software distribution model. The danger is prominent apps ditching the app store in favour of their own distribution solutions. This is, in fact, exactly what Epic intended when it launched its lawfare to force apple to misdesign its products. The forced misdesign also increases cost (inevitably passed onto the consumers) as Apple is forced to either develop separate solutions for every relevant jurisdiction, or universally apply the most restrictive misdesign dictates.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  I don't know what you mean by "1998 linux box" sotware distribution. I'm typing this on MacOS, which can install software from any source, including the app store. It works fine for all of my purposes, and any purpose I can imagine. I have never worried that Apple will suddenly get into a disagreement with an App maker and disable my ability to buy their software. > The forced misdesign also increases cost (inevitably passed onto the consumers) as Apple is forced to either develop separate solutions for every relevant jurisdiction, or universally apply the most restrictive misdesign dictates. They already have to design solutions for their app store for every jurisdiction, tax compliance and payment for just the app store probably has a team devoted to it. If a Brazilian court orders apple to stop distributing Twitter in Brazil, they will absolutely comply. I'm not asking for them to 'misdesign' anything. I'm asking for it to be possible to run a package downloaded from anywhere. I'm not asking them to distribute it via their store.