4 ms·

Are you legally prevented from controlling your device in any way you wish after purchase? I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally bein

Are you legally prevented from controlling your device in any way you wish after purchase? I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.

bitpush 1y ago
> Are you legally prevented from controlling your device The bar isnt whether it is legal or not. You know that no company can create laws, and either you're saying it out of ignorance, or willful ignorance. When Walmart drives away mom and pop shops, and dominate a certain town and then hikes the prices for groceries, you cant say "but it isnt illegal to go buy groceries from elsewhere, what did we - Walmart - do wrong?" Say it with me - monopoly rules are about consumer choice.
- _benton 1y ago
  This analogy makes no sense because you are not prevented in any way from purchasing the many other devices that provide almost identical functionality. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices but ignoring the fact that the mom and pop stores still exist, at a higher number compared to walmarts, and are selling the same products for cheaper. You have incredible consumer choice for phones, you can't chose to purchase a luxury phone and then complain about it.
  - whstl 1y ago
    You're wrong. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices after they drove away all Mom and Pop stores. > I think it's perfectly fine to prevent you from having this Yes I can, legally and morally.
    - _benton 1y ago
      The mom and pop stores in this analogy are the multitude of devices which are not produced by Apple and provide the same features, like Android phones and phones which are trivial to flash your own custom OS and software on. So no, your analogy does not support your conclusions.
      - whstl 1y ago
        It is not about devices, but rather about mobile OSs. There are only two really viable ones for practical use.
        _benton 1y ago
        And one gives you the control you want over your device ie. sideloading and alternative app stores right? So why not simply purchase devices that use that operating system?
        whstl 1y ago
        Because I have other interests and preferences when purchasing a device.
      - h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 1y ago
        You state it is trivial to use Android as an alternative. How is the data checkout working on iOS to migrate to Android?
      - happymellon 1y ago
        You agree with ATT that they should never have been forced to allow other people to plug their phones in? You can always just build your own phone network if you don't like it! You are on the wrong side of history.
  - socalgal2 1y ago
    It has absolutely zero to do with your choice to purchase a different device. It has everything to do with hundreds of thousands of companies' right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle.
    - _benton 1y ago
      What right does a company have to piggyback off of another company? Like think about this logically? Should a grocery store be forced to sell my products without receiving any of the profit? Can I force a cafe to let me serve customers on their premises without giving anything in return?
      - whstl 1y ago
        > What right does a company have to piggyback off of another company? Apple has no right to piggybacking off of another company's business. Therefore the 30% must go.
        _benton 1y ago
        They aren't piggybacking, they provide the infrastructure, marketplace, and platform.
        whstl 1y ago
        Apple is forcing companies and users to use this infrastructure, so this is indeed Apple piggybacking and putting its hands where it shouldn't.
        Intermernet 1y ago
        They explicitly prevent other companies from providing this infrastructure, marketplace and platform. Apple don't offer this stuff as a favour to developers, they demand that developers use it and prevent them from using anything else. Apple aren't some Good Samaritan providing a centralised set of services out of the goodness of their hearts, they are forcing companies to pay an exorbitant fee to be able to play in their garden, and they make billions of dollars in profit from this. Compare Apple with Steam (who also provide the infrastructure, marketplace and platform). Steam don't force developers to use their services. They're still successful, but you can get almost every game on Steam from somewhere else. This is what I'd ideally like Apple to do. It wouldn't make any difference to me, as I haven't owned or developed for Apple devices in many decades, but it would make a huge difference to many developers, and many device owners. I doubt it will actually make that much difference to Apple's profits, but it would make a difference to the rapidly declining good will they have in the developer community, and increasingly in their customers.
  - maximus-decimus 1y ago
    If every other teenager only uses the iMessage app, it does prevent you to purchase any other device since you'll be excluded otherwise.
whstl 1y ago
I don't see how the legality question is relevant here. My country is not forbidding me from exercising my ownership rights. This "are you prevented by law" question is fallacious, it implies that Apple can do no wrong, since it can't create laws. What Apple is taking away is practical control for owners of a class of device that has become essential to my practical participation in society. I actually desire my country to intervene and change laws forcing Apple give me that control.
- _benton 1y ago
  Maybe if the iPhone was the only phone available to purchase this argument has merit. But it's not, there are no shortage of other phones that provide the same features which are "essential to (your) practical participation in society)". If anything, you are attempting to remove my ability to purchase a device I want to own. And I don't really like that.
  - whstl 1y ago
    There are only two viable phone OSs and both have problems. "Vote with your wallet" is a BS argument in such a duopoly, because people care about other stuff.
    - _benton 1y ago
      There are many phones which let you flash your own OS and use with complete control. Please just purchase one of those and stop trying to interfere with my ability to purchase a phone that I want.
      - whstl 1y ago
        No. In my opinion it is perfectly fine for society to order a company to hypothetically limit you on this minor thing (and let's be frank: this is super minor), because opening up iOS would benefit companies, countries, economies and other users of phones.
hk1337 1y ago
I think people see phones like Android, they like the things they can do with it but like the iPhone better and want Apple to do it with iPhone.
globular-toast 1y ago
Are sick people legally prevented from becoming healthy again? Are homeless people legally prevented from having a home? Are starving people legally prevented from eating? I'm sick of people writing off entire classes of problems because "well, it's not illegal". The law doesn't matter until you're actually in court. What matters is practicalities. There are many rights that are impractical to use and there are many laws that are unenforced. Some problems could be solved by law, others probably not. The law is a solution, not a problem. Focus on problems, not solutions.

bitpush 1y ago

> Are you legally prevented from controlling your device The bar isnt whether it is legal or not. You know that no company can create laws, and either you're saying it out of ignorance, or willful ignorance. When Walmart drives away mom and pop shops, and dominate a certain town and then hikes the prices for groceries, you cant say "but it isnt illegal to go buy groceries from elsewhere, what did we - Walmart - do wrong?" Say it with me - monopoly rules are about consumer choice.

_benton 1y ago
This analogy makes no sense because you are not prevented in any way from purchasing the many other devices that provide almost identical functionality. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices but ignoring the fact that the mom and pop stores still exist, at a higher number compared to walmarts, and are selling the same products for cheaper. You have incredible consumer choice for phones, you can't chose to purchase a luxury phone and then complain about it.
- whstl 1y ago
  You're wrong. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices after they drove away all Mom and Pop stores. > I think it's perfectly fine to prevent you from having this Yes I can, legally and morally.
  - _benton 1y ago
    The mom and pop stores in this analogy are the multitude of devices which are not produced by Apple and provide the same features, like Android phones and phones which are trivial to flash your own custom OS and software on. So no, your analogy does not support your conclusions.
    - whstl 1y ago
      It is not about devices, but rather about mobile OSs. There are only two really viable ones for practical use.
      - _benton 1y ago
        And one gives you the control you want over your device ie. sideloading and alternative app stores right? So why not simply purchase devices that use that operating system?
        whstl 1y ago
        Because I have other interests and preferences when purchasing a device.
    - h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 1y ago
      You state it is trivial to use Android as an alternative. How is the data checkout working on iOS to migrate to Android?
    - happymellon 1y ago
      You agree with ATT that they should never have been forced to allow other people to plug their phones in? You can always just build your own phone network if you don't like it! You are on the wrong side of history.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  It has absolutely zero to do with your choice to purchase a different device. It has everything to do with hundreds of thousands of companies' right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle.
  - _benton 1y ago
    What right does a company have to piggyback off of another company? Like think about this logically? Should a grocery store be forced to sell my products without receiving any of the profit? Can I force a cafe to let me serve customers on their premises without giving anything in return?
    - whstl 1y ago
      > What right does a company have to piggyback off of another company? Apple has no right to piggybacking off of another company's business. Therefore the 30% must go.
      - _benton 1y ago
        They aren't piggybacking, they provide the infrastructure, marketplace, and platform.
        whstl 1y ago
        Apple is forcing companies and users to use this infrastructure, so this is indeed Apple piggybacking and putting its hands where it shouldn't.
        Intermernet 1y ago
        They explicitly prevent other companies from providing this infrastructure, marketplace and platform. Apple don't offer this stuff as a favour to developers, they demand that developers use it and prevent them from using anything else. Apple aren't some Good Samaritan providing a centralised set of services out of the goodness of their hearts, they are forcing companies to pay an exorbitant fee to be able to play in their garden, and they make billions of dollars in profit from this. Compare Apple with Steam (who also provide the infrastructure, marketplace and platform). Steam don't force developers to use their services. They're still successful, but you can get almost every game on Steam from somewhere else. This is what I'd ideally like Apple to do. It wouldn't make any difference to me, as I haven't owned or developed for Apple devices in many decades, but it would make a huge difference to many developers, and many device owners. I doubt it will actually make that much difference to Apple's profits, but it would make a difference to the rapidly declining good will they have in the developer community, and increasingly in their customers.
- maximus-decimus 1y ago
  If every other teenager only uses the iMessage app, it does prevent you to purchase any other device since you'll be excluded otherwise.

whstl 1y ago

I don't see how the legality question is relevant here. My country is not forbidding me from exercising my ownership rights. This "are you prevented by law" question is fallacious, it implies that Apple can do no wrong, since it can't create laws. What Apple is taking away is practical control for owners of a class of device that has become essential to my practical participation in society. I actually desire my country to intervene and change laws forcing Apple give me that control.

_benton 1y ago
Maybe if the iPhone was the only phone available to purchase this argument has merit. But it's not, there are no shortage of other phones that provide the same features which are "essential to (your) practical participation in society)". If anything, you are attempting to remove my ability to purchase a device I want to own. And I don't really like that.
- whstl 1y ago
  There are only two viable phone OSs and both have problems. "Vote with your wallet" is a BS argument in such a duopoly, because people care about other stuff.
  - _benton 1y ago
    There are many phones which let you flash your own OS and use with complete control. Please just purchase one of those and stop trying to interfere with my ability to purchase a phone that I want.
    - whstl 1y ago
      No. In my opinion it is perfectly fine for society to order a company to hypothetically limit you on this minor thing (and let's be frank: this is super minor), because opening up iOS would benefit companies, countries, economies and other users of phones.

hk1337 1y ago

I think people see phones like Android, they like the things they can do with it but like the iPhone better and want Apple to do it with iPhone.

globular-toast 1y ago

Are sick people legally prevented from becoming healthy again? Are homeless people legally prevented from having a home? Are starving people legally prevented from eating? I'm sick of people writing off entire classes of problems because "well, it's not illegal". The law doesn't matter until you're actually in court. What matters is practicalities. There are many rights that are impractical to use and there are many laws that are unenforced. Some problems could be solved by law, others probably not. The law is a solution, not a problem. Focus on problems, not solutions.