5 ms·

Abuse? I think you may be stretching there… A closer analogy is we do allow private property owners to decide what signs and other publicly visible items may b

Abuse? I think you may be stretching there… A closer analogy is we do allow private property owners to decide what signs and other publicly visible items may be present on their property. Property owners are allowed to dictate who's allowed on premises. We also allow private organizations to decide who may join their organization. Stores are allowed to decide what products they retail. Private media are allowed to decide what they broadcast. The App Store, for better or worse, is not a public good. I may not necessarily approve of some of Apple's decisions, but they have the right to make those decisions. And no one's being abused. If you don't like it, leave. You're not being forced to support Apple in any way.

sp332 14y ago
Physical abuse isn't the only kind... ok let's use a real legal concept: After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner. But Apple locks iPhones to only install software from their app store, and then censors the app store. This effectively limits what users can do with their devices even though Apple no longer owns them. Apple can't put legal restrictions on users (although they did try to claim that jailbreaking was illegal), and I don't see any defense for their technological restrictions.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do the same with their consoles, but I don't really see a whole lot of complaining about that. Why is the curated walled garden so egregious with a smartphone? I'm not sure I recall Apple ever bragging about being an "open" marketplace past the "If you don't like our app store, build a web app" statements they've made in the past. And as for "After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner.", that depends. For commodities, sure, but there such things as sales contracts that can restrict what is done with an item that has been sold.
  - sp332 14y ago
    Did you miss the class-action lawsuit and incredible flamefests over the removal of OtherOS from the PS3?
    - slantyyz 14y ago
      Yeah, but the OtherOS isn't really why the majority of people buy PS3s, they buy them for the games. The point is that walled gardens have been around for a long time, but it seems like people are more likely to get their knickers in a knot when Apple does it.
- ryannielsen 14y ago
  The user is still not being abused. You may feel Apple is abusing their power, but they're not abusing the user. Were this something happening against users' will the, yes, I might concede it's abuse. It's not; users love the app store and a large part of that reason is because the content is curated. It's Apple's store (not a public marketplace) and they know what they purchase isn't likely to be offensive and is likely to work as advertised. You may not like the App Store, but Apple is definitely not abusing users.

sp332 14y ago

Physical abuse isn't the only kind... ok let's use a real legal concept: After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner. But Apple locks iPhones to only install software from their app store, and then censors the app store. This effectively limits what users can do with their devices even though Apple no longer owns them. Apple can't put legal restrictions on users (although they did try to claim that jailbreaking was illegal), and I don't see any defense for their technological restrictions.

slantyyz 14y ago
Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do the same with their consoles, but I don't really see a whole lot of complaining about that. Why is the curated walled garden so egregious with a smartphone? I'm not sure I recall Apple ever bragging about being an "open" marketplace past the "If you don't like our app store, build a web app" statements they've made in the past. And as for "After an item has been sold, the former owner has no say in how the item is used by its new owner.", that depends. For commodities, sure, but there such things as sales contracts that can restrict what is done with an item that has been sold.
- sp332 14y ago
  Did you miss the class-action lawsuit and incredible flamefests over the removal of OtherOS from the PS3?
  - slantyyz 14y ago
    Yeah, but the OtherOS isn't really why the majority of people buy PS3s, they buy them for the games. The point is that walled gardens have been around for a long time, but it seems like people are more likely to get their knickers in a knot when Apple does it.
ryannielsen 14y ago
The user is still not being abused. You may feel Apple is abusing their power, but they're not abusing the user. Were this something happening against users' will the, yes, I might concede it's abuse. It's not; users love the app store and a large part of that reason is because the content is curated. It's Apple's store (not a public marketplace) and they know what they purchase isn't likely to be offensive and is likely to work as advertised. You may not like the App Store, but Apple is definitely not abusing users.