5 ms·
1. I buy computer hardware, like an iPhone 2. I try to install my own software. 3. I'm prevented in installing my software on my device without "permission" f
by mystraline 1y ago
1. I buy computer hardware, like an iPhone
2. I try to install my own software.
3. I'm prevented in installing my software on my device without "permission" from manufacturer.
4. Therefore, I do not own said hardware; manufacturer still does.
5. Therefore this is a indefinite rental instead of a sale.
6. I was defrauded with a fake sale, and Apple is defrauding IRS by not being properly taxed over millions of rental units (phones, tablets)
- john-h-k 1y agoIf this is true, why doesn’t someone sue and make an absolute huge amount of money?
- tomkarho 1y agoThere was a class action suit against Sony over preventing PS3 users from installing Linux on their consoles. I think it ended in Sony losing and having to pay reparations. Whether it was a "huge amount" is subject to debate.
- b112 1y agoYes, but fheg advertised this feature pre-sale, and took it away later. So Apple has never allowed sideloading. Google however? Well if an update breaks that, it would be the same thing sort of.
- an0malous 1y agoYou can install your own OS on iPhone hardware, what you’re demanding is that Apple allow you to run your own software on their OS. It’s like saying that you don’t own your microwave or lawnmower unless they provide you with an API to build apps on it. Are you just renting your Xbox because you can’t run PlayStation games on it?
- ants_everywhere 1y agoexactly right. Apple wants to sell appliances. The parent commenter wants to buy a computer. That's the fundamental disagreement.
- rfrey 1y agoI own a blender made by KitchenAid. I am allowed to blend strawberries that have not been approved by KitchenAid. I can make an Onion Banana Durian smoothie if I want. Calling Apple product appliances is a slur to appliance makers
- beagle3 1y agoI can see movies that weren’t blessed by Apple, and I can send email with content that wasn’t approved by apple. Most of these analogies don’t make things much clearer. The closest one is: the phone is supposedly my employee - I pay its salary (to Apple), but it is asking Apple to approve everything I ask it to do, and they are the only arbiter. (This analogy also sucks. You have to actually deal with subject matter at hand and not look for shortcuts)
- Spivak 1y agoWell you can't run your own OS on iPhone hardware without jailbreaking but that's beside the point. You don't own your Xbox not because you can't run Playstation games on it but because the manufacturer put a digital lock on it they control which denies you the ability to run software they don't approve of on it. I think we can do better than "well you own it because you're technically allowed to attempt to break the lock." We can demand that users be given ability to remove the lock.
- spike021 1y agoI fail to see the difference between this and many other normal parts of life. Want to renovate and change your home that you own? You need permitting and not all changes are allowed. But you own the home and land so why do you need permitting? Say you want to modify your car that you own, again depending on the modification that's technically not allowed either (an aerodynamic wing in a place like Japan, for instance, can't be certain dimensions; but if you own the car you should be able to do what you want with it). Maybe none of these types of things should be beholden to someone holding the reins of the thing you own but it's not like Apple not allowing sideloading is some wholly unique problem.
- galleywest200 1y agoIn all of these cases the law is what is requiring compliance here, not the manufacturer. If there was a law requiring apps to be approved by someone first then your argument would be valid, but I do not think such a law exists (at least in my country).
- wredcoll 1y agoThis is actually a really good point. While complying with a regulation vs a business requirement may feel like the same thing in practice, there is at least an avenue to change the regulation via, you know, democracy.
- eldaisfish 1y agowhen you modify your car, the manufacturer will often claim that parts of your warranty are void. That's not the legal system imposing limits.
- immibis 1y agoBut you're allowed to void your warranty. You don't have to have a warranty. It's not a real limit.
- aduty 1y agoYeah, but the manufacturer can't have some Pinkertons go to your house and murder your wife, sons and dogs over it either. You just have financial responsibility for whatever it voids.
- cyanydeez 1y agoThen you kept electing capitalists expecting them to change their stripes. To the point that the capitalists that united with ethnic and religious zeal won out.
- mystraline 1y agohttps://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ The energy in this comment is 'Mr Gotcha', and is as "inspiring".
- cyanydeez 1y agoYa sure, 'utf-8'
- layer8 1y ago> Therefore this is a indefinite rental instead of a sale. It’s not indefinite, because the vendor won’t support the hardware indefinitely. It’s also not a rental, because you are free to resell the hardware.
- iaaan 1y agoDevil's advocate: it seems similar to reassigning a lease if you want out before it ends. Lease reassignment is a common clause in rental agreements, it sounds like Apple simply allows you to reassign your indefinite device rental, unlike, for example, Tesla.