3 ms·
So you’re saying if I buy a computer, I don’t own that computer? This is what it is. I own this device in my pocket. I should be able to install, tinker, take
by reactordev 1y ago
So you’re saying if I buy a computer, I don’t own that computer?
This is what it is. I own this device in my pocket. I should be able to install, tinker, take apart, said device - granted voiding its warranty - without a company bricking the device intentionally or removing software from the device simply because I chose a p2p network over a centralized one.
Stop defending this. Once you sell something, it’s sold. It’s no longer yours. You may have made it, you may support it, but it’s no longer yours.
- kube-system 1y agoYou do own the physical device and you can do whatever you want with it. You can take it apart and tinker with it however you please. If you don't like the software that they do or don't deliver to you over the internet, that is something entirely different.
- reactordev 1y agoThey didn’t deliver software. A 3rd party did. Stop making straw-man arguments to defend their actions. If the app was pulled from the normal App Store, fine, that’s Apple’s prerogative. But a 3rd party store? The app signing shouldn’t be used a weapon against software “you don’t like”.
- kube-system 1y agoApple revoked notarization -- which is delivered as a service from their computers. If you don't like that the phone connects to Apple's servers and uses the data delivered, then you shouldn't have bought a product that works that way. Or alternatively, you can take it apart and change it. Nobody is stopping you. But Apple doesn't owe you an ongoing service that works exactly the way you like just because you bought one of their devices.
- RedComet 1y agoYou cannot (generally) install and run apps that aren't (recently) notarized, though. They do owe the service inasmuch as they require it for installing and running apps.
- kube-system 1y agoYeah, the OS preinstalled on the phone functions that way. But this is not in opposition to your ownership of the physical device. You can do still do whatever you want with the phone. Grab a hot plate and pull off the NAND, chuck the whole thing in a blender, anything -- knock yourself out.
- RedComet 1y agoBy analogy, if food was sold with poison in it, "hey man, you bought it, just remove it if you don't like it. not a chemist? crack a book buddy". And now imagine you had no means of producing your own food and all food sold contained poison. If unlocking an iPhone and running e.g. AOSP on it were feasible, people would be doing it. And you know that. Your argument is disingenuous.
- kube-system 1y agoFood with poison in it is both criminally and civilly illegal, and it puts peoples lives in danger. Equating something like this to closed source software is why some people don’t take FOSS seriously. You might think I was being facetious, but I’m being completely serious: the only way for FOSS to compete is by producing good products and bringing them to market. If FOSS advocates keep trying to fight some software licensing culture war instead of producing good technology, they’re not going to change anyone’s mind. 99.999% of people do not give two shits about a software license, they just want to use a damn phone.
- RedComet 1y agoIt was an analogy. You're moving the goalposts and ignored the latter point. And I'm not a foss advocate, I just want to be able to run software of my choosing and without spyware, as has been the case since the advent of personal computing. As a side note, legality seems irrelevant to your position. What if a world government mandated optional sideloading + unlocking? Wouldn't you then argue against that law?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]