6 ms·

I think he/she was being ironic. You either own it or Apple owns it. Since there is no sideload and the criptographic keys belong to Apple, then the device bel

I think he/she was being ironic. You either own it or Apple owns it. Since there is no sideload and the criptographic keys belong to Apple, then the device belongs effectively to Apple and you just rent it for a fixed fee. You can't both own it and not own it depending on the situation, thus exposing Apple's hypocrisy as a well-intended parentified gatekeeper just protecting the users/childified adult users.

charcircuit 1y ago
Goods for the mass consumer all work like this. The manufacturer creates a product and consumers by it if those features provide them value. If a device doesn't have a feature such as online diagnostics they are free to buy a different product instead. If people really want to add their own features they are free to modify the device. It's more economical to just buy another device which is why you don't see people replacing the parts needed to develop your own software on an iPhone. Easy user modification of the OS is not a feature of iPhone and if added could hurt the quality of the product. Another way to think of this is imagine if Apple burned the OS into a ROM chip. That doesn't make them the owner of the device because the user can't write to the ROM chip. By that logic no one would own the device because no one can update it, but that can't really be true.
- torben-friis 1y ago
  I think a difference is that apple has the means to change the behavior of the device after the fact in ways that the person that purchased the product doesn’t. This is unique to modern technology, and the fact that they sell you the house keeping sole ownership of the keys to certain rooms is indeed worth examining I think.
- cbarrick 1y ago
  > If people really want to add their own features they are free to modify the device. Except that they are not actually given that freedom. The entire notion of free software is that users should be free to modify the software stacks of their devices. Very few consumer devices are free in that sense. You can't run a custom OS on an iPhone.
  - brookst 1y ago
    Free software is a value prop, not a law. And it is counter to the value prop that one entity is entirely responsible for all of the software (even if Apple doesn’t write every line of code, they are responsible for every bit that ships). Not everyone cares about the bits. It’s true that the vast majority of consumers prefer having a single supplier to having freedom to run their own bits.
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    >You can't run a custom OS on an iPhone. Sure you can, you just need to replace the components that don't let you with ones that allow your custom OS.
    - cbarrick 11mo ago
      "Just" is carrying a lot of weight here. We're discussing consumer hardware. Can a consumer "just" replace the components of their iPhone? No, they cannot.
      - charcircuit 11mo ago
        By that same logic consumers can't replace the os on PCs so consumers don't own PCs either. Customizing things manually is not always easy and user friendly. Easy customization is another feature products can offer.
brookst 1y ago
> I think he/she was being ironic. You either own it or Apple owns it. That’s really reductive thinking. I guess the idea is to blur all the different connotations of “own” into one thing and assert they are all the same? I “own” a car, but am not allowed to drive it in some situations (if I’m drunk, on the wrong side of the freeway, …). Does that mean the state actually owns it? Disregarding context in favor of reductive binaries is the #1 sign of zealotry. You see it everywhere: either a movie is original or it’s not, so Avatar is / isn’t (pick one) because it follows familiar tropes / innovated in visual arts (pick one). The world is actually contextual. The moment you throw that out, no meaningful statement can be made.
- leni536 1y ago
  > I “own” a car, but am not allowed to drive it in some situations (if I’m drunk, on the wrong side of the freeway, …). Does that mean the state actually owns it? No, it means that the state owns the freeway.
  - voakbasda 1y ago
    It means the state owns you.
- treyd 1y ago
  > Does that mean the state actually owns it? By registering the car and obtaining a license you are agreeing to obey the rules set out by the state in exchange for permission to use the roadways. To steelman the argument, you could argue that by using an iDevice you are using Apple's services and agree to follow the rules set out by them. But there is no such possible way to use an iDevice without relying on Apple's services. With a car you can have it delivered and only use it off public roads on your own property. That would be a lot less useful, but it is something people do sometimes, such as with vintage/museum cars, race cars, construction/farm/mining vehicles, etc. It's always your vehicle. The issue is the roads not the vehicle. But with an iDevice, even if it's legally "your phone", it's been designed to be impossible to do whatever you want with it within the bounds of the law, which weakens the traditional notion of what it means to "own" something (ie "right of disposal"). Again to steelman it, the retort is "Apple has the right to manufacture devices in alignment with protecting their business model, if you don't like it then buy other devices". Which is fine normally, except that the only other major similar device manufacturer is starting to do similar kinds of things and our society increasingly depends on the assumption everyone has a phone. So what's increasingly becoming the scenario is that you have a choice: either allow your rights over your own property be infringed, or allow your ability to participate in society be infringed.

charcircuit 1y ago

Goods for the mass consumer all work like this. The manufacturer creates a product and consumers by it if those features provide them value. If a device doesn't have a feature such as online diagnostics they are free to buy a different product instead. If people really want to add their own features they are free to modify the device. It's more economical to just buy another device which is why you don't see people replacing the parts needed to develop your own software on an iPhone. Easy user modification of the OS is not a feature of iPhone and if added could hurt the quality of the product. Another way to think of this is imagine if Apple burned the OS into a ROM chip. That doesn't make them the owner of the device because the user can't write to the ROM chip. By that logic no one would own the device because no one can update it, but that can't really be true.

torben-friis 1y ago
I think a difference is that apple has the means to change the behavior of the device after the fact in ways that the person that purchased the product doesn’t. This is unique to modern technology, and the fact that they sell you the house keeping sole ownership of the keys to certain rooms is indeed worth examining I think.
cbarrick 1y ago
> If people really want to add their own features they are free to modify the device. Except that they are not actually given that freedom. The entire notion of free software is that users should be free to modify the software stacks of their devices. Very few consumer devices are free in that sense. You can't run a custom OS on an iPhone.
- brookst 1y ago
  Free software is a value prop, not a law. And it is counter to the value prop that one entity is entirely responsible for all of the software (even if Apple doesn’t write every line of code, they are responsible for every bit that ships). Not everyone cares about the bits. It’s true that the vast majority of consumers prefer having a single supplier to having freedom to run their own bits.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  >You can't run a custom OS on an iPhone. Sure you can, you just need to replace the components that don't let you with ones that allow your custom OS.
  - cbarrick 11mo ago
    "Just" is carrying a lot of weight here. We're discussing consumer hardware. Can a consumer "just" replace the components of their iPhone? No, they cannot.
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      By that same logic consumers can't replace the os on PCs so consumers don't own PCs either. Customizing things manually is not always easy and user friendly. Easy customization is another feature products can offer.

brookst 1y ago

> I think he/she was being ironic. You either own it or Apple owns it. That’s really reductive thinking. I guess the idea is to blur all the different connotations of “own” into one thing and assert they are all the same? I “own” a car, but am not allowed to drive it in some situations (if I’m drunk, on the wrong side of the freeway, …). Does that mean the state actually owns it? Disregarding context in favor of reductive binaries is the #1 sign of zealotry. You see it everywhere: either a movie is original or it’s not, so Avatar is / isn’t (pick one) because it follows familiar tropes / innovated in visual arts (pick one). The world is actually contextual. The moment you throw that out, no meaningful statement can be made.

leni536 1y ago
> I “own” a car, but am not allowed to drive it in some situations (if I’m drunk, on the wrong side of the freeway, …). Does that mean the state actually owns it? No, it means that the state owns the freeway.
- voakbasda 1y ago
  It means the state owns you.
treyd 1y ago
> Does that mean the state actually owns it? By registering the car and obtaining a license you are agreeing to obey the rules set out by the state in exchange for permission to use the roadways. To steelman the argument, you could argue that by using an iDevice you are using Apple's services and agree to follow the rules set out by them. But there is no such possible way to use an iDevice without relying on Apple's services. With a car you can have it delivered and only use it off public roads on your own property. That would be a lot less useful, but it is something people do sometimes, such as with vintage/museum cars, race cars, construction/farm/mining vehicles, etc. It's always your vehicle. The issue is the roads not the vehicle. But with an iDevice, even if it's legally "your phone", it's been designed to be impossible to do whatever you want with it within the bounds of the law, which weakens the traditional notion of what it means to "own" something (ie "right of disposal"). Again to steelman it, the retort is "Apple has the right to manufacture devices in alignment with protecting their business model, if you don't like it then buy other devices". Which is fine normally, except that the only other major similar device manufacturer is starting to do similar kinds of things and our society increasingly depends on the assumption everyone has a phone. So what's increasingly becoming the scenario is that you have a choice: either allow your rights over your own property be infringed, or allow your ability to participate in society be infringed.