4 ms·

One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with

One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation. If the original OS can be updated over the air, users must also be able to install alternative operating systems over the air. This would result in real competition across all our devices: iPhones, smart fridges, John Deere tractors, and so on. And it would force manufacturers to focus on building better products instead of using anticompetitive practices to squeeze more money out of their locked-in customers.

embedding-shape 2mo ago
> One simple rule or law could fix this [...] What's absolute simplest and most realistic way of actually going from this proposal here, into actually driving it into being a real, actual law? Would it require demonstrations? Simply gathering signatures?
- thfuran 2mo ago
  In the US, I think it would require a revolution at this point. In the EU it might be viable.
- benoau 2mo ago
  There is no simple path. There have been multiple attempts to legislate a subset of what the parent poster is asking, and they have been met with a torrent of lobbying by the entrenched tech giants. Most recently California's BASED Act, the App Store Freedom Act last year, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act some years ago. If your state and federal legislators can't enact change what hope does anyone else have? Even the places that have successfully legislated this are struggling with enforcement - EU is dealing with extreme and prolonged compliance issues three years into enactment, Japan's FTC is having to form a new bureau just to police Google and Apple's malicious compliance.
  - embedding-shape 2mo ago
    > There is no simple path. As with most broad societal things, I don't think anyone thinks so either. There is for sure a "simplest way" of doing it though, question is what that is. > Even the places that have successfully legislated this are struggling with enforcement - EU is dealing with extreme and prolonged compliance issues three years into enactment Huh? The EU does not mandate countries to implement laws around "OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party", I'd be very aware of such a law if it existed I feel like. Are you talking about some future regulation they're discussing or something?
    - benoau 2mo ago
      It's not the same legislation but it's of the same magnitude as what the grandparent poster would like, I'm citing the extreme difficulty to legislate these platforms.
otterley 2mo ago
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
- Timon3 2mo ago
  And for every idea shared on this site, there is an answer that dismisses it without bringing actual arguments.
  - otterley 2mo ago
    Hencken’s quote is a pithy statement that can be translated thusly: If you’re about to make an argument that starts with “just do x” or “an obvious solution is y” or come up with “simple” solutions for problems that are clearly not simple if you spend a modicum of time analyzing the issue, you’re probably wrong from the start. If people have been disagreeing about a perceived problem for years, it’s pretty conclusive evidence that the problem is not simple, and thus neither will be the solution. There will be tradeoffs.
    - Timon3 2mo ago
      Thanks, I was already well aware when I wrote my response. But I'm afraid one of us is either misunderstanding textrunmax or Mencken, because (at least to me) the OP wasn't implying that this proposed law would be a holistic solution for the entire issue in all it's complexity. I'm sure textrunmax is aware that this law would also introduce downsides, but it's absolutely normal to post ideas without listing negatives. And since you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue, all we seem to be left with is the use of "simple". Yet complex ideas can be introduced as "simple" (and frequently are!), so I'm left to assume that you're only dismissing the idea because you pattern matched "simple" to this quote.
      - otterley 2mo ago
        I think we differ on the interpretation. I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple; I come from a culture where if you say something at work is simple (or, worse, “trivial”) to do, you get assigned the work and are held responsible for the outcome. It’s a valuable lesson in humility and understanding how a junior engineer becomes a senior one. Look, too, at the current political situation we find ourselves in today: people are too easily attracted to politicians who claim to have easy answers to problems. Then, when they get into office, they make those problems worse. > you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue This issue has been going on for years. There's not a lot I can add here that hasn't already been said. I will say, though, that I find it valuable to participate in a thought experiment: why did phone manufacturers insist on tightly coupling hardware with software in the first place, unlike with personal computers? The explanations are easy to find, and not all of them are about having antipathy for customers and developers or pure greed. I've no doubt that even your favorite LLM can provide one. > complex ideas can be introduced as "simple“ I would more finely tune the language. A problem can be simply stated, but that doesn’t mean the problem itself is a simple one. Perhaps you think I’m splitting hairs here, but in a world of ambiguous communication, I believe clarity is important.

embedding-shape 2mo ago

> One simple rule or law could fix this [...] What's absolute simplest and most realistic way of actually going from this proposal here, into actually driving it into being a real, actual law? Would it require demonstrations? Simply gathering signatures?

thfuran 2mo ago
In the US, I think it would require a revolution at this point. In the EU it might be viable.
benoau 2mo ago
There is no simple path. There have been multiple attempts to legislate a subset of what the parent poster is asking, and they have been met with a torrent of lobbying by the entrenched tech giants. Most recently California's BASED Act, the App Store Freedom Act last year, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act some years ago. If your state and federal legislators can't enact change what hope does anyone else have? Even the places that have successfully legislated this are struggling with enforcement - EU is dealing with extreme and prolonged compliance issues three years into enactment, Japan's FTC is having to form a new bureau just to police Google and Apple's malicious compliance.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  > There is no simple path. As with most broad societal things, I don't think anyone thinks so either. There is for sure a "simplest way" of doing it though, question is what that is. > Even the places that have successfully legislated this are struggling with enforcement - EU is dealing with extreme and prolonged compliance issues three years into enactment Huh? The EU does not mandate countries to implement laws around "OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party", I'd be very aware of such a law if it existed I feel like. Are you talking about some future regulation they're discussing or something?
  - benoau 2mo ago
    It's not the same legislation but it's of the same magnitude as what the grandparent poster would like, I'm citing the extreme difficulty to legislate these platforms.

otterley 2mo ago

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken

Timon3 2mo ago
And for every idea shared on this site, there is an answer that dismisses it without bringing actual arguments.
- otterley 2mo ago
  Hencken’s quote is a pithy statement that can be translated thusly: If you’re about to make an argument that starts with “just do x” or “an obvious solution is y” or come up with “simple” solutions for problems that are clearly not simple if you spend a modicum of time analyzing the issue, you’re probably wrong from the start. If people have been disagreeing about a perceived problem for years, it’s pretty conclusive evidence that the problem is not simple, and thus neither will be the solution. There will be tradeoffs.
  - Timon3 2mo ago
    Thanks, I was already well aware when I wrote my response. But I'm afraid one of us is either misunderstanding textrunmax or Mencken, because (at least to me) the OP wasn't implying that this proposed law would be a holistic solution for the entire issue in all it's complexity. I'm sure textrunmax is aware that this law would also introduce downsides, but it's absolutely normal to post ideas without listing negatives. And since you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue, all we seem to be left with is the use of "simple". Yet complex ideas can be introduced as "simple" (and frequently are!), so I'm left to assume that you're only dismissing the idea because you pattern matched "simple" to this quote.
    - otterley 2mo ago
      I think we differ on the interpretation. I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple; I come from a culture where if you say something at work is simple (or, worse, “trivial”) to do, you get assigned the work and are held responsible for the outcome. It’s a valuable lesson in humility and understanding how a junior engineer becomes a senior one. Look, too, at the current political situation we find ourselves in today: people are too easily attracted to politicians who claim to have easy answers to problems. Then, when they get into office, they make those problems worse. > you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue This issue has been going on for years. There's not a lot I can add here that hasn't already been said. I will say, though, that I find it valuable to participate in a thought experiment: why did phone manufacturers insist on tightly coupling hardware with software in the first place, unlike with personal computers? The explanations are easy to find, and not all of them are about having antipathy for customers and developers or pure greed. I've no doubt that even your favorite LLM can provide one. > complex ideas can be introduced as "simple“ I would more finely tune the language. A problem can be simply stated, but that doesn’t mean the problem itself is a simple one. Perhaps you think I’m splitting hairs here, but in a world of ambiguous communication, I believe clarity is important.