4 ms·

Eh. Nothing that invasive is required. Just mandate that Apple allow sideloading and/or third-party app stores and the rest will take care of itself. The elega

by fpgeek 13y ago

Eh. Nothing that invasive is required. Just mandate that Apple allow sideloading and/or third-party app stores and the rest will take care of itself. The elegant part is that regulation would target the real problem - the tying of the iPhone to Apple's App Store, which, in my opinion, seems pretty fishy for an allegedly general-purpose device. As I understand it, this tying might theoretically be an antitrust violation even in the absence of an iPhone monopoly, but legal requirements for an illegal tying arrangements have become considerably stricter over time.

Steko 13y ago
"Nothing invasive is required." Oh we'll just force them to program their machine differently is all so that anyone can free ride on the market they invested hundreds of millions to create. Sounds about as noninvasive as a mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound.
- krichman 13y ago
  Freedom of general purpose computing is more important than a company's bottom line. Also restricting anti-competitive behaviours is not equivalent to a forced medical procedure.
- fpgeek 13y ago
  First, if you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. I said "Nothing that invasive is required." [emphasis added], comparing to the proposal further above that called for comprehensive regulation of the Apple's App Store itself. However you feel about the invasiveness of my suggestion, surely we can agree that it is less invasive than rewriting the store rules, appointing a third-party arbitrator and the rest? Second, should Apple find iDevices and their app store subject to government regulation the idea that Apple would be the one entitled to complain about free riding is just... precious. Even if we only look what Apple gets from the legal system itself (copyright and patent rights, injunctions and import bans, blocking unauthorized clones, trademark protection, license enforcement and so on) some regulation of sideloading and/or third-party stores wouldn't even begin to tip the balance.
WiseWeasel 13y ago
There are competing products with support for installing apps from outside the platform-vendor-run marketplace. There is no law anywhere requiring any class of device to fit some definition of a general-purpose computer. It's through market demand and questionable contract negotiation on IBM's part that general-purpose computers were successful, not any kind of government regulation.
pimentel 13y ago
And then you would have to trust app approval to a government entity. "Oh what's that, some encryption tool for secure communications? Not gonna happen." You would have lobbying from the big corps to have advantage over indie developers. And all those other things that happen every single time the government messes with private matters. Regulation rarely targets the real problem. It targets a problem, creating another one.

by fpgeek 13y ago

Steko 13y ago

"Nothing invasive is required." Oh we'll just force them to program their machine differently is all so that anyone can free ride on the market they invested hundreds of millions to create. Sounds about as noninvasive as a mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound.

krichman 13y ago
Freedom of general purpose computing is more important than a company's bottom line. Also restricting anti-competitive behaviours is not equivalent to a forced medical procedure.
fpgeek 13y ago
First, if you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. I said "Nothing that invasive is required." [emphasis added], comparing to the proposal further above that called for comprehensive regulation of the Apple's App Store itself. However you feel about the invasiveness of my suggestion, surely we can agree that it is less invasive than rewriting the store rules, appointing a third-party arbitrator and the rest? Second, should Apple find iDevices and their app store subject to government regulation the idea that Apple would be the one entitled to complain about free riding is just... precious. Even if we only look what Apple gets from the legal system itself (copyright and patent rights, injunctions and import bans, blocking unauthorized clones, trademark protection, license enforcement and so on) some regulation of sideloading and/or third-party stores wouldn't even begin to tip the balance.

WiseWeasel 13y ago

There are competing products with support for installing apps from outside the platform-vendor-run marketplace. There is no law anywhere requiring any class of device to fit some definition of a general-purpose computer. It's through market demand and questionable contract negotiation on IBM's part that general-purpose computers were successful, not any kind of government regulation.

pimentel 13y ago

And then you would have to trust app approval to a government entity. "Oh what's that, some encryption tool for secure communications? Not gonna happen." You would have lobbying from the big corps to have advantage over indie developers. And all those other things that happen every single time the government messes with private matters. Regulation rarely targets the real problem. It targets a problem, creating another one.