5 ms·
"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 h
by 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 agoFreedom 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 agoFirst, 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.