4 ms·

Here's where the analogy breaks down: Ingredients listed on food are provided so that people who have allergies can see what's in the food, and not die. In a

Here's where the analogy breaks down: Ingredients listed on food are provided so that people who have allergies can see what's in the food, and not die. In a universe where foods don't have to list ingredients, foods without the ingredient label will be cheaper, meaning allergic people have to pay more to find out what's in the food. Meaning that allergic people ("disabled", if you will) are forced to pay more because of a from-birth (or from-young-age) disadvantage through no fault of theirs. I'm republican and libertarian as the day is long, but I support government regulation that puts this sort of disadvantaged people on equal footing with everyone else. That means elevators have to be in buildings, handicapped people should get free parking, learning disabled should get special classes in school, etc. You can't be allergic to an iPhone app. Being open and transparent about an app market is one of those things that should be competitive advantage. Sprint or MS or whoever's building their app store should be able to say "Look at our app store, it's open! Come over here!" as a selling point even when their software stack is inferior (no flamewars please). I'm an iPhone developer and I am pissed at apple. What they are doing is wrong and evil. But developers are perfectly capable of staging a coup and changing Apple's mind (we did with getting them to release the app store in the first place). I'm open to discussing why that doesn't happen (too many people are making too much money is my theory). But what shouldn't happen is the government stepping in and saying "Too lazy to stand up for yourselves? Don't worry, we'll do it for you!" That's so dumb I don't even know where to begin. It sets an awful precedent. Software developers are fiery and passionate, generally speaking, and I've seen way too many professions lose that because they outsource their righteous indignation to their government, and then become dependent. And then there's regulation written for yesteryear affecting today's tech companies, and in about fifty years tech becomes the auto industry or the banking industry: one-brilliant people who gave their battles away to someone else to fight, and everybody paid the price for it. Maybe that's a bit overdramatic for one government intervention. On the other hand, for want of a shoe...

TomOfTTB 17y ago
The thing is your analogy doesn't hold up. Companies are required to put information like the number of calories in a product and that has nothing to do with allergies. As for the rest of your comment I don't know. I guess we'll see. The tech community couldn't be more riled up then it is now (how many times have "I'm dropping Apple" posts made it to the front page of HN lately?). So if Apple does eventually change their policy than maybe you're right. If not I think you should reconsider your objection to limited Government intervention.
- drewcrawford 17y ago
  > The tech community couldn't be more riled up then it is now (how many times have "I'm dropping Apple" posts made it to the front page of HN lately?) See, it could be much more riled up than it is. For one, developers could pull their apps from the store. That 50,000 figure Apple published ages ago could be 5,000. If Tapulous or one of the iPhone developers that Apple babies pulled their apps in protest, I guarantee it would keep Steve Jobs awake at night. Google could stop handing macbooks to each new recruit. They could refuse to serve maptiles to future phones. Front-page posts on HN, while I admit are more meaningful than Reddit or Digg or someplace, are chump change on the thermometer of developer outrage. All anyone's done so far about this is write passioned rants and maybe threaten to not buy any new macs personally.
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    Here's my problem with that. The examples you give are never, EVER going to happen. Developers aren't going to pull their applications from the most popular computing environment just to prove a point. Nor are companies like Google going to change their whole computing environment just to prove a point. It would be corporate misconduct to flush all that money down the toilet just to prove some point to Apple that has nothing to do with your actual business. So if we accept the actions needed for the public to make Apple change are not things that will ever happen the question is "As a society are we willing to just accept this injustice?" If your answer to that question is "Yes" that's perfectly valid. But if your answer is "No" then it requires government intervention. Again, keep in mind, we aren't talking about forcing Apple to change their terms. Just to get them to publicly define them so developers don't waste months developing applications that may or may not be accepted.
    - drewcrawford 17y ago
      > So if we accept the actions needed for the public to make Apple change are not things that will ever happen But see, I don't accept that premise. For one thing, the CEO of Google just quit the Apple board, which I read as a little more than just "Too many meetings I can't take part of." For another thing, people aren't blindly loyal (except to themselves, perhaps). A mac wasn't the first computer you ever bought. An iPhone wasn't the first phone you ever made calls on. You woke up one day and decided to purchase one or both. Tomorrow you can wake up and decide to buy into another platform. Sure, there's some friction. But that is largely for good reason. GV or no, the iPhone is better by and large than most other phones. Macs are (in some people's view, anyway) by and large better than most other computers. If they cease to become as good (or if their competitors become better), Apple will lose business. It's the same as anybody else. > As a society are we willing to just accept this injustice?" This is the wrong question. First of all, what's happened is not an "injustice". It might be meanspirited and in bad faith, but injustice is what happens when people are denied their rights. And "we" as "society" are not in the position to decide anything, except whether or not we want an iPhone, and whether or not we want to develop for it. Two years ago the app store didn't exist, nobody put apps on their phones. Now, everybody seems to think it's a god-given right and it has to be run a certain way. There's absolutely nothing illegal about what Apple's doing. The government can't (and shouldn't) dictate the way it's run any more than they can dictate the plot of a Harry Potter book. Wildly popular, prosperous to many, contentious, and ultimately the product of someone's mind. Besides, how would you do it? There's no breach of contract; developers sign a document that says that Apple can reject apps for any reason (all the rejections that I've seen actually point to a reason in the contract, which is not, technically speaking, required). The FCC's jurisdiction might extend to protecting jailbreakers, but not what software Apple allows in their own store (and certainly not to iPod Touches). I suppose Congress could increase the breathtakingly-wide interstate commerce clause, but 70% of the apps are free, which I think would give even the most expansionist observer pause. Plus you have to ponder what random nonsense would end up in the bill. No, if there's anything to be done, Apple has to see enough pressure to change. With Google and Apple in divorce proceedings, it would be perfectly reasonable to stop serving map tiles when the contract's up. Already you see the signs: Latitude can't be a native app, GV can't be a native app, how much ad revenue does Google get from serving Youtube to phones again? That relationship's going to get sour fast.
stanleydrew 17y ago
The problem is that a handicap doesn't have to be a physical or mental disability. There are serious asymmetries of information that handicap all of us, even the smartest. To take your example, I'd say that ingredients are listed on food so that consumers have the same information as the producers. People with allergies are just a particular subset of consumers who benefit from the level information playing field. Another example: the SEC is set up to help keep information equally spread within financial markets, and in fact its (perhaps inevitable) failure to keep up with new information asymmetries involving complex mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps contributed significantly to the recent economic collapse. But we can disagree in each particular case about whether the government should be responsible for improving information flow, or whether consumers should carry the burden themselves. I am definitely in favor of as little regulation as possible to get the job done. I'm just saying that some information asymmetries are literally huge and there's not much consumers can be expected to do without government's help.
- drewcrawford 17y ago
  I carefully framed the world "disability" above to mean some disadvantage you were either born with or acquired very young, something that's fundamentally unfair or injust. You can't choose to be allergic, you can't work very hard and eventually overcome your allergies. Fate just struck you, and that's that. I'm not sure I view 'information asymmetries' in the same light. Clearly some information (like passphrases or source code) are asymmetrical by design, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. I'm "disabled" in the sense that I can't read SJ's e-mail; forcing him to open his inbox would probably be "leveling the playing field" for a lot of people, but none of this is unfairness or injustice. Quite the contrary, forcing his inbox open would be an injustice. Sure, there are cases when you're investigating something else and you need to, but there's warrants and process and all that. There's a fundamental understanding that it's very very bad and only if we absolutely have to. Similarly, meddling in the app store, private property of apple, would be an injustice. Sure, I think it needs work; what apple's doing is meanspirited. But it's their sandbox, and they need to be the ones to clean up the mess. Boycotts, nonrenewing contracts, etc., all put legitimate pressure on a company, governments work with illegitimate pressure (which can be useful if something really really bad is happening. But that isn't this situation).

TomOfTTB 17y ago

The thing is your analogy doesn't hold up. Companies are required to put information like the number of calories in a product and that has nothing to do with allergies. As for the rest of your comment I don't know. I guess we'll see. The tech community couldn't be more riled up then it is now (how many times have "I'm dropping Apple" posts made it to the front page of HN lately?). So if Apple does eventually change their policy than maybe you're right. If not I think you should reconsider your objection to limited Government intervention.

drewcrawford 17y ago
> The tech community couldn't be more riled up then it is now (how many times have "I'm dropping Apple" posts made it to the front page of HN lately?) See, it could be much more riled up than it is. For one, developers could pull their apps from the store. That 50,000 figure Apple published ages ago could be 5,000. If Tapulous or one of the iPhone developers that Apple babies pulled their apps in protest, I guarantee it would keep Steve Jobs awake at night. Google could stop handing macbooks to each new recruit. They could refuse to serve maptiles to future phones. Front-page posts on HN, while I admit are more meaningful than Reddit or Digg or someplace, are chump change on the thermometer of developer outrage. All anyone's done so far about this is write passioned rants and maybe threaten to not buy any new macs personally.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  Here's my problem with that. The examples you give are never, EVER going to happen. Developers aren't going to pull their applications from the most popular computing environment just to prove a point. Nor are companies like Google going to change their whole computing environment just to prove a point. It would be corporate misconduct to flush all that money down the toilet just to prove some point to Apple that has nothing to do with your actual business. So if we accept the actions needed for the public to make Apple change are not things that will ever happen the question is "As a society are we willing to just accept this injustice?" If your answer to that question is "Yes" that's perfectly valid. But if your answer is "No" then it requires government intervention. Again, keep in mind, we aren't talking about forcing Apple to change their terms. Just to get them to publicly define them so developers don't waste months developing applications that may or may not be accepted.
  - drewcrawford 17y ago
    > So if we accept the actions needed for the public to make Apple change are not things that will ever happen But see, I don't accept that premise. For one thing, the CEO of Google just quit the Apple board, which I read as a little more than just "Too many meetings I can't take part of." For another thing, people aren't blindly loyal (except to themselves, perhaps). A mac wasn't the first computer you ever bought. An iPhone wasn't the first phone you ever made calls on. You woke up one day and decided to purchase one or both. Tomorrow you can wake up and decide to buy into another platform. Sure, there's some friction. But that is largely for good reason. GV or no, the iPhone is better by and large than most other phones. Macs are (in some people's view, anyway) by and large better than most other computers. If they cease to become as good (or if their competitors become better), Apple will lose business. It's the same as anybody else. > As a society are we willing to just accept this injustice?" This is the wrong question. First of all, what's happened is not an "injustice". It might be meanspirited and in bad faith, but injustice is what happens when people are denied their rights. And "we" as "society" are not in the position to decide anything, except whether or not we want an iPhone, and whether or not we want to develop for it. Two years ago the app store didn't exist, nobody put apps on their phones. Now, everybody seems to think it's a god-given right and it has to be run a certain way. There's absolutely nothing illegal about what Apple's doing. The government can't (and shouldn't) dictate the way it's run any more than they can dictate the plot of a Harry Potter book. Wildly popular, prosperous to many, contentious, and ultimately the product of someone's mind. Besides, how would you do it? There's no breach of contract; developers sign a document that says that Apple can reject apps for any reason (all the rejections that I've seen actually point to a reason in the contract, which is not, technically speaking, required). The FCC's jurisdiction might extend to protecting jailbreakers, but not what software Apple allows in their own store (and certainly not to iPod Touches). I suppose Congress could increase the breathtakingly-wide interstate commerce clause, but 70% of the apps are free, which I think would give even the most expansionist observer pause. Plus you have to ponder what random nonsense would end up in the bill. No, if there's anything to be done, Apple has to see enough pressure to change. With Google and Apple in divorce proceedings, it would be perfectly reasonable to stop serving map tiles when the contract's up. Already you see the signs: Latitude can't be a native app, GV can't be a native app, how much ad revenue does Google get from serving Youtube to phones again? That relationship's going to get sour fast.

stanleydrew 17y ago

The problem is that a handicap doesn't have to be a physical or mental disability. There are serious asymmetries of information that handicap all of us, even the smartest. To take your example, I'd say that ingredients are listed on food so that consumers have the same information as the producers. People with allergies are just a particular subset of consumers who benefit from the level information playing field. Another example: the SEC is set up to help keep information equally spread within financial markets, and in fact its (perhaps inevitable) failure to keep up with new information asymmetries involving complex mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps contributed significantly to the recent economic collapse. But we can disagree in each particular case about whether the government should be responsible for improving information flow, or whether consumers should carry the burden themselves. I am definitely in favor of as little regulation as possible to get the job done. I'm just saying that some information asymmetries are literally huge and there's not much consumers can be expected to do without government's help.

drewcrawford 17y ago
I carefully framed the world "disability" above to mean some disadvantage you were either born with or acquired very young, something that's fundamentally unfair or injust. You can't choose to be allergic, you can't work very hard and eventually overcome your allergies. Fate just struck you, and that's that. I'm not sure I view 'information asymmetries' in the same light. Clearly some information (like passphrases or source code) are asymmetrical by design, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. I'm "disabled" in the sense that I can't read SJ's e-mail; forcing him to open his inbox would probably be "leveling the playing field" for a lot of people, but none of this is unfairness or injustice. Quite the contrary, forcing his inbox open would be an injustice. Sure, there are cases when you're investigating something else and you need to, but there's warrants and process and all that. There's a fundamental understanding that it's very very bad and only if we absolutely have to. Similarly, meddling in the app store, private property of apple, would be an injustice. Sure, I think it needs work; what apple's doing is meanspirited. But it's their sandbox, and they need to be the ones to clean up the mess. Boycotts, nonrenewing contracts, etc., all put legitimate pressure on a company, governments work with illegitimate pressure (which can be useful if something really really bad is happening. But that isn't this situation).