5 ms·

> Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? A restaurant i

> Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.

carlosjobim 29d ago
An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No court of law would go against you if you took a soldering iron and your expertise to change your iPhone in any way you please. Apple shouldn't be obliged to help you in those efforts, though. > Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here. Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?
- EMIRELADERO 29d ago
  > An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something. The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution. > Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist. > Who was forced to develop for Apple devices? Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
  - chongli 29d ago
    I assume an expert mode (where you can sideload anything you want) is what you are asking for. To that I raise the standard objection: how do you protect grandma from having a criminal social-engineer her into enabling expert mode and then having her sideload malware onto her device?
    - rstat1 29d ago
      I mean if you're gonna stop people from owning their device and doing what they want with it just because of the possibility of crime occurring then their are quite a few more things that probably should also no longer exist because of their potential use in crime. That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you ask me.
      - enos_feedler 29d ago
        That is exactly what Apple has decided to do. You have named the tradeoff. Stop the possibility by disabling everyone. It has always been this way. People have had nearly 20 years to leave Apple
      - chongli 29d ago
        You can say that about a lot of things in life. Legalized gambling, for example. Tons of people ruin their lives with it and this creates big externalities for society. But we tolerate it so that everyone has the freedom to gamble. Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves. I think a lot of people have short memories for all the hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago. I think we also need to remember that Apple is not the government so people have alternatives to buying their devices. Personally, I think people should have the right to buy a locked down device. It’s not on Apple to provide open competitors to their product. And why should developers have a right to develop for the platform? Heck, I wanted the iPhone back when it didn’t even have 3rd party apps at all.
        rstat1 29d ago
- fl0id 29d ago
  So if you were forced to keep f.e. a door lock on your house (that you bought), because as part of the purchase the developer required it - would you be fine with it too? You could technically jail break it...
  - what 29d ago
    My house has locks on all exterior doors? I can have them re keyed any time?
- wasfgwp 29d ago
  > Who was forced to buy an iPhone? You are effectively forced to buy either and Android or an iOS phone to participate in society. Since the market for phone operating systems is not even remotely competitive regulation is necessary just like in all others uncompetitive markets.
  - carlosjobim 29d ago
    Exactly which unfair market conditions made it impossible for Nokia, Microsoft, Samsung or BlackBerry to compete on phone operating systems? And now you are saying that people were forced to purchase iPhones because of Android?
    - wasfgwp 29d ago
      You are forced to purchase one of them, yes. > which unfair market conditions made it impossible Bank applications depending on various os or device level security features? Good luck getting developers to build applications for your platform in general until you have a very large number of users (even Microsoft couldn’t manage it when the oligopoly was way less entrenched)
      - carlosjobim 28d ago
        > You are forced to purchase one of them, yes. Well then you aren't forced to purchase an iPhone, are you? Much less forced to develop for an iPhone. If a developer isn't satisfied with having access to billions of Android customers, then they should change careers or stop complaining. Developers also had every opportunity in the world to offer their software for Windows Phone and BlackBerry devices. Or offer their own devices with their software. Which is an easy thing for banks to do. Their laziness and incompetence isn't an excuse for them to turn around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed.
        wasfgwp 27d ago
        > with having access to billions of Android customers The average Android user is almost worthless economically compared to the average iPhone user. If you calculate the market share based on revenue and not total users Apple has a much bigger proportion of the pie than the raw user base would suggest. > Which is an easy thing for banks to do. The victim in this case are the consumers, not banks. Overall the smartphone OS market is a not very competitive oligopoly, the government’s job is to make sure that markets are competitive. > around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed. To get into the position where you can abuse your position in the market you have to do something right, certainly. That doesn’t mean you should be allowed to do that in perpetuity.

carlosjobim 29d ago

An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No court of law would go against you if you took a soldering iron and your expertise to change your iPhone in any way you please. Apple shouldn't be obliged to help you in those efforts, though. > Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here. Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?

EMIRELADERO 29d ago
> An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something. The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution. > Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist. > Who was forced to develop for Apple devices? Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)
- chongli 29d ago
  I assume an expert mode (where you can sideload anything you want) is what you are asking for. To that I raise the standard objection: how do you protect grandma from having a criminal social-engineer her into enabling expert mode and then having her sideload malware onto her device?
  - rstat1 29d ago
    I mean if you're gonna stop people from owning their device and doing what they want with it just because of the possibility of crime occurring then their are quite a few more things that probably should also no longer exist because of their potential use in crime. That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you ask me.
    - enos_feedler 29d ago
      That is exactly what Apple has decided to do. You have named the tradeoff. Stop the possibility by disabling everyone. It has always been this way. People have had nearly 20 years to leave Apple
    - chongli 29d ago
      You can say that about a lot of things in life. Legalized gambling, for example. Tons of people ruin their lives with it and this creates big externalities for society. But we tolerate it so that everyone has the freedom to gamble. Apple on the other hand offers a locked down product that many people want because they don’t trust themselves. I think a lot of people have short memories for all the hacking and spyware that plagued Windows users a couple decades ago. I think we also need to remember that Apple is not the government so people have alternatives to buying their devices. Personally, I think people should have the right to buy a locked down device. It’s not on Apple to provide open competitors to their product. And why should developers have a right to develop for the platform? Heck, I wanted the iPhone back when it didn’t even have 3rd party apps at all.
      - rstat1 29d ago
fl0id 29d ago
So if you were forced to keep f.e. a door lock on your house (that you bought), because as part of the purchase the developer required it - would you be fine with it too? You could technically jail break it...
- what 29d ago
  My house has locks on all exterior doors? I can have them re keyed any time?
wasfgwp 29d ago
> Who was forced to buy an iPhone? You are effectively forced to buy either and Android or an iOS phone to participate in society. Since the market for phone operating systems is not even remotely competitive regulation is necessary just like in all others uncompetitive markets.
- carlosjobim 29d ago
  Exactly which unfair market conditions made it impossible for Nokia, Microsoft, Samsung or BlackBerry to compete on phone operating systems? And now you are saying that people were forced to purchase iPhones because of Android?
  - wasfgwp 29d ago
    You are forced to purchase one of them, yes. > which unfair market conditions made it impossible Bank applications depending on various os or device level security features? Good luck getting developers to build applications for your platform in general until you have a very large number of users (even Microsoft couldn’t manage it when the oligopoly was way less entrenched)
    - carlosjobim 28d ago
      > You are forced to purchase one of them, yes. Well then you aren't forced to purchase an iPhone, are you? Much less forced to develop for an iPhone. If a developer isn't satisfied with having access to billions of Android customers, then they should change careers or stop complaining. Developers also had every opportunity in the world to offer their software for Windows Phone and BlackBerry devices. Or offer their own devices with their software. Which is an easy thing for banks to do. Their laziness and incompetence isn't an excuse for them to turn around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed.
      - wasfgwp 27d ago
        > with having access to billions of Android customers The average Android user is almost worthless economically compared to the average iPhone user. If you calculate the market share based on revenue and not total users Apple has a much bigger proportion of the pie than the raw user base would suggest. > Which is an easy thing for banks to do. The victim in this case are the consumers, not banks. Overall the smartphone OS market is a not very competitive oligopoly, the government’s job is to make sure that markets are competitive. > around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed. To get into the position where you can abuse your position in the market you have to do something right, certainly. That doesn’t mean you should be allowed to do that in perpetuity.