←back to thread

1704 points ardit33 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mapgrep ◴[] No.24149792[source]
You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people appreciate.

But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent?

Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app stores or services I like on it.

Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked, their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded and would surely continue to be.

replies(20): >>24150118 #>>24150217 #>>24150279 #>>24150291 #>>24150292 #>>24150369 #>>24150460 #>>24150828 #>>24151413 #>>24152705 #>>24152764 #>>24154029 #>>24154441 #>>24154710 #>>24154759 #>>24154888 #>>24155099 #>>24155703 #>>24155755 #>>24166318 #
ernst_klim ◴[] No.24150279[source]
> Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing?

Yes, I have. You put unnecessary limits on our freedom to agree on certain contracts.

Hence your measures are authoritarian, you try to restrict my freedom. In my opinion it's unethical to restrict people's freedom to make contracts willingly, if it hurts not any third party.

As a consumer, I think apple is doing the right thing, and I totally agree on their terms. We both, Apple and I, agree on what an ipnone is and how it works.

If you don't like it, there is a plethora of other OS: sailfish, mer, postmarket, android, use them.

As for apple, yes it asks for 30% fee, and it builds a walled garden. But they also offer what others don't: 8 years of support. I'm totally agree to have a walled garden (convenient enough for me), if I could use my phone for 8 years instead of 2-3 as in the Android case.

One of the reasons they support their devices for so long is that the earn on the ecosystem. With the laws you propose they would be incentivized to sell more phones supporting them less, turning iphone into another short term phone, like any android one.

Hence you would significantly diminish the choice, hurting me, the consumer.

replies(2): >>24152894 #>>24162428 #
Sargos ◴[] No.24152894[source]
I have to assume you're not trolling but those are some impressive mental gymnastics my friend.

If Apple allowed sideloading then you're experience would be 100% identical. You would have the freedom to continue using the App Store just like you do today and have a nice curated experience. Contracts would continue to work just like they do today. The thing is, the rest of us would have -more- freedom as we could, optionally and of our own accord, use apps outside of the App Store as well. Nobody is harmed and everyone is happy. Everyone either has the same amount of or more freedom and safety.

replies(2): >>24154564 #>>24155175 #
rimliu ◴[] No.24154564{3}[source]
As if "allow sideloading" is just some boolean flag in the iOS source. Enabling it would have seriuos implications for iOS and for Apple (no matter where from a user download some shady app Apple suddenly becomes responsible).
replies(2): >>24154934 #>>24156195 #
1. bishalb ◴[] No.24154934{4}[source]
If they wanted to, they could have done it though no? IOS has been out for 13 years now.