←back to thread

Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

(www.theverge.com)
1704 points ardit33 | 2 comments | 13 Aug 20 19:03 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mapgrep ◴[13 Aug 20 21:45 UTC] 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 #
shrimpx ◴[14 Aug 20 07:26 UTC] No.24154888[source]▶
This is such a tough issue because you could argue zuckerberg is taking this exact stance when he refuses to moderate harmful content because they’re a “mere platform”. From that perspective you could see Apple as selling you “the whole end to end experience” and therefore taking responsibility for and curating all of it. So what do we want? What’s more evil and harmful? Pure platforms and their obliviousness as to good vs. bad, or curated end to end experiences and their draconian, limiting definitions of good vs. bad? And what’s the middle ground?
replies(1): >>24154961 #
1. AdrianB1 ◴[14 Aug 20 07:35 UTC] No.24154961[source]▶
It is not tough at all: your hardware and your OS are oblivious of good vs. bad and you want it to be that way. Why not a platform? You want Microsoft to curate your apps? Then why FB to do it for the content you can see? You should make the choices, not others make it for you.
replies(1): >>24155233 #
2. shrimpx ◴[14 Aug 20 08:14 UTC] No.24155233[source]▶
Not so fast. The hardware was mediated to be “safe” in various ways by the manufacturer and regulating bodies. It’s within accepted radiation levels, it’s highly unlikely to explode in your face or set your house on fire when you charge it. And this brings up the crucial thing: it’s because (a) unsafe devices would wreak havoc on society at scale and (b) you wouldn’t be able to/want to do this verification by yourself. You could choose to forego verification, as in “I choose this device safe or unsafe it’s my choice” but overall this is probably reckless as an effect on society, so it’s therefore regulated and your choice is disallowed. Software is in more of a gray area and you could more easily believe you can verify it. But if a piece of software threatened to wreck society, ultimately society will bring it under control. Facebook is incidentally a highly efficient propaganda targeting system that does threaten to enable bad players to wreck societies. I think the correct answer is case by case in a vast gray area between the extremes.