←back to thread

Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

(www.theverge.com)
1704 points ardit33 | 7 comments | 13 Aug 20 19:03 UTC | HN request time: 1.298s | source | bottom
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 #
dustinmoris ◴[14 Aug 20 07:04 UTC] No.24154710[source]▶
> 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 fundamentally disagree and this is also a misrepresentation of the current situation.

If I buy an open operating system which advertises that I can run on it what pleases me then I should have the right to carry out this freedom of choice.

However, if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines (which are also open for me to assess myself) and I buy a product for its benefits doing this, then I have a right as a consumer that the company will stick to this and not be forced to change in order to please some dodgy companies or gaming apps which I honestly couldn't care less.

It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. The packaging says secure, long battery life, high quality phone because of walled garden, so I fucking expect Apple to deliver the walled garden promise so I don't have to do the vetting myself. When I buy an iPhone for my kids or parents, then I pay more for it because of Apple's walled garden, because it means I have to spend less time doing dumb things for them which I'd have to do on another operating system.

replies(8): >>24154843 #>>24155021 #>>24155152 #>>24155205 #>>24155210 #>>24155682 #>>24155737 #>>24161234 #
wickedsickeune ◴[14 Aug 20 08:03 UTC] No.24155152[source]▶
> if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines

Could you please show me such an advertisement? I do not really follow Apple, and have failed to encounter it.

Further, what if I'm a user, who wants to purchase the hardware (and even operating system), but does not want the added security. Mind you that Apple has their own CPU and OS which is unlike anything in the competition. Don't I also buy the product for those benefits, and don't I have a right as a consumer to opt out of arbitrary limitations that I have no option but accepting?

In the past, you had no option but accepting tracking cookies in every website, GDPR showed that as a society, we decided to force companies to provide an option.

replies(1): >>24155193 #
1. dustinmoris ◴[14 Aug 20 08:09 UTC] No.24155193[source]▶
> Further, what if I'm a user, who wants to purchase the hardware (and even operating system), but does not want the added security. Mind you that Apple has their own CPU and OS which is unlike anything in the competition.

Tough luck my friend. I mean only because you want something unreasonable doesn't make it a right.

Example:

What if I want to buy the engine of a Ferrari but not pay the price for a Ferrari and just have it inside a Volkswagen?

The answer to that is also tough luck. You want a Ferrari engine, well it only comes in a bloody Ferrari so either buy the whole thing and then mod it yourself or tough luck. Same for Apple hardware. If you want just want one piece then you'll have to buy the whole thing and mod it yourself.

Nothing in this world gives you a right to have all your wishes fulfilled by others.

replies(2): >>24155242 #>>24155451 #
2. blackoil ◴[14 Aug 20 08:15 UTC] No.24155242[source]▶
If Ferrari and Volkswagen are only two companies in world and Ferrari disallows changing Radio and Car Seat without authorization from company. I would say screw them, law should prohibit this. If you don't like the law you are free to go sale somewhere else.
replies(1): >>24156088 #
3. wickedsickeune ◴[14 Aug 20 08:44 UTC] No.24155451[source]▶
Isn't though the point of software, to be easily transferable from device to device? Otherwise we've just reinvented hardware.

My point is that a car is a complete piece of hardware, all of which is necessary for it to fulfil its purpose, while computers have the advantage (over other machines) to be easily modified by software.

You are correct that my wishes should not affect others, but what about the wishes/needs of multiple people? Even if it's just a wish/personal preference, and not a fundamental property of software, should people's opinion affect private corporations directly?

All of this assuming that there are multiple people who agree with the notion of software freedom.

replies(1): >>24156164 #
4. ghostwriter ◴[14 Aug 20 10:23 UTC] No.24156088[source]▶
If Ferrari and Volkswagen are the only two companies in the world, you just go and build a third company with a unique proposition. There's enough capital around to build a new car maker, the problem is the lack of appealing value and necessity for another clone.
5. ghostwriter ◴[14 Aug 20 10:35 UTC] No.24156164[source]▶
> You are correct that my wishes should not affect others, but what about the wishes/needs of multiple people?

If people in your neighbourhood wish and need that you mown their lawn regularly for free, would you be happy to consider it? After all, it's multiple people's preference!

replies(1): >>24168699 #
6. wickedsickeune ◴[15 Aug 20 13:27 UTC] No.24168699{3}[source]▶
There are multiple instances where this is done in all societies. For example taxes are an indirect way to do so. Mandatory military service is another. Jury duty, or staffing vote counting for elections, etc etc
replies(1): >>24173073 #
7. ghostwriter ◴[15 Aug 20 22:44 UTC] No.24173073{4}[source]▶
they all are a great example of a violation of the same moral principle, and you are right that taxes are an indirect way of saying "give it to me or else", which is in the same category of "we claim your finite time on this earth so that you pursue our goals instead of your own, and if you refuse we will make sure you will regret it"