[pwinnski]

Update: It was indefensible, and Apple has already reversed course. It's a shame it sometimes takes twitter outcry for the right thing to happen, but at least the right thing happened.

This seem indefensible at first blush. The app has been available as-is for years, so if the explanation given him is correct, it's a really bad look for Apple.

[echelon]

Wouldn't happen in a world where the DOJ forces Apple to open up the platform to 3rd party installs.

It's a computer, and the most popular computer in the US. It's also the only computer a lot of people own.

It's not a dedicated gaming device - people use iPhone to call, edit media, find jobs, pay for things, calculate, date, do email. It's a computer. Arguments like "but you can't install on a Nintendo" aren't equivalent. Nintendo makes one of a dozen different game platforms, all of which have wide penetration and lots of alternatives. And it's just for games. This is closer to "you can't repair your tractor", which is also an issue for farmers.

Computers, especially those with massive market share, should be open to 3rd party installs.

It's an expensive device and it got to where it is because of a trillion dollar company backing it. You can't compete with that.

You own an iPhone and you're happy installing just from Apple? That's fine. But there are a lot more people in this world that will benefit from open computing. Apple can still have their App Store, charge for distribution, and will still be making bank.

Computing on computers should be free and open.

If we let this slide, we'll one day own nothing. Stallman was right about everything.

[maratc]

“Well plaintiffs always want me to define relevant markets as narrowly as possible. It helps their case. And defendants always want me to define markets as broad as possible, because it helps their case.” — Judge YGR on Epic/Apple case.

[alexvoda]

In the end it will depend on the judge to define the markets.

But I am of the firm opinion that iOS devices and Android devices are not interchangeable even if you can do many of the same things on both and many apps are available on both platforms.

Just because a hatchback, a big rig and a personal airplane all get you from A to B while seated and all have air conditioning and entertainment systems does not make them fungible.

[alexvoda]

Note: all console generations so far had the option of loading software from physical media (even if there are models without this option, they are not the only model). As long as physical media is an alternative for loading software on consoles, consoles are not as restrictive as iOS devices (even if creation of that physical media requires licensing 1'st party development tools). Apple iOS is the only platform where a company uses its natural monopoly over the hardware and OS to create a monopoly on software distribution.

[alexvoda]

Furthermore, Apple is using their created monopoly on software distribution to create a monopoly on payments. Even if you disagree with me on the first part (platform -> distribution) I know of no other case where the second part is also true (distribution -> payments). Goggle may try to impose Google Pay for in-app payments but they do not have the a monopoly on distribution (F-droid, Amazon, Aptoid, etc. exist).

[russli1993]

no, on consoles, the platform holder has to approve every single game to be made into discs. If your game violates Sony and Microsoft's rules, they won't let you make the discs. Its same with the app store.

[alexvoda]

Those restrictions are made through use of trademarks, limiting access to development tools through contracts and code signing.

First can be sidestepped by not mentioning the trademarks of the platform holder anywhere.

The second can be side stepped through reverse engineering.

Third can eventually be hacked out of the device (like the recent encryption key reveal on Intel CPU's) and was not applicable to older generations.

Proof of 1 and 2 is the existence of new games developed for ancient consoles.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-unlikely-but-very-real-res...

[Someone]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_signing#Unsigned_code_in_...:

“Most console games have to be signed with a secret key designed by the console maker or the game will not load on the console. There are several methods to get unsigned code to execute which include software exploits, the use of a modchip, a technique known as the swap trick or running a softmod.”

I don’t see how iOS is different here.

[pmiller2]

"Can be sidestepped" is a far cry from "average users can do this," you know.

[alexvoda]

And yet it is done as proven by new software development efforts for antiquated platforms like the NES, SNES, GBA, N64 or PS2. New cartridges are being made today. The original vendor has no responsibility to make alternative software easy. But I believe they should have a responsibility to not make it impossible or intentionally harder than necessary.

[machello13]

Aren't all of those also true with iOS? Have you heard of Jailbreaking?

[alexvoda]

Of course I heard of Jailbreaking. The difference was that jailbreaking and modding consoles requires modified hardware to run unapproved software (digitally distributed). But reverse engineering the development tools and the signing keys in order to create unapproved disks or cartridges is a viable method to create software for unmodified devices. See FreeDVDBoot for the PS2.

[mikecsh]

Don't most consoles require the software loaded from said physical media to be made with the manufactuer's SDK and signed by their private key?

[alexvoda]

Yes, but this was not always true and even today that key can eventually be extracted like it was extracted on Intel CPUs.

[enos_feedler]

Define computing. I am free to write and distribute computation via Javascript in Safari. Should computing be lower level? How low? From the bootchain? Who decides at what layer “free computing” should be wedged into a product? Why can’t Apple make that decision for themselves?

[alexvoda]

Because they are making that decision for users. The devices are owned by users since the day of purchase.

Why can’t users make that decision for themselves? Granted, many people choose to buy Apple devices because they do not desire general computing devices and instead desire appliances.

But giving up that control erodes ownership itself. A device not fully controlled by you is not fully owned by you. You may own a license to use it for a limited time. But people do not buy hardware devices with the expectation of actually only buying a license to use them.

[enos_feedler]

How many product decisions are made on your behalf between the inception of product specification and distribution to you? Just because you purchase the final thing doesn't entitle you to have control over product decisions. I don't think it makes sense to entangle ownership and programmability as a product feature.

Your reference to "general computing device" here is a concept that a particular market identifies with (you being in that market). Attached to it is some kind of concept of free/open. Apple will tell you their devices are general computing devices. I am currently playing around with lidar sensors in an iPhone 12 pro by writing code and pushing it onto my device. The functionality I can build is pretty arbitrary and I would call it general computing. I would agree with Apple.

[alexvoda]

You do of course have to resign that code every week or so or it stops working. You are also limited to the APIs Apple provides. And if you want to publish that code, you have to get it approved by Apple. Otherwise you are stuck distributing source code that other people have to pay X$ for a dev account and resign every 7 days.

All of this is not applicable to other platforms (maybe to consoles but I already commented about them on this thread).

[chacha2]

A duopoly of news organizations that can pick what facts count as news would be a disaster for democracy, is a duopoly of tech companies getting to pick what protocols and software can exist any better? The decentralized Web never could have been created in this atmosphere.

[alexvoda]

It should entitle me to make any modification I want to the device I purchased. If I am not allowed to modify it I do not fully own it. I am only granted a license to use hardware I purchased (for a limited time even, see Sonnos).

[DarkWiiPlayer]

Well... you can completely reprogram the device, if you have the tools and knowledge for it.

Apple has no obligation to make this process easy or even possible, and if the users still buy their products, they clearly don't care enough about these restrictions.

[alexvoda]

Not caring is precisely the problem. A problem that leads to erosion of ownership. And this leads to a form of communism. Apple, Google, etc. are in some ways similar to the state in communist regimes. They own everything but they promise to give you fair access until they don't.

[enos_feedler]

I don't think it is about "not caring". Apple cares intensely about the products they build taking into the needs of their addressable market. There are 1000s of product decisions made between inception and distribution into your hands. I don't believe that the one decision around open and free programmability of native OS-level applications has any association with ownership to them.

[alexvoda]

I am referring to the customers not caring about whether they truly own the devices they buy.

[chacha2]

How is a capitalist monopoly communism? These operating systems are the companies private property, they can do what they want with them.

The only way to prevent them is by abolishing their property and putting them in the public domain.

[alexvoda]

The software is the property of the companies of course. But the devices, once purchased are the property of the customer. However, the customer lacks full ownership of the device because the customer lacks full control over the device as long as the customer can not replace the software with other software regardless of the existence of that other software.

I own a PC I buy preinstalled with Windows because I can replace Windows with something else. As long as I can find spare parts I can make it work. Windows is just a part.

I do not fully own a device with a locked bootloader that can not be unlocked because once the vendor no longer provides updates I can not replace the broken part (software). The vendor maintains a degree of ownership over a device I purchased (applicable to phones, cars, tractors, etc.).

A capitalist monopoly is not communism. It is not what I said. I said the relationship between users and corporations (Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, MS, Tesla, John Deere, etc.) has a degree of resemblance to the relationship between citizens and the state in comunist regimes.

[pmiller2]

FYI (or, maybe not -- you seem to know what's going on already), there's a subreddit literally called "Stallman Was Right: https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/

[DarkWiiPlayer]

> Computers, especially those with massive market share, should be open to 3rd party installs.

Why? If you don't like it, don't buy their product. I think iPhone is shit because of this, and other tactics to lock the user in, so I don't use it and wouldn't recommend it to anybody.

[mhh__]

I think relying on perfect information from the consumer is a little naive?

It's easy to (say) find the phone with the best camera, but you never know you need freedom until it's too late.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

There are mechanisms to inform the user of this. Tech magazines etc. should be the ones responsible for informing the user that they are being locked in, even if the HW is good.

But in reality, most people know. It's just that they tell themselves they won't ever want to do a thing until they kinda do and at that point they just bought the wrong product for that purpose.

[mavhc]

Maybe iOS devices should come with a big warning label like cigarettes:

Warning: Apple solely controls what apps you can run on this device

[DarkWiiPlayer]

The problem is: Installing software on a phone hasn't ever been "normal" before a few years ago, and since then, it has never really been about installing any random program like it is on PC.

We're right in the middle of shift of perspective where smart-phones stop being just cellphones with some extra features but actually peoples main access to general computing.

But to many they still are just "phones", and tech companies are taking advantage of this situation to shape the mentality around them in a different way than with desktop computing. This is their right, although it's obviously evil.

It's the media (tech magazines, youtube channels, etc.) that should be clearing up these misconceptions, but the sad reality is, people don't care. If I try explaining to a non-IT friend why installing any random software is essential, they look at me like I'm wearing a tin foil hat. People don't understand how quickly computation is turning into an important aspect of freedom.

[alexvoda]

I find that to be a fair proposal.

[floatingatoll]

Making an error, and then correcting that error 4 hours later, is certainly many things. "Unfathomably rapid" comes to mind as my first response.

[jimnotgym]

If he hadn't got a large following on Twitter would it have been rapid?

[floatingatoll]

Perhaps! Unfortunately, given the available evidence, there’s no way to determine whether it’s a true causative or a false correlation.

[machello13]

Hard to know, since if he didn't have a large following, we wouldn't have heard about it either way.

[KingOfCoders]

Or at all?

[gnicholas]

That is rapid, but if (as Josh claims) they said they were going to pull the app 5 minutes later, it seems appropriate that they would have a quick response in their reversal.