> We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own
Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.
It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is?
It would be perfectly sensible to force large platform vendors to let you install arbitrary software. No problem at all. Doesn’t mean that also has to apply to, I don’t know, refrigerators with WiFi. Or cars.
> It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is
General-purpose computing is workable. General-purpose computing on any hardware you own is not. Government regulations prohibit tampering with most emissive hardware, for instance.
General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators.
Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access. I still think even in those cases there needs to be some regulation that ensures manufacturers allow independent, qualified, repair shops to effectively repair broken tech.
I would consider a phone as damgerous as a scooter, if not more - considering the amount of private information in it and the access to bank accounts it grants. The damage that can be incurred by malware in a phone can ne greater than a medium speed accident on a scooter.
(At least me, personally, I’d prefer to hit a wall with my car at 60-70kmph than to have a malware on my phone. And I said that after being in more than one serious car accident)
> I would consider a phone as damgerous as a scooter, if not more - considering the amount of private information in it and the access to bank accounts it grants.
App sandboxing protects you from apps trying to access your information without your say-so, I'm not advocating for Apple to allow these third party apps to bypass the sandbox.
> General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators
Since when have iPhones been marketed as such? Apple goes out of its way to promote its walled garden.
> Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access
Delineating this is hard. iPhones contain modem chips, for instance.
Again, I'm not arguing against the principle in general nor even specifically when it comes to Apple. Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."
Prove to me that Apple has never marketed the App Store or the fact that you can run non-Apple software on an iPhone. If you can do that I'll drop this argument immediately.
> Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."
But I'm specifically not saying that, I'm saying hardware sold to me with the promise that I'll be able to expand its functionality via software. Regardless how you want to try to spin it that's what general-purpose computing means.
I'm saying that if you want to sell a product which relies on software written by other people (that are not the vendor) to be successful, then you have to go the whole way, you can't then say "ah but see actually I'm the only one that can decide WHAT can run on your device, and you have to pay ME forever for the pleasure of running anything on it!". You can put up road blocks if you want, but you've sold me a device intended to be expandable via software, a general-purpose computing device, not a purpose-specific device.
You don’t have to go down any of those definition rabbit holes. It doesn’t matter because you can count the platforms that really have an impact on probably one hand.
Windows, macOS, iOS, iPadOS, Android. I’m up for including game consoles on this list.
Let everybody else be all closed and only require them to open up when they become more important/widespread.
> Can't those cases simply be exempted from the requirement?
Congratulations, you've turned a discussion about Apple's anticompetitive actions into a multi-industry free-for-all demanding and drafting exemptions. Hence why I said this is lobbyist-of-the-year material.
HN tends to go down extreme rabbit holes that anyone with professional legal expertise would smile at near-immediately due to it coming across as earnest and naive.
Here, we see a flippant comment consume tons and tons of replies, because we tend to think of laws like code. Absolutist, and if the absolutes are wrong, we'll patch.
Which then leaves you open to recursive arguments about patches and unpersuasive railing about regulation being ineffective, lobbyists, etc etc.[^1]
I think this situation might be a bit of a wake up call. Apple decided to implement a maliciously compliant solution, and it's immediately obvious to all concerned they didn't fulfill the spirit of their obligations, and there will be consequences. Not necessarily negative ones. But this isnt going to get delivered with no changes while the EU stays quiet.
[^1] "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."
Conflicting regulations when it comes to cars, and for WiFi refrigerators (meaning any gadget that runs some sort of OS) I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it makes sense to make different regulation for general-purpose computing devices and purpose-specific devices.
Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.
How would you classify a PlayStation: general-purpose computing that should be required to be open, or purpose-specific that can be allowed looser regulations?
PlayStation 3 ran Linux just fine so it can be classified as a computer and forcefully opened. Not sure why do you all think this is some "gotcha" when the corpos you defend proved you otherwise already.
PlayStation is a games console, it's a purpose-specific device. I think there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android, or whatever Apple are slowly trying to turn MacBooks into.
I don't pretend to know all the answers, my stance is that the reason our society is where it is today is at least in part because computers have been computers, and not this "my way or the highway" approach Apple has for the iPhone.
> I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"?
The unworkable bit is the breadth. Being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own" means every computer is a general computer. That includes the one in your cable box, on your cellular modem chip, in your car.
> Not if those devices aren't marketed as "being able to install new software"
What does that mean, though? My thermostat updates itself OTA. So does my modem chip. And I can configure, to a degree, optional add-ons on my Subaru.
This is the problem with changing the argument to being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own." It's unworkable not because it's fundamentally flawed, but because its edges are fractally messy. You can absorb an infinite amount of time into delineating it. In the meantime, the thing you were actually going for--a competitive App Store--is forgotten.
I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse. It's pretty obvious from the discussion I am not talking about anything that has updatable software, I'm talking about things sold with the promise to be able to add broad new functionality in multiple fields. A thermostat may be able to add new methods of scheduling, energy saving, other means of control, integrations with other smart devices, but all with the singular purpose of controlling a radiator, under-floor heating or other heating device.
But if we're gonna entertain the notion somewhat, yes, if the thermostat allowed installation of non-thermostat related things like video streaming services, games, Twitter, or other apps that were allowed to run on the device to give it more use than at point of sale, and it was also marketed as such when sold, then yes, it was being sold as a (rather silly) general-purpose computing device and should be required to give users access to what they need to build their own software and run it on it, sans manufacturer control.
That's how almost everything worked before the user hostile mobile takeover, not sure why it's not possible anymore. It's the previous state of affair and worked fine.
Yeah - that could be solved by a one way fuse that unlocks the bootloader but prevents you from ever reinstalling iOS. I’m not actually kidding. I’d be quite happy to be able to install Linux on my old iOS devices that Apple no longer supports so that I can repurpose them as hobby devices.
I think they are referring to like a really simple scorched-earth solution that Apple could make which would scare off literally 99% of users but would technically be fully compliant.
Unlockable bootloader should 100% be a thing, but I doubt it'll happen, and in its absence Apple will probably need to open up their walled garden more to actually be DMA compliant.
There are all kinds of poor customer experience edge cases that arise if people can go back and forth, and Apple wants to protect the customer experience and brand from that. Whether you agree with their reasoning or not, it is what it is.
On the other hand I understand why people (myself being one of them) want to use the hardware they bought for something other than running iOS. This seems especially important once Apple drops support for the device.
That can also mean "wipe the device of the OS, and install your own".
Ownership of hardware, has never implied ownership of software. Usage rights, with first sale in most countries, but not ownership of the software.
But where do usage rights end, and where does "right to use the device as purchased" start? Certainly, Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem.
I suspect Apple's next move might be disabling their apps, and ecosystem, leaving a bare OS, if you move to a competing app store.
Or maybe leaving core apps, and prohibiting installation of other apps while removing their app store.
They might have a case for that. And Google for the longest time, will not allow the play store in a legit way, unless the OS is validated by them. So in this Apple wouldn't be an outlier.
> Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem
Unfortunately this advertisement is just an illusion designed to lure naive customers, as has been amply proven by the long list of CVE's revealed at the end of 2023, due to which the Apple devices have been completely insecure against those who had known them many years before the public.
After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless.
After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless
This isn't a legit argument. Sadly, like it or not, no software on the planet escapes CVEs. You'd never successfully argue what you're suggesting in court.
Forget CVEs. The App Store itself is a hive of scum and villainy[1]. How this stuff gets past review while email and calendar apps have to raise a public stink[2] to get in is beyond me.
Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.