| HN Mirror

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.

kolinko 870 days ago

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.

kolinko 866 days ago

Is there a platform that managed to implement a decent sandbox without a review process a’la Apple?

Android definitely fails in this aspect, if you look at stats on viruses etc.

rekoil 866 days ago

The sandbox and review processes are completely separate from each other. Technically if the review process was flawless Apple wouldn't need a sandbox in iOS.

Yeah sure, things that attempt to break out of the sandbox will not be caught before ending up running on a users phone, but this also gives Apple somewhere to learn about novel sandbox escaping techniques from, so they can eventually patch them.

> 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."

> Since when have iPhones been marketed as such?

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.

> Prove to me that Apple has never marketed the App Store or the fact that you can run non-Apple software on an iPhone

Being able to install third-party software does not make the iPhone a general-purpose computer. Apple never marketed its devices as general-purpose computers. The original iPhone didn't even allow third-party apps. (Had they, there would be a false marketing angle to play. But they didn't so there isn't.)

> 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

This is the debate. Restating a position isn't argument.

> Had they, there would be a false marketing angle to play. But they didn't so there isn't.

That argument is relevant for the original iPhone, not for any iPhones sold after the advent of the App Store.

> Apple never marketed its devices as general-purpose computers.

Yet they are. It isn't up to the manufacturer to choose which class of regulations they want to play under, that definition is for an external part to decide, otherwise Apple could just classify all of their devices as fidget spinners and do whatever the hell they want.

arrrg 870 days ago

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.

CaptainFever 870 days ago

Can't those cases simply be exempted from the requirement?

> 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.

refulgentis 870 days ago

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."

> 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.

To be fair, this resembles a lot of lawmaking, too.

> 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

Agree.