This makes me curious about Apple and iOS / OS X. Does Apple try to require that the user accepts an EULA for the OS after buying Apple hardware?
To download free apps off the Mac app store I need to set up an account and provide Apple with an email address, physical address, and phone number. Apps like the Wireguard GUI don't have access to necessary system APIs outside of the app store, so the developers have no way to allow users to sidestep giving Apple that information.
I'm forced to use the command line interface from Brew and mess around with network interfaces on my work laptop just because I refuse to give Apple my phone number and home address, even though Wireguard is free and no billing/payment information would be required for me to download it, and even though having an Apple account is completely unrelated to their sandboxing goals or the information that the app needs to run.
Bonus points for telling me I'm providing my phone number "for security purposes" but providing no option during signup to use a secure 2FA app instead of SMS.
If you know an online service that provides that without also requiring me to give it a bunch of personal information, please let me know.
Sideloading would be helpful if Mac app store apps were made available as sideloaded apps anywhere. But I'm going to hazard a guess that Wireguard would not be permitted to provide those downloads -- I haven't been able to find a download link anywhere. And I'm seeing conflicting information online about whether or not sideloading even works for some apps unless the Apple IDs are shared between computers.
I suppose that I could try to compile the Wireguard app from source, but for all I know, running XCode will require an account as well.
All of these solutions are less work than manually managing the network interfaces myself. It's just kind of crappy that a privacy-oriented company is forcing me to do so. I shouldn't have to outsmart my Mac to get work done.
I have to pay money for a piece of hardware and give a bunch of personal information to Apple, just to download a free app on the hardware that I paid for?
Wait, on macOS? You’re saying the store gives you extra permissions there?
I would tolerate giving Apple billing information to purchase an app. I don't understand why I need billing information to download a free app that doesn't cost any money. There's no transaction for Apple to verify.
And I don't understand why I need to give Apple a phone number of any of this.
I'm not even asking for an ideal world, just a very slightly less crappy one; Apple objectively does not need my phone number to let me hit a download link. That serves no purpose, it's a completely unrelated step to the task I'm trying to perform.
IIUC (at least in US legal system), using software without an appropriate license from the copyright holder is considered a violation of civil copyright law.
Suppose that courts deemed shrink-wrap EULAs to be invalid. If the EULA is the agreement that grants end-users permission to use the copyrighted software, would the invalidation mean that users were in violation of copyright law? Or is there a right to use the software that's implicitly granted by the original purchase?
I met a Italian man at immigration control in Ethiopia, at the Addis Ababa airport, he had been traveling Africa and this was his third attempt to enter Ethiopia. The first two attempts were via land borders with Kenya and he had been turned around both times, despite having a visa, because border control felt it would be too dangerous for a white man to travel through southern Ethiopia at the time. So he had to travel to Nairobi and get a flight; he was admitted this time, but he had to pay for another visa at the airport. Unclear why? He wasn’t best pleased about the whole thing.
It's the reason nearly all US citizens who move overseas eventually give up their citizenship. My great aunt left for Poland 30 years ago, and renounced her citizenship within 3 years because she was paying taxes on everything she earned twice, one under Polish law and again under US law.
And US isn't alone nation in this.
That’s how I understand it, anyway. I hope to be corrected if I’m inaccurate as this is not my area of expertise.
The idea that you may not be receiving a copy at all and you merely have access through a license is a legal construction that's not well tested in court and to me seems pretty dubious. How can giving someone a transcription of the bits of the software not be a copy of the software? Anyway this court opinion (final appeal in Step-Saver vs Wyse Tech) deals with the issue and you can read what a court thinks: https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/contract/cases/s...
I particularly like this paragraph where they discuss some of the context of the issue even though they decide not to specifically rule on this part.
> When these form licenses were first developed for software, it was, in large part, to avoid the federal copyright law first sale doctrine. Under the first sale doctrine, once the copyright holder has sold a copy of the copyrighted work, the owner of the copy could "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without the copyright holder's consent. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350, 28 S.Ct. 722, 726, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908); 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(a) (West 1977). Under this doctrine, one could purchase a copy of a computer program, and then lease it or lend it to another without infringing the copyright on the program. Because of the ease of copying software, software producers were justifiably concerned that companies would spring up that would purchase copies of various programs and then lease those to consumers. Typically, the companies, like a videotape rental store, would purchase a number of copies of each program, and then make them available for over-night rental to consumers. Consumers, instead of purchasing their own copy of the program, would simply rent a copy of the program, and duplicate it. This copying by the individual consumers would presumably infringe the copyright, but usually it would be far too expensive for the copyright holder to identify and sue each individual copier. Thus, software producers wanted to sue the companies that were renting the copies of the program to individual consumers, rather than the individual consumers. The first sale doctrine, though, stood as a substantial barrier to successful suit against these software rental companies, even under a theory of contributory infringement. By characterizing the original transaction between the software producer and the software rental company as a license, rather than a sale, and by making the license personal and non- transferable, software producers hoped to avoid the reach of the first sale doctrine and to establish a basis in state contract law for suing the software rental companies directly. Questions remained, however, as to whether the use of state contract law to avoid the first sale doctrine would be preempted either by the federal copyright statute (statutory preemption) or by the exclusive constitutional grant of authority over copyright issues to the federal government (constitutional preemption). See generally Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964). Congress recognized the problem, and, in 1990, amended the first sale doctrine as it applies to computer programs and phonorecords. See Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5134 (codified at 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b) (West Supp.1991)). As amended, the first sale doctrines permits only non-profit libraries and educational institutions to lend or lease copies of software and phonorecords. See 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b)(1)(A) (West Supp.1991). (Under the amended statute, a purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted computer program may still sell his copy to another without the consent of the copyright holder.) This amendment renders the need to characterize the original transaction as a license largely anachronistic. While these transactions took place in 1986-87, before the Computer Software Rental Amendments were enacted, there was no need to characterize the transactions between Step-Saver and TSL as a license to avoid the first sale doctrine because both Step-Saver and TSL agree that Step-Saver had the right to resell the copies of the Multilink Advanced program.
At no point has Apple ever gone after the websites or individuals despite it being fairly trivial to do so e.g. DCMA or cease and desist letter.
In fact Craig Federighi has gone on the record stating that they fully support people hacking the Mac, OSX etc and believe it to be an important part of the ecosystem.
Source?
IMHO that EULA's main purpose atm is to tell you that you can only install MacOS on, and I quote, an 'Apple-branded computer'.
This led to a hilarious habit of Hackintosh users including myself just sticking the Apple stickers from their iPods or other Apple devices on their custom built machines. Wouldn't hold up in court, of course, we were just having fun with the wordplay.
Of particular note in that case is the court ruled that Apple's alleged "monopoly" over the market of "Mac OS-capable computers" was not a valid antitrust market because users knowingly agreed to the EULA restriction limiting installation of Mac OS to Apple computers when they initially purchased Mac OS.
I expect this very same issue will come up in Epic's case as well with regard to Apple's alleged "monopoly" over iOS app distribution.
(It's true that Psystar's attempt to establish "Mac OS" as a single-brand market in section A also failed, but that is not what I am referring to here.)
If you have a more substantive criticism feel free to elaborate in more detail, otherwise making a drive by comment to accuse someone else of not reading just seems hostile and unnecessary.
Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties.
Psystar alleges that this conduct has caused harmful and anti-competitive effects in the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 68-77). Psystar asserts six claims for relief: (1) unlawful tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; (2) monopoly maintenance in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) exclusive dealing in violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 14; (4) violations of California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 16700; (5) violations of California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, and (6) violations of the common law of unfair competition. Apple moved to dismiss all claims.
These are all antitrust claims!!!
Oh, I see why you might be confused. Apple originally filed a lawsuit against Psystar alleging copyright infringement. Psystar then filed a countersuit over antitrust violations. I am referring specifically to the countersuit that was dismissed by the court which I deliberately linked in my original post (https://casetext.com/case/apple-2). Apple pursued their copyright case after they got Psystar's countersuit dismissed and eventually won their copyright case as well.
> Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties.
This is totally wrong. How can you go around pretending to be an expert in antitrust when you don't even understand basic facts like this? Epic's lawsuit against Apple is an antitrust case. Epic is a private party!
The official 90s clones ended badly because the OEMs were cutting corners as part of a race to the bottom on pricing. This led to shit hardware which led to a shit customer experience. Which meant Apple took back control and killed off the official clone industry.
There are videos on YouTube of Steve Jobs talking (during informal interviews, not corporate statements) about the importance to both him personally and Apple of the entire customer experience (hardware and software). Its not from a perspective of monopoly. Its from a perspective of quality of the overall experience. That's what all the dumb Apple bashers fail to understand.
There's a difference between policies that we agree with, and policies that should be policy.
I think in this context, the real policy should be regulatory, and it shouldn't allow Apple to even have such a policy or forbid anything.
Apple should be allowed to discriminate in their own garden, and/or to rate or group apps based on various factors.
So an app that 'requires social sharing and to make a review' receive a negative quality score ranking etc. - but otherwise - 'informed users' can make their own choices.