> No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing
What about platforms like Playstation or the computers built into Teslas etc, should we allow sideloading on those? How do you define a platform?
What about platforms like Playstation or the computers built into Teslas etc, should we allow sideloading on those? How do you define a platform?
I think we should, yes. Not necessarily by default, but there should be a switch advanced users can flip.
Re: Tesla, there is in fact a long history of people fixing and modifying their cars. Why not the computers in those cars?
Hypothetical: if you modify the software in a Tesla, and your modification allows a hacker to remote control it, and this power is used to commit vehicular homicide, how much of the burden of responsibility do you have?
I’m not a lawyer, so while I can throw out phrases like “endangering others through negligence”, I don’t know what the threshold is or even if that’s the right concept in this case.
With regards to game consoles, I tend to agree with you — no good reason for them to be allowed to prevent side-loading.
With regards to phones however, I explicitly want the devices heavily locked down by law, to the extent that other people should not be allowed to put random software on them. This is because they are powerful sensor packages that almost everyone carries almost all the time, so the mere possibility of malware turning them into blackmail spy boxes is a problem for all of society — everyone, given what I’ve heard about “three felonies per day” [0] — and not just the person who installs the dodgy app.
I say this despite not liking that the action of American cultural hegemony in the App Store means those stores have a bigger problem with nipples than with violence.
And likewise, I have a problem with the law that requires me (a British citizen working in Germany) to keep the U.S. government informed about my app’s use of encryption in case I “export” something they can’t break, which is insane in my opinion.
Security is important and app stores help, but trust can be chained and delegated, and it is possible to have alternative App Stores which Apple/Google audit for security.
[0] https://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day
If you were negligent, I'd say you were responsible, just like if you hit someone because you took off the breaks and couldn't stop.
Although... response question: Let's say in ten years, Tesla stops providing security updates for their old cars. If you continue driving the car anyway, and it gets hacked and kills someone, who is responsible? Which is to say, I'm not super into this whole internet-connected-car thing. ;)
> With regards to phones however, I explicitly want the devices heavily locked down by law, to the extent that other people should not be allowed to put random software on them. This is because they are powerful sensor packages that almost everyone carries almost all the time.
What if I decide to carry around a Raspberry Pi, or wear a wire? I understand the concern, but I don't think controlling what everyone else uses is a reasonable solution in a free society.
Likewise, similar reasons.
> What if I decide to carry around a Raspberry Pi, or wear a wire?
Smartphone-software-based attacks target a wide net of unknowing victims, wearing a wire (or knowingly running a sousveilence app, which I’m all in favour of) targets just those you choose to target.
For the same reason, I regard state-mandated encryption backdoors as a much bigger privacy risk than the state giving the police authority to target specific suspects with wiretaps or even authority to replace all the target’s lightbulbs with ones that have built-in webcams — dragnet or spearfishing.
Hypothetically: a friend borrows your car, but you didn't fix the break fluid leak, and he runs over someone.
Who's at fault?
> With regards to phones however, I explicitly want the devices heavily locked down by law, to the extent that other people should not be allowed to put random software on them
that's the definition of a phone.
IMO Apple is to blame for creating the "smart" phones that can run arbitrary software.
They have created the problem that they are allegedly fixing by imposing walled garden on their users.
It is like handing guns to kids and then locking them up in their rooms so they are safe.
> Who's at fault?
Legally the answer is crystal clear. If it was intentional? He is. Unintentional? You are.
I don't really see the comparison.
That's weird...
In any country in the World the answer should be "it can only be decided by a judge, nobody can tell a priori"
In the case you tweak the software in your car and something happens, the justice system is there exactly to settle these kinds of issues.
That's the comparison.
If you modified your keyless-start car to not need a nearby key, and left it unlocked in parking lot and someone got into it, started it, and ran over several pedestrians would you be at fault?
Why does being remote change things?
What if the unlocked car was in your driveway, and the person who got in was your seven-year-old daughter? Now who's responsible, and why? The child is a minor, so legally she can't be at fault, but the parents should have taken appropriate precautions, like locking the door.
Likewise, if a bunch of people are killed by a remote driver in North Korea, you can't arrest the hacker. And if there's no one to arrest, our society has no way to discourage the crime. So responsibility moves up the chain.
In an ideal world I would force them (I probably wouldn't for a Tesla because diy software on a car...) to have some basic ability to load programs.
You didn't realize this when you bought Mario Run, because Nintendo paid Apple for you.
And if Nintendo tries to sell you something to recuperate that cost, they have to give Apple 30%.
I do consider to be ridiculous the requirement for me, a British national living in Germany, to keep the US Federal government informed about my use of encryption in all the apps I distribute on the App Store. That’s clearly nonsensical.
This lawsuit is about Epic trying to not pay the same fees as everyone else not some giant ethical debate over the rights that people should have on their devices. Epic wants rights for themselves, they don't want them for their customers.
As I've said elsewhere, this is about tail risk not tomorrow.
We have more rules and regulations for things like food services, airlines, banking and farming than we do for a store like GameStop or a jewelry products.
I'm not personally in favor of walled gardens myself, but everyone who bought an iPhone knew that's what they were getting and did it anyway.
Epic could try to make life difficult for modders, but a lot of PC games have tried that over the years, and it generally doesn't work when players are dedicated.
Companies change over time, it’s unrealistic to have the same service for ever (typically the product might be discontinued and not supported after some time, sometimes also the attitude when it comes to service changes). At the same time the platform was bought not rented and producing it and getting rid of it has its own cost.
I would argue it’s fair to demand open access to it.
I have an old iPad (3rd gen), since it can’t access iCloud properly or sync bookmarks with safari (a function that it originally had) or install Firefox, it’s essentially useless and I’m very unhappy with that, a whole car would be much worse though. I’ve learned to think about that before buying, but many don’t and often there’s no choice.
The 360 allowed for homebrew as well. I think they learned a lot from XBMC.
Google have made it very clear that you have options other than the Play Store in recent dev docs
Apple and iOS, on the other hand, support side loaded code. It's just a matter of who pays for what.
It's also a case of "you know it when you see it", iPhone wasn't a big platform when it launched but now it's the primary platform for many peoples computer needs, it should not be exclusively run by a private company.
Why? If you don't like the iPhone there are other general purpose computers that you can use, ranging from a laptop to a Pixel smart phone...
> General purpose computing.
If you want to call it a general purpose computer, then you also have to include tablets, laptops, desktop computers, and Android phones. All of a sudden there is quite a bit of choice for customers here. To name a few:
Microsoft
Samsung
LG
Dell
HP
Huawei
Amazon
...
The fact that Apple may very well make the best one, doesn't mean there isn't competition or that it isn't a competitive market.
Your list of manufacturers does not take the platforms into consideration. None of those are allowed to use apples platform unless they follow their strict rules.
There isnt't a competitive market unless ther's free movement and perfect information and the two smart phone platforms have large lock-in effects today so it hardly qualifies. The portion of the market that is android or windows are competitive markets, it's easy to switch from a samsung phone to a lg phone.
But they also have overlapping features, complementary features, and sometimes mutually exclusive features. You mention payments - I can pay for things using my laptop, or if I have a credit or debit card (ya know, the thing you're using for payments) I can just use that at the store normally. Messaging - yep you can send messages from your laptop. I could go on. The killer feature of the iPhone is that it's in your pocket, but it's also a limiting factor. You can live without one, easily, however. Doom scrolling Facebook (sorry, keeping in touch with friends and family - totally not addiction) is not important and living without that is very easy.
> Your list of manufacturers does not take the platforms into consideration. None of those are allowed to use apples platform unless they follow their strict rules.
I can't use any of those manufacturer's platforms without following their rules. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain.
> There isnt't a competitive market unless ther's free movement and perfect information and the two smart phone platforms have large lock-in effects today so it hardly qualifies.
You can debate whether it's a competitive market, but I'm not sure what you're explaining here is part of the considerations, or at least these may map to larger overall considerations. But you have to be careful to be specific about what you are talking about. Are we talking about the iOS App Store, or the general purpose computer market? It matters.
> The portion of the market that is android or windows are competitive markets, it's easy to switch from a samsung phone to a lg phone.
You can easily switch from iPhone to Android as well. One of my friends does it at least once a year because he wants to be "all-in" on either Google or Apple but finds flaws in each.