Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think it's less to do with regulators not understanding that phones are computers and more to do with genuine disagreement over what constitutes a computer and even more so what societal and economic effects regulation might have on these changes.

For example, if the United States says that the iPhone is an arbitrary computer and as such is subject to thus and thus regulations, why wouldn't that include other arbitrary computation devices like the Nintendo Switch, Steamdeck, TV, or Alexa device?

I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that would say this definition stops at "phones and tablets". So now you're not just regulating phones and "opening them up" and instead you're regulating broad swaths of trade with not just American companies but global companies as well and that has much more important considerations than whether or not you can install a 3rd-party app store or access a manufacturer-only API. Even if you are just regulating phones and tablets, you still have to consider more than the American companies.

I don't see why game consoles or anything else should be exempt from 'on a computer' rules.

What it boils down to in my opinion, is that you own the device, and the company that built it should be required to give you all the keys to do what you want with it. The ability for companies to technologically lock out what their customers can do with the devices is relatively new, but there are quite a few areas of law that follow this principle of "once you buy it, it's yours, full stop", and I think this is just following along from that.

So I'd like to see general legislation in that direction, that would outlaw all these companies from locking down their devices as a first step. It doesn't have to be super easy, but it absolutely should be possible to run whatever code you want on any device you own.

I think antitrust surrounding these marketplaces is also due, but is much less fundamental and a lot more situational, where it matters less what the definition of 'a computer' is and more who's getting screwed, how badly, and whether competition is possible.

Isn't that already the case with jailbreaking for example? I.e. it doesn't have to be easy.

Does Apple have something like a "key" that would allow you to just run arbitrary software on the device? Is it something they would have to build, support, and maintain? I'm guessing this isn't a problem on Android and you can run whatever you want.

A jailbreak is not something Apple (or whoever) allows, it's a (serious) security vulnerability being exploited to gain root level permissions on the device and then circumvent whatever checks are in place. These are things that should be fixed. It's also a cat and mouse game that is always changing.

> Does Apple have something like a "key" that would allow you to just run arbitrary software on the device? Is it something they would have to build, support, and maintain? I'm guessing this isn't a problem on Android and you can run whatever you want.

Not sure about the specifics of Apple's architecture (as it's also undocumented), but most modern secure boot systems have a hardware public key store (TPM) that any boot binaries must be signed with. Apple would closely guard those keys, and without them (and without security flaws), it is impossible to boot other code. Once you get a bit further along into the boot process, the architecture gets much more complicated as far as actually running apps, but it's all predicated on that secure boot key. Such a key store is probably possible to change, but Apple doesn't give any access to it from the userland, so users are unable to do so. It's also possible to make such a verification completely unchangeable in hardware; not sure if Apple may do it this way.

An open system would look something like UEFI secure boot, where the owner of the system can manage the keys in that hardware key store, to the extent of removing the manufacturer's keys entirely (which I think is also an important ability - what if I don't want Apple to be trusted on my device?). From there you can patch the OS to allow other code to run, though preferably this is something that would also be opened up explicitly.

Yes, it will require intentionally designing those capabilities into the products, but most likely it's not a significant architectural change, just a matter of giving users access to change the keys in the hardware they own.

You said it didn't need to be easy to run arbitrary code. Why would security not fall under that purview? You can jailbreak your phone and run arbitrary software on it. If there are security problems that's kind of your problem that you introduced by running your arbitrary software.

How would Apple/Google be able to monitor malware here?

How do we know that the secure boot key for example isn't part of the security architecture and by giving it out you basically enable those root level permissions?

Are we really trusting users to not lose or compromise secure boot keys that they manage on their own? If grandpa gets scammed out of his life savings are taxpayers footing that bill?

I'm not necessarily looking for answers to those questions, but it really just seems like there's a lot of open items here that have to be addressed for not a lot of benefit and instead it seems like people just want an effectively jailbroken iPhone that's somehow secured by Apple/Google more easily.

I'm not sure what you mean? The only reason jailbreaking is possible is because it's a security flaw. A secure device can't be jailbroken, and we should all have secure devices. Regardless, this is far from a sure thing, opens you to 'voids your warranty' bs from the manufacturer or even bogus DMCA paper terrorism. I'm saying it should be a legally enshrined right with no ambiguity.

Security is about trust. If you trust Apple or Google, and don't care about their 30% tax, then you should be able to choose that. Make it the default, even. But if you don't trust them, and don't want them to control what runs, that should be your choice too. It's your device for fucks sake!

"Security" is a weak argument for unconditionally giving up all control over your own device. Especially when that control is very obviously being used against us by those very same that are claiming to protect us. The situation is reminiscent of countless dystopian novels. If we're going to accept that anyway, I think it needs to come with much stronger protections for the common good in other ways than vague and pretty bogus "security" arguments. If they want lock in, I think they should have to operate the platform on a cost basis, and with strong antitrust protection in exchange for that privilege.

Most Windows PCs allow users to enroll keys in their secure boot system. Do you hear about grandpa getting his life savings stolen by this mechanism often? I certainly haven't. Much more likely he lost it to social engineering, where no technological measure is going to help you.

IMO regulation should kick in based on market share, regardless of device type. If 50% of the population was being taxed 30% on digital transactions by the platform owner, it doesn't really matter if it happened on an iPhone/Android or Nintendo Switch.

Market share of devices sold? Does it change by the year? Market share of the company? What if companies just introduce small changes to the device that result in different SKUs?

Take a look at the Nintendo Switch market share in 2020 [1]. We should regulate Nintendo and make them open up APIs but not Microsoft?

[1] Assume this is accurate for the sake of argument https://www.statista.com/statistics/276768/global-unit-sales...

Percent of revenue of digital transactions should open up companies to regulation. Nintendo should be free to do whatever they want up until a certain percent of the digital pie is controlled by them. What that number is should be up to regulators/we the people.

Apple/Google's app store duopoly is a tax on competition and innovation. BTW these two app stores dwarf anything Nintendo is doing with theirs.

What percent?

Apple for example is known (I don't have the numbers in front of me) for making high margins on their hardware and not digital transactions though they're certainly trying to grow that sector.

If you mean of the overall pie, wouldn't that just place burdensome regulation on new and small businesses or new sectors since as soon as you own a percent of the "digital pie" (what exactly is that anyway?) you have to then comply with regulations that could just open up your proprietary business features to your competitors?

Why is it that Apple and Google's app store duopoly a tax on competition when they created the sector that enabled businesses to sell products? If anything they should charge more.

But aside from that, doesn't this also discourage Apple, Google, and others from profiting off of or creating software features? Why even build the API? And if another company forks Android or creates a new mobile operating system they can keep all of their stuff closed until a later point in which they're beating incumbents and then just open up?

Idk I feel like there's already too much additive logic here to make this worthwhile. Good regulation would be much cleaner and ideally subtractive instead of additive.

> BTW these two app stores dwarf anything Nintendo is doing with theirs.

I'm aware and I find this to be irrelevant.

> What percent?

I don't know, that's the regulator's job.

> If you mean of the overall pie, wouldn't that just place burdensome regulation on new and small businesses or new sectors since as soon as you own a percent of the "digital pie" (what exactly is that anyway?) you have to then comply with regulations that could just open up your proprietary business features to your competitors?

Businesses have to deal with new and changing regulations all the time. Once a business starts to worry about being too big and associated regulations, that's their legal team's job.

> Why is it that Apple and Google's app store duopoly a tax on competition when they created the sector that enabled businesses to sell products? If anything they should charge more.

Right, without regulation we're on a path for these megacoprs to start charging us more, especially if if our attempts to regulate them fail. They won't compete fairly out of the kindness of their hearts.

> But aside from that, doesn't this also discourage Apple, Google, and others from profiting off of or creating software features? Why even build the API? And if another company forks Android or creates a new mobile operating system they can keep all of their stuff closed until a later point in which they're beating incumbents and then just open up?

The beauty of competition is that if they don't continuously add new products or features, someone else will — Just like Apple/Google once did to the older tech incumbents.

> Idk I feel like there's already too much additive logic here to make this worthwhile. Good regulation would be much cleaner and ideally subtractive instead of additive.

While I proposed something, what I'm really looking for is outcomes that change tech into a more competitive landscape, and don't really care how it happens.

> I'm aware and I find this to be irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant in the context that antitrust regulations looks at the number of people impacted, which is very correlated to how much revenue is being generated.

> I don't know, that's the regulator's job.

Ok but you should at least have an idea because it's the central premise of your proposal. I'm not asking for you to split hairs between a percent or something but to provide something meaningful from a categorical standpoint.

> Businesses have to deal with new and changing regulations all the time. Once a business starts to worry about being too big and associated regulations, that's their legal team's job.

Sure that's fair though I'm still concerned about decreases in competition here due to this regulation as noted.

> Right, without regulation we're on a path for these megacoprs to start charging us more, especially if if our attempts to regulate them fail. They won't compete fairly out of the kindness of their hearts.

On the consumer side I don't see this as a big threat, it's more of a threat to developers. The vast majority of apps, games, etc. are junk and not worht acquiring for free or paid, and if those prices increase because companies are charging more then the likely scenario is they just die off which is good for the economy and the quality of the app stores.

On the developer side this also has the added benefit of weeding out uncompetitive apps and poor products, and the cost burden is beared by developers instead of the corporations and personally I don't really care that much if, say, Epic gets more or less revenue than Apple because of these dynamics. Neither are lowering their prices so it's not relevant to me.

> The beauty of competition is that if they don't continuously add new products or features, someone else will — Just like Apple/Google once did to the older tech incumbents.

Nothing stops those new products or features today though so I'm not sure what the argument here is. Are you suggesting if Apple and Google open up their APIs then other competitors will... open up their non-existent APIs? If anything these things just further cemement Apple and Google dominance.

> It's not irrelevant in the context that antitrust regulations looks at the number of people impacted, which is very correlated to how much revenue is being generated.

Are you suggesting regulation overall due to company size or regulation within a sector? If it's the former I think there's likely to be some faulty rationele here and if it's the latter it's irrelevant because Nintendo isn't competing in the same sector as Apple or Google.

>Ok but you should at least have an idea because it's the central premise of your proposal. I'm not asking for you to split hairs between a percent or something but to provide something meaningful from a categorical standpoint.

The central premise of my proposal is that once a company reaches antitrust-size, it should be regulated as such. Perhaps percent of all digital transactions is one way to do it without writing company-specific regulation that could be worked around in the future, perhaps not. I categorically do not want a handful of companies to control our digital landscape, and we need regulators to step in.

>On the consumer side I don't see this as a big threat, it's more of a threat to developers. The vast majority of apps, games, etc. are junk and not worht acquiring for free or paid, and if those prices increase because companies are charging more then the likely scenario is they just die off which is good for the economy and the quality of the app stores. On the developer side this also has the added benefit of weeding out uncompetitive apps and poor products, and the cost burden is beared by developers instead of the corporations and personally I don't really care that much if, say, Epic gets more or less revenue than Apple because of these dynamics. Neither are lowering their prices so it's not relevant to me.

Just because you don't feel personally impacted doesn't mean others aren't.

> Nothing stops those new products or features today though so I'm not sure what the argument here is. Are you suggesting if Apple and Google open up their APIs then other competitors will... open up their non-existent APIs? If anything these things just further cemement Apple and Google dominance.

If you zoom out a bit, you'll notice the entire web is effectively controlled by 2-3 companies via Chrome/Safari. It's not about being able to build on particular APIs per se. It's that if Apple/Google want web browsers to have (or NOT have) certain features, it's them who get to decide, and developers will fall in line. Google in particular has been working on features that make ad blocking worse, thus protecting their advertising empire, for example [1]. Edit: Just to clarify, what can/cannot be done on web browsers directly impacts the kind of apps developers build for app stores. However, the takeaway here is that what these big corporations want happens both in and out of app stores for their own benefit, because consumers lack choice.

>Are you suggesting regulation overall due to company size or regulation within a sector?

I meant that if we lived in a world where 1 in 2 people had to pay Nintendo ~30% when buying a digital good (Costs are passed to consumers), they too should be regulated. The rationale is protecting consumers from harm via higher prices, which result from a lack of competition.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/google/2023/12/chromes-next-weapon-i...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com