Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway48476 | Hacker News Reader

Apple should allowed to block apps from third party app stores on devices they paid for.

I think you mean: Apple the company should be able to block stuff on devices Apple the company paid for (for their internal employees). Not all of the ones Apple manufactured.

To be succinct, ownership implies control. This is a very old legal principle.

confusing way of stating your view imo, as the other thread shows

Apple does not pay for devices. They sell them. The users pay.

Yes. The users pay for them, the users own them, the users are entitled to run whatever software they wish on devices they paid for, own, and control.

You stated the opposite above, which is what GP argued against.

I assume there's just a "not be" missing somewhere

I believe I was consistent. Perhaps you believe that because apple had once paid for the devices that they should still be able to exercise control of them post sale to a user. This is a violation of ownership and of the first sale doctrine.

I believe the same, but that is besides the point. I think the misunderstanding stems from your original post, which I think you should reread.

You state that "Apple should allowed [sic] to block apps from third party app stores on devices they paid for". No mention of users or owners rights post purchase. Did you mean "should not be"?

But long thread about nothing, I was just trying to clear up the misunderstanding.

It was a joke that Apple can control software on devices that they (Apple) paid for. Since it’s they user that pays money - they should be in charge of the software.

Not if the device is a ‘managed’ Apple’s employee’s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com