Hacker News Reader

Comment by isodev | Hacker News Reader

Just following this thought then the remedy will be forcing Apple to allow alternative OS and firmware on their devices, allowing consumers to choose what they do with the device hardware they purchased?

View on HN

I’m not a subscriber to the “if I choose to buy a product, I get to dictate product design decisions for the company” school of thought. Buy it or don’t. If you want X there is no right do demand Y turn into X.

"buy it or don't" does not work with oligopolies. If you had a free market, I would agree, but you very much don't in this case.

> "buy it or don't" does not work with oligopolies. If you had a free market, I would agree, but you very much don't in this case.

Why do you believe there is no free market on mobile phones? I mean, what exactly forces you to pick an iPhone over anything?

That's not quite what the parent meant. There is a choice between very few phone manufacturers, and even less mobile operating systems.

Don't want to sign up to one multinational behemoth? Well, your choice is to sign up to one other multinational behemoth.

> There is a choice between very few phone manufacturers, and even less mobile operating systems.

I don't think that the manufacturer assertion is true at all. You can go to any random online store and get dozens of brands and manufacturers. It just so happens that popular demand focuses only on a hand full of manufacturers who are outcompeting everyone in the free market.

Take a look even to Android's market share. You have four manufacturers with double digit market shares, and a couple of dozen entriee. Is that what you call a monopoly?

https://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-manufacturers

The OS comment is even more badfling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_operating...

Parent used the word oligopoly. Your comment and links seem to agree?

Why should they have to allow it? My smart TVs and video game consoles never allowed it, except that short lived Linux PlayStation. Nintendo is pretty hostile about reverse engineering the switch.

But those are gaming and entertainment devices, not general-purpose computing devices that everyone relies on for day-to-day work and life.

A good way to think about it is this: if Windows was as closed down as iOS, and took a 30% cut on every application purchase, would regulators have intervened?

What physical attributes make them not general purpose computers?

What physical attributes make a smart fridge not a general purpose computer? Or a car’s infotainment system? Or a Bluray disc player?

Those should allow it too. Them setting a bad precedent doesn't mean we should continue to abide by it, just that there's more work to be done undoing it.

I think that would be the right decision, to me that makes more sense than forcing Apple to allow any app to be installed on iOS or allowing alternate stores.

Ownership and security are at odds. The only remedy would be forcing Apple to allow the owner of the device to run whatever they would like on it, unfortunately this does include malware.

This is a false dilemma thought.

The secure solution is to treat every app as malicious and put it in a sandbox where it can not cause harm. See also Android and ChromeOS.

In the broadest sense, an app that "can not cause harm" can't do anything useful. To the industry's dominant players, "causing harm" means empowering the user to venture outside their walled gardens... or even to see outside them.

So, no, sandboxing everything in sight isn't a useful solution. Your sandbox will just imprison us all.

No, it would be buying an android phone

Buying a phone from another vendor is only viable if Apple/Google didn't try to lock you in. Of course we know that's not true - you can't just go elsewhere and that's by design.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com