2. I try to install my own software.
3. I'm prevented in installing my software on my device without "permission" from manufacturer.
4. Therefore, I do not own said hardware; manufacturer still does.
5. Therefore this is a indefinite rental instead of a sale.
6. I was defrauded with a fake sale, and Apple is defrauding IRS by not being properly taxed over millions of rental units (phones, tablets)
Want to renovate and change your home that you own? You need permitting and not all changes are allowed. But you own the home and land so why do you need permitting?
Say you want to modify your car that you own, again depending on the modification that's technically not allowed either (an aerodynamic wing in a place like Japan, for instance, can't be certain dimensions; but if you own the car you should be able to do what you want with it).
Maybe none of these types of things should be beholden to someone holding the reins of the thing you own but it's not like Apple not allowing sideloading is some wholly unique problem.
If there was a law requiring apps to be approved by someone first then your argument would be valid, but I do not think such a law exists (at least in my country).
While complying with a regulation vs a business requirement may feel like the same thing in practice, there is at least an avenue to change the regulation via, you know, democracy.
I believe both this situation and the iphone software situation are wrong, so it's not really a counter argument.
Apple wants to sell appliances. The parent commenter wants to buy a computer.
That's the fundamental disagreement.
Most of these analogies don’t make things much clearer.
The closest one is: the phone is supposedly my employee - I pay its salary (to Apple), but it is asking Apple to approve everything I ask it to do, and they are the only arbiter.
(This analogy also sucks. You have to actually deal with subject matter at hand and not look for shortcuts)
I think we can do better than "well you own it because you're technically allowed to attempt to break the lock." We can demand that users be given ability to remove the lock.
It’s a disingenuous argument.
So... Who's the jailer?
As an owner, I want THEIR rights.
No you can’t? Things like Project Sandcastle barely function on a single model. It can’t even access the network
I have a purely mechanical lawn mower. I can replace any part of the engine, frame, switches, I can add a second engine if I wanted to.
An Iphone doesn't let you do any of this. "Their OS", no dude, I bought it, it's in my hand.
Again, these companies who want to "sell" something, but still retain owner-level control at a distance should be classified as a rental.
And a rental means the company still owns this property, and therefore should pay taxes on all of their property.
And that would absolutely mean that game consoles SHOULD not be sold as such. Or better yet, if these companies do make changes against the property owner's decisions, should be prosecuted using the CFAA against the company.
Case in point: Nintendo Switch 2 is remotely destroying consoles that play a game that was ripped by someone else. If it were me, Nintendo of America's C levels would be charged with CFAA and have a nice perp-walk.
But that's the point in the USA. Companies are allowed to use Trojans and hack tools against hardware others own, but if we tried that, I'd be making this message in a jail cell.
What taxes exactly are you referring to?
E.g. if a game console manufacturer wants to retain owner-level control of their console, they can rent it to you for $X per month, which would include a Y% sales/VAT/GST/whatever tax.
And correspondingly if the device is sold to you, they should not be able to do things like disallow you from running custom software, remotely brick the device with a soft fuse, etc. and otherwise stop you from using it freely.
I think there is a middle ground (e.g. you can buy the console and either have it in "secure" mode as it ships from the factory, or choose to "root" the device and gain the ability to run custom code - perhaps this would invalidate the manufacturer's attestation keys from the secure enclave or burn a soft fuse as part of the process, so it no longer passes checks for DRM and so on). However that may not be economically viable as I understand the consoles are often loss leaders on the hardware and the profit is made on game sales and licensing.
My question was referring specifically to the “not paying taxes”. TTBOMK, in all western jurisdiction, sales/vat/etc/income taxes on sales are equal to or higher than those owed on rental income - and op kept repeating (in multiple responses) that misclassifying a rental as a sale is a tax fraud for the seller/original-owner. That makes no sense to me.
But regardless, if a company can remotely remove my ability to use a product solely at their discretion, we need a better way to talk about than "buying and selling"
Yes. I'm not the original commenter, but this is what I expect.
From my POV, the OS exists to virtualise the hardware it runs on. I don't want the OS manufacturer to decide if I'm allowed to have a web browser or play games.
Naive in hindsight, but until game consoles and smartphones came along, it didn't occur to me that an OS would forbid me from installing something.
For example, a coffee maker does have software in there. But it does a job and does it well. There's no cloud garbage, no remote attestation, or much of anything.
To that end, I look at "who can control the device?" If the answer, as someone who paid money for it, and the answer is "the company", then I'm logically not the owner.
Alongside a fraudulent sale, there is also tax fraud by misclassifying these rentals as sales.
I've also seen nobody discussing the tax fraud angle either. We the public are getting cheated as well, from both directions. Its high time we start suing and pressing charges, and making us whole.
Man, have you seen coffee makers lately?
just search for "smart <appliance-name>" and you get all cloud garbage and more. Dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, televisions, microwaves, ... what a cesspit
You actually can’t.
It’s not indefinite, because the vendor won’t support the hardware indefinitely. It’s also not a rental, because you are free to resell the hardware.
So Apple has never allowed sideloading. Google however?
Well if an update breaks that, it would be the same thing sort of.
The energy in this comment is 'Mr Gotcha', and is as "inspiring".