I’m also saying that our culture absolute swims in regulation and we as fish just get used to it and are quick to reach for it as a hammer, seeing everything as nails. We are so steeped in it, that in many ways _China_ has a freer economy than the US does. I’d urge much caution here.
I don't quite understand your first sentence, but by your second one it sounds like your answer is basically "yes". That seems like a rather extreme position to take. Are you also opposed to the First Sale Doctrine?
I’m saying if someone tells you that the software sold with his device is locked to to only work with company X, then you are free to buy it or not. You should also be free to put other software on it yourself, like a new OS. You should not take the extreme position of leveraging law to force the seller to write his software the way you like.
So then you do not support the first sale doctrine?
If someone buys something, even like a physical good, you do not believe that the person who bought it, actually owns its, and the seller can put whatever restrictions that they want on the thing that was purchased?
For example, if someone sells a book, you think it would be OK for the book writer to prevent someone from reselling it, or reading the book in a way that the writer does not like.
And even more so, it seems like you do not believe in any form of anti trust laws at all. And you think that all anti trust laws are just illegitimate?
This is an odd position to take, because most people support the first sale doctrine, and also support some form of anti-trust law.
Of course you own it and should be able to put whatever OS you want on it. But you are confusing that with forcing apple to write their software in a way that suits you.
Antitrust laws _can_ be good, but like I said elsewhere, we are a country swimming neck deep in regulation and seem to like our particular hammer. It has a cooling effect on innovation, and China in some ways has a freer economy than we do.
I think it odd that many people rush to strongarm companies through law when there is a perfectly good alternative in Android. Even Microsoft and Amazon have been in the phone business and could get back in, offering you a phone with multiple app stores. Epic could even do it. There doesn’t seem to be enough people who care. You apparently do, and actually I agree with you that Apple should allow alternative app stores. But voluntarily because the people demand it or are leaving for Android, not because the hammer came down on them.
There is very little cost in simply preventing Apple from taking so many intentionally anti-competitive actions.
It is not about forcing Apple to write software. Instead it is about preventing them from spending so much effort and trying to remove other people's ability to install other app stores.
Allowing other app stores, really would not be a huge burden on Apple, and it would give people a lot of choice.
> should be able to put whatever OS you want on it
That is not really very possible when Apple spends so much effort engaging in illegal anti-competitive practices, to prevent other app stores from being installed.
Finally, even if it were possible/easy to provide jailbreaking software, I think that Apple would almost certainly make serious efforts to prevent people from doing that.
But sure, I agree that game companies, and major tech companies should absolutely take action to provide people with very easy ways of jailbreaking people's phone.
Perhaps if Fortnite was available through Epic provided jailbreaking software, then that would be enough to kickstart things, and cause a bunch of other companies to move off of Apple's app store, and move to the jailbreak only version.
EX: imagine if fortnite provide incentives, like "free vbucks" to a large number of people, in order to get a large amount of people to jailbreak their phone, and then imagine if other companies, like Facebook, worked together on that, until almost everyone had a jailbroken phone.
That could certainly work. But I doubt Apple would just let that happen.
> Instead it is about preventing them from spending so much effort and trying to remove other people's ability to install other app stores.
I think we are coming at this from 2 separate sets of foundational assumptions. I’m of the camp that companies are free to make devices and we are free to buy or not buy them. If we don’t like how they operate, we buy a competitor who does what we want. Hopefully enough people agree with us that a competitor will cater to us, or we can start our own. I know that some people start from a different set of assumptions that assumes we can just force the seller to sell us what we want. I don’t know that we can bridge that divide easily, but I wish you well. Thanks for the back and forth.
> If we don’t like how they operate, we buy a competitor who does what we want.
I agree that there are some other "free market solutions" that could work.
The example that I gave, which would absolutely be a free market solution, would be if Fortnite, and other major companies, like facebook, banded together to build easy to use jailbreaking software, and to use their companies to try and convince a large critical mass of people to jailbreak their phone.
That could work. But I am worried about the government intervention, that Apple would try to engage in, to stop this free market solution, via lawsuits that they would inevitably use against this free market answer.
But lots of companies, acting together, to help everyone jailbreak their phone, so that, hopely half, or a large amount of users, now are in a position where they can easily install other app stores, would be a reasonably free market way of solving all of this.
When there is enough critical mass of users doing this, those major companies could then remove/ban their app from the Apple app store, so that basically everyone else has to follow along as well, and then basically everyone is outside of Apple's control.
If they would band together, why not just make a new phone? Going after jail breaking apple devices would be fruitless since apple could release a new firmware to block your OS. I wish they wouldn’t, but the market solution would be for people to stop buying apple devices.
> If they would band together, why not just make a new phone?
Because it is much easier to write jailbreaking software, than it is to build an entirely new phone.
> since apple could release a new firmware to block your OS
People have been jailbreaking phones for years. That is always the game of cat and mouse. And people have continue to get around it, even though they don't have large amount of resources, like big companies would.
But, furthermore, if there is a large enough userbase, that is jailbreaking their phone, then it would cause Apple a large amount of economic damage, if they decide to screw over this critical mass of users.
If 30% of Apple's users, would get their phone bricked after an Apple update, then Apple would probably be cautious about doing that.
But I guess it is hypothetically possible that Apple would be willing to brick 30% of their customers phones (if that was the critical mass). That would certainly hurt their customer friendly image though, and it would cause Apple billions of dollars in damages.
> but the market solution would be for people
Putting lots of resources into jailbreaking phones, and convincing a lot of users to do it, such that it would cause Apple a lot of damage, if they stopped it, is also a free market solution.
That is a free market solution that is much easier to do, than building a new phone.
The contract that would be enforced by aggressive government regulation?
Yeah no. I thought you did not like government regulation, and supported people's ability to do what they want with things that they own? And in this case, such a contract, is enforced by government regulation, and we should work to invalidate it, if it prevents people from doing what they want with the phone that they bought.
Thats the point. I support the free market solution here, and apparently you want to use the government, to take away people's ability to do what they want, with their own phone, if you think that such a contract should prevent this.
I want to get rid of Apple's ability to use the government, to stop people from doing what they want with their own phone. The government regulations that prevent people from doing this is the problem.
If I walk in to Best Buy and get an iPhone, I'm not signing any contract with Apple. All I'm agreeing to is "I give Best Buy money, and Best Buy gives me this physical product." The reason we're upset with Apple is that they're imposing terms on us as if we signed a contract with them, but we didn't.
Right. Then you boot it up and have to agree to a bunch of stuff to use iOS. You can bail at that point and not use the device. Or you can know that you’ll have to agree to it later, and that the device is quite difficult to put another OS on, and just not purchase it. Get a librephone or Android or …
You may say that you bought the phone and so you can do with it what you want —- ok. Hack/root it to run another OS. It’s your device in that sense. But they are under no obligation (nor should be forced to be) to make it easy.
I agree with you that I wish they would make it easy, but alas. Buy a librephone.
Ok, but then don't go around pretending like you are someone who opposes government intervention.
Instead, it is other people, who want to get the government out of our phones, and not have the coercive, government force, under threat of violence, preventing us from doing things with phones that we purchased.
If you want to say that you support the government, using force and coercion, and government intervention, into people's lives, fine. But that is your position. And it is extremely anti-free market.
But, if your position, is that you support this government coercion, then I am not sure why you would get upset about other forms for laws, and government coercion, given that you want the government to forcibly prevent other people from doing things with phones.
Because you absolutely support government coercion, that would be government force on people, who are doing things with phones that they own.
> preventing us from doing things with phones that we purchased.
Nobody is preventing you. Who is preventing you? There’s no government action here. You buy the phone or you buy a librephone. Let’s leave the government out altogether.
You’re the one pushing for some kind of regulation against free agents interacting. No need to contact the federals on this.
You were advocating in favor of using the government to "enforce a contract" or whatever, on people doing what they want with the phone that they own.
> You buy the phone or you buy a librephone.
And if someone buys an iPhone they should have the full right to do whatever they want with it, and the government should absolutely not be preventing people from doing so.
> Let’s leave the government out altogether.
Yes, lets ensure that the government never prevents anyone from doing what they want with the phone that they purchased.
So if you take back your previous statements, and instead agree with me that the government should not prevent people from doing what they want with their phone, then cool.
But otherwise, if you disagree, then you would be the one advocating in favor of using government coercion here against people.
Without app developers iOS device sales would be a lot lower. it's a symbiotic relationship.
The problem is Apple has greater negotiating power, because they don't need any one developer and it is difficult for all the app developers to organize to negotiate together. But imagine if they did organize, and threatened to remove their apps from the app store unless Apple gave them more favorable terms.
