![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
garoteI have an amazing new product. It's a handgun with big metal truck nuts on it. Those midwestern guys are going to love it. But Walmart says they won't stock it on their shelves because it violates their safety guidelines. "This weapon is too front-heavy," they say. Bah, what do those pencil-pushers know about firearm design?
You know what I found out? Only Walmart gets to approve what Walmart puts on their store shelves! That's a god damn monopoly!! My attorney says so too, and so far he's taken $75,000 in fees researching my case -- but I'll surely win that all back and more.
A lot of people move through Walmart stores. If you can get your product on Walmart shelves, you could get massive sales. How can it be legal for those bastards to deny my access to their shelves? My product is GREAT! I mean think about it; the puns write themselves. "ARE YOU A GUN NUT? WELL HERE'S SOME NUTS FOR YOUR GUN!"
Okay, so, I know how to make this fair. What they should do is, just clear a bunch of space out in their parking lot, so I can set up my own store right where their customers park. Then they should knock an entire wall out of their store, so their customers can just wander randomly out into my store instead. So, they think they're in a Walmart - with that reputation for security and efficiency - but I get their money, and I don't have to pay a stocking fee, and when they shoot themselves in the foot with a TRUCK NUTS GUN because it's too front-heavy, they'll blame Walmart for their pain.
Sounds fair!
You know what I found out? Only Walmart gets to approve what Walmart puts on their store shelves! That's a god damn monopoly!! My attorney says so too, and so far he's taken $75,000 in fees researching my case -- but I'll surely win that all back and more.
A lot of people move through Walmart stores. If you can get your product on Walmart shelves, you could get massive sales. How can it be legal for those bastards to deny my access to their shelves? My product is GREAT! I mean think about it; the puns write themselves. "ARE YOU A GUN NUT? WELL HERE'S SOME NUTS FOR YOUR GUN!"
Okay, so, I know how to make this fair. What they should do is, just clear a bunch of space out in their parking lot, so I can set up my own store right where their customers park. Then they should knock an entire wall out of their store, so their customers can just wander randomly out into my store instead. So, they think they're in a Walmart - with that reputation for security and efficiency - but I get their money, and I don't have to pay a stocking fee, and when they shoot themselves in the foot with a TRUCK NUTS GUN because it's too front-heavy, they'll blame Walmart for their pain.
Sounds fair!
no subject
Date: 2019-08-18 03:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-18 05:42 pm (UTC)I honestly don't know (I don't upload apps at all), but is seems material to the argument.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-18 06:54 pm (UTC)There are numerous routes to discovery. You can pass out a web ilnk that goes directly to your app in the store. You can list the app with any of hundreds of review sites or portals. You can advertise and endorse your app in other apps. Et cetera. But the only way to actually get the software distributed and installed is through the "App Store".
(There are some exceptions to this for deploying apps to a limited set of people you know, or a business you work with, but they're not really material.)
The argument is that since the apps are sold for money, and Apple takes a cut of any transaction, Apple is therefore operating something akin to a supermarket. It's an easy analogy to understand, but it's a massive distortion.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-19 07:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-19 11:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-19 10:58 pm (UTC)If someone who develops an iphone app cannot get it installed without Apple's say-so, they are acting as a gatekeeper. Ergo, they have a monopoly on the gate they keep.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-20 12:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-20 07:11 pm (UTC)Monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
Apple is monopolizing access to the phones they sell. They have already confronted this reality with the early iPods that needed the iTunes app to every load. Europe dinged them hard on that.
I thought about this a bit more today. Let's change your OP example. Let's say Wal*Wart makes the Nutz Gun, not you. They sell it. And instead of a simple gun, it's a gun that can do amazing things that previous guns have been unable to do.
You, however, love the gun, and being an engineer, you develop a bullet that can (say) navigate corners. It should be a best seller, right?
Not so fast, since (under this analogy) Wal*Wart only sells pre-packed clips for the Nutz Gun. Owners may not buy and use bullets other than those in Wal*Wart pre-packaged clips. And they say which bullets get packed in those clips.
I put it this way because the current situation is not just a burden for developers, but also for user/owners who develop their own stuff. I have many friends with guns who shoot enough to take extra time to melt lead, fill molds, and repack their old cartridges; even if a gun is simply Amazing!, they would feel betrayed by the entity that forced them to buy (and not repack) bullets.
Which is what iPhone users are facing right now.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-20 07:43 pm (UTC)To put it succinctly: the iPhone is a product in a market. It is obviously not a commodity, and it is not a service either.
Apple is under NO legal obligation to modify their own product and their operating system in order to allow third parties to act as brokers for the installation of software with no oversight.
Are you trying to make the case that they are?
Or are you making a different case: That it would be “good for” software developers?
no subject
Date: 2019-08-20 08:21 pm (UTC)As was the iPod. Europe demonstrated that Apple could not have it both ways; it could not simultaneously sell the iPod to its customers as a "product" and limit what devices (all made by Apple) could be used to install songs on it. European lawmakers, not me, deemed that a monopolistic action.
I use the case of Europe here to remind everyone that there is no such thing as a natural market, which is the neolibtard cliche du jour. Markets are social constructs; what is legal now may be outlawed tomorrow.
Apple does have an argument with your mention of "no oversight"; after being forced to allow other OSes to fill iPods, for example, Windoze bugs got into the iPod. That said, the reason Apple is sticking to this restriction now probably has nothing to do with quality control, and more to do with something else entirely; data collection.
For that reason alone, I would vote against letting Apple get away with that.
Of course, I don't have a vote. So I don't use any apps (other than the flashlight).
no subject
Date: 2019-08-20 10:40 pm (UTC)As for iTunes, iPhone users haven't actually needed iTunes for anything iPhone related for years. I don't have statistics but I bet the majority of iPhone owners do not even use iTunes at all, for anything. So that's hardly relevant.
(By the way, Apple was not "forced" to allow Windows users to load songs onto their iPod. Windows users were clamoring for a method to do so, and Apple responded by releasing a version of iTunes that ran on Windows. You've placed the cart before the horse there.)
I'm not sure why you're attempting to blow smoke around the definition of a "market". The iPhone is a smartphone. Apple has a mere ten percent of the smartphone market as of this year.
There is no "monopoly" here. (And I can find nothing in EU legal history that successfully challenges this, which makes me wonder where you're getting your information from.)
I bring that up to point out that the only reason some people are bitching about having to pay a cut to Apple for putting their app in the app store is because iPhone owners spend A LOT more money on apps relative to owners of other smartphones, making them a very lucrative market segment. If you want a deeper understanding of the nuances in the current situation (and why supermarket analogies are all terrible), start by asking the question: Why do iPhone users consistently spend so much more money on apps?
Hint: It's not just because they "have no choice", though that is true, becauuse I'm sure that if they could, everyone would get apps without paying a dime, and developers would just have to go begging.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-21 01:08 am (UTC)Please understand, I have no problem with Apple getting a cut of the app distribution. I'm more concerned about phone owners not being able to do with their phones what they wish. That smacks of the whole John Deere "you don't own the software" bullshit. The latest thing? Friends just went car shopping. Guess what! No CD player! Just radio and streaming… which is under surveillance for data profiling nonsense.
As for the iPhone and its buyers: it's always been the boutique item, so it doesn't matter that:
Apple has a mere ten percent of the smartphone market as of this year.
It's not their share of the market for phones, but for phone profits that matters:
no subject
Date: 2019-08-21 11:07 am (UTC)Tell your friends to check that the stereo has a "line in" connector. They almost always do. Then, get an iPod and plug it in.
Also, software licenses are a thing now. They have a legal precedent going back many decades. Even if you own the device, if you sign an agreement for how you will use the software, you may be liable for violating that agreement.
Think of it as an extension of copyright and anti-piracy laws.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-22 12:36 am (UTC)Legally, not at all, because the laws have yet to catch up to reality. It rather demonstrates the owners of such phones are a desirable marketing target for third-parties. Hence, one good reason to lock down apps at the install portal level, and create similar apps that capture profitable data points about users exclusively for Apple's use.
Yes, my friends would not have bought a car (without a custom stereo installed) if they didn't have the line in option.
Also, software licenses are a thing now.
So is AIDS. So is herpes. Some things on this earth are a scourge that should be burned with fire.
My point is that licenses that restrict how a person can operate a machine (especially a piece of expensive farm equipment!) should fall under the aegis of common sense before they make grandiose claims of ownership.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-22 03:17 pm (UTC)They are a pretty natural extension of the copyright laws and other usage laws that are used to, for example, prevent a publishing house from plagiarizing an author's work and denying them all but a few dollars' worth of royalties. Or prevent people from reselling cloned software worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in development and maintenance and pocketing the entire amount.
There has been a long, really nasty battle between software pirates and software developers/publishers, since the earliest prototypes of general computing engines were first created. There has also been another battle, not quite as long but even nastier, between software security experts, and thieves, scam artists, and malefactors bent on sabotage. It is not enough to say "it should be common sense not to do certain things" and use that as the basis for prosecuting these bad actors.
I spent my time as a hacker, and was entirely on the side of "information wants to be free" for all of my youth. Over time though I observed the way that software systems have integrated deeply into crucial and private aspects of our lives, and my attitude has changed. The legal tools and systems for protecting security and privacy are far from perfect, but if we burned them with fire, we would quickly have to re-cover 90% of exactly the same ground ... probably after weathering an economic shitstorm that makes 2008 look like a mild spring rain by comparison.
And on a more specific note, if you think Apple is running an app store specifically to derive profit by tracking what you and your friends download ... well, you're not just barking up the wrong tree; you're barking up a fire hydrant in the wrong time zone. :D
no subject
Date: 2019-08-22 11:47 pm (UTC)If you can't fix it, you don't own it. And yet you pay, what, several hundreds of thousands for these monsters?
This specific case has nothing to do with copyright infringement in reality, and everything to do with creating a captive market for repairs long after purchase.
…if you think Apple is running an app store specifically to derive profit by tracking what you and your friends download….
Not what I said. The reality is far more insidious and intrusive than simply tracking downloads. And here, the Apple user might be in better shape in regards to privacy than the Android user.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-23 10:52 am (UTC)"If you can't fix it, you don't own it" has always been an arbitrary line, usually laid down at the scale of a product but sometimes not, and also arbitrary in the definition of a repair versus a modification.
For example, if the exhaust system of your car gets clogged, you cannot "repair" it by simply sawing it off. (Setting aside the fact that in most modern cars this would make them run worse.) You are making an illegal modification. Not one that would be contravened by "common sense" either. Most people on Earth don't give a shit about whether they pollute the air compared to whether they can get to work.
If you're trying to tie this into the repair of iPhones, you might want to dig into the various scams that fake repair shops and organized crime outfits have been practicing, all over the world but mostly in China. Apple loses an astonishing amount of money replacing devices that turn out to be fake, or assisting people who have made crappy repairs to their devices using kits or had the equivalent done by a shop. We're talking on the scale of BILLIONS of dollars here. It makes sense for Apple to combat this. And there isn't the same "bring it into a store" restriction as there would be in a combine harvester. You can mail a phone in. If you're under warranty they will ship you a stand-in phone while you wait.
If the warranty has expired, then you may feel you have nothing to lose taking your iPhone to some random repair shop. There is no law against this. Whether that repair shop is supplying you with parts that introduce security holes - accidentally or deliberately - or expose the device to further breakage, is your problem, though regulators are still attempting haphazardly to police them.
The analogy I would be using if I were you, would be with ink cartridges for printers. Not a market for repairs, but a market for supplies.
On the other hand I would then have to tell you that that analogy doesn't work with Apple's App Store, for reasons you can learn on your own if you look into the things I mentioned above.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-23 06:39 pm (UTC)I'm aware of all the data points you mention. Heck, that is why I don't use most of the "features" already installed on my phone. Since I can't be sure what security holes are built into them, I don't risk it. I'm not sure there is a solution to this problem anywhere in sight. In fact, if you're concerned about developers having jobs, creating a secure and private phone OS/service to run new apps would be a wonderful start.
The analogy I would be using if I were you, would be with ink cartridges for printers. Not a market for repairs, but a market for supplies.
That is a very apt analogy indeed! The supply here is the phone's user, of course. Restricting other app developers from access gives Apple the primary (if not exclusive) access to behavioral patterns that is currently turning every corporation pursuing such strategies into the largest companies on earth.
Because of this profit incentive, sadly, the chances of having a decently secure and private phone at all is slim to about none. More and more, people I'm meeting are giving up the smart phones as a result, choosing to go without cells, or opting, as The Wife™ did, with a newer flip phone.
(That flip phone, in fact, led to a humorous but alarming encounter I recount in my latest, Episode 133.)
no subject
Date: 2019-08-27 03:28 pm (UTC)I'm going to make a few broad points and then back away slowly.
1. Apple, Facebook, Google, et al are not the largest companies on Earth. Not by a long shot.
2. Apple is a hardware company, first and foremost. They make money selling hardware.
3. The usage metrics Apple does collect, it does make available to app developers, in a de-identified format. It does not collect any more usage data than that.
4. The usage analysis that Apple software does do that is outside that scope is confined to processes that run on the device itself and do not transmit that data beyond it. This is specifically for the purpose of protecting privacy. It is also in marked contrast to what Google does.
5. Your flip phone is more subject to government eavesdropping and passive monitoring than the encrypted messaging services you can get on a smartphone, including iMessage. You are not protecting people's privacy by convincing them to buy flip phones. You are reducing it.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-27 03:58 pm (UTC)SMS and MMS messaging protocols used by non-smart phones are trivially easy to intercept and accumulate by the government, the phone company, and by bad actors. Your location can be triangulated on cell tower signal data alone regardless of whether you use a smartphone or a non-smart phone. Your voicemail and your voice calls can both me trivially intercepted and automatically transcribed by the government in cooperation with the phone company, and again a bad actor within the phone company can eavesdrop on all of your calls if they have - or can fake - sufficient clearance.
And you are worried about usage patterns???
Barking up a fire hydrant in the wrong time zone.
Your best defense against this is end-to-end encryption. There are over a dozen multi-platform smartphones apps that do this. The one I use is called Signal. Using these, it is mathematically impossible for your communications to be read, even if the data is intercepted. Needless to say these are not an option on non-smart phones.
If you are worried about the OS APIs themselves being backdoored, then for God's sake, don't rootkit your phone, and don't install random shit from an app store that doesn't have a properly constructed vetting process -- or better yet, don't use the f**% Android operating system. The pieces of it that Google makes "open source" are non-essential and the company is notoriously ambivalent about whether you are a sovereign individual with rights, or an aggregate of exploitable behaviors waiting to be data-mined. (By the way, Apple has open-sourced the iOS kernel. Here, read about their most recent release. )
Years ago I wrote up a long list of all the things Google learns about you just by spidering through your emails, independent of the web and usage history they also bind it with. The list is appallingly long and would not surprise you in the least. What you're missing is that Apple and Google are not the same company, and are not even using the same business model. They also have radically different relationships with the federal government.
Okay, I think I'll stop here and go back to sorting vacation photos.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-28 05:58 pm (UTC)They also advertise just like Google and the rest. Therefore, they also parse user data, render behavioral databases into predictions about users, and, when anonymized, sell that information to advertisers. Just like Google. The ads go out (last I heard) through their news feed, like those on Facebook; just like FB's, these are tailored to the user, and therefore do not contain all the scripts that bog down programmatic ad auctions on Android and other devices.
This is not "conspiracy theory," except that, yes, there are those in the industry that realize how bad it sounds when spoken aloud, and that therefore it shouldn't be discussed openly. It is the growing profit center for digital providers.
Hence, that observation about "the biggest companies." That's biggest by comparing profits to expenses.
So, as to point 5, I'm not concerned about eavesdropping on conversations per se, but rather about behavioral tracking (mostly on web usage).
no subject
Date: 2019-08-28 06:19 pm (UTC)I'm glad to see you included the phrase "when anonymized", at least. That shows you're paying at least some attention. Now I get to ask you: Since the data is anonymized, what is your beef with this? To the point where you would rather have your intimate communications - and those of your friends - intercepted by all and sundry, instead?
Also, on biggest by profits versus expenses: Citation needed.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-29 03:12 am (UTC)I was wondering at what point in this discussion the tech industry's apparently rampant anti-government sentiment (blinding it to private abuse) would appear.
Point noted.
Since the data is anonymized, what is your beef with this?
It doesn't necessarily stay anonymized, as a researcher demonstrated.
Take three identifiers (often available in the public realm) and anyone is your bitch. Lose your database to a hack——as far too many already have——and everyone can be brought to heel.
Oh, and the private companies are providing this information to the government (for a fee, of course), so right there your worst nightmares join mine. Ta-daaa!
Also, on biggest by profits versus expenses: Citation needed.
I'll look. Been doing a lot of reading lately. It starts to blur together.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-23 06:44 pm (UTC)That said, if we don't allow owners to tinker with their stuff, we miss quite a few innovation opportunities.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-27 03:29 pm (UTC)Common sense is not an adequate standard for the applicability of a given modification to a given device.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-28 06:02 pm (UTC)That's common sense. If you'd like to protect consumer products from "tampering" by their owners, stop selling them. Simple!
Tying a "licensed" code base to a purchased item to prevent even simple repairs without involving the company? Disingenuous tomfoolery worthy of public corporal punishment.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-28 06:15 pm (UTC)Deliberately narrow your worldview if you want. "No obvious laws applicable" is a meaningless tautology. And, you do not own these things. You are purchasing a license to use them, and that license carries restrictions.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-29 02:57 am (UTC)Whether or not that will be the case tomorrow is simply a matter of appropriate legislation.
So, *shrugs* to you in return.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-19 11:00 pm (UTC)With the Apple-specific app, this is not the case. It either goes through the Apple store, or it cannot exist.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-19 11:30 pm (UTC)