Yep, all consumers have perfect knowledge, whenever they purchase something they know exactly what they are getting into. The nearly $500 billion dollars projected to be spent on advertisements by the end of this year has nothing to do with it, nor did any other forms of manipulation.
As someone who generally loves the idea of tinkering with my phone, I simply can't buy the logic that not being able to, actually hinders the ownership experience.
I don't have any interest in "hacking" into my car, dishwasher, or fridge. I want them to _just work_, and I want to know who to call when they break.
So then, it is entirely reasonable that most people simply want their electronics to work, rather than to somehow feel that just because they can't tinker and mod their device, their ownership is somehow hindered.
Although I do feel that media DRM (movies, music, DVD region codes) can often hinder the ownership experience, I simply don't see how these devices being locked down actually hurt MOST consumers who aren't even interested in such details.
There's a trend in this whole thread that I don't understand. After pointing out that the users are licensing the ability to use the proprietary operating system rather than "owning" it, the main rebuttal is: nobody cares, so it doesn't matter.
I don't understand that. For example, few people care about taxes, war, or clean energy policies (less than 50% vote in much of North America). Does that mean the work done in these areas doesn't matter? The fact that most people don't care has little to do with the truth of the matter.
Only Apple owns iPhones. It doesn't matter that nobody cares about this, they still don't own their phone.
I understand the need to confuse "ownership" with hackability, for the purposes of philosophizing on this site. We are all tinkerers.
But by every definition of ownership recognized by society and our laws (at least in the United States), you completely own your phone. You are lawfully allowed to do the following:
- crush it, destroy it, put it in the dishwasher, or drive over it
- open it up all you want
- sell it to someone else
- Install alternate software on it
You are under no obligation to anyone once you have purchased that phone. It is, by ANY definition, legally your property.
The WORST thing Apple can do to you, is void your warranty. And that is completely acceptable.
Whether you think it should be less or more difficult is a philosophical discussion. The fact is, you have all the same protections under any laws that most people who "own" things have.
Reply to VladRussian Below (I couldn't find a reply link): Won't get me to disagree with you on anything related to the DMCA. I think it is a pigheaded piece of evil legislation. :) But most of the things I'm talking about aren't related to the DMCA (at least I hope not).
And this is the main point of all these discussions. It isn't about technical obstacles put in place by Apple and difficulty to break them as it only adds more interest to process, It is about criminalizing the very act of analysis of the system, ie. an act of mental activity, applied to the system you're supposedly own.
>I understand the need to confuse "ownership" with hackability, for the purposes of philosophizing on this site. We are all tinkerers.
Nobody tries to confuse ownership and hackability. They are orthogonal. What people still trying to bend their minds around is the ownership and off-limit (for your mind) holes in that ownership established by DMCA.
Ah. I see. I only came in here to correct the statements about ownership. It matters to me that HN is not the kind of place where people think they own their iPhones - after all the news about software patents, free software, mobile platforms, etc, I think it's an important distinction to make on this site. The people here care (obviously, hence this debate) about this issue and I just wanted the definitions to be set right: jailbreaking != ownership.
As to why it's good or bad, that's entirely personal preference. For me, I want to own it because I want the option to change it. That's all. Therefore, for me, it's terrible to buy a device I don't own. That should answer your question about why it's bad.
Maybe it's not bad for you. Maybe it's good for you to not own the device. That's fine; I'm only here to remind you that you don't own it (after it was erroneously suggested up top that you do own it)
My point is only that, do you feel like you own the other appliances in your home any less, if they had parts that were tougher for you to fix without voiding a warranty?
Or are we only having this discussion because we all here collectively care more about the hackability of electronics?
Ok, you choose what software you run, then along comes the other guy and claims that you don't own your phone unless you control what hardware is running your software.
Some just cannot tell owning and controlling apart.
Do you remember when Amazon deleted books off of peoples' kindles? Remote control of your phone is one obvious way in which Apple owns it and you do not. And the average person might not think they would care but when their copy of 1984 disappears they get angry!
I think it’s necessary to be ever vigilant when companies create an infrastructure for doing just that and to really scream bloody murder when they actually use it. I also can understand people who refuse to buy devices that actually support moves like that (Apple has the capability for remotely removing apps.) It’s a valid reason.
I, however, like to be more pragmatic.
1. As far as I know Apple never used that capability. They removed apps from the store, they never remotely removed apps from devices. (I think Apple claims that they only want to use this capability for removing maleware. Now, you might not believe them but their track record is pretty clean in that regard.)
2. Shitstorms will make anyone with such a capability think long and hard about actually using it. (I think Amazon at least apologized for what happened, I don’t know what else they did for the customers who lost their copies.) Apple can’t just treat their customers like crap.
It’s right to be vigilant about theoretical capability but I don’t think I’m completely irresponsible when I recognize factors that will prevent Apple from using their theoretical capability to its full extent.
>I want them to _just work_, and I want to know who to call when they break.
And in what way, shape or form does this require the device to be locked down to hell and back? That argument is a fallacy - correlation does not imply causation. The two things are completely unrelated to each other, yet people continue to assert that from one follows the other (locked -> just works), and that the opposite is also True (free -> doesn't just work).
It's bullshit, and I'm sick and tired of hearing it. There's absolutely no reason for locking down a device besides wanting to restrict the user's freedom. This isn't about "just working", it isn't about better support, it's about unjustified control over the user's actions.
> This isn't about "just working", it isn't about better support...
Tell that to the iOS developer who is getting bad reviews because the app does not run correctly on jailbroken devices where some system modification has been installed.
What about the other direction? My jailbroken 3GS had a nifty app that would look up incoming calls in online phone books to tell me who it was even if it wasn't in my address book. It Just Worked pretty well. Now that I have a 4S, I have lost this functionality and can't add it back (at least until a proper publicly available jailbreak is ready).
Jailbreaking and the third-party add-ons that it enables can increase the Just Works factor of a device.
>In this sense, "Just works" relates to restrictions on users.
No. Still attacking a symptom. Standard compliance solves the same problem, without having to lock down the system. If programmers are unable or unwilling to conform to standards, then this is again not the fault of the system[1]. Give up on arguing that there is any sort of causation between "locked" and "just works". It's wrong.
[1] Actually, in this case it's the fault of the system. The lock places a false sense of security on programmers, which is pretty dangerous.
But standards compliance is a sort of restriction on the apps the user can run. If you make the standards stricter and stricter, you restrict the space of configurations more -- and make it easier to get configurations that work together.
The difference is that nobody forces you to comply to standards. If you want to hack around on your device, install third party software, concoct your own APIs and drivers or patch the kernel, nobody can stop you (and shouldn't be allowed to, either). While you can argue that a restrictive system is a sort of standard as well, you are forced to comply to that standard with no alternative, and that's bad.
Besides, standards, at least open ones, are usually collaborative efforts of multiple actively involved parties, while restricted systems are controlled by a single entity - which again is bad.
To me, it doesn't really matter whether or not most people care about that in their phone. The definition stands. Nobody but Apple owns iPhones. Maybe no iPhone users care about that, and that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that they own a license to use it and not the product itself.
Would you say the same about your TV, your wristwatch, or your car? If not, why not? They all run software that you don't have the source to, and in some cases can't modify at all (burned into ROMs.)
> The nearly $500 billion dollars projected to be spent on advertisements by the end of this year has nothing to do with it, nor did any other forms of manipulation.
Fundamentally, people will not purchase something unless they think (however fleetingly) that it will be of benefit to them. Your right; they might not know exactly what they are getting into. But companies can't lie about it. And in this day and age, the information is usually obtainable without too much work.
