Their legislation would bar the companies from certain conduct that would tend to force developers to use their app stores or payment systems. It also would obligate the companies to protect app developers’ rights to tell consumers about lower prices and offer competitive pricing. It would effectively allow apps to be loaded onto Apple users’ devices outside of the company’s official app store.
There’s so much movement on this front, I highly doubt Apple and Google will be able to stop it. This is one of the very, very rare cases where both sides of the political spectrum seem to somewhat agree, and I hope they can make it stick.
It’s definitely not enough, but it’s a step in the right direction. I’m an extremist – all source code should be freely available (not necessarily open source – just viewable), to give consumers and society as a whole the ability to ensure they’re not being spied on, lied to, or endangered by foreign entities or corporate trickery. If copyright is good enough for writers, artists, and musicians, it’s damn well good enough for programmers.
With how vital computers and software have become – woven into the fabric of our society – we as people should be able to see and check what those threads are doing and where they’re going to and coming from. Corporations have shown time and time again that they are not trustworthy entities and that they do not have society’s best interests at heart, and we need tools to bring the balance of power back – black boxes of code are dangerous.
What I sincerely hope is that Apple shuts down the developer program entirely and goes into only allowing apps on iOS devices that enter into a license to be on the phone entirely like a gaming console. That is actually how it basically is now, but people confuse Apple’s historical kindness in letting developers like myself use their API for ‘free’ (well now for a price of the % of the sales) . Apple should have never created the App Store in such a way that it allowed developers to put apps on so easily. It created a climate in developers think they should be free to use Apple developed frameworks just because Apple traditional did that. Apple should charge a large licensing fee to use their API and shut the whole thing off. Consumers would never really notice because they only want to download TikTok scroll for 10 hours, which would clearly get a license to be on Apple devices. It would also up the quality in these apps significantly.
Developers (including myself) are not entitled to use Apple’s API and access to their customers. Even if I want it to be that way. Apple should just shut it all down and go to a more strict model of negotiating having our Apps and games on their devices. Companies can pitch their apps to Apple in a more private manner and pay to use their frameworks and be included in their store.
austintatious,
I’m sure you’ll disagree, but personally I’m glad that more people and politicians are beginning to see just how harmful these restrictions are for competition. It is not in consumer interests to have monopolies & duopolies controlling access to markets. IMHO they should be competing on merit rather than their ability to control our access.
The first companies were companies granted by royal charter. A charter conferred certain advantages. As time moved on companies became a thing accessible to anyone including the limited liability company and regulation and contracts and so on. Essentially it is you may do this and acquire that and enrich yourself on an understanding there is mutual benefit. This understanding both of the history and reasons for the existance of companies does seem lacking in some who fancy themselves as kings and queens over men and women. Indeed, it is at this point of market failure that government should step in because this is its role.
I invite any foaming at the mouth purple faced wannabe to write to their representative along with the rest of us or consult their lawyer if they disagree. As they say, “join the queue”.
I have read a lot of uninsightful comments in my life, but you make it into the top list.
What apps do you have in the App Store?
@austintatious, can’t tell if trolling or just a Republican? 😀
I agree, they should go Ninty-Style
This is a fair point I give a lot of latitude too. For society code has to be auditable and secure at some level as well as being compliant with law especially with regard to automated decision making.
At least as far as games development goes there is very very little in any game engine which is so so secret that copyright isn’t enough. In fact it’s very difficult to stop game developers talking about how they go about things. I cannot comment for other industries but even if everything is “open book” you cannot replicate expertise or creative decisions. There’s loads of competive game engines about and many developers have access to the source code for so-called premium game engines and it still won’t mean you’re going to produce a game anyone wants to buy or a competitive product which will steal market share. The value of secrecy is during development but once you publish that’s it.
Part of the deal in obtaining a patent is you have to publish what it is supposed to do and how it does it. Some patrents are over broad or speculative which is an abuse of the patent system as is not having a working model because you lack the means to actually make it work or in soe cases the intermediate technology hasn’t been invented yet. This is another abuse of the patent system. A lot of small business and individuals who would benefit from patents to protect themselves against big companies simply cannot even afford this step.
Large companies have many advantages as do super rich people. This is why progressive taxation is a good idea.
And how many of you did check the code of the linux kernel or any open source program you are using?
It amuses me every time when someone writes that consumers can check the code^^
It’s openly auditable. Not everyone will check the code but then not everyone will check the quality of other things other people check. Not everyone can write up their findings well while others do. Not everyone knows who to speak with but others do. It’s called civilisation and community,
Do you think people like Bill Gates or Tim Cook personally visit every single factory and grill every single worker and personally put every component through quality assurance? No. They have staff to do this. Same thing.
Do you know what? Smartass edgelords aren’t as smart as they think.
The point was CONSUMER.
Its also a big difference between one and everyone, again just name me one CONSUMER which has ever checked an open source software, or how many who post here who did it, as I was asking.
Often people say, with open source I can check the code, when in reality <0.001% of the users could really understand and therefore check the code.
th22,
I have.
And moreover I often regret having to buy proprietary things as a consumer on account of limitations that would be fixable if it was open source. And not for nothing, but FOSS doesn’t mean you have to be a programmer to benefit from it in the same sense that you don’t have to be a doctor to benefit from medicine.
@th22
We’re all “consumers” if not of one thing than something else. This seems to be the point you are missing. When was the last time YOU checked anything? I don’t just mean code I mean goods and services in their fullest sense. The answer is you haven’t or cannot because you are not an expert in everything with infinite time and resources. Did Leonardo Da Vinci go down to the local market and hand select his vegetables at 6am? No that was the chef. Did the chef do a forensic analysis of the Mona Lisa just to make sure Leonardo wasn’t ripped off by the paint maker? 99% of people never check anything because they don’t need to, don’t want to, and would never get anything done if they did. That’s why we have associations and experts and newspapers. It’s called society. It’s civilisation. It’s how it works.
Personally I think this “consumer” thing needs to end. Customer implies things like self autonomy and informed consent and articulating your own “business plan” and consulting with other opinions and so on. A consumer is merely an abstract entity in a spreadsheet and a marketers construction. A “consumer” simply exists to compare sales brochures and hand over money. Take it or leave it. No right to repair because you’re dumb! You have no control. You have no say. Shut up and sit down!
if you’re that agitated about it there’s plenty of code for you to check yourself. I can and have checked code in the past. Sometimes I have written my own.
I also scrutinise other things. Sometimes I go chasing after the academic papers or surveys or opinions. In some cases I have gone to experts and handed over my own cash to get their opinion. I’ve also sometimes, gosh wow, allowed people to do their job because they know more about how the world ticks in that area than I do!
Sorry but I don’t buy your framing. It’s a Randian ideal which doesn’t exist in the real world.
I have.
Many times.
Having access to view source code is not enough – it’s not enough for voting machines, and it’s not enough in this case, because there is no way at all to know whether the code you are viewing is the code running on the machine. That’s even the case if you compile your own code.
A web of trust is what we need. If we don’t have that, we don’t have anything. And that’s much harder to set up, as it requires politics and often, very difficult politics. But it’s the only way. You either trust people, or you don’t. That’s the bottom line.
CaptainN–,
Source code for voting machines would be a good start though. To be honest I don’t know why proprietary voting machines are even allowed to be used.
It depends, obviously a manufacturer can hide it’s code behind lock and key so that it cannot be cross checked, but in principal code and firmware can be checked by auditors and even end users if there aren’t artificial barriers in the way.
Obviously one device may be running a different firmware than the next, and we don’t have the means to check billions of devices, but statistically it may not be necessary.. As long as auditors take random samples such that a manufacturer cannot identify which devices are going to get audited, then they would very likely catch modifications if a significant portion of devices contained them.
Certainly a manufacturer can deprive us of the ability to audit the OS & firmware, but that would clearly be a red flag (at least in a hypothetical world where Thom’s vision of full source code disclosure is the expectation). The much bigger problem, which I don’t see a solution for, is auditing the hardware itself. The time, expense, and equipment needed to audit a hardware implementation make it highly impractical to do so. In terms of consumer devices, you basically have to trust that your hardware doesn’t contain any anti-features.
In terms of voting machines, I would address this with vendor redundancy such that every vote would go through competing implementations. Any discrepancy would be proof that one of the implementations is either buggy, or has been altered. Either way it would need to be investigated. This could mitigate vote interference in silicone. In conjunction with conventional auditing, could give us more confidence than using a single hardware vendor would. But then you’ve got human poll workers who could meddle themselves if you don’t trust them (we need human redundancy too). It’s certainly an interesting problem to think about.
@alfman
I’ve wondered about this. To some degree open specifications mean everyone can make their own. This may involve patent and technology deals to level the playing field.
I’m sure there’s more thoughts in this area but I think as a society this is a corner we have to turn at some people. Polarisation and mistrust and all this aggression which has been flowing about politically lately globally isn’t very productive.