Tim Cook Delivers Speech Emphasizing Apple's Opposition to Sideloading

[Abazigal]

Well what is being discussed is not really about Apple helping users rights in privately installing Apps on their devices … but actually not putting obstacles on it as it has been doing to great lengths. To the point where some institutions are ready to turn those obstacles illegal. Apple or anyone who attempts the same conduct.


Also it’s not a question of users being able to buy other devices.

You should take a look at Apple simply closing down the App Store in Russia. By doing that it removed the ability of iPhone and iPad owners installing apps just to name one, … hurting users properties. It also hurt digital businesses. You can imagine such power if this practice is spread to smart cars, computers in hospitals and so on and so forth.

When business are relatively small or local, … its manageable … but when global and gigantic it becomes a security threat to businesses and users.

So it’s quite natural that countries outside the US will not grant Apple such power.

I do agree with you, in a sense.

Due to the power that companies like Apple, Google and Facebook wield, I wonder if it's about time that the US government steps in and backs them in their legal battles with the EU.

Think about it. At the end of the day, these companies are US companies, and they are also responsible for a large part of the infrastructure that powers the entire world. It is actually in the interest of the US government to ensure that these companies not be broken up, and remain as influential as possible, so that when the US orders them to withhold their services from other countries as part of sanctions, they will be all the more effective.

Think about it - what's the point of having Apple block their App Store in Russia, if users were able to still download and install apps from elsewhere. It is precisely because users can't side load apps that gives Apple's actions even more teeth.

Of course, this also assumes the US government is savvy enough to manage and direct such power, rather than ending up being beholden to them altogether.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You just posted a bunch of links that don't actually address the point being made. For example, the first two cases you posted were about the transfer of licenses. Not about making software licenses unenforceable. As with all contracts, not all clauses are enforceable.

And you ignored the case that I posted that directly addresses what we were talking about.

That’s because you haven’t read the legal text you posted. It isn’t relevant as it addresses IP law.

My other legal examples are extremely relevant as it’s about contract law. When you already purchased your phone, then the license agreement you agree to after you start your phone isn’t a legal thing. I could modify iOS and remove this agreement on my phone and included software and apple will have zero legal remedies to use as no IP rights was broken and no agreement was breached.

First sale exhaustion is concluded the second I buy the phone from a retailer and it’s pure transfer of ownership

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This is apples' infrastructure, as long as in the end they don't break laws, they should be free to design the platform of their dreams.

But they are breaking the law, so then we agre. Perfect. The DMA is just clarifying existing law and codifying it as a standard for an easier application.

Apple should be free to do that, as Google should be free to block services as they see fit. The app store does not belong to the people. As long as they are within the law they should own the management of the app store.

That’s completely fine. But they aren’t the owner or manager of users devices.
When I live in China, apple actively prevents me from installing VPNs as I’m forced to use the AppStore with zero VPNs available by Chinese mandate.

In Russia I can’t install VPNs and access western information because the store is literally shutdown. I can’t access social media and read what happens in Ukraine and only have Russia news.

This what apple forces on its users by robbing their freedom and security.

What threat? If apple disappeared tomorrow, there is Samsung. I might skip a beat (as millions of others) but would survive.

They are a threat to the market. Apple can with a snap of a finger instantly kill businesses with new rules in the store. And they are a threat to freedom as with a snap of a finger apple can close down the store or remove access to encryption communication or VPNs to be used in authoritarian places

Then they should not have let apple in to begin with. Right?

We don’t have the ability to tell the future. That is why we have laws to tackle future abuse. And anti competitive practices. That is why monopolies aren’t illegal, only the abuse of their dominant position is. A natural monopoly as the best product is good, a monopoly propped up by abusive practices to hinder competition is bad

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This is apples' infrastructure, as long as in the end they don't break laws, they should be free to design the platform of their dreams.

Apple should be free to do that, as Google should be free to block services as they see fit. The app store does not belong to the people. As long as they are within the law they should own the management of the app store.

That’s the thing. It’s not apple deciding that. It’s the US government or other governments saying you can’t do business there or you can’t sell that app here. It’s the law

What threat? If apple disappeared tomorrow, there is Samsung. I might skip a beat (as millions of others) but would survive.

Then they should not have let apple in to begin with. Right?

Perhaps you should tell your government to stop spying on people and to respect their privacy then it wouldn’t be a thing

 

[Nuno Lopes]

No one thinks that sideloading affects Apple's ability to curate the App Store.

Apple curates apps on iOS through the App Store. Legislation to allow sideloading would bypass that.

That’s just a silly distinction that you continue to make. iOS and the App Store are both features of the iPhone.

"You are just making stuff up" - BaldiMac.

See that wall over there?

 

[I7guy]

That’s the thing. It’s not apple deciding that. It’s the US government or other governments saying you can’t do business there or you can’t sell that app here. It’s the law

Perhaps you should tell your government to stop spying on people and to respect their privacy then it wouldn’t be a thing

Of course. Companies have to follow the local laws. Maybe you can tell your government to stop spying on people as well? But has nothing to do with the original thread comment.

 

[I7guy]

But they are breaking the law, so then we agre. Perfect. The DMA is just clarifying existing law and codifying it as a standard for an easier application.

No they are not breaking the law. A lawsuit doesn't mean the law was broken. However, I do expect the home team favorite to win in a biased environment.

That’s completely fine. But they aren’t the owner or manager of users devices.

Right. The user owns the devices and can do what they want with it. Apple doesn't design custom software per user.

When I live in China, apple actively prevents me from installing VPNs as I’m forced to use the AppStore with zero VPNs available by Chinese mandate.

Talk to the local authorities on that.

In Russia I can’t install VPNs and access western information because the store is literally shutdown. I can’t access social media and read what happens in Ukraine and only have Russia news.

Talk to the local authorities on that. These countries do not want sideloading.

This what apple forces on its users by robbing their freedom and security.

Then vote with your $$$. Reminds me of an line in an old Woody Allen movie:
- Old lady #1: The food in this restaurant is terrible.
- Old lady #2: Yeah, and such small portions.

They are a threat to the market.

No they are not.

Apple can with a snap of a finger instantly kill businesses with new rules in the store. And they are a threat to freedom as with a snap of a finger apple can close down the store or remove access to encryption communication or VPNs to be used in authoritarian places

They should be able to regulate the app store in a fair manner, within existing law that generally covers business activities.

We don’t have the ability to tell the future. That is why we have laws to tackle future abuse. And anti competitive practices. That is why monopolies aren’t illegal, only the abuse of their dominant position is. A natural monopoly as the best product is good, a monopoly propped up by abusive practices to hinder competition is bad

We also are 180 in disagreement on this topic. Of course government can make any law it wants, provided such laws don't get overturned in court. Apple has a natural monopoly, which is why the EU had to define gatekeeper and those idiotic laws. Because they invented something so popular, government simply wants to regulate it.

 

[applefan69]

Yes, I simply cannot comprehend why people can't grasp this concept. To advocate that a government force Apple to allow something within THEIR OS that Apple doesn't want to do is beyond the pale. If people want to hoot and holler and sign a petition to send to Apple Inc, then fine, but to actually support a government butting into this to force a change is absurd and is a sad testament to the rampant, out-of-control entitlement mindset prevalent throughout so much of society. It's sickening really.

This whole "Im going to tell my government on you" mentality is both pathetic and sickening. We need LESS government intervention. But the stupid and the lazy would rather someone else deal with it.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

This is apples' infrastructure, as long as in the end they don't break laws, they should be free to design the platform of their dreams.

And they are.

 

[I7guy]

And they are.

Yes, they did. In 2008 and it's been in successful operation for nearly 14 years.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

This is apples' infrastructure, as long as in the end they don't break laws, they should be free to design the platform of their dreams.

Apple should be free to do that, as Google should be free to block services as they see fit. The app store does not belong to the people. As long as they are within the law they should own the management of the app store.

What threat? If apple disappeared tomorrow, there is Samsung. I might skip a beat (as millions of others) but would survive.

Then they should not have let apple in to begin with. Right?

Agreed on all counts.

Apple is and should always be as free to do what it wants as any other company is and ever was in an open market democracy we all now enjoy in the west.

If Apple stock goes down because of mismanagement there are many other stocks.

If Apple does not find a market profitable should leave. No one is forcing them to stay regardless of existing or future regulation. Same for customers … they can opt for other devices as you have often mentioned.

Probably Apple should not have entered the markets rising some concerns … right? Other US companies seam quite happy doing business here in the EU. There was never much of a problem.

They have been in successfull operation since before 2008.

Don’t understand what your point is. Maybe I’ve missed something. I think we share the same principles. We might disagree on here and there, approach things differently here and there but that is all.

The fact is the EU countries have their ways as much as the US and any other country. Any organization, local or foreign need to comply. It’s normal.

We are all learning.

 

[I7guy]

Agreed on all counts.

Apple is as free to do what it wants as any other company is and ever was in an open market democracy we all now enjoy in the west.

If Apple stock goes down there are many other stocks.

If Apple does not find a market profitable should leave.

Probably Apple should not have entered the markets rising some concerns … right?

They have been in successfull operation since before 2008.

Don’t understand what your point is. Maybe I’ve missed something.

People will disagree or agree on the premise of having the government step in and tell Apple to take their intellectual property and make it do things Apple doesn't believe is in the best interest of it's business. That is the only point.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I do agree with you, in a sense.

Due to the power that companies like Apple, Google and Facebook wield, I wonder if it's about time that the US government steps in and backs them in their legal battles with the EU.

I think the US government is free to do what it thinks best like is any other country. If it thinks is best to weaponize these companies against the EU, Australia, Canada … that is what it should do.

I think this might be a good proposal to be taken to the Office.

PS: People are loosing common sense.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

People will disagree or agree on the premise of having the government step in and tell Apple to take their intellectual property and make it do things Apple doesn't believe is in the best interest of it's business. That is the only point.

No one is telling Apple to do anything. Apple needs to oblige to local laws that is all. If the company thinks that complying to the law is not in line with their best interest should maybe leave these markets.

You see, commercial laws aren’t supposed to be made for the best interest of specific companies but companies and citizens in general.

 

[I7guy]

No one is telling Apple to do anything. Apple needs to oblige to local laws that is all. If the company thinks that complying to the law is not in line with their best interest should maybe leave these markets.

You see, commercial laws aren’t supposed to be made for the best interest of specific companies but companies and citizens in general.

Having the government be a Monday morning quarter and enact a law, after the fact to force apple to allow sideloading is exactly the point about telling apple how to manage their business. Saying they need to comply with some newly enacted law that decimates their infrastructure is exactly the point.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Having the government be a Monday morning quarter and enact a law, after the fact to force apple to allow sideloading is exactly the point about telling apple how to manage their business. Saying they need to comply with some newly enacted law that decimates their infrastructure is exactly the point.

Laws and regulations are always designed after the fact … with the experience of events. There would be no point to design them before. These aren’t products for sale.

No one is forcing Apple to implement anything as much as Apple is forcing anyone else.

Considering the new realities shaped by the development of technology … what it’s under discussion is wether if computing device owners should have by law the right to privately and securely install and use whatever applications they believe necessary in their devices. Devices that they buy with their hard earned money like they buy a house, a car, a TV or anything else .

This without violating any third party property rights or compromising the property itself for all players. The kind of liberty you have in your Home or Car … integrated in a wider operating system we call a democratic society around humanitarian values …

It is just common sense considering how computing and the digital is touching and will touch everyone’s every single property and daily activity.

Considering current practice of device centric digital stores like the App Store, something that is relatively new … sideloading is just a mechanism permitting the above. A model that has been successfully used in many many instances … including by Apple, case in case macOS and the Macs.

This should not decimate no one’s properties quite the contrary … it should instead protect all property owners interfacing each other from such events not just one. And you know that it does not decimate Apple properties …

The question is if all parties are having a discussion in good will or not. We all know that systems designed to mud and trespass privacy and property rights are highly profitable.

It seams that Apple vision for the future of security, privacy as well as property rights conflict with this concept of property rights, security and privacy. It is designing a place where no one can privately install and use apps and business services in their “homes” along with significant cost of change for users while arguing that is the best approach to defend privacy and security … does not make much sense to me as these values conflict with each other.

Cheers.

PS: Democracies are not up for vote of any kind in democratic countries.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I saw throw some execs in jail and see what happens

Put all these filthy scumbags in jail, and they will think twice before acting abusive against the law again.

Petrifying talk about non criminal activity.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Petrifying talk about non criminal activity.

Totally agree. Polarizing the issue is not the way. In fact quite often behind are interests of the same kind.

 

[I7guy]

Laws and regulations are always designed after the fact … with the experience of events. There would be no point to design them before. These aren’t products for sale.

No one is forcing Apple to implement anything as much as Apple is forcing anyone else.

Considering the new realities shaped by the development of technology … what it’s under discussion is wether if computing device owners should have by law the right to privately and securely install and use whatever applications they believe necessary. Devices that they buy with their hard earned money like they buy a house, a car, a TV or anything else .

This without violating any third party property rights or compromising the property itself for all players. The kind of liberty you have in your Home or Car … integrated in a wider operating system we call a democratic society around humanitarian values …

It is just common sense considering how computing and the digital is touching and will touch everyone’s every single property and daily activity.

Considering current practice of device centric digital stores like the App Store, something that is relatively new … sideloading is just a mechanism permitting the above. A model that has been successfully used in many many instances … including by Apple, case in case macOS and the Macs.

This should not decimate no one’s properties quite the contrary … it should instead protect all property owners interfacing each other from such events not just one. And you know that it does not. The question is if all parties are having a discussion in good will or not. We all know that privacy and property violating systems are highly profitable.

It seams that Apple vision for the future of security, privacy as well as property rights conflict with this concept of property rights, security and privacy. It is designing a place where no one can privately install and use apps and business services in their “homes” along with significant cost of change for users while arguing that is the best approach to defend privacy and security … does not make much sense to me as these values conflict with each other.

Cheers.

PS: Democracies are not up for vote of any kind in democratic countries.

Sometimes lawmakers can’t see their hand in front of their faces, and especially true in this instance with this type of pending legislation.

There are no realities man. Cell phones with App Store like functionalities have been in use before apple iPhone.

Rights for software usage has always been limited. Government should keep their hands off of this and if you want to throw your phone into ocean, jailbreak it …it’s your choice. Apple doesn’t have to help you. (And it’s similar to any mass produced for consumer electronics devices)

 

[Nuno Lopes]

There are no realities man. Cell phones with App Store like functionalities have been in use before apple iPhone.

The reality of having device centric App Stores mediating and somewhat controlling billions of users digital and non activities as well as properties is a new reality. So are mega social networks … so on and so forth.

The shape of things is nowhere close to the 08s and it’s nice that things change presenting new challenges and opportunities.

Rights for software usage has always been limited.

Yes. What is in question is not if are limited or not but specific limits that are becoming wide spread given the promotion by certain actors that limit users use of their properties, devices or others, to the actors gain, that it inevitably interfaces with. Like a virus.

Yes, when refutation by common sense fails … attack the fabric of a democracy. No governments, people or societies are perfect. That has never been a motif to stop action when merits are due.

You know as well as I do that software is the least regulated asset on the planet. That is not bad at all so why the complaint? It’s an outcry with little map to reality. It has been like this considering that physical things and software as been a relatively separated matter.

Apple and other are challenging notion given the size … hence new challenges are presenting within the balance of property ownership.

No one wants Apple to help users, just needs to comply with the law and its changes like everyone else.

 

[I7guy]

The reality of having device centric App Stores mediating and somewhat controlling billions of users digital and non activities as well as properties is a new reality. So are mega social networks … so on and so forth.

The shape of things is nowhere close to the 08s and it’s nice that things change presenting new challenges and opportunities.

The landscape has virtually stayed the same except for the volume. There is no new reality.

Yes. What is in question is not if are limited or not but specific limits that are becoming wide spread given the promotion by certain actors that limit users use of their properties, devices or others, to the actors gain, that it inevitably interfaces with. Like a virus.

This has always been the case. Property owners that rent out their goods are free to impose restrictions.

Yes, when refutation by common sense fails … attack the fabric of a democracy. No governments, people or societies are perfect. That has never been a motif to stop action when merits are due.

There are no refutation where common sense fails. Only opinions of what should be.

You know as well as I do that software is the least regulated asset on the planet.

Someone is giving you a license to use their intellectual property in exchange for some consideration.

Additionally, regulate the software on a going forward basis. Should be a good law to not destroy the software industry.

That is not bad at all so why the complaint? It’s an outcry with little map to reality. It has been like this considering that physical things and software as been a relatively separated matter.

Apple and other are challenging notion given the size … hence new challenges are presenting within the balance of property ownership.

No one wants Apple to help users, just needs to comply with the law and its changes like everyone else.

Apple is complying with the laws the way they stand. Saying apple should comply with future laws is a given. Doesn’t mean me, you or anybody else has to buy in that future laws are beneficial to companies, developers and consumers.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The landscape has virtually stayed the same except for the volume. There is no new reality.

Size matters and changes things. It’s a fact of nature. Always did and always. Compare the sun with nuclear reaction … same or similar principles but look at …

Cheers.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple is complying with the laws the way they stand.

Not saying otherwise at the moment … apart from fines here and there … all looks regular. But I’m not an expert of the law.

Also Apple does not need to comply with current or future regulations. It can always change markets for better profits.

Neither of these are the issues being observed.

The fact you are not refuting anything I’ve said. You are of the opinion that these are irrelevant issues.

I just have a different opinion. I believe that they are already and will become greater as technology evolves touching Smart Homes, Smart Cars … everything “smart”. The cost of change will be higher and higher for customers … and jurisprudence is the key to avoid it.

I don’t buy Tim Cook stance on people having the liberty of privately installing and using apps and digital services being a security or privacy threat. Quite the contrary … not having that in an ecosystem is a security and privacy threat.

Will see.

 

[I7guy]

Size matters and changes things. It’s a fact of nature. Always did and always. Compare the sun with nuclear reaction … same or similar principles but look at …

Cheers.

I disagree. The App Store is pretty much unchanged, except to keep with the times for 14 years. If volume matters we as a society, should be preventing companies from growing.

Because you are postulating growth and regulation are mutually inclusive.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

If volume matters we as a society, should be preventing companies from growing.

It’s not a matter of preventing companies growing. They can grow as much as they can and comply with the responsibilities that come with size.

With size comes different capacities and economics compared to a small business or startups. Hence albeit regulations are universally applied, different regulations are applicable to handle different circumstances. If you want a familiar example in App Store policies take the different policies for reader apps and non reader apps. This does not necessarily take the virtue out of the fact that the same policies are applied to all. Policies are conditional by nature.

It’s an normal affair if you are familiar with the law in a democracy.

PS: They can be inclusive. One thing is for sure, no laws and neutral institutions to apply them … it’s a jungle. Growth for the very few that hold the power. Take Africa, take South America … An innovation dip.