Hacker News Reader

Comment by spike021 | Hacker News Reader

I fail to see the difference between this and many other normal parts of life.

Want to renovate and change your home that you own? You need permitting and not all changes are allowed. But you own the home and land so why do you need permitting?

Say you want to modify your car that you own, again depending on the modification that's technically not allowed either (an aerodynamic wing in a place like Japan, for instance, can't be certain dimensions; but if you own the car you should be able to do what you want with it).

Maybe none of these types of things should be beholden to someone holding the reins of the thing you own but it's not like Apple not allowing sideloading is some wholly unique problem.

View on HN

In all of these cases the law is what is requiring compliance here, not the manufacturer.

If there was a law requiring apps to be approved by someone first then your argument would be valid, but I do not think such a law exists (at least in my country).

This is actually a really good point.

While complying with a regulation vs a business requirement may feel like the same thing in practice, there is at least an avenue to change the regulation via, you know, democracy.

when you modify your car, the manufacturer will often claim that parts of your warranty are void. That's not the legal system imposing limits.

But you're allowed to void your warranty. You don't have to have a warranty. It's not a real limit.

Yeah, but the manufacturer can't have some Pinkertons go to your house and murder your wife, sons and dogs over it either. You just have financial responsibility for whatever it voids.

> Want to renovate and change your home that you own? You need permitting and not all changes are allowed. But you own the home and land so why do you need permitting?

I believe both this situation and the iphone software situation are wrong, so it's not really a counter argument.

Conflating government regulation, which is often about safety and the public good (as imperfect and at risk of corruption as it may be), with the policies of private companies trying to replace regular commerce with a surveillance-based rentier economy is disingenuous at best

Reply on news.ycombinator.com