Proposed antitrust bills would ban Apple from preinstalling its own iOS apps

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 67
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,328member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Next up, let's not allow automakers to include factory sound systems in cars. Instead, they have to leave the hole open for any after-market radio you want to install. For that matter, they shouldn't be able to pre-install any component for which there is a third-party competitor. Tires, wheels, brakes, fog lights, headlights, floor mats, shocks, turbos, tailpipes, seat covers, seats, wiper blades, wipers, windshields, sunroofs, moon-roofs, batteries, belts, oil, coolant, the list goes on. Let's break the automakers' monopoly on car components they want to force you to take preinstalled on your new car!
    Magnuson-Moss Act.

    Buy the car and put whatever you want on it. Buy the iPhone and put whatever you want on it. 
    Magnuson-Moss Act has nothing to do with "buy the car and put whatever you want on it". What Magnuson-Moss Act entail is that so long as you install parts that meets OEM specs, the auto maker can not void any warranty you still have because you installed the parts yourself or had it installed by an independent auto shop. This prevents auto makers from forcing new car owners to have their cars service only by a dealer or authorized repair shop, otherwise they void their warranty. 

    No where in Magnuson-Moss Act does it state that one can install a turbo-charge into a new Ford Focus and if the engine blows, Ford still have to honor their 100K warranty on the engine. 

    But yes, if one buys a car, they can put anything they want on it. Regardless if it's still under warranty. But the car maker don't have to offer any assistance, if you want to install something that the car was not designed for. The same  is true with the iPhone, one can install anything they want on it. Just jailbreak it. But Apple do not have to offer any assistance and make jail breaking an iPhone easier for you to do. 

    Or do you think otherwise?  Maybe you think Apple should allow or be forced to provide, jailbreaking apps in their App Store because when one buys an iPhone, one can "put whatever they want on it". 
    You just answered your own question. Look at your first four sentences.

    Unless the addition/modification can be shown to have at least in part caused damage to the vehicle the automaker must still honor the warranty, That aftermarket turbo may cause damage, therefore (probably) no engine warranty. The same would apply to anything the iPhone owner adds to his device post-purchase including an aftermarket part such as a screen, or a third party app that extends functions. If it can be shown that "thing" caused the damage a customer wants corrected under warranty then Apple would not be responsible. That's not a difficult concept is it?

    Apple may deny device warranties now for damages caused by the owner, and does not have to assist anyone else providing a modification or repair. But the automaker cannot actively attempt to block the modification/repair? Nor should Apple.
    Explain how this would be different. 
    But where is your ...... "Buy the car and put whatever you want on it. Buy the iPhone and put whatever you want on it.", with reference to the Magnuson-Moss Act.

    Obviously, that is a false statement. Magnuson-Moss Act will not protect you if you make out of spec modifications that ends up damaging the car. So the Magnuson-Moss Act don't say that you can do whatever you want to your car. And you just acknowledged that.  

    How is Apple blocking anyone from putting whatever they want on an iPhone they bought? Anyone can jailbreak an iPhone and put whatever they want on it.  


    I think were in agreement in regards to ...."Buy the car and put whatever you want on it. Buy the iPhone and put whatever you want on it." But you citing Magnuson-Moss Act put the post out of context. It seems as though you are saying that the Magnuson-Moss Act will cover you, so you can to put whatever you want on your car or iPhone. It would had made more sense to just say ....... "Buy the car and put whatever you want on it. Buy the iPhone and put whatever you want on it." Magnuson-Moss Act has nothing to do with making that any more true. 

    Besides, most auto enthusiast make major mods to their cars when it's already out of warranty anyways. With regards to an iPhone, if jailbreaking an iPhone damages some component and it's still under warranty, just be sure to reset to factory, (use iTunes if you have to), before bringing it in for warranty repair. If it isn't completely bricked. Which would be very rare.   
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 62 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,171member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Next up, let's not allow automakers to include factory sound systems in cars. Instead, they have to leave the hole open for any after-market radio you want to install. For that matter, they shouldn't be able to pre-install any component for which there is a third-party competitor. Tires, wheels, brakes, fog lights, headlights, floor mats, shocks, turbos, tailpipes, seat covers, seats, wiper blades, wipers, windshields, sunroofs, moon-roofs, batteries, belts, oil, coolant, the list goes on. Let's break the automakers' monopoly on car components they want to force you to take preinstalled on your new car!
    Magnuson-Moss Act.

    Buy the car and put whatever you want on it. Buy the iPhone and put whatever you want on it. 
    Magnuson-Moss Act has nothing to do with "buy the car and put whatever you want on it". What Magnuson-Moss Act entail is that so long as you install parts that meets OEM specs, the auto maker can not void any warranty you still have because you installed the parts yourself or had it installed by an independent auto shop. This prevents auto makers from forcing new car owners to have their cars service only by a dealer or authorized repair shop, otherwise they void their warranty. 

    No where in Magnuson-Moss Act does it state that one can install a turbo-charge into a new Ford Focus and if the engine blows, Ford still have to honor their 100K warranty on the engine. 

    But yes, if one buys a car, they can put anything they want on it. Regardless if it's still under warranty. But the car maker don't have to offer any assistance, if you want to install something that the car was not designed for. The same  is true with the iPhone, one can install anything they want on it. Just jailbreak it. But Apple do not have to offer any assistance and make jail breaking an iPhone easier for you to do. 

    Or do you think otherwise?  Maybe you think Apple should allow or be forced to provide, jailbreaking apps in their App Store because when one buys an iPhone, one can "put whatever they want on it". 
    You just answered your own question. Look at your first four sentences.

    Unless the addition/modification can be shown to have at least in part caused damage to the vehicle the automaker must still honor the warranty, That aftermarket turbo may cause damage, therefore (probably) no engine warranty. The same would apply to anything the iPhone owner adds to his device post-purchase including an aftermarket part such as a screen, or a third party app that extends functions. If it can be shown that "thing" caused the damage a customer wants corrected under warranty then Apple would not be responsible. That's not a difficult concept is it?

    Apple may deny device warranties now for damages caused by the owner, and does not have to assist anyone else providing a modification or repair. But the automaker cannot actively attempt to block the modification/repair? Nor should Apple.
    Explain how this would be different. 
    How is Apple blocking anyone from putting whatever they want on an iPhone they bought? Anyone can jailbreak an iPhone and put whatever they want on it.
    Apple immediately disables a jailbreak method as quickly as they can identify and roll out a software change to close it. They can also refuse to replace a failed hardware component, even if normally covered by warranty, if you've somehow managed to modify the software anyway. Magnuson-Moss prevents an automaker from denying a warranty for the same reason.

    "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits product manufacturers from conditioning consumer warranties on the use of any original equipment part or service (including software). Furthermore, a manufacturer can only deny warranty coverage if it can demonstrate that a non-original equipment part or related service caused a defect to occur in the original product." 

    That sir is how parts of Magnuson-Moss are related to Apple policies, while we can both agree that Apple doesn't fall under MMWA.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 63 of 67
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,005member
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Next up, let's not allow automakers to include factory sound systems in cars. Instead, they have to leave the hole open for any after-market radio you want to install. For that matter, they shouldn't be able to pre-install any component for which there is a third-party competitor. Tires, wheels, brakes, fog lights, headlights, floor mats, shocks, turbos, tailpipes, seat covers, seats, wiper blades, wipers, windshields, sunroofs, moon-roofs, batteries, belts, oil, coolant, the list goes on. Let's break the automakers' monopoly on car components they want to force you to take preinstalled on your new car!
    Magnuson-Moss Act.

    Buy the car and put whatever you want on it. Buy the iPhone and put whatever you want on it. 
    Magnuson-Moss is about repairing the car and not being required to buy parts from auto maker. The only exception to this are parts which are covered under a patent. 

    There are lots of examples you can use about buying something and then adding to the product and whether you have right. I use this example before, it would be like telling Ford they could not produce and sell AL Wheel for their cars since other companies already make sell them before Ford thought of doing it themselves.

    In this case,  Apple does not preclude anyone from adding to the phone and there are lots of competitor products to the Apple built in items and people use them everyday. However Apple does censor some Apps because Apple does not think you should be allowed to use for what every moral or tech reason they have. 

    What I think needs fixing, Apple can not ban an app for any reason other than it may create some sort of security risk to the user, beyond this Apple should not be allow to say which app users are or are not allow to use. Since Apple store is the only entry into the phone they have made value judgements for consumes on what is the acceptable use of their products. 
  • Reply 64 of 67
    thttht Posts: 4,031member
    maestro64 said:
    What I think needs fixing, Apple can not ban an app for any reason other than it may create some sort of security risk to the user, beyond this Apple should not be allow to say which app users are or are not allow to use. Since Apple store is the only entry into the phone they have made value judgements for consumes on what is the acceptable use of their products. 
    Yes, but you are not running Apple.

    As a business entity, they are free to structure how their platform works in whatever way they want, and be rewarded for making good decisions and suffer for making bad ones. It's basically the central argument, and currently, some people believe they don't have that right anymore.

    This is where all the argumentum over what constitutes a monopoly or monopoly power is occurring. Would they lose sales over a bad decision? That's a definitively a yes in my book as people would buy an Android phone if Apple raised prices (without commensurate product changes) or have apps leave the platform through whatever onerous App Store terms. They are still beholden to carriers as the carrier retail footprint will make or break any OEM. If they come to disagreements with carriers, that will reduce their sales. So, all the checks and balances are still there. If they are successful because of an amalgam of good product, good pricing, good availability and good service, they should be left alone until there are actual monopoly power situations.

    If Apple had say 80% marketshare, maybe that crosses the line. Everyone is going to have a different line. I definitely do not think 50% is where the line is. Nobody would be batting an eye over Apple if they iPhone has 20%, whatever low number.
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 65 of 67
    This image says it all:


    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 67
    p-dogp-dog Posts: 100member
    Wow, what a horrible proposal. Bills which would strengthen data privacy would be a much better use of the government’s regulatory power rather than punishing a company that puts useful productivity apps onto its devices instead of adware and shovelware.

    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 67 of 67
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,328member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Next up, let's not allow automakers to include factory sound systems in cars. Instead, they have to leave the hole open for any after-market radio you want to install. For that matter, they shouldn't be able to pre-install any component for which there is a third-party competitor. Tires, wheels, brakes, fog lights, headlights, floor mats, shocks, turbos, tailpipes, seat covers, seats, wiper blades, wipers, windshields, sunroofs, moon-roofs, batteries, belts, oil, coolant, the list goes on. Let's break the automakers' monopoly on car components they want to force you to take preinstalled on your new car!
    Magnuson-Moss Act.

    Buy the car and put whatever you want on it. Buy the iPhone and put whatever you want on it. 
    Magnuson-Moss Act has nothing to do with "buy the car and put whatever you want on it". What Magnuson-Moss Act entail is that so long as you install parts that meets OEM specs, the auto maker can not void any warranty you still have because you installed the parts yourself or had it installed by an independent auto shop. This prevents auto makers from forcing new car owners to have their cars service only by a dealer or authorized repair shop, otherwise they void their warranty. 

    No where in Magnuson-Moss Act does it state that one can install a turbo-charge into a new Ford Focus and if the engine blows, Ford still have to honor their 100K warranty on the engine. 

    But yes, if one buys a car, they can put anything they want on it. Regardless if it's still under warranty. But the car maker don't have to offer any assistance, if you want to install something that the car was not designed for. The same  is true with the iPhone, one can install anything they want on it. Just jailbreak it. But Apple do not have to offer any assistance and make jail breaking an iPhone easier for you to do. 

    Or do you think otherwise?  Maybe you think Apple should allow or be forced to provide, jailbreaking apps in their App Store because when one buys an iPhone, one can "put whatever they want on it". 
    You just answered your own question. Look at your first four sentences.

    Unless the addition/modification can be shown to have at least in part caused damage to the vehicle the automaker must still honor the warranty, That aftermarket turbo may cause damage, therefore (probably) no engine warranty. The same would apply to anything the iPhone owner adds to his device post-purchase including an aftermarket part such as a screen, or a third party app that extends functions. If it can be shown that "thing" caused the damage a customer wants corrected under warranty then Apple would not be responsible. That's not a difficult concept is it?

    Apple may deny device warranties now for damages caused by the owner, and does not have to assist anyone else providing a modification or repair. But the automaker cannot actively attempt to block the modification/repair? Nor should Apple.
    Explain how this would be different. 
    How is Apple blocking anyone from putting whatever they want on an iPhone they bought? Anyone can jailbreak an iPhone and put whatever they want on it.
    Apple immediately disables a jailbreak method as quickly as they can identify and roll out a software change to close it. They can also refuse to replace a failed hardware component, even if normally covered by warranty, if you've somehow managed to modify the software anyway. Magnuson-Moss prevents an automaker from denying a warranty for the same reason.

    "The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits product manufacturers from conditioning consumer warranties on the use of any original equipment part or service (including software). Furthermore, a manufacturer can only deny warranty coverage if it can demonstrate that a non-original equipment part or related service caused a defect to occur in the original product." 

    That sir is how parts of Magnuson-Moss are related to Apple policies, while we can both agree that Apple doesn't fall under MMWA.
    But even then, the Magnuson-Moss Act does not give anyone any more rights to ...... "put what ever you want on a car you bought", than the rights they already have, when they bought the car. 

    "Apple immediately disables a jailbreak method as quickly as they can identify and roll out a software change to close it." 

    That is a false assumption. Apple does not remove the jailbreak, they remove the security hole that the jailbreak took advantage of. Most jailbreak take advantage of a security hole that Apple didn't know about. Apple patches security holes when they find out about them. So with every update, certain jailbreaks might still or might no longer work. Or do you think that Apple should leave security holes, that they know about, un-patched, because people are using it to legally jailbreak their iPhones? 

    All a person with a jailbroken iPhone has to do is to not update until a new jailbreak is found for the newer versions. There is a jailbreak for nearly every iOS version. Some are jailbroken days after there're released. Its not like Apple goes out of the way to find jailbroken iPhones and brick tries to them.


    https://www.iphonehacks.com/jailbreak-ios-14

    So far Apple has not stop the jailbreaking of any iOS versions and probably never will for any future iOS versions, anytime soon. It's probably not worth Apple effort to look for and patch every security hole in their software and firmware, that jailbreakers might be able to take advantage of to jailbreak an iPhone or iPad. Not when there's probably less than 1% of iPhones that are  jailbroken. Much easier for Apple to wait for the hackers to reveal the security holes and patch it then.   

    No where with Magnuson-Moss Act does it specify that auto makers must support any modifications done to a car or perform work on a car that is modified beyond spec. Not even when the work is done out of warranty. If your alternator failed under warranty and your car has a modification that must be removed before any work can be done on the alternator, the dealer can refuse to repair or replace your alternator even under warranty, unless you bring the car in, without the mod. The dealer should not have to work around your custom  mod, in order to perform work under warranty. 

    Just like Apple do not have to perform any warranty work on an iPhone or iPad that is still jailbroken. Whether the work required was caused by the jailbreak or not. Just restore the iPhone or iPad to factory and then have Apple do the warranty work.    

    The State of CA will not smog and register your auto, if they find out that the EEPROM containing the software for the engine computer, has been flashed. The smog stations can check for this. Even if any changes to the EEPROM software might not affect emissions and maybe even lower them. In CA, you can not legally drive a car on public roads, that is not registered. That would be like Apple not allowing jailbroken iPhones to be activated on a mobile network.  
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.