open letter about the universal right to install any software on any device

[Leseratte_10]

Originally Posted by ApK

IOW, could Apple comply if their devices had a Lightning port AND a USB-C port? Or a USB-C snap in adapter included?

Apple can comply by adding both a Lightning and a USB-C charging port if they want. They are also allowed to make it a USB-C charging port and add an adapter to Lightning. They're not allowed to keep the Lightning port and just include a Lightning-to-USB-C adapter; the device itself needs to have a USB-C port for charging.

That (USB-C + another port) is exactly what I imagine is going to happen in 10, 15, 20 years when someone invents a port that's even better than USB-C. Devices that are large enough (Laptops, Desktops, Tablets, ...) just start adding both ports, and then when multiple conpanies agree that the new port is better they'll tell the EU "Hey we'd prefer if we could all use this new standard" and if they agree they can standardize the new port.

[Aleron Ives]

Originally Posted by ApK

That's what I think this open letter represents, not "I don't like it so you shouldn't have it."

I was talking about my own opinion, not the letter's.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Aleron Ives

I was talking about my own opinion, not the letter's.

Not sure why you thought you had to clarify that. Your earlier post sure makes it's sound like you're participating in this thread, which is all about opinions in relation to the letter:

Originally Posted by Aleron Ives

The Document Foundation seems to be making the argument proposed by people like Richard Stallman that FOSS is not just superior to proprietary software, but that proprietary software is actually immoral. Obviously, most people don't agree with this extreme view. Companies are free to produce proprietary software, just as we are free to not buy it. I try to use FOSS options when possible, but if a superior software solution exists and is proprietary, I'll use that if it meets my needs better than any FOSS alternative.

Although I agree with them that a closed system like the iPhone is bad, because it puts too many restrictions on the user, I won't go so far as to say that the iPhone doesn't have a right to exist, and that Apple must be compelled to open its platform. That kind of reasoning can be used in other situations where we might not like the outcome, so we shouldn't use that kind of reasoning at all.

You say stuff like "The Document Foundation seems to be making the argument..." and "Although I agree with them...."

Whatever.

[Aleron Ives]

Originally Posted by ApK

Not sure why you thought you had to clarify that. Your earlier post sure makes it's sound like you're participating in this thread, which is all about opinions in relation to the letter:

Am I not permitted to make multiple points in a single post? That's why I started a new paragraph. I did indeed comment on the letter, but my final statement was intended to convey that I would not impose my opinions of Apple's bad business practices upon everybody, because the general principle is too vague.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I know people (my dad included) who could break the technological equivalent of an anvil.

If anyone's interested in a Lounge thread on blacksmithing, I could tell you a story about my broken anvil.


I know, . Sorry. As you were.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I know people (my dad included) who could break the technological equivalent of an anvil.

I once might have done that to see "how it worked". Now I usually manage to put the things back together again in a working condition.