> As another comment pointed out, Apple don't provide the same level of access for app developers for iPhones, yet don't have the same scrutiny. I'd wager this is partially because antivirus vendors for iPhone never existed, which weakens their standing in a legal sense.
I think the Intel thing is another interesting case of this. Once those overclocking controls exist, it's pretty hard to actively take them away from people (and partners) without looking like a jerk in the process, even if they are now dangerous in a way they weren't previously.
NVIDIA got a ton of heat for this back when Turing launched. You heard all the excuses: "electromigration doesn't happen on modern processors, unless it's like 4.7 GHz sandy bridge" etc. https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535
You almost need one of these kinds of incidents to get people to take a step back and realize what's at stake. Because people will keep living in 2007 forever - you see this with gpu pricing and economics too.
And in turn this does create a perverse incentive to just not offer these things in the first place, I think that’s correct. That’s the way we’ve written the laws, it’s worse to take it away than to never offer it. And there’s valid logic supporting that too - now other people’s livelihoods depend on your indulgence, and they get the business equivalent of tenant rights.
(although there are instances where it has been successfully rolled back, notably the third-party chipset market no longer exists, intel locked that down and AMD immediately followed.)
I think the Intel thing is another interesting case of this. Once those overclocking controls exist, it's pretty hard to actively take them away from people (and partners) without looking like a jerk in the process, even if they are now dangerous in a way they weren't previously.
NVIDIA got a ton of heat for this back when Turing launched. You heard all the excuses: "electromigration doesn't happen on modern processors, unless it's like 4.7 GHz sandy bridge" etc. https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535
You almost need one of these kinds of incidents to get people to take a step back and realize what's at stake. Because people will keep living in 2007 forever - you see this with gpu pricing and economics too.
And in turn this does create a perverse incentive to just not offer these things in the first place, I think that’s correct. That’s the way we’ve written the laws, it’s worse to take it away than to never offer it. And there’s valid logic supporting that too - now other people’s livelihoods depend on your indulgence, and they get the business equivalent of tenant rights.
(although there are instances where it has been successfully rolled back, notably the third-party chipset market no longer exists, intel locked that down and AMD immediately followed.)