3 ms·

I'll spell it out: Apple controls what can run on the iPhone. Apple doesn't control content that comes in over the internet. Apple makes iPhone a closed prop

by Qz 17y ago

I'll spell it out: Apple controls what can run on the iPhone. Apple doesn't control content that comes in over the internet. Apple makes iPhone a closed proprietary system. Apple advocates for open standards for internet content. Adobe 'controls' a sizable portion of content over the internet, by virtue of their Flash format being proprietary. Adobe doesn't control what software can run on end-user machines (specifically iPhone). Adobe advocates for openness in regard to what can run on iPhone (by enabling Flash apps to compile to native iPhone code). Adobe still keeps Flash a proprietary format. If that doesn't make things crystal clear I don't know what will. Each controls X, which they keep closed and proprietary, yet doesn't control Y, which they push for Y be 'open' in some form or another. The hypocrisy is here: Apple preferred to support more open standards which replicate everything Flash can do, added the statement. Which we can translate as: Apple preferred to support more open standards, because they don't control Flash and don't want Adobe to gain control of what runs on iPhone (because that they do control and therefore want to keep closed).

GHFigs 17y ago
I understand where the confusion lies now: you're using the word hypocrisy to mean something else. Hypocrisy concerns the relation between statement and action, not motives. What you're pointing to here would be hypocrisy if (for example) Apple were claiming to support these open standards but in fact made no effort to support them at all. The closed nature of their native platform is irrelevant in determining hypocrisy unless they were claiming to support openness there, which they aren't. Your "translation" indicates you're more concerned about motives, but having a "bad" motive for acting in accordance with what you profess does not make you hypocritical any more than having a "good" motive for not acting in accordance with what you profess makes you not hypocritical. You may find it disagreeable--and again, it sounds like you must feel the same way about most tech companies--but it's not hypocrisy.
- Qz 17y ago
  No no no. I don't care about their motives. And I realize that with regards to internet content (aka Flash) there isn't anything explicitly hypocritical about supporting open standards instead of Flash. But I think it's a bit off to think that the potential for hypocrisy is confined to the specific context of any particular comment. If a gay person says, 'I support marriage rights for gay people but not for lesbians' -- is that not hypocritical? My explanation earlier was meant to spell out the important facts related to which areas Apple and Adobe support open standards and which areas they don't. It's simply about what they control and what they don't control, and it's based on the same principles as when someone would want free markets. For example, before the Industrial Revolution, England imported most of it's cotton from India, which was the supplier of most of the world's cotton. At that point, the English government made all sorts of hindrances to how much could be imported and so on, in order to protect local cotton producers. After the Industrial Revolution, Britain became one of the leading producers of cotton fabric, and suddenly they were huge supporters of 'free markets' ...in places where they didn't explicitly control the pricing of cotton (aka India). So free markets/open standards is the same thing. It's entirely about what someone controls and what someone doesn't control. And it's hypocritical for Apple to talk about supporting open standards for flash-like functionality, because they don't care about open standards, as evidenced by the way they close off nearly everything they touch (which are actions, not just motives). It's simply about market control.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    No no no. I don't care about their motives. ...but... it's hypocritical for Apple to talk about supporting open standards for flash-like functionality, because they don't care about open standards See what I mean? You're saying it's hypocritical "because they don't care", not "because they don't do". That's why it was confusing. But I think it's a bit off to think that the potential for hypocrisy is confined to the specific context of any particular comment. If not for the fact that you're changing the meaning by ignoring the context, I'd agree, but you are. It is not "off" to consider things actually said in light of things actually done. What you've done here is add an additional statement that wasn't actually stated, i.e. turning "We support X." into "We support X and Y.", and then say it's hypocritical because they don't actually support Y. Perhaps this is clearer with the more specific original quote: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292218 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292218 If a gay person says, 'I support marriage rights for gay people but not for lesbians' -- is that not hypocritical? A statement alone can't be hypocritical. Without knowing the action (or in absence of action some other indicator of true belief) there is no way to be sure either way. Just specifying does not make it hypocritical. Word: "I support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others." Deed: Support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others. Hypocritical: No. Word: "I support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others." Deed: Support marriage rights no homosexuals. Hypocritical: Yes. Word: "I support marriage rights for all homosexuals." Deed: Support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others. Hypocritical: Yes.

by Qz 17y ago

GHFigs 17y ago

I understand where the confusion lies now: you're using the word hypocrisy to mean something else. Hypocrisy concerns the relation between statement and action, not motives. What you're pointing to here would be hypocrisy if (for example) Apple were claiming to support these open standards but in fact made no effort to support them at all. The closed nature of their native platform is irrelevant in determining hypocrisy unless they were claiming to support openness there, which they aren't. Your "translation" indicates you're more concerned about motives, but having a "bad" motive for acting in accordance with what you profess does not make you hypocritical any more than having a "good" motive for not acting in accordance with what you profess makes you not hypocritical. You may find it disagreeable--and again, it sounds like you must feel the same way about most tech companies--but it's not hypocrisy.

Qz 17y ago
No no no. I don't care about their motives. And I realize that with regards to internet content (aka Flash) there isn't anything explicitly hypocritical about supporting open standards instead of Flash. But I think it's a bit off to think that the potential for hypocrisy is confined to the specific context of any particular comment. If a gay person says, 'I support marriage rights for gay people but not for lesbians' -- is that not hypocritical? My explanation earlier was meant to spell out the important facts related to which areas Apple and Adobe support open standards and which areas they don't. It's simply about what they control and what they don't control, and it's based on the same principles as when someone would want free markets. For example, before the Industrial Revolution, England imported most of it's cotton from India, which was the supplier of most of the world's cotton. At that point, the English government made all sorts of hindrances to how much could be imported and so on, in order to protect local cotton producers. After the Industrial Revolution, Britain became one of the leading producers of cotton fabric, and suddenly they were huge supporters of 'free markets' ...in places where they didn't explicitly control the pricing of cotton (aka India). So free markets/open standards is the same thing. It's entirely about what someone controls and what someone doesn't control. And it's hypocritical for Apple to talk about supporting open standards for flash-like functionality, because they don't care about open standards, as evidenced by the way they close off nearly everything they touch (which are actions, not just motives). It's simply about market control.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  No no no. I don't care about their motives. ...but... it's hypocritical for Apple to talk about supporting open standards for flash-like functionality, because they don't care about open standards See what I mean? You're saying it's hypocritical "because they don't care", not "because they don't do". That's why it was confusing. But I think it's a bit off to think that the potential for hypocrisy is confined to the specific context of any particular comment. If not for the fact that you're changing the meaning by ignoring the context, I'd agree, but you are. It is not "off" to consider things actually said in light of things actually done. What you've done here is add an additional statement that wasn't actually stated, i.e. turning "We support X." into "We support X and Y.", and then say it's hypocritical because they don't actually support Y. Perhaps this is clearer with the more specific original quote: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292218 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292218 If a gay person says, 'I support marriage rights for gay people but not for lesbians' -- is that not hypocritical? A statement alone can't be hypocritical. Without knowing the action (or in absence of action some other indicator of true belief) there is no way to be sure either way. Just specifying does not make it hypocritical. Word: "I support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others." Deed: Support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others. Hypocritical: No. Word: "I support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others." Deed: Support marriage rights no homosexuals. Hypocritical: Yes. Word: "I support marriage rights for all homosexuals." Deed: Support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others. Hypocritical: Yes.