6 ms·

It's quite simple -- you can choose not to buy an iPhone.

by naz 16y ago

rpledge 16y ago
Exactly... People should vote with their wallet. Why should Apple be forced to conform to what the EFF thinks is right? If enough people cared about these issues and stopped buying Apple would take notice, but until that happens this is all noise few will hear.
- commandar 16y ago
  Well, the reason groups like the EFF are important is because they're there to raise the issue before it becomes a problem. Sometimes people don't realize how serious a problem is until it bites them in the ass, like the MyFrame developer that defended Apple's approval process up until the point that his app got arbitrarily rejected.[1] The point of watchdog groups like the EFF is to make some noise and get people to realize they should care about having alternatives. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1394958 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1394958
  - rpledge 16y ago
    I think the EFF has bigger battles to fight: net neutrality, fair use, freedom of speech, etc... And preemptive to the reply I'll get: apple rejecting an app doesn't infringe on free speech anymore than not getting your letter printed in the NY times.
    - commandar 16y ago
      I don't see how those fights preclude the EFF from taking a position on this. It's not like they're litigating against Apple or anything; they're merely pointing out an example of what is essentially a major part of their core mission - "software lock-in is bad."
- ajscherer 16y ago
  Who said anything about forcing Apple to do anything? The blog post wasn't talking about suing Apple or asking the government to step in. It was merely criticizing a system they find slimy and contrary to the interests of Apple's customers. It isn't like Apple is going out of their way to tell potential customers "people are out there writing software that you would like to have on your phone, but we aren't going to let you have it". Why shouldn't the EFF be free to criticize whoever they want? It's quite simple -- you can choose not to read blog posts that are clearly going to be critical of the app store.
jsz0 16y ago
Exactly. It's an increasingly easy choice. I've said all along I think the controversies around the iPhone exist because it challenges so many assumptions people have always made about technology products. The EFF and others seem to be trying to make Apple conform with their views. Is that really choice? Why can't consumers have the choice of a curated/managed platform? There's a fine line here between consumer protection/advocacy and trying to subject ones personal choices onto others.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  Maybe what the EFF are really doing is warning potential customers of the digital handcuffs on the iPhone and other similar products, so those consumers can make an informed choice.
CamperBob 16y ago
No, it's not "quite" that simple. Almost every other mobile computing manufacturer is tripping over their own shoelaces these days to copy Apple's policies and practices. Look at Microsoft's direction for Windows Phone 7, for instance, and tell me it's going to be any sort of alternative. And as for Android... eventually, someone is going to release some kind of really hideous malware that does substantial harm to a large portion of their user base. Jobs will spin this event as inevitable -- just as he has already tried to do by casting Android as the "porn" platform of choice -- and Google will end up marginalized further in the public view because they made the silly mistake of leaving their garden gate unlocked. The harm done by Apple's policies can, and has, rippled out across the entire mobile computing sector. It is dangerously naive and disingenuous to claim that you can dodge this damage by "choosing not to buy an iPhone."
- darkandbrooding 16y ago
  Your post contains the implicit assumption that "really hideous malware" will strike the Android platform before it does the iPhone, which is the necessary condition for Jobs to say "I told you so." (I make the assumption that Jobs would not be able to credibly deliver that line if iOS became a malware target before Android did.) I don't own an Android phone, and am only superficially familiar with its OS or software stack. Do you think that the Android OS is architecturally more susceptible to malware than iOS? If not, do you think that Android's application distribution model is more likely to get malware onto people's phones that Apple's highly restrictive one?
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    I don't own an Android phone, and am only superficially familiar with its OS or software stack. Do you think that the Android OS is architecturally more susceptible to malware than iOS? If not, do you think that Android's application distribution model is more likely to get malware onto people's phones that Apple's highly restrictive one? That's my understanding, yes. However, unlike a lot of people including Jobs, I don't see the ability to write deceptive malware for a platform as a "bug." People need to challenge this assumption early and often.
sandee 16y ago
Just as, it was quite simple you can choose not to buy windows PC. People raised issues with Microsoft practises because as a dominant player they set the industry trend. Taking it lying down means accept this as a general trend.
donaq 16y ago
We can - now. But what of the future? Imagine if the iPhone had an overwhelmingly dominant market share of mobile computing devices, say, 90%, and that mobile computing has become an integral part of life (which seems like what's going to happen). At that point, Apple would be able to dictate standards. Even supposing the quality went south and consumers genuinely started disliking the user experience, could one realistically choose not to buy an iPhone then? We've seen this happen before. Is Windows the best operating system out there? I don't think so, but I still have to use it now and then. I have a choice of only working with people who do not use Windows, of course, but it's not a realistic one. The problem is that consumers don't necessarily make the choices that are in their own best long-term interests. That's why tobacco companies are still in business.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  Just like you can use Linux instead of Windows, you can choose Android instead of iOS. Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders to make money. It therefore has a near-totally correlated responsibility to make products that appeal to the market. If people want Apple products they will buy them and if there exists a market that Apple chooses not to sell to, other companies will exploit it. The problem is that consumers don't necessarily make the choices that are in their own best long-term interests. Best for who? You? You, like I, may like the freedom that OSs like Android allow, but the majority of people don't really care at all.
  - donaq 16y ago
    Just like you can use Linux instead of Windows, you can choose Android instead of iOS. Did you read my comment at all? I was arguing that if iOS gained a large enough market share, using Android might become a choice with unrealistic costs, like insisting on using OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office. You could do it, sure, but you'd alienate all your colleagues and/or limiting your choices of employment. If people want Apple products they will buy them and if there exists a market that Apple chooses not to sell to, other companies will exploit it. That's a straw man argument. If making iOS more open would necessarily equate to Apple choosing not to service any market, please show me how. Best for who? You? That question is peculiar, considering that it's a direct response to my saying "their own best long-term interests". :p You, like I, may like the freedom that OSs like Android allow, but the majority of people don't really care at all. That's actually part of my point about people not necessarily making choices that are in their own best long-term interests. Let's use SUVs as an analogy. SUVs are bad for the environment. What's bad for the environment will in the long run be bad for themselves. People still buy SUVs because they're spacious. In the same way, I would argue that, pleasing as the restricted platforms Apple produces are to consumers right now, the lack of freedom might result in a long term loss for consumers.
ryanjmo 16y ago
Well I bought an iPhone before apple got increasing closed, but I'm on a 2 year contract. What should I do now?
- usaar333 16y ago
  Sell it and buy a new phone. (With early termination fee pro-rotation, I never got what the big deal with breaking ones' contract is. Often, it is cheaper to pay the ETF and switch to another provider).
- logic 16y ago
  http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/ http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/ That suggestion is only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
siculars 16y ago
Before civil labor laws that was like saying you can chose not to work at the local factory/sweatshop. What we need is blanket protection from the federal government akin to the civil labor laws that grew out of the industrial revolution. We need digital privacy, portability and general freedom laws enacted by congress to set the playing field level between consumers and producers for this next revolution, the digital/social/mobile revolution. It is not enough to say "vote with your wallet". Our liberties are being encroached from every angle in the digital sphere. Virtually every major corporation that plays in this space is screwing the consumer one way or another when it comes to these basic, common sense rights we should all have. Why is it that myspace and facebook and google and apple and amazon all have their own twisted, difficult to understand, legalize terms of service and privacy policies? Where is the government intervention, who loves to stick it's nose in everyones business, when it matters?
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > What we need is blanket protection from the federal government akin to the civil labor laws that grew out of the industrial revolution. I don't want to be protected from doing voluntary transactions by the federal government - they have a pretty bad track record of making citizens' lives worse when they do that. And besides, laws like this are started as a shield, but eventually get turned into a sword that's corrupted and hijacked by entrenched powers in the various industries. It's the nature of the current political situation with lobbying and a public that cares about the hot button issue, but doesn't follow up on the regulations a few years later to see how it turned out. Once people no longer care, the lobbying starts and you get all kinds of asinine things. Thanks but no thanks - the federal government isn't the answer.
  - siculars 16y ago
    Hey, I'm no interventionist. Nevertheless, we have a government, we have laws and we have certain protection enshrined by law. I think this is a perfect opportunity for the feds to do something right. Why can't my data be my data, backed up by law? Why is it that I can't get my data back from facebook anyway and anytime I want to? Why do I have to rely on the benevolence of facebook? Replace facebook with any other social site or entity. I can get my medical record, by law - not based on which doctor I see. I can get my credit report, by law - from all the agencies. I can get a prospectus from a publicly traded company, by law - from all of them, not just those that think it is a competitive advantage to do so. Cars need to adhere to certain minimum emissions standards, by law - not just because their engineers care about the environment. I can go on all day. Do you think that any of these private/public entities would provide such niceties on their own volition? Perhaps some. But why do we need to rely on their whim. Again, as for protection from voluntary transactions I agree with you. I want to smoke and drink all day till it kills me without the government being involved. Nevertheless, both smoking and drinking are regulated and for good measure. Who can disagree with that? At some point in the not to distant future everyone will have a smart phone. Everyone will be on some sort of social network. Everyone will use Google or an equivalent. Everyone will have at least one device that can track their location on their body most of the time. There is no feasible way that this will not be regulated. We can only hope that when it is regulated it is done as a shield and not a sword.
tensor 16y ago
And I haven't. But I do like the rest of the technology in the iphone/ipad. Thus, I will complain. Bad feedback is better than no feedback.
DavidSJ 16y ago
There are at least several questions: * Should Apple have the policies it has? * Should Apple be legally allowed to have the policies it has? * Should we buy Apple's products, given that it has the policies it has? One might think the answer to the second and third are yes while the answer to the first is no.
chc 16y ago
It's not that simple: If I choose not to buy an iPhone, I'm choosing not to buy a good smartphone. There simply aren't any others of comparable quality. Like I've said before, the choice here is not between "open" and "closed," but between "open" and "good." That's the part that annoys me. If there were a legitimate platform that's just like the iPhone only without Apple's ridiculously oppressive policies, I'd be all over that. But there's not.

It's quite simple -- you can choose not to buy an iPhone.

by naz 16y ago

It's quite simple -- you can choose not to buy an iPhone.

Exactly... People should vote with their wallet. Why should Apple be forced to conform to what the EFF thinks is right? If enough people cared about these issues and stopped buying Apple would take notice, but until that happens this is all noise few will hear.

commandar 16y ago
Well, the reason groups like the EFF are important is because they're there to raise the issue before it becomes a problem. Sometimes people don't realize how serious a problem is until it bites them in the ass, like the MyFrame developer that defended Apple's approval process up until the point that his app got arbitrarily rejected.[1] The point of watchdog groups like the EFF is to make some noise and get people to realize they should care about having alternatives. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1394958 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1394958
- rpledge 16y ago
  I think the EFF has bigger battles to fight: net neutrality, fair use, freedom of speech, etc... And preemptive to the reply I'll get: apple rejecting an app doesn't infringe on free speech anymore than not getting your letter printed in the NY times.
  - commandar 16y ago
    I don't see how those fights preclude the EFF from taking a position on this. It's not like they're litigating against Apple or anything; they're merely pointing out an example of what is essentially a major part of their core mission - "software lock-in is bad."
ajscherer 16y ago
Who said anything about forcing Apple to do anything? The blog post wasn't talking about suing Apple or asking the government to step in. It was merely criticizing a system they find slimy and contrary to the interests of Apple's customers. It isn't like Apple is going out of their way to tell potential customers "people are out there writing software that you would like to have on your phone, but we aren't going to let you have it". Why shouldn't the EFF be free to criticize whoever they want? It's quite simple -- you can choose not to read blog posts that are clearly going to be critical of the app store.

jsz0 16y ago

Exactly. It's an increasingly easy choice. I've said all along I think the controversies around the iPhone exist because it challenges so many assumptions people have always made about technology products. The EFF and others seem to be trying to make Apple conform with their views. Is that really choice? Why can't consumers have the choice of a curated/managed platform? There's a fine line here between consumer protection/advocacy and trying to subject ones personal choices onto others.

cabalamat 16y ago
Maybe what the EFF are really doing is warning potential customers of the digital handcuffs on the iPhone and other similar products, so those consumers can make an informed choice.

CamperBob 16y ago

No, it's not "quite" that simple. Almost every other mobile computing manufacturer is tripping over their own shoelaces these days to copy Apple's policies and practices. Look at Microsoft's direction for Windows Phone 7, for instance, and tell me it's going to be any sort of alternative. And as for Android... eventually, someone is going to release some kind of really hideous malware that does substantial harm to a large portion of their user base. Jobs will spin this event as inevitable -- just as he has already tried to do by casting Android as the "porn" platform of choice -- and Google will end up marginalized further in the public view because they made the silly mistake of leaving their garden gate unlocked. The harm done by Apple's policies can, and has, rippled out across the entire mobile computing sector. It is dangerously naive and disingenuous to claim that you can dodge this damage by "choosing not to buy an iPhone."

darkandbrooding 16y ago
Your post contains the implicit assumption that "really hideous malware" will strike the Android platform before it does the iPhone, which is the necessary condition for Jobs to say "I told you so." (I make the assumption that Jobs would not be able to credibly deliver that line if iOS became a malware target before Android did.) I don't own an Android phone, and am only superficially familiar with its OS or software stack. Do you think that the Android OS is architecturally more susceptible to malware than iOS? If not, do you think that Android's application distribution model is more likely to get malware onto people's phones that Apple's highly restrictive one?
- CamperBob 16y ago
  I don't own an Android phone, and am only superficially familiar with its OS or software stack. Do you think that the Android OS is architecturally more susceptible to malware than iOS? If not, do you think that Android's application distribution model is more likely to get malware onto people's phones that Apple's highly restrictive one? That's my understanding, yes. However, unlike a lot of people including Jobs, I don't see the ability to write deceptive malware for a platform as a "bug." People need to challenge this assumption early and often.

sandee 16y ago

Just as, it was quite simple you can choose not to buy windows PC. People raised issues with Microsoft practises because as a dominant player they set the industry trend. Taking it lying down means accept this as a general trend.

donaq 16y ago

We can - now. But what of the future? Imagine if the iPhone had an overwhelmingly dominant market share of mobile computing devices, say, 90%, and that mobile computing has become an integral part of life (which seems like what's going to happen). At that point, Apple would be able to dictate standards. Even supposing the quality went south and consumers genuinely started disliking the user experience, could one realistically choose not to buy an iPhone then? We've seen this happen before. Is Windows the best operating system out there? I don't think so, but I still have to use it now and then. I have a choice of only working with people who do not use Windows, of course, but it's not a realistic one. The problem is that consumers don't necessarily make the choices that are in their own best long-term interests. That's why tobacco companies are still in business.

tkahn6 16y ago
Just like you can use Linux instead of Windows, you can choose Android instead of iOS. Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders to make money. It therefore has a near-totally correlated responsibility to make products that appeal to the market. If people want Apple products they will buy them and if there exists a market that Apple chooses not to sell to, other companies will exploit it. The problem is that consumers don't necessarily make the choices that are in their own best long-term interests. Best for who? You? You, like I, may like the freedom that OSs like Android allow, but the majority of people don't really care at all.
- donaq 16y ago
  Just like you can use Linux instead of Windows, you can choose Android instead of iOS. Did you read my comment at all? I was arguing that if iOS gained a large enough market share, using Android might become a choice with unrealistic costs, like insisting on using OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office. You could do it, sure, but you'd alienate all your colleagues and/or limiting your choices of employment. If people want Apple products they will buy them and if there exists a market that Apple chooses not to sell to, other companies will exploit it. That's a straw man argument. If making iOS more open would necessarily equate to Apple choosing not to service any market, please show me how. Best for who? You? That question is peculiar, considering that it's a direct response to my saying "their own best long-term interests". :p You, like I, may like the freedom that OSs like Android allow, but the majority of people don't really care at all. That's actually part of my point about people not necessarily making choices that are in their own best long-term interests. Let's use SUVs as an analogy. SUVs are bad for the environment. What's bad for the environment will in the long run be bad for themselves. People still buy SUVs because they're spacious. In the same way, I would argue that, pleasing as the restricted platforms Apple produces are to consumers right now, the lack of freedom might result in a long term loss for consumers.

ryanjmo 16y ago

Well I bought an iPhone before apple got increasing closed, but I'm on a 2 year contract. What should I do now?

usaar333 16y ago
Sell it and buy a new phone. (With early termination fee pro-rotation, I never got what the big deal with breaking ones' contract is. Often, it is cheaper to pay the ETF and switch to another provider).
logic 16y ago
http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/ http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/ That suggestion is only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

siculars 16y ago

Before civil labor laws that was like saying you can chose not to work at the local factory/sweatshop. What we need is blanket protection from the federal government akin to the civil labor laws that grew out of the industrial revolution. We need digital privacy, portability and general freedom laws enacted by congress to set the playing field level between consumers and producers for this next revolution, the digital/social/mobile revolution. It is not enough to say "vote with your wallet". Our liberties are being encroached from every angle in the digital sphere. Virtually every major corporation that plays in this space is screwing the consumer one way or another when it comes to these basic, common sense rights we should all have. Why is it that myspace and facebook and google and apple and amazon all have their own twisted, difficult to understand, legalize terms of service and privacy policies? Where is the government intervention, who loves to stick it's nose in everyones business, when it matters?

lionhearted 16y ago
> What we need is blanket protection from the federal government akin to the civil labor laws that grew out of the industrial revolution. I don't want to be protected from doing voluntary transactions by the federal government - they have a pretty bad track record of making citizens' lives worse when they do that. And besides, laws like this are started as a shield, but eventually get turned into a sword that's corrupted and hijacked by entrenched powers in the various industries. It's the nature of the current political situation with lobbying and a public that cares about the hot button issue, but doesn't follow up on the regulations a few years later to see how it turned out. Once people no longer care, the lobbying starts and you get all kinds of asinine things. Thanks but no thanks - the federal government isn't the answer.
- siculars 16y ago
  Hey, I'm no interventionist. Nevertheless, we have a government, we have laws and we have certain protection enshrined by law. I think this is a perfect opportunity for the feds to do something right. Why can't my data be my data, backed up by law? Why is it that I can't get my data back from facebook anyway and anytime I want to? Why do I have to rely on the benevolence of facebook? Replace facebook with any other social site or entity. I can get my medical record, by law - not based on which doctor I see. I can get my credit report, by law - from all the agencies. I can get a prospectus from a publicly traded company, by law - from all of them, not just those that think it is a competitive advantage to do so. Cars need to adhere to certain minimum emissions standards, by law - not just because their engineers care about the environment. I can go on all day. Do you think that any of these private/public entities would provide such niceties on their own volition? Perhaps some. But why do we need to rely on their whim. Again, as for protection from voluntary transactions I agree with you. I want to smoke and drink all day till it kills me without the government being involved. Nevertheless, both smoking and drinking are regulated and for good measure. Who can disagree with that? At some point in the not to distant future everyone will have a smart phone. Everyone will be on some sort of social network. Everyone will use Google or an equivalent. Everyone will have at least one device that can track their location on their body most of the time. There is no feasible way that this will not be regulated. We can only hope that when it is regulated it is done as a shield and not a sword.

tensor 16y ago

And I haven't. But I do like the rest of the technology in the iphone/ipad. Thus, I will complain. Bad feedback is better than no feedback.

DavidSJ 16y ago

There are at least several questions: * Should Apple have the policies it has? * Should Apple be legally allowed to have the policies it has? * Should we buy Apple's products, given that it has the policies it has? One might think the answer to the second and third are yes while the answer to the first is no.

chc 16y ago

It's not that simple: If I choose not to buy an iPhone, I'm choosing not to buy a good smartphone. There simply aren't any others of comparable quality. Like I've said before, the choice here is not between "open" and "closed," but between "open" and "good." That's the part that annoys me. If there were a legitimate platform that's just like the iPhone only without Apple's ridiculously oppressive policies, I'd be all over that. But there's not.