5 ms·

I won't deny that there are many many users that do not care. However, I disagree that there is a real choice in the current duopoly. Android allows you to inst

I won't deny that there are many many users that do not care. However, I disagree that there is a real choice in the current duopoly. Android allows you to install applications outside the app store. However, you trade this possibility for continuous data harvesting by Google and only a limited window of updates. So, the choice is largely: some freedom ^ (privacy | long-term updates) Freedom, privacy, and long-term updates are all important to me, so there is no real choice.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Just because you aren't having all your desires perfectly catered to does not mean that there is not real choice. It means that, like everything else in life, you have to make tradeoffs.
- xeromal 8y ago
  Exactly. That's what grownups do.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Since we the users are 99.999999% of the populace why do we have to make trade offs in user freedom? You say grownups I hear that some are too weak willed to stand up for their rights.
- binomialxenon 8y ago
  I really think we should ask more of technology rather than to just accept Locked-Thing vs Spy-Thing. It's practically an imposed dichotomy, and people deserve better.
  - sidr 8y ago
    Other models of monetization are simply not sufficient. If you disagree, please feel free to write your own mobile OS (you can even start by just forking Android).
    - binomialxenon 8y ago
      I think (end-user computing) corporations have just become selfish. Even pre-iPhone, phones such as Windows Mobile, Palm Pilot, Symbian, and J2ME all allowed sideloading and didn't mine the users' data (as far as I know). On the desktop, Windows and OS X were both profitable and successful without locking out third-party software or mining all the user's data. Money can still be made through app stores (exclusivity is not needed - I'm sure the Play Store is still hugely profitable despite sideloading), from hardware sales, from subscription services, from licensing software to OEMs, and more. What we're seeing is that companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are not content to make a lot of money while still keeping some respect for the user. They realize that even more money can be made screwing over the user. This really causes harm to society, as a lot of people realize they're being screwed but feel like they have no choice or agency in the matter. In my opinion, this is a good example of why capitalism and the free market are not ultimate goods in themselves but are rather a means to an end, and can certainly be used for evil purposes.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Since apple management is 0.000001% of the population why can't we just abrogate the trade off by making them do what we prefer in the name of consumer choice.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    By an Android phone. There, you've now exercised consumer choice.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      I do have an android phone. I don't think there is any value in having only some workplaces be safe, only some restaurants clean, or only some computers actually owned by their owners.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        That's not your call to make, however.
        michaelmrose 8y ago
        It's the peoples call to make.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Just because you aren't having all your desires perfectly catered to does not mean that there is not real choice. It means that, like everything else in life, you have to make tradeoffs.

xeromal 8y ago
Exactly. That's what grownups do.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Since we the users are 99.999999% of the populace why do we have to make trade offs in user freedom? You say grownups I hear that some are too weak willed to stand up for their rights.
binomialxenon 8y ago
I really think we should ask more of technology rather than to just accept Locked-Thing vs Spy-Thing. It's practically an imposed dichotomy, and people deserve better.
- sidr 8y ago
  Other models of monetization are simply not sufficient. If you disagree, please feel free to write your own mobile OS (you can even start by just forking Android).
  - binomialxenon 8y ago
    I think (end-user computing) corporations have just become selfish. Even pre-iPhone, phones such as Windows Mobile, Palm Pilot, Symbian, and J2ME all allowed sideloading and didn't mine the users' data (as far as I know). On the desktop, Windows and OS X were both profitable and successful without locking out third-party software or mining all the user's data. Money can still be made through app stores (exclusivity is not needed - I'm sure the Play Store is still hugely profitable despite sideloading), from hardware sales, from subscription services, from licensing software to OEMs, and more. What we're seeing is that companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are not content to make a lot of money while still keeping some respect for the user. They realize that even more money can be made screwing over the user. This really causes harm to society, as a lot of people realize they're being screwed but feel like they have no choice or agency in the matter. In my opinion, this is a good example of why capitalism and the free market are not ultimate goods in themselves but are rather a means to an end, and can certainly be used for evil purposes.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Since apple management is 0.000001% of the population why can't we just abrogate the trade off by making them do what we prefer in the name of consumer choice.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  By an Android phone. There, you've now exercised consumer choice.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    I do have an android phone. I don't think there is any value in having only some workplaces be safe, only some restaurants clean, or only some computers actually owned by their owners.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      That's not your call to make, however.
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        It's the peoples call to make.