3 ms·

I reject the distinction as entirely semantics. It's equally true to say that a car maker "purposely restricts" towing capacity in its small, lightweight models

I reject the distinction as entirely semantics. It's equally true to say that a car maker "purposely restricts" towing capacity in its small, lightweight models by making them small and lightweight. Apple designs its iOS products to have a fully managed software-hardware ecosystem. That has a direct consequence of limiting libre freedom, but that doesn't mean Apple opposes the idea of giving customers freedom. They'll happily sell you a different computer with more freedom. The car maker designs its subcompact crossover to have low cost and good fuel economy. That has the direct consequence of limiting towing capacity, but that doesn't mean the car maker opposes the idea of giving customers towing capacity. They'll happily sell you a different vehicle with more towing capacity. Let's review: Managed ecosystem <————> Able to execute whatever Small and lightweight <————> Able to tow heavy loads The analogy holds. More fundamentally I care more about customers having the right to choose the best product for themselves, rather than having @anoncake decide what's best for all of us.

anoncake 7y ago
"Managed ecosystem" is just a euphemism for restricting freedom. > They'll happily sell you a different computer with more freedom. Not one that fulfills the same purpose. Macs hardly fill the same niche as iPhones. If Apple sold both restricted and free iPhones at the same price, no one would object. Then customers would have a choice rather than Apple deciding what's best.
- sjwright 7y ago
  "Small and lightweight" is just a euphemism for can't tow for shit. I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand how capitalism works. Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy an iPhone, other brands are available. And Apple isn't forced to make products which comply with your personal desires.
  - throwaway34241 7y ago
    Now that you brought up capitalism, what do you think about the level of competition in the cell phone (OS) market? I’d be hard pressed to call Apple a monopoly given their market share, but obviously market dominance isn’t a black/white thing (since even a real monopoly may have 99% market share and 1% competition). By some metrics that are relevant to certain markets (like app store revenue) Apple may have a majority market share, which probably gives them quite a lot of leverage and ability to engage in anti-competitive behavior. More broadly it’s a market dominated by two trillion dollar companies with big network effects, which is a reduced level of competition compared to most other things, and it may be harmful for consumer choice for competition to also be reduced in other markets (like non-OS software or marketplaces for such) due to tying products together. I don’t personally have a strong opinion on this but I think there’s a reasonable case to be made for regulation on those grounds. The challenge would be finding rules that are simple and clear cut without micro managing what companies can build.

anoncake 7y ago

"Managed ecosystem" is just a euphemism for restricting freedom. > They'll happily sell you a different computer with more freedom. Not one that fulfills the same purpose. Macs hardly fill the same niche as iPhones. If Apple sold both restricted and free iPhones at the same price, no one would object. Then customers would have a choice rather than Apple deciding what's best.

sjwright 7y ago
"Small and lightweight" is just a euphemism for can't tow for shit. I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand how capitalism works. Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy an iPhone, other brands are available. And Apple isn't forced to make products which comply with your personal desires.
- throwaway34241 7y ago
  Now that you brought up capitalism, what do you think about the level of competition in the cell phone (OS) market? I’d be hard pressed to call Apple a monopoly given their market share, but obviously market dominance isn’t a black/white thing (since even a real monopoly may have 99% market share and 1% competition). By some metrics that are relevant to certain markets (like app store revenue) Apple may have a majority market share, which probably gives them quite a lot of leverage and ability to engage in anti-competitive behavior. More broadly it’s a market dominated by two trillion dollar companies with big network effects, which is a reduced level of competition compared to most other things, and it may be harmful for consumer choice for competition to also be reduced in other markets (like non-OS software or marketplaces for such) due to tying products together. I don’t personally have a strong opinion on this but I think there’s a reasonable case to be made for regulation on those grounds. The challenge would be finding rules that are simple and clear cut without micro managing what companies can build.