5 ms·
One day it'll dawn on people that we should provide infrastructure that guarantees safety and freedom, not walled gardens that provide safety and freedom only i
by alexashka 6y ago
One day it'll dawn on people that we should provide infrastructure that guarantees safety and freedom, not walled gardens that provide safety and freedom only if it also happens to be profitable for somebody.
There seem to be enough people who don't see this as self evident and are motivated to try and create their own walled gardens in the hopes of becoming the next rent seeker overlord.
These types of posts never end - it's as if people refuse to let go of their naive belief that Apple or some other entity is fundamentally good, but just needs to be pleaded with a little more, to begin to act righteously. It reminds me of children who beg their parents into buying them a toy they want. It makes me sad for both the child to be stooping to such a level but even more so for the parent, for letting the child end up in such a situation in the first place.
I don't know, is begging trillion dollar companies to provide basic functionality not in conflict with having an iota of dignity?
- arvinsim 6y ago> These types of posts never end - it's as if people refuse to let go of their naive belief that Apple or some other entity is fundamentally good, but just needs to be pleaded with a little more, to begin to act righteously. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
- zadokshi 6y agoWe already have laws for this. Look up what “anti trust” is. The real question you should be asking is “why are anti trust rules not functioning properly” or why aren’t they being applied for this generation?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- alexashka 6y agoI'm well aware of the reasons why. I'm simply using baby-steps to get others to inch their way towards realizing it, instead of naively hoping Apple or some other entity is their mommy/daddy figure that needs to be pleaded with.
- scarface74 6y agoTrue. Why isn’t anti trust going after a company that is less than 50% of the market.....
- manigandham 6y agoPerhaps "anti trust" needs to be revisited as a broader concept. A similar corollary is the "right to repair" which often falls under the same excuse of being able to use a competitor's product but ignores the high price consumers in giving up any control over what they purchased.
- scarface74 6y agoSure. Let’s give the government more power. What could possibly go wrong?
- zadokshi 6y agoNot sure why they would need to have more than 50% to be facing anti-trust issues, but it doesn't matter, Apple is already at 50% of the market. https://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-global-smartphone-market-share-more-50-first-time/ https://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-global-smartphone-ma...
- scarface74 6y agoEven so, 50% is hardly a monopoly and consumers have plenty of other viable, cheaper options.
- chiefsucker 6y agoTo have a monopoly doesn’t mean to have a specific market share, it means to show monopolistic behavior.
- scarface74 6y agoYeah so I am sure the Justice Department would sue Apple for having a monopoly of enough people complained about how it treats Mac developers. That’s not how it works....
- arexxbifs 6y agoEvery time Google/Apple/Microsoft/Whatever behave like the revenue-driven megacorp thugs they are, a substantial amount of HN readers act surprised and I'm surprised by the constant surprise. The track records of those companies clearly tell us, time and time again, about their true intentions and loyalties. > an iota of dignity That's a bit harsh, man.
- wilshipley 6y agoI’ve been using NeXTstep since 1988 and have influenced the course of its history quite a bit over the last 32 years, as it found its way into Macs and then iPhones. I don’t think it’s undignified to tell Apple they are going down a road that’ll hurt everyone. You assume nobody at Apple will listen to me. I don’t. -Wil