4 ms·

Are you really saying you'd be okay with the same idea in any other part of you life? How about a neighborhood where you're not allowed to bring in any products

Are you really saying you'd be okay with the same idea in any other part of you life? How about a neighborhood where you're not allowed to bring in any products except those offered by the company that build the neighborhood? How about car that you're not allowed to carry any items inside or any people that are not officially blessed by the car manufacture? How about a fridgerator that only allows food designated by the makers of the fridge. It seems like your argument is people opted into buying things with those restrictions therefore it's ok but many things have been banned in the past along similar lines.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sooheon 6y ago
Yes. As an example, think of the juicero debacle. They tried that game, and failed miserably because the whole offering was not attractive. Most of your ad absurdism examples fall along these lines. I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience—-if it sucks, a competitor should be able to do better.
- greggman3 6y ago
  There's nothing preventing you from having an unrestricted device but having your improved experience. Plenty of people chose only to rent movies at Blockbuster Video because it was a bright and clean store with no porn. That didn't require Blockbuster to make their own special VHS or DVD player that only played the movies they offered. > I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience I'm sure there are plenty of restrictions that would improve the overall experience for many people of many things that are still banned. Plenty of people would like all of a certain race banned from their apartment complex or town. I guess by your argument if they opt in to that experience because it's better for them it's should be no problem.
  - sooheon 6y ago
    > There's nothing preventing you from having an unrestricted device but having your improved experience. Agreed. I, as a consumer, would like this option the best. If a free and open competitor to Apple made better devices and better software, I would jump ship immediately. I lament Apple's increasingly poor decisions, but have no better alternative currently, because competitors just aren't as good at what they do. The answer isn't to strong arm Apple into changing the way they do business on their own platform, the answer is to build better alternatives. (IMHO) > I'm sure there are plenty of restrictions that would improve the overall experience for many people of many things that are still banned. Plenty of people would like all of a certain race banned from their apartment complex or town. I guess by your argument if they opt in to that experience because it's better for them it's should be no problem. I know you gave this as an absurd gotcha, but yeah I have no problem with that. For the sake of argument: - Town A wants to segregate, everyone in A would be happier with racial segregation. - Country X does not want segregation, the people have spoken and decided that segregation is immoral. - Town A should be free segregate to their hearts content, just not in Country A.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sooheon 6y ago

Yes. As an example, think of the juicero debacle. They tried that game, and failed miserably because the whole offering was not attractive. Most of your ad absurdism examples fall along these lines. I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience—-if it sucks, a competitor should be able to do better.

greggman3 6y ago
There's nothing preventing you from having an unrestricted device but having your improved experience. Plenty of people chose only to rent movies at Blockbuster Video because it was a bright and clean store with no porn. That didn't require Blockbuster to make their own special VHS or DVD player that only played the movies they offered. > I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience I'm sure there are plenty of restrictions that would improve the overall experience for many people of many things that are still banned. Plenty of people would like all of a certain race banned from their apartment complex or town. I guess by your argument if they opt in to that experience because it's better for them it's should be no problem.
- sooheon 6y ago
  > There's nothing preventing you from having an unrestricted device but having your improved experience. Agreed. I, as a consumer, would like this option the best. If a free and open competitor to Apple made better devices and better software, I would jump ship immediately. I lament Apple's increasingly poor decisions, but have no better alternative currently, because competitors just aren't as good at what they do. The answer isn't to strong arm Apple into changing the way they do business on their own platform, the answer is to build better alternatives. (IMHO) > I'm sure there are plenty of restrictions that would improve the overall experience for many people of many things that are still banned. Plenty of people would like all of a certain race banned from their apartment complex or town. I guess by your argument if they opt in to that experience because it's better for them it's should be no problem. I know you gave this as an absurd gotcha, but yeah I have no problem with that. For the sake of argument: - Town A wants to segregate, everyone in A would be happier with racial segregation. - Country X does not want segregation, the people have spoken and decided that segregation is immoral. - Town A should be free segregate to their hearts content, just not in Country A.