4 ms·

It's sad to see somewhat bright minds, spending their life analyzing what companies are doing to maximize profit. Why is that interesting and at what point do

It's sad to see somewhat bright minds, spending their life analyzing what companies are doing to maximize profit. Why is that interesting and at what point do you notice that every move these companies make, is anti-human? Take Apple: their entire business model is reliant upon the government never waking up to enforcing open standards and protocols to ensure consumers get hardware-agnostic, operating system-agnostic, service-provider agnostic, company-agnostic tools and services, which is what everyone would agree we want, except the sociopaths who value profit over humanity and run these corporations. That's what got everyone excited about Bitcoin for a hot second. That it finally escapes the walled gardens all technology is living under. Instead of fixing the walled gardens, these delusional fools think they can technology their way out of corporations owning all key infrastructure. Jesus Christ. Back to Apple. Apple's entire business strategy is creating a walled garden because it benefits them, at the expense of everyone else. They give consumers crumbs and call it 'the biggest release ever'. Facebook's entire business strategy is being a surveillance network, which is again, entirely reliant upon the government never waking up to how creepy, immoral and counter-productive it is on so many levels! There are enough sociopaths in government who think oh good, a surveillance tool, we can make use of it! Good luck having Facebook regulated when we live in a corporatocracy folks! Everything these big companies do is against the interests of human beings. People are just too dumb to see it because if you drip-feed them 'new emojis' and 'you can have a weather widget on your screen in 2020', they don't realize they are getting fucked! Sorry, carry on with your 'analysis' of what these sociopaths are up to and pretending you have valuable insight, when the only sane insight to be had is 'these fuckers are out of control'.

WoodenChair 6y ago
> Why is that interesting and at what point do you notice that every move these companies make, is anti-human? Hyperbole if I've ever read it. "every move"? Is investing in clean energy to power all of their data centers anti-human as Apple has done? Is creating a $100,000,000 education fund for under-represented app developers anti-human? Is encrypting devices by default to protect privacy anti-human? Now, as you can see I'm a bit of an Apple apologist and of course all of these are good PR moves. But every corporation is by definition just a "group of humans working together for profit." They will do good things for profit and they will do bad things for profit. But a group of humans working together for profit does not make every move they do "anti-human."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  There are certainly shades of gray, but if I can speak on behalf of the post you are responding to, it seems their argument would be that it is a net negative, and that the "Good PR humanity" is relatively shallow in the end. Consider a $100,000,000 education fund for app developers. Certainly, app development can be a gateway for some people, but once they develop apps, where do they go if not a market place that Apple tightly controls? They are a machine funding the creation of new cogs in this scenario. If your overlords buy you an opulent dinner and provide you with a warm bed, it doesn't mean you are free. Freedom can be a vague and high-minded ideal that obviously needs to be balanced with communal concerns, but I agree with the parent poster's overall disgust. It feels that a company like Apple is so big that they are beyond any societal control or regulation, and that is unacceptable. To hear their minions rush to their defense as if their interests are somehow aligned (they're not) is too much to handle sometimes. It's tiring.
  - WoodenChair 6y ago
    You are free from entities that don't have coercive control over you. If there were no alternatives to the Apple ecosystem to get your work/social life/business done, then you would be correct, we are not free. However, iOS has <20% global marketshare[0]. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the App Store needs reform. Perhaps there should be some regulation, that's above my pay grade. Your level of disgust also to me feels like hyperbole. 0: https://www.statista.com/statistics/236031/market-share-of-ios-in-global-smartphone-os-shipments/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/236031/market-share-of-i...
    - bonestormii_ 6y ago
      Oh yes, the fabled <20% marketshare. So where should I go from Apple if not into the waiting arms of Google/Android? Is that better? This isn't actually a conversation specifically about Apple if you recall. It is a conversation about all such companies. And yes, your defense of Apple is a little cringe-y. Why do you need to defend such a behemoth in a conversation that is decidedly not dedicated to them? Per the parent comment--Why does HN obsess over the actions of these companies that are categorically not for anyone's benefit other than their own? That was the original question. I honestly am asking you to reflect on it. Why do you care? What's it to you?
askafriend 6y ago
As a consumer, I pay more to buy Apple devices because Apple is a walled garden that exercises tight control over its ecosystem. I like the walled garden and it results in a ton of benefits to me as a consumer (the fact that you couldn't even list one benefit just shows that you haven't meaningfully explored your own questions or opposing viewpoints). You used a lot of words to basically say nothing meaningful and show that you actually don't understand these companies or their customers.
bonestormii_ 6y ago
I couldn't agree more with this. "Drip feeding 'new emojis'" sent chills down my spine. The problem always seems to be the question, "How do you get a decentralized system to a reach critical mass of mainstream usage?" Consider the concept of a labor union. The word "union" implies a unification, formalization, and to some extent a centralization of workers around an administrative structure that is not the business that employs them. I think many people would agree that such a union is a necessary counter force if you want to achieve progressive workplace reforms. Technology to free us from the walled garden always pursues decentralization as a means to evade control. But there must be some unified, centralized force promoting it early on. The downside to this is that it creates a large attack surface vulnerable to legal threat and infiltration of competing interests. However, we can't replace the global internet with enmeshed home networks. We can't replace fiber with dreams, or iphones with raspberry pis. It would be great if the governments represented the people, and did not act like some self-interested third party so much of the time. Perhaps, the government--our government--would be an appropriate body to administer a formative revolution. But since we know that they like to spy, control, and arbitrarily regulate, it forces the question of how to form a dedicated central entity powerful enough to promote the changes we want to see, but resistant to the trappings of other corporations and government. It's a deep question that arises when you pursue freedom of any kind.
jmull 6y ago
> Take Apple: their entire business model is reliant upon the government never waking up to enforcing open standards and protocols If the government mandates protocol X, then protocol X is no longer open. The body directing the development of protocol X becomes an extended part of the government (or simply a direct part), and is subject to an entirely different level of political influence. > People are just too dumb to see it... I honestly don't believe you can share, understand, or speak for the interests of people you hold in contempt. The thing is, they aren't dumb, no more so than you, I or anyone else. You may not understand their perspective, but they have one whether you can see it or not.

WoodenChair 6y ago

> Why is that interesting and at what point do you notice that every move these companies make, is anti-human? Hyperbole if I've ever read it. "every move"? Is investing in clean energy to power all of their data centers anti-human as Apple has done? Is creating a $100,000,000 education fund for under-represented app developers anti-human? Is encrypting devices by default to protect privacy anti-human? Now, as you can see I'm a bit of an Apple apologist and of course all of these are good PR moves. But every corporation is by definition just a "group of humans working together for profit." They will do good things for profit and they will do bad things for profit. But a group of humans working together for profit does not make every move they do "anti-human."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bonestormii_ 6y ago
There are certainly shades of gray, but if I can speak on behalf of the post you are responding to, it seems their argument would be that it is a net negative, and that the "Good PR humanity" is relatively shallow in the end. Consider a $100,000,000 education fund for app developers. Certainly, app development can be a gateway for some people, but once they develop apps, where do they go if not a market place that Apple tightly controls? They are a machine funding the creation of new cogs in this scenario. If your overlords buy you an opulent dinner and provide you with a warm bed, it doesn't mean you are free. Freedom can be a vague and high-minded ideal that obviously needs to be balanced with communal concerns, but I agree with the parent poster's overall disgust. It feels that a company like Apple is so big that they are beyond any societal control or regulation, and that is unacceptable. To hear their minions rush to their defense as if their interests are somehow aligned (they're not) is too much to handle sometimes. It's tiring.
- WoodenChair 6y ago
  You are free from entities that don't have coercive control over you. If there were no alternatives to the Apple ecosystem to get your work/social life/business done, then you would be correct, we are not free. However, iOS has <20% global marketshare[0]. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the App Store needs reform. Perhaps there should be some regulation, that's above my pay grade. Your level of disgust also to me feels like hyperbole. 0: https://www.statista.com/statistics/236031/market-share-of-ios-in-global-smartphone-os-shipments/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/236031/market-share-of-i...
  - bonestormii_ 6y ago
    Oh yes, the fabled <20% marketshare. So where should I go from Apple if not into the waiting arms of Google/Android? Is that better? This isn't actually a conversation specifically about Apple if you recall. It is a conversation about all such companies. And yes, your defense of Apple is a little cringe-y. Why do you need to defend such a behemoth in a conversation that is decidedly not dedicated to them? Per the parent comment--Why does HN obsess over the actions of these companies that are categorically not for anyone's benefit other than their own? That was the original question. I honestly am asking you to reflect on it. Why do you care? What's it to you?

askafriend 6y ago

As a consumer, I pay more to buy Apple devices because Apple is a walled garden that exercises tight control over its ecosystem. I like the walled garden and it results in a ton of benefits to me as a consumer (the fact that you couldn't even list one benefit just shows that you haven't meaningfully explored your own questions or opposing viewpoints). You used a lot of words to basically say nothing meaningful and show that you actually don't understand these companies or their customers.

bonestormii_ 6y ago

I couldn't agree more with this. "Drip feeding 'new emojis'" sent chills down my spine. The problem always seems to be the question, "How do you get a decentralized system to a reach critical mass of mainstream usage?" Consider the concept of a labor union. The word "union" implies a unification, formalization, and to some extent a centralization of workers around an administrative structure that is not the business that employs them. I think many people would agree that such a union is a necessary counter force if you want to achieve progressive workplace reforms. Technology to free us from the walled garden always pursues decentralization as a means to evade control. But there must be some unified, centralized force promoting it early on. The downside to this is that it creates a large attack surface vulnerable to legal threat and infiltration of competing interests. However, we can't replace the global internet with enmeshed home networks. We can't replace fiber with dreams, or iphones with raspberry pis. It would be great if the governments represented the people, and did not act like some self-interested third party so much of the time. Perhaps, the government--our government--would be an appropriate body to administer a formative revolution. But since we know that they like to spy, control, and arbitrarily regulate, it forces the question of how to form a dedicated central entity powerful enough to promote the changes we want to see, but resistant to the trappings of other corporations and government. It's a deep question that arises when you pursue freedom of any kind.

jmull 6y ago

> Take Apple: their entire business model is reliant upon the government never waking up to enforcing open standards and protocols If the government mandates protocol X, then protocol X is no longer open. The body directing the development of protocol X becomes an extended part of the government (or simply a direct part), and is subject to an entirely different level of political influence. > People are just too dumb to see it... I honestly don't believe you can share, understand, or speak for the interests of people you hold in contempt. The thing is, they aren't dumb, no more so than you, I or anyone else. You may not understand their perspective, but they have one whether you can see it or not.