5 ms·

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,

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
    > I honestly am asking you to reflect on it. Why do you care? What's it to you? What a phenomenal way to shut down conversation. "Why do you care?" is such a spineless response. It could be used in any conversation regarding any topic for an easy out. Either engage with the conversation or don't.
    - bonestormii_ 6y ago
      I'm not trying to shut down the conversation. In this case it is the conversation. "Why do we defend and obsess over 3rd party business interests of corporate giants?" is the topic we are discussing. Keep up.
  - WoodenChair 6y ago
    > I honestly am asking you to reflect on it. Why do you care? What's it to you? I care because I think there is a lot of misdirected energy and anger. In a world with racial injustice, starvation, poverty, etc. you choose this topic to be outraged about? Well you have a right to your outrage. It’s good some people are outraged because it keeps them on their toes. But at the same time I have a right to say I think your dialogue and vitriol is out-of-line with the reality of the situation, and hyperbolic at best. I am a counter-balance to your outrage and that’s why I care.
    - bonestormii_ 6y ago
      That's a well-reasoned response which I can appreciate. But honestly, read my original post to which you replied. I said I shared the parent's disgust, but I don't think I'm really reveling in outrage or speaking in such extreme terms as you characterize. I'll quote it... > "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." Honestly, I use so much language to balance and mitigate my argument that it's overly verbose. > "There are shades of gray", "relatively shallow", "Certainly, app development can be a gateway for some people...", Freedom can be high-minded and needs to be balanced,". Is it possible to make this point passively enough to satisfy your requirements? I'll also admit that the parent comment was a bit more extreme in it's tone. And I'll admit there are many injustices in the world that go beyond tech. But I think the underlying issue of acquiring and maintaining freedom of all kinds is valid. It's like saying, "With racial inequality being what it is, how can you spend your time belaboring a point about campaign finance reform?" The answer is simple: Because one form of freedom (in this case, governmental representation) facilitates those adjacent freedoms (racial equality). The importance of one doesn't invalidate the importance of the other. I'm like, not that outraged. But I am like, casually disgusted by people who seem to have allowed huge corporations to become so apart of themselves that they lose the ability to see some obvious flaws. I love my iPhone. Apple is far from the worst of it. But there are some very disturbing trends in tech and the world that warrant our skepticism and yes, our disgust. That it is treated as normal is part of the problem.
- newbie578 6y ago
  Quite convenient how you look the iOS marketshare at the global scale :) Is there an organization regarding antitrust cases that works on a global scale like UN? Last I checked the U.S. antitrust commitee looks at the U.S. economy, not how many iOS users are there in Kenya, India, etc. It is only fair that you look at the iOS U.S. marketshare, and what would you know, they have over 50% ;) https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/north-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/north-amer...
  - WoodenChair 6y ago
    50% is not a monopoly last I checked. It’s an oligopoly but at least a highly competitive one with two very different value propositions (privacy/closed ecosystem vs openness/lower prices). Basically every computing landscape ends in oligopoly due to network effects - personal computers 1990s (Windows vs Mac), video game consoles (Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft), mainframes 1970s (IBM vs 7 dwarves), etc. Argument is almost as strong at 50% IMHO. At 90% not so much (Google Search, Microsoft Windows, Android almost globally)
    - newbie578 6y ago
      In some industries a monopoly can even be with a marketshare about 25%, but nevermind, 50% is widely regarded as the average threshold, as you can see on justice.gov :( "Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)" https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

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
  > I honestly am asking you to reflect on it. Why do you care? What's it to you? What a phenomenal way to shut down conversation. "Why do you care?" is such a spineless response. It could be used in any conversation regarding any topic for an easy out. Either engage with the conversation or don't.
  - bonestormii_ 6y ago
    I'm not trying to shut down the conversation. In this case it is the conversation. "Why do we defend and obsess over 3rd party business interests of corporate giants?" is the topic we are discussing. Keep up.
- WoodenChair 6y ago
  > I honestly am asking you to reflect on it. Why do you care? What's it to you? I care because I think there is a lot of misdirected energy and anger. In a world with racial injustice, starvation, poverty, etc. you choose this topic to be outraged about? Well you have a right to your outrage. It’s good some people are outraged because it keeps them on their toes. But at the same time I have a right to say I think your dialogue and vitriol is out-of-line with the reality of the situation, and hyperbolic at best. I am a counter-balance to your outrage and that’s why I care.
  - bonestormii_ 6y ago
    That's a well-reasoned response which I can appreciate. But honestly, read my original post to which you replied. I said I shared the parent's disgust, but I don't think I'm really reveling in outrage or speaking in such extreme terms as you characterize. I'll quote it... > "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." Honestly, I use so much language to balance and mitigate my argument that it's overly verbose. > "There are shades of gray", "relatively shallow", "Certainly, app development can be a gateway for some people...", Freedom can be high-minded and needs to be balanced,". Is it possible to make this point passively enough to satisfy your requirements? I'll also admit that the parent comment was a bit more extreme in it's tone. And I'll admit there are many injustices in the world that go beyond tech. But I think the underlying issue of acquiring and maintaining freedom of all kinds is valid. It's like saying, "With racial inequality being what it is, how can you spend your time belaboring a point about campaign finance reform?" The answer is simple: Because one form of freedom (in this case, governmental representation) facilitates those adjacent freedoms (racial equality). The importance of one doesn't invalidate the importance of the other. I'm like, not that outraged. But I am like, casually disgusted by people who seem to have allowed huge corporations to become so apart of themselves that they lose the ability to see some obvious flaws. I love my iPhone. Apple is far from the worst of it. But there are some very disturbing trends in tech and the world that warrant our skepticism and yes, our disgust. That it is treated as normal is part of the problem.
newbie578 6y ago
Quite convenient how you look the iOS marketshare at the global scale :) Is there an organization regarding antitrust cases that works on a global scale like UN? Last I checked the U.S. antitrust commitee looks at the U.S. economy, not how many iOS users are there in Kenya, India, etc. It is only fair that you look at the iOS U.S. marketshare, and what would you know, they have over 50% ;) https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/north-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/north-amer...
- WoodenChair 6y ago
  50% is not a monopoly last I checked. It’s an oligopoly but at least a highly competitive one with two very different value propositions (privacy/closed ecosystem vs openness/lower prices). Basically every computing landscape ends in oligopoly due to network effects - personal computers 1990s (Windows vs Mac), video game consoles (Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft), mainframes 1970s (IBM vs 7 dwarves), etc. Argument is almost as strong at 50% IMHO. At 90% not so much (Google Search, Microsoft Windows, Android almost globally)
  - newbie578 6y ago
    In some industries a monopoly can even be with a marketshare about 25%, but nevermind, 50% is widely regarded as the average threshold, as you can see on justice.gov :( "Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)" https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...