4 ms·

> The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I run on after buying it. The manufacturer of the device is within their rights to ship the softwar

> The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I run on after buying it. The manufacturer of the device is within their rights to ship the software/hardware experience they want it to have. If you do not like it, then there is no obligation for you to buy said device. You are not entitled to make the device manufacturer pour time and effort into developing support for features like this. It's quite simple - if you don't like the ecosystem, move on.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
I actually do just that: I don't buy apple's devices, for precisely this reason. And I happen to actually like them. This argument you make is actually done to the death. If you don't like Jenko's oil (ever read "The Godfather"?), you may just not buy it. It is a monopoly, and it hurts consumers. I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. Good that EU and US lawmakers are finally waking up to this abuse.
- xvector 6y ago
  > It is a monopoly, Apple is a minority player in the mobile device space. If you don't want to use an Apple device no one is making you. It will not impact your daily life in any meaningful way whatsoever. > I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust.
  - echelon 6y ago
    > I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust. I don't want Apple and Google taking 30% of my profit. How hard is it as a startup to yield that much of your profit margin for such a stupid reason? We regressed hard core since the 90s. Distribution was free. The web platform is accessible to anyone without an account or membership fee. Anyone used to be able to write hardware drivers and innovate to the fullest extent with hardware, to get it to do whatever. Now you have to follow the distributor product roadmap and sanctioned API. Google and Apple own compute. How the fuck did we let that happen? The government needs to push these entities aside to ensure further innovation can continue.
    - moogleii 6y ago
      Depends on what you're comparing against. With the web, as much as I enjoyed those days, your take seems a bit rose-tinted. Generally, finding official binaries wasn't too bad. "This website looks official" was the bar. But that was a crazy low bar then, and even worse today. It's essentially "the domain looks correct and the design looks polished". For some of the more obscure binaries, I recall downloading from the "wrong" sites a handful of times. Rare, but it happened. When I watched my parents use a computer then, there was no check of what was legit, because why wouldn't it be legit? Comparing against consoles like Nintendo, Sega, and Xbox back then, it was definitely an improvement. No NDAs, no exorbitant upfront costs for dev hardware, no massive take by your publisher. 30% was not much compared to all that, where it likely would have been the other way around (you get 30 [if that], "they" get 70). Today, it does feel steep, and could use another realignment, but "the good old days" weren't exactly that.
- echelon 6y ago
  Many of them are Apple and Google employees. Or own Apple and Google stock. (I do, but I still think they're monopolies.)
- scarface74 6y ago
  What do the first two syllables in “monopoly” mean?
  - diego_moita 6y ago
    Mono means "one", poly means many, as in: one supplier (Apple) for many customers (iPhone users).
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So now we define monopoly as only one company can sell its own products? Doesn’t that make every company a monopoly?
      - ac29 6y ago
        The problem (if you agree there is one) is that Apple is the only company that can sell many other companies products, because they use technical restrictions to prevent those companies from selling their own products independently. They then use that advantage to charge an unreasonably high fee to consumers.
        scarface74 6y ago
        You mean the same fee that literally everyone else charges digitally?
    - xvector 6y ago
      What a ridiculous divide-and-conquer definition of “monopoly.” Apple is one supplier out of many in the mobile device space. “iPhone users” do not constitute an industry any more than “Windows Store users.” By your logic I could just divide every service and every industry over and over, until everything happens to be a monopoly over some small uniform subset of users. HN is a monopoly over HN users! Nike is a monopoly over people in the Nike store! Whole Foods is a monopoly over people visiting grocery stores at this Whole Foods address! Government, please control and regulate all of these out of existence!
umvi 6y ago
> The manufacturer of the device is within their rights to ship the software/hardware experience they want it to have. This is the same logic people use to block modification of movies, music, books, video games, etc. "The artist wants you to experience their art a specific way and the ability to [censor profanity/add zombies/change the ending/remix it] wrests control from the creator and allows people experience their art in a way they didn't intend, which is bad" Curiously though, these people never mention altering food as destroying the experience the chef wanted them to have. For some reason consumers are allowed to have food preferences that modify art, but not preferences that modify other types of art.
- karpierz 6y ago
  Sure, and if you order food at a restaurant and and want to modify it, don't expect the chef to let you into the kitchen and use their tools to do it.
  - umvi 6y ago
    Precisely! And you would also hope the food doesn't come inside a bullet-proof glass bubble with a robotic arm as the only interface between you and the food to ensure you eat it exactly the way the chef intended. And furthermore you would hope breaking the bullet-proof glass bubble so you can feed yourself and pick out the mushrooms won't cause the chef to send lawyers after you (especially if you teach others how to).
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      It's normal for restaurants to restrict what you eat and how, even if the food belongs to you. Have you ever tried to bring, say, a cake or a bottle of wine to dinner with you? Some places might just say no outside food or drink, but others will say you have to pay them per slice to cut your own cake, for instance. Or you have to pay them to uncork your wine[1]. So although you're presenting an analogy intended to be absurd, I think it's not far from how the normal non-tech world works, in terms of controlling your experience. [1]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corkage https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corkage

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

I actually do just that: I don't buy apple's devices, for precisely this reason. And I happen to actually like them. This argument you make is actually done to the death. If you don't like Jenko's oil (ever read "The Godfather"?), you may just not buy it. It is a monopoly, and it hurts consumers. I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. Good that EU and US lawmakers are finally waking up to this abuse.

xvector 6y ago
> It is a monopoly, Apple is a minority player in the mobile device space. If you don't want to use an Apple device no one is making you. It will not impact your daily life in any meaningful way whatsoever. > I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust.
- echelon 6y ago
  > I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust. I don't want Apple and Google taking 30% of my profit. How hard is it as a startup to yield that much of your profit margin for such a stupid reason? We regressed hard core since the 90s. Distribution was free. The web platform is accessible to anyone without an account or membership fee. Anyone used to be able to write hardware drivers and innovate to the fullest extent with hardware, to get it to do whatever. Now you have to follow the distributor product roadmap and sanctioned API. Google and Apple own compute. How the fuck did we let that happen? The government needs to push these entities aside to ensure further innovation can continue.
  - moogleii 6y ago
    Depends on what you're comparing against. With the web, as much as I enjoyed those days, your take seems a bit rose-tinted. Generally, finding official binaries wasn't too bad. "This website looks official" was the bar. But that was a crazy low bar then, and even worse today. It's essentially "the domain looks correct and the design looks polished". For some of the more obscure binaries, I recall downloading from the "wrong" sites a handful of times. Rare, but it happened. When I watched my parents use a computer then, there was no check of what was legit, because why wouldn't it be legit? Comparing against consoles like Nintendo, Sega, and Xbox back then, it was definitely an improvement. No NDAs, no exorbitant upfront costs for dev hardware, no massive take by your publisher. 30% was not much compared to all that, where it likely would have been the other way around (you get 30 [if that], "they" get 70). Today, it does feel steep, and could use another realignment, but "the good old days" weren't exactly that.
echelon 6y ago
Many of them are Apple and Google employees. Or own Apple and Google stock. (I do, but I still think they're monopolies.)
scarface74 6y ago
What do the first two syllables in “monopoly” mean?
- diego_moita 6y ago
  Mono means "one", poly means many, as in: one supplier (Apple) for many customers (iPhone users).
  - scarface74 6y ago
    So now we define monopoly as only one company can sell its own products? Doesn’t that make every company a monopoly?
    - ac29 6y ago
      The problem (if you agree there is one) is that Apple is the only company that can sell many other companies products, because they use technical restrictions to prevent those companies from selling their own products independently. They then use that advantage to charge an unreasonably high fee to consumers.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        You mean the same fee that literally everyone else charges digitally?
  - xvector 6y ago
    What a ridiculous divide-and-conquer definition of “monopoly.” Apple is one supplier out of many in the mobile device space. “iPhone users” do not constitute an industry any more than “Windows Store users.” By your logic I could just divide every service and every industry over and over, until everything happens to be a monopoly over some small uniform subset of users. HN is a monopoly over HN users! Nike is a monopoly over people in the Nike store! Whole Foods is a monopoly over people visiting grocery stores at this Whole Foods address! Government, please control and regulate all of these out of existence!

umvi 6y ago

> The manufacturer of the device is within their rights to ship the software/hardware experience they want it to have. This is the same logic people use to block modification of movies, music, books, video games, etc. "The artist wants you to experience their art a specific way and the ability to [censor profanity/add zombies/change the ending/remix it] wrests control from the creator and allows people experience their art in a way they didn't intend, which is bad" Curiously though, these people never mention altering food as destroying the experience the chef wanted them to have. For some reason consumers are allowed to have food preferences that modify art, but not preferences that modify other types of art.

karpierz 6y ago
Sure, and if you order food at a restaurant and and want to modify it, don't expect the chef to let you into the kitchen and use their tools to do it.
- umvi 6y ago
  Precisely! And you would also hope the food doesn't come inside a bullet-proof glass bubble with a robotic arm as the only interface between you and the food to ensure you eat it exactly the way the chef intended. And furthermore you would hope breaking the bullet-proof glass bubble so you can feed yourself and pick out the mushrooms won't cause the chef to send lawyers after you (especially if you teach others how to).
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    It's normal for restaurants to restrict what you eat and how, even if the food belongs to you. Have you ever tried to bring, say, a cake or a bottle of wine to dinner with you? Some places might just say no outside food or drink, but others will say you have to pay them per slice to cut your own cake, for instance. Or you have to pay them to uncork your wine[1]. So although you're presenting an analogy intended to be absurd, I think it's not far from how the normal non-tech world works, in terms of controlling your experience. [1]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corkage https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corkage