8 ms·

Yes but why? Why not demand to be able to have control over your own devices?

by badsectoracula 6y ago

ericmay 6y ago
Because we don’t want control over our Nintendo switch or iPhone.
- m-p-3 6y ago
  I still wish OtherOS[1] was still a thing on PlayStation systems. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  But why? What is the benefit of giving up that control?
  - ericmay 6y ago
    I lose the App Store, Apple leading the way by enforcing privacy standards, and many other things. Having control isn’t always a good thing. The benefit of having control here “download another App Store” isn’t much of a benefit to me. I love the way things are. That’s why I have an iPhone.
    - badsectoracula 6y ago
      You do not lose the App Store, you can still use it and use only that - it is up to you. That is the entire point: you are in control and if what you want is to keep using the App Store and App Store alone then you can do that. Others, in the meanwhile, should be able to install whatever application they want if they want to do that. Just because the current situation aligns with what you want to do doesn't mean that it is the perfect situation for everyone - but as long as your situation isn't affected (assuming what you want is about you and not about forcing everyone else to be like you) then you should be fine.
      - wcarey 6y ago
        It seems like there are two assumptions underlying your argument: 1. Users have perfect choice in which apps they install. 2. Developers will release their apps on all available app stores. But many users are compelled to install apps that they would prefer not to and it's not at all obvious that developers would support two app stores instead of one given the choice. The net result of that combination is that some (many?) people would be compelled to use both app stores against their inclination.
        badsectoracula 6y ago
        No, i have no such assumptions. Developers can and some may even will (though market forces will push at least one app store to be the dominant - chances are it'll be the one that comes out of the box with the device) focus on a single app store and there is nothing wrong with that. The only wrong part is users not being in control over what they can install on their devices and from where they will install them. Yes, it is possible that people will be forced to install applications they do not want, but this isn't something that is or even should be up to the OS vendor to try and protect against - the person being forced to do that is the one who should and if they cannot, then legal action should be seeked. The entire issue is outside the scope of the OS.
        wcarey 6y ago
        That seems like a concession that people who currently enjoy the first-party-only app store situation may indeed lose something if third-party-app-stores become a thing. You can argue (as I think you are) that those losses are outweighed by the gains of a more open ecosystem, but to many users they are meaningful losses.
        badsectoracula 6y ago
        No matter what choice you make, something else will be affected, that doesn't mean you should not be able to have any choice in the first place.
  - wcarey 6y ago
    Delegating that control is, in effect, a form of collective bargaining. Whereas Epic could convince individual users to accept whatever terms of use they wanted to impose, effectively Apple collectively bargains for all those users. That means that, if you like the way Apple negotiates and are comfortable with the trade offs they make, you have much more leverage than if you were negotiating as an individual.
  - MichaelBurge 6y ago
    Nintendo is in a stronger negotiating position vs. game companies, if the hardware only accepts signed games. This makes it easier to get exclusive games, prevents piracy(which encourages games to be made in the first place), and allows Nintendo to enforce standards across all games. Console hardware doesn't have much value by itself: Computers are plentiful, so if you just want something to run software pick up a Raspberry Pi or Nvidia Jetson. Their value derives from the games that companies make, so ceding power to the game companies(via Nintendo) makes your console more valuable.
  - PascLeRasc 6y ago
    I don't mean to sound sarcastic or rude - we just don't care. I like messing around with undervolting/fan control scripts on my laptop, but my iPhone is just a tool like a thermostat or toaster oven. There's no benefit to my gaining control.
    - 7tsfmCAusrQ 6y ago
      There is a benefit, though. If there was competition between app stores on the iPhone, the quality and quantity of apps available to iPhone users would increase substantially. App stores would compete on fees, attracting developers, protecting consumers, and so on. Fees would drop, developers would face less cost and friction bringing their apps to the market, app stores would have to innovate to keep protecting consumers. Monopolies cause consumer harm. The biggest irony of all this is that consumers don't seem to realize the harm Apple is doing, because Apple is busy pulling the wool over their eyes by telling them they are protecting their security and privacy. iOS is a nanny state. Apple maintains a culture of fear among consumers to achieve its business goal, which is to maintain its monopoly position.
  - mlindner 6y ago
    Because then someone else can handle making sure I'm not getting virus filled software and it also increases the signal to noise ratio, especially on PS4/Switch. I don't want my PS4/Switch to be a general computing platform.
- Waterfall 6y ago
  You don't want the full capabilities of your hardware you paid for? The Nvidia Jetson is the controllable version of the switch and it's much weaker. You don't want your switch to play games and be a hardware accelerator? You don't want the best silicon to run your own software?
  - ericmay 6y ago
    No I don’t want any of that. I want the iPhone as-is.
    - Waterfall 6y ago
      You understand why others find it strange you don't and why they do though, right?
      - ericmay 6y ago
        I think it’s strange that others (a small subset of people) want to take something great and ruin it. I understand that someone wants to tinker with their phone, but in that case that’s just not what an iPhone is for. It never has been.
        marakv2 6y ago
        You think that allowing another app store will ruin your iPhone? That's incorrect. Just don't use it.
        Humdeee 6y ago
        > Just don't use it What's the argument here, why not just don't use an iPhone then? Why turn an iPhone into more of an Android? I have an iPhone because I don't want to be like an Android. It's a feature to me that this (and other possibilities, bad and good) is not possible, hence why I bought it.
        6y ago
- freeflight 6y ago
  If that'd be true then the homebrew scene wouldn't be a thing, but it very much is a thing particularly on Nintendo products. It's dangerous to haphazardly disregard that as meaningless, by extension it's such movements that fight for very valid consumer rights, like actually owning the hardware that people pay money for. When I buy a piece of hardware I expect to own it, to run on it whatever I want, to be able to repair it, not to be a "tolerated guest" with only limited access and everything thrown my way to make self-repair as difficult as possible by design.
sjwright 6y ago
Why? Because having Apple in control of the device is valuable to me. VERY valuable. It's the big reason why I willingly pay more for Apple phones. If I wanted control over my phone, I don't need to "demand" it. I would have simply bought a different product. Meanwhile, I already have plenty of devices that I have control over. That's like asking why not insist that your Tesla Model 3 has a diesel engine, a manual transmission and the ability to crawl up boulders. Not everyone buys things for the same reasons.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  > Why? Because having Apple in control of the device is valuable to me. VERY valuable. It's the big reason why I willingly pay more for Apple phones. You can give Apple initial (and practically temporary if you do not want to take it back) control over the device without actually forcing everyone else to do the same. > I would have simply bought a different product. What if you liked everything Apple does except the part about not allowing you to install 3rd party applications? > That's like asking why... As i wrote in other posts, these comparisons 99.9% of the time miss important details so they're not helpful. E.g... > ... diesel engine, a manual transmission and the ability to crawl up boulders. ...these having nothing to do with iOS allowing users to install applications from outside the App Store.
  - Humdeee 6y ago
    I want Android to have stricter control of their Apps that are released in their native appstore. I also want the manufacturer to have complete control so much that I never need to have an anti-virus. Scratch all that, I demand it. How come I cannot get this? Wait a second, why is there all this bloatware on my phone after I turned it on for the first time? How do I get rid of it? Is it really gone even though it says I deleted it? Why do I need to go on a rabbit hunt in deep tech forums to make sure of that? Why is everyone saying to "just" root your phone to take control over it? Why does this tracking feature turn back on after updates? Why do I get the uncertain feeling that this free antivirus program should be run through a separate antivirus program?... etc. x100 other questions I have. I really don't care to have any of them answered, because I have the option not to. Instead of demanding all this or asking much of these questions, I have the choice to buy an iPhone. I understand the (great) possibilities that I'm giving up in return, and I'm very good with that. I like this choice. I buy an iPhone for what it can't do. This next sentence sums it all up: it's important to understand that an Android can't do what an iPhone by purposeful design can't do.

Yes but why? Why not demand to be able to have control over your own devices?

ericmay 6y ago

Because we don’t want control over our Nintendo switch or iPhone.

m-p-3 6y ago
I still wish OtherOS[1] was still a thing on PlayStation systems. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS
badsectoracula 6y ago
But why? What is the benefit of giving up that control?
- ericmay 6y ago
  I lose the App Store, Apple leading the way by enforcing privacy standards, and many other things. Having control isn’t always a good thing. The benefit of having control here “download another App Store” isn’t much of a benefit to me. I love the way things are. That’s why I have an iPhone.
  - badsectoracula 6y ago
    You do not lose the App Store, you can still use it and use only that - it is up to you. That is the entire point: you are in control and if what you want is to keep using the App Store and App Store alone then you can do that. Others, in the meanwhile, should be able to install whatever application they want if they want to do that. Just because the current situation aligns with what you want to do doesn't mean that it is the perfect situation for everyone - but as long as your situation isn't affected (assuming what you want is about you and not about forcing everyone else to be like you) then you should be fine.
    - wcarey 6y ago
      It seems like there are two assumptions underlying your argument: 1. Users have perfect choice in which apps they install. 2. Developers will release their apps on all available app stores. But many users are compelled to install apps that they would prefer not to and it's not at all obvious that developers would support two app stores instead of one given the choice. The net result of that combination is that some (many?) people would be compelled to use both app stores against their inclination.
      - badsectoracula 6y ago
        No, i have no such assumptions. Developers can and some may even will (though market forces will push at least one app store to be the dominant - chances are it'll be the one that comes out of the box with the device) focus on a single app store and there is nothing wrong with that. The only wrong part is users not being in control over what they can install on their devices and from where they will install them. Yes, it is possible that people will be forced to install applications they do not want, but this isn't something that is or even should be up to the OS vendor to try and protect against - the person being forced to do that is the one who should and if they cannot, then legal action should be seeked. The entire issue is outside the scope of the OS.
        wcarey 6y ago
        That seems like a concession that people who currently enjoy the first-party-only app store situation may indeed lose something if third-party-app-stores become a thing. You can argue (as I think you are) that those losses are outweighed by the gains of a more open ecosystem, but to many users they are meaningful losses.
        badsectoracula 6y ago
        No matter what choice you make, something else will be affected, that doesn't mean you should not be able to have any choice in the first place.
- wcarey 6y ago
  Delegating that control is, in effect, a form of collective bargaining. Whereas Epic could convince individual users to accept whatever terms of use they wanted to impose, effectively Apple collectively bargains for all those users. That means that, if you like the way Apple negotiates and are comfortable with the trade offs they make, you have much more leverage than if you were negotiating as an individual.
- MichaelBurge 6y ago
  Nintendo is in a stronger negotiating position vs. game companies, if the hardware only accepts signed games. This makes it easier to get exclusive games, prevents piracy(which encourages games to be made in the first place), and allows Nintendo to enforce standards across all games. Console hardware doesn't have much value by itself: Computers are plentiful, so if you just want something to run software pick up a Raspberry Pi or Nvidia Jetson. Their value derives from the games that companies make, so ceding power to the game companies(via Nintendo) makes your console more valuable.
- PascLeRasc 6y ago
  I don't mean to sound sarcastic or rude - we just don't care. I like messing around with undervolting/fan control scripts on my laptop, but my iPhone is just a tool like a thermostat or toaster oven. There's no benefit to my gaining control.
  - 7tsfmCAusrQ 6y ago
    There is a benefit, though. If there was competition between app stores on the iPhone, the quality and quantity of apps available to iPhone users would increase substantially. App stores would compete on fees, attracting developers, protecting consumers, and so on. Fees would drop, developers would face less cost and friction bringing their apps to the market, app stores would have to innovate to keep protecting consumers. Monopolies cause consumer harm. The biggest irony of all this is that consumers don't seem to realize the harm Apple is doing, because Apple is busy pulling the wool over their eyes by telling them they are protecting their security and privacy. iOS is a nanny state. Apple maintains a culture of fear among consumers to achieve its business goal, which is to maintain its monopoly position.
- mlindner 6y ago
  Because then someone else can handle making sure I'm not getting virus filled software and it also increases the signal to noise ratio, especially on PS4/Switch. I don't want my PS4/Switch to be a general computing platform.
Waterfall 6y ago
You don't want the full capabilities of your hardware you paid for? The Nvidia Jetson is the controllable version of the switch and it's much weaker. You don't want your switch to play games and be a hardware accelerator? You don't want the best silicon to run your own software?
- ericmay 6y ago
  No I don’t want any of that. I want the iPhone as-is.
  - Waterfall 6y ago
    You understand why others find it strange you don't and why they do though, right?
    - ericmay 6y ago
      I think it’s strange that others (a small subset of people) want to take something great and ruin it. I understand that someone wants to tinker with their phone, but in that case that’s just not what an iPhone is for. It never has been.
      - marakv2 6y ago
        You think that allowing another app store will ruin your iPhone? That's incorrect. Just don't use it.
        Humdeee 6y ago
        > Just don't use it What's the argument here, why not just don't use an iPhone then? Why turn an iPhone into more of an Android? I have an iPhone because I don't want to be like an Android. It's a feature to me that this (and other possibilities, bad and good) is not possible, hence why I bought it.
        6y ago
freeflight 6y ago
If that'd be true then the homebrew scene wouldn't be a thing, but it very much is a thing particularly on Nintendo products. It's dangerous to haphazardly disregard that as meaningless, by extension it's such movements that fight for very valid consumer rights, like actually owning the hardware that people pay money for. When I buy a piece of hardware I expect to own it, to run on it whatever I want, to be able to repair it, not to be a "tolerated guest" with only limited access and everything thrown my way to make self-repair as difficult as possible by design.

sjwright 6y ago

Why? Because having Apple in control of the device is valuable to me. VERY valuable. It's the big reason why I willingly pay more for Apple phones. If I wanted control over my phone, I don't need to "demand" it. I would have simply bought a different product. Meanwhile, I already have plenty of devices that I have control over. That's like asking why not insist that your Tesla Model 3 has a diesel engine, a manual transmission and the ability to crawl up boulders. Not everyone buys things for the same reasons.

badsectoracula 6y ago
> Why? Because having Apple in control of the device is valuable to me. VERY valuable. It's the big reason why I willingly pay more for Apple phones. You can give Apple initial (and practically temporary if you do not want to take it back) control over the device without actually forcing everyone else to do the same. > I would have simply bought a different product. What if you liked everything Apple does except the part about not allowing you to install 3rd party applications? > That's like asking why... As i wrote in other posts, these comparisons 99.9% of the time miss important details so they're not helpful. E.g... > ... diesel engine, a manual transmission and the ability to crawl up boulders. ...these having nothing to do with iOS allowing users to install applications from outside the App Store.
- Humdeee 6y ago
  I want Android to have stricter control of their Apps that are released in their native appstore. I also want the manufacturer to have complete control so much that I never need to have an anti-virus. Scratch all that, I demand it. How come I cannot get this? Wait a second, why is there all this bloatware on my phone after I turned it on for the first time? How do I get rid of it? Is it really gone even though it says I deleted it? Why do I need to go on a rabbit hunt in deep tech forums to make sure of that? Why is everyone saying to "just" root your phone to take control over it? Why does this tracking feature turn back on after updates? Why do I get the uncertain feeling that this free antivirus program should be run through a separate antivirus program?... etc. x100 other questions I have. I really don't care to have any of them answered, because I have the option not to. Instead of demanding all this or asking much of these questions, I have the choice to buy an iPhone. I understand the (great) possibilities that I'm giving up in return, and I'm very good with that. I like this choice. I buy an iPhone for what it can't do. This next sentence sums it all up: it's important to understand that an Android can't do what an iPhone by purposeful design can't do.