6 ms·

I wonder whether people's opinions about Apple's behavior here are isomorphic to their opinions about collective bargaining writ large? If you're the sort of p

by wcarey 6y ago

I wonder whether people's opinions about Apple's behavior here are isomorphic to their opinions about collective bargaining writ large? If you're the sort of person who releases iOS apps, you're far more technically inclined than the median user and perhaps more willing to engage in individual negotiation of terms of service and privacy (as you'll be plausibly good at it). The median user of an iPhone is in a hopeless bargaining position in the face of dark patterns, and for that user, perhaps the collective bargaining Apple engages in is more valuable.

dgellow 6y ago
- I don't think it's fair to compare Apple's position to a "collective bargaining". What they are doing is defending their moat from competing offering, they are defending one of their source of control and revenue. If there would be a bargain, who would be facing them? Developers? If Apple is in position to dictate what they want with no discussions, it's not a bargain. - Even if other app stores are available (or sideloading, or other potential outcomes that would be more open than the current situation) Apple still control the platform, thus can still impose A LOT of what is possible or not on iOS. If they want to "protect" their users they can continue to do it at that level (there would then be a debate on what is or not considered "anti-competition" at this level) - Regarding the difference of technical level, yes, I'm more technically inclined. On other systems (such as Android, Windows, and macOS) being more technically knowledgeable means that I can gain more control over my system and take my own decisions. In the world of iOS (potentially also in the future world of macOS), that's not even close to being a possibility.
- wcarey 6y ago
  The bargaining is between users and developers. Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users, who have accepted increasingly onerous terms and privacy policies because individual users are not in a good bargaining position. Apple, in contrast, is in a bargaining position to negotiate terms of use on behalf of its users with developers. For example, if I purchase a subscription to a language learning app on an iOS device, my ability to seamlessly cancel that subscription has been collectively bargained by Apple (via the terms of service of their payment processing system). That's valuable to me, particularly given the absurd difficulty of canceling subscriptions that are not collectively bargained like gym memberships. How would Apple impose that same term of use, that subscriptions can be cancelled on device with one click, for a sideloaded app? If they can't do that, developers would offer their app only via sideloading so as to be able to take advantage of that stream of revenue, like gyms. Now there's less competition for language learning apps in the first party app store, and I, a user of that store, suffer. That's not to say there aren't tradeoffs for that collective bargaining; there are. As you say, we have much less control over iOS devices than we've historically had over our computing devices. Similarly, workers who collectively bargain have much less control over their terms of employment than workers who individually negotiate. But for many workers (and many users), that tradeoff is a good one. Apple is currently the only organization offering it.
  - toyg 6y ago
    > Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users And who do we have to thank for that turn? Apple's culture that "we know better" is a good part of that problem. Developers want to be Apple, and Apple is pretty abusive towards their users. They take the occasional pro-user stance where it suits them, but overall it's pretty clear that the only institutional interest for Apple is Apple's own bottom line. Here you're effectively defending an absolutist monarch: he can take a good decision here and there, maybe even give you a decade or two of peace and prosperity, but in the long run his family will inevitably do what is good for them, not for the country. Democracy is messy, unstable, often dangerous, but in the long run is more sustainable for the ecosystem at large.
    - wcarey 6y ago
      I'd say that I'm less defending absolute monarchy, and more defending the rule of law against the Hobbesean state of nature, with all its caprice and cruelty. For example, if Apple conducted plebiscites of its users and used those plebiscites in informing its collective bargaining with developers, I think that'd be fine. That would force Apple to articulate the value proposition of the positions it takes.
      - toyg 6y ago
        I would object less to that for sure, but you have to admit that there is absolutely zero chance of that ever happening: Apple never relinquishes control. The closest to it, ironically, is to go through the actual legal system and see what judges, tasked with interpreting the people's will encoded in laws, will say. Something that they will now have to do, probably several times, until they accept that there is an easier way.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Plenty of developers love Apple ways, since the Mac classic. And it is hardly any different from any other platform. Classical PCs are the exception here due to IBM's failure to secure their golden eggs, had they succeed and PCs would have been just as like. It is no surprise that with the rise of laptop and tablets, the classical desktop PC is an species facing extinction, with pizza boxes for server room being the only ones left.

by wcarey 6y ago

dgellow 6y ago

- I don't think it's fair to compare Apple's position to a "collective bargaining". What they are doing is defending their moat from competing offering, they are defending one of their source of control and revenue. If there would be a bargain, who would be facing them? Developers? If Apple is in position to dictate what they want with no discussions, it's not a bargain. - Even if other app stores are available (or sideloading, or other potential outcomes that would be more open than the current situation) Apple still control the platform, thus can still impose A LOT of what is possible or not on iOS. If they want to "protect" their users they can continue to do it at that level (there would then be a debate on what is or not considered "anti-competition" at this level) - Regarding the difference of technical level, yes, I'm more technically inclined. On other systems (such as Android, Windows, and macOS) being more technically knowledgeable means that I can gain more control over my system and take my own decisions. In the world of iOS (potentially also in the future world of macOS), that's not even close to being a possibility.

wcarey 6y ago
The bargaining is between users and developers. Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users, who have accepted increasingly onerous terms and privacy policies because individual users are not in a good bargaining position. Apple, in contrast, is in a bargaining position to negotiate terms of use on behalf of its users with developers. For example, if I purchase a subscription to a language learning app on an iOS device, my ability to seamlessly cancel that subscription has been collectively bargained by Apple (via the terms of service of their payment processing system). That's valuable to me, particularly given the absurd difficulty of canceling subscriptions that are not collectively bargained like gym memberships. How would Apple impose that same term of use, that subscriptions can be cancelled on device with one click, for a sideloaded app? If they can't do that, developers would offer their app only via sideloading so as to be able to take advantage of that stream of revenue, like gyms. Now there's less competition for language learning apps in the first party app store, and I, a user of that store, suffer. That's not to say there aren't tradeoffs for that collective bargaining; there are. As you say, we have much less control over iOS devices than we've historically had over our computing devices. Similarly, workers who collectively bargain have much less control over their terms of employment than workers who individually negotiate. But for many workers (and many users), that tradeoff is a good one. Apple is currently the only organization offering it.
- toyg 6y ago
  > Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users And who do we have to thank for that turn? Apple's culture that "we know better" is a good part of that problem. Developers want to be Apple, and Apple is pretty abusive towards their users. They take the occasional pro-user stance where it suits them, but overall it's pretty clear that the only institutional interest for Apple is Apple's own bottom line. Here you're effectively defending an absolutist monarch: he can take a good decision here and there, maybe even give you a decade or two of peace and prosperity, but in the long run his family will inevitably do what is good for them, not for the country. Democracy is messy, unstable, often dangerous, but in the long run is more sustainable for the ecosystem at large.
  - wcarey 6y ago
    I'd say that I'm less defending absolute monarchy, and more defending the rule of law against the Hobbesean state of nature, with all its caprice and cruelty. For example, if Apple conducted plebiscites of its users and used those plebiscites in informing its collective bargaining with developers, I think that'd be fine. That would force Apple to articulate the value proposition of the positions it takes.
    - toyg 6y ago
      I would object less to that for sure, but you have to admit that there is absolutely zero chance of that ever happening: Apple never relinquishes control. The closest to it, ironically, is to go through the actual legal system and see what judges, tasked with interpreting the people's will encoded in laws, will say. Something that they will now have to do, probably several times, until they accept that there is an easier way.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Plenty of developers love Apple ways, since the Mac classic. And it is hardly any different from any other platform. Classical PCs are the exception here due to IBM's failure to secure their golden eggs, had they succeed and PCs would have been just as like. It is no surprise that with the rise of laptop and tablets, the classical desktop PC is an species facing extinction, with pizza boxes for server room being the only ones left.