3 ms·

iOS is not sold as a general purpose computing OS. It’s been clear from day one. People use products way beyond their original purpose, and then feel entitled

by jpttsn 6y ago

iOS is not sold as a general purpose computing OS. It’s been clear from day one. People use products way beyond their original purpose, and then feel entitled to the manufacturer’s support. Like eating candy for every meal, and then complaining that it’s not good nutrition.

izacus 6y ago
That is patently false if you even take a glance at iPad webpage. Some itself is very loudly screaming about how iPad is a computer to replace your laptop.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  But that kind of marketing is like saying you should drink water to replace your beer: it doesn't claim the water is beer; it's claiming you probably will be happier with water. See also the "What's a computer" ad for the iPad Pro.
wayneftw 6y ago
Some shady car manufacturers tried to stop people from being able to buy after market parts for their cars and our legal system put a stop to that. So, given that phones are easily as important as cars, I have confidence that we'll get justice for Apple's anti-consumer behavior too.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  Maybe "justice" will be served: the will of the people goes far sometimes. I'd point out that the public can get away with things that don't match my personal sense of ethics, but your sense of ethics is clearly different and probably incompatible with mine. Incidentally I'm not so confident in this case; I'd take even odds on Apple winning this one.
- electriclove 6y ago
  Tesla is clamping down on people offering performance enhancements that compete with their own. https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModel3/comments/ie6660/any_boost50_buyers_here_just_updated_to_2020322/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModel3/comments/ie6660/any_boo...
adoxyz 6y ago
how do you define a general purpose computing OS? I would be hard pressed to see how iOS or iPadOS are not general computing OS's.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  General purpose OS to me means a platform whose primary use involves that I bring my own software. This is vague; I'm no really inclined to work from a strict definition in this case. It seems Platonic and unproductive. As evidence for the vague distinction, see early quote (in TFA) from Jobs: >“We define everything that is on the phone,” he said. “You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers”… “These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.” Of course many say consumers are entitled to redefine the product and hold their new definition over the manufacturer's head, with courts/other politics as a backup cudgel should consumers' market power not suffice. That's what I argue is distasteful on part of consumers.

by jpttsn 6y ago

izacus 6y ago

That is patently false if you even take a glance at iPad webpage. Some itself is very loudly screaming about how iPad is a computer to replace your laptop.

jpttsn 6y ago
But that kind of marketing is like saying you should drink water to replace your beer: it doesn't claim the water is beer; it's claiming you probably will be happier with water. See also the "What's a computer" ad for the iPad Pro.

wayneftw 6y ago

Some shady car manufacturers tried to stop people from being able to buy after market parts for their cars and our legal system put a stop to that. So, given that phones are easily as important as cars, I have confidence that we'll get justice for Apple's anti-consumer behavior too.

jpttsn 6y ago
Maybe "justice" will be served: the will of the people goes far sometimes. I'd point out that the public can get away with things that don't match my personal sense of ethics, but your sense of ethics is clearly different and probably incompatible with mine. Incidentally I'm not so confident in this case; I'd take even odds on Apple winning this one.
electriclove 6y ago
Tesla is clamping down on people offering performance enhancements that compete with their own. https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModel3/comments/ie6660/any_boost50_buyers_here_just_updated_to_2020322/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModel3/comments/ie6660/any_boo...

adoxyz 6y ago

how do you define a general purpose computing OS? I would be hard pressed to see how iOS or iPadOS are not general computing OS's.

jpttsn 6y ago
General purpose OS to me means a platform whose primary use involves that I bring my own software. This is vague; I'm no really inclined to work from a strict definition in this case. It seems Platonic and unproductive. As evidence for the vague distinction, see early quote (in TFA) from Jobs: >“We define everything that is on the phone,” he said. “You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers”… “These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.” Of course many say consumers are entitled to redefine the product and hold their new definition over the manufacturer's head, with courts/other politics as a backup cudgel should consumers' market power not suffice. That's what I argue is distasteful on part of consumers.