4 ms·

You want to buy a house in Apple Village. It’s the best place for your needs, safe, secure, beautiful. Apple is constantly working at improving your security as

You want to buy a house in Apple Village. It’s the best place for your needs, safe, secure, beautiful. Apple is constantly working at improving your security as well. And it has a great mall that helps Apple keep the village secure. The merchants make a great deal of money, which ensures you don’t lack for choice and quality. And you are happy to shop there because Apple vets the merchants, and handles the purchase system, so it’s easy for you to get refunds and deal with subscriptions. There are other malls, but not on Apple Village property,they are really hard to get to and Apple doesn’t help you get there. But you knew this because it hadn’t changed for 13 years. So why should Apple be forced to build an expressway on their property to make it easy for you to shop at these other malls? They never promised you that yet you moved to Apple Village all the same. And they have good reasons not to. Not only does it reduce safety and security for Apple Village residents, they just got easier to scam. Potential new Apple Village residents will be less likely to move in. Apples best merchant partners will lose customers and money.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Apple Village sounds quaint. We're talking about a company whose customer base would make it the third largest country in the world, ahead of the United States. This is a corporation that has declared its own national borders and instituted an unelected customs enforcement agency. "If you don't like it then leave." Is that supposed to be a real solution? What if you have just as many issues with the other remaining superpower? Competition is supposed to be constraining abuse. That doesn't work if to compete on apps you have to be able to develop your own phone platform and convince your entire app customer base to switch to it.
- valuearb 6y ago
  It’s not a country. It hasn’t declared anything, and follows all laws its subject to. If you don’t like it, buy something else. Don’t expect the platform to be made worse to fit your specific needs, when they clearly don’t match up to the overwhelming choices of customers.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    You keep saying "overwhelming choices of customers" when the entire point is that customers are being deprived of choices by being required to make them all together at once. If you want Apple hardware or iOS but not their app store, it's not available. If your whole family uses iMessage then you need an iPhone even if you don't want any of the rest of it. The fact that many people then buy an iPhone and use the App Store regardless is not evidence that they want it this way, it's the harm that forcing it to be this way is inflicting on them.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      It’s overwhelming proof that an important segment prefers those advantages. Why should they be deprived of the benefits of the walled garden just because you don’t like it?
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > It’s overwhelming proof that an important segment prefers those advantages. It doesn't even prove that there are enough such people to fill a single telephone booth. They could make a billion sales and every one of them could be people who don't want to be tied to Apple's store but grin and bear it because they want iOS or Apple hardware more, or because they think Google is worse. When they don't have the choice to get one without the other, people buying both doesn't prove that they want both, only that the thing they actually want isn't a choice they have. To prove what they actually want you'd have to give them the option to have that. > Why should they be deprived of the benefits of the walled garden just because you don’t like it? Why should the people who don't want it have it forced on them? If you want Apple hardware with iOS and to buy all your apps from Apple's store, why can't you choose that without forcing all the people who don't want that into an all or nothing choice between every one of those things and not a single one of them?
vidarh 6y ago
This truly reveals how contrived the argument against allowing other stores is. Allowing the residents of "Apple Village" to go to another mall to shop does not in any way affect the other residents. Nobody is arguing for Apple to be "forced to build an expressway", but for them to not put up fences locking their resident in unless they decide to move away entirely. When one ends up arguing in favour of authoritarianism, albeit fictional, to defend Apple's behaviour, it really drives things home.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Apple Village sounds quaint. We're talking about a company whose customer base would make it the third largest country in the world, ahead of the United States. This is a corporation that has declared its own national borders and instituted an unelected customs enforcement agency. "If you don't like it then leave." Is that supposed to be a real solution? What if you have just as many issues with the other remaining superpower? Competition is supposed to be constraining abuse. That doesn't work if to compete on apps you have to be able to develop your own phone platform and convince your entire app customer base to switch to it.

valuearb 6y ago
It’s not a country. It hasn’t declared anything, and follows all laws its subject to. If you don’t like it, buy something else. Don’t expect the platform to be made worse to fit your specific needs, when they clearly don’t match up to the overwhelming choices of customers.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  You keep saying "overwhelming choices of customers" when the entire point is that customers are being deprived of choices by being required to make them all together at once. If you want Apple hardware or iOS but not their app store, it's not available. If your whole family uses iMessage then you need an iPhone even if you don't want any of the rest of it. The fact that many people then buy an iPhone and use the App Store regardless is not evidence that they want it this way, it's the harm that forcing it to be this way is inflicting on them.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    It’s overwhelming proof that an important segment prefers those advantages. Why should they be deprived of the benefits of the walled garden just because you don’t like it?
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > It’s overwhelming proof that an important segment prefers those advantages. It doesn't even prove that there are enough such people to fill a single telephone booth. They could make a billion sales and every one of them could be people who don't want to be tied to Apple's store but grin and bear it because they want iOS or Apple hardware more, or because they think Google is worse. When they don't have the choice to get one without the other, people buying both doesn't prove that they want both, only that the thing they actually want isn't a choice they have. To prove what they actually want you'd have to give them the option to have that. > Why should they be deprived of the benefits of the walled garden just because you don’t like it? Why should the people who don't want it have it forced on them? If you want Apple hardware with iOS and to buy all your apps from Apple's store, why can't you choose that without forcing all the people who don't want that into an all or nothing choice between every one of those things and not a single one of them?

vidarh 6y ago

This truly reveals how contrived the argument against allowing other stores is. Allowing the residents of "Apple Village" to go to another mall to shop does not in any way affect the other residents. Nobody is arguing for Apple to be "forced to build an expressway", but for them to not put up fences locking their resident in unless they decide to move away entirely. When one ends up arguing in favour of authoritarianism, albeit fictional, to defend Apple's behaviour, it really drives things home.