4 ms·
> Try asking anyone not in the top 5% of the worlds wealth if a gaming console and a smart phone are of comparable importance. Then, ask them if smartphones and
by bhupy 6y ago
> Try asking anyone not in the top 5% of the worlds wealth if a gaming console and a smart phone are of comparable importance. Then, ask them if smartphones and consoles should be afforded similar consideration and protections by their society.
You're not directly addressing the argument. Literally nobody here suggested that they are of comparable importance. Everyone concedes that smartphones are far more "important" than gaming consoles. The argument is that the "importance" of smartphones today is an ephemeral condition. You yourself agreed that basing policy on ephemeral trends is probably not a good idea, so the best way for you to stay internally consistent is to prove that this is somehow not an ephemeral norm.
> The rest of your argument, seems to be that "the market will sort it out" and any interference with the space will stifle growth and innovation. Maybe. But I'm sorry, that's not a universal "first principle", that's an opinion. My opinion is that smart legislation could actually accelerate growth and innovation while at the same time enhancing user freedoms and protections. But that's getting off track and wasn't the point I was making:
No, the central argument is that the current reality has only been true for < 10 years. That's not an opinion, that's an observation of history. And the definition of "user freedom" is blurry here, because some of us enjoy the freedom to use a tightly controlled operating system for our own convenience, and see the desire to break that up as a violation of our original choice. You might have a good point to make if consumers originally expected to have some level of control over their Apple phones, but people explicitly signed up for the opposite of that — we've always known that the walled garden was a part of the deal. You might also have a good point to make here if there was no alternative in the market, but just like PC's and Consoles, there is a more than acceptable alternative that's conveniently also cheaper and more within reach for the "non-5%". The entirety of the worlds knowledge, the ability to communicate with anyone in the world, and the deeply intimate thoughts / ideas are equally accessible on both platforms, and switching between the two is fairly straightforward considering most major services are provided on both platforms, and the credentials you would use to access your bank account or your medical records or your email work on both types of apps.
> Equating smartphones with gaming consoles is as intellectually lazy as it is troubling.
Again, you're really not addressing the central argument, and you're relying on insults to make your point. The central argument is that while there is undeniably an "importance gap" between the two, we ought to apply the same principles because the gap is ephemeral. If you really believe that the current norms are NOT ephemeral, make that case, you might even have a good point. But you don't need to attack the people making the argument, which undermines your case (and yes, calling an argument "lazy" and "ridiculous" and "troubling" is just a thinly veiled attack on the person).
- mthoms 6y ago> The central argument is that while there is undeniably an "importance gap" between the two, we ought to apply the same principles because the gap is ephemeral. That's the argument you are trying to make this comment thread about. It has nothing to do with my objection to equating smartphones with consoles today (which I should remind, you is the comment you replied to). I only suggested that: "we need to recognize [the societal importance of smartphones] and frame our discussions accordingly." Equating smartphones with consoles diminishes their significance for the purpose of framing an argument in a certain way. It's just not helpful. You're saying that my take somehow violates some universally "consistent first principle" because the current state is ephemeral. Yet, I made no claims about what one should think in the future. I described how it is now, and articulated that the trend is likely to continue. You seem to agree with my take on the current state and the trend right? Then, you went off on a tangent and said the following: >some of us enjoy the freedom to use a tightly controlled operating system for our own convenience >the desire to break that up [is] a violation of our original choice. >You might have a good point to make if consumers originally expected to have some level of control over their Apple phones, but people explicitly signed up for the opposite of that >You might also have a good point to make here if there was no alternative in the market, >are equally accessible on both platforms, and switching between the two is fairly straightforward Whoa. You're arguing like 5 or 6 different point I never tried to make. It's like you saw the word "iPhone" and immediately went into super defensive mode. That's... uh.. shall we say, concerning. What I did say was in support of (most of) what you've said above "One can certainly argue that because of all that, the app ecosystem should be tightly controlled. That's fair." It's actually funny because despite what you've assumed, I'm actually an Apple user and developer. I've exclusively used their phones and computers for over a decade. I love them. In my living room (where I'm sitting right now), there are over $10k worth of Apple products. Yet somehow you keep assuming that I'm anti-Apple. And you're relentlessly countering arguments I never made. Stop it. Please.. for the love of everything, re-read my comments now that you know I'm an avid Apple user. Note especially that I've pointed out (at least twice) that my comments are about the entire market and have nothing to do with individual manufacturers. I genuinely don't know how to make it any clearer than: >My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it advocating for any specific policy. >I wasn't advocating for, or against, Apple or any other company. My comment applied to the entire smartphone market, and how it was different from the entire console market. So, what are you arguing? When you reply, try not to use the phrase "(universal) first principle". Your use of that phrase to describe an opinion comes across as condescending and arrogant.