3 ms·

How does me (or anyone else) buying a MacBook affect your freedom and choices? Was there some extinction of e.g. Linux-capable devices I didn’t hear about? And

How does me (or anyone else) buying a MacBook affect your freedom and choices? Was there some extinction of e.g. Linux-capable devices I didn’t hear about? And if I actually want the security features, who are you to say that’s not an option for me?

amelius 6y ago
The more people use X, the more developers will focus on X and not on Y. From there, even fewer people will use Y and the downward cycle continues.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  Okay, so why do your preferences for the device take priority over the majority of users who don’t care about what the T2 does and the ones who do and actually want it? Why should it be illegal for a company to make a product for us instead of you?
  - yholio 6y ago
    Clearly the majority has won thus far and Apple is not restrained in any way. But I have the right to a differing political opinion, and when the majority shifts, your freedoms are not encroached, just like when the majority of people decide smoking should not be allowed in airplanes.
    - johncolanduoni 6y ago
      That’s a bizarre analogy to me, and you’re implying a symmetry to the situation that doesn’t exist. I want to be able to buy a product that has the properties that I want, and I want you to be able to buy a product with properties that you want (in part because I also want and own products with the properties you want). You want the only option to be products made with the properties you want, so that other businesses are forced to make more software for the products you want. Which of these is restricting freedom more? I think you’re going to have to try harder to convince anyone that this situation is analogous to second hand smoke. You probably want to come up with better arguments for your “political” movement.
      - yholio 6y ago
        The condescendence is really unwarranted, it is a simple idea that purchasing options are affected by political choices of others. To give a symmetrical example, you are not allowed to purchase completely safe recreational drugs, because of the opinions the majority holds on their use. The metric you use of avoiding "restricting freedom" is a strongly ideological stance in itself and is not a natural goal political systems strive for. You might value some flavors of individual autonomy and imply they have an universal vocation by calling them "freedom". I might favor other sets, such as the restriction of corporate power and consumer empowerment, and call those, in turn "freedom", see for example the GPL ethos. Both sets of political views are legitimate and can be pursued in a democracy.
        johncolanduoni 6y ago
        Okay, but again, if your metric is consumer empowerment, how does you dictating the properties of products consumers can buy based on your personal preferences result in more consumer empowerment? Can most consumers take their System76 laptop, and then set it up so it has the properties of a laptop with something like the T2 chip if they so desire? Any more than you can reasonably be expected to delid the T2 chip in a MacBook to get it to do what you want? I’m not trying to judge your statements by my goalposts as you seem to be implying, I’m trying to understand the internal logic of what you’ve been saying which AFAICT isn’t lining up.
        yholio 6y ago
        This might be a confusion started from the answer of "amelius", the logic of which I don't fully support. I believe consumer freedom is hampered first and foremost by monopolies (or, in the mobile OS case, oligopolies) and my political choice is to maximize market forces and restrict anti-competitive behavior. This is the grounds on which I oppose Apple practices, not some idea that if people buy Apple products it somehow prevents development for other platforms.
        johncolanduoni 6y ago
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  Doesn't that, by your own admission, mean that people care about X and not Y? If people don't care about Y, why should manufacturers be forced to appeal to the fraction of people that do?

amelius 6y ago

The more people use X, the more developers will focus on X and not on Y. From there, even fewer people will use Y and the downward cycle continues.

johncolanduoni 6y ago
Okay, so why do your preferences for the device take priority over the majority of users who don’t care about what the T2 does and the ones who do and actually want it? Why should it be illegal for a company to make a product for us instead of you?
- yholio 6y ago
  Clearly the majority has won thus far and Apple is not restrained in any way. But I have the right to a differing political opinion, and when the majority shifts, your freedoms are not encroached, just like when the majority of people decide smoking should not be allowed in airplanes.
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    That’s a bizarre analogy to me, and you’re implying a symmetry to the situation that doesn’t exist. I want to be able to buy a product that has the properties that I want, and I want you to be able to buy a product with properties that you want (in part because I also want and own products with the properties you want). You want the only option to be products made with the properties you want, so that other businesses are forced to make more software for the products you want. Which of these is restricting freedom more? I think you’re going to have to try harder to convince anyone that this situation is analogous to second hand smoke. You probably want to come up with better arguments for your “political” movement.
    - yholio 6y ago
      The condescendence is really unwarranted, it is a simple idea that purchasing options are affected by political choices of others. To give a symmetrical example, you are not allowed to purchase completely safe recreational drugs, because of the opinions the majority holds on their use. The metric you use of avoiding "restricting freedom" is a strongly ideological stance in itself and is not a natural goal political systems strive for. You might value some flavors of individual autonomy and imply they have an universal vocation by calling them "freedom". I might favor other sets, such as the restriction of corporate power and consumer empowerment, and call those, in turn "freedom", see for example the GPL ethos. Both sets of political views are legitimate and can be pursued in a democracy.
      - johncolanduoni 6y ago
        Okay, but again, if your metric is consumer empowerment, how does you dictating the properties of products consumers can buy based on your personal preferences result in more consumer empowerment? Can most consumers take their System76 laptop, and then set it up so it has the properties of a laptop with something like the T2 chip if they so desire? Any more than you can reasonably be expected to delid the T2 chip in a MacBook to get it to do what you want? I’m not trying to judge your statements by my goalposts as you seem to be implying, I’m trying to understand the internal logic of what you’ve been saying which AFAICT isn’t lining up.
        yholio 6y ago
        This might be a confusion started from the answer of "amelius", the logic of which I don't fully support. I believe consumer freedom is hampered first and foremost by monopolies (or, in the mobile OS case, oligopolies) and my political choice is to maximize market forces and restrict anti-competitive behavior. This is the grounds on which I oppose Apple practices, not some idea that if people buy Apple products it somehow prevents development for other platforms.
        johncolanduoni 6y ago
dkonofalski 6y ago
Doesn't that, by your own admission, mean that people care about X and not Y? If people don't care about Y, why should manufacturers be forced to appeal to the fraction of people that do?