5 ms·

spiffytech: "The bigger issue is that vendors get to set whatever rules they want" nine_k: "Re-read your EULAs." Missing the original point.

by _qulr 6y ago

nine_k 6y ago
This is free market for you. They offer something, you accept the offer if you want. Re-read the EULAs, for you have agreed with their provisions. Would you prefer the government to set rules about what kind of access you have to have to your computer (and maybe force the evil corps give you more freedom)? That won't even be funny. Corporations at the very least are interested in keeping you as a customer. Any government, given a chance, would mandate spyware and backdoors, for your safety, but mostly for their safety. Examples abound; look at China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc. Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > This is free market for you. 2 vendors, Microsoft and Apple, have almost 100% of desktop OS market share, so no, that's not a particularly free market. > Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it. This is completely false, because Apple has radically changed how they've operated the Mac in the past 20 years. That's my complaint. Apple keeps getting worse and worse, year after year. I was quite satisfied with the Mac years ago. In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Along these lines, I really loved Apple hardware at the times of Apple II, and Apple software at the times of HyperCard. By that time, and through 1990s, Apple was very niche, much like desktop Linux today. It did not have viruses because nobody cared to seriously write them. Apple were catering for some specific professional circles, power users who were ready to pay quite a premium for the machine. Since the iPhone revolution, Apple is about the mass consumer, with much more non-geek mindset, buying at much more affordable prices. They lock down their ecosystem both for users' security (because non-IT people have hard time understanding computer security), and to extract more money via App Store-only software installation in the future. Againx the problem with freedom is its cost, and you have fewer chances finding pockets of it where the majority is. Fringe groups have more chances to value and protect it, like OSS movement, or early Apple / Amiga / all the way to Altair customer base.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > By that time, and through 1990s, Apple was very niche, much like desktop Linux today. I'm not talking about the 1990s. I'm talking about, say, 2010, which wasn't that long ago.
  - vageli 6y ago
    > In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased. This seems inevitable as computers become more accessible to less technical userbases. Foot-guns are fine(ish) when your user group is composed of specialists, but companies have incentive to minimize support requests.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > This seems inevitable as computers become more accessible to less technical userbases. The only change is cost. Computers are more accessible because they're cheaper. My dad managed to figure out VisiCalc for himself back in the day, and he wasn't "technical", he was just in sales. IMO there's an unfortunate tendency nowadays to infantilize users. How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically incompetent and incapable of learning? > companies have incentive to minimize support requests. In my experience, for example supporting my mom, there's no difference in the volume of support requests. The only difference is that you can actually fix problems that occur on the Mac, whereas if someone experiences a problem on iOS, they're basically doomed.
      - vageli 6y ago
        > How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically incompetent and incapable of learning? This succinctly captures the issue, though. Users don't want to read the manual, they want to use the appliance. They don't want to learn the idiosyncrasies of the device, they want to accomplish the task they had in mind. As someone who always reads the manual, I agree with you on principle but the reality is, fewer people care how things work and just want to get stuff done.
        _qulr 6y ago
        I'm not sure how this is relevant? Almost every product of every kind comes with a manual or instructions, which buyers are free to read or ignore, possibly with dangerous consequences for the latter. You can stick a metal pot in a microwave. You can pop open a pill bottle and swallow. That's just a fact of life in a free society.
- cma 6y ago
  > This is free market for you. They offer something, you accept the offer if you want. Re-reading again, he specifically addressed this already and said they get away with it due to duopoly.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Is there a huge barrier to entry? Some very expensive regulation to comply, like in pharma? Some colossal infrastructure cost, like with telecom? I would say that the duopoly is due to the exclusive agreements with OEMs first and foremost (Windows, Android) and lock-up by the manufacturer (iOS). If I were to consider an anti-trust action, I'd concentrate on these.
    - grishka 6y ago
      There's app ecosystem. No one will be using your OS, no matter how great it is, if they can't run their favorite software on it.
- diffeomorphism 6y ago
  > This is free market for you. Where you can choose between Windows's EULA and MacOS's EULA and declining is not an option. Hardly a free market and "consent" is hardly valid if "no" is not an option.
  - eikenberry 6y ago
    Declining is an option, but one you don't seem willing to take.
    - diffeomorphism 6y ago
      No, it is not.
      - eikenberry 6y ago
        Why? There are viable alternatives.

spiffytech: "The bigger issue is that vendors get to set whatever rules they want" nine_k: "Re-read your EULAs." Missing the original point.

by _qulr 6y ago

spiffytech: "The bigger issue is that vendors get to set whatever rules they want" nine_k: "Re-read your EULAs." Missing the original point.

nine_k 6y ago

This is free market for you. They offer something, you accept the offer if you want. Re-read the EULAs, for you have agreed with their provisions. Would you prefer the government to set rules about what kind of access you have to have to your computer (and maybe force the evil corps give you more freedom)? That won't even be funny. Corporations at the very least are interested in keeping you as a customer. Any government, given a chance, would mandate spyware and backdoors, for your safety, but mostly for their safety. Examples abound; look at China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc. Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it.

_qulr 6y ago
> This is free market for you. 2 vendors, Microsoft and Apple, have almost 100% of desktop OS market share, so no, that's not a particularly free market. > Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it. This is completely false, because Apple has radically changed how they've operated the Mac in the past 20 years. That's my complaint. Apple keeps getting worse and worse, year after year. I was quite satisfied with the Mac years ago. In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Along these lines, I really loved Apple hardware at the times of Apple II, and Apple software at the times of HyperCard. By that time, and through 1990s, Apple was very niche, much like desktop Linux today. It did not have viruses because nobody cared to seriously write them. Apple were catering for some specific professional circles, power users who were ready to pay quite a premium for the machine. Since the iPhone revolution, Apple is about the mass consumer, with much more non-geek mindset, buying at much more affordable prices. They lock down their ecosystem both for users' security (because non-IT people have hard time understanding computer security), and to extract more money via App Store-only software installation in the future. Againx the problem with freedom is its cost, and you have fewer chances finding pockets of it where the majority is. Fringe groups have more chances to value and protect it, like OSS movement, or early Apple / Amiga / all the way to Altair customer base.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > By that time, and through 1990s, Apple was very niche, much like desktop Linux today. I'm not talking about the 1990s. I'm talking about, say, 2010, which wasn't that long ago.
- vageli 6y ago
  > In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased. This seems inevitable as computers become more accessible to less technical userbases. Foot-guns are fine(ish) when your user group is composed of specialists, but companies have incentive to minimize support requests.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > This seems inevitable as computers become more accessible to less technical userbases. The only change is cost. Computers are more accessible because they're cheaper. My dad managed to figure out VisiCalc for himself back in the day, and he wasn't "technical", he was just in sales. IMO there's an unfortunate tendency nowadays to infantilize users. How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically incompetent and incapable of learning? > companies have incentive to minimize support requests. In my experience, for example supporting my mom, there's no difference in the volume of support requests. The only difference is that you can actually fix problems that occur on the Mac, whereas if someone experiences a problem on iOS, they're basically doomed.
    - vageli 6y ago
      > How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically incompetent and incapable of learning? This succinctly captures the issue, though. Users don't want to read the manual, they want to use the appliance. They don't want to learn the idiosyncrasies of the device, they want to accomplish the task they had in mind. As someone who always reads the manual, I agree with you on principle but the reality is, fewer people care how things work and just want to get stuff done.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        I'm not sure how this is relevant? Almost every product of every kind comes with a manual or instructions, which buyers are free to read or ignore, possibly with dangerous consequences for the latter. You can stick a metal pot in a microwave. You can pop open a pill bottle and swallow. That's just a fact of life in a free society.
cma 6y ago
> This is free market for you. They offer something, you accept the offer if you want. Re-reading again, he specifically addressed this already and said they get away with it due to duopoly.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Is there a huge barrier to entry? Some very expensive regulation to comply, like in pharma? Some colossal infrastructure cost, like with telecom? I would say that the duopoly is due to the exclusive agreements with OEMs first and foremost (Windows, Android) and lock-up by the manufacturer (iOS). If I were to consider an anti-trust action, I'd concentrate on these.
  - grishka 6y ago
    There's app ecosystem. No one will be using your OS, no matter how great it is, if they can't run their favorite software on it.
diffeomorphism 6y ago
> This is free market for you. Where you can choose between Windows's EULA and MacOS's EULA and declining is not an option. Hardly a free market and "consent" is hardly valid if "no" is not an option.
- eikenberry 6y ago
  Declining is an option, but one you don't seem willing to take.
  - diffeomorphism 6y ago
    No, it is not.
    - eikenberry 6y ago
      Why? There are viable alternatives.