4 ms·

> Rather it is about making sure it is easy for regular users to get Apps in a safe manner without malware and Trojan horses. I don't intend to sound dismissiv

> Rather it is about making sure it is easy for regular users to get Apps in a safe manner without malware and Trojan horses. I don't intend to sound dismissive, but this line of thinking has a name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

newsclues 6y ago
Does that not apply to the State and government?
- criley2 6y ago
  The difference between the State and the Private Company is that citizens vote for the State, and Legislators (the "paternalizers") are directly installed by the voters. The iPhone buyer does not get a say in the development staff or direction at Apple. My government intends to be "Of the people, for the people, by the people". Imagine if Apple every single year had elections at every level of their company! Vote for your local support representatives. Vote for your local b+m store management. Vote for executive staff. Etc etc. But until Apple does that, there is literally no fair comparison with paternalism in state and private industry.
  - prawn 6y ago
    Aren't you voting with your wallet when you voluntarily buy an Apple product?
    - criley2 6y ago
      I am familiar with the saying, however, in this case, voting for government officials and creating a "demand" datapoint in markets by completing a purchase are not synonymous. When we go to the polls, we are literally making decisions about what you call "paternalism". Who should write our laws? Who should manage our criminal justice system? Who should regulate our industries? These are pretty direct decisions to make. But when we go to Best Buy or Apple Store to buy an iDevice, almost all consumer are not making a decision about the "paternalistic" decisions of Apple, who they employ, etc. They are buying a shiny object that makes their brain give them the happy juice. I fear for our society if these two actions become one and the same.
      - prawn 6y ago
        You need to step back one more level from "The iPhone buyer does not get a say" to "The phone buyer does get a say"; buy an iPhone or buy an Android device if you have an issue with their business arrangements. "They are buying a shiny object that makes their brain give them the happy juice." That doesn't sound unlike many voters of all sorts to me!
        criley2 6y ago
        I personally believe that it is naive to think that Apple cares what consumers think as they have enough money to take $0 from consumers for say 30 years straight and be fine. They are post-capitalist. I understand that in an ideal market, a business has to react to demand. That in many industries, if you don't do what the customer wants, the customer leaves. I do not think Apple operates in that world or by those rules. Apple doesn't care what you think and they don't care if you buy their products. Ironically, the only way you might get Apple to change isn't with your wallet, it's with your government. EU notching wins against Apple bad practices on behalf of Apple's European customers that their wallets never won them.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Elections != democracy. Or even representation. Apple has a certain awareness of public opinion and user mood. It isn't obliged to pay attention to either, and of course it also tries to control both through PR efforts. But if it ignores or irritates its users too much there are financial consequences. Meanwhile you can be sure forums like HN are monitored for sentiment.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      > But if it ignores or irritates its users too much there are financial consequences. I believe they very much know what their users want and are giving it to them That's why they are so successful. And what their users want is a device to support their paternalism. I've never witnessed so many judgments against elderly or people that are a bit of techno illiterate (a bit is enough) as I have in discussions about Apple. The baseline is always of two types: - they are easy to operate, so even my [insert moms, dads, granpas etc here] can use them - I would never let my [insert moms, dads, granpas etc here] use an open device where they can get viruses that then I have to fix (like fixing something for your family is some kind of punishment, they did it for me repeateadly when I was younger!) And i think it's a bit naive to think that people supporting the idea that Apple knows better are in good faith and are not doing it because they like the control too and to be "influencers" (with many quotes) in their inner circles. I would never think that my parents who raised me and made me what I am are incapable of understanding basic safety rules on the Internet once explained to them (safety rules that anyway protect them from something that don't kill people, it simply kills the battery of the device) > Meanwhile you can be sure forums like HN are monitored for sentiment. I'm sure they do. One interesting other thing that we can be sure and I didn't think possible is that there are people monitoring this forums as well with enough karma to downvote, that not only downvote your posts in a discussion, but go back to yout history and downvote older posts as well. It just happened to me, I had posts from yesterday and two days ago downvoted right now by the same people that downvoted me in this thread. I don't know if HN can do something about it or not, but for starter disallowing voting on older submissions that users have not shown interest on could help (it should be easy to check which submissions users have opened, when, how many times and for how long to establish if they are genuinely interested in the topic)
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  Not really It was 6 centuries ago, when it was first invented, it has a much broader meaning now. Anyway Apple is State and Government in Apple ecosystem https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/#Intr https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/#Intr > The civil law does not allow the enforcement of certain kinds of contracts, e.g., for gambling debts. It requires minors to have blood transfusions even if their religious beliefs forbid it. Persons may be civilly committed if they are a danger to themselves. Doctors do not tell their patients the truth about their medical condition. A physician may tell the wife of a man whose car went off a bridge into the water and drowned that he died instantly when in fact he died a rather ghastly death. A husband may hide the sleeping pills from a depressed wife. A philosophy department may require a student to take logic courses. A teacher may be less than honest about telling a student that he has little philosophical ability. All of these rules, policies, and actions may be done for various reasons; may be justified by various considerations. When they are justified solely on the grounds that the person affected would be better off, or would be less harmed, as a result of the rule, policy, etc., and the person in question would prefer not to be treated this way, we have an instance of paternalism. As the examples indicate the question of paternalism is one that arises in many different areas of our personal and public life
- vagrantJin 6y ago
  Yes, but governments are or should be accountable to the state, which imposes rules thereby verified and rattified by civil society and their representatives. Second point, though weaker on its own merit, is that the State's primary objective is to improve the commonwealth by acting as proxy to the collective effort, regulating compromise etc which are paternalistic without a doubt. Private corporations exist for entirely different reasons though this probably wasn't always the case. In our world, corporations can make massive losses, have no working product, or be of such marginal value and yet be valued for billions by speculators in the free market. Its all random and irrational. States cannot operate like that.
czzr 6y ago
It also has another name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  UX can be paternalistic as well It can also be very bad or the very opposite of what Apple does and also be the best around and still let people free to explore all the options available. There is nothing specific in what Apple does that can be reduced to simply UX. Maybe ergonomics is more correct to define what Apple tries to do with their human interfaces, but the Apple store or the locked down platform have nothing to do with either UX or ergonomics. What Apple does is to remove electric plugs from the walls because someone could put a fork inside them and experience an electric shock. And I am not the one saying it, I was answering to "Apple removed trojan and viruses to help people who don't know better". That's paternalism.
- mixedCase 6y ago
  UX can guide the user toward what it thinks to be the best option, or it can forbid the user from choosing anything else. The former helps grandma get her tasks done and lets the power user go the extra mile. The latter helps grandma get her tasks done, tells the power user he's not worth supporting and blames grandma for it.
matwood 6y ago
Or pragmatism. At some point it's better and easier for users to offload some of these decisions to someone else. I don't want to test every piece of food I buy at the grocery store for poison, the same way I don't want to have to deep dive into every app. And yes, I know the system is not perfect, but I'm talking about the general system here.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > don't want to test every piece of food I buy at the grocery store for poison I consider myself a pragmatic and I think that the only way to actually be sure there is no poison in your food is to literally produce it yourself. Someone who's not even telling me the recipe is not a trusted source of premium food. There is also no poison waiting outside of Apple ecosystem. There is no offloading decision to someone else involved, you simply have the option or you don't, it doesn't mean you have to go full in one way or the other You don't have to deep dive every app either, it's a straw man IMO The argument is the same for picking mushrooms in the woods: you don't pick all of them, put them in the same basket, and then test them for venom one by one, you only pick those that you already know as safe, and you're absolutely sure about it. Nobody in their right mind would do otherwise. I'm ok with people trusting Apple more than their parents, what I find disturbing is the idea that if I trust my parents to use the same 3 apps that everybody else in the World uses (WhatsApp, FB and Google Maps) and are certified good, I'm putting them in danger. It is not true. It's a false premise. Also the idea that people will go and install every app they see it's false. They see a warning, they usually stop right there. My father used to turn off the phone when he saw the red alert of a missing call, thinking of a malfunction. There's no risk he's gonna install something by chance. Also, if iOS is on 25% of the devices in Europe, while Android is on 3/4 of them does it mean that 75% of the 700 million European citizens are not pragmatic?

newsclues 6y ago

Does that not apply to the State and government?

criley2 6y ago
The difference between the State and the Private Company is that citizens vote for the State, and Legislators (the "paternalizers") are directly installed by the voters. The iPhone buyer does not get a say in the development staff or direction at Apple. My government intends to be "Of the people, for the people, by the people". Imagine if Apple every single year had elections at every level of their company! Vote for your local support representatives. Vote for your local b+m store management. Vote for executive staff. Etc etc. But until Apple does that, there is literally no fair comparison with paternalism in state and private industry.
- prawn 6y ago
  Aren't you voting with your wallet when you voluntarily buy an Apple product?
  - criley2 6y ago
    I am familiar with the saying, however, in this case, voting for government officials and creating a "demand" datapoint in markets by completing a purchase are not synonymous. When we go to the polls, we are literally making decisions about what you call "paternalism". Who should write our laws? Who should manage our criminal justice system? Who should regulate our industries? These are pretty direct decisions to make. But when we go to Best Buy or Apple Store to buy an iDevice, almost all consumer are not making a decision about the "paternalistic" decisions of Apple, who they employ, etc. They are buying a shiny object that makes their brain give them the happy juice. I fear for our society if these two actions become one and the same.
    - prawn 6y ago
      You need to step back one more level from "The iPhone buyer does not get a say" to "The phone buyer does get a say"; buy an iPhone or buy an Android device if you have an issue with their business arrangements. "They are buying a shiny object that makes their brain give them the happy juice." That doesn't sound unlike many voters of all sorts to me!
      - criley2 6y ago
        I personally believe that it is naive to think that Apple cares what consumers think as they have enough money to take $0 from consumers for say 30 years straight and be fine. They are post-capitalist. I understand that in an ideal market, a business has to react to demand. That in many industries, if you don't do what the customer wants, the customer leaves. I do not think Apple operates in that world or by those rules. Apple doesn't care what you think and they don't care if you buy their products. Ironically, the only way you might get Apple to change isn't with your wallet, it's with your government. EU notching wins against Apple bad practices on behalf of Apple's European customers that their wallets never won them.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Elections != democracy. Or even representation. Apple has a certain awareness of public opinion and user mood. It isn't obliged to pay attention to either, and of course it also tries to control both through PR efforts. But if it ignores or irritates its users too much there are financial consequences. Meanwhile you can be sure forums like HN are monitored for sentiment.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > But if it ignores or irritates its users too much there are financial consequences. I believe they very much know what their users want and are giving it to them That's why they are so successful. And what their users want is a device to support their paternalism. I've never witnessed so many judgments against elderly or people that are a bit of techno illiterate (a bit is enough) as I have in discussions about Apple. The baseline is always of two types: - they are easy to operate, so even my [insert moms, dads, granpas etc here] can use them - I would never let my [insert moms, dads, granpas etc here] use an open device where they can get viruses that then I have to fix (like fixing something for your family is some kind of punishment, they did it for me repeateadly when I was younger!) And i think it's a bit naive to think that people supporting the idea that Apple knows better are in good faith and are not doing it because they like the control too and to be "influencers" (with many quotes) in their inner circles. I would never think that my parents who raised me and made me what I am are incapable of understanding basic safety rules on the Internet once explained to them (safety rules that anyway protect them from something that don't kill people, it simply kills the battery of the device) > Meanwhile you can be sure forums like HN are monitored for sentiment. I'm sure they do. One interesting other thing that we can be sure and I didn't think possible is that there are people monitoring this forums as well with enough karma to downvote, that not only downvote your posts in a discussion, but go back to yout history and downvote older posts as well. It just happened to me, I had posts from yesterday and two days ago downvoted right now by the same people that downvoted me in this thread. I don't know if HN can do something about it or not, but for starter disallowing voting on older submissions that users have not shown interest on could help (it should be easy to check which submissions users have opened, when, how many times and for how long to establish if they are genuinely interested in the topic)
romanoderoma 6y ago
Not really It was 6 centuries ago, when it was first invented, it has a much broader meaning now. Anyway Apple is State and Government in Apple ecosystem https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/#Intr https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/#Intr > The civil law does not allow the enforcement of certain kinds of contracts, e.g., for gambling debts. It requires minors to have blood transfusions even if their religious beliefs forbid it. Persons may be civilly committed if they are a danger to themselves. Doctors do not tell their patients the truth about their medical condition. A physician may tell the wife of a man whose car went off a bridge into the water and drowned that he died instantly when in fact he died a rather ghastly death. A husband may hide the sleeping pills from a depressed wife. A philosophy department may require a student to take logic courses. A teacher may be less than honest about telling a student that he has little philosophical ability. All of these rules, policies, and actions may be done for various reasons; may be justified by various considerations. When they are justified solely on the grounds that the person affected would be better off, or would be less harmed, as a result of the rule, policy, etc., and the person in question would prefer not to be treated this way, we have an instance of paternalism. As the examples indicate the question of paternalism is one that arises in many different areas of our personal and public life
vagrantJin 6y ago
Yes, but governments are or should be accountable to the state, which imposes rules thereby verified and rattified by civil society and their representatives. Second point, though weaker on its own merit, is that the State's primary objective is to improve the commonwealth by acting as proxy to the collective effort, regulating compromise etc which are paternalistic without a doubt. Private corporations exist for entirely different reasons though this probably wasn't always the case. In our world, corporations can make massive losses, have no working product, or be of such marginal value and yet be valued for billions by speculators in the free market. Its all random and irrational. States cannot operate like that.

czzr 6y ago

It also has another name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience

romanoderoma 6y ago
UX can be paternalistic as well It can also be very bad or the very opposite of what Apple does and also be the best around and still let people free to explore all the options available. There is nothing specific in what Apple does that can be reduced to simply UX. Maybe ergonomics is more correct to define what Apple tries to do with their human interfaces, but the Apple store or the locked down platform have nothing to do with either UX or ergonomics. What Apple does is to remove electric plugs from the walls because someone could put a fork inside them and experience an electric shock. And I am not the one saying it, I was answering to "Apple removed trojan and viruses to help people who don't know better". That's paternalism.
mixedCase 6y ago
UX can guide the user toward what it thinks to be the best option, or it can forbid the user from choosing anything else. The former helps grandma get her tasks done and lets the power user go the extra mile. The latter helps grandma get her tasks done, tells the power user he's not worth supporting and blames grandma for it.

matwood 6y ago

Or pragmatism. At some point it's better and easier for users to offload some of these decisions to someone else. I don't want to test every piece of food I buy at the grocery store for poison, the same way I don't want to have to deep dive into every app. And yes, I know the system is not perfect, but I'm talking about the general system here.

romanoderoma 6y ago
> don't want to test every piece of food I buy at the grocery store for poison I consider myself a pragmatic and I think that the only way to actually be sure there is no poison in your food is to literally produce it yourself. Someone who's not even telling me the recipe is not a trusted source of premium food. There is also no poison waiting outside of Apple ecosystem. There is no offloading decision to someone else involved, you simply have the option or you don't, it doesn't mean you have to go full in one way or the other You don't have to deep dive every app either, it's a straw man IMO The argument is the same for picking mushrooms in the woods: you don't pick all of them, put them in the same basket, and then test them for venom one by one, you only pick those that you already know as safe, and you're absolutely sure about it. Nobody in their right mind would do otherwise. I'm ok with people trusting Apple more than their parents, what I find disturbing is the idea that if I trust my parents to use the same 3 apps that everybody else in the World uses (WhatsApp, FB and Google Maps) and are certified good, I'm putting them in danger. It is not true. It's a false premise. Also the idea that people will go and install every app they see it's false. They see a warning, they usually stop right there. My father used to turn off the phone when he saw the red alert of a missing call, thinking of a malfunction. There's no risk he's gonna install something by chance. Also, if iOS is on 25% of the devices in Europe, while Android is on 3/4 of them does it mean that 75% of the 700 million European citizens are not pragmatic?