3 ms·

You're missing the point that standardization usually creates subpar products, which allowed Apple to break standards and create a more valuable product. Standa

You're missing the point that standardization usually creates subpar products, which allowed Apple to break standards and create a more valuable product. Standards are inherently stifling in so many ways, you risk a lot with heavy-handed forced standardization. Air bags, tire standards, and headlights are small parts of a car with limited standardization, it's not comparable to inviting the government to involve themselves in application & hardware platform creation that they have no expertise or stake in developing. Apple's behavior is definitely a problem, but government mandated standards are almost certainly not the answer.

Apocryphon 6y ago
This is the argument against the public option. The existence of a higher industry baseline does not the negate the existence of those who would surpass that standard. It merely means that consumer protections do not begin at zero. If we aspire for a society where everyone is entitled to a basic level of healthcare, or a basic level of income, why not also a basic level of software quality and security?
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Because in most cases it's impossible to define what a basic level of software quality and security should be, and it's not likely that people agree on what that level is. Most of the economy is like this, you can't really pre-emptively define what is "good", the best way is to create a market and let consumers decide in aggregate. Security is a little easier to specify, it's a more clearly defined space but you still have to be careful or you end up with outdated standards actually holding back industry security. I have nothing against a public option, as long as it is an option. Government regulation of the tech industry doesn't sound to me like it's providing more options. I never thought basic income was a good idea in the first place, I'm not sure what to say about this. Basic healthcare is a more complicated case, but the healthcare industry doesn't look anything like the software industry. Regulating healthcare won't and shouldn't be like regulating software.
- zepto 6y ago
  Apple’s software quality and security is, while far from perfect, at the top of the industry. Clearly they would meet any such baseline. Consumer protections of this kind would simply increase the cost of entry, and concentrate more power in the hands of those with capital, I.e. the incumbents and VCs.
8note 6y ago
Having my Phillips head screwdriver properly fit the Phillips head screw is great. The apple non standard screw is a horrible product for everyone except apple. The whole point is that they can force you to pay for substandard other stuff like their licensed hardware repairs. They're breaking standards so that they can abuse IP laws to force you to pay more for an equivalent or worse product than the standard
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Maybe they do, but evidently consumers accept it and are still willing to pay for it. I don't know whether non-standard screws are a trade-off that Apple needed to make a better product, but it's a trade-off consumers are willing to accept. That indicates that on the whole, Apple's non-standard behavior is still more valuable to consumers overall than their less successful standard competitors even if it is horrible to a minority. Only a competitor that consumers like as much as Apple but also has standard screws can prove Apple wrong. Or, alternatively, maybe a day will come where consumers care about standard screws/repairability as much as you do. Until then, consumers will continue wanting Apple's non-standard stuff over the rest of the industry's standards, and what consumers want is pretty much the only thing that matters (with few exceptions, of course).
  - mrgordon 6y ago
    “Apple's non-standard behavior is still more valuable to consumers overall than their less successful standard competitors even if it is horrible to a minority.” You must realize this doesn’t follow at all right? Almost no one is even aware if their laptop has proprietary screws or not when they’re purchasing one. It’s not listed as a feature on laptop comparison sites or in reviews. People choose Apple for many reasons but it’s not because they prefer non standard screws. You’re confusing people choosing to buy a product with them endorsing a specific feature of that product that clearly goes against their own interest for no benefit.
- zepto 6y ago
  Somehow you seem to be claiming that manufacturers and software developers can be forced to produce a better product than Apple by the government. That seems implausible, but it also seems like they’d have just been outcompeted if that were true.

Apocryphon 6y ago

This is the argument against the public option. The existence of a higher industry baseline does not the negate the existence of those who would surpass that standard. It merely means that consumer protections do not begin at zero. If we aspire for a society where everyone is entitled to a basic level of healthcare, or a basic level of income, why not also a basic level of software quality and security?

themacguffinman 6y ago
Because in most cases it's impossible to define what a basic level of software quality and security should be, and it's not likely that people agree on what that level is. Most of the economy is like this, you can't really pre-emptively define what is "good", the best way is to create a market and let consumers decide in aggregate. Security is a little easier to specify, it's a more clearly defined space but you still have to be careful or you end up with outdated standards actually holding back industry security. I have nothing against a public option, as long as it is an option. Government regulation of the tech industry doesn't sound to me like it's providing more options. I never thought basic income was a good idea in the first place, I'm not sure what to say about this. Basic healthcare is a more complicated case, but the healthcare industry doesn't look anything like the software industry. Regulating healthcare won't and shouldn't be like regulating software.
zepto 6y ago
Apple’s software quality and security is, while far from perfect, at the top of the industry. Clearly they would meet any such baseline. Consumer protections of this kind would simply increase the cost of entry, and concentrate more power in the hands of those with capital, I.e. the incumbents and VCs.

8note 6y ago

Having my Phillips head screwdriver properly fit the Phillips head screw is great. The apple non standard screw is a horrible product for everyone except apple. The whole point is that they can force you to pay for substandard other stuff like their licensed hardware repairs. They're breaking standards so that they can abuse IP laws to force you to pay more for an equivalent or worse product than the standard

themacguffinman 6y ago
Maybe they do, but evidently consumers accept it and are still willing to pay for it. I don't know whether non-standard screws are a trade-off that Apple needed to make a better product, but it's a trade-off consumers are willing to accept. That indicates that on the whole, Apple's non-standard behavior is still more valuable to consumers overall than their less successful standard competitors even if it is horrible to a minority. Only a competitor that consumers like as much as Apple but also has standard screws can prove Apple wrong. Or, alternatively, maybe a day will come where consumers care about standard screws/repairability as much as you do. Until then, consumers will continue wanting Apple's non-standard stuff over the rest of the industry's standards, and what consumers want is pretty much the only thing that matters (with few exceptions, of course).
- mrgordon 6y ago
  “Apple's non-standard behavior is still more valuable to consumers overall than their less successful standard competitors even if it is horrible to a minority.” You must realize this doesn’t follow at all right? Almost no one is even aware if their laptop has proprietary screws or not when they’re purchasing one. It’s not listed as a feature on laptop comparison sites or in reviews. People choose Apple for many reasons but it’s not because they prefer non standard screws. You’re confusing people choosing to buy a product with them endorsing a specific feature of that product that clearly goes against their own interest for no benefit.
zepto 6y ago
Somehow you seem to be claiming that manufacturers and software developers can be forced to produce a better product than Apple by the government. That seems implausible, but it also seems like they’d have just been outcompeted if that were true.