6 ms·

It's not an illusion, "just don't buy it" would have prevented all of this but clearly the majority of consumers don't agree with you. Whether or not you think

It's not an illusion, "just don't buy it" would have prevented all of this but clearly the majority of consumers don't agree with you. Whether or not you think it's a good outcome, consumers have largely chosen to buy or use the stuff that these companies make. Consumers have always come first, and they've already spoken.

bmitc 6y ago
Most consumers do not understand the repercussions nor do they understand the power these companies can weld, so you can't say they have spoken.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  And I say they do, they don't just don't value it as highly as you do. It's awfully convenient to blindly assert that people can't be trusted to make their own choices, especially when the proposed solution is take away their choice with government regulation.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    How is their choice being taken away? They would only be gaining more freedom and control over their devices, not losing anything.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      You know, it is possible that many people like Facebook as it is today considering that it's the most popular social network in the world. I'm also really curious what additional freedom and control over their devices consumers would gain from this antitrust suit given that no one is coerced into using Facebook (or Instagram, WhatsApp etc) and Facebook doesn't even make the devices that run those apps.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        This thread is about Apple, not Facebook. Right-to-repair and having freedom to install the software you want on the hardware you buy is an important pursuit. Tell me again what choice you're losing with this? Extremes are never good or useful. We need moderation. Capitalism with guardrails. We already have regulation to ensure certain corporate behaviors don't harm consumers, and even protect them from themselves, which has massively improved quality, safety and reliability of the things we buy. Sure some regulations are overreaching or outdated, but the rise of giant software/internet companies has upended all of the old considerations of antitrust. There are a few trillion-dollar companies that impact a vast amount of our lives and there's no effective way to disengage from them while living in modern civilization. That's a major problem because pretty soon they will be the "government" that controls your life - but without any of the accountability or transparency.
        themacguffinman 6y ago
        Evidently it's not important, almost no one pays for it. There are (and were) devices that are very repairable, that aren't so locked down and closed, but few actually care about this when they spend money and it soon goes away when companies realize how little consumers care about it. Saying you wish for X, Y, and Z is worth as much as it costs to say that, which is absolutely nothing. Actually paying money for stuff cuts through the bullshit consumers tell their friends or the internet about what they want or where their priorities are. My points apply to Apple as well, consumers wanted this and continued buying devices like this. I don't doubt that some people complain about various flaws in the products they buy but it's largely meaningless because they clearly don't care enough about these flaws to put their money where their mouth is. No one forced them to buy hard-to-repair, locked down Apple products when there were more open alternatives, they simply decided that repairability is so unimportant they'd still buy Apple products over a product that is more repairable. It's one thing if Apple were dishonest or consumers were somehow forced to buy Apple, but they're not. There's nothing actually stopping consumers from buying the phone they want. Consumers aren't being harmed, they're getting what they really want. This is the choice I lose with this: the ability to buy a product that is locked down and tightly integrated/controlled by Apple. It's a choice millions of consumers have already willingly made. I'm personally living happily without buying Apple's locked down products for myself, I and every other non-Apple consumer didn't need the government to make this choice for me. I don't want the government to remove a choice that millions of consumers have made on their own.
paulryanrogers 6y ago
Railroads and the like could have just not sold to the oil men. Or consumers could've just not bought from Standard Oil. ... Until they couldn't.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  > Standard Oil Sounds like the government should and did step in at the "until they couldn't" part, which is not where we're at. Hard to imagine someone unable to stop using Facebook or Instagram or whatever, there's a lot of social media out there. > Railroads Considering the US returned control of the railways to their original owners in 1920 and most rail today is privatized, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Consumers and competing businesses were still harmed during Standard Oil's rise. Why wait until there are no practical alternatives left?
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      Other businesses are always harmed during the rise of a dominant business, that's what happens when a dominant business takes marketshare away from you. The question at hand is whether they took their share unfairly. In Standard Oil's case, the government found that they did, which maybe happened too late in Standard Oil's case. But even though it takes time to determine wrongdoing, we still prosecute crimes after they happen instead of before for obvious reasons. You wait until there is evidence of harm to consumers. Maybe the government has evidence, this is just an early article after all, but again, it's hard to imagine someone unable to stop using Facebook or Instagram or whatever, there's a lot of social media out there.
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Where to draw the line is the controversy. Consumer harm isn't always obvious or easily reversible given corporate adversaries with more resources than mid-sized countries.
8note 6y ago
Customers really liked having lead in their gas, and asbestos in their walls, yet somehow, it was still a bad idea
- aeternum 6y ago
  Government regulators were also fine with having lead in gas for decades, they didn't do much better. In fact government regulators allowing themselves to be swayed by auto-manufacturer paid safety studies probably gave the public a false sense of security. I often wonder if we would have gotten rid of things like lead and asbestos faster if consumers had to decide for themselves rather than depending upon regulators to determine what is safe.
  - InvisibleUp 6y ago
    Consumers can only choose from what options they're given, and if every option is leaded then that's what they'll buy. Also, if they're unaware of the negative effects of lead (or even unaware that their gasoline HAS lead) then there would be no incentive for them to choose what they're told is a worse product. This was before the internet, so it was difficult and time-consuming to do research on something like this. Gas companies said leaded gasoline was safe so everyone went with it. The government's job here is to do that tedious research and ban/regulate anything that's hazardous to health and safety. The alternative would be a grassroots campaign by citizen experts who decide to go against the advice of what should be trusted sources, which is how you end up with stuff like the anti-vax movement.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      If consumers all want unleaded and every available option is leaded, someone will make unleaded fuel and become enormously successful. That's how a market functions. If they're unaware of the negative effects of lead or a business is being dishonest about what's in the fuel, that definitely falls under unfair/dishonest practices and the government should prosecute that. But how on earth is that relevant to Facebook or Apple antitrust? Facebook operates a bunch of websites that millions of people voluntarily sign up for and can leave at any time. The government isn't suing Facebook for safety issues or anything, they're suing them for antitrust which means they believe Facebook has somehow unfairly coerced consumers into using their product over their competitors.
mrgordon 6y ago
You're ignoring that there often simply aren't that many viable choices. And the company that offers something you care about a lot may also do something you hate a lot. For example: iOS: Better for privacy than Android but less open to sideloaded apps Android: Sends tons of data to Google about all kinds of things. Furthermore Google bricked one of my old Android phones by disabling the DNS for the authentication server so I could no longer sign into the phone. (It was too old to support Cyanogen). Samsung: The last Samsung S-series smartphone in my house had apps pre-loaded on it including Blockbuster (it wasn't that many years ago) that could not be removed without loading new firmware or something. I guess Tizen is open source so theres that? But then again Samsung is one of the most cruel companies on Earth with a long track record of polluting, worker abuse, and blatantly copying others products and inside deals with the government to look the other way. Microsoft: Abandoned the entire space. Was basically a copycat product with a UI based on squares anyway. Essential Phone: Dead on arrival Palm: Got left behind. Missed the whole app store wave Blackberry: Wasn't really designed for non-business users with all kinds of upcharges for Blackberry data services. Missed the whole app store wave. Pivoted into automotive software after they couldn't keep up So sure its easy to critique Apple for this or Google for that but ultimately what are the other options that can realistically compete with the above megacorps?
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  All you're telling me is that there are no choices that you like. All of those are viable choices (except the ones that literally don't exist anymore), and there were many more viable choices before FAANG began their dominance that consumers saw and abandoned in favor of the dominant products we have today. Not that I don't know how you feel, there are areas where I hate all the options too. I don't always get what I want, that's life. It would be perverse for me to force legions of others to dedicate their efforts towards what I would like instead.
  - xvector 6y ago
    That was really well phrased - there are options, but just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean you get to force other people to make something you do like.

bmitc 6y ago

Most consumers do not understand the repercussions nor do they understand the power these companies can weld, so you can't say they have spoken.

themacguffinman 6y ago
And I say they do, they don't just don't value it as highly as you do. It's awfully convenient to blindly assert that people can't be trusted to make their own choices, especially when the proposed solution is take away their choice with government regulation.
- manigandham 6y ago
  How is their choice being taken away? They would only be gaining more freedom and control over their devices, not losing anything.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    You know, it is possible that many people like Facebook as it is today considering that it's the most popular social network in the world. I'm also really curious what additional freedom and control over their devices consumers would gain from this antitrust suit given that no one is coerced into using Facebook (or Instagram, WhatsApp etc) and Facebook doesn't even make the devices that run those apps.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      This thread is about Apple, not Facebook. Right-to-repair and having freedom to install the software you want on the hardware you buy is an important pursuit. Tell me again what choice you're losing with this? Extremes are never good or useful. We need moderation. Capitalism with guardrails. We already have regulation to ensure certain corporate behaviors don't harm consumers, and even protect them from themselves, which has massively improved quality, safety and reliability of the things we buy. Sure some regulations are overreaching or outdated, but the rise of giant software/internet companies has upended all of the old considerations of antitrust. There are a few trillion-dollar companies that impact a vast amount of our lives and there's no effective way to disengage from them while living in modern civilization. That's a major problem because pretty soon they will be the "government" that controls your life - but without any of the accountability or transparency.
      - themacguffinman 6y ago
        Evidently it's not important, almost no one pays for it. There are (and were) devices that are very repairable, that aren't so locked down and closed, but few actually care about this when they spend money and it soon goes away when companies realize how little consumers care about it. Saying you wish for X, Y, and Z is worth as much as it costs to say that, which is absolutely nothing. Actually paying money for stuff cuts through the bullshit consumers tell their friends or the internet about what they want or where their priorities are. My points apply to Apple as well, consumers wanted this and continued buying devices like this. I don't doubt that some people complain about various flaws in the products they buy but it's largely meaningless because they clearly don't care enough about these flaws to put their money where their mouth is. No one forced them to buy hard-to-repair, locked down Apple products when there were more open alternatives, they simply decided that repairability is so unimportant they'd still buy Apple products over a product that is more repairable. It's one thing if Apple were dishonest or consumers were somehow forced to buy Apple, but they're not. There's nothing actually stopping consumers from buying the phone they want. Consumers aren't being harmed, they're getting what they really want. This is the choice I lose with this: the ability to buy a product that is locked down and tightly integrated/controlled by Apple. It's a choice millions of consumers have already willingly made. I'm personally living happily without buying Apple's locked down products for myself, I and every other non-Apple consumer didn't need the government to make this choice for me. I don't want the government to remove a choice that millions of consumers have made on their own.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

Railroads and the like could have just not sold to the oil men. Or consumers could've just not bought from Standard Oil. ... Until they couldn't.

themacguffinman 6y ago
> Standard Oil Sounds like the government should and did step in at the "until they couldn't" part, which is not where we're at. Hard to imagine someone unable to stop using Facebook or Instagram or whatever, there's a lot of social media out there. > Railroads Considering the US returned control of the railways to their original owners in 1920 and most rail today is privatized, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Consumers and competing businesses were still harmed during Standard Oil's rise. Why wait until there are no practical alternatives left?
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    Other businesses are always harmed during the rise of a dominant business, that's what happens when a dominant business takes marketshare away from you. The question at hand is whether they took their share unfairly. In Standard Oil's case, the government found that they did, which maybe happened too late in Standard Oil's case. But even though it takes time to determine wrongdoing, we still prosecute crimes after they happen instead of before for obvious reasons. You wait until there is evidence of harm to consumers. Maybe the government has evidence, this is just an early article after all, but again, it's hard to imagine someone unable to stop using Facebook or Instagram or whatever, there's a lot of social media out there.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Where to draw the line is the controversy. Consumer harm isn't always obvious or easily reversible given corporate adversaries with more resources than mid-sized countries.

8note 6y ago

Customers really liked having lead in their gas, and asbestos in their walls, yet somehow, it was still a bad idea

aeternum 6y ago
Government regulators were also fine with having lead in gas for decades, they didn't do much better. In fact government regulators allowing themselves to be swayed by auto-manufacturer paid safety studies probably gave the public a false sense of security. I often wonder if we would have gotten rid of things like lead and asbestos faster if consumers had to decide for themselves rather than depending upon regulators to determine what is safe.
- InvisibleUp 6y ago
  Consumers can only choose from what options they're given, and if every option is leaded then that's what they'll buy. Also, if they're unaware of the negative effects of lead (or even unaware that their gasoline HAS lead) then there would be no incentive for them to choose what they're told is a worse product. This was before the internet, so it was difficult and time-consuming to do research on something like this. Gas companies said leaded gasoline was safe so everyone went with it. The government's job here is to do that tedious research and ban/regulate anything that's hazardous to health and safety. The alternative would be a grassroots campaign by citizen experts who decide to go against the advice of what should be trusted sources, which is how you end up with stuff like the anti-vax movement.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    If consumers all want unleaded and every available option is leaded, someone will make unleaded fuel and become enormously successful. That's how a market functions. If they're unaware of the negative effects of lead or a business is being dishonest about what's in the fuel, that definitely falls under unfair/dishonest practices and the government should prosecute that. But how on earth is that relevant to Facebook or Apple antitrust? Facebook operates a bunch of websites that millions of people voluntarily sign up for and can leave at any time. The government isn't suing Facebook for safety issues or anything, they're suing them for antitrust which means they believe Facebook has somehow unfairly coerced consumers into using their product over their competitors.

mrgordon 6y ago

You're ignoring that there often simply aren't that many viable choices. And the company that offers something you care about a lot may also do something you hate a lot. For example: iOS: Better for privacy than Android but less open to sideloaded apps Android: Sends tons of data to Google about all kinds of things. Furthermore Google bricked one of my old Android phones by disabling the DNS for the authentication server so I could no longer sign into the phone. (It was too old to support Cyanogen). Samsung: The last Samsung S-series smartphone in my house had apps pre-loaded on it including Blockbuster (it wasn't that many years ago) that could not be removed without loading new firmware or something. I guess Tizen is open source so theres that? But then again Samsung is one of the most cruel companies on Earth with a long track record of polluting, worker abuse, and blatantly copying others products and inside deals with the government to look the other way. Microsoft: Abandoned the entire space. Was basically a copycat product with a UI based on squares anyway. Essential Phone: Dead on arrival Palm: Got left behind. Missed the whole app store wave Blackberry: Wasn't really designed for non-business users with all kinds of upcharges for Blackberry data services. Missed the whole app store wave. Pivoted into automotive software after they couldn't keep up So sure its easy to critique Apple for this or Google for that but ultimately what are the other options that can realistically compete with the above megacorps?

themacguffinman 6y ago
All you're telling me is that there are no choices that you like. All of those are viable choices (except the ones that literally don't exist anymore), and there were many more viable choices before FAANG began their dominance that consumers saw and abandoned in favor of the dominant products we have today. Not that I don't know how you feel, there are areas where I hate all the options too. I don't always get what I want, that's life. It would be perverse for me to force legions of others to dedicate their efforts towards what I would like instead.
- xvector 6y ago
  That was really well phrased - there are options, but just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean you get to force other people to make something you do like.