9 ms·

You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition. You have been presented a single option, and find

You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition. You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome. What's being hidden from you are other options where the same or similar outcomes can happen which might have even more benefits you would like. Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings? What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gambiting 6y ago
What I like to compare it to, is cars. If you want to only ever take your Volkswagen to a Volkswagen dealer, buy Volkswagen parts and only carry out service done by Volkswagen engineers - you can absolutely do that and no one will or should ever stop you. But the second Volkswagen says you can't use a 3rd party part in your car that you bought - everyone should be up in their arms about it. There's a line here - and it should end at customers choice, always. The simplest way to do this would be like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process, where the phone wipes itself and reboots and is then "unlocked". If you did that on iPhones it would be enough of discouragement to stop all the mums and grandmas from accidentally installing dodgy software off the internet, but it still leaves the final choice to you, the user. You want a bodyguard, not a nanny - there's a difference.
- earhart 6y ago
  Except the apps are the 3rd-party parts. In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car. As soon as other shops can install 3rd-party parts, you have a race to the bottom for shops, no one's enforcing quality controls, and you wind up with cars that, for example, get better performance by violating emissions standards except when they're actively being tested. (So, maybe we should be using some manufacturer other than Volkswagen. :-)
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > get better performance by violating emissions standards Good. 95% of emissions standards are bullshit. In any case, the ability to theoretically violate regulations isn't a reason to preclude people from DIY or third party repairs.
  - m00x 6y ago
    > In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car. So, like almost everything you buy? This is why branding and reputation are important. You can be cheap, but you get what you pay for.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      But we don't want to have to check brands and research - we want a trusted party ensuring quality because their reputation is on the line.
      - koyote 6y ago
        That does not go away, there's nothing stopping you from buying genuine parts from the manufacturer if you trust them more than the competition.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
threeseed 6y ago
> What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? I buy another phone. Because there is plenty of competition in the smartphone market and companies willing to take my money. But I stay with Apple because right now their walled garden is exactly what I am looking for.
- jimnotgym 6y ago
  Plenty of competition? Not on OS. There is iOS and Android. Both in the hands of tech giants. Yes I know there are other hobbyist ones, but I don't see them at Carphone Warehouse.
- holoduke 6y ago
  In this discussion it's important to not reason from a personal preference. If everyone would do that I think you would agree that the world doesn't end well. We need to look at it from a society perspective. And then you will find out that competition in a equal environment with fair rules is much better for a healthy market. Please reconsider your opinion.
  - riversflow 6y ago
    I think this is a fair environment though, Apple wants to vertically integrated technology with limited 3rd party API access, devs might hate it, but I think from a business perspective its a total reasonable strategy and from a consumer perspective I like the tight integration they provide. I think you are wrong about installer on their platform being up for grabs being "much better for society" because I don't think you are considering all of the second and third order consequences. Consider this passes and then the Facebook app (or, probably even worse, Amazon) immediately becomes an app store. At that point what's to stop them from loading and running literally any arbitrary code on the phone's of everyone who updates the facebook app? Same goes for an "utility class" app where consumers have limited choice of competitors. Sure, technically inclined people might figure it out and try to raise a stink, but I guess I don't feel like the public understanding of this is good enough for this not to end badly? Remember the "Facebook Research" VPN[1]? And as a society we would be trading this massive surveillance liability for... the opportunity for a handful of developers to make a killing creating a competing store? an upper middle class group to make more money? Apple to make less money? Sorry, but we live in a world of Titans, and me, the little guy, can't really stand up to them. At least for the moment I can stand behind Apple. [1]https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMzGx97y7CItwtgWy83PZgIn7u1GTKV7JHxpeWAxvXTFgJRj6XRg3nRQ2ZG3X4MeatGSTanojvin4Dxoeqicub7tddfDEoh3m7sOWsCQI4hGBqj0ZCkUxzeLaBM08l3GBPRqlRze5SVP1ik_0t5xzKfOn_zYVyeXL8kZ9vfQ8ARq https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/?gu...
Dig1t 6y ago
>What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? OP literally answered this question. Buy a different phone.
- Osiris 6y ago
  Except that all your photos are in iCloud, all your messages in iMessage, all your music in iTunes... and all those apps you've bought. "Just buy another phone" is fine if you have no problem throwing away all your data and purchases and start over. It's not just a phone, it's a whole ecosystem.
  - swebs 6y ago
    Doesn't iTunes provide DRM-free music exports? You could migrate your media to some platform agnostic version like Nextcloud.
    - floatboth 6y ago
      Yes, if you buy albums, they are completely DRM-free. Many people just stream these days though.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition. Modifying the software so that it permits third party apps makes the software worse - more complicated, less simple and clear. So I don't want that. > but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps What makes you think whoever does this will be more benevolent than Apple, though?
cortesoft 6y ago
The competition is Android.
jaredklewis 6y ago
I'm not the parent, but... > You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition. In theory, sure. In practice, Apple's closed, walled-garden business model has produced outcomes that I really like. All manner of more open and competition-friendly business models have produced outcomes I find extremely unappealing. My intuition is that many of the things I like about Apple products come from their unique, closed business model. Is something better theoretically possible? Of course. Do I want to risk screwing up one of the few tech giants whose products I can actually stomach by having the government strong-arm them into using a new business model? Not a chance. > You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome. No, I have been presented with several options: iOS on an iPhone, Android on phones of all shapes and sizes, and (over the years) various other configurations like webOS, windows phone, and so on. > Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker. > You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings? These are all trade-offs caused by Apple having total control over the system, and I'm ok with it. > What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security? As above, all of this sounds nice in theory. Maybe it would be great. But I am not interested in forcing Apple to make a change, because I like what I have now and the law of unintended consequences will certainly apply.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > > Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? > Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker. That's great for you, and that you can afford that, but what of the person that's already invested a few thousand dollars into apps and accessories for the iPhone and iOS? Many, possibly every single one of those things won't work anywhere else. And that's not a coincidence, or people making informed choices, Apple in many of those cases has enforced their will on those components or how they are allowed to interact. If I want something other than iOS can I put it on my iPhone? No. Not because nobody values that, but because Apple has arbitrarily restricted what you can do with the hardware you purchased. If I want to run iOS on non-Apple hardware. Also a nope. What if I want to move to Android and use my chargers or peripherals that connect to my iPhone? Not if they use Apple's proprietary lightning connector. What about any apps you purchased through the App store? Sorry, even if they wanted to many couldn't offer you a tree version even if they wanted to, Apple has started completely anonymizing users and emails and ids for people using their apps. They say it protects users, and it does in some respects, but it also means that Apple is right there between all interactions, enforcing whatever rules they deem prudent. It's obviously not as simple as just deciding that the next time you buy a new phone, you'll opt for the other one and spend roughly the same amount of money. You are literally at the same time likely obsoleting hundreds or thousands of dollars of investment in a platform. These are forces that work to stifle and manipulate a free market, where people choose the best choice given the attributes of what they are buying. Our current economic system is predicated on the idea that the free market works and should be unfettered unless it's to protect the system or consumers from abuse. Placing barriers to people making informed choices or acting on the choices they would like to make because or arbitrary limitations is hurting us all by extension. > because I like what I have now This is ultimately what it comes down to in all these comments. "You want change, but I'm happy and comfortable, so I don't care if this is problematic for others or causes harm or is setting up a problem for down the road, I'll fight you all the way". How is this different than climate change, or civil rights? The scope on those may seem larger, but what we're ultimately discussing is consumer rights, and while not as important, it's still important, and why are the incentives and behaviors any different? That's not do equate you to specific bad historical behavior, but that mindset is specifically responsible for horrific things in the past. The "I like what I have, so leave me alone" position should always be dissected for what it might unintentionally be allowing. In this case, maybe it's not that bad. But maybe it is pretty bad. That's what we're discussing. I surely won't take that position alone as reasoning for why to relent on my side of an argument though.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gambiting 6y ago

What I like to compare it to, is cars. If you want to only ever take your Volkswagen to a Volkswagen dealer, buy Volkswagen parts and only carry out service done by Volkswagen engineers - you can absolutely do that and no one will or should ever stop you. But the second Volkswagen says you can't use a 3rd party part in your car that you bought - everyone should be up in their arms about it. There's a line here - and it should end at customers choice, always. The simplest way to do this would be like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process, where the phone wipes itself and reboots and is then "unlocked". If you did that on iPhones it would be enough of discouragement to stop all the mums and grandmas from accidentally installing dodgy software off the internet, but it still leaves the final choice to you, the user. You want a bodyguard, not a nanny - there's a difference.

earhart 6y ago
Except the apps are the 3rd-party parts. In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car. As soon as other shops can install 3rd-party parts, you have a race to the bottom for shops, no one's enforcing quality controls, and you wind up with cars that, for example, get better performance by violating emissions standards except when they're actively being tested. (So, maybe we should be using some manufacturer other than Volkswagen. :-)
- centimeter 6y ago
  > get better performance by violating emissions standards Good. 95% of emissions standards are bullshit. In any case, the ability to theoretically violate regulations isn't a reason to preclude people from DIY or third party repairs.
- m00x 6y ago
  > In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car. So, like almost everything you buy? This is why branding and reputation are important. You can be cheap, but you get what you pay for.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    But we don't want to have to check brands and research - we want a trusted party ensuring quality because their reputation is on the line.
    - koyote 6y ago
      That does not go away, there's nothing stopping you from buying genuine parts from the manufacturer if you trust them more than the competition.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago

threeseed 6y ago

> What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? I buy another phone. Because there is plenty of competition in the smartphone market and companies willing to take my money. But I stay with Apple because right now their walled garden is exactly what I am looking for.

jimnotgym 6y ago
Plenty of competition? Not on OS. There is iOS and Android. Both in the hands of tech giants. Yes I know there are other hobbyist ones, but I don't see them at Carphone Warehouse.
holoduke 6y ago
In this discussion it's important to not reason from a personal preference. If everyone would do that I think you would agree that the world doesn't end well. We need to look at it from a society perspective. And then you will find out that competition in a equal environment with fair rules is much better for a healthy market. Please reconsider your opinion.
- riversflow 6y ago
  I think this is a fair environment though, Apple wants to vertically integrated technology with limited 3rd party API access, devs might hate it, but I think from a business perspective its a total reasonable strategy and from a consumer perspective I like the tight integration they provide. I think you are wrong about installer on their platform being up for grabs being "much better for society" because I don't think you are considering all of the second and third order consequences. Consider this passes and then the Facebook app (or, probably even worse, Amazon) immediately becomes an app store. At that point what's to stop them from loading and running literally any arbitrary code on the phone's of everyone who updates the facebook app? Same goes for an "utility class" app where consumers have limited choice of competitors. Sure, technically inclined people might figure it out and try to raise a stink, but I guess I don't feel like the public understanding of this is good enough for this not to end badly? Remember the "Facebook Research" VPN[1]? And as a society we would be trading this massive surveillance liability for... the opportunity for a handful of developers to make a killing creating a competing store? an upper middle class group to make more money? Apple to make less money? Sorry, but we live in a world of Titans, and me, the little guy, can't really stand up to them. At least for the moment I can stand behind Apple. [1]https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMzGx97y7CItwtgWy83PZgIn7u1GTKV7JHxpeWAxvXTFgJRj6XRg3nRQ2ZG3X4MeatGSTanojvin4Dxoeqicub7tddfDEoh3m7sOWsCQI4hGBqj0ZCkUxzeLaBM08l3GBPRqlRze5SVP1ik_0t5xzKfOn_zYVyeXL8kZ9vfQ8ARq https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/?gu...

Dig1t 6y ago

>What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? OP literally answered this question. Buy a different phone.

Osiris 6y ago
Except that all your photos are in iCloud, all your messages in iMessage, all your music in iTunes... and all those apps you've bought. "Just buy another phone" is fine if you have no problem throwing away all your data and purchases and start over. It's not just a phone, it's a whole ecosystem.
- swebs 6y ago
  Doesn't iTunes provide DRM-free music exports? You could migrate your media to some platform agnostic version like Nextcloud.
  - floatboth 6y ago
    Yes, if you buy albums, they are completely DRM-free. Many people just stream these days though.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition. Modifying the software so that it permits third party apps makes the software worse - more complicated, less simple and clear. So I don't want that. > but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps What makes you think whoever does this will be more benevolent than Apple, though?

cortesoft 6y ago

The competition is Android.

jaredklewis 6y ago

I'm not the parent, but... > You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition. In theory, sure. In practice, Apple's closed, walled-garden business model has produced outcomes that I really like. All manner of more open and competition-friendly business models have produced outcomes I find extremely unappealing. My intuition is that many of the things I like about Apple products come from their unique, closed business model. Is something better theoretically possible? Of course. Do I want to risk screwing up one of the few tech giants whose products I can actually stomach by having the government strong-arm them into using a new business model? Not a chance. > You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome. No, I have been presented with several options: iOS on an iPhone, Android on phones of all shapes and sizes, and (over the years) various other configurations like webOS, windows phone, and so on. > Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker. > You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings? These are all trade-offs caused by Apple having total control over the system, and I'm ok with it. > What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security? As above, all of this sounds nice in theory. Maybe it would be great. But I am not interested in forcing Apple to make a change, because I like what I have now and the law of unintended consequences will certainly apply.

kbenson 6y ago
> > Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? > Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker. That's great for you, and that you can afford that, but what of the person that's already invested a few thousand dollars into apps and accessories for the iPhone and iOS? Many, possibly every single one of those things won't work anywhere else. And that's not a coincidence, or people making informed choices, Apple in many of those cases has enforced their will on those components or how they are allowed to interact. If I want something other than iOS can I put it on my iPhone? No. Not because nobody values that, but because Apple has arbitrarily restricted what you can do with the hardware you purchased. If I want to run iOS on non-Apple hardware. Also a nope. What if I want to move to Android and use my chargers or peripherals that connect to my iPhone? Not if they use Apple's proprietary lightning connector. What about any apps you purchased through the App store? Sorry, even if they wanted to many couldn't offer you a tree version even if they wanted to, Apple has started completely anonymizing users and emails and ids for people using their apps. They say it protects users, and it does in some respects, but it also means that Apple is right there between all interactions, enforcing whatever rules they deem prudent. It's obviously not as simple as just deciding that the next time you buy a new phone, you'll opt for the other one and spend roughly the same amount of money. You are literally at the same time likely obsoleting hundreds or thousands of dollars of investment in a platform. These are forces that work to stifle and manipulate a free market, where people choose the best choice given the attributes of what they are buying. Our current economic system is predicated on the idea that the free market works and should be unfettered unless it's to protect the system or consumers from abuse. Placing barriers to people making informed choices or acting on the choices they would like to make because or arbitrary limitations is hurting us all by extension. > because I like what I have now This is ultimately what it comes down to in all these comments. "You want change, but I'm happy and comfortable, so I don't care if this is problematic for others or causes harm or is setting up a problem for down the road, I'll fight you all the way". How is this different than climate change, or civil rights? The scope on those may seem larger, but what we're ultimately discussing is consumer rights, and while not as important, it's still important, and why are the incentives and behaviors any different? That's not do equate you to specific bad historical behavior, but that mindset is specifically responsible for horrific things in the past. The "I like what I have, so leave me alone" position should always be dissected for what it might unintentionally be allowing. In this case, maybe it's not that bad. But maybe it is pretty bad. That's what we're discussing. I surely won't take that position alone as reasoning for why to relent on my side of an argument though.