4 ms·

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

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.
- jaredklewis 6y ago
  Sure, all actions have externalities. My taking an airplane trip adds carbon that effects everyone's atmosphere. My supporting a company I like (Apple) makes it more difficult for competitors (including more open ones) to succeed. But unless you are arguing for a totally planned economy where the default is that the government makes all market decisions, our mindsets are the same. i.e. That we should weigh the costs and benefits of government intervention vs leaving the market alone. If externalities or market failures are very bad (the climate, human rights, etc...), of course I support government intervention. However, government intervention has many costs and far from a perfect track record, so it's not a solution I want to throw at every problem. I don't think we have a difference in mindset, we just weigh things differently. I don't think the things you've mentioned (app-locking, hardware incompatibility, etc...) are anywhere near bad enough to justify anti-trust action.

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.

jaredklewis 6y ago
Sure, all actions have externalities. My taking an airplane trip adds carbon that effects everyone's atmosphere. My supporting a company I like (Apple) makes it more difficult for competitors (including more open ones) to succeed. But unless you are arguing for a totally planned economy where the default is that the government makes all market decisions, our mindsets are the same. i.e. That we should weigh the costs and benefits of government intervention vs leaving the market alone. If externalities or market failures are very bad (the climate, human rights, etc...), of course I support government intervention. However, government intervention has many costs and far from a perfect track record, so it's not a solution I want to throw at every problem. I don't think we have a difference in mindset, we just weigh things differently. I don't think the things you've mentioned (app-locking, hardware incompatibility, etc...) are anywhere near bad enough to justify anti-trust action.