3 ms·

> Let's be happy with what we got. Ouch. It's exactly this mentality that enables malicious actors - "it could be worse". It could always be worse, but that do

> Let's be happy with what we got. Ouch. It's exactly this mentality that enables malicious actors - "it could be worse". It could always be worse, but that doesn't make it sufficient justification. Functional equivalent: "It could always be even more anticompetitive. Let's be happy with what we got."

emteycz 6y ago
Eh, what? What malicious actors? What sufficient justification, and justification of what and to whom? What could be worse? What could be more anticompetitive, and competing with what exactly? I said nothing like this, your "equivalents" are from an entirely different world. I said we should be happy Apple decided to open their platform - because they didn't have to, at all. It's entirely their right to not open anything, not write any documentation, or not even allow 3rd party software at all. If you don't like it, don't buy their overpriced premium products - it's not for you. I wouldn't want my own company to be forced to do/not do stuff, so of course I don't wish that upon Apple. There are enough entirely open computing platforms that are VERY cheap to obtain and easy to use, perhaps that would be a better choice for you.
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  Meh, nothing serious, just that the "it could be worse" line of thinking can be a little dangerous if broadly applied since it could always be at least marginally worse, that's all I meant. Completely agree about forcing them to do or avoid strategies, though governing bodies may disagree! Jokes aside, it seems that despite occasional marketing/rhetoric from Apple, their platform represents the minimum bound of "openness". It's only open enough to allow further business - e.g. allowing 3rd parties to develop apps in the store (from which they take a cut of proceeds) - rather than being open for the spirit of it, if that makes any sense. They are a business so that's not exactly something one could fault them for, though.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Yes, what I am saying is that we can't fault them for being a business. We should be looking for our open computing platform elsewhere - I think there is more than enough options. If a supposedly "open" platform wasn't open then that would be bad, but Apple is about something different - offering a premium vertically integrated product for people that don't even know what a CPU or OS is. If they were forced to open their platform it is very much possible there wouldn't be any Apple platform at all, and I don't want that kind of world. > though governing bodies may disagree! That's why I am reacting so strongly. If people begin to apply your thinking too broadly (e.g. to businesses like Apple) it will lead to governing bodies behaving like that. Let's apply this kind of thinking to platforms that claim to be open.

emteycz 6y ago

Eh, what? What malicious actors? What sufficient justification, and justification of what and to whom? What could be worse? What could be more anticompetitive, and competing with what exactly? I said nothing like this, your "equivalents" are from an entirely different world. I said we should be happy Apple decided to open their platform - because they didn't have to, at all. It's entirely their right to not open anything, not write any documentation, or not even allow 3rd party software at all. If you don't like it, don't buy their overpriced premium products - it's not for you. I wouldn't want my own company to be forced to do/not do stuff, so of course I don't wish that upon Apple. There are enough entirely open computing platforms that are VERY cheap to obtain and easy to use, perhaps that would be a better choice for you.

_underfl0w_ 6y ago
Meh, nothing serious, just that the "it could be worse" line of thinking can be a little dangerous if broadly applied since it could always be at least marginally worse, that's all I meant. Completely agree about forcing them to do or avoid strategies, though governing bodies may disagree! Jokes aside, it seems that despite occasional marketing/rhetoric from Apple, their platform represents the minimum bound of "openness". It's only open enough to allow further business - e.g. allowing 3rd parties to develop apps in the store (from which they take a cut of proceeds) - rather than being open for the spirit of it, if that makes any sense. They are a business so that's not exactly something one could fault them for, though.
- emteycz 6y ago
  Yes, what I am saying is that we can't fault them for being a business. We should be looking for our open computing platform elsewhere - I think there is more than enough options. If a supposedly "open" platform wasn't open then that would be bad, but Apple is about something different - offering a premium vertically integrated product for people that don't even know what a CPU or OS is. If they were forced to open their platform it is very much possible there wouldn't be any Apple platform at all, and I don't want that kind of world. > though governing bodies may disagree! That's why I am reacting so strongly. If people begin to apply your thinking too broadly (e.g. to businesses like Apple) it will lead to governing bodies behaving like that. Let's apply this kind of thinking to platforms that claim to be open.