5 ms·

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 marginal

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.