6 ms·

> Most people are content with Amazon DRM, and when they aren't, any company that sells DRM-free books will make a killing. > If you have reason to believe Ama

> Most people are content with Amazon DRM, and when they aren't, any company that sells DRM-free books will make a killing. > If you have reason to believe Amazon is somehow preventing consumers from buying DRM-free books, I'd be happy to hear it. Look, we can get into the nitty gritty details, but if we're going to have this debate, you have to do some basic research online to see how Amazon is currently hurting the Ebook market, or how DRM is actually affecting markets and consumer choice at this moment. I will still assume you're coming into this from an honest perspective of inquiry, but you have to put in a little bit of work here, I'm not going to summarize the entire history of US antitrust for you. It's going to be very difficult to have a productive conversation if you don't understand how device/vendor lock-in works. Do you really not understand how holding people's purchased libraries captive prevents those people from moving to new devices or ecosystems? Do you really, honestly believe that a superior book ecosystem of any kind could spring up and Kindle owners would just say, "well fine, I'll throw away $200 of purchased Ebooks! It's no big deal." You don't think it affects consumer's book purchasing decisions at all that it's impossible to put Kobo books onto a Kindle or Amazon books onto a Kobo device without breaking a federal law? Please do some basic research about how DRM and platform lock-in works on Apple/Amazon devices. I heavily recommend reading some of Cory Doctorow's work, or looking at the history of how the DMCA/CFAA has been used to shut down market competitors via legal means instead of via competition, or into how Apple increases lock-in with their current product direction on things like SSO/subscriptions, credit card offerings, and proprietary device standards that competing companies are not able to interop with. Apple's current product strategy is to increasingly make it so that anyone who wants to buy a different phone must also throw away a substantial amount of sunk cost into app purchases, hardware that isn't allowed to work as well on other devices, social status (incoming Android messages are literally labeled differently in iOS), they may even be forced to cancel their current credit card. This is a really textbook example of how vendor lock-in works, you can find more detailed information online if it's something that you're actually curious about. ---- The way I see it, there are two fundamental problems I have with your point of view. A) I don't believe that customers magically become stupid or smart based on whether they're holding a smartphone or a credit card. I believe that people's decision making processes when using devices and purchasing devices are the same. B) I believe that if people actually want to do something, you (usually) shouldn't have to force them to do it. If people genuinely wanted to be in Apple's walled garden, Apple wouldn't need to lock the garden from the inside. It's one thing to argue that people are too stupid to make their own security decisions. It's one thing to argue that people are too stupid to prioritize long-term market effects. But it's ridiculous to argue that people want to be in a walled garden when literally every single opportunity you give them to turn it off or install apps from outside of it, they immediately do so. That is not the behavior of people who are happy with where they are. I don't know how to do my own plumbing. The reason you can tell that I'm happy to let other people make my plumbing decisions is because I haven't yet taken a hacksaw to my pipes. If every single opportunity to take apart my toilet I did so, you might reasonably conclude that I did want to do my own plumbing, however misguided my beliefs about my own abilities were. And if having a checkbox in settings labeled, "warning, you are definitely going to be infected by malware" doesn't prevent people from turning off security safeguards, you might reasonably conclude that they do want to manage their own security, however misguided their beliefs about their own abilities are. ---- > I know because they switch to a more secure & locked down platform wherever they can. This is a wildly simplistic model of how customer behavior actually works. There is a nontrivial percentage of Apple customers who switch to iOS because they're worried about their SMS message bubbles getting colored green. You can't seriously argue that those people are making a security decision. And in any case, this is all kind of moot because if you want to pretend the market perfectly reflects majority preferences, then people didn't flee Android en-mass. Apple holds a market majority on paid app downloads, but they don't hold a majority of market share on actual devices. The majority of users switched to Android. Of course, they probably switched to Android in no small part because of large price differences, not because of "openness", but if I'm correctly understanding your worldview it seems like we're not allowed to acknowledge things like that, we have to assume it was an ideological decision because the majority of the world wanted sideloading.

themacguffinman 6y ago
There's no misunderstanding that DRM prevents ecosystem portability, but consumers know about this and consistently buy into them. Just like how they know that Apple iMessage only works with other iPhone users to the chagrin of their Android friends, and still buy into it, sometimes because of the exclusivity. No one registers for an Apple Card thinking it's compatible with Android. "Superior" DRM-free book ecosystems already exist and you've probably seen people promoting these ecosystems to regular consumers with clear explanations of how DRM-free helps ecosystem portability; If you've ever tried to promote this kind of thing you know the kind of blank stare or apathetic silence this is met with. DRM is an old technique that's been a staple of digital markets almost as long as digital markets have existed. Switching costs and proprietary lock-in are even older concepts. Every market participant knows about them and invests accordingly. You think when the iPhone came out, people didn't leave anything behind? How did RIM's BBM lock-in work out for them? How did iOS ever thrive without Office & Windows integration, lock-ins that Microsoft tried to exploit? Or what about Internet Explorer, which despite huge antitrust action, Microsoft was allowed to continue bundling and defaulting? How did Microsoft's thought-to-be unassailable lock-in work out for them in the server market? Did Linus go to Congress complaining "how can you expect Windows users to say: well fine, I'll just throw away my Windows software, It's no big deal."? This is what happens when consumers in the server market actually give a shit about openness: a completely open ecosystem actually wins. There's no lack of understanding, consumers see these walled gardens and say "I want in". They know the switching costs and go in anyway. If low-cost switching was actually important to them they would invest accordingly as consumers do in markets where interoperability and openness is actually important. If their locked-in product is actually serving them poorly, they will actually switch. --- A) I also don't believe that customers magically become stupid or smart based on whether they're holding a smartphone or a credit card. Here's what I also believe: You can be smart yet still be terrible and unskilled at device security. Conflating the intelligence of a consumer with their security skill doesn't make sense at all. Security is a complex and technical field. B) So who forced or deceived consumers into buying an iPhone? Who forced or deceived them into buy DRM'd books from Amazon? If people genuinely didn't want to be in Apple's walled garden, they wouldn't have gone in to begin with. If they actually cared about openness, they certainly wouldn't repeatedly buy an iPhone. No, people don't take every opportunity to install apps from outside or disable restrictions. Jailbreaking was well-known and remarkably easy at one point (I think it's harder now?), and it was popular within certain circles but it was never even close to a majority of iOS users. The number of people who install stuff like F-Droid and sideload apps is a tiny fraction of Android users. I doubt the majority of Android users have ever sideloaded anything. Desktop platforms like Windows/macOS/Linux are much more sideload-happy, but desktop marketshare is losing ground to more locked down platforms like Android & iOS. That's the behavior of consumers who are happy with locked down platforms and don't care for general purpose computing. > There is a nontrivial percentage of Apple customers who switch to iOS because they're worried about their SMS message bubbles getting colored green. You can't seriously argue that those people are making a security decision. Yes I can, their decision is "SMS message bubbles are the most important difference to me". For them, other factors like security or lock-in are less/not important. If I willingly choose to buy a product that lacks something compared to competitors, it's a pretty clear indication that is something I prioritize less. That's going to be the case for many consumers, security is not their top concern, but it is usually a factor, especially if there are serious discrepancies between competitors. For example, app selection is usually not a factor because both platforms broadly share major apps and there is little noticeable difference between them. With Android taking steps to move closer to iOS' security model like mentioned in the article, Google is reducing the noticeable difference in security between both platforms so it becomes less of an important factor. Security was far more of a factor in Android's early days when it wasn't rare to hear people note Android's terrible security before buying an iPhone. In the US, Apple doesn't necessarily hold a large majority but they are something like half the market all by themselves. They are also more profitable, which means consumers value and want them more. It's true that price is one of the largest factors between Android & Apple, but at the high-end range of phones where price is less of a confounding variable, Apple is still the brand of choice. Android has recently moved closer to iOS in security model as mentioned in the article, and I think that helps Android stand stronger against the iPhone at the high-end.

themacguffinman 6y ago

There's no misunderstanding that DRM prevents ecosystem portability, but consumers know about this and consistently buy into them. Just like how they know that Apple iMessage only works with other iPhone users to the chagrin of their Android friends, and still buy into it, sometimes because of the exclusivity. No one registers for an Apple Card thinking it's compatible with Android. "Superior" DRM-free book ecosystems already exist and you've probably seen people promoting these ecosystems to regular consumers with clear explanations of how DRM-free helps ecosystem portability; If you've ever tried to promote this kind of thing you know the kind of blank stare or apathetic silence this is met with. DRM is an old technique that's been a staple of digital markets almost as long as digital markets have existed. Switching costs and proprietary lock-in are even older concepts. Every market participant knows about them and invests accordingly. You think when the iPhone came out, people didn't leave anything behind? How did RIM's BBM lock-in work out for them? How did iOS ever thrive without Office & Windows integration, lock-ins that Microsoft tried to exploit? Or what about Internet Explorer, which despite huge antitrust action, Microsoft was allowed to continue bundling and defaulting? How did Microsoft's thought-to-be unassailable lock-in work out for them in the server market? Did Linus go to Congress complaining "how can you expect Windows users to say: well fine, I'll just throw away my Windows software, It's no big deal."? This is what happens when consumers in the server market actually give a shit about openness: a completely open ecosystem actually wins. There's no lack of understanding, consumers see these walled gardens and say "I want in". They know the switching costs and go in anyway. If low-cost switching was actually important to them they would invest accordingly as consumers do in markets where interoperability and openness is actually important. If their locked-in product is actually serving them poorly, they will actually switch. --- A) I also don't believe that customers magically become stupid or smart based on whether they're holding a smartphone or a credit card. Here's what I also believe: You can be smart yet still be terrible and unskilled at device security. Conflating the intelligence of a consumer with their security skill doesn't make sense at all. Security is a complex and technical field. B) So who forced or deceived consumers into buying an iPhone? Who forced or deceived them into buy DRM'd books from Amazon? If people genuinely didn't want to be in Apple's walled garden, they wouldn't have gone in to begin with. If they actually cared about openness, they certainly wouldn't repeatedly buy an iPhone. No, people don't take every opportunity to install apps from outside or disable restrictions. Jailbreaking was well-known and remarkably easy at one point (I think it's harder now?), and it was popular within certain circles but it was never even close to a majority of iOS users. The number of people who install stuff like F-Droid and sideload apps is a tiny fraction of Android users. I doubt the majority of Android users have ever sideloaded anything. Desktop platforms like Windows/macOS/Linux are much more sideload-happy, but desktop marketshare is losing ground to more locked down platforms like Android & iOS. That's the behavior of consumers who are happy with locked down platforms and don't care for general purpose computing. > There is a nontrivial percentage of Apple customers who switch to iOS because they're worried about their SMS message bubbles getting colored green. You can't seriously argue that those people are making a security decision. Yes I can, their decision is "SMS message bubbles are the most important difference to me". For them, other factors like security or lock-in are less/not important. If I willingly choose to buy a product that lacks something compared to competitors, it's a pretty clear indication that is something I prioritize less. That's going to be the case for many consumers, security is not their top concern, but it is usually a factor, especially if there are serious discrepancies between competitors. For example, app selection is usually not a factor because both platforms broadly share major apps and there is little noticeable difference between them. With Android taking steps to move closer to iOS' security model like mentioned in the article, Google is reducing the noticeable difference in security between both platforms so it becomes less of an important factor. Security was far more of a factor in Android's early days when it wasn't rare to hear people note Android's terrible security before buying an iPhone. In the US, Apple doesn't necessarily hold a large majority but they are something like half the market all by themselves. They are also more profitable, which means consumers value and want them more. It's true that price is one of the largest factors between Android & Apple, but at the high-end range of phones where price is less of a confounding variable, Apple is still the brand of choice. Android has recently moved closer to iOS in security model as mentioned in the article, and I think that helps Android stand stronger against the iPhone at the high-end.