4 ms·

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

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.

danShumway 6y ago
> which despite huge antitrust action, Microsoft was allowed to continue bundling and defaulting? > how did iOS ever thrive without Office & Windows integration, lock-ins that Microsoft tried to exploit? You need to go back and reread the history here. I think you have a fundamentally flawed view of how the market works. I'm not sure what else I can say except that markets don't work the way you think they do. That's not a Libertarian or Socialist or Ancap thing, you can belong to any political spectrum while still understanding that profit is not a perfect representation of value, and that the market is a system that reflects the education of its participants, and that markets can have unoptimal outcomes sometimes. In a weird way, what you are saying would be correct if the market worked the way you think it did. Except it doesn't, and you're misunderstanding the history of all of the cases you site (and conveniently leaving out really important stories like Bell Labs and the history of the Internet), and you're creating an alternative history where lock-in just kind of doesn't have any effect on anything, and where the market just kind of magically solves all of the problems it creates, and where we haven't had significant legislation to fix these problems. At some point you have to go back and critically examine those assumptions, they're just not true. Even Conservative circles are going to laugh you out of conversations if you come in with an economic model that isn't sophisticated enough to explain phenomenons like forced arbitration or externalities like pollution. Perfectly efficient markets do not exist, every market has some inefficiency and some instances of consumers exercising their purchasing power against their own interest. > They are also more profitable, which means consumers value and want them more. Again, this is just not how markets work or what profit represents. There isn't a perfect one-to-one link between profit margins and consumer value. > 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. And again, this is not really a valid way to think about market data. Anyway, it doesn't matter because according to your worldview the only thing that matters is what consumers choose, and consumers have clearly overwhelmingly chosen that they want the cheaper phones instead of the flagships. > For them, other factors like security or lock-in are less/not important. Right, they're not thinking about security and they don't care about it, they care about the green bubble. The security of the phone is irrelevant, and it doesn't make sense to look at their purchasing decisions as some kind of validation of Apple's security model because they don't care, it is not a factor in their purchasing decisions. If Apple allowed sideloading tomorrow, their purchasing decisions would not change. So why on earth would we use them as examples to say that sideloading is a problem? > Conflating the intelligence of a consumer with their security skill doesn't make sense at all. I don't need to be a plumbing expert to know not to take apart my toilet. Nobody needs to be a security expert to know not to flip a switch or mess with default security settings. It's not a complicated system, when I don't know how something works, I just don't mess with it. I'm not going to let you walk away from the fact that you're saying customers are perfectly informed about the tradeoffs of buying into an ecosystem, but too stupid to be taught not to press a single, clearly market button buried in a phone's settings. That is a contradiction. > I doubt the majority of Android users have ever sideloaded anything. Then why is it a security risk to give them the option? You're arguing that iOS is more secure because it doesn't offer people the option to do something that you don't think they would do.

danShumway 6y ago

> which despite huge antitrust action, Microsoft was allowed to continue bundling and defaulting? > how did iOS ever thrive without Office & Windows integration, lock-ins that Microsoft tried to exploit? You need to go back and reread the history here. I think you have a fundamentally flawed view of how the market works. I'm not sure what else I can say except that markets don't work the way you think they do. That's not a Libertarian or Socialist or Ancap thing, you can belong to any political spectrum while still understanding that profit is not a perfect representation of value, and that the market is a system that reflects the education of its participants, and that markets can have unoptimal outcomes sometimes. In a weird way, what you are saying would be correct if the market worked the way you think it did. Except it doesn't, and you're misunderstanding the history of all of the cases you site (and conveniently leaving out really important stories like Bell Labs and the history of the Internet), and you're creating an alternative history where lock-in just kind of doesn't have any effect on anything, and where the market just kind of magically solves all of the problems it creates, and where we haven't had significant legislation to fix these problems. At some point you have to go back and critically examine those assumptions, they're just not true. Even Conservative circles are going to laugh you out of conversations if you come in with an economic model that isn't sophisticated enough to explain phenomenons like forced arbitration or externalities like pollution. Perfectly efficient markets do not exist, every market has some inefficiency and some instances of consumers exercising their purchasing power against their own interest. > They are also more profitable, which means consumers value and want them more. Again, this is just not how markets work or what profit represents. There isn't a perfect one-to-one link between profit margins and consumer value. > 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. And again, this is not really a valid way to think about market data. Anyway, it doesn't matter because according to your worldview the only thing that matters is what consumers choose, and consumers have clearly overwhelmingly chosen that they want the cheaper phones instead of the flagships. > For them, other factors like security or lock-in are less/not important. Right, they're not thinking about security and they don't care about it, they care about the green bubble. The security of the phone is irrelevant, and it doesn't make sense to look at their purchasing decisions as some kind of validation of Apple's security model because they don't care, it is not a factor in their purchasing decisions. If Apple allowed sideloading tomorrow, their purchasing decisions would not change. So why on earth would we use them as examples to say that sideloading is a problem? > Conflating the intelligence of a consumer with their security skill doesn't make sense at all. I don't need to be a plumbing expert to know not to take apart my toilet. Nobody needs to be a security expert to know not to flip a switch or mess with default security settings. It's not a complicated system, when I don't know how something works, I just don't mess with it. I'm not going to let you walk away from the fact that you're saying customers are perfectly informed about the tradeoffs of buying into an ecosystem, but too stupid to be taught not to press a single, clearly market button buried in a phone's settings. That is a contradiction. > I doubt the majority of Android users have ever sideloaded anything. Then why is it a security risk to give them the option? You're arguing that iOS is more secure because it doesn't offer people the option to do something that you don't think they would do.