3 ms·

Sure, but consumers should be free to make that decision themselves. The government shouldn't force it upon them. Apple has not deceived consumers with regards

Sure, but consumers should be free to make that decision themselves. The government shouldn't force it upon them. Apple has not deceived consumers with regards to their App Store practices. On the contrary, they've been quite boastful about it. There are (and were) plenty of open computing platforms, allowing consumers to experience their benefits and tradeoffs. If consumers prefer to use a more locked down platform, then so be it.

Barrin92 6y ago
Most people don't even know what a world would look like in which power was taken away from large companies and a genuine market of services would exists that gives power back to the users and developers rather than platform owners. The hold that Apple has on its billion users and that Facebook has on its 2 billion is too strong to be solved by some magical third party. None of the large firms which control our digital infrastructure provides an actual protocols. The government should absolutely force it on Facebook and Apple and Google the same way the American government forced it on railroad barons a hundred years ago, when they were forced to make their networks interoperable. Imagine if Volkswagen owned the streets and you could only drive your car on 30% of all roads. Sure you can go to Toyota, you just have to drive in circles. We'd laugh anyone out of the room who actually defended this. Yet this is literally how the internet is structured right now. We live in little fiefdoms where Android users can't talk to imessage users because feudal lords have decided to draw a line across the territory.
- spideymans 6y ago
  >Most people don't even know what a world would look like in which power was taken away from large companies and a genuine market of services would exists that gives power back to the users and developers rather than platform owners. Consumers knew exactly what more open computing was like prior to the App Store. There were no App Store for Windows or OS X back in 2005, and you could largely install whatever applications you like onto the smartphone operating systems of the day. Evidently, a pretty large chunk of users decided the preferred the more restricted operating system with the "curated" store.
Mindwipe 6y ago
> Sure, but consumers should be free to make that decision themselves. Why? The state makes a variety of judgements that corporations cannot leave things up to user choice because that's too dangerous to wider society. Apple can't sell an iPhone that occasionally electrocutes users and out it down to "user choice." We rightly ban that.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
stale2002 6y ago
> If consumers prefer to use a more locked down platform, then so be it. There is nothing wrong with a consumer being allowed to choose to keep their own phone locked down. Thats not the problem. The problem is when you go to a consumer and tell them that they aren't allowed to open up their own property, in an easy way. You can keep your phone locked down. Just give other people the choice to also open up their own phone, easily, if they choose to do so.

Barrin92 6y ago

Most people don't even know what a world would look like in which power was taken away from large companies and a genuine market of services would exists that gives power back to the users and developers rather than platform owners. The hold that Apple has on its billion users and that Facebook has on its 2 billion is too strong to be solved by some magical third party. None of the large firms which control our digital infrastructure provides an actual protocols. The government should absolutely force it on Facebook and Apple and Google the same way the American government forced it on railroad barons a hundred years ago, when they were forced to make their networks interoperable. Imagine if Volkswagen owned the streets and you could only drive your car on 30% of all roads. Sure you can go to Toyota, you just have to drive in circles. We'd laugh anyone out of the room who actually defended this. Yet this is literally how the internet is structured right now. We live in little fiefdoms where Android users can't talk to imessage users because feudal lords have decided to draw a line across the territory.

spideymans 6y ago
>Most people don't even know what a world would look like in which power was taken away from large companies and a genuine market of services would exists that gives power back to the users and developers rather than platform owners. Consumers knew exactly what more open computing was like prior to the App Store. There were no App Store for Windows or OS X back in 2005, and you could largely install whatever applications you like onto the smartphone operating systems of the day. Evidently, a pretty large chunk of users decided the preferred the more restricted operating system with the "curated" store.

Mindwipe 6y ago

> Sure, but consumers should be free to make that decision themselves. Why? The state makes a variety of judgements that corporations cannot leave things up to user choice because that's too dangerous to wider society. Apple can't sell an iPhone that occasionally electrocutes users and out it down to "user choice." We rightly ban that.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

stale2002 6y ago

> If consumers prefer to use a more locked down platform, then so be it. There is nothing wrong with a consumer being allowed to choose to keep their own phone locked down. Thats not the problem. The problem is when you go to a consumer and tell them that they aren't allowed to open up their own property, in an easy way. You can keep your phone locked down. Just give other people the choice to also open up their own phone, easily, if they choose to do so.