4 ms·

I don't understand this argument. You are using car and store but apple isn't selling a phone and an app store, it's selling you the Apple experience (and my un

I don't understand this argument. You are using car and store but apple isn't selling a phone and an app store, it's selling you the Apple experience (and my understanding is that is literally how apple thinks about it), and if you don't like it, you can easily buy one of the many android phones. > Banning other stores does zero for Apple and their customers. I don't think this is true at all. Apple gets to retain all apps on the app store despite implementing a very unpopular with business but pro consumer policy like privacy labels. With multiple app stores, the apps might vote on a different store, and all of a sudden as a comsumer, I have to install 20 different app stores to get the full set of apps I want. > Banning other stores does zero for Apple and their customers. If you can't come up with 3 good faith explanations of why a closed app store is good, then you're not critically thinking about the situation or responding in good faith. 3 reason's a locked down app store is bad: - Ties the apps closer to the OS creating a form of vendor lock in for both consumers and app makers - I can't fully utilize my device, it comes limited in specific ways. - Gives apple too much power over apps, especially apps it directly competes with. Your argument is that there's no good faith explanation for a closed app store being better. If you can't think of any, that is a failure of yours, not a failure of Apples. Once you make a list of pros and cons, you realize that there are pros and cons and that someone might actually choose one set of limitations even if you philosophically don't agree with it.

rektide 6y ago
> With multiple app stores, the apps might vote on a different store, and all of a sudden as a comsumer, I have to install 20 different app stores to get the full set of apps I want. Fear of freedom here is just remarkable. Oh no! What if I had choices! What if there wasn't a monopolist protecting me!
- hayst4ck 6y ago
  Look at you! What an intellectual you are. You sure got my number. That's me, afraid of freedom. Freedom is good, there are clearly no bounds to freedom. There are clearly no counter forces to freedom. You know what the cost of freedom is? Education. When you are educated freedom is good, but when you are not, it is dangerous. Being able to directly install a virus is a freedom, and for a security researcher or human rights abuser that might be great, but I don’t want my mom to have the freedom to install a virus. Should virus creators be able to load their software into a store and market it as they wish? No? But what about their freedom?! What about my freedom to download viruses?! Not getting a vaccine is a form of freedom, but what does that do for herd immunity if too much of the population isn’t smart enough to handle the freedom not to vax? Do you like nutrition labels? Seems like it limits the freedom that food companies have to market their products. I think all fishermen should have the right to fish as many fish as they can. What right do we have to limit peoples livelihood?! Why can't kids take heroin if they want? Why are we limiting their freedom to conduct their lives the way they wish? You use the word freedom like you understand it, but then fail to understand the cost of freedom. For you and me freedom is great, we're probably educated and well read. For mom and dad, they need a bit more of a curated experience because they don't have the knowledge or experience which would allow them to protect themselves or understand their own choices.
  - hyperman1 6y ago
    This same discussion has been fought out with voting rights. Clearly only the big land owners should vote. The average peasant does not have the knowledge or experience required to participate in governing a country. Same for women. Peasants should stay on their land, women in their kitchens, voting should happen by those educated and well read. The people claiming this were probably right, but the solution was radically different from what they envisioned: Peasants and women fought for the right to get schooling. The news became available for everyone. They got in fact the tools needed to perform the job. We should strive for the same things here. Even knowing a majority might get malware or vote for Trump. The minority that makes maximal use of the given opportunities has demonstrated they will make the world a better place for all of us.
asiachick 6y ago
No, my argument is Apple should not be in control of MY device. A car company should not be able to choose where I can go or what things or people I can have in my car. A housing company should not be able to decide who can I have in my house or what companies I can shop for furniture and/or decorations. A refrigerator company should not be able to decide where I can buy groceries or what things I'm allowed to store in my refrigerator. And, a computer company should not be able to decide what content, including apps, I'm allowed to put in my computing device. If you want safety in any of those situation you are free to choose at some shop you trust but no company should be allowed to limit where I shop. You claim there are good and valid reasons for a closed system. I claim those reasons are invalid and/or immoral. In an open system you can choose better stores. In a closed system the better stores are banned. To take one example, Real Chrome is more secure than Safari. This is provably true by reading the CVE lists. They have about the same amount of bugs but Chromes bugs have 7x less "arbitrary code execution" than Safari. But, I'm not allowed to run a more secure browser on iOS. Another example is the Hong Kong app that Apple banned. Apple has no requirement to carry any particular app but it's immoral IMO for them to control the phone itself such that such important apps can't be installed in other ways. Yet another would be sexuality apps. Apple censoring such apps is arguably as immoral as banning LGBT people from anything. Apps are speech as ruled by the Supreme Court, and there are plenty of topics that are conveyed better via an app then a book/video but Apple's banning of apps means that while they allow you to download sexualized books and movies they don't allow you to download sexualized apps. That's a severe form of repression and is immoral

rektide 6y ago

> With multiple app stores, the apps might vote on a different store, and all of a sudden as a comsumer, I have to install 20 different app stores to get the full set of apps I want. Fear of freedom here is just remarkable. Oh no! What if I had choices! What if there wasn't a monopolist protecting me!

hayst4ck 6y ago
Look at you! What an intellectual you are. You sure got my number. That's me, afraid of freedom. Freedom is good, there are clearly no bounds to freedom. There are clearly no counter forces to freedom. You know what the cost of freedom is? Education. When you are educated freedom is good, but when you are not, it is dangerous. Being able to directly install a virus is a freedom, and for a security researcher or human rights abuser that might be great, but I don’t want my mom to have the freedom to install a virus. Should virus creators be able to load their software into a store and market it as they wish? No? But what about their freedom?! What about my freedom to download viruses?! Not getting a vaccine is a form of freedom, but what does that do for herd immunity if too much of the population isn’t smart enough to handle the freedom not to vax? Do you like nutrition labels? Seems like it limits the freedom that food companies have to market their products. I think all fishermen should have the right to fish as many fish as they can. What right do we have to limit peoples livelihood?! Why can't kids take heroin if they want? Why are we limiting their freedom to conduct their lives the way they wish? You use the word freedom like you understand it, but then fail to understand the cost of freedom. For you and me freedom is great, we're probably educated and well read. For mom and dad, they need a bit more of a curated experience because they don't have the knowledge or experience which would allow them to protect themselves or understand their own choices.
- hyperman1 6y ago
  This same discussion has been fought out with voting rights. Clearly only the big land owners should vote. The average peasant does not have the knowledge or experience required to participate in governing a country. Same for women. Peasants should stay on their land, women in their kitchens, voting should happen by those educated and well read. The people claiming this were probably right, but the solution was radically different from what they envisioned: Peasants and women fought for the right to get schooling. The news became available for everyone. They got in fact the tools needed to perform the job. We should strive for the same things here. Even knowing a majority might get malware or vote for Trump. The minority that makes maximal use of the given opportunities has demonstrated they will make the world a better place for all of us.

asiachick 6y ago

No, my argument is Apple should not be in control of MY device. A car company should not be able to choose where I can go or what things or people I can have in my car. A housing company should not be able to decide who can I have in my house or what companies I can shop for furniture and/or decorations. A refrigerator company should not be able to decide where I can buy groceries or what things I'm allowed to store in my refrigerator. And, a computer company should not be able to decide what content, including apps, I'm allowed to put in my computing device. If you want safety in any of those situation you are free to choose at some shop you trust but no company should be allowed to limit where I shop. You claim there are good and valid reasons for a closed system. I claim those reasons are invalid and/or immoral. In an open system you can choose better stores. In a closed system the better stores are banned. To take one example, Real Chrome is more secure than Safari. This is provably true by reading the CVE lists. They have about the same amount of bugs but Chromes bugs have 7x less "arbitrary code execution" than Safari. But, I'm not allowed to run a more secure browser on iOS. Another example is the Hong Kong app that Apple banned. Apple has no requirement to carry any particular app but it's immoral IMO for them to control the phone itself such that such important apps can't be installed in other ways. Yet another would be sexuality apps. Apple censoring such apps is arguably as immoral as banning LGBT people from anything. Apps are speech as ruled by the Supreme Court, and there are plenty of topics that are conveyed better via an app then a book/video but Apple's banning of apps means that while they allow you to download sexualized books and movies they don't allow you to download sexualized apps. That's a severe form of repression and is immoral