5 ms·

Good. Apple has no right to demand that the entire world conform to their views on sexuality. That there has been a disagreement on this lasting this long is

by swiley 5y ago

Good. Apple has no right to demand that the entire world conform to their views on sexuality. That there has been a disagreement on this lasting this long is insane.

ericmay 5y ago
Apple can demand it on their platforms though. If you don’t like their world view you don’t have to buy an iPhone ya know.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  They should be able to do whatever they want in their store. What they shouldn't be able to do is prohibit competing stores. "If you don't want the AT&T handset just build your own phone network" obviously isn't a reasonable alternative.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Except that doesn’t hold. If you don’t like AT&T there is Verizon, Google FI, T-Mobile, etc. If you don’t like Apple, there’s Google, Samsung, etc.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      It's a reference to the classic AT&T monopoly, when Verizon et al were still part of AT&T and you notoriously had to buy your phone from them (and they prohibited analog modems in favor of paying them for extortionately expensive ISDN lines etc.) "You can just use Google" is the equivalent of saying "you can just use British Telecom." True only in some kind of theoretical sense. You can fly to Britain and subscribe to telephone service there. It's not realistic. Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What do I do if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client?
      - ericmay 5y ago
        > And "you can just use Google" is the equivalent of saying "you can just use British Telecom." True only in some kind of theoretical sense. You can fly to Britain and subscribe to telephone service there. It's not realistic. I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic. > Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What happens if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client? A couple of things: first, you ideally should be doing research before buying a product. Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones. If it's not, then it's just not. I think that's a personal choice and doesn't have much to do with anything other than making economic decisions for yourself. For example, I really like video games (but hardly play). There are games that I want to play that aren't available on the Mac. My choices are buy a Windows machine, or buy a Mac, or buy both (or neither). I chose to forgo a game I want to play in favor of having a Mac and to make that trade off. It's a trade off. I'm hopeful that game could come to the Mac but there's no good reason I can tell to force someone to make the game because I want to have my cake and eat it too. Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else. This is just how the world works.
        AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic. You can just fly to Britain and rent a flat there. It's not physically impossible. It is an unreasonable thing to have to do in order to switch carriers. > Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones. That's the point. The $400 is a switching barrier which acts as a wall segmenting the app markets by platform, with the result that Apple has a monopoly on the iOS side of the wall. Excluding competing stores is then monopoly abuse. > Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else. The point is that this trade off is artificial and only exists as a result of anti-competitive practices. Otherwise you could get iMessage on your iPhone from the Apple App Store and get a BitTorrent client from some other app store still on your iPhone. It's one thing for something not to exist because there is no demand for it. If anybody can develop a Mac game and then not everybody does because there aren't enough Mac gamers to justify it, c'est la vie. It's caused by lack of demand, not anti-competitive behavior. If you want to develop a game for Mac, nobody is stopping you. Whereas if the reason the Mac gaming market was small was that Apple had their own game studio and prohibited games from competing studios, that's anti-competitive behavior. It's specifically problematic because the market can't fix it -- even if there is demand for alternatives, alternatives are prohibited, which is different than just not enough people wanting them for anybody to become a provider.
    - anonymousab 5y ago
      If Apple makes up a monopoly in a given market by some important metric - be that userbase, units sold, revenue $ or %, etc. - then those alternatives may not be meaningful or reasonable for developers.
- swiley 5y ago
  I bought a pinephone because I don't like this. The result has been that I don't get to participate in the family group chat (and Apple has made the UI in the messaging app manipulative enough that we haven't managed to make an alternative group.) Apple has separated me from my mother because I don't agree with them.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    I hate to sound callous here, but what is this supposed to convince me of? I don’t have or use Facebook or Instagram, or Snapchat, or TikTok because I don’t agree with them and miss out on lots of things - I don’t get invited to some events or form relationships that others do. So what? I guess these companies are separating me from my friends and family. How dare they!
    - curryst 5y ago
      The default text communication application on the phone silently converts messages into a proprietary format, and it only barely interoperates with SMS. If it came with some kind of proprietary voice system that only barely worked with Android phones, people would be out with pitchforks. I don't have a problem with apps doing proprietary things. I do have a problem with the default app pushing you and everyone you know to buy an iPhone so you don't have to deal with the screwed up SMS integration. They're abusing their prevalence in the marketplace by making their messaging incompatible with others. What if Facebook made a phone OS and made the default messaging app WhatsAppPlus, which can only be accessed from a Facebook phone, would that not be an issue?
  - samatman 5y ago
    I'm one of the people who agrees that what Apple is doing is anti-competitive: they shouldn't have the right to dictate what apps run on their phones, and should be required to allow side-loading. But I also think that families definitely have the right to choose which app they use for the group chat, even if it's only available on one platform. You separated yourself from your mother, because you don't agree with Apple. Put like that, maybe you can pick yourself up a cheap iPod Touch and say hi? It's Mother's Day tomorrow, I'm sure she'd like it.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Whether they can or can't demand it without violating antitrust laws is the central conclusion of the debate at hand not a fresh point that feeds into the discussion. Violating antitrust laws isn't the same thing as running a monopoly (though that certainly makes an easier case). An alternative option being possible is not always enough on its own. Especially as Apple's user share and restrictions grow with time.
- jzl 5y ago
  Except they literally turn a blind eye to it when convenient. Both Reddit and Twitter have ungodly amounts of porn available yet those apps have absolutely no problems being distributed on the app store. What's the difference?
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    I believe both apps have NSFW content filtered out by default. Reddit wise , you would have to go into the Setting app to enable such content.
    - jzl 5y ago
      Assuming "itch.io" doesn't advertise sexual content in its entry in the Epic Games Store, what's the difference between it having discoverable sexual content after you download and install it, and Reddit in the Apple Store have the exact same thing? Turning on or off content controls and lying about age (which every single teen knows how to do) are beside the point. The point is whether Apple has any moral high ground whatsoever in pointing out that sexual content is indirectly available in the Epic Games Store.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    The difference in the case of porn is whether or not the main purpose of the app in general is for porn. Reddit for example is probably mostly not used for porn. Pornhub the app has one purpose - porn. I don’t think it’s difficult to see here why one is allowed and another isn’t. Same with web browsers. I don’t really care about porn on the App Store too much myself either way. I actually think it would be nice to see creators have new revenue models (similar to podcasters and the like and yes I know OnlyFans exists) but I think it’s also a bit murky for Apple to get involved in for little benefit. I can already see the headlines: “Apple allows app that promotes and monetizes sex trafficked women!” and then we’ll have the same asinine discussions here we always do about App Store policy and how someone thinks Apple doesn’t do a good job. Why bother?
    - jzl 5y ago
      Read the original article and the line of cross-examination in the trial. It has nothing to do the "primary purpose" of any app, it has to with whether sexual content is available. Assuming "itch.io" doesn't advertise sexual content in its entry in the Epic Games Store, what's the difference between it having discoverable sexual content after you download and install it, and Reddit in the Apple Store have the exact same thing?
- swiley 5y ago
  If the phones are owned by Apple then people should only be allowed to rent them. It's asinine to sell something to someone and then tell them that they can't do certain things with it.

by swiley 5y ago

Good. Apple has no right to demand that the entire world conform to their views on sexuality. That there has been a disagreement on this lasting this long is insane.

ericmay 5y ago

Apple can demand it on their platforms though. If you don’t like their world view you don’t have to buy an iPhone ya know.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
They should be able to do whatever they want in their store. What they shouldn't be able to do is prohibit competing stores. "If you don't want the AT&T handset just build your own phone network" obviously isn't a reasonable alternative.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Except that doesn’t hold. If you don’t like AT&T there is Verizon, Google FI, T-Mobile, etc. If you don’t like Apple, there’s Google, Samsung, etc.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    It's a reference to the classic AT&T monopoly, when Verizon et al were still part of AT&T and you notoriously had to buy your phone from them (and they prohibited analog modems in favor of paying them for extortionately expensive ISDN lines etc.) "You can just use Google" is the equivalent of saying "you can just use British Telecom." True only in some kind of theoretical sense. You can fly to Britain and subscribe to telephone service there. It's not realistic. Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What do I do if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client?
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > And "you can just use Google" is the equivalent of saying "you can just use British Telecom." True only in some kind of theoretical sense. You can fly to Britain and subscribe to telephone service there. It's not realistic. I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic. > Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What happens if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client? A couple of things: first, you ideally should be doing research before buying a product. Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones. If it's not, then it's just not. I think that's a personal choice and doesn't have much to do with anything other than making economic decisions for yourself. For example, I really like video games (but hardly play). There are games that I want to play that aren't available on the Mac. My choices are buy a Windows machine, or buy a Mac, or buy both (or neither). I chose to forgo a game I want to play in favor of having a Mac and to make that trade off. It's a trade off. I'm hopeful that game could come to the Mac but there's no good reason I can tell to force someone to make the game because I want to have my cake and eat it too. Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else. This is just how the world works.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic. You can just fly to Britain and rent a flat there. It's not physically impossible. It is an unreasonable thing to have to do in order to switch carriers. > Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones. That's the point. The $400 is a switching barrier which acts as a wall segmenting the app markets by platform, with the result that Apple has a monopoly on the iOS side of the wall. Excluding competing stores is then monopoly abuse. > Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else. The point is that this trade off is artificial and only exists as a result of anti-competitive practices. Otherwise you could get iMessage on your iPhone from the Apple App Store and get a BitTorrent client from some other app store still on your iPhone. It's one thing for something not to exist because there is no demand for it. If anybody can develop a Mac game and then not everybody does because there aren't enough Mac gamers to justify it, c'est la vie. It's caused by lack of demand, not anti-competitive behavior. If you want to develop a game for Mac, nobody is stopping you. Whereas if the reason the Mac gaming market was small was that Apple had their own game studio and prohibited games from competing studios, that's anti-competitive behavior. It's specifically problematic because the market can't fix it -- even if there is demand for alternatives, alternatives are prohibited, which is different than just not enough people wanting them for anybody to become a provider.
  - anonymousab 5y ago
    If Apple makes up a monopoly in a given market by some important metric - be that userbase, units sold, revenue $ or %, etc. - then those alternatives may not be meaningful or reasonable for developers.
swiley 5y ago
I bought a pinephone because I don't like this. The result has been that I don't get to participate in the family group chat (and Apple has made the UI in the messaging app manipulative enough that we haven't managed to make an alternative group.) Apple has separated me from my mother because I don't agree with them.
- ericmay 5y ago
  I hate to sound callous here, but what is this supposed to convince me of? I don’t have or use Facebook or Instagram, or Snapchat, or TikTok because I don’t agree with them and miss out on lots of things - I don’t get invited to some events or form relationships that others do. So what? I guess these companies are separating me from my friends and family. How dare they!
  - curryst 5y ago
    The default text communication application on the phone silently converts messages into a proprietary format, and it only barely interoperates with SMS. If it came with some kind of proprietary voice system that only barely worked with Android phones, people would be out with pitchforks. I don't have a problem with apps doing proprietary things. I do have a problem with the default app pushing you and everyone you know to buy an iPhone so you don't have to deal with the screwed up SMS integration. They're abusing their prevalence in the marketplace by making their messaging incompatible with others. What if Facebook made a phone OS and made the default messaging app WhatsAppPlus, which can only be accessed from a Facebook phone, would that not be an issue?
- samatman 5y ago
  I'm one of the people who agrees that what Apple is doing is anti-competitive: they shouldn't have the right to dictate what apps run on their phones, and should be required to allow side-loading. But I also think that families definitely have the right to choose which app they use for the group chat, even if it's only available on one platform. You separated yourself from your mother, because you don't agree with Apple. Put like that, maybe you can pick yourself up a cheap iPod Touch and say hi? It's Mother's Day tomorrow, I'm sure she'd like it.
zamadatix 5y ago
Whether they can or can't demand it without violating antitrust laws is the central conclusion of the debate at hand not a fresh point that feeds into the discussion. Violating antitrust laws isn't the same thing as running a monopoly (though that certainly makes an easier case). An alternative option being possible is not always enough on its own. Especially as Apple's user share and restrictions grow with time.
jzl 5y ago
Except they literally turn a blind eye to it when convenient. Both Reddit and Twitter have ungodly amounts of porn available yet those apps have absolutely no problems being distributed on the app store. What's the difference?
- Jcowell 5y ago
  I believe both apps have NSFW content filtered out by default. Reddit wise , you would have to go into the Setting app to enable such content.
  - jzl 5y ago
    Assuming "itch.io" doesn't advertise sexual content in its entry in the Epic Games Store, what's the difference between it having discoverable sexual content after you download and install it, and Reddit in the Apple Store have the exact same thing? Turning on or off content controls and lying about age (which every single teen knows how to do) are beside the point. The point is whether Apple has any moral high ground whatsoever in pointing out that sexual content is indirectly available in the Epic Games Store.
- ericmay 5y ago
  The difference in the case of porn is whether or not the main purpose of the app in general is for porn. Reddit for example is probably mostly not used for porn. Pornhub the app has one purpose - porn. I don’t think it’s difficult to see here why one is allowed and another isn’t. Same with web browsers. I don’t really care about porn on the App Store too much myself either way. I actually think it would be nice to see creators have new revenue models (similar to podcasters and the like and yes I know OnlyFans exists) but I think it’s also a bit murky for Apple to get involved in for little benefit. I can already see the headlines: “Apple allows app that promotes and monetizes sex trafficked women!” and then we’ll have the same asinine discussions here we always do about App Store policy and how someone thinks Apple doesn’t do a good job. Why bother?
  - jzl 5y ago
    Read the original article and the line of cross-examination in the trial. It has nothing to do the "primary purpose" of any app, it has to with whether sexual content is available. Assuming "itch.io" doesn't advertise sexual content in its entry in the Epic Games Store, what's the difference between it having discoverable sexual content after you download and install it, and Reddit in the Apple Store have the exact same thing?
swiley 5y ago
If the phones are owned by Apple then people should only be allowed to rent them. It's asinine to sell something to someone and then tell them that they can't do certain things with it.