6 ms·

Honestly, if I were to make a platform and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed on it and how they should be

by ElFitz 5y ago

Honestly, if I were to make a platform and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed on it and how they should be ranked in it, I’d just shut it all down, even the company if need be, give their money back to whatever investors there may be, and walk away. Let them have fun building it themselves if they want it to run any other way. But that’s just me, and it probably speaks volumes about some of my flaws.

kelnos 5y ago
I mean, sure, that's fine. Most laws around what things people and corporations are and aren't allowed to do are trade offs. You can build a company and make lots of money, but you have to obey a set of restrictions. If you're not ok with those restrictions, then you don't build a company. That's fine. There are certainly other people who will accept somewhat lower profits (due to these restrictions) in exchange for having the opportunity to make money at all. The pretty well-known examples of these sorts of restrictions are things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. Antitrust law is on there too, and in my opinion it should be expanded to cover some of the stuff we're talking about here. You seem to not agree, and that's fine. But personally I think we should be doing more to protect customers, even from things they may not realize are hurting them. Right now the only serious choices for a smartphone are iPhone or Android, and while they both have a lot of good things going for them, they also both have significant negatives. I don't want the future to be a techno-dystopia where there is only one "choice", and the manufacturer dictates how we use our devices. It really feels like that's where things are going, though, unless we start requiring platforms be more open. Customers won't demand it, because most of them don't understand the issues around it, so it's likely the only solution is legislation.
- ElFitz 5y ago
  Totally and wholeheartedly agree.
michaelmrose 5y ago
As a member of a society there are ground rules you are obliged to abide by in order to participate. The upshot is Apple makes 10s of billions per year while abiding by those standards. It's a pretty fantastic deal if you can get it and I don't think if regulations on manipulation of the app market is tightened up it would be an undue burden. You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business so you imagine storming off in a fit of pique but it's really not a bigger version it's a different animal because it's wealth gives it so much power it is in need of greater restraint internal or external and it's massive payroll and base gives it greater obligation to it's customers and staff. Anyone who would do such a thing would just find themselves looking for a new job after the stockholders fired them.
- ElFitz 5y ago
  > You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business You are extrapolating. Of course I’m aware shareholders would just fire me. However, adding tens of caveats to what was merely a statement of my visceral and spontaneous reaction to being put in such a situation was, and is, kind of moot.
rkk3 5y ago
> Honestly, if I were to make a platform and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed on it It's not just "a platform" Apple's Market cap is 10% of the US GDP. What they do has real consequences for the world.
Dylan16807 5y ago
As long as you're not in an absolutely massive market position, this kind of forcing won't happen to you. If you are in such a position, you can sell it for billions of dollars.
- ElFitz 5y ago
  You are right in that lawmakers and judges won’t. However, it can happen with both investors or managers instead. Or clients, when you’re a freelancer. And I thought of the selling option, but it would just mean that someone else would bend what you built to that third party’s will. It’s vain, and probably egotistical, I know.
vel0city 5y ago
Honestly, if I were to make an petroleum refining company and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed to be dumped into the river or not I'd just shut it down, even the company if need be, give their money back to whatever investors there may be, and walk away. Let them have fun building it themselves if they want to run any other way. /s
- ElFitz 5y ago
  Yes. And what is the issue with that? As long as you don’t actually dump into the river what you were forbidden to? Unlike quite a few companies all over the world.

by ElFitz 5y ago

kelnos 5y ago

I mean, sure, that's fine. Most laws around what things people and corporations are and aren't allowed to do are trade offs. You can build a company and make lots of money, but you have to obey a set of restrictions. If you're not ok with those restrictions, then you don't build a company. That's fine. There are certainly other people who will accept somewhat lower profits (due to these restrictions) in exchange for having the opportunity to make money at all. The pretty well-known examples of these sorts of restrictions are things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. Antitrust law is on there too, and in my opinion it should be expanded to cover some of the stuff we're talking about here. You seem to not agree, and that's fine. But personally I think we should be doing more to protect customers, even from things they may not realize are hurting them. Right now the only serious choices for a smartphone are iPhone or Android, and while they both have a lot of good things going for them, they also both have significant negatives. I don't want the future to be a techno-dystopia where there is only one "choice", and the manufacturer dictates how we use our devices. It really feels like that's where things are going, though, unless we start requiring platforms be more open. Customers won't demand it, because most of them don't understand the issues around it, so it's likely the only solution is legislation.

ElFitz 5y ago
Totally and wholeheartedly agree.

michaelmrose 5y ago

As a member of a society there are ground rules you are obliged to abide by in order to participate. The upshot is Apple makes 10s of billions per year while abiding by those standards. It's a pretty fantastic deal if you can get it and I don't think if regulations on manipulation of the app market is tightened up it would be an undue burden. You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business so you imagine storming off in a fit of pique but it's really not a bigger version it's a different animal because it's wealth gives it so much power it is in need of greater restraint internal or external and it's massive payroll and base gives it greater obligation to it's customers and staff. Anyone who would do such a thing would just find themselves looking for a new job after the stockholders fired them.

ElFitz 5y ago
> You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business You are extrapolating. Of course I’m aware shareholders would just fire me. However, adding tens of caveats to what was merely a statement of my visceral and spontaneous reaction to being put in such a situation was, and is, kind of moot.

rkk3 5y ago

> Honestly, if I were to make a platform and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed on it It's not just "a platform" Apple's Market cap is 10% of the US GDP. What they do has real consequences for the world.

Dylan16807 5y ago

As long as you're not in an absolutely massive market position, this kind of forcing won't happen to you. If you are in such a position, you can sell it for billions of dollars.

ElFitz 5y ago
You are right in that lawmakers and judges won’t. However, it can happen with both investors or managers instead. Or clients, when you’re a freelancer. And I thought of the selling option, but it would just mean that someone else would bend what you built to that third party’s will. It’s vain, and probably egotistical, I know.

vel0city 5y ago

Honestly, if I were to make an petroleum refining company and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed to be dumped into the river or not I'd just shut it down, even the company if need be, give their money back to whatever investors there may be, and walk away. Let them have fun building it themselves if they want to run any other way. /s

ElFitz 5y ago
Yes. And what is the issue with that? As long as you don’t actually dump into the river what you were forbidden to? Unlike quite a few companies all over the world.