4 ms·

It's scary to think that the entire software industry is controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever selling a piece of

by bogwog 5y ago

It's scary to think that the entire software industry is controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever selling a piece of software ever again are basically zero. It's like if you get banned from every restaurant/grocery store in the world, your only chance to not starve is to purchase land and grow your own food. Except, there are only 2 grocery stores in the world. Without Apple and Google's permission, it's impossible to make money selling mobile apps. So if that's your livelihood, you're better off letting them exploit you than risk pissing them off for any reason (and pray you don't get erroneously banned by an AI). Sounds like a healthy environment for innovation /s

gjsman-1000 5y ago
It's scary to think that the entire political speech industry controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever sharing your opinion ever again are basically zero. It's like if you get banned from every town square in the world, your only chance to get the word out is to purchase posters and put them on lampposts. Without YouTube and Facebook's permission, it's impossible to make money sharing your opinion on how the world should be. So if that's your livelihood, you're better off letting them exploit you than risk pissing them off for any reason (and pray you don't get erroneously banned by an AI). Sounds like a healthy environment for democracy /s
- bogwog 5y ago
  I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
sombremesa 5y ago
The sentiment you state is common FUD on HN but that's not how the world works. In fact, the software industry probably has fewer gatekeepers than most industries, by way of being relatively immature. That's if you count actual gatekeepers like regulatory bodies. As for competiton and business decisions, those are not gatekeepers*, that is competition and business decisions. * I'm making a distinction here between "gatekeeping", which anyone may participate in (e.g. people who rally against or challenge women gamers), and "gatekeepers", entities with the power and authority to decisively determine what is and isn't allowed (like the bouncer at a club). Not everyone who is "gatekeeping" is a "gatekeeper".
- bogwog 5y ago
  So what you're saying is that I'm wrong if you change the definition of a word I used in my comment?
  - sombremesa 5y ago
    What’s your definition?
dmak 5y ago
"It's scary to think that the entire software industry is controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever selling a piece of software ever again are basically zero." I mean that same argument can be said for doing business within any ecosystem. It's really not that scary and is the reality of life. If you pissed off X then your chances of Y again are basically 0. (x, y) = Amazon, selling books (x, y) = Google, selling apps (x, y) = SEC, trading stocks (x, y) = U.S., having fair tariffs What would the opposing choice be? Should we have the freedom to break the rules set by the governing body while participating in their ecosystem? Certainly, we should be able to challenge them hence this case.
- bogwog 5y ago
  Notice how your examples are monopolies and the government. The government is a different beast from provate organizations (even monopolies). Governments can legally take away your freedoms, your livelihood, your life, etc. They’re there for those kinds of difficult decisions for the good of society. But when a private company can effectively do the same thing at their own discretion? That’s not right. They’re too big for anyone’s benefit. …at least, in my opinion. I’m sure some people disagree, and see a benefit to having unregulated megacorps with that much power.
  - dmak 5y ago
    Could you name an example where a company does not have to pay to use another's product and ecosystem? I can't.

by bogwog 5y ago

gjsman-1000 5y ago

It's scary to think that the entire political speech industry controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever sharing your opinion ever again are basically zero. It's like if you get banned from every town square in the world, your only chance to get the word out is to purchase posters and put them on lampposts. Without YouTube and Facebook's permission, it's impossible to make money sharing your opinion on how the world should be. So if that's your livelihood, you're better off letting them exploit you than risk pissing them off for any reason (and pray you don't get erroneously banned by an AI). Sounds like a healthy environment for democracy /s

bogwog 5y ago
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

sombremesa 5y ago

The sentiment you state is common FUD on HN but that's not how the world works. In fact, the software industry probably has fewer gatekeepers than most industries, by way of being relatively immature. That's if you count actual gatekeepers like regulatory bodies. As for competiton and business decisions, those are not gatekeepers*, that is competition and business decisions. * I'm making a distinction here between "gatekeeping", which anyone may participate in (e.g. people who rally against or challenge women gamers), and "gatekeepers", entities with the power and authority to decisively determine what is and isn't allowed (like the bouncer at a club). Not everyone who is "gatekeeping" is a "gatekeeper".

bogwog 5y ago
So what you're saying is that I'm wrong if you change the definition of a word I used in my comment?
- sombremesa 5y ago
  What’s your definition?

dmak 5y ago

"It's scary to think that the entire software industry is controlled by a few gate keepers, and if you piss them off, the chances of you ever selling a piece of software ever again are basically zero." I mean that same argument can be said for doing business within any ecosystem. It's really not that scary and is the reality of life. If you pissed off X then your chances of Y again are basically 0. (x, y) = Amazon, selling books (x, y) = Google, selling apps (x, y) = SEC, trading stocks (x, y) = U.S., having fair tariffs What would the opposing choice be? Should we have the freedom to break the rules set by the governing body while participating in their ecosystem? Certainly, we should be able to challenge them hence this case.

bogwog 5y ago
Notice how your examples are monopolies and the government. The government is a different beast from provate organizations (even monopolies). Governments can legally take away your freedoms, your livelihood, your life, etc. They’re there for those kinds of difficult decisions for the good of society. But when a private company can effectively do the same thing at their own discretion? That’s not right. They’re too big for anyone’s benefit. …at least, in my opinion. I’m sure some people disagree, and see a benefit to having unregulated megacorps with that much power.
- dmak 5y ago
  Could you name an example where a company does not have to pay to use another's product and ecosystem? I can't.