3 ms·

I blame consumers for the duopoly we have. I get that practically, it's a farce to call this choice we have real and significant but these marketplaces exist be

I blame consumers for the duopoly we have. I get that practically, it's a farce to call this choice we have real and significant but these marketplaces exist because of the demand. Making this duopoly more convenient for app-makers only kicks the can and further re-enforces the duopoly. In an ideal world, people would fund projects like the PinePhone or PostMarketOS, but our "solution" to the walled-garden is apparently to make it less painful but just as preeminent. Consumers should be smarter. There are a lot of passionate people trying to make these alternative hardware and software marketplaces work, but passion is no replacement for genuine demand so supply is scant. Given the unfortunate historical trajectory, quality will always be wanting. So, I guess I'm against a practical solution that entrenches the status quo when there's an ideological solution that would make these poor options obsolete. I'm probably just holding my breath though.

jahewson 5y ago
The essence of what you’re saying is: People should want something they don’t want. Because… People who want to make that thing would like a job making it. But it’s backwards, you can’t say that people “should” be a certain way you have to look at how they actually are. Being passionate about building something does not convey a right to a job doing that. It makes for a fine hobby - but outside of that build something people want.
- monopoliessuck 5y ago
  I never said people have a right to make a living off of their passions. People don't. Passionate people are not divorced from the market but active participants in it. I, however, would like to pay people to make this thing that may just happen to have a passionate origin. I also think many people want some polished version of this thing to exist, despite not wanting to fund its manufacture and maintenance. I think the inconvenience to the user in the interim is worth it, but many/most don't agree with me and that is one reason it doesn't exist. Making legislation to force third-party marketplaces to exist on a "platform" is more in line with your concern, to be honest. It's forcing an entity to do something it doesn't want to do. If consumers cared about this, they would move to a different platform or gasp create a competitor that does what they want. I already know of some people that have moved from Apple to Android simply because side-loading is possible. Also, I take issue with the notion that in order for something to exist today, it has to have "broad mainstream appeal". A marketplace by its very nature benefits from diversity of marketed goods, but just like any other product, it shouldn't need to completely displace market leaders to exist. The rise of megalythic companies, VC being promised eventual Google-scale growth of their bets and people's general squeamishness at using anything at all unpolished or inconvenient has created this world where everything needs to be huge in order to be considered successful in any meaningful way. F-droid is a thing and I don't think anyone would argue it A. Doesn't exist. B. Is a real competitor to the Google Play Store. C. Doesn't invovle people in the market, both developers and users, who are happy that it exists and wish to further it's growth. I can say, I think a lot of the problems we currently have and ones we are trying to spotfix with legislation could be better solved via a more conscious consumption. "Should" is a subjective term based on a cost/benefit analysis and while I think people should act differently, I don't think they should be barred from acting as they have today nor are they morally corrupt for doing so. Everyone buckets and weights the pros and cons of everything differently.
dangus 5y ago
Blame the consumer? Uh, no. You're bringing up non-profit projects as proof that consumers aren't doing the right thing. But, don't forget, there used to be a highly competitive commercial smartphone market until the competition was whittled down through acquisitions and exits. Microsoft, Blackberry, Palm, Apple, Nokia, and Android all had their own smartphone OS simultaneously for a brief moment in time. Consumers can't be blamed for market consolidation. If that's the case might as well blame them for T-Mobile buying Sprint or for the AT&T or Microsoft monopolies. I don't know if this bill is the right bill but anti-trust is an issue of growing importance. You buy an expensive durable good and it shouldn't be left to the manufacturer to decide whether it wants to screw you over or not (and this same concept applies to things like cars, washing machines, etc).
- monopoliessuck 5y ago
  I think you're moving goal posts. Not all problems with our market are the result of simple consolidation of market leaders. Put simply, don't buy products that lock you in if you don't want products to lock you in. It seems like consumers are capable of making decisions based on price, durability, features, color etc. why is any other variable sacred? The answer is consumers don't care about these issues enough to pay for them. Would we have this right-to-repair argument if consumers went out of their way to buy repairable devices? Lenovo, Apple, Google, et. al. have been moving to solder more and more components to the board and glue everything together and consumers haven't punished these producers with their wallets yet. If you want a repairable device, buy one -- this isn't a consolidation problem. If you want a phone that you can run a different OS on, buy one. If you want a red toothbrush, don't buy a blue one and complain (or make a law) that it should be red. Pine64 is a for-profit entity. If you want a repairable phone that you can side-load anything on, maybe give your money to them instead of Google-Apple. Likewise, if you want a repairable laptop maybe buy a Librem 14 instead of an MacBook. Maybe if you want an open hardware ePub reader buy an InkPlate instead of a Kindle. These things exist and more would exist -- with more polish -- if people voted with their wallets. These are real companies trying to make real money with real products for real people. The smart phone operating systems you listed would have flourished if more people purchased their respective devices. You can't install Sony's OS on an XBOX and while I don't purchase consoles and think buying a single-purpose gimped device is almost always a bad idea, if people want to buy what XBOX is selling, so be it. Apple consumers are not left in the dark about their ability to use an alternative app store and while I think it's a horribly limiting experience, Apple consumers keep throwing money at the company. I'm not just blaming the consumer. I'm also stating that the consumer is a vital part of the market and their action or inaction results in a market more aligned with those decisions.

jahewson 5y ago

The essence of what you’re saying is: People should want something they don’t want. Because… People who want to make that thing would like a job making it. But it’s backwards, you can’t say that people “should” be a certain way you have to look at how they actually are. Being passionate about building something does not convey a right to a job doing that. It makes for a fine hobby - but outside of that build something people want.

monopoliessuck 5y ago
I never said people have a right to make a living off of their passions. People don't. Passionate people are not divorced from the market but active participants in it. I, however, would like to pay people to make this thing that may just happen to have a passionate origin. I also think many people want some polished version of this thing to exist, despite not wanting to fund its manufacture and maintenance. I think the inconvenience to the user in the interim is worth it, but many/most don't agree with me and that is one reason it doesn't exist. Making legislation to force third-party marketplaces to exist on a "platform" is more in line with your concern, to be honest. It's forcing an entity to do something it doesn't want to do. If consumers cared about this, they would move to a different platform or gasp create a competitor that does what they want. I already know of some people that have moved from Apple to Android simply because side-loading is possible. Also, I take issue with the notion that in order for something to exist today, it has to have "broad mainstream appeal". A marketplace by its very nature benefits from diversity of marketed goods, but just like any other product, it shouldn't need to completely displace market leaders to exist. The rise of megalythic companies, VC being promised eventual Google-scale growth of their bets and people's general squeamishness at using anything at all unpolished or inconvenient has created this world where everything needs to be huge in order to be considered successful in any meaningful way. F-droid is a thing and I don't think anyone would argue it A. Doesn't exist. B. Is a real competitor to the Google Play Store. C. Doesn't invovle people in the market, both developers and users, who are happy that it exists and wish to further it's growth. I can say, I think a lot of the problems we currently have and ones we are trying to spotfix with legislation could be better solved via a more conscious consumption. "Should" is a subjective term based on a cost/benefit analysis and while I think people should act differently, I don't think they should be barred from acting as they have today nor are they morally corrupt for doing so. Everyone buckets and weights the pros and cons of everything differently.

dangus 5y ago

Blame the consumer? Uh, no. You're bringing up non-profit projects as proof that consumers aren't doing the right thing. But, don't forget, there used to be a highly competitive commercial smartphone market until the competition was whittled down through acquisitions and exits. Microsoft, Blackberry, Palm, Apple, Nokia, and Android all had their own smartphone OS simultaneously for a brief moment in time. Consumers can't be blamed for market consolidation. If that's the case might as well blame them for T-Mobile buying Sprint or for the AT&T or Microsoft monopolies. I don't know if this bill is the right bill but anti-trust is an issue of growing importance. You buy an expensive durable good and it shouldn't be left to the manufacturer to decide whether it wants to screw you over or not (and this same concept applies to things like cars, washing machines, etc).

monopoliessuck 5y ago
I think you're moving goal posts. Not all problems with our market are the result of simple consolidation of market leaders. Put simply, don't buy products that lock you in if you don't want products to lock you in. It seems like consumers are capable of making decisions based on price, durability, features, color etc. why is any other variable sacred? The answer is consumers don't care about these issues enough to pay for them. Would we have this right-to-repair argument if consumers went out of their way to buy repairable devices? Lenovo, Apple, Google, et. al. have been moving to solder more and more components to the board and glue everything together and consumers haven't punished these producers with their wallets yet. If you want a repairable device, buy one -- this isn't a consolidation problem. If you want a phone that you can run a different OS on, buy one. If you want a red toothbrush, don't buy a blue one and complain (or make a law) that it should be red. Pine64 is a for-profit entity. If you want a repairable phone that you can side-load anything on, maybe give your money to them instead of Google-Apple. Likewise, if you want a repairable laptop maybe buy a Librem 14 instead of an MacBook. Maybe if you want an open hardware ePub reader buy an InkPlate instead of a Kindle. These things exist and more would exist -- with more polish -- if people voted with their wallets. These are real companies trying to make real money with real products for real people. The smart phone operating systems you listed would have flourished if more people purchased their respective devices. You can't install Sony's OS on an XBOX and while I don't purchase consoles and think buying a single-purpose gimped device is almost always a bad idea, if people want to buy what XBOX is selling, so be it. Apple consumers are not left in the dark about their ability to use an alternative app store and while I think it's a horribly limiting experience, Apple consumers keep throwing money at the company. I'm not just blaming the consumer. I'm also stating that the consumer is a vital part of the market and their action or inaction results in a market more aligned with those decisions.