6 ms·

You speak of Apple as if it were an individual or a small company run by a tight group of friends. AAPL is not a courageous pioneer being oppressed by "The Man

by piaste 5y ago

You speak of Apple as if it were an individual or a small company run by a tight group of friends. AAPL is not a courageous pioneer being oppressed by "The Man". AAPL is a trillion-dollar institution that by design exists only to pursue profit and enrich its shareholders, the overwhelming majority of whom can take exactly zero credit for the innovations from which they profited. It is "The Man".

thegrimmest 5y ago
Apple was at one point in recent history a small company run out of a garage by a group of friends. At what point exactly did it lose the rights it was entitled to then? If 3 dudes in a basement are entitled to sell goods/services on their own terms, then Apple should be as well. Where is the line? Apple is still a private company, not a public service, and the case I'm making is explicitly against socializing its services simply because it is big, Instead I'm advocating that, in the interest of long-term (say 50-100 year) public good, we maintain the relatively unregulated environment that allowed Apple to succeed in the first place, and tolerate the relatively small inefficiency that environment produces.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  I don't think Apple needs to be socialized to solve this problem, in fact saying that obfuscates a simple and practical solution. It should be illegal for a company to actively prevent you from running code on a device that you own. We need something like Right to Repair but for software, if I own a phone, I should be able to run whatever I want on it. You shouldn't be able to charge money for the privilege of installing my own software, just like an auto maker can't charge me for the privilege of repairing my own car. Companies will use all sorts of weasel words and scare tactics but at the end of the day it's simply anti-competitive.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    This is nice idea, but it falls flat. In this case Apple's advantage, the actual reason consumers prefer Apple's devices, is because they restrict what code can be run on them, in order to provide a safe, trustworthy, optimized user experience. Why do you want to rob Apple (and the market) of this advantage?
    - stale2002 5y ago
      Consumers can still have that advantage. Everyone would be happy if Apple provided a simple on/off button that allows sideloading. If a user wants to have software restricted, then they can be given that choice, and everyone else can also choose differently.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "In this case Apple's advantage, the actual reason consumers prefer Apple's devices" Some people get off when they are getting publically flogged, can't cater to everyone's kinks!
- piaste 5y ago
  > At what point exactly did it lose the rights it was entitled to then? At some point between becoming a publicly-traded company and becoming the sole gatekeeper of a significant chunk of the world's personal data and apps. To provide a precise specification of which exact antitrust regulations should take effect at which threshold of growth is, I hope you will concede, a tiny bit beyond the scope of a HN comment. > If 3 dudes in a basement are entitled to sell goods/services on their own terms, then Apple should be as well. I see no reason why that should be the case a priori. "Apple" does not refer to the free actions of a few individuals, but to a particolar kind of profit-seeking contract called a "public company".The capabilities of such contracts can and do get restricted all the time, often with good reason. > Apple is still a private company, not a public service, and the case I'm making is explicitly against socializing its services simply because it is big Whereas the case I am making, conversely, can be summed up as: once a company becomes so big and/or powerful that it can prevent competition from arising outright, it should be either broken up or socialized, preferably the former.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Apple cannot prevent competition from arising outright, just as RIM could not, just as Microsoft could not. That's my whole point. Antitrust itself is a violation of fundamental liberty. There doesn't need to be an authority that tells free people how to interact peacefully. This authority diminishes the liberty of the people subjected to it, regardless of whether it came to power democratically or otherwise. Do you really think that failing some public intervention Apple will be around in a century, undiminished? If it is, wouldn't that mean it is continuing to provide valuable goods and services people want? "Apple" does indeed refer to the actions of a group of individuals, simply because there are no other agents in the system. It's individuals making decisions all the way down. "Publicly traded" doesn't mean "public service".
    - piaste 5y ago
      > Apple cannot prevent competition from arising outright, just as RIM could not, just as Microsoft could not. On the contrary, it is actively doing so. It does so in the same way that Facebook prevented Instagram from becoming a competitor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... The tech giants have such warchests that they can afford to simply buy out any competitor that has a chance to compete with them. And unlike Cronus, they're unlikely to be deceived into swallowing an omphalos. > Do you really think that failing some public intervention Apple will be around in a century, undiminished? If it is, wouldn't that mean it is continuing to provide valuable goods and services people want? Is that belief of yours even falsifiable? Is there any observation that would make you conclude that a given company, despite being profitable in a free market, is nevertheless representing a net negative for the world? Or is it an article of faith for you that an unconstrained free market always leads to an eventually optimal equilibrium?
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  They lost those rights when they became the dominant player in the marketplace and started using that dominant position to unfairly limit competition.
- lmm 5y ago
  > the case I'm making is explicitly against socializing its services simply because it is big So what is that case? If we gradually socialize organisations that get too big (based on judgements that will ultimately be somewhat vague, sure), what's the actual downside? The 3 dudes in a basement will still have the promise of literally more money than they can consume in their lifetimes. Maybe the amount of VC money sloshing around the system would drop a bit from current levels, but that might be no bad thing.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  > If 3 dudes in a basement are entitled to sell goods/services on their own terms, then Apple should be as well. Where did you get this idea? Lets continue this line of thought: If 3 dudes are entitled to piss in the ocean then Apple is entitled to route the human waste from their corporate HQ directly to the ocean without any treatment facilities If 3 dudes are entitled to have racists discussions in the privacy of their home, then Apple should be fine to do the same in their HR policy in their HQ If 3 dudes are entitled to hunt 1 deer, then Apple should be as well entitled to hunt 1 million deer. If 3 dudes can build a shack without having to deal with fire inspections, then Apple should be able to build an office or a million shacks without fire inspections.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    If 3 dudes are entitled to piss in the ocean, then yes all of Apple staff can march to the shoreline and do the same. > If 3 dudes are entitled to have racists discussions in the privacy of their home, then Apple should be fine to do the same in their HR policy in their HQ Yes actually, I think people should be able to discriminate based on whatever criteria they see fit. Why is discriminating based on height/attractiveness OK but race not OK? > If 3 dudes are entitled to hunt 1 deer, then Apple should be as well entitled to hunt 1 million deer. I'm not aware of any restriction on Apple employees applying for deer permits. > If 3 dudes can build a shack without having to deal with fire inspections, then Apple should be able to build an office or a million shacks without fire inspections. I think zoning restrictions apply to locations, not people.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      > Yes actually, I think people should be able to discriminate based on whatever criteria they see fit. Now that I am clear we are discussing your personal fantasy, not the real world or moral consensus, this thread makes more sence. "I'm not aware of any restriction on Apple employees applying for deer permits." Are you unable or unwilling to distinguish between employees individually hunting in their free time and Apple the corporation getting a permit to kill 1 million deer and handing their employees rifles? You seem very keen on blurring the line between corporate and private life. Should we also extend this logix to sexual relationships and reproductive rights, see what kind of distopian nightmare we will arrive at?

by piaste 5y ago

thegrimmest 5y ago

Apple was at one point in recent history a small company run out of a garage by a group of friends. At what point exactly did it lose the rights it was entitled to then? If 3 dudes in a basement are entitled to sell goods/services on their own terms, then Apple should be as well. Where is the line? Apple is still a private company, not a public service, and the case I'm making is explicitly against socializing its services simply because it is big, Instead I'm advocating that, in the interest of long-term (say 50-100 year) public good, we maintain the relatively unregulated environment that allowed Apple to succeed in the first place, and tolerate the relatively small inefficiency that environment produces.

oceanplexian 5y ago
I don't think Apple needs to be socialized to solve this problem, in fact saying that obfuscates a simple and practical solution. It should be illegal for a company to actively prevent you from running code on a device that you own. We need something like Right to Repair but for software, if I own a phone, I should be able to run whatever I want on it. You shouldn't be able to charge money for the privilege of installing my own software, just like an auto maker can't charge me for the privilege of repairing my own car. Companies will use all sorts of weasel words and scare tactics but at the end of the day it's simply anti-competitive.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  This is nice idea, but it falls flat. In this case Apple's advantage, the actual reason consumers prefer Apple's devices, is because they restrict what code can be run on them, in order to provide a safe, trustworthy, optimized user experience. Why do you want to rob Apple (and the market) of this advantage?
  - stale2002 5y ago
    Consumers can still have that advantage. Everyone would be happy if Apple provided a simple on/off button that allows sideloading. If a user wants to have software restricted, then they can be given that choice, and everyone else can also choose differently.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "In this case Apple's advantage, the actual reason consumers prefer Apple's devices" Some people get off when they are getting publically flogged, can't cater to everyone's kinks!
piaste 5y ago
> At what point exactly did it lose the rights it was entitled to then? At some point between becoming a publicly-traded company and becoming the sole gatekeeper of a significant chunk of the world's personal data and apps. To provide a precise specification of which exact antitrust regulations should take effect at which threshold of growth is, I hope you will concede, a tiny bit beyond the scope of a HN comment. > If 3 dudes in a basement are entitled to sell goods/services on their own terms, then Apple should be as well. I see no reason why that should be the case a priori. "Apple" does not refer to the free actions of a few individuals, but to a particolar kind of profit-seeking contract called a "public company".The capabilities of such contracts can and do get restricted all the time, often with good reason. > Apple is still a private company, not a public service, and the case I'm making is explicitly against socializing its services simply because it is big Whereas the case I am making, conversely, can be summed up as: once a company becomes so big and/or powerful that it can prevent competition from arising outright, it should be either broken up or socialized, preferably the former.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Apple cannot prevent competition from arising outright, just as RIM could not, just as Microsoft could not. That's my whole point. Antitrust itself is a violation of fundamental liberty. There doesn't need to be an authority that tells free people how to interact peacefully. This authority diminishes the liberty of the people subjected to it, regardless of whether it came to power democratically or otherwise. Do you really think that failing some public intervention Apple will be around in a century, undiminished? If it is, wouldn't that mean it is continuing to provide valuable goods and services people want? "Apple" does indeed refer to the actions of a group of individuals, simply because there are no other agents in the system. It's individuals making decisions all the way down. "Publicly traded" doesn't mean "public service".
  - piaste 5y ago
    > Apple cannot prevent competition from arising outright, just as RIM could not, just as Microsoft could not. On the contrary, it is actively doing so. It does so in the same way that Facebook prevented Instagram from becoming a competitor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... The tech giants have such warchests that they can afford to simply buy out any competitor that has a chance to compete with them. And unlike Cronus, they're unlikely to be deceived into swallowing an omphalos. > Do you really think that failing some public intervention Apple will be around in a century, undiminished? If it is, wouldn't that mean it is continuing to provide valuable goods and services people want? Is that belief of yours even falsifiable? Is there any observation that would make you conclude that a given company, despite being profitable in a free market, is nevertheless representing a net negative for the world? Or is it an article of faith for you that an unconstrained free market always leads to an eventually optimal equilibrium?
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
They lost those rights when they became the dominant player in the marketplace and started using that dominant position to unfairly limit competition.
lmm 5y ago
> the case I'm making is explicitly against socializing its services simply because it is big So what is that case? If we gradually socialize organisations that get too big (based on judgements that will ultimately be somewhat vague, sure), what's the actual downside? The 3 dudes in a basement will still have the promise of literally more money than they can consume in their lifetimes. Maybe the amount of VC money sloshing around the system would drop a bit from current levels, but that might be no bad thing.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> If 3 dudes in a basement are entitled to sell goods/services on their own terms, then Apple should be as well. Where did you get this idea? Lets continue this line of thought: If 3 dudes are entitled to piss in the ocean then Apple is entitled to route the human waste from their corporate HQ directly to the ocean without any treatment facilities If 3 dudes are entitled to have racists discussions in the privacy of their home, then Apple should be fine to do the same in their HR policy in their HQ If 3 dudes are entitled to hunt 1 deer, then Apple should be as well entitled to hunt 1 million deer. If 3 dudes can build a shack without having to deal with fire inspections, then Apple should be able to build an office or a million shacks without fire inspections.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  If 3 dudes are entitled to piss in the ocean, then yes all of Apple staff can march to the shoreline and do the same. > If 3 dudes are entitled to have racists discussions in the privacy of their home, then Apple should be fine to do the same in their HR policy in their HQ Yes actually, I think people should be able to discriminate based on whatever criteria they see fit. Why is discriminating based on height/attractiveness OK but race not OK? > If 3 dudes are entitled to hunt 1 deer, then Apple should be as well entitled to hunt 1 million deer. I'm not aware of any restriction on Apple employees applying for deer permits. > If 3 dudes can build a shack without having to deal with fire inspections, then Apple should be able to build an office or a million shacks without fire inspections. I think zoning restrictions apply to locations, not people.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    > Yes actually, I think people should be able to discriminate based on whatever criteria they see fit. Now that I am clear we are discussing your personal fantasy, not the real world or moral consensus, this thread makes more sence. "I'm not aware of any restriction on Apple employees applying for deer permits." Are you unable or unwilling to distinguish between employees individually hunting in their free time and Apple the corporation getting a permit to kill 1 million deer and handing their employees rifles? You seem very keen on blurring the line between corporate and private life. Should we also extend this logix to sexual relationships and reproductive rights, see what kind of distopian nightmare we will arrive at?