4 ms·

> both of these companies deserve to be heavily regulated They do, no question, but the overwhelming sentiment is much more single faceted. There's a lot of su

> both of these companies deserve to be heavily regulated They do, no question, but the overwhelming sentiment is much more single faceted. There's a lot of support for breaking Apple's iron grip on software distribution on iOS for example, but practically none for breaking Google's iron grip on the web, even though the latter is arguably far more dangerous since it's corporate appropriation of critical public infrastructure under a guise of openness. By all means, force Apple to open things up, but in the same stroke ensure that there's no uneven enforcement that could allow other corporate giants to expand their monopolies where they previously couldn't.

smoldesu 4y ago
> By all means, force Apple to open things up, but in the same stroke ensure that there's no uneven enforcement that could allow other corporate giants to expand their monopolies where they previously couldn't. Well-met, I agree wholeheartedly. Mirosoft, Google and Amazon all deserve to abide by the same rule-of-law. > There's a lot of support for breaking Apple's iron grip on software distribution on iOS for example, but practically none for breaking Google's iron grip on the web Well... yeah. If I want to publish a website today, I can buy a VPS and a domain name and have it broadcasting my personal believes by the end of the day. Pretty much everything on the web is working as it should, besides it's monetization model. Google's "iron grip" on the web mostly boils down to Chrome, which isn't terribly broken. Without a good App Store to deliver software, browsers had to adopt technology quickly to compete. That's what birthed things like web notifications and WebRTC, both of which are arguably quite good for the development of the web. Hell, Steve Jobs himself[0] said that he wanted the future of applications to be on the web: Apple was the one who chose to neglect Safari's featureset, which ultimately led to Chrome being superior. Apple definitely has the money to compete, but they choose to drag their feet through the mud because webapp parity with native applications would bleed their App Store profits dry. > ...even though the latter is arguably far more dangerous since it's corporate appropriation of critical public infrastructure under a guise of openness. Speak for yourself: the market says that Apple's approach is much more lucrative. Google profits ~60 billion dollars a year from all advertising (not just Chrome-enabled ads, but also mobile/YouTube ads as well). Compare that to the ~85 billion in annual revenue Apple gets from just the App Store (again, not iCloud or Apple One, just their 30% cut), and it would seem that Apple's approach is certainly the more profitable one. It definitely explains why people are more interested in breaking Apple's monopoly than Google's: Apple's simply makes more money. Plus, who's to say which is more dangerous? Apple appropriates plenty of critical public infrastructure under a guise of benevolence (the App Store, iCloud, Apple Wallet), while many of their products continue to print money and undermine human liberties in oppressive countries like China and Saudi Arabia, where they comply with the outrageous demands of local governments simply because it's profitable to operate there. I don't think anyone can say for sure which is more harmful, unless they somehow started and directed both initiatives. Ultimately, I agree with you. We need harsh regulation, and it needs to apply to all of big tech evenly. However, people's arguments against Apple aren't ill-founded or unevenly distributed: they simply neglect their software platforms unlike any other developer today. Apple has more resources than any of their other peers, yet they choose to deliberately nerf their own software to drive sales. It's unique, it's endlessly frustrating for developers, and it's 100% a deliberate choice. If this is the pattern of behavior future companies follow, then capitalism will have failed. Societal progress shouldn't be withheld to progress the interests of a private corporation/board of shareholders. [0] https://youtu.be/p1nwLilQy64?t=1 https://youtu.be/p1nwLilQy64?t=1
- wyre 4y ago
  >Google's "iron grip" on the web mostly boils down to Chrome No? Google's grip on the web comes from their near-monopoly levels between search, email, docs, maps, advertising, Android, classroom, and everything in between. Chrome is the icing on the cake that strengthens their entire ecosystem. Google was an internet superpower before they released Chrome in 2008. >the market says that Apple's approach is much more lucrative. You're absolutely right, Apple makes more money than Google, but I find Google to be more dangerous than Apple. Revenue =/= Danger. At the end of the day Apple is a hardware company competing with other HW companies so they are beholden to their branding as the most luxury/conscientious/privacy/hardware/etc-focused company and create lock-in through synergy between their products. Compared to Google I don't think your examples of Apple appropriating public infrastructure is accurate. Google offers all of those services, in addition to others that are relied upon much more. Search is used by 92.5% of users [1] and that gives them power to do nearly whatever they want with how people consume and find information. Combined with their data collection abilities and AI I'm surprised there hasn't been any scandals or leaks around data manipulation. Amazon and Google's potential for misuse or power terrify me in ways that Apple doesn't even come close. [1]https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > Google was an internet superpower before they released Chrome in 2008. Okay, so how exactly do they pose a threat to the internet and how do you propose we regulate it? Google is certainly no saint, but their liability to protect the privacy of their millions of users' data is exactly the same as Apple. Hell, same goes to Amazon: if you asked most people if they preferred to have their Amazon info leaked or their iCloud leaked, and I think most people would jump at the chance to get their shopping info and Twitch history doxxed. Apple owns all of the data these companies collect and then some. > At the end of the day Apple is a hardware company [...] so they are beholden to their branding as the most luxury/conscientious/privacy/hardware/etc-focused company and create lock-in through synergy between their products. Right, but as a hardware company offering software services, they are also beholden to making them play nice with others. That means accepting common, secure chat standards when people make them, adopting the open-source graphics API that you contributed to, and not using proprietary connectors on their phones that are used on literally no other device on the planet. You know, common sense stuff. Regulation can help fix these things, and give the consumer what they deserve with zero potential to meaningfully harm Apple in the long-run. > Search is used by 92.5% of users [1] and that gives them power to do nearly whatever they want with how people consume and find information. Apparently Apple doesn't see anything wrong with that, since they're happy to leave Google as the default search on Spotlight, so long as Google writes them a fat paycheck in exchange for violating user privacy. It's the under-the-table deals like this that are prime examples for why all of these companies deserve strict regulation on data management. Furthermore, I think you're missing the scale of the figures I posted: Google is an ad company, and their entire advertising revenue is overshadowed by one of Apple's side-hustles (not Airpods, not iPhone, not Mac, not SaaS subscriptions). That's a sign that something is terribly wrong here, and I don't think you can make a reasonable argument otherwise. > Combined with their data collection abilities and AI I'm surprised there hasn't been any scandals or leaks around data manipulation. Again, which is worse than Apple how? Apple also can collect all of the data off your phone, encrypt it, then send it back to their servers. They regularly do, even with analytics turned off. On top of that, they can get all this data off your Mac, too, which also regularly phones home as soon as you connect it to a personally identifying iCloud account. Apple publicly admit that they cut out the middleman and just directly process data for the CCP now. iCloud servers operate on Chinese-owned servers operated in government-owned datacenters. Who's to say they don't do the same thing in the US, with more smoke and mirrors?

smoldesu 4y ago

> By all means, force Apple to open things up, but in the same stroke ensure that there's no uneven enforcement that could allow other corporate giants to expand their monopolies where they previously couldn't. Well-met, I agree wholeheartedly. Mirosoft, Google and Amazon all deserve to abide by the same rule-of-law. > There's a lot of support for breaking Apple's iron grip on software distribution on iOS for example, but practically none for breaking Google's iron grip on the web Well... yeah. If I want to publish a website today, I can buy a VPS and a domain name and have it broadcasting my personal believes by the end of the day. Pretty much everything on the web is working as it should, besides it's monetization model. Google's "iron grip" on the web mostly boils down to Chrome, which isn't terribly broken. Without a good App Store to deliver software, browsers had to adopt technology quickly to compete. That's what birthed things like web notifications and WebRTC, both of which are arguably quite good for the development of the web. Hell, Steve Jobs himself[0] said that he wanted the future of applications to be on the web: Apple was the one who chose to neglect Safari's featureset, which ultimately led to Chrome being superior. Apple definitely has the money to compete, but they choose to drag their feet through the mud because webapp parity with native applications would bleed their App Store profits dry. > ...even though the latter is arguably far more dangerous since it's corporate appropriation of critical public infrastructure under a guise of openness. Speak for yourself: the market says that Apple's approach is much more lucrative. Google profits ~60 billion dollars a year from all advertising (not just Chrome-enabled ads, but also mobile/YouTube ads as well). Compare that to the ~85 billion in annual revenue Apple gets from just the App Store (again, not iCloud or Apple One, just their 30% cut), and it would seem that Apple's approach is certainly the more profitable one. It definitely explains why people are more interested in breaking Apple's monopoly than Google's: Apple's simply makes more money. Plus, who's to say which is more dangerous? Apple appropriates plenty of critical public infrastructure under a guise of benevolence (the App Store, iCloud, Apple Wallet), while many of their products continue to print money and undermine human liberties in oppressive countries like China and Saudi Arabia, where they comply with the outrageous demands of local governments simply because it's profitable to operate there. I don't think anyone can say for sure which is more harmful, unless they somehow started and directed both initiatives. Ultimately, I agree with you. We need harsh regulation, and it needs to apply to all of big tech evenly. However, people's arguments against Apple aren't ill-founded or unevenly distributed: they simply neglect their software platforms unlike any other developer today. Apple has more resources than any of their other peers, yet they choose to deliberately nerf their own software to drive sales. It's unique, it's endlessly frustrating for developers, and it's 100% a deliberate choice. If this is the pattern of behavior future companies follow, then capitalism will have failed. Societal progress shouldn't be withheld to progress the interests of a private corporation/board of shareholders. [0] https://youtu.be/p1nwLilQy64?t=1 https://youtu.be/p1nwLilQy64?t=1

wyre 4y ago
>Google's "iron grip" on the web mostly boils down to Chrome No? Google's grip on the web comes from their near-monopoly levels between search, email, docs, maps, advertising, Android, classroom, and everything in between. Chrome is the icing on the cake that strengthens their entire ecosystem. Google was an internet superpower before they released Chrome in 2008. >the market says that Apple's approach is much more lucrative. You're absolutely right, Apple makes more money than Google, but I find Google to be more dangerous than Apple. Revenue =/= Danger. At the end of the day Apple is a hardware company competing with other HW companies so they are beholden to their branding as the most luxury/conscientious/privacy/hardware/etc-focused company and create lock-in through synergy between their products. Compared to Google I don't think your examples of Apple appropriating public infrastructure is accurate. Google offers all of those services, in addition to others that are relied upon much more. Search is used by 92.5% of users [1] and that gives them power to do nearly whatever they want with how people consume and find information. Combined with their data collection abilities and AI I'm surprised there hasn't been any scandals or leaks around data manipulation. Amazon and Google's potential for misuse or power terrify me in ways that Apple doesn't even come close. [1]https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > Google was an internet superpower before they released Chrome in 2008. Okay, so how exactly do they pose a threat to the internet and how do you propose we regulate it? Google is certainly no saint, but their liability to protect the privacy of their millions of users' data is exactly the same as Apple. Hell, same goes to Amazon: if you asked most people if they preferred to have their Amazon info leaked or their iCloud leaked, and I think most people would jump at the chance to get their shopping info and Twitch history doxxed. Apple owns all of the data these companies collect and then some. > At the end of the day Apple is a hardware company [...] so they are beholden to their branding as the most luxury/conscientious/privacy/hardware/etc-focused company and create lock-in through synergy between their products. Right, but as a hardware company offering software services, they are also beholden to making them play nice with others. That means accepting common, secure chat standards when people make them, adopting the open-source graphics API that you contributed to, and not using proprietary connectors on their phones that are used on literally no other device on the planet. You know, common sense stuff. Regulation can help fix these things, and give the consumer what they deserve with zero potential to meaningfully harm Apple in the long-run. > Search is used by 92.5% of users [1] and that gives them power to do nearly whatever they want with how people consume and find information. Apparently Apple doesn't see anything wrong with that, since they're happy to leave Google as the default search on Spotlight, so long as Google writes them a fat paycheck in exchange for violating user privacy. It's the under-the-table deals like this that are prime examples for why all of these companies deserve strict regulation on data management. Furthermore, I think you're missing the scale of the figures I posted: Google is an ad company, and their entire advertising revenue is overshadowed by one of Apple's side-hustles (not Airpods, not iPhone, not Mac, not SaaS subscriptions). That's a sign that something is terribly wrong here, and I don't think you can make a reasonable argument otherwise. > Combined with their data collection abilities and AI I'm surprised there hasn't been any scandals or leaks around data manipulation. Again, which is worse than Apple how? Apple also can collect all of the data off your phone, encrypt it, then send it back to their servers. They regularly do, even with analytics turned off. On top of that, they can get all this data off your Mac, too, which also regularly phones home as soon as you connect it to a personally identifying iCloud account. Apple publicly admit that they cut out the middleman and just directly process data for the CCP now. iCloud servers operate on Chinese-owned servers operated in government-owned datacenters. Who's to say they don't do the same thing in the US, with more smoke and mirrors?