5 ms·

That's what you and I would do if we controlled our own wildly popular platform. This is not communism. Corporations want to make money and control their own d

That's what you and I would do if we controlled our own wildly popular platform. This is not communism. Corporations want to make money and control their own destiny. Why should Apple, a private corporation be fully open? Seriously. I want diversity as well. But will that happen? Will Apple, Microsoft or Google allow just about anything on their platforms?? Heck no. Ain't gonna happen. Our countries are run by companies which are run by humans with a profit motive.

the_gipsy 4y ago
The issue here is systematically working against their own users interests.
- eric4smith 4y ago
  When has that ever stopped a corporation from making a profit? If that were so, Coke would stop selling their wildly popular drink.
  - the_gipsy 4y ago
    Yes, it happens all the time and profit is of course the goal of a corporation. But we are allowed to call them out when they throw their paying users under the bus, under some disguise or excuse.
- Someone 4y ago
  Firstly, companies are allowed to make stupid decisions. Secondly, they can’t be doing everything wrong, given that do they still sell zillions of devices every year. I think they aren’t working against the interests of their users at large. There are people who don’t like some of their restrictions, and some of them may even have an iPhone, but I think that’s a fairly small vocal minority of their users.
bmitc 4y ago
Wasn't Microsoft hammered with antitrust violations over a situation much less mundane than what Apple is doing?
- eric4smith 4y ago
  Yes, but did it change them?
- ngc248 4y ago
  Exactly ... poor microsoft ... their name is still in the mud coz of that, while chrome is in the place IE was and Apple with its appstore ecosystem are doing worse than what MS did. Windows was more open compared to these phone OSs
- threeseed 4y ago
  No. And it's a shame that so much ignorance has crept into it. Microsoft aggressively bullied OEMs like Compaq into not pre-installing Netscape on their computers. They made co-advertising deals worth tens of millions and access to internal programs contingent on it. Bill Gates back then was pretty ruthless when it came to competition.
  - Drakim 4y ago
    I'm confused, if Apple opened up to other browsers and software, but then started bullying AT&T to not pre-install chrome or firefox, then they would be in trouble? But locking the possibility out on hardware is acceptable? Isn't it a much more tyrannical action to have complete control over what software users can install, as opposed to simply using bullying and incentives to argue about what software may and may not be per-installed? At least on windows I could opt to install Netscape myself even if it wasn't pre-installed, isn't that the much lesser evil?
  - bmitc 4y ago
    How exactly is that lesser than Apple not even allowing app vendors to install their actual browsers, instead forcing them to use a subset of an API that Apple itself fully uses? Or what Apple has done repeatedly to Spotify and others? Apple forces Spotify to add a premium to their app price or take a hit in price compared to Apple's direct offering, while explicitly disallowing Spotify to even communicate to customers that a Spotify subscription, which has zero relationship to Apple, can be bought elsewhere? This allows Apple to gobble up millions and probably billions of app store purchases that do not require the app store aside from Apple's bullying of "abide or get off the platform" approach. Beyond their walled garden that prevents even the opportunity of bullying in many cases, Apple is absolutely one of if not the biggest bully in the entire tech industry.
mtomweb 4y ago
Regulation.
- eric4smith 4y ago
  Riggghhhtttt.
nicoburns 4y ago
> Corporations want to make money and control their own destiny. > Our countries are run by companies which are run by humans with a profit motive. Why should we let corporations get what they want? Our countries are run by companies only to the extent that our democratic governments let them run them. We have the power to overrule companies when it suits us, and IMO we ought to be using that power a fair bit more than we currently are. If companies knew that the regulators would come down hard on them when they take the piss like this then it wouldn't be in their profit-motivated self-interest to behave like this. > That's what you and I would do if we controlled our own wildly popular platform. And FWIW, no it's absolutely not what I would do. I actually have some ethics beyond profit-maximisation thank you very much! Whether such an ethical company would become so powerful in the first place (rather than getting it's lunch eaten by a less ethical one) is an interesting question though, and one of the main reason I think restricting these companies is so important: other better companies can't otherwise compete.
lapcat 4y ago
> This is not communism. Corporations want to make money and control their own destiny. > Why should Apple, a private corporation be fully open? Seriously. I want diversity as well. But will that happen? Will Apple, Microsoft or Google allow just about anything on their platforms?? This is a strange comment. The history of personal computing from 1977 - 2007 was mostly open platforms. Apple II was open. Macintosh was open and continues to be (mostly) open. Microsoft Windows has been and continues to be open. iPhone is the historical outlier.

the_gipsy 4y ago

The issue here is systematically working against their own users interests.

eric4smith 4y ago
When has that ever stopped a corporation from making a profit? If that were so, Coke would stop selling their wildly popular drink.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  Yes, it happens all the time and profit is of course the goal of a corporation. But we are allowed to call them out when they throw their paying users under the bus, under some disguise or excuse.
Someone 4y ago
Firstly, companies are allowed to make stupid decisions. Secondly, they can’t be doing everything wrong, given that do they still sell zillions of devices every year. I think they aren’t working against the interests of their users at large. There are people who don’t like some of their restrictions, and some of them may even have an iPhone, but I think that’s a fairly small vocal minority of their users.

bmitc 4y ago

Wasn't Microsoft hammered with antitrust violations over a situation much less mundane than what Apple is doing?

eric4smith 4y ago
Yes, but did it change them?
ngc248 4y ago
Exactly ... poor microsoft ... their name is still in the mud coz of that, while chrome is in the place IE was and Apple with its appstore ecosystem are doing worse than what MS did. Windows was more open compared to these phone OSs
threeseed 4y ago
No. And it's a shame that so much ignorance has crept into it. Microsoft aggressively bullied OEMs like Compaq into not pre-installing Netscape on their computers. They made co-advertising deals worth tens of millions and access to internal programs contingent on it. Bill Gates back then was pretty ruthless when it came to competition.
- Drakim 4y ago
  I'm confused, if Apple opened up to other browsers and software, but then started bullying AT&T to not pre-install chrome or firefox, then they would be in trouble? But locking the possibility out on hardware is acceptable? Isn't it a much more tyrannical action to have complete control over what software users can install, as opposed to simply using bullying and incentives to argue about what software may and may not be per-installed? At least on windows I could opt to install Netscape myself even if it wasn't pre-installed, isn't that the much lesser evil?
- bmitc 4y ago
  How exactly is that lesser than Apple not even allowing app vendors to install their actual browsers, instead forcing them to use a subset of an API that Apple itself fully uses? Or what Apple has done repeatedly to Spotify and others? Apple forces Spotify to add a premium to their app price or take a hit in price compared to Apple's direct offering, while explicitly disallowing Spotify to even communicate to customers that a Spotify subscription, which has zero relationship to Apple, can be bought elsewhere? This allows Apple to gobble up millions and probably billions of app store purchases that do not require the app store aside from Apple's bullying of "abide or get off the platform" approach. Beyond their walled garden that prevents even the opportunity of bullying in many cases, Apple is absolutely one of if not the biggest bully in the entire tech industry.

mtomweb 4y ago

Regulation.

eric4smith 4y ago
Riggghhhtttt.

nicoburns 4y ago

> Corporations want to make money and control their own destiny. > Our countries are run by companies which are run by humans with a profit motive. Why should we let corporations get what they want? Our countries are run by companies only to the extent that our democratic governments let them run them. We have the power to overrule companies when it suits us, and IMO we ought to be using that power a fair bit more than we currently are. If companies knew that the regulators would come down hard on them when they take the piss like this then it wouldn't be in their profit-motivated self-interest to behave like this. > That's what you and I would do if we controlled our own wildly popular platform. And FWIW, no it's absolutely not what I would do. I actually have some ethics beyond profit-maximisation thank you very much! Whether such an ethical company would become so powerful in the first place (rather than getting it's lunch eaten by a less ethical one) is an interesting question though, and one of the main reason I think restricting these companies is so important: other better companies can't otherwise compete.

lapcat 4y ago

> This is not communism. Corporations want to make money and control their own destiny. > Why should Apple, a private corporation be fully open? Seriously. I want diversity as well. But will that happen? Will Apple, Microsoft or Google allow just about anything on their platforms?? This is a strange comment. The history of personal computing from 1977 - 2007 was mostly open platforms. Apple II was open. Macintosh was open and continues to be (mostly) open. Microsoft Windows has been and continues to be open. iPhone is the historical outlier.