4 ms·
Lots of things bother me, that doesn't necessarily mean I think they should be illegal. Laws affect society as a whole, that means they should be made carefully
by nknight 15y ago
Lots of things bother me, that doesn't necessarily mean I think they should be illegal. Laws affect society as a whole, that means they should be made carefully and with restraint, and applied in the same way, because there's a lot of variation within society as to what is viewed as right or wrong.
I don't like that iOS is as closed as it is, but I do have other choices. Apple is not a monopoly, they don't control the market, they didn't make it more closed, or less consumer-friendly. On the contrary, they're directly responsible for the smartphone market's rapid advance, and a renewed focus on the needs and wants of end-users.
In other words, your call for an antitrust case against Apple, besides being a serious perversion of antitrust law, is proposing to harm Apple for the good they've done for consumers. What kind of sense does that make?
Certain markets have long been dominated by a handful of large companies. That's always been the case with telecommunications and consumer electronics, and to some extent, it will probably always be the case.
On the other hand, technological advancements, some of which came out of these very companies you're vilifying, have made it more practical for smaller players to enter markets that have had prohibitive costs of entry. It is increasing competition -- the very goal of antitrust law.
Everybody sees the danger of a few large companies controlling a market, that's why the FCC and Department of Justice have been, shall we say, less than receptive to the idea of an AT&T/T-Mobile merger. That doesn't automatically mean that those companies should be torn to shreds because some of us don't like their business model.
- old-gregg 15y agoYou are arguing against the points I did not make: I am not "vilifying" these companies, and I am not proposing they to "be torn to shreds". Paramount Pictures with other movie studios aren't evil either. Users should be able to freely exchange software/information (which they paid for) between their devices (which they paid for). This is all about consumer protection, not about how evil/awesome/innovative these companies are. Nobody is going to be "torn to shreds" if the practice of companies locking and controlling access to devices that don't belong to them becomes illegal. Look, Apple selling you the phone which only runs software they approve is no different from, say, Toshiba selling you a TV which only shows FOX News, but refuses to show you the video which you bought here: https://buy.louisck.net https://buy.louisck.net
- nknight 15y agoI disagree with none of your principles except the one that apparently says legal intervention is necessary. The walled gardens are not a secret, people are making the decision to buy these devices knowing they won't be able to do certain things. They do have other reasonable options. This isn't fraud, and it's not a hidden problem hard for people to grasp. There's no apparent collusion to block new competitors. If the masses conclude it is intolerable, the companies will stop making money and that's the end of it. If not, it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. If you're upset about it, well, this is a site targeted at people into startups...
- exit 15y agowhereas i don't trust the masses to arrive at coherent conclusions, much less effectively collude in their own interest. > If the masses conclude it is intolerable, the companies will stop making money and that's the end of it. so companies choose between not making money immediately, or waiting for "the masses" to get an act together and vote with their wallets? ha.
- joebadmo 15y agoDisagreement downvotes... such a shame. I disagree with you, but find your position to be valid and reasonable.