3 ms·

You 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

You 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 ago
I 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 ago
  whereas 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 ago
  Disagreement downvotes... such a shame. I disagree with you, but find your position to be valid and reasonable.

nknight 15y ago

I 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 ago
whereas 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 ago
Disagreement downvotes... such a shame. I disagree with you, but find your position to be valid and reasonable.