5 ms·

The merits of your arguments aside, Apple is not obliged to sell you a device that satisfies your personal requirements. Apple most definitely sells you a serv

The merits of your arguments aside, Apple is not obliged to sell you a device that satisfies your personal requirements. Apple most definitely sells you a service, which is a managed computing platform. Alternatives exist. (And if they don’t, that’s not Apple’s problem.)

amelius 4y ago
It's a different discussion but I don't buy the "alternatives exists" argument. There are huge network effects. Some governments even make apps only for the duopoly. Banks also. Yes, sometimes you can use websites instead of apps, but it is not the same thing. Alternatives exist only in theory. Companies should not have absolute freedom if this means that the freedom of the consumer is restricted in any way. "Alternatives exists" sounds a lot like this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo The world isn't as simple as: there are companies and they can sell whatever they like, and there are consumers and they can buy whatever they like, because that would end very badly for the consumers.
- simondotau 4y ago
  > "Alternatives exists" sounds a lot like this fallacy The fact that an argument is superficially similar to an informal fallacy doesn't make the argument inherently fallacious. You can easily construct a variation of the same conversation which is structurally identical but is obviously not fallacious— Critic: "I want a banana, but I don't like the texture." Respondent: "If you don't like them, don't eat them." What the respondent said is only a fallacy if the purpose was to counter the criticism. But the criticism wasn't rejected. What was rejected was the unstated but implied assertion that the critic was entitled to a banana which satisfies them. Now let's turn that into an "alternatives exist" argument and replay— Critic: "I demand a banana that I do like." Respondent: "I understand your desire for a banana which suits you. However nobody is obligated to supply you with such a banana. Thankfully, alternatives do exist, such as the nectarine." That's not a fallacy. And it's not a fallacy to say that Apple is not obligated to make an iPhone which satisfies you. Especially because it's a statement of fact. If you don't like that you can't buy an Apple branded dumbphone, and you have failed to convince Apple to make it for you, perhaps try lobbying your government? They could pass a law which requires smartphone makers to also sell dumbphones.
  - happymellon 4y ago
    I would like to access my bank, or my investment account, pay my tax. However in many cases I can only do that via an app, and apps are only available on iOS or Android. Your argument a based upon me being able to buy something from an alternative manufacturer, yet here we are. And I have to purchase Apple or Android to be able to function in society. If Apple isn't going to follow open standards yet be the largest phone manufacturer then we are going to have to regulate them. You don't have to be the only company to be a monopoly.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      Did you reply to the right thread? If you did, what has any of that got to do with anything I wrote? How does your complaint relate to what I’m talking about? Which open standard, specifically relevant to your ability to access your bank account and do your taxes, is Apple not following? And how is that relevant to concerns over privacy? (Seriously, I’d like to engage with your argument but it seems like you’re confusing a discussion about the choice to buy a zero-tracking device with a unspecific complaint about standards.)
- endisneigh 4y ago
  What do you mean in theory? You can buy a Pinephone today. If your government isn’t making web sites it seems like you should take that up with them.
  - amelius 4y ago
    What you are proposing is entirely unrealistic. That's what I mean by "in theory".
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Why is it unrealistic? There are people who function fine without a phone at all.
- simonh 4y ago
  I agree there should be basic standards of service, disclosure, quality and safety that products should have to meet in order to be marketable. Basically, purchasers should be able to have confidence in the products they purchase, so the question is what are the appropriate minimum standards. Personally analytics don't bother me, I don't think they're a significant privacy issue. The service provider already knows almost everything you do with the service anyway, just as a requirement to provide the service. I don't believe that invasive regulation on the detailed behaviour and functions of a phone by governments is genuinely in the interests of users. I suspect that the detrimental effects would far outweigh the benefits, which would only be useful to a tiny fraction of users anyway.
  - amelius 4y ago
    > Basically, purchasers should be able to have confidence in the products they purchase, so the question is what are the appropriate minimum standards. But what confidence do you have if the product you bought is tethered to the original vendor? What if they decide to do something that makes you unable to use the product?
    - simonh 4y ago
      I don't have a problem with the original vendor. If the vast majority of users don't have a problem with a relationship like this, and think it's acceptable, then I don't see a strong argument for making it illegal. As for making the product unusable, they can do that anyway through OTA updates, which are applied at the user's discretion. If you think that's a problem then you should regulate that, not some other technical issues that may or may not be related.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    > The service provider already knows almost everything you do with the service anyway Knowing is not the issue. The issue is they use that understanding to their advantage, not yours. Their duty is to maximize shareholder value, not your health, happiness, and well being. I'm not saying don't use them. I am saying it's naive to trust so blindly.

amelius 4y ago

It's a different discussion but I don't buy the "alternatives exists" argument. There are huge network effects. Some governments even make apps only for the duopoly. Banks also. Yes, sometimes you can use websites instead of apps, but it is not the same thing. Alternatives exist only in theory. Companies should not have absolute freedom if this means that the freedom of the consumer is restricted in any way. "Alternatives exists" sounds a lot like this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo The world isn't as simple as: there are companies and they can sell whatever they like, and there are consumers and they can buy whatever they like, because that would end very badly for the consumers.

simondotau 4y ago
> "Alternatives exists" sounds a lot like this fallacy The fact that an argument is superficially similar to an informal fallacy doesn't make the argument inherently fallacious. You can easily construct a variation of the same conversation which is structurally identical but is obviously not fallacious— Critic: "I want a banana, but I don't like the texture." Respondent: "If you don't like them, don't eat them." What the respondent said is only a fallacy if the purpose was to counter the criticism. But the criticism wasn't rejected. What was rejected was the unstated but implied assertion that the critic was entitled to a banana which satisfies them. Now let's turn that into an "alternatives exist" argument and replay— Critic: "I demand a banana that I do like." Respondent: "I understand your desire for a banana which suits you. However nobody is obligated to supply you with such a banana. Thankfully, alternatives do exist, such as the nectarine." That's not a fallacy. And it's not a fallacy to say that Apple is not obligated to make an iPhone which satisfies you. Especially because it's a statement of fact. If you don't like that you can't buy an Apple branded dumbphone, and you have failed to convince Apple to make it for you, perhaps try lobbying your government? They could pass a law which requires smartphone makers to also sell dumbphones.
- happymellon 4y ago
  I would like to access my bank, or my investment account, pay my tax. However in many cases I can only do that via an app, and apps are only available on iOS or Android. Your argument a based upon me being able to buy something from an alternative manufacturer, yet here we are. And I have to purchase Apple or Android to be able to function in society. If Apple isn't going to follow open standards yet be the largest phone manufacturer then we are going to have to regulate them. You don't have to be the only company to be a monopoly.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    Did you reply to the right thread? If you did, what has any of that got to do with anything I wrote? How does your complaint relate to what I’m talking about? Which open standard, specifically relevant to your ability to access your bank account and do your taxes, is Apple not following? And how is that relevant to concerns over privacy? (Seriously, I’d like to engage with your argument but it seems like you’re confusing a discussion about the choice to buy a zero-tracking device with a unspecific complaint about standards.)
endisneigh 4y ago
What do you mean in theory? You can buy a Pinephone today. If your government isn’t making web sites it seems like you should take that up with them.
- amelius 4y ago
  What you are proposing is entirely unrealistic. That's what I mean by "in theory".
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Why is it unrealistic? There are people who function fine without a phone at all.
simonh 4y ago
I agree there should be basic standards of service, disclosure, quality and safety that products should have to meet in order to be marketable. Basically, purchasers should be able to have confidence in the products they purchase, so the question is what are the appropriate minimum standards. Personally analytics don't bother me, I don't think they're a significant privacy issue. The service provider already knows almost everything you do with the service anyway, just as a requirement to provide the service. I don't believe that invasive regulation on the detailed behaviour and functions of a phone by governments is genuinely in the interests of users. I suspect that the detrimental effects would far outweigh the benefits, which would only be useful to a tiny fraction of users anyway.
- amelius 4y ago
  > Basically, purchasers should be able to have confidence in the products they purchase, so the question is what are the appropriate minimum standards. But what confidence do you have if the product you bought is tethered to the original vendor? What if they decide to do something that makes you unable to use the product?
  - simonh 4y ago
    I don't have a problem with the original vendor. If the vast majority of users don't have a problem with a relationship like this, and think it's acceptable, then I don't see a strong argument for making it illegal. As for making the product unusable, they can do that anyway through OTA updates, which are applied at the user's discretion. If you think that's a problem then you should regulate that, not some other technical issues that may or may not be related.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  > The service provider already knows almost everything you do with the service anyway Knowing is not the issue. The issue is they use that understanding to their advantage, not yours. Their duty is to maximize shareholder value, not your health, happiness, and well being. I'm not saying don't use them. I am saying it's naive to trust so blindly.