5 ms·

>No one is stopping you from buying a Linux based phone? What is this supposed to be an argument for? Do you think this is an own? Is this statement made in go

by ouid 4y ago

>No one is stopping you from buying a Linux based phone? What is this supposed to be an argument for? Do you think this is an own? Is this statement made in good faith? Did you really let your 10th grade economics teacher tell you what a "monopoly" was and then never question either the usefulness or the validity of the definition?

threeseed 4y ago
You can't argue for a particular feature then when someone offers you a device that has that feature argue that they are acting in bad faith.
chung8123 4y ago
There is a difference between an monopoly and a moat. I think the previous statement is saying that if you want to own your phone you can choose a different path and apple probably isn't the phone you should choose.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  Yes, quite simple isn't it?
darkwizard42 4y ago
What the parent is likely trying to point out is that Apple has no obligation to give you the feature the way you want it (in fact, Apple seems to view not providing flexibility as the feature). If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone (which there are many) is available.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > that Apple has no obligation to give you > If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone Actually, instead of that, citizens of a nation are free to vote for anti-trust, and pro competition laws that force Apple, under threat of government force, to stop engaging in certain actions. We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust laws to new era. It's been a century. It is about time that our existing and uncontroversial anti monopoly laws got updated. Some laws have already been past, in the EU, for example, that do this. In the EU, because of the digital markets act, people will be able to bypass the Apple app store in less than a year.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    Cool, so break one of the only stable, reliable, useful and mostly secure devices people have in their life by "forcing" a company to do things against their will? Why not just throw our the US government and install the CCP too? We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust laws to new era. There are very few places in the world with good trains, unless you're referring to one of them, your argument is pretty weak. Especially if you're in the USA. The trains suck and I hope my devices don't go the same way. ...This again is coming from someone who works with and on open source software, is an avid long term Linux user and owns many "open" hardware devices...
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > so break one of the only stable, reliable, useful No, people would be free to use the Apple App store if they want. Apple simply wouldn't be able force the world to pay them 30% of everything anymore. Theyd have to compete on their merits, and people would now have full ownership of their own phone. > The trains suck and I hope my devices don't go the same way. So, what, you just support the railway monopoly and oppose the Sherman antitrust act? Please explicitly say whether or not you think the Sherman anti trust act, should be repealed, and all monopolies in the world, and anti competitive behavior, should be legal. But let's try a different example, since apparently you support the railway monopoly. I would hope, that you would oppose it Microsoft put a 30% fee on every online transaction, and kicked off all competing web browsers that tried to get around it. Imagine if every computer in the world, you could only use internet explorer, and they forced you to pay them 30%, and use IE. Surely you'd have to admit that this should be illegal, for such a monopoly to be enforced like that? > Why not just throw our the US government and install the CCP too? The Sherman anti-trust act is a pretty uncontroversial law. Surely you can't be saying that our existing uncontroversial anti trust laws, that have been around for a century, are the same as laws in China? > This again is coming from someone who works with and on open source software Then you should support people being allowed to do what they want, with their own phone. You are the one who supports authoritarianism, if you oppose people being able to control their own device, that they purchased.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Standard Oil has no obligation to give you oil the way you want it. If you feel this strongly about oil, then using a different oil provider (which there are many) is available.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Is there not an alternative to buying an iPhone? 80% of the phone market is non iOS.
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      And what is that 80% comprised of? It's not much of an alternative when both parties are squeezing 30% out of those of us who do mobile development.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        You can sideload on Android devices
      - bamboozled 4y ago
        It's not Apple's problem the competition is mediocre, you advocating for the tearing up of Apple means we are left with only mediocre options, is that what you want?
        satvikpendem 4y ago
        Yes, that's what I want. I don't understand how there are so many Apple apologists on a hacker forum where ostensibly I'd have expected people would want to, you know, control their devices.
        bamboozled 4y ago
        You want to control your device, others don't care for it. Live with it? This is actually why people who are absolutists (you), scare me, because in a way, you're advocating for free an open devices, and asking for the government to step in to ensure this happens while actually acting like the authoritarian you claim to hate by forcing your beliefs onto others. People should be free to choose what type of device they have without you telling people that shouldn't be allowed to choose. I believe my argument is better than yours because I'm advocating for a balance. You can have free, open devices if you want, and if you don't want that you can use more locked down devices that IMO are just fully managed by Apple.Both options has their advantages and disadvantages, so what's the problem?
bamboozled 4y ago
Yes, it is an argument, if you don't like Apple, if you don't want to be part of their ecosystem, do not fund it. Buy something else. It's your choice as a consumer. It's especially rich you're against Apple here considering Spotify is also a scourge on many musicians and audiophiles lives too ha. Spotify wants you to fight against Apple so they can have a nice monopoly on the music industry. This is the same way Elon wants you to fight for "free speech" so he gets a bigger market share of social media. It's not really about "free speech", it's about Elon getting what he wants. Wake up to yourself.

by ouid 4y ago

threeseed 4y ago

You can't argue for a particular feature then when someone offers you a device that has that feature argue that they are acting in bad faith.

chung8123 4y ago

There is a difference between an monopoly and a moat. I think the previous statement is saying that if you want to own your phone you can choose a different path and apple probably isn't the phone you should choose.

bamboozled 4y ago
Yes, quite simple isn't it?

darkwizard42 4y ago

What the parent is likely trying to point out is that Apple has no obligation to give you the feature the way you want it (in fact, Apple seems to view not providing flexibility as the feature). If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone (which there are many) is available.

stale2002 4y ago
> that Apple has no obligation to give you > If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone Actually, instead of that, citizens of a nation are free to vote for anti-trust, and pro competition laws that force Apple, under threat of government force, to stop engaging in certain actions. We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust laws to new era. It's been a century. It is about time that our existing and uncontroversial anti monopoly laws got updated. Some laws have already been past, in the EU, for example, that do this. In the EU, because of the digital markets act, people will be able to bypass the Apple app store in less than a year.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  Cool, so break one of the only stable, reliable, useful and mostly secure devices people have in their life by "forcing" a company to do things against their will? Why not just throw our the US government and install the CCP too? We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust laws to new era. There are very few places in the world with good trains, unless you're referring to one of them, your argument is pretty weak. Especially if you're in the USA. The trains suck and I hope my devices don't go the same way. ...This again is coming from someone who works with and on open source software, is an avid long term Linux user and owns many "open" hardware devices...
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > so break one of the only stable, reliable, useful No, people would be free to use the Apple App store if they want. Apple simply wouldn't be able force the world to pay them 30% of everything anymore. Theyd have to compete on their merits, and people would now have full ownership of their own phone. > The trains suck and I hope my devices don't go the same way. So, what, you just support the railway monopoly and oppose the Sherman antitrust act? Please explicitly say whether or not you think the Sherman anti trust act, should be repealed, and all monopolies in the world, and anti competitive behavior, should be legal. But let's try a different example, since apparently you support the railway monopoly. I would hope, that you would oppose it Microsoft put a 30% fee on every online transaction, and kicked off all competing web browsers that tried to get around it. Imagine if every computer in the world, you could only use internet explorer, and they forced you to pay them 30%, and use IE. Surely you'd have to admit that this should be illegal, for such a monopoly to be enforced like that? > Why not just throw our the US government and install the CCP too? The Sherman anti-trust act is a pretty uncontroversial law. Surely you can't be saying that our existing uncontroversial anti trust laws, that have been around for a century, are the same as laws in China? > This again is coming from someone who works with and on open source software Then you should support people being allowed to do what they want, with their own phone. You are the one who supports authoritarianism, if you oppose people being able to control their own device, that they purchased.
satvikpendem 4y ago
Standard Oil has no obligation to give you oil the way you want it. If you feel this strongly about oil, then using a different oil provider (which there are many) is available.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Is there not an alternative to buying an iPhone? 80% of the phone market is non iOS.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    And what is that 80% comprised of? It's not much of an alternative when both parties are squeezing 30% out of those of us who do mobile development.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      You can sideload on Android devices
    - bamboozled 4y ago
      It's not Apple's problem the competition is mediocre, you advocating for the tearing up of Apple means we are left with only mediocre options, is that what you want?
      - satvikpendem 4y ago
        Yes, that's what I want. I don't understand how there are so many Apple apologists on a hacker forum where ostensibly I'd have expected people would want to, you know, control their devices.
        bamboozled 4y ago
        You want to control your device, others don't care for it. Live with it? This is actually why people who are absolutists (you), scare me, because in a way, you're advocating for free an open devices, and asking for the government to step in to ensure this happens while actually acting like the authoritarian you claim to hate by forcing your beliefs onto others. People should be free to choose what type of device they have without you telling people that shouldn't be allowed to choose. I believe my argument is better than yours because I'm advocating for a balance. You can have free, open devices if you want, and if you don't want that you can use more locked down devices that IMO are just fully managed by Apple.Both options has their advantages and disadvantages, so what's the problem?

bamboozled 4y ago

Yes, it is an argument, if you don't like Apple, if you don't want to be part of their ecosystem, do not fund it. Buy something else. It's your choice as a consumer. It's especially rich you're against Apple here considering Spotify is also a scourge on many musicians and audiophiles lives too ha. Spotify wants you to fight against Apple so they can have a nice monopoly on the music industry. This is the same way Elon wants you to fight for "free speech" so he gets a bigger market share of social media. It's not really about "free speech", it's about Elon getting what he wants. Wake up to yourself.