3 ms·

The purchase of the hardware is the users choosing those restrictions. You are advocating for your own preferences and dressing it up as a noble pursuit of som

The purchase of the hardware is the users choosing those restrictions. You are advocating for your own preferences and dressing it up as a noble pursuit of some general user choice, when the users have already chosen. You simply want to subvert their choice.

smoldesu 4y ago
How am I subverting their choice by adding an option? I don't understand.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  How many times does someone have to make a choice before other people will stop saying “that person should be able to choose”?
  - commoner 4y ago
    There are people who prefer using iOS or Apple hardware but do not want Apple's anticompetitive App Store restrictions imposed on the Apple devices they own. Those are the people whose user choice is being suppressed, and those are the people you are sidelining because you wish to impress your own preferences onto them. People content with the status quo, including you, can continue to exclusively use the App Store on iOS on Apple devices.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      > There are people who prefer using iOS or Apple hardware but do not want Apple's anticompetitive App Store restrictions imposed on the Apple devices they own. Okay, but surely there has to be some reasonable bound on what we mean by "user choice," otherwise given any finite set of products we can say there is suppression of choice of every customer who wants any of the infinite set of products that does not exist. Of course there are endless combinations of features that I might want to exist in a product, but the fact that not every conceivable product exists is not (in my view) sufficient to show that customer choice is being suppressed. Maybe I want a Playstation 5, but in the enclosure of an Xbox Series X because I prefer the look of the latter. Is Sony suppressing customer choice by only offering the Playstation 5 in one enclosure? Maybe I want a folding phone, but I want it to by an iPhone. Is Apple suppressing customer choice by not offering any folding phones? My answer to both of those examples is "No." If you want a gaming console that looks exactly like an Xbox Series X, it's reasonable to that have to buy an Xbox. I think if you want a folding phone it's totally reasonable that you have to go to manufacturers that offer them. It's not reasonable to desire some specific set of requirements and require that one particular manufacturer provide you with a product that fulfills them.
      - commoner 4y ago
        Your two examples are completely irrelevant because they do not concern anticompetitive behavior. The form factors of Apple's phones and the appearance of Sony's consoles have nothing to do with anticompetitive behavior and are not regulated by antitrust law. What we are actually discussing is Apple's anticompetitive restrictions against third-party app stores and sideloading. These restrictions harm user choice especially in light of iOS being part of a duopoly. Apple's anticompetitive restrictions are what the EU's Digital Markets Act is addressing to increase user choice.

smoldesu 4y ago

How am I subverting their choice by adding an option? I don't understand.

tshaddox 4y ago
How many times does someone have to make a choice before other people will stop saying “that person should be able to choose”?
- commoner 4y ago
  There are people who prefer using iOS or Apple hardware but do not want Apple's anticompetitive App Store restrictions imposed on the Apple devices they own. Those are the people whose user choice is being suppressed, and those are the people you are sidelining because you wish to impress your own preferences onto them. People content with the status quo, including you, can continue to exclusively use the App Store on iOS on Apple devices.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > There are people who prefer using iOS or Apple hardware but do not want Apple's anticompetitive App Store restrictions imposed on the Apple devices they own. Okay, but surely there has to be some reasonable bound on what we mean by "user choice," otherwise given any finite set of products we can say there is suppression of choice of every customer who wants any of the infinite set of products that does not exist. Of course there are endless combinations of features that I might want to exist in a product, but the fact that not every conceivable product exists is not (in my view) sufficient to show that customer choice is being suppressed. Maybe I want a Playstation 5, but in the enclosure of an Xbox Series X because I prefer the look of the latter. Is Sony suppressing customer choice by only offering the Playstation 5 in one enclosure? Maybe I want a folding phone, but I want it to by an iPhone. Is Apple suppressing customer choice by not offering any folding phones? My answer to both of those examples is "No." If you want a gaming console that looks exactly like an Xbox Series X, it's reasonable to that have to buy an Xbox. I think if you want a folding phone it's totally reasonable that you have to go to manufacturers that offer them. It's not reasonable to desire some specific set of requirements and require that one particular manufacturer provide you with a product that fulfills them.
    - commoner 4y ago
      Your two examples are completely irrelevant because they do not concern anticompetitive behavior. The form factors of Apple's phones and the appearance of Sony's consoles have nothing to do with anticompetitive behavior and are not regulated by antitrust law. What we are actually discussing is Apple's anticompetitive restrictions against third-party app stores and sideloading. These restrictions harm user choice especially in light of iOS being part of a duopoly. Apple's anticompetitive restrictions are what the EU's Digital Markets Act is addressing to increase user choice.