4 ms·

Sorry no. Consumers arent stupid idiots: they know what they are buying and there is massive choice in the markets these devices participate. Also malware stat

by quitit 3y ago

Sorry no. Consumers arent stupid idiots: they know what they are buying and there is massive choice in the markets these devices participate. Also malware statistics don’t lie.

kibwen 3y ago
Imagine being on Hacker News and arguing against user freedom. Do you realize where you are?
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  A lot of devs work for Apple (or Microsoft or TikTok or...); engineering and ethics are totally orthogonal. ;p
  - quitit 3y ago
    When you need to paint other views of “us versus them” instead of discussing the idea itself. What does this say? It says echo chamber that’s afraid of actually discussing an idea on the proven merits.
- quitit 3y ago
  Imagine being online and being offended by ideas that aren’t your own personal indoctrinations. You think it’s about “freedom”, I think it’s about making computing enhance lives of everyone, instead of serving a microsegment of enthusiasts. A dogmatic segment that wont admit that some of their ideas have been and continue to be utter failures.
Zak 3y ago
Let's not equate lack of specialty knowledge with stupidity. I once met someone who won the Nobel Prize in physics, but did not know how to change the tire on his car. I imagine he could have figured it out if pressed, and I imagine that would not have been a good use of his time under the circumstances. The average consumer doesn't buy a phone based on a deep understanding of its technical characteristics. The average consumer buys a phone based on "my sister's husband got a new iPhone and it takes much better pictures than my four year old Samsung, and all my friends use iMessage". The world is too complex for anyone to make all their decisions based on a deep understanding. Many people don't have even a shallow understanding, as Epic Games discovered when trying to get people to install Fortnite outside of Google's store.
- quitit 3y ago
  >Let's not equate lack of specialty knowledge with stupidity. No we should, because apparently one is a naive digital "serf" according to the prior comment in the chain. As if people who purchase these devices are unaware that the app store exists, and that their desires for simplicity, protection or privacy are frivolous curiosities that should be hand-waved away. As Ogilvy famously said "The customer is not a moron. She's your wife". You can't argue in good faith that consumers are both lacking specialty knowledge, but also possessing the know-how and desire to open their hardware and swap componentry for certain 3rd-party unsupported hardware. Either they have deep knowledge of the device and its limitations, or they don't and the need to order official parts for replacements has no affect on them.
  - Zak 3y ago
    This comment ignores the possibility of paying a third-party service provider. The average consumer does not want to learn how to open their hardware and swap componentry for certain 3rd-party unsupported hardware. The average consumer wants to pay a random local repair shop $50 to change the battery in their phone. Feel free to substitute "battery" with any other component and adjust the price slightly to make it reasonable.
    - quitit 3y ago
      We're getting quite thin in the hypotheticals now, but here goes: 1. A person with no 'specialty knowledge' bought an iPhone, and 2. This person wants to have it repaired, but doesn't want to use Apple's repair service which is available in stores or direct-to-home through couriers, and 3. This person also doesn't want to use a 3rd party apple-approved repairer, and 4. This person also doesn't want to use a repairer who is using Apple's self service repair programme, and 5. This person needs a component repaired that includes a security feature such as faceid or touchid. Which rules out 3rd party component suppliers, such as those available on iFixit.com and similar for speakers/batteries/ports/etc, and 6. This person can afford an iPhone, but can't afford an official replacement part for a component that includes a security feature such as FaceID or TouchID. The result is that this person can still have the repair made with an unofficial part and the security feature (FaceID/TouchID) won't function. That's it, that's the compromise. The device can also be repaired later with an official part to reenable the security feature. The proposition you're making here is that the cumulative points 1-6 are somehow likely and burdensome. When it seems much more likely that the consumer would just take advantage of one of the many endorsed routes available, which also maintain the integrity of the device (e.g. camera alignment, drop strength & waterproofing). The idea that the consumer would trash their device to landfill and buy a new one doesn't hold water, not only does that produce the maximum amount of cash expenditure, but it also requires that the consumer didn't take advantage of the trade-in, buy-back and recycling schemes available. I find most arguments about this topic fall over because many aren't aware of the breadth of what's available. So when it comes back to the article about the French government being "concerned" about paired componentry for "environmental waste" reasons - it really does smell like b/s, why aren't they looking at the myriad of brands which have no waste handling processes for phones. Instead they just happen to be fixated on the hardware which enables a high level of personal security.

by quitit 3y ago

Sorry no. Consumers arent stupid idiots: they know what they are buying and there is massive choice in the markets these devices participate. Also malware statistics don’t lie.

kibwen 3y ago

Imagine being on Hacker News and arguing against user freedom. Do you realize where you are?

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
A lot of devs work for Apple (or Microsoft or TikTok or...); engineering and ethics are totally orthogonal. ;p
- quitit 3y ago
  When you need to paint other views of “us versus them” instead of discussing the idea itself. What does this say? It says echo chamber that’s afraid of actually discussing an idea on the proven merits.
quitit 3y ago
Imagine being online and being offended by ideas that aren’t your own personal indoctrinations. You think it’s about “freedom”, I think it’s about making computing enhance lives of everyone, instead of serving a microsegment of enthusiasts. A dogmatic segment that wont admit that some of their ideas have been and continue to be utter failures.

Zak 3y ago

Let's not equate lack of specialty knowledge with stupidity. I once met someone who won the Nobel Prize in physics, but did not know how to change the tire on his car. I imagine he could have figured it out if pressed, and I imagine that would not have been a good use of his time under the circumstances. The average consumer doesn't buy a phone based on a deep understanding of its technical characteristics. The average consumer buys a phone based on "my sister's husband got a new iPhone and it takes much better pictures than my four year old Samsung, and all my friends use iMessage". The world is too complex for anyone to make all their decisions based on a deep understanding. Many people don't have even a shallow understanding, as Epic Games discovered when trying to get people to install Fortnite outside of Google's store.

quitit 3y ago
>Let's not equate lack of specialty knowledge with stupidity. No we should, because apparently one is a naive digital "serf" according to the prior comment in the chain. As if people who purchase these devices are unaware that the app store exists, and that their desires for simplicity, protection or privacy are frivolous curiosities that should be hand-waved away. As Ogilvy famously said "The customer is not a moron. She's your wife". You can't argue in good faith that consumers are both lacking specialty knowledge, but also possessing the know-how and desire to open their hardware and swap componentry for certain 3rd-party unsupported hardware. Either they have deep knowledge of the device and its limitations, or they don't and the need to order official parts for replacements has no affect on them.
- Zak 3y ago
  This comment ignores the possibility of paying a third-party service provider. The average consumer does not want to learn how to open their hardware and swap componentry for certain 3rd-party unsupported hardware. The average consumer wants to pay a random local repair shop $50 to change the battery in their phone. Feel free to substitute "battery" with any other component and adjust the price slightly to make it reasonable.
  - quitit 3y ago
    We're getting quite thin in the hypotheticals now, but here goes: 1. A person with no 'specialty knowledge' bought an iPhone, and 2. This person wants to have it repaired, but doesn't want to use Apple's repair service which is available in stores or direct-to-home through couriers, and 3. This person also doesn't want to use a 3rd party apple-approved repairer, and 4. This person also doesn't want to use a repairer who is using Apple's self service repair programme, and 5. This person needs a component repaired that includes a security feature such as faceid or touchid. Which rules out 3rd party component suppliers, such as those available on iFixit.com and similar for speakers/batteries/ports/etc, and 6. This person can afford an iPhone, but can't afford an official replacement part for a component that includes a security feature such as FaceID or TouchID. The result is that this person can still have the repair made with an unofficial part and the security feature (FaceID/TouchID) won't function. That's it, that's the compromise. The device can also be repaired later with an official part to reenable the security feature. The proposition you're making here is that the cumulative points 1-6 are somehow likely and burdensome. When it seems much more likely that the consumer would just take advantage of one of the many endorsed routes available, which also maintain the integrity of the device (e.g. camera alignment, drop strength & waterproofing). The idea that the consumer would trash their device to landfill and buy a new one doesn't hold water, not only does that produce the maximum amount of cash expenditure, but it also requires that the consumer didn't take advantage of the trade-in, buy-back and recycling schemes available. I find most arguments about this topic fall over because many aren't aware of the breadth of what's available. So when it comes back to the article about the French government being "concerned" about paired componentry for "environmental waste" reasons - it really does smell like b/s, why aren't they looking at the myriad of brands which have no waste handling processes for phones. Instead they just happen to be fixated on the hardware which enables a high level of personal security.