7 ms·

I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be. Those who argue that forcing Apple to open up their ecosystem is a good thing appear to

I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be. Those who argue that forcing Apple to open up their ecosystem is a good thing appear to believe that increased user freedom will lead to more option for all and increase freedom further. Those of us who argue that being forced to open their ecosystem is a bad thing believe (speaking personally) that any user freedom added would quickly be lost and set further back than we started as larger organizations would end up strong-arming or tricking users into giving away their freedom or fear missing out. Personally I think we all want to see long-term user freedom, and I think whether we expect it to move forward or backward is what differs between us seeing this as good or bad.

Kinrany 3y ago
So less freedom is good because freedom is good but any extra freedom will be stolen anyway? This is an idiotic take.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Yes, you're poorly explaining the difference between freedom-as-in-liberty and freedom-as-in-anarchy and then calling it idiotic. You are literally more free if there were no laws about murder but your actual real life freedom would be reduced because you of all the precautions you now have to take. Apple right now is operating as a de facto governing body forcing developers on the platform to follow its rules that whether or not you like it do sometimes benefit the user against some of the very worst actors. Taking away their ability to have those rules does also take away the benefits users get. And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Whether or not that's worth it to you is fine, both stances are valid but it does logically follow.
  - Kinrany 3y ago
    > And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Ah yes, we don't trust an actual elected government to enforce consumer protections, so we'll trust a private monopoly instead. In a thread about said government enforcing said consumer protections, no less.
    - shuckles 3y ago
      Just because you call it consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives, which is the point the other commenter is trying to make but you insist on flattening into a straw man.
      - Kbelicius 3y ago
        You are making a strwman here, not GP. GP litterally responded to, and quoted, this sentence: "And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections.". How do you get that sentence to mean that "consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives"? How?
        shuckles 3y ago
        Picking a single sentence in a long comment is flattening.
    - intended 3y ago
      Apple is not a monopoly. That is why we have contrast points - eg the Android ecosystem, to see how privacy and user centric reality is. Users are the end customers for apple. For platforms, advertisers are end customers. All arguments in this thread roll up to - - You cant have open systems with an advertiser driven economies. Until people are the end customers for platforms, as ridiculous as it may sound, Apple is the only other choice. Even MSFT has started inserting ads into Windows. Good grief.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        Apple is a monopoly on the market of Apple apps. You can’t just hand-wave away self-created platforms, and given how absolutely important and essential mobile phones are, it’s only fair that the government gets a say there.
        intended 3y ago
  - kaba0 3y ago
    While I agree with the distinction between freedom-as-in-{anarchy, liberty), I don’t think this argument stands in case of Apple. Their OS is very secure and has a top notch sandbox - that’s the actual defense boundary on their devices. They do barely any AppStore checks. I think the optimum would be a well-hidden (like android dev mode, click 6 times on whatever option), but possible sideloading without hacks like AltStore/7-day resigns, etc. Maybe they shouldn’t even allow other stores, just apps - as installing is a very specific permission.
  - lodovic 3y ago
    > And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections The EU probably has the strongest consumer protection laws. And they do enforce them. Which is the subject of the linked story.
orangecat 3y ago
I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be. Yes, and when the first order effect is that a giant corporation gets total control over how you use "your" property, you need to be very confident in your predictions to outweigh that. Personally I think we all want to see long-term user freedom Apple certainly doesn't.
- TapWaterBandit 3y ago
  Exactly. Worrying about second order effects here considering the current situation is like saying: We're worried that removing our heel from the throat of the user might allow all sorts of things to go down there, some of which might be dangerous. Maybe this will happen in some cases but we can be fairly confident it will also help the user to breathe.
- jbombadil 3y ago
  (just about app stores) I'd love a middle ground, but if I'm forced to choose, I'd prefer that there weren't other "app stores" on the iPhone, for many of the reasons stated above. But the funny thing is, both of us have the same argument of "I want the cake and eat it too". > "Why does it harm you to have another app store? If you don't like it don't use it!" > But I want to use Whatsapp / etc! I just want to have the Apple policies protect me from what those apps can do on my phone![] > "Why does it bother you that Apple sells phones under the condition of 'my app store or nothing'? If you don't like it, buy another brand! > But I want to use the quality of iPhones and iOS! [] This is what I mean by "middle ground". Today, I """trust""" Apple to protect me (somewhat) against random developers. If there are alternative appstores, but either they must follow the same protection policies from the one from Apple[*] or their apps must also be listed in the Apple store, I'd be happy with multiple app stores. But that would defeat the purpose of other stores. [*] (eg I must be able to use Apple Pay, the code still goes through Apple review, etc)
bmitc 3y ago
> I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be. Apple is the wealthiest single organization in the history of the world, and they just make consumer electronics. This isn't some deep ecological problem. Very little good has come out of letting these big corporations go completely unchecked.
- huytersd 3y ago
  Just some consumer electronics? Phones and computers run the world now.
  - c048 3y ago
    Yeah, and the ones Apple makes are both consumer grade and nothing special.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      “Consumer grade” is literally the best though. The iPhone isn’t some watered down version of the good thing that governments and rich people use. It’s as good as money can buy.
      - bmitc 3y ago
        That is debatable, and it also doesn't negate the fact that they're nothing but a consumer electronics company.
      - c048 3y ago
        They aren't 'literally' the best, not in software or hardware. They might be high tier consumer items, but that makes them luxury items and does not magically elevate them to best business grade software or hardware (broadly speaking).
        Aaargh20318 3y ago
        > They might be high tier consumer items, but that makes them luxury items and does not magically elevate them to best business grade software or hardware (broadly speaking). You mean 'lower', now 'elevate'. Business-grade software is usually a tier below consumer-grade. After all, you only have to convince management on the business-advantages of your software, not the actual users who have to use it on a day-to-day basis. They don't get a vote. That's why business software gets away with terrible performance and UX.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> that any user freedom added would quickly be lost and set further back than we started as larger organizations would end up strong-arming or tricking users into giving away their freedom or fear missing out Regulate away their ability to do that. Even if it kills them. Just literally write it into law. Make computer device users a protected class of consumer. Owners of computing devices shall have complete access to the devices they buy and shall not be discriminated against based on the software they choose to run, including but not limited to refusal to interoperate.

Kinrany 3y ago

So less freedom is good because freedom is good but any extra freedom will be stolen anyway? This is an idiotic take.

Spivak 3y ago
Yes, you're poorly explaining the difference between freedom-as-in-liberty and freedom-as-in-anarchy and then calling it idiotic. You are literally more free if there were no laws about murder but your actual real life freedom would be reduced because you of all the precautions you now have to take. Apple right now is operating as a de facto governing body forcing developers on the platform to follow its rules that whether or not you like it do sometimes benefit the user against some of the very worst actors. Taking away their ability to have those rules does also take away the benefits users get. And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Whether or not that's worth it to you is fine, both stances are valid but it does logically follow.
- Kinrany 3y ago
  > And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Ah yes, we don't trust an actual elected government to enforce consumer protections, so we'll trust a private monopoly instead. In a thread about said government enforcing said consumer protections, no less.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    Just because you call it consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives, which is the point the other commenter is trying to make but you insist on flattening into a straw man.
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      You are making a strwman here, not GP. GP litterally responded to, and quoted, this sentence: "And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections.". How do you get that sentence to mean that "consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives"? How?
      - shuckles 3y ago
        Picking a single sentence in a long comment is flattening.
  - intended 3y ago
    Apple is not a monopoly. That is why we have contrast points - eg the Android ecosystem, to see how privacy and user centric reality is. Users are the end customers for apple. For platforms, advertisers are end customers. All arguments in this thread roll up to - - You cant have open systems with an advertiser driven economies. Until people are the end customers for platforms, as ridiculous as it may sound, Apple is the only other choice. Even MSFT has started inserting ads into Windows. Good grief.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      Apple is a monopoly on the market of Apple apps. You can’t just hand-wave away self-created platforms, and given how absolutely important and essential mobile phones are, it’s only fair that the government gets a say there.
      - intended 3y ago
- kaba0 3y ago
  While I agree with the distinction between freedom-as-in-{anarchy, liberty), I don’t think this argument stands in case of Apple. Their OS is very secure and has a top notch sandbox - that’s the actual defense boundary on their devices. They do barely any AppStore checks. I think the optimum would be a well-hidden (like android dev mode, click 6 times on whatever option), but possible sideloading without hacks like AltStore/7-day resigns, etc. Maybe they shouldn’t even allow other stores, just apps - as installing is a very specific permission.
- lodovic 3y ago
  > And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections The EU probably has the strongest consumer protection laws. And they do enforce them. Which is the subject of the linked story.

orangecat 3y ago

I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be. Yes, and when the first order effect is that a giant corporation gets total control over how you use "your" property, you need to be very confident in your predictions to outweigh that. Personally I think we all want to see long-term user freedom Apple certainly doesn't.

TapWaterBandit 3y ago
Exactly. Worrying about second order effects here considering the current situation is like saying: We're worried that removing our heel from the throat of the user might allow all sorts of things to go down there, some of which might be dangerous. Maybe this will happen in some cases but we can be fairly confident it will also help the user to breathe.
jbombadil 3y ago
(just about app stores) I'd love a middle ground, but if I'm forced to choose, I'd prefer that there weren't other "app stores" on the iPhone, for many of the reasons stated above. But the funny thing is, both of us have the same argument of "I want the cake and eat it too". > "Why does it harm you to have another app store? If you don't like it don't use it!" > But I want to use Whatsapp / etc! I just want to have the Apple policies protect me from what those apps can do on my phone![] > "Why does it bother you that Apple sells phones under the condition of 'my app store or nothing'? If you don't like it, buy another brand! > But I want to use the quality of iPhones and iOS! [] This is what I mean by "middle ground". Today, I """trust""" Apple to protect me (somewhat) against random developers. If there are alternative appstores, but either they must follow the same protection policies from the one from Apple[*] or their apps must also be listed in the Apple store, I'd be happy with multiple app stores. But that would defeat the purpose of other stores. [*] (eg I must be able to use Apple Pay, the code still goes through Apple review, etc)

bmitc 3y ago

> I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be. Apple is the wealthiest single organization in the history of the world, and they just make consumer electronics. This isn't some deep ecological problem. Very little good has come out of letting these big corporations go completely unchecked.

huytersd 3y ago
Just some consumer electronics? Phones and computers run the world now.
- c048 3y ago
  Yeah, and the ones Apple makes are both consumer grade and nothing special.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    “Consumer grade” is literally the best though. The iPhone isn’t some watered down version of the good thing that governments and rich people use. It’s as good as money can buy.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      That is debatable, and it also doesn't negate the fact that they're nothing but a consumer electronics company.
    - c048 3y ago
      They aren't 'literally' the best, not in software or hardware. They might be high tier consumer items, but that makes them luxury items and does not magically elevate them to best business grade software or hardware (broadly speaking).
      - Aaargh20318 3y ago
        > They might be high tier consumer items, but that makes them luxury items and does not magically elevate them to best business grade software or hardware (broadly speaking). You mean 'lower', now 'elevate'. Business-grade software is usually a tier below consumer-grade. After all, you only have to convince management on the business-advantages of your software, not the actual users who have to use it on a day-to-day basis. They don't get a vote. That's why business software gets away with terrible performance and UX.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> that any user freedom added would quickly be lost and set further back than we started as larger organizations would end up strong-arming or tricking users into giving away their freedom or fear missing out Regulate away their ability to do that. Even if it kills them. Just literally write it into law. Make computer device users a protected class of consumer. Owners of computing devices shall have complete access to the devices they buy and shall not be discriminated against based on the software they choose to run, including but not limited to refusal to interoperate.