3 ms·

It's sad. We live in a world we call free, yet most are forced (by jobs, governments, banks, etc.) to use a smartphone, but not just any smartphone, no it has t

by tete 3y ago

It's sad. We live in a world we call free, yet most are forced (by jobs, governments, banks, etc.) to use a smartphone, but not just any smartphone, no it has to be an iOS or Android one, because you need you bank app to run, your government stuff to run, and so on. To do so you typically have to create accounts with these companies and accept their ToS. Why then do we not forget about that whole nation/country/state thing and simply declare the Dual Monarchy of Apple and Google? [/rant] I think with such hard requirements for so many things it would make sense to create rules to democratize smartphones, banks, etc. similar to other infrastructure. Right now it just means that Google and Apple have government sanctioned, yet international monopolies. You cannot compete, because al these institutions won't just create apps for you and you won't get users without that. So in the end you have capitalism without the free market part.

ghaff 3y ago
At least they don't effectively make us use a landline from one company (AT&T). But, fortunately, they were a regulated monopoly that only charged 20 cents a minute or so outside of your very local calling area.
jwells89 3y ago
The problem here is one of inertia. Companies and government offices can’t support platforms they can’t readily and affordably hire devs for. It’s why there’s historically only been room for two popular platforms, leaving others to fall by the wayside. (Though in the case of mobile, I think we could’ve had three had Microsoft not shot themselves in the foot repeatedly.) That said there could stand to be standardized APIs for things like banks, which would free users to develop their own apps.
Dah00n 3y ago
>So in the end you have capitalism without the free market part. This is what “capitalism without the free market part” looks like: >it would make sense to create rules to democratize smartphones You seem to be arguing against what you argue for? I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to create rules to democratize smartphones, and that is because I'm against a free market. And Capitalism.
- tete 3y ago
  [not sure, why my original comment doesn't seem to have posted, so sorry for potentially having double posted] > You seem to be arguing against what you argue for? I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to create rules to democratize smartphones, and that is because I'm against a free market. And Capitalism. I am against having the worst of two worlds. There's effectively a government supported monopoly of iOS and Android, when you need one of them to do your taxes and governments mandate 2FA apps. If there was a free market, in the sense that competitors can... well, compete that would be a different story. But unlike when those companies became big today you cannot even hack compatible solutions due to copyright laws. So even there you have the government acting anti free market. You could also go on tight regulation, maybe even force let's say APIs, heck even create a government competitor just to have a solution not built around purely squeezing out money and data of customers. You could make sure/mandate that this works for all banking, tax filing, every day stuff, and leave the rest to Apple and Google if you must. Just have that digital (maybe super secure, because specialized and minimal) way to interact with the basic stuff you need every day. Just like every house needs to have water, waster water and electricity whether it's some government supported living or some luxury villa. The basics should be possible. Of course these are by far not the only two ways to go, but like I said my point is that right now the worst parts are taken and that's what I meant with capitalism without free market. Google and Apple can go for maximizing profit, but without real fear of competition.

by tete 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago

At least they don't effectively make us use a landline from one company (AT&T). But, fortunately, they were a regulated monopoly that only charged 20 cents a minute or so outside of your very local calling area.

jwells89 3y ago

The problem here is one of inertia. Companies and government offices can’t support platforms they can’t readily and affordably hire devs for. It’s why there’s historically only been room for two popular platforms, leaving others to fall by the wayside. (Though in the case of mobile, I think we could’ve had three had Microsoft not shot themselves in the foot repeatedly.) That said there could stand to be standardized APIs for things like banks, which would free users to develop their own apps.

Dah00n 3y ago

>So in the end you have capitalism without the free market part. This is what “capitalism without the free market part” looks like: >it would make sense to create rules to democratize smartphones You seem to be arguing against what you argue for? I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to create rules to democratize smartphones, and that is because I'm against a free market. And Capitalism.

tete 3y ago
[not sure, why my original comment doesn't seem to have posted, so sorry for potentially having double posted] > You seem to be arguing against what you argue for? I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to create rules to democratize smartphones, and that is because I'm against a free market. And Capitalism. I am against having the worst of two worlds. There's effectively a government supported monopoly of iOS and Android, when you need one of them to do your taxes and governments mandate 2FA apps. If there was a free market, in the sense that competitors can... well, compete that would be a different story. But unlike when those companies became big today you cannot even hack compatible solutions due to copyright laws. So even there you have the government acting anti free market. You could also go on tight regulation, maybe even force let's say APIs, heck even create a government competitor just to have a solution not built around purely squeezing out money and data of customers. You could make sure/mandate that this works for all banking, tax filing, every day stuff, and leave the rest to Apple and Google if you must. Just have that digital (maybe super secure, because specialized and minimal) way to interact with the basic stuff you need every day. Just like every house needs to have water, waster water and electricity whether it's some government supported living or some luxury villa. The basics should be possible. Of course these are by far not the only two ways to go, but like I said my point is that right now the worst parts are taken and that's what I meant with capitalism without free market. Google and Apple can go for maximizing profit, but without real fear of competition.