4 ms·

Imagine that you created a monopoly by forcing users to switch to your product. You then locked out competitors, then intentionally degrade quality when your u

Imagine that you created a monopoly by forcing users to switch to your product. You then locked out competitors, then intentionally degrade quality when your users attempt to contact the outside world. Then you created and fostered a culture of bullying other users (especially teens). There is no "Poor Apple", there were mistakes, but mostly intentional malic the entire way. People repeatedly asked them to stop, people asked to be let in, and Apple had plenty of chances to allow RCS and additional layers of security like "Verified sent from Apple hardware". I hope this one seriously hurts for them.

joshmanders 3y ago
> Imagine that you created a monopoly by forcing users to switch to your product. Oh for crying out loud, NOBODY is forced to use iPhones. Can we stop this narrative already?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Many aspects of society dictate that we use a phone. Apple forbidding interoperability of the phones so that you’re either all in or all out is anti competitive.
- anotherhue 3y ago
  I am. Your point needs to be stronger.
  - joshmanders 3y ago
    How's this for stronger? You're weak if you got a device you don't want because someone else said you should get it.
    - zamadatix 3y ago
      Not everyone is in the position to turn down a job because of a moral stance on the device(s)/tools they are assigned. Even if you think they are "weak" saying that to continue to fan the flames isn't going to help anything. Why not argue why you think those types of use cases shouldn't impact the decision instead?
      - joshmanders 3y ago
        Who said anything about turning down a job? You're just moving the goalposts at this point. Everyone has their own personal device. I chose iPhone. But if I had a job where I had to use an Android for some reason, I wouldn't feel I was FORCED to use an Android, because I would only use that device for work related things, and my preferred device, the personal iPhone for everything else.
        zamadatix 3y ago
        The goalposts remain the same, it's a one example of what they are. Some people are forced into situations they have to use one product over another, the situation isn't a matter of people having equal footing to just choose a non-integrated device all the time. Of course you're welcome to use another device for your personal things but this doesn't mean the other choice limitations of the device in the required case are no longer present. Personally I don't like whether an example of being boxed in is present as a decider though. My argument against it, instead of saying it just never happens, is that there needs to be a critical mass of occurrences. I.e. I think there are costs to both choosing to regulate or not regulate and it's a matter of when one outweighs the other not as much when some specific event occurs to some people. So, while many people do have to use Apple products for certain things in certain scenarios, it's not necessarily wrong by that fact. It's that it's so entrenched. I wouldn't call it a monopoly but I also don't want to wait until things are that bad to ever do anything, otherwise you end up with Microsofts doing massive damage before being reeled in.
richwater 3y ago
> created a monopoly by forcing users to switch to your product Under what possible manipulated definition of "forced" are you using? That Apple makes a desirable product? That they don't replace their messaging app every two years? That they don't bloat the phone with garbage? > [Apple] fostered a culture [serious citation needed]
exabrial 3y ago
Down voted -3 for stating nothing but the truth rofl

joshmanders 3y ago

> Imagine that you created a monopoly by forcing users to switch to your product. Oh for crying out loud, NOBODY is forced to use iPhones. Can we stop this narrative already?

jncfhnb 3y ago
Many aspects of society dictate that we use a phone. Apple forbidding interoperability of the phones so that you’re either all in or all out is anti competitive.
anotherhue 3y ago
I am. Your point needs to be stronger.
- joshmanders 3y ago
  How's this for stronger? You're weak if you got a device you don't want because someone else said you should get it.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Not everyone is in the position to turn down a job because of a moral stance on the device(s)/tools they are assigned. Even if you think they are "weak" saying that to continue to fan the flames isn't going to help anything. Why not argue why you think those types of use cases shouldn't impact the decision instead?
    - joshmanders 3y ago
      Who said anything about turning down a job? You're just moving the goalposts at this point. Everyone has their own personal device. I chose iPhone. But if I had a job where I had to use an Android for some reason, I wouldn't feel I was FORCED to use an Android, because I would only use that device for work related things, and my preferred device, the personal iPhone for everything else.
      - zamadatix 3y ago
        The goalposts remain the same, it's a one example of what they are. Some people are forced into situations they have to use one product over another, the situation isn't a matter of people having equal footing to just choose a non-integrated device all the time. Of course you're welcome to use another device for your personal things but this doesn't mean the other choice limitations of the device in the required case are no longer present. Personally I don't like whether an example of being boxed in is present as a decider though. My argument against it, instead of saying it just never happens, is that there needs to be a critical mass of occurrences. I.e. I think there are costs to both choosing to regulate or not regulate and it's a matter of when one outweighs the other not as much when some specific event occurs to some people. So, while many people do have to use Apple products for certain things in certain scenarios, it's not necessarily wrong by that fact. It's that it's so entrenched. I wouldn't call it a monopoly but I also don't want to wait until things are that bad to ever do anything, otherwise you end up with Microsofts doing massive damage before being reeled in.

richwater 3y ago

> created a monopoly by forcing users to switch to your product Under what possible manipulated definition of "forced" are you using? That Apple makes a desirable product? That they don't replace their messaging app every two years? That they don't bloat the phone with garbage? > [Apple] fostered a culture [serious citation needed]

exabrial 3y ago

Down voted -3 for stating nothing but the truth rofl