3 ms·

Right. So you are saying that Meta has the right to implement their services and platforms in any way they see fit, and the user has the right to choose between

by ribit 3y ago

Right. So you are saying that Meta has the right to implement their services and platforms in any way they see fit, and the user has the right to choose between using those services under Meta's conditions or not using them at all. But Apple has no similar right to their own services, platforms, or SDKs, and is forced to let Meta harness their platform and user base while expecting no compensation? And this apparently makes sense to you? What you are proposing is the dictatorship of the developer. This completely throws the idea of proprietary platforms and SDKs out of the window. By the way, I couldn't care less if Meta has their own shop or not, and I don't see any horror in that, they decide how to best run their business, not me. But I take an issue with claims that Meta running their own exclusive show somehow creates more user choice (which is the direction the commenter I was replying to was heading towards)

Fluorescence 3y ago
I can barely parse what you say it's so unhinged. It's such a bizarre belief that a product sold by Apple remains "their platform" once in the hands of a consumer. The only thing they still "own" is copyright IP. They sold a product. They don't get to legislate user actions. Their power over the device post sale, that they use to extract rent, is entirely artificial.
- ribit 3y ago
  This is quite funny, because I feel the same about what you are saying. The way I understand you is that a seller of the product should grant any third party extensive access to that product, so that the third party can modify and implement their own services in any way they see fit. Frankly, this is completely shattering the idea of business relations as we know it. By your logic no proprietary store or platform SDK should ever exist (e.g. console SDKs should be free for all developers). What's more, extending this argument software itself should be moldable at will (I bought the app, I have the right for it to be modified in any way I please). I mean, it's not that I would oppose this ideology in particular, it just sounds a bit radical. We'd have to change quit a lot of things for it to be feasible.

by ribit 3y ago

Fluorescence 3y ago

I can barely parse what you say it's so unhinged. It's such a bizarre belief that a product sold by Apple remains "their platform" once in the hands of a consumer. The only thing they still "own" is copyright IP. They sold a product. They don't get to legislate user actions. Their power over the device post sale, that they use to extract rent, is entirely artificial.

ribit 3y ago
This is quite funny, because I feel the same about what you are saying. The way I understand you is that a seller of the product should grant any third party extensive access to that product, so that the third party can modify and implement their own services in any way they see fit. Frankly, this is completely shattering the idea of business relations as we know it. By your logic no proprietary store or platform SDK should ever exist (e.g. console SDKs should be free for all developers). What's more, extending this argument software itself should be moldable at will (I bought the app, I have the right for it to be modified in any way I please). I mean, it's not that I would oppose this ideology in particular, it just sounds a bit radical. We'd have to change quit a lot of things for it to be feasible.