4 ms·
Apple needs a Microsoft-2000s-era slapdown to put them in their place. Regardless of your thoughts on the situation, a mega/giga-corp flaunting the spirit of th
by mmastrac 3y ago
Apple needs a Microsoft-2000s-era slapdown to put them in their place. Regardless of your thoughts on the situation, a mega/giga-corp flaunting the spirit of the rules is a bad sign for the future.
- olliej 3y agoSo we're agreed that playstation, xbox, and Nintendo stores should also be regulated in the same way?
- mmastrac 3y agoYes, 100%. But the size of the corp dictates the priority of the action. That puts Apple and Microsoft at the top of the list.
- hot_gril 3y agoEach of these platforms' value propositions from earlier days was that some day it'd profit from its own controlled ecosystem. This is how they got investment. Apple and Nintendo in particular each held out a long time protecting the brand. There'd be no point in doing that if you're forced to support the competition anyway. And in each of these markets, users have other options if they want full hardware control. Clearly it wasn't a priority for many of them.
- mmastrac 3y agoThere's a long runway from "early market" to "total domination" to make money for investors. Nobody is shutting down the ability of limited or emerging markets to extract value, but once you reach Apple's size it's an entirely different story.
- hot_gril 3y agoThe runway is less than one human generation, or less than a home mortgage period. Some of these ventures are unprofitable for a decade. If an investor isn't thinking domination early on, they're thinking of getting it to the point where another investor would think that.
- riversflow 3y agoSo you can cheat against console players? Every device capable of doing computing doesn't need to be regulated as a general purpose computer.
- jimbob45 3y agoI’ve yet to see any company solve the cheating problem in any game. People forget that Valve gave up on the ring0 stuff not because it was unpopular, but because it stopped being effective.
- vel0city 3y agoIt is not necessarily about "solving" but more about minimizing. I encounter far fewer cheaters on the few consoles I do game on than on the online PC games I play, largely because the barrier of entry to doing cheats on those consoles are much higher. It is not impossible to run cheats on the console but requiring hardware mods, not being able to run certain patch levels, risking blacklisting that hardware identifier, etc. mean far fewer people are willing to do it compared to just running another executable on your computer before you launch the game.
- zmk5 3y agoYes!
- progbits 3y agoAlways the same whataboutism in these threads. Do we have to solve all things at once, or do you hold some weird belief that the world must be absolutely fair? For what it's worth I would answer your question with yes, but this question has no bearing on this thread.
- hot_gril 3y agoIt's already perfect. Those game console-makers etc get to run their platforms the way they want, I get to choose what to buy, and I'm glad that this will probably never meaningfully change.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoNo, because they are gaming consoles, not (Very) Personal Computers.
- neogodless 3y agoYes, as they are general computing devices I use widely for my everyday computing, and I should have complete control over all software I put on them!
- kube-system 3y agoGame consoles are often used as examples of special-purpose computers, in contrast to general-purpose computers.
- musictubes 3y agoWhy? Why should every device that is capable be forced to be capable? This is such a wide held assumption in tech circles. Why is it not good enough that there are devices that allow that while other companies pursue a different business model? I do not see the upside of catering to techie’s entitlement to using every device as they see fit. I certainly see the downside of limiting what business models companies can purse. As as been pointed out it isn[t clear that companies like Nintendo would have been able to make what they have in that regime. And there’s no question that the trajectory of the iPhones would have been different as well. It is so frustrating to constantly hear that a popular device should be forced to work a different way. The typical reasons given are inevitably tied up with piracy, porn, and techbro condescension revolving around how people should adapt their usage to accommodate their technical superiors. Why can’t people that demand that they should be able to do whatever they want on their device simply use the devices that allow that?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 3y agoI'm not fond of calling people names, but yes, for all the times I've heard this, nobody has convinced me of why every piece of hardware and software needs to be forcibly open-source or whatever.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- danielbln 3y agoYes.
- tick_tock_tick 3y agoPriorities! Sure yes we should fix them but they are so far down the list of goals we focus on important issues first.
- summerlight 3y agoWhy not focus on Apple? That will give Sony, MS and Nintendo some lesson.
- realusername 3y agoIf that can stop that argument yeah why not, lets open markets.
- zitsarethecure 3y agoThat would be great.
- hot_gril 3y agoMy thought on the situation is these rules are dumb and deserve to be flaunted in this case.
- pennomi 3y agoAllowing users the ability to choose their preferred app store is dumb?
- hot_gril 3y agoYes, and more importantly, EU forcing Apple to do it is also dumb.
- timeon 3y agoWhy?
- riversflow 3y agoYou can just buy another product. That's why it is dumb. There are plenty of great non-Apple smartphones on the market.
- hot_gril 3y agoThat and having many separate app stores would not be fun for most people. Got no horse in this race cause I never download apps anyway.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bnt 3y agoFirst they need to slim down the hardware offering. I can't even recommend an iPad to family members anymore, because there are so many of them with minor differences. Same for the phones. Even the MBP line is now convoluted with MBP14 getting the baseline M3 processor.
- legitster 3y agoI mean, if a company is being mandated to do something dumb or bad, I think it's fine for them to say so publicly. They are complying with the law, they don't have to like it, and we don't have to care. The alternative is PRISM stuff where they were mandated not to disclose any of the regulations they were being put under and society largely suffered for it.
- timeon 3y ago> alternative is PRISM stuff There is country based on "free speach" [0] and then there is EU. [0] "Empty vessels make the most noise."
- Yujf 3y agoExcept they are not mandated to do something dumb or bad. They are choosing to do something dumb and bad instead of doing something great
- legitster 3y agoI'm not arguing they are, but they are free to make their point. We all change our tune when companies criticize and fight encryption backdoors. A key component of fascist economies was that industries were completely captured by politicians and bound to perform the duties of the state. So I pretty strongly believe that companies providing feedback to politicians and the public about the impact of proposed laws is generally a good thing. This is said as a lifelong Apple hater. I'm enjoying a bit of a popcorn moment here, but I also give them the right to bitch about it a little.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway918274 3y agoHow did that slapdown work for Microsoft? They are about as bad, if not worse today than they were back then.