3 ms·

If you’re a Netflix customer you just log into the app. There’s no issue. The debate is around people who are Apple customers but not Netflix customers, and wh

by graeme 3y ago

If you’re a Netflix customer you just log into the app. There’s no issue. The debate is around people who are Apple customers but not Netflix customers, and who download the Netflix app through the App Store.

callalex 3y ago
I don’t understand why I become the exclusive property of a specific corporation through the simple act of using a phone (which is something I am required to do in the modern day).
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  > through the simple act of using a phone Not just using it, but having paid for it.
  - homarp 3y ago
    and decided of paying Apple (for whatever reasons) and not any of the Android phones.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Because you aren't their property. You just invented that straw man. And the simple act of using a phone is you making a conscious decision to agree to accept the terms and conditions that come with buying any product. You are in no way forced to and by supporting alternatives you help to change the market for everyone.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Where can I read the terms and conditions for my shoes? My pants? What about my vase I bought? Objects don’t come with terms and conditions.
    - haswell 3y ago
      Your shoes and pants don't depend on Apple infrastructure and engineering resources to function. Your vase doesn't run software. These phones are not inanimate objects; they are computers that run software that is distributed under terms and conditions, and depend on central services the access to which is governed by terms and conditions. I understand the position that this is a Bad Thing. I'm typing this from a Linux machine for that reason. But the analogy here is problematic. Edit: to be clear, this comment is not endorsing Apple’s position. I understand it, even if I don’t like it. The point is that the acceptable use of a shoe is not instructive here.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. There are zero laws that prevent me from taking it apart, running it over, tossing it off a bridge (well, maybe that last one because littering is usually illegal). There’s not even any laws preventing me from flashing the device with whatever code I want. If you want to complain that a phone needs Apple infrastructure to function, you should check out the phones from the 80’s and 90’s. They were a lot bulkier but a phone doesn’t inherently need software and internet to function. These are computers, with modems, that happen to fit in the palm of your hand. They aren’t specialized, by any stretch of an imagination. The iPad even has the exact same CPUs that are literally used in computers. So, saying these things are somehow special is a little bit silly. The only thing special is the locked down code that came preinstalled that I sometimes regret agreeing to using. If I could go back in time, I’d disagree and then sue Apple for selling me a device I couldn’t use and make them allow me to install Linux. Sadly, I need a phone more than I have money to waste.
        haswell 3y ago
        > An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple the same way a PlayStation 5 doesn’t depend on Sony. Most people buy the iPhone not just for the electronic components but for the entire ecosystem of apps and experiences, which are built on a foundation of Apple core APIs. Even when Sony did support running Linux on the PS3, doing so was mutually exclusive with accessing Sony’s platform and playing games. > They aren’t specialized, by any stretch of an imagination. Specialization and vertical integration is what Apple is famous for. If these were not specialized, we should see similar devices on the market to satisfy all manner of customers similar to what we see with general purpose hardware. The reason general purpose hardware hasn’t produced a myriad of clones reminiscent of the early PC era is exactly because of how specialized and difficult these devices are to make. > If I could go back in time, I’d disagree and then sue Apple for selling me a device I couldn’t use and make them allow me to install Linux. I’m not asking this to be snarky; I’m genuinely curious: why do you want an iPhone then? Why not an Android phone that is far more permissive, or a PinePhone that is philosophically aligned with what it sounds like you want? I guess I just don’t understand the mindset. I run Linux on hardware that is meant to run whatever I want. I run games on my Xbox, and don’t lose sleep over it. I use an iPhone because I need my communication device to “just work”, and no other general purpose hardware I’ve ever owned has achieved this. Do I wish the iPhone was more flexible? Yeah, I really do. But I also understand why it’s not, and what that lack of flexibility provides me.
- hebrox 3y ago
  I think an analogy could be made that you’re walking into a market hall because they promoted it. The stall owners will be paying to be part of that. It’s not that you’re property of the market hall, but you’re on their property and they will want to be paid.
- nozzlegear 3y ago
  But you’re not required to go on the App Store and discover apps like Netflix. Presumably you do that because the corporation built a nice App Store ecosystem where you want to do such a thing.
- turtlebits 3y ago
  You buy a device knowing it's ecosystem is controlled by the manufacturer. When I buy a PS5, I understand that Sony 100% controls what games are offered on it.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    My phone. Is uh, my phone. I’m not my phone’s property. What crack are you smoking? For a PS5, it’s quite a bit different. We all can agree that piracy got out of control back in the 90’s/00’s. This is the price we pay to have games. Our phones never had this problem.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      I don’t think it’s that different really. Preventing piracy can be done using DRM, which can live side by side with unsigned code on the same device (as evidenced by eg Android running Widevine L1). Somebody noted well in another thread that the main difference is that game consoles are often sold at or below cost, so a "software monopoly" on a given console platform can be seen as a way of "paying back the advance" on the console to the manufacturer/platform. I don't think anybody would seriously argue that iPhones are a loss leader.
  - MilaM 3y ago
    A Playstation is used for gaming. No one needs it to function in society. Smartphones are personal computers, sometimes the only such device people own. I have to use them to commmunicate with relatives and friends, manage my finances, use public transport, access health and government services.
smoldesu 3y ago
Am I an Apple Customer because I own a Magic Trackpad? Are there fees or conditions that I should be rationally subject to because I made that purchasing decision? This mentality of corporate fiefdom is new to me. Reminds me of another vertical monopoly over telecommunication products and services that fared poorly under US jurisdiction.

by graeme 3y ago

callalex 3y ago

I don’t understand why I become the exclusive property of a specific corporation through the simple act of using a phone (which is something I am required to do in the modern day).

CharlieDigital 3y ago
> through the simple act of using a phone Not just using it, but having paid for it.
- homarp 3y ago
  and decided of paying Apple (for whatever reasons) and not any of the Android phones.
threeseed 3y ago
Because you aren't their property. You just invented that straw man. And the simple act of using a phone is you making a conscious decision to agree to accept the terms and conditions that come with buying any product. You are in no way forced to and by supporting alternatives you help to change the market for everyone.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Where can I read the terms and conditions for my shoes? My pants? What about my vase I bought? Objects don’t come with terms and conditions.
  - haswell 3y ago
    Your shoes and pants don't depend on Apple infrastructure and engineering resources to function. Your vase doesn't run software. These phones are not inanimate objects; they are computers that run software that is distributed under terms and conditions, and depend on central services the access to which is governed by terms and conditions. I understand the position that this is a Bad Thing. I'm typing this from a Linux machine for that reason. But the analogy here is problematic. Edit: to be clear, this comment is not endorsing Apple’s position. I understand it, even if I don’t like it. The point is that the acceptable use of a shoe is not instructive here.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. There are zero laws that prevent me from taking it apart, running it over, tossing it off a bridge (well, maybe that last one because littering is usually illegal). There’s not even any laws preventing me from flashing the device with whatever code I want. If you want to complain that a phone needs Apple infrastructure to function, you should check out the phones from the 80’s and 90’s. They were a lot bulkier but a phone doesn’t inherently need software and internet to function. These are computers, with modems, that happen to fit in the palm of your hand. They aren’t specialized, by any stretch of an imagination. The iPad even has the exact same CPUs that are literally used in computers. So, saying these things are somehow special is a little bit silly. The only thing special is the locked down code that came preinstalled that I sometimes regret agreeing to using. If I could go back in time, I’d disagree and then sue Apple for selling me a device I couldn’t use and make them allow me to install Linux. Sadly, I need a phone more than I have money to waste.
      - haswell 3y ago
        > An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple the same way a PlayStation 5 doesn’t depend on Sony. Most people buy the iPhone not just for the electronic components but for the entire ecosystem of apps and experiences, which are built on a foundation of Apple core APIs. Even when Sony did support running Linux on the PS3, doing so was mutually exclusive with accessing Sony’s platform and playing games. > They aren’t specialized, by any stretch of an imagination. Specialization and vertical integration is what Apple is famous for. If these were not specialized, we should see similar devices on the market to satisfy all manner of customers similar to what we see with general purpose hardware. The reason general purpose hardware hasn’t produced a myriad of clones reminiscent of the early PC era is exactly because of how specialized and difficult these devices are to make. > If I could go back in time, I’d disagree and then sue Apple for selling me a device I couldn’t use and make them allow me to install Linux. I’m not asking this to be snarky; I’m genuinely curious: why do you want an iPhone then? Why not an Android phone that is far more permissive, or a PinePhone that is philosophically aligned with what it sounds like you want? I guess I just don’t understand the mindset. I run Linux on hardware that is meant to run whatever I want. I run games on my Xbox, and don’t lose sleep over it. I use an iPhone because I need my communication device to “just work”, and no other general purpose hardware I’ve ever owned has achieved this. Do I wish the iPhone was more flexible? Yeah, I really do. But I also understand why it’s not, and what that lack of flexibility provides me.
hebrox 3y ago
I think an analogy could be made that you’re walking into a market hall because they promoted it. The stall owners will be paying to be part of that. It’s not that you’re property of the market hall, but you’re on their property and they will want to be paid.
nozzlegear 3y ago
But you’re not required to go on the App Store and discover apps like Netflix. Presumably you do that because the corporation built a nice App Store ecosystem where you want to do such a thing.
turtlebits 3y ago
You buy a device knowing it's ecosystem is controlled by the manufacturer. When I buy a PS5, I understand that Sony 100% controls what games are offered on it.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  My phone. Is uh, my phone. I’m not my phone’s property. What crack are you smoking? For a PS5, it’s quite a bit different. We all can agree that piracy got out of control back in the 90’s/00’s. This is the price we pay to have games. Our phones never had this problem.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    I don’t think it’s that different really. Preventing piracy can be done using DRM, which can live side by side with unsigned code on the same device (as evidenced by eg Android running Widevine L1). Somebody noted well in another thread that the main difference is that game consoles are often sold at or below cost, so a "software monopoly" on a given console platform can be seen as a way of "paying back the advance" on the console to the manufacturer/platform. I don't think anybody would seriously argue that iPhones are a loss leader.
- MilaM 3y ago
  A Playstation is used for gaming. No one needs it to function in society. Smartphones are personal computers, sometimes the only such device people own. I have to use them to commmunicate with relatives and friends, manage my finances, use public transport, access health and government services.

smoldesu 3y ago

Am I an Apple Customer because I own a Magic Trackpad? Are there fees or conditions that I should be rationally subject to because I made that purchasing decision? This mentality of corporate fiefdom is new to me. Reminds me of another vertical monopoly over telecommunication products and services that fared poorly under US jurisdiction.