4 ms·

They own stock in them and don't want to see that value erased.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
izacus 3y ago
That sad thing is... I don't think most people defending Apple in these topics actually own a significant amount of their stock directly. And they're actually undermining the strength of their own portfolios by undermining the strenght and resilience of USA economy due to erosion of free market competition and market stagnation via monopolies.
- toyg 3y ago
  There is another type of stock: immaterial social capital. As long as Apple products are status-symbols, owners gain social relevance from their ostentatious use. This is why brands promote themselves way beyond what is necessary to just sell widgets: to build identities that people will invest in, binding themselves into enough social stock that they will feel compelled to campaign for a brand just to protect that investment. It's all incredibly sad.
  - whstl 3y ago
    Nah, Apple was WAY more of a status-symbol when it wasn't the current penny-pinching entity addicted to "services" and IAP. There's nothing "high status" in having advertisements in the Settings app.
    - toyg 3y ago
      I don't disagree, Apple's brand was built before the current shenanigans were even possible. "Think different", am I right? I'm just saying that the previous investment in brand-building can now be leveraged into defending the indefensible.
      - whstl 3y ago
        Yep, exactly. IAP and advertisements in settings is the opposite of "Think different". Apple Music and Apple TV+, sure. But the 30% from Spotify and Netfix, and other shenanigans... not so much :/
  - brookst 3y ago
    Kind of ironic that social capital on HN is earned by being being pro-regulation, anti-big-tech, isn’t it? Your point holds but there is more than a little irony in the post.
    - toyg 3y ago
      I think it just shows that large tech companies have lost all credibility even among early-adopting, tech-positive nerds. New technology, unbridled, inevitably reaches a point where its negatives become clear to society at large. The printing press is regulated, cars are regulated, nuclear energy is regulated - because society recognized that we can't just let anyone build reactors in their sheds. Internet tech has probably reached that point.
    - fennecbutt 3y ago
      The difference is motive. Some of us don't give a fuck about our fake Internet points. Nor do I care about greasing up anybody on here; you're all strangers to me and I'd like to keep it that way.
- brookst 3y ago
  And also it is extreme disingenuous to dismiss anyone who holds a different opinion with that claim that they must only be doing so for profit motive. My opinions are well thought out and principled; yours are obviously just the product of greedy self interest. I can’t stand that kind of rhetoric.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    Yup, again, yet another thread that devolves into android people doing the 'brainless apple sheeple' meme. It's fucking offensive and it's literally any thread that mentions apple. I wish Dang would crack down - this is not good discourse, it's not making HN a better place. There is the same problem with NVIDIA, all NVIDIA threads eventually devolve into "people too dumb to buy AMD like me" as well, but, with apple there isn't even a slope, it's right into it from the outset. We have just utterly normalized this sort of conduct from some of these fanboys to the point where it doesn't even register with most people. We just have taken it as the inherent nature of Android fans to be offensive like this. Perhaps it is their nature. People with poor social skills self-selecting to the nerdy phone, etc. I have been leaning more and more to this theory after seeing it in thread after thread after thread - people simply cannot restrain themselves even here on HN. But oh gosh you can't say those things back! how uncivil! how dare I soil our sacred discourse of "brainless sheeple buying it for the blue bubbles" etc. But there's no reason for the rest of us to tolerate it. It's shitty discourse. But it's so utterly normalized that everyone just shrugs and looks past it.
    - izacus 3y ago
      What on earth are you going on about? Where on earth are you seeing fanboys and who's prosecuting you?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
smhenderson 3y ago
I don't own stock in any of the companies mentioned in the article, although I do own tech stocks. And I'm not suggesting I have a relationship with any of them, parasocial or otherwise. I wasn't trying to suggest we treat them like people or put them above us or give them a pass... I simply meant that getting rid of them completely could possibly eliminate the problem being discussed, but would also throw out a lot of value that they created and I didn't think that was the best solution.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

That sad thing is... I don't think most people defending Apple in these topics actually own a significant amount of their stock directly. And they're actually undermining the strength of their own portfolios by undermining the strenght and resilience of USA economy due to erosion of free market competition and market stagnation via monopolies.

toyg 3y ago
There is another type of stock: immaterial social capital. As long as Apple products are status-symbols, owners gain social relevance from their ostentatious use. This is why brands promote themselves way beyond what is necessary to just sell widgets: to build identities that people will invest in, binding themselves into enough social stock that they will feel compelled to campaign for a brand just to protect that investment. It's all incredibly sad.
- whstl 3y ago
  Nah, Apple was WAY more of a status-symbol when it wasn't the current penny-pinching entity addicted to "services" and IAP. There's nothing "high status" in having advertisements in the Settings app.
  - toyg 3y ago
    I don't disagree, Apple's brand was built before the current shenanigans were even possible. "Think different", am I right? I'm just saying that the previous investment in brand-building can now be leveraged into defending the indefensible.
    - whstl 3y ago
      Yep, exactly. IAP and advertisements in settings is the opposite of "Think different". Apple Music and Apple TV+, sure. But the 30% from Spotify and Netfix, and other shenanigans... not so much :/
- brookst 3y ago
  Kind of ironic that social capital on HN is earned by being being pro-regulation, anti-big-tech, isn’t it? Your point holds but there is more than a little irony in the post.
  - toyg 3y ago
    I think it just shows that large tech companies have lost all credibility even among early-adopting, tech-positive nerds. New technology, unbridled, inevitably reaches a point where its negatives become clear to society at large. The printing press is regulated, cars are regulated, nuclear energy is regulated - because society recognized that we can't just let anyone build reactors in their sheds. Internet tech has probably reached that point.
  - fennecbutt 3y ago
    The difference is motive. Some of us don't give a fuck about our fake Internet points. Nor do I care about greasing up anybody on here; you're all strangers to me and I'd like to keep it that way.
brookst 3y ago
And also it is extreme disingenuous to dismiss anyone who holds a different opinion with that claim that they must only be doing so for profit motive. My opinions are well thought out and principled; yours are obviously just the product of greedy self interest. I can’t stand that kind of rhetoric.
- paulmd 3y ago
  Yup, again, yet another thread that devolves into android people doing the 'brainless apple sheeple' meme. It's fucking offensive and it's literally any thread that mentions apple. I wish Dang would crack down - this is not good discourse, it's not making HN a better place. There is the same problem with NVIDIA, all NVIDIA threads eventually devolve into "people too dumb to buy AMD like me" as well, but, with apple there isn't even a slope, it's right into it from the outset. We have just utterly normalized this sort of conduct from some of these fanboys to the point where it doesn't even register with most people. We just have taken it as the inherent nature of Android fans to be offensive like this. Perhaps it is their nature. People with poor social skills self-selecting to the nerdy phone, etc. I have been leaning more and more to this theory after seeing it in thread after thread after thread - people simply cannot restrain themselves even here on HN. But oh gosh you can't say those things back! how uncivil! how dare I soil our sacred discourse of "brainless sheeple buying it for the blue bubbles" etc. But there's no reason for the rest of us to tolerate it. It's shitty discourse. But it's so utterly normalized that everyone just shrugs and looks past it.
  - izacus 3y ago
    What on earth are you going on about? Where on earth are you seeing fanboys and who's prosecuting you?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

smhenderson 3y ago

I don't own stock in any of the companies mentioned in the article, although I do own tech stocks. And I'm not suggesting I have a relationship with any of them, parasocial or otherwise. I wasn't trying to suggest we treat them like people or put them above us or give them a pass... I simply meant that getting rid of them completely could possibly eliminate the problem being discussed, but would also throw out a lot of value that they created and I didn't think that was the best solution.