6 ms·

To start: There absolutely should be limits to what kinds of devices can be sold. E.g., they should not be dangerous to operate. If you can't make a lawnmower t

by rvense 3y ago

To start: There absolutely should be limits to what kinds of devices can be sold. E.g., they should not be dangerous to operate. If you can't make a lawnmower that doesn't harm people, it's OK for governments or the EU to tell you that you can't sell lawnmowers. It's also OK to enforce standardization in e.g. electrical sockets and other basic infrastructure. This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase. Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed. (I don't know the DMA well enough to say if it, specifically, is the right way to handle it, mind, but it's obvious to me that the present situation is untenable.)

shiroiushi 3y ago
>An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed. Is it though? To extend your analogy, let's say you can go to the store and buy a hammer. One brand ("Granny Smith"), and only that brand, has these limitations and it's pretty well-known these limitations exist if you buy that hammer. Or, you can buy one of the other dozen or so brands of hammer, and you don't have that limitation. But because the Granny Smith hammer is pretty and has slick marketing, half the hammer buyers get that brand of hammer, even though the other hammer buyers call them idiots for doing so. Is this really a place where we need government intervention, when consumers are willingly making this choice? If it got to the point where you couldn't realistically do any hammering without a Granny Smith hammer, then sure, it's pretty obvious action is needed. But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less). Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- simonjgreen 3y ago
  Swap ‘hammer’ for ‘crimp tool’ and now you’re in to reality
  - nickburns 3y ago
    the total market size for crimping tools pales in comparison to that for hammers. distinguishable on that fact alone.
- seszett 3y ago
  Hammers aren't a good example because there's already an established market for interoperable nails, but batteries for tools is a more appropriate comparison I think. They should absolutely get regulated, there is no good reason for Parkside batteries not to be compatible with Bosch tools, or Makita, or Ryobi or whatever else. They all have their slightly different battery interfaces, that don't have technical reasons to be different. They only provide vendor lock-in, so that people who already have a Ryobi drill will also buy a Ryobi grass mower and a Ryobi trimmer, regardless of their actual individual merits, unless they want to also buy batteries (and chargers!) for each of their pieces of equipment. This is bad for consumers, bad for competition and bad for the overall market. I hope this gets regulated in the future in the EU, but who knows.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    Sure, it's bad, but suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools, which have proprietary batteries that cost a fortune, and have encryption chips to prevent making compatible third-party batteries or chargers. The Granny Smith tools cost more than the others, and are sold in boutique shops by so-called "master craftsmen" who have never actually worked professionally with power tools. Yet somehow, half of tool buyers happily buy their tools, despite knowing they have to get batteries from the Granny Smith Stores and can't use any other tools' batteries. This is even touted as a feature(!), since it "protects" owners from "unsafe" 3rd-party batteries and chargers. Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves? If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies, and that was tried before with disastrous results. So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions, as long as no actual fraud is being committed? And remember the safety aspect touted by Granny Smith: they claim that it's unsafe to use non-GS batteries in their tools, and that it's a burden on them to deal with warranty claims for GS tools harmed by bad non-GS batteries. (Remember, there are a LOT of users right here on HN who will cite this safety argument for iPhones.)
nickpp 3y ago
> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate. It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market. > This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase. "For your own safety" is how authoritarianism raises.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- seszett 3y ago
  > It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market. The EU is a regulatory body and a union of democratic sovereign states. There is no comparison to be had whatsoever with a multinational for-profit company.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    I actually live in the EU. We (the citizens) have zero control over that regulatory body. ZERO. None of those represent me and I have no way of influencing them in any way. While multinational companies?! I can actually stop being their customer and vote with my wallet. Much more democratic, IMHO.
    - nickburns 3y ago
      'voting with one's wallet' is a euphemism hardly to do with the democratic process in any real sense.
      - nickpp 3y ago
        Maybe in theory. But in practice, I've enacted much more change in the society voting with my money than I ever did with my actual vote. In fact, I think my actual vote has never in my life counted. My choice never won, my candidate never got in. I lived both under a communist dictatorship and democracy. My actual vote (well, my parent's, I was too young to vote then) was wasted under both. But every time I purchase a product I know that I act as natural selection in an ecosystem of companies which cannot exist unless their actions are (partially) aligned with my interests. It works.
throwaway2990 3y ago
> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. This would only be true if Android did not exist. But the reality is it’s not harmful at all.
- guappa 3y ago
  Android, the platform where you're free to be victim of a different USA company.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    Android has its issues, but if you want to use a different app store on an Android phone, you're free to do so. You can also side-load apps over a USB cable. One is not like the other.
willyt 3y ago
What, like paslode charges you for gas every time you hammer a nail. Joiners are not competitive if they don’t have a nail gun so they have to buy them and everyone knows paslode is the best. The compressed air ones are unweildy and the electric ones are not powerfull enough. (Sorry couldn’t resist it)

by rvense 3y ago

shiroiushi 3y ago

>An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed. Is it though? To extend your analogy, let's say you can go to the store and buy a hammer. One brand ("Granny Smith"), and only that brand, has these limitations and it's pretty well-known these limitations exist if you buy that hammer. Or, you can buy one of the other dozen or so brands of hammer, and you don't have that limitation. But because the Granny Smith hammer is pretty and has slick marketing, half the hammer buyers get that brand of hammer, even though the other hammer buyers call them idiots for doing so. Is this really a place where we need government intervention, when consumers are willingly making this choice? If it got to the point where you couldn't realistically do any hammering without a Granny Smith hammer, then sure, it's pretty obvious action is needed. But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less). Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
simonjgreen 3y ago
Swap ‘hammer’ for ‘crimp tool’ and now you’re in to reality
- nickburns 3y ago
  the total market size for crimping tools pales in comparison to that for hammers. distinguishable on that fact alone.
seszett 3y ago
Hammers aren't a good example because there's already an established market for interoperable nails, but batteries for tools is a more appropriate comparison I think. They should absolutely get regulated, there is no good reason for Parkside batteries not to be compatible with Bosch tools, or Makita, or Ryobi or whatever else. They all have their slightly different battery interfaces, that don't have technical reasons to be different. They only provide vendor lock-in, so that people who already have a Ryobi drill will also buy a Ryobi grass mower and a Ryobi trimmer, regardless of their actual individual merits, unless they want to also buy batteries (and chargers!) for each of their pieces of equipment. This is bad for consumers, bad for competition and bad for the overall market. I hope this gets regulated in the future in the EU, but who knows.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  Sure, it's bad, but suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools, which have proprietary batteries that cost a fortune, and have encryption chips to prevent making compatible third-party batteries or chargers. The Granny Smith tools cost more than the others, and are sold in boutique shops by so-called "master craftsmen" who have never actually worked professionally with power tools. Yet somehow, half of tool buyers happily buy their tools, despite knowing they have to get batteries from the Granny Smith Stores and can't use any other tools' batteries. This is even touted as a feature(!), since it "protects" owners from "unsafe" 3rd-party batteries and chargers. Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves? If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies, and that was tried before with disastrous results. So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions, as long as no actual fraud is being committed? And remember the safety aspect touted by Granny Smith: they claim that it's unsafe to use non-GS batteries in their tools, and that it's a burden on them to deal with warranty claims for GS tools harmed by bad non-GS batteries. (Remember, there are a LOT of users right here on HN who will cite this safety argument for iPhones.)

nickpp 3y ago

> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate. It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market. > This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase. "For your own safety" is how authoritarianism raises.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seszett 3y ago
> It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market. The EU is a regulatory body and a union of democratic sovereign states. There is no comparison to be had whatsoever with a multinational for-profit company.
- nickpp 3y ago
  I actually live in the EU. We (the citizens) have zero control over that regulatory body. ZERO. None of those represent me and I have no way of influencing them in any way. While multinational companies?! I can actually stop being their customer and vote with my wallet. Much more democratic, IMHO.
  - nickburns 3y ago
    'voting with one's wallet' is a euphemism hardly to do with the democratic process in any real sense.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      Maybe in theory. But in practice, I've enacted much more change in the society voting with my money than I ever did with my actual vote. In fact, I think my actual vote has never in my life counted. My choice never won, my candidate never got in. I lived both under a communist dictatorship and democracy. My actual vote (well, my parent's, I was too young to vote then) was wasted under both. But every time I purchase a product I know that I act as natural selection in an ecosystem of companies which cannot exist unless their actions are (partially) aligned with my interests. It works.

throwaway2990 3y ago

> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. This would only be true if Android did not exist. But the reality is it’s not harmful at all.

guappa 3y ago
Android, the platform where you're free to be victim of a different USA company.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  Android has its issues, but if you want to use a different app store on an Android phone, you're free to do so. You can also side-load apps over a USB cable. One is not like the other.

willyt 3y ago

What, like paslode charges you for gas every time you hammer a nail. Joiners are not competitive if they don’t have a nail gun so they have to buy them and everyone knows paslode is the best. The compressed air ones are unweildy and the electric ones are not powerfull enough. (Sorry couldn’t resist it)