4 ms·

the interest in cracking open apple is almost entirely spite-driven, not on the basis of freedom of computing and user freedom. this becomes immediately obviou

by paulmd 2y ago

the interest in cracking open apple is almost entirely spite-driven, not on the basis of freedom of computing and user freedom. this becomes immediately obvious as soon as consoles get brought up. Not only do people not care about a mandatory 30% cut of revenue and no sideloading (except a limited capability for self-signing that isn’t allowed to utilize the standard APIs or the full performance of the chips) but they actively argue that the console is just a games appliance. And in fact that idea has been enshrined into law, game consoles get a specific carve out within the DMA just so they don’t have to! it’s always been about spite, the things you’re saying sound nice but they’re just a convenient and temporary port-of-call for people with other objectives, and the things you outline here will be forgotten as soon as it’s convenient. Just like RCS and whatever: like not only is Google’s proprietary encryption extensions a poison pill, but google itself doesn’t even care enough to implement rcs in its own services. Google voice has less RCS support than apple does in tyool 2024.

talldayo 2y ago
What goes around, comes around. When you build a platform predicated on the idea that nobody else can profit off of your product, you better be ready when a regulator tells you that business is off-limits. This becomes immediately obvious as soon as John-Deere gets brought up. Not only do people realize that outlawing repairs should be illegal, but they actively admit that the world would be a better place if spiteful conduct was made illegal.
- godelski 2y ago
  Especially when you consider Apple's tactics in all that. You don't have to be tech literate to think something is weird when Apple is sending lawyers and lobbyists to Nebraska to side with John Deere to make it hard for farmers to repair their equipment. If anything, I think it radicalized a lot more people because it was an explicit demonstration of how they don't want you to repair and instead want you to buy new things. I think this was one of the big contributing reasons why the right turned so much on tech in general, because they can always use the message of farmers. Which I still dislike Apple for and think it is hypocritical that they market themselves so much around recycled electronics and parts. We've all seen those open fires in third world countries. Making their products out of recycled materials is great, but preventing them from being upgradable and repairable undermines that entire message. The problem is that there's no good choices and creating a new competitor is exceptionally difficult. The market is cornered by two players and they have similar incentives. That's not good for consumers, that's not good for innovation, it's not good for the economy, and it isn't even good for those two players (in short term, yes, but not in the long run. But being short sighted is quite frankly what led us here in the first place).

by paulmd 2y ago

talldayo 2y ago

What goes around, comes around. When you build a platform predicated on the idea that nobody else can profit off of your product, you better be ready when a regulator tells you that business is off-limits. This becomes immediately obvious as soon as John-Deere gets brought up. Not only do people realize that outlawing repairs should be illegal, but they actively admit that the world would be a better place if spiteful conduct was made illegal.

godelski 2y ago
Especially when you consider Apple's tactics in all that. You don't have to be tech literate to think something is weird when Apple is sending lawyers and lobbyists to Nebraska to side with John Deere to make it hard for farmers to repair their equipment. If anything, I think it radicalized a lot more people because it was an explicit demonstration of how they don't want you to repair and instead want you to buy new things. I think this was one of the big contributing reasons why the right turned so much on tech in general, because they can always use the message of farmers. Which I still dislike Apple for and think it is hypocritical that they market themselves so much around recycled electronics and parts. We've all seen those open fires in third world countries. Making their products out of recycled materials is great, but preventing them from being upgradable and repairable undermines that entire message. The problem is that there's no good choices and creating a new competitor is exceptionally difficult. The market is cornered by two players and they have similar incentives. That's not good for consumers, that's not good for innovation, it's not good for the economy, and it isn't even good for those two players (in short term, yes, but not in the long run. But being short sighted is quite frankly what led us here in the first place).