3 ms·

> If you wanted a phone with more freedom you could have bought another device and voted with your wallet, but you didn't. Sounds like a "we should improve soc

> If you wanted a phone with more freedom you could have bought another device and voted with your wallet, but you didn't. Sounds like a "we should improve society somewhat" moment. https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342... If you have two choices and one is barely better than the other, you think people shouldn't be allowed to acknowledge the negative aspects of the thing they chose?

roenxi 2y ago
Overruling the world's premier phone-maker on questions of how to design a phone is not improving society. I'm giving Apple money specifically because they designed the phone. I don't want the EU trying to figure it out; they have a reverse-midas touch. Things touch ends up slumping. It is a very salient point that the reason they are issuing orders to a US company is because they "helped" all the EU companies make decisions until they were effectively forced out of the market with failed tech policies. If you want a phone built by someone who doesn't know how to design a phone, I'm sure there are already lots of tiny and irrelevant players already in the EU that you can patronise. The phone probably won't be particularly good though, evidenced by the fact that most people with a choice prefer to let Apple make all the decisions. Or various Asian groups who have a knack for tech.
- bored13 2y ago
  In a similar vein, I dislike forcing of the USB-C port. I think we are going to approach a wall (especially concerning foldables) where the thickness of the port is a limiting factor and it should be up to the user to decide if its worth going thinner with a proprietary port. If customers choose to go with USB-C, a thicker phone, larger battery etc, that is all and well, I feel that will happen anyways. But it should be up to the customer & manufacturer, not the government.
  - jraph 2y ago
    > up to the customer & manufacturer Yeah, no. In this specific topic, we've had plenty of time to establish that it is isn't the case. Power is not balanced between individuals and manufacturers. USB is a horrible mess but for the first time in my life, I can travel with one charger that works with all the devices I take with me. I could even travel without a charger and be pretty sure I will be able to find one at the destination. People around me seem as happy as me about this and it wasn't the case as long as manufacturers were not forced to use USB. Nobody complains about the port form factor. That's simply not a concern.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      Yep. Whenever I travel, I bring a single 60W USB-C charger that charges my laptop, my phone, and even other random gadgets I might need to bring with me. I have an older micro-USB Kindle that annoys me. Of course, for most trips I never need to charge it, as long as I charge it before I leave, so for all practical purposes it's fine. My wife just bought an iPhone 16 to replace her iPhone XR, and if it weren't for her AirPods from a few years ago, she'd be able to avoid carrying around that extra lightning cable too. This might feel like a minor, first-world problem, but it is annoying. And when you scale it up, there's so much waste with so many people needing two cables, one of which could have never been manufactured, had we all been using the same ports all along.
- protimewaster 2y ago
  This feels like a really wild take on regulations to me. Are iPhones also worse because they have to meet consumer safety laws?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    If they are changing the decisions that Apple makes? Probably. iPhones are a luxury item; Apple is not skimping and doesn't want to accidentally assassinate their customers. Reliability and safety are selling points to them. We're not talking about explosive Lebanese pagers here. My expectation would be that Apple could quite easily design the phone independently of the safety regulations, then do a review and determine that they have effortlessly complied with them. Otherwise it is more likely to be a defect in the regulation than with Apple.
    - protimewaster 2y ago
      So your opinion is that it would be better for the world if Apple was not subjected to anything that causes them to do anything different than what they would naturally do? If a country passes a law to limit conflict minerals, and it impacts Apple, we'd all be better off if Apple was just allowed to keep using conflict minerals? Apple knows how to design phones, and if they think they need to use conflict minerals, we should just trust them. I just don't think this logic works. It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        > ...we'd all be better off if Apple was just allowed to keep using conflict minerals... It makes me laugh because back in the day people would have been complaining about Apple assembling their phones in Chinese sweatshops. But in the intervening time it turned out that working hard generates lots of wealth and now the conversation is how to sabotage the Chinese to stop them getting too wealthy, technically advanced and powerful. Those sweatshops meant business. But to your actual point, you feel a need to compare sideloading apps to promoting war and conflict on an international sale you might want to reset your sense of proportion. If the EU wants to focus on promoting global peace I would strongly advise that they go do that rather than trying to backseat design iPhones. There is a major land war in Europe right now that involves pretty much every nuclear power except Pakistan they might like to turn their attention to. Some might say it involves resource rights too. > It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well. The EUs regulators aren't so crash-hot either historically speaking. They've managed a grand transition from unchallenged global power to a 3rd tier continent over the last hundred years. They're doing something wrong. Telling Apple how to manage a phone is the least of their problems, but neatly emblematic of their strategy of having people who don't know how to make things work overulling the people who do.
- _carbyau_ 2y ago
  Overruling one of the worlds richest companies that produce one of the phoneOS duopoly, can absolutely benefit society. In this instance, you can still give Apple your money - NOT sideload anything - and live life exactly as before. People - lots of people - just want an option. I love what the EU has done for standardising charging bullshittery. I hope it can make an impact here.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Not so; I'd pay more to have my family using phones without the option. They don't know what they are doing. I don't want them to have options and neither do they. Indeed we did pay more. They bought Apple phones.
    - _carbyau_ 2y ago
      Honestly, this just sounds like another option. Some people want sideloading. Some people want "lock it down so I can't fuck it up". They are just software options. Why can't we all just have what we want? Edit: added commentary below Other general purpose computers have Adminstrator/root vs standard user accounts. Why is this not a thing for phones?
      - throwaway290 2y ago
        Any option will be social engineered into enabling. > Why can't we all just have what we want? We have it. I compiled and installed an open source app on my iphone. There is a barrier which is just perfect because it means no matter how hard they try no one can manage to get my mom to install some shady app that abuses private apis and such in order to hack her unless they first get this app on app store Making it an option would threaten safety and life savings of millions of people who don't give a flying duck about your or my undying love for full hardware ownership but will instantly become targets for mass hacking campaigns ("just press this button and OK 3 times to the red warning") "if you really care about it, you can do it" is a fair state of affairs. If you are dead set on it just mentally map in your head the price of a 1000$ device to 1100$ and be done with it. If you care about these things and insist on using this brand then you can afford it (I am a bit exaggerating the point but just because it seems like almost everyone is on the other side of the argument)
- kelnos 2y ago
  > Overruling the world's premier phone-maker on questions of how to design a phone is not improving society. I think it is! Certainly not on the level of eliminating feudalism, but it's an improvement. You're also misusing the term "design" here. Apple's resistance to allowing sideloading has nothing to do with design. It's a business decision that helps them extract more revenue from their product. And that's the real point: governments are free to restrict and dictate how companies do business. That's just how the world works. > I'm giving Apple money specifically because they designed the phone. And many people give Apple money somewhat grudgingly, because they know Apple offers a great experience, even though there are some things they don't like about it, and there's no reason -- aside from Apple's business model -- why those issues can't be fixed.
nozzlegear 2y ago
> If you have two choices and one is barely better than the other I don't think "barely better" accurately represents the situation, since the other choice here literally allows sideloading. It's not barely better, it is better if you want to sideload apps. To paraphrase your meme, society has already been improved somewhat.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 2y ago
  The problem is you have to make a trade off, and for no reason. You might like iPhones in quite a few ways better than you like Android phones, but also really want to sideload. So what do you do? Well, you have to compromise. And not for a real technical reason. You have to compromise because Apple's business model depends on being able to extract more money from customers and developers by being a gatekeeper. Whenever a company's business model prevents me from doing something I want with a product they might sell me, I think twice about buying that product.

roenxi 2y ago

Overruling the world's premier phone-maker on questions of how to design a phone is not improving society. I'm giving Apple money specifically because they designed the phone. I don't want the EU trying to figure it out; they have a reverse-midas touch. Things touch ends up slumping. It is a very salient point that the reason they are issuing orders to a US company is because they "helped" all the EU companies make decisions until they were effectively forced out of the market with failed tech policies. If you want a phone built by someone who doesn't know how to design a phone, I'm sure there are already lots of tiny and irrelevant players already in the EU that you can patronise. The phone probably won't be particularly good though, evidenced by the fact that most people with a choice prefer to let Apple make all the decisions. Or various Asian groups who have a knack for tech.

bored13 2y ago
In a similar vein, I dislike forcing of the USB-C port. I think we are going to approach a wall (especially concerning foldables) where the thickness of the port is a limiting factor and it should be up to the user to decide if its worth going thinner with a proprietary port. If customers choose to go with USB-C, a thicker phone, larger battery etc, that is all and well, I feel that will happen anyways. But it should be up to the customer & manufacturer, not the government.
- jraph 2y ago
  > up to the customer & manufacturer Yeah, no. In this specific topic, we've had plenty of time to establish that it is isn't the case. Power is not balanced between individuals and manufacturers. USB is a horrible mess but for the first time in my life, I can travel with one charger that works with all the devices I take with me. I could even travel without a charger and be pretty sure I will be able to find one at the destination. People around me seem as happy as me about this and it wasn't the case as long as manufacturers were not forced to use USB. Nobody complains about the port form factor. That's simply not a concern.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Yep. Whenever I travel, I bring a single 60W USB-C charger that charges my laptop, my phone, and even other random gadgets I might need to bring with me. I have an older micro-USB Kindle that annoys me. Of course, for most trips I never need to charge it, as long as I charge it before I leave, so for all practical purposes it's fine. My wife just bought an iPhone 16 to replace her iPhone XR, and if it weren't for her AirPods from a few years ago, she'd be able to avoid carrying around that extra lightning cable too. This might feel like a minor, first-world problem, but it is annoying. And when you scale it up, there's so much waste with so many people needing two cables, one of which could have never been manufactured, had we all been using the same ports all along.
protimewaster 2y ago
This feels like a really wild take on regulations to me. Are iPhones also worse because they have to meet consumer safety laws?
- roenxi 2y ago
  If they are changing the decisions that Apple makes? Probably. iPhones are a luxury item; Apple is not skimping and doesn't want to accidentally assassinate their customers. Reliability and safety are selling points to them. We're not talking about explosive Lebanese pagers here. My expectation would be that Apple could quite easily design the phone independently of the safety regulations, then do a review and determine that they have effortlessly complied with them. Otherwise it is more likely to be a defect in the regulation than with Apple.
  - protimewaster 2y ago
    So your opinion is that it would be better for the world if Apple was not subjected to anything that causes them to do anything different than what they would naturally do? If a country passes a law to limit conflict minerals, and it impacts Apple, we'd all be better off if Apple was just allowed to keep using conflict minerals? Apple knows how to design phones, and if they think they need to use conflict minerals, we should just trust them. I just don't think this logic works. It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > ...we'd all be better off if Apple was just allowed to keep using conflict minerals... It makes me laugh because back in the day people would have been complaining about Apple assembling their phones in Chinese sweatshops. But in the intervening time it turned out that working hard generates lots of wealth and now the conversation is how to sabotage the Chinese to stop them getting too wealthy, technically advanced and powerful. Those sweatshops meant business. But to your actual point, you feel a need to compare sideloading apps to promoting war and conflict on an international sale you might want to reset your sense of proportion. If the EU wants to focus on promoting global peace I would strongly advise that they go do that rather than trying to backseat design iPhones. There is a major land war in Europe right now that involves pretty much every nuclear power except Pakistan they might like to turn their attention to. Some might say it involves resource rights too. > It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well. The EUs regulators aren't so crash-hot either historically speaking. They've managed a grand transition from unchallenged global power to a 3rd tier continent over the last hundred years. They're doing something wrong. Telling Apple how to manage a phone is the least of their problems, but neatly emblematic of their strategy of having people who don't know how to make things work overulling the people who do.
_carbyau_ 2y ago
Overruling one of the worlds richest companies that produce one of the phoneOS duopoly, can absolutely benefit society. In this instance, you can still give Apple your money - NOT sideload anything - and live life exactly as before. People - lots of people - just want an option. I love what the EU has done for standardising charging bullshittery. I hope it can make an impact here.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Not so; I'd pay more to have my family using phones without the option. They don't know what they are doing. I don't want them to have options and neither do they. Indeed we did pay more. They bought Apple phones.
  - _carbyau_ 2y ago
    Honestly, this just sounds like another option. Some people want sideloading. Some people want "lock it down so I can't fuck it up". They are just software options. Why can't we all just have what we want? Edit: added commentary below Other general purpose computers have Adminstrator/root vs standard user accounts. Why is this not a thing for phones?
    - throwaway290 2y ago
      Any option will be social engineered into enabling. > Why can't we all just have what we want? We have it. I compiled and installed an open source app on my iphone. There is a barrier which is just perfect because it means no matter how hard they try no one can manage to get my mom to install some shady app that abuses private apis and such in order to hack her unless they first get this app on app store Making it an option would threaten safety and life savings of millions of people who don't give a flying duck about your or my undying love for full hardware ownership but will instantly become targets for mass hacking campaigns ("just press this button and OK 3 times to the red warning") "if you really care about it, you can do it" is a fair state of affairs. If you are dead set on it just mentally map in your head the price of a 1000$ device to 1100$ and be done with it. If you care about these things and insist on using this brand then you can afford it (I am a bit exaggerating the point but just because it seems like almost everyone is on the other side of the argument)
kelnos 2y ago
> Overruling the world's premier phone-maker on questions of how to design a phone is not improving society. I think it is! Certainly not on the level of eliminating feudalism, but it's an improvement. You're also misusing the term "design" here. Apple's resistance to allowing sideloading has nothing to do with design. It's a business decision that helps them extract more revenue from their product. And that's the real point: governments are free to restrict and dictate how companies do business. That's just how the world works. > I'm giving Apple money specifically because they designed the phone. And many people give Apple money somewhat grudgingly, because they know Apple offers a great experience, even though there are some things they don't like about it, and there's no reason -- aside from Apple's business model -- why those issues can't be fixed.

nozzlegear 2y ago

> If you have two choices and one is barely better than the other I don't think "barely better" accurately represents the situation, since the other choice here literally allows sideloading. It's not barely better, it is better if you want to sideload apps. To paraphrase your meme, society has already been improved somewhat.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 2y ago
The problem is you have to make a trade off, and for no reason. You might like iPhones in quite a few ways better than you like Android phones, but also really want to sideload. So what do you do? Well, you have to compromise. And not for a real technical reason. You have to compromise because Apple's business model depends on being able to extract more money from customers and developers by being a gatekeeper. Whenever a company's business model prevents me from doing something I want with a product they might sell me, I think twice about buying that product.