5 ms·

> My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place. Exactly. A few people want interoperability and everyone accepts i

> My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place. Exactly. A few people want interoperability and everyone accepts it because they don't care since it doesn't affect their lives. I'm not a policy expert, but this seems a bit like riding the high horse. The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise. We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big, in the name of enabling competition, which will again, due to the real reasons for EU tech decline, come from the USA.

FeepingCreature 2y ago
To be clear, I do think this regulation is best for everybody and will improve human lives, including for people in the USA. Not including the companies affected, but I don't think they're morally deserving of protection beyond the necessary.
troupo 2y ago
> The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise. Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that. On top of that, a lot of people want interoperability, they just don't know how to express it in terms that the regular highly technical divorced from reality crowd on HN understands. An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out. Apple keeps redesigning the app, and making it worse and more cumbersome to use. Even if there is an app that better suits my mom, I can't recommend it to her because Apple in its infinite wisdom does not let you change the default epub reader on iOS/iPadOS. And it's just on anecdote out of hundreds. There won't be a single person who wants all of the interoperability. There will be multiple people with multiple different requirements for interoperability. From epub readers to navigation apps to Pebble watches (https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-awesome-with-iphones https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...). Too bad they can't express their wishes in terms of "we want interoperability", and instead express them in terms of "why the hell Apple redesigned Books again" and "why can't Pebble show notifications". Then their wishes don't count, apparently. > We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big How did "Let's make platforms more open to increase competition and the umber of things people can do on those platforms" become "it's bad, and only exists to stick it to big US companies" is beyond my understanding (and defies all logic, if we're honest). Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that.
- xvokcarts 2y ago
  > Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that. I think that means to treat others as you’d like to be treated when you interact, not actively do to people what you’d like others to do to you. “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say, and that was my point about regulation enacted by expert groups without public vote. > An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out. When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android and hasn’t looked back since. No additional regulation was necessary and nobody was left behind. > Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that. Only when monopoly was involved. I’m not against interoperability, but I think it’s wierd to force anyone into it, be it a company, or a consumer, since nobody is in a monopolistic position, and everyone has a choice. When people have a choice they can make it as they wish, and they do, that’s why Apple is not in a dominant position - because people can make a choice. The thing that’s funny to me is that regulation now caters to people that want a specific device type with specific functionality dictated by government allegedly on behalf of the average consumer.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone? > When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android "I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony. > Only when monopoly was involved. Word of the day: duopoly. When there are only two platforms, and the world is very much dependent on them for a huge chunk of people's lives (to the point that banks refuse to support other platforms), it's strange to claim that a requirement for interoperability is a threat, or is forcing someone to do something, or is bad, or shouldn't be done. Just listen to yourself. At which point did simple things like "setting default apps" or "letting apps use OS-level functionality" become "threats", "weird to force" and "government dictate"? BTW. This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc.

FeepingCreature 2y ago

To be clear, I do think this regulation is best for everybody and will improve human lives, including for people in the USA. Not including the companies affected, but I don't think they're morally deserving of protection beyond the necessary.

troupo 2y ago

> The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise. Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that. On top of that, a lot of people want interoperability, they just don't know how to express it in terms that the regular highly technical divorced from reality crowd on HN understands. An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out. Apple keeps redesigning the app, and making it worse and more cumbersome to use. Even if there is an app that better suits my mom, I can't recommend it to her because Apple in its infinite wisdom does not let you change the default epub reader on iOS/iPadOS. And it's just on anecdote out of hundreds. There won't be a single person who wants all of the interoperability. There will be multiple people with multiple different requirements for interoperability. From epub readers to navigation apps to Pebble watches (https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-awesome-with-iphones https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...). Too bad they can't express their wishes in terms of "we want interoperability", and instead express them in terms of "why the hell Apple redesigned Books again" and "why can't Pebble show notifications". Then their wishes don't count, apparently. > We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big How did "Let's make platforms more open to increase competition and the umber of things people can do on those platforms" become "it's bad, and only exists to stick it to big US companies" is beyond my understanding (and defies all logic, if we're honest). Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that.

xvokcarts 2y ago
> Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that. I think that means to treat others as you’d like to be treated when you interact, not actively do to people what you’d like others to do to you. “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say, and that was my point about regulation enacted by expert groups without public vote. > An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out. When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android and hasn’t looked back since. No additional regulation was necessary and nobody was left behind. > Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that. Only when monopoly was involved. I’m not against interoperability, but I think it’s wierd to force anyone into it, be it a company, or a consumer, since nobody is in a monopolistic position, and everyone has a choice. When people have a choice they can make it as they wish, and they do, that’s why Apple is not in a dominant position - because people can make a choice. The thing that’s funny to me is that regulation now caters to people that want a specific device type with specific functionality dictated by government allegedly on behalf of the average consumer.
- troupo 2y ago
  > “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone? > When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android "I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony. > Only when monopoly was involved. Word of the day: duopoly. When there are only two platforms, and the world is very much dependent on them for a huge chunk of people's lives (to the point that banks refuse to support other platforms), it's strange to claim that a requirement for interoperability is a threat, or is forcing someone to do something, or is bad, or shouldn't be done. Just listen to yourself. At which point did simple things like "setting default apps" or "letting apps use OS-level functionality" become "threats", "weird to force" and "government dictate"? BTW. This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc.