3 ms·

> There are ways to offer predefined paths for those people that don't care about choice without taking away choice from everyone. Apple has completely failed a

> There are ways to offer predefined paths for those people that don't care about choice without taking away choice from everyone. Apple has completely failed at providing this because they're hungry for control and want to impose their will upon their customers. Ideally all people that use computers. And their customers are thanking them for it. Apple's control is primarily about improving the overall experience of the user, and secondarily about extracting as much revenue as they can from the platform they created. Seems like a good tradeoff to iOS users (for now). I completely agree there should be competitive alternatives to Apple's approach. My point is that openness is a feature, and the market should decide the level of openness that matters. So far the market seems to support the theory that a general purpose computing model like the PC world does not suit the mobile device world. > There's a huge difference between not owning software and still controlling it because it's your machine and not owning software and being out of luck because Apple can remote-delete it. And if they abuse that trust, they'll lose customers.

blub 14y ago
You're working from the assumption that openness (and by extension freedom, privacy) are features, but they're more than that. They are essential human needs and the market can not be relied upon to provide them, they must be enforced. Convenience is very alluring and freedom is very difficult. Most people will choose convenience, that I already know - what is extremely important is that there is always a Free option available and that corporations like Apple are mercilessly criticized whenever they fail to uphold the ideals of openness. You can relax and think the market will look out for your rights and you'll wake up with your hands tied behind your back parasubvert. These "tradeoffs" always seem nice until you're trapped.
- parasubvert 14y ago
  You are absolutely right that is my assumption. I do not believe software openness is an ideal or moral position. It's an economic feature, through and through, in my opinion. I am a big supporter of open source for the economic benefits, but I do not subscribe to the FSF philosophy of freedom.

blub 14y ago

You're working from the assumption that openness (and by extension freedom, privacy) are features, but they're more than that. They are essential human needs and the market can not be relied upon to provide them, they must be enforced. Convenience is very alluring and freedom is very difficult. Most people will choose convenience, that I already know - what is extremely important is that there is always a Free option available and that corporations like Apple are mercilessly criticized whenever they fail to uphold the ideals of openness. You can relax and think the market will look out for your rights and you'll wake up with your hands tied behind your back parasubvert. These "tradeoffs" always seem nice until you're trapped.

parasubvert 14y ago
You are absolutely right that is my assumption. I do not believe software openness is an ideal or moral position. It's an economic feature, through and through, in my opinion. I am a big supporter of open source for the economic benefits, but I do not subscribe to the FSF philosophy of freedom.