6 ms·

Yes, it's all about control. Control the platform. Control the access to the platform, and the world is your oyster. And the political and legislation system ar

Yes, it's all about control. Control the platform. Control the access to the platform, and the world is your oyster. And the political and legislation system are their friends. It is the establishment. The only way to fight is to indoctrinate the next generation, at home, and in school, to use FOSS. People tend to stick to whatever they used in childhood. We the software engineers should volunteer in giving speeches to students about this. It is much easier to sell ideologies to younger people when they are rebellious to the institutions.

Workaccount2 11mo ago
Really its probably the dumbass judge that told Google "The apple app store isn't anti-competitive because they don't allow any competitors on their platform" when google asked why the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't. I cannot think of a more detached and idiotic ruling than that.
- ferguess_k 11mo ago
  I guess they are going to say whatever to prove the case. The legislation system is highly...closed and shun of laymen.
  - tenuousemphasis 11mo ago
    It's the JUDGE that came up with that reasoning.
    - ferguess_k 11mo ago
      Yeah it's the judge.
      - saturnite 11mo ago
        I think you missed the point that judges aren't part of the legislative branch. They're in the judicial branch.
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
        gudnuff 11mo ago
        [dead]
        ferguess_k 11mo ago
        Please allow me to correct my bad English and replace it with "the law circle".
    - xxpor 11mo ago
      Because that's the law, like it or not. Apple doesn't have a problem because the rules were the rules from day 1. Google did a bait and switch, legally.
      - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
        What does antitrust law have to do with "day 1"? So if Ford and GM are both already in all 50 states and then they try to divide up territory between them, that's illegal, but at the point when there were still areas one of them wasn't in, they could publicly announce a contractual agreement to not enter into the other's territory? That seems not just questionable but actively bad policy with an enormous perverse incentive. And if you're going to say this: > Because that's the law, like it or not. I would ask you to point me to the text in the statute requiring the courts to do that.
- Gunax 11mo ago
  Hmm, having read that, I am starting to sympathize with Google if they are going to be punished for being open. No one seems to care that Apple has never allowed freedom on their devices. Even the comments here don't seem to mention it. Google was at least open for a while. Or maybe no one mentions it just because the closed iPhone is a fait accompli at this point.
  - neuralRiot 11mo ago
    Perhaps because Apple never “promised” to be open, Google instead built itself by playing the good guy and started to switch when money called so those who chose them for that reason feel betrayed.
- Spivak 11mo ago
  But the ruling is correct. You can't have it both ways, if you invite competition you're not allowed to be anti-competitive. You can be Nintendo, offer a single store, only allow first party hardware, and exercise total control over your product. Then your anticompetitive behavior can only be evaluated externally. But if you open yourself up to internal competition with other phone vendors, other stores, and then you flex your other business units (gapps) to force those other vendors to favor you then you're in big trouble.
  - chii 11mo ago
    > But the ruling is correct. You can't have it both ways, if you invite competition you're not allowed to be anti-competitive That's just stupid, because being anti-competitive is an emergent outcome, rather than anything specific. Apple is definitely anti-competitive, but they exploited such a ruling so that they can skirt it. Owning a platform that no other entrants are allowed is anti-competitive - whether you're small or large. It's only when you're large that you should become a target to purge via anti-competitive laws. This allows small players to grow, but always face the threat of purging - this makes them wary of trying to take advantage too much, which results in better consumer outcomes.
    - amne 11mo ago
      That's like Karcher opening a megamall to sell all their offering, vacuums, pressure washers, floor washers, you name it .. and then you, Bosch, complaining you can't sell your vacuum in Karcher's megamall where all the people go. What are you even saying? Whereas google was letting Bosch sell vacuums in their megamall, but only if it uses Google dust filters and people buy only Google made dust filters and Bosch isn't allowed to sell their own dust filters in the megamall.
      - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
        It's like a company buying all the land within a 100 mile radius and then nominally "selling" plots to people but with terms of service attached that restrict what you can do with the land you bought and that allow the company to change the terms at any time. And then, after people have moved in, most of them having not even read the terms or realized it wasn't an ordinary sale, they start enforcing the terms against competitors. Which most people don't notice because they aren't competitors, and because the terms also prohibited anyone in the city from telling people what's going on[1]. Then people eventually notice and start to ask whether terms locking out competitors like that are an antitrust violation, and someone says that they're not because the people there agreed to them. [1] https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/DTH-Apple-new.pdf https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/DTH-Apple-n... But how is an agreement prohibiting people from patronizing competitors not an antitrust violation? It's not a matter of who agreed to it, it's matter of what they're requiring you to agree to.
- viktorcode 11mo ago
  The US anti trust legislation punishes the abuse of monopoly power, not being monopoly in itself. Google was found guilty in leveraging their dominating position on the platform to do just that. On the other hand in the US Apple's App Store was not found to be a monopoly in the first place. Different cases about abusing dominating position also didn't go far.
sylos 11mo ago
So basically you're saying we're fucked. People don't care about FOSS in general, let alone when their phone says it's dangerous.
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
  If peopele cared about privacy as much as politics pretends they do, we'd have solved so many problems in society. Fortunately, those fighting, albeit a minority, have done great work in protecting this. No reason to stop now.
- ferguess_k 11mo ago
  Yeah we are fucked, but as long as a small percentage of us, like 1% of the population knows, understands and agrees with the idea I think we are fine.
  - eth0up 11mo ago
    We'll have to initiate solid self defense protocol though. I think the first thing we should do is get a new logical fallacy term officially coined. Stallman/StallManned Abusing the principles of the Slippery Slope to discredit perfectly rational predictions
fithisux 11mo ago
Really difficult because you need to have two devices. One mandated be the establishment and one mandated by visions and freedom. But it would be a great start. On my work laptop I am mandated to use Windows 11 but I run (and when I have time) I develop FOSS.
wiz21c 11mo ago
I agree with you. But you do realize that it's been like that since about 20 years now. It started because of Microsoft (proprietary software), then Google (propriteary platform), now ChatGPT (proprietary knowledge). And I tried to tell my kids. And it failed mostly. But in the long run (a decade), what is exceptional and proprietary will become common FOSS. And everybody will benefit.
- ferguess_k 11mo ago
  I envision this as an ideology. We don't need every kid to follow it, and I don't expect the majority to follow. A 1-2% is good enough. That's why giving speeches to teenages might be the best bang for the buck. There are always kids who need to escape into some cool ideas and it could be the idea of FOSS.
motbus3 11mo ago
Imagine needing to agree with a TOS that can lock you out of your phone when they change/add some random new policy

Workaccount2 11mo ago

Really its probably the dumbass judge that told Google "The apple app store isn't anti-competitive because they don't allow any competitors on their platform" when google asked why the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't. I cannot think of a more detached and idiotic ruling than that.

ferguess_k 11mo ago
I guess they are going to say whatever to prove the case. The legislation system is highly...closed and shun of laymen.
- tenuousemphasis 11mo ago
  It's the JUDGE that came up with that reasoning.
  - ferguess_k 11mo ago
    Yeah it's the judge.
    - saturnite 11mo ago
      I think you missed the point that judges aren't part of the legislative branch. They're in the judicial branch.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
      - gudnuff 11mo ago
        [dead]
      - ferguess_k 11mo ago
        Please allow me to correct my bad English and replace it with "the law circle".
  - xxpor 11mo ago
    Because that's the law, like it or not. Apple doesn't have a problem because the rules were the rules from day 1. Google did a bait and switch, legally.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      What does antitrust law have to do with "day 1"? So if Ford and GM are both already in all 50 states and then they try to divide up territory between them, that's illegal, but at the point when there were still areas one of them wasn't in, they could publicly announce a contractual agreement to not enter into the other's territory? That seems not just questionable but actively bad policy with an enormous perverse incentive. And if you're going to say this: > Because that's the law, like it or not. I would ask you to point me to the text in the statute requiring the courts to do that.
Gunax 11mo ago
Hmm, having read that, I am starting to sympathize with Google if they are going to be punished for being open. No one seems to care that Apple has never allowed freedom on their devices. Even the comments here don't seem to mention it. Google was at least open for a while. Or maybe no one mentions it just because the closed iPhone is a fait accompli at this point.
- neuralRiot 11mo ago
  Perhaps because Apple never “promised” to be open, Google instead built itself by playing the good guy and started to switch when money called so those who chose them for that reason feel betrayed.
Spivak 11mo ago
But the ruling is correct. You can't have it both ways, if you invite competition you're not allowed to be anti-competitive. You can be Nintendo, offer a single store, only allow first party hardware, and exercise total control over your product. Then your anticompetitive behavior can only be evaluated externally. But if you open yourself up to internal competition with other phone vendors, other stores, and then you flex your other business units (gapps) to force those other vendors to favor you then you're in big trouble.
- chii 11mo ago
  > But the ruling is correct. You can't have it both ways, if you invite competition you're not allowed to be anti-competitive That's just stupid, because being anti-competitive is an emergent outcome, rather than anything specific. Apple is definitely anti-competitive, but they exploited such a ruling so that they can skirt it. Owning a platform that no other entrants are allowed is anti-competitive - whether you're small or large. It's only when you're large that you should become a target to purge via anti-competitive laws. This allows small players to grow, but always face the threat of purging - this makes them wary of trying to take advantage too much, which results in better consumer outcomes.
  - amne 11mo ago
    That's like Karcher opening a megamall to sell all their offering, vacuums, pressure washers, floor washers, you name it .. and then you, Bosch, complaining you can't sell your vacuum in Karcher's megamall where all the people go. What are you even saying? Whereas google was letting Bosch sell vacuums in their megamall, but only if it uses Google dust filters and people buy only Google made dust filters and Bosch isn't allowed to sell their own dust filters in the megamall.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      It's like a company buying all the land within a 100 mile radius and then nominally "selling" plots to people but with terms of service attached that restrict what you can do with the land you bought and that allow the company to change the terms at any time. And then, after people have moved in, most of them having not even read the terms or realized it wasn't an ordinary sale, they start enforcing the terms against competitors. Which most people don't notice because they aren't competitors, and because the terms also prohibited anyone in the city from telling people what's going on[1]. Then people eventually notice and start to ask whether terms locking out competitors like that are an antitrust violation, and someone says that they're not because the people there agreed to them. [1] https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/DTH-Apple-new.pdf https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/DTH-Apple-n... But how is an agreement prohibiting people from patronizing competitors not an antitrust violation? It's not a matter of who agreed to it, it's matter of what they're requiring you to agree to.
viktorcode 11mo ago
The US anti trust legislation punishes the abuse of monopoly power, not being monopoly in itself. Google was found guilty in leveraging their dominating position on the platform to do just that. On the other hand in the US Apple's App Store was not found to be a monopoly in the first place. Different cases about abusing dominating position also didn't go far.

sylos 11mo ago

So basically you're saying we're fucked. People don't care about FOSS in general, let alone when their phone says it's dangerous.

johnnyanmac 11mo ago
If peopele cared about privacy as much as politics pretends they do, we'd have solved so many problems in society. Fortunately, those fighting, albeit a minority, have done great work in protecting this. No reason to stop now.
ferguess_k 11mo ago
Yeah we are fucked, but as long as a small percentage of us, like 1% of the population knows, understands and agrees with the idea I think we are fine.
- eth0up 11mo ago
  We'll have to initiate solid self defense protocol though. I think the first thing we should do is get a new logical fallacy term officially coined. Stallman/StallManned Abusing the principles of the Slippery Slope to discredit perfectly rational predictions

fithisux 11mo ago

Really difficult because you need to have two devices. One mandated be the establishment and one mandated by visions and freedom. But it would be a great start. On my work laptop I am mandated to use Windows 11 but I run (and when I have time) I develop FOSS.

wiz21c 11mo ago

I agree with you. But you do realize that it's been like that since about 20 years now. It started because of Microsoft (proprietary software), then Google (propriteary platform), now ChatGPT (proprietary knowledge). And I tried to tell my kids. And it failed mostly. But in the long run (a decade), what is exceptional and proprietary will become common FOSS. And everybody will benefit.

ferguess_k 11mo ago
I envision this as an ideology. We don't need every kid to follow it, and I don't expect the majority to follow. A 1-2% is good enough. That's why giving speeches to teenages might be the best bang for the buck. There are always kids who need to escape into some cool ideas and it could be the idea of FOSS.

motbus3 11mo ago

Imagine needing to agree with a TOS that can lock you out of your phone when they change/add some random new policy