Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple changes words in order to change the debate

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#101

Post by wtallis »

endtime wrote: post #97
wtallis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to see where "pro-life" may be stretching the truth, consider that not all "pro-life"-ers are vegans. When they say "pro-life", they're trying to imply that embryos are people, which is really the crux of the debate.

I'm actually okay with "pro-life" as shorthand for "pro-sentient life". I think that's obviously implied - the debate isn't about whether cows should be able to get abortions.

But whether an embryo is sentient or if its life has more value than that of a dog or cow is a debatable point for people who don't derive their opinions from their dogma. If you take "pro-life" to be short for "pro- sentient life", then you've shifted focus away from the issue over to what's pretty much a tautology.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#102

Post by thwarted »

evgen wrote: post #60
thwarted wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible. One doesn't require "ruthless control" to "deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible". Apple could relax its control a little and let people who want to use their hardware for other purposes, and void the warranty, do so easily.…

One doesn't require "ruthless control" to "deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible". Would it be possible for you to provide a counter-example that demonstrates your point? You may have a point, but it seems completely unsupported by available facts and I am hoping there is an example out there of what you think would be the "proper" degree of control to hit those goals.

What about not having hardware locked down would keep Apple from providing an integrated, user-friendly, clean experience out of the box? I didn't associate "ruthless control" and an "integrated, user-friendly, clean experience", the comment I responded to did.

I'll use Apple itself as an example. I can install Linux without issue on my MacBook Pro, and despite that Apple still provides an integrated, user-friendly, clean experience in the use of MacBook Pro. Apple doesn't advertise anything other than their own branding and experience with their laptops and desktops, so their message of integrated, user-friendly, clean experience when using their software on their hardware stands, even though it's not locked down.

This is a red herring anyway. I don't believe I'd be able to list anything other than Apple as an example of something integrated, user-friendly, clean experience without someone pointing out that whatever it is isn't as good as a random Apple product and thus doesn't qualify as a counterexample. It's really easy for someone to say "I don't think X provides an experience on par with Apple products, even though it isn't ruthlessly controlled" for any X.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#103

Post by wtallis »

guelo wrote: post #57
irons wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the "competitive market" you'd applauding was designed by the carriers with the specific goal of preventing anyone from ever doing what Apple did. That Apple was able to do it was marvelous, but it was also stupendously unlikely: a combination of the willingness to enter an unpromising market, the ability to pull it off, and the timing to convince a weakened Cingular to let them produce a phone witho…

So your argument is that the only company capable of creating competition is Apple. Strange.

Google's strategy with Android is to surrender complete control to the carriers. This is a consequence of them using an open source license that doesn't have GPLv3 style protections to ensure continued openness. Apple is the only company that we have seen in recent years do anything to weaken the carrier oligopoly. They probably aren't the only ones who have tried, but they are the only ones who have succeeded publicly. Thus it is entirely fair to say that Apple is the only company capable of creating competition in this market, so far.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#104

Post by Judson »

grinich wrote: post #73
matwood wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a lot of great points. If we are to believe the rumors that Apple offered the first iPhone to VZW, but refused to let VZW screw it up it adds to your point about the carriers being the real problem. I have to wonder if that is still a sticking point and one of the reasons that VZW has yet to get the iPhone. Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver th…

>> While this is true, never forget that Apples end goal is also to make money. But they don't design products to make money. That's what separates them from other companies. They design products that people will love. Apple's goal isn't to make money. Our goal is to design and develop and bring to market good products. We trust as a consequence of that, people will like them, and as another consequence we'll make so…

Isn't it interesting that in order to be the most greedy - as in, make the most money - Apple's approach is to out-design their products so that customers will actually bring about emotion and customers will love them, and buy more of them.

ah, capitalism.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#105

Post by winthrowe »

endtime wrote: post #99
chc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly wouldn't be accurate to call most people on that side of the debate "pro-abortion." A lot of them don't like abortion for various reasons, but believe it's the woman's choice. I agree that "pro-choice" is loaded, but it's less euphemistic than "pro-life," which really does just mean "anti-abortion."

>It certainly wouldn't be accurate to call most people on that side of the debate "pro-abortion." A lot of them don't like abortion for various reasons, but believe it's the woman's choice. Well, it's a legal debate. The argument is about the legal issue shorthanded as "abortion", no? In which case I can understand why someone would call "pro-choice" the pro-abortion side.

Well, to my mind, it's about the distinction between prohibited, permissible, and mandatory. To my mind 'pro-abortion' implies mandatory, forced abortion; 'pro-life' and 'anti-abortion' both seem reasonable terms for making carrying to term mandatory; and 'pro-choice' is about it being a choice.

I'd be perfectly happy calling both 'pro-life' and 'pro-abortion' (if they exist?) both 'anti-choice'.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#106

Post by blasdel »

jsankey wrote: post #51
danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

Although I agree with the general point that Android is not totally open in an absolute sense, I think you too easily ignore the ways in which it is open relative to the iPhone. First and foremost, I don't have to jailbreak my phone to install apps not "approved" by Google/the carrier/whoever. I can download an APK from anywhere. Secondly, the code is open. This does matter in practice, because there are people who c…

s/jailbreak/root/g

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#107

Post by meelash »

I really think the comparison with politicians is (probably unintentionally) disingenuous. The thing that would make reframing an argument in different terms dishonest is (a) when it is done without telling you- politicians don't say, look we don't like such and such term, we're going to call it this instead and (b) when the terms that it is reframed in have undue intrinsic positive or negative value.

When Steve did it, he clearly stated what he was doing and justified reframing the argument in that way. In that case, reframing a debate using more appropriate terms to really approach the core of what is different is an honest tactic that is often necessary to really compare two things objectively.

Secondly, the terms fragmented vs. integrated appear to have less intrinsic value than open (good) and closed (bad).

As such, you can argue with which is the most relevant framework to compare the two systems (and actually, this is going to be different for different user groups- manufacturers care about different things than developers, or end users), but I don't like the implicit characterization of his reframing the argument as somehow dishonest. That seems close-minded.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#109

Post by nkassis »

slowpoison wrote: post #93
GHFigs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can download an APK from anywhere. Out of curiosity, do you (or any Android users reading this) find yourself doing this with any frequency?

That's how I installed Fennec.

Same here, also couchdb and a few other apps I've found that were available as APK and o'reilly books.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#110

Post by wtallis »

jpwagner wrote: post #91
wtallis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to see where "pro-life" may be stretching the truth, consider that not all "pro-life"-ers are vegans. When they say "pro-life", they're trying to imply that embryos are people, which is really the crux of the debate.

"pro embryo life" doesnt have the same ring to it

And neither does "pro abortion choice". Basically everyone involved prefers oversimplification to accuracy, which is one of the top two reasons why the "debate" can't go anywhere.
Post reply on HN