451–460 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither did AT&T.
If you wanted phone service, you had to buy it from AT&T - because of a government granted monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obligatory glance over at Steam goes here. • Steam (Valve) • Uplay (Ubisoft) • Origin (EA) • Epic (Epic) • Galaxy (CDProjekt) • LoL Launcher (Riot) • Battle.net (Blizzard) • Twitch (Amazon) • Minecraft Launcher (Mojang) Probably others I'm missing. Can't wait to have a whole home screen dedicated to different app stores because each one has a single exclusive game that I wanted to play
So why not build a standard mechanism to install and update 3rd party software into the OS? It's hardly a radical idea. There are plenty of solutions to that problem that don't involve monopolising the distribution of all software on the platform.
I don't want to download a game and find out that it's secretly spinning up a background spyware process to monitor the screenbuffer and sending the screenshots off to god knows where.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was completely aware of the software limitations of my iPhone before I bought it yet I did. What you want already exists and it's called Android.
Android doesn't fit my needs. It doesn't integrate with my laptop and my watch. The hardware isn't as good. The privacy isn't as good. That would be like telling me that if I don't like the Honda Accord I can buy a pickup truck. They are different things and are not substitutes for each other. Android is not a substitute for iOS.
Substitutes don't have to be exactly the same. Androids integrate with different laptops and watches, they have worse hardware but better software (Tasker, etc.)
I don't agree with people saying "if you don't like Apple use Android" because it's sidestepping the main issue, that for Apple to sell you a device and then disallow you from utilizing it to such a degree is wrong and we should discourage such practices whenever and wherever we can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And that was the reason countries and laws exists. I disagree I don't think the reason why have countries and laws is so that you can force someone else to support your product when they don't want to.
They don't need to support, they just have no right to forbid. There's a big difference between those two things. Imagine if windows crippled Netscape by forcing them to use Internet Explorer engine on Windows? And this is just one thing Apple are doing that is unbelievable they are getting away with it.
Not letting other browsers use their own JS engine (which is what it means to 'forcing them to use Internet Explorer engine on Windows' in your analogy) is because Apple want to disallow write|execute for people's safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The manufacturer of the device is within their rights to ship the software/hardware experience they want it to have. This is the same logic people use to block modification of movies, music, books, video games, etc. "The artist wants you to experience their art a specific way and the ability to [censor profanity/add zombies/change the ending/remix it] wrests control from the creator and allows people experience the…
Sure, and if you order food at a restaurant and and want to modify it, don't expect the chef to let you into the kitchen and use their tools to do it.
Why can I not do what I want with an iOS device no matter where I take it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that argument, all consumer protection laws should be abolished. Clearly I don't agree with that position. I don't think it's selfish to argue that government should protect the little guy from being exploited by the big guy who has much greater power, for each of the numerous little guys affected by a situation. Indeed, that is arguably one of the most important functions of any government. I would have less of a…
> However, the reality is that many organisations -- including government entities at various scales in my country as well as other essential services -- now effectively require the use of certain technologies in order to function as a normal member of society. But you can already access these Government services - the apps already work, right? You don't need a third-party-app-store to use them? So that isn't a reaso…
The fundamental point is still that, for practical purposes, many people now have to have a smartphone. There are, for practical purposes, two types of smartphone available. If neither of those meets some reasonable conditions that many people would prefer to have -- for example, retaining control of your own device and data -- then this implies a lack of effective competition in the marketplace. Government regulation is the solution to that problem.
Arguing that people don't have to buy the product isn't helpful. Many people are effectively forced into buying one product or the other.
Arguing that people don't have to buy the Apple product isn't helpful. Buying an Android one instead is worse in other respects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why not build a standard mechanism to install and update 3rd party software into the OS? It's hardly a radical idea. There are plenty of solutions to that problem that don't involve monopolising the distribution of all software on the platform.
I agree in principle that this would be OK, except part of Apple's vetting processes is making sure apps aren't accessing private APIs. I don't want to download a game and find out that it's secretly spinning up a background spyware process to monitor the screenbuffer and sending the screenshots off to god knows where.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And like the Apple App Store, they also benefit from taking a substantial cut from their IP creators.
In my view, the percentages are not the biggest factors that lead to this situation (although it adds to the outrage when the monopolistic accusations are thrown around). The problem is: all of these big techs want to be a platform, and all of them sell (to their investors) the idea that their platform will be very profitable precisely because it will lock the participants inside a ecosystem hard to escape from. Appl…
Spotify also wants to be a “platform”. The creators get a far smaller percentage and they are locking up “podcasts” behind their “walled garden”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, the reality is that many organisations -- including government entities at various scales in my country as well as other essential services -- now effectively require the use of certain technologies in order to function as a normal member of society. But you can already access these Government services - the apps already work, right? You don't need a third-party-app-store to use them? So that isn't a reaso…
You keep quoting a partial comment and then trying to shift the discussion away from the fundamental point. The fundamental point is still that, for practical purposes, many people now have to have a smartphone. There are, for practical purposes, two types of smartphone available. If neither of those meets some reasonable conditions that many people would prefer to have -- for example, retaining control of your own d…
When you try to give a concrete example I show how that concrete example doesn't make any sense to me.
If the fundamental point doesn't translate to any concrete situations then it's a dud.
> neither of those meets some reasonable conditions that many people would prefer to have -- for example, retaining control of your own device and data
But I don't think these are a reasonable conditions.
And I don't think many people want them - I think the number is probably absolutely tiny.
I think using legislation to force Apple to accomodate the unreasonable and abstract preferences of a tiny number of people from a group that isn't specially protected is morally unjust.
But I won't keep arguing it further as I think we probably just have different morals.