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

Closed for Business

mattgemmell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Closed for Business

#41

Post by marbletiles »

So very many things wrong with this piece.

1. Show him the money: I'm not sure he's comparing apples with oranges here. He makes a good living from iOS, but (crucially) by consulting for others who themselves may not have a sustainable business model. There is an increasing amount of evidence suggesting the indie dev model isn't sustainable on iOS, either, from AppCubby and Sparrow to the iconFactory and more.

2. Open vs Closed: I don't think one data point (the app store) is enough to damn open platforms. The Mac is open by his definition, and so is Windows. Are those both "bad for business"? Hardly.

3. Open vs Open: He then conflates "open" (as in I can install anything I want on it without going via a store) with "Open" as in open source, when the two are very different. Piracy is possible on a on a closed-source open-install platform, the open/closed nature of the source is absolutely irrelevant here.

He tries to join the two with a hand-wavy "piracy is easy on Android because it has an open mentality", when the source license has zip to do with this. It makes all the later jabs about Stallman more than a little strawmanish.

4. Choice vs Free: This is more a pedantic point, but you can't go from "too much choice is bad" (which I'd agree with in certain contexts) to "and so freedom is bad". He doesn't back that up, by the way, just asserts "but freedom is bad". No, it is not bad. Sometimes freedoms collide, and sometimes they can be traded. But "overwhelming choice is bad" and "overwhelming freedom is bad" are not synonymous statements.

5. Lock it down (unless it's a movie or album that I want): His conclusion in this piece is basically "Close it down and keep prices high to beat the pirates". Which is an interesting contrast with http://mattgemmell.com/2012/02/17/the-piracy-threshold/ where he says "Open it all up and keep the prices very low or I will pirate".

There's more to be had in this post, but I think I've reached enough errors to abort. At least this one didn't end with "disagree? amuse me by telling me".

Re: Closed for Business

#42

Post by drcube »

tptacek wrote: post #37
drcube wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congrats, you've summed up every debate ever. I guess we can shut down this website, huh? How about, "People who want to violate my property rights by crippling the digital devices I own (and/or refusing to let me own such open devices in the first place) because they'd make a little more money that way are morally wrong ."

You think it's morally wrong for companies to sell products that can't be modified after the purchase transaction. That's fine, but reasonable people can disagree on that point, so I'd recommend not trying to shame people into agreeing with you.

Yes. This isn't about piracy, this is about personal property rights. The OP essentially decried the existence of my personal property because it hampers his ability to make money.

I expect to be able to load software of my choosing on hardware that I own. I expect to be able to delete software that I disapprove of or is causing me harm. I expect to be able to browse files and delete data that I don't want. I expect to be able to monitor my hardware to ensure that it hasn't been hijacked. I expect to be able to disable or block any tracking software, and at the very least, to close any back doors I find. I expect all this because I own a fairly powerful general purpose computing device, the greatest invention of mankind.

Maybe Joe User doesn't expect to do these things himself, but he should expect a choice in services and providers, not a blanket "Sorry Joe, I'm afraid I can't let you do that" from a single malevolent dictator like Apple.

So yes, a company that promises such things by selling me something (rather than just conditionally renting out the hardware), and then continues to exert their control over my property at my expense and for their profit, is morally wrong.

Re: Closed for Business

#43

Post by w33ble »

trimbo wrote: post #15

> Stories like this come as no surprise, but the industry press rarely deals with the core problem - and nor does Google. Yeah, except the part where Google announced encrypted applications from the Android Market at Google I/O. The presenter got light applause and seemed confused, asking for more applause. It seems that no one figured out the implications of that. Apps will be encrypted with a device-specific key fr…

Yeah, that was one of the biggest announcements they made this year. If it works (and why wouldn't it?), it'll put an end to the piracy problem while at the same time allowing you to side load any non-pirated application you want.

What wasn't clear to me was whether or not it was going to be enforced on older versions of Android. I imagine it will be though.

Re: Closed for Business

#44

Post by jack-r-abbit »

tptacek wrote: post #33
yock wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's what he said at all. I read it as a criticism of a bad premise. Do you mean to imply that there is so such thing?

He wrote "it's downright shameful for this guy to run around promoting the idea". There is a level of badness at which ideas become shameful to promote, but that's a pretty high bar to clear, and I'm pretty sure electronic brands that don't actually kill people can't clear it at all.

It really bugs me when people lop off parts of sentences to make a quote in a different context. What he actually wrote was "it's downright shameful for this guy to run around promoting the idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy". The idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy should not really be one of those "well, that is your opinion" type of things. It is a broad generalization that is flat wrong because... well... it is such a broad generalization. Open devices are designed to... uh... be open. To enable user control. To enable hobbyist tinkering. To enable community help. Being that the "enable piracy" idea is dead wrong, promoting it is dangerous & harmful... thus worthy of shame.

Re: Closed for Business

#45

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #33
yock wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's what he said at all. I read it as a criticism of a bad premise. Do you mean to imply that there is so such thing?

He wrote "it's downright shameful for this guy to run around promoting the idea". There is a level of badness at which ideas become shameful to promote, but that's a pretty high bar to clear, and I'm pretty sure electronic brands that don't actually kill people can't clear it at all.

[deleted]

Re: Closed for Business

#46

Post by tptacek »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #44
tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wrote "it's downright shameful for this guy to run around promoting the idea". There is a level of badness at which ideas become shameful to promote, but that's a pretty high bar to clear, and I'm pretty sure electronic brands that don't actually kill people can't clear it at all.

It really bugs me when people lop off parts of sentences to make a quote in a different context. What he actually wrote was " it's downright shameful for this guy to run around promoting the idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy ". The idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy should not really be one of those "well, that is your opinion" type of things. It is a broad generalization that is…

I haven't cut off context. You just disagree with his idea so strongly that it upsets you for him to even have it.

I don't believe "openness" connotes "intent to enable piracy", but "piracy is far more rampant in the open Android ecosystem than the closed iOS ecosystem" isn't an unreasonable observation to make, and, having made it, "openness promotes piracy" isn't a totally unreasonable conclusion to draw from it.

Stop telling people to be embarrassed about their ideas. It's a very poor rhetorical strategy. The only benefit it accrues to you is that it riles your supporters up into similarly gnarly expressions of contempt. It certainly doesn't persuade anyone of anything.

Re: Closed for Business

#47

Post by jack-r-abbit »

tptacek wrote: post #46
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really bugs me when people lop off parts of sentences to make a quote in a different context. What he actually wrote was " it's downright shameful for this guy to run around promoting the idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy ". The idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy should not really be one of those "well, that is your opinion" type of things. It is a broad generalization that is…

I haven't cut off context. You just disagree with his idea so strongly that it upsets you for him to even have it. I don't believe "openness" connotes "intent to enable piracy", but "piracy is far more rampant in the open Android ecosystem than the closed iOS ecosystem" isn't an unreasonable observation to make, and, having made it, "openness promotes piracy" isn't a totally unreasonable conclusion to draw from it. S…

The internet has a lot of porn... but I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude the internet promotes porn.

The world has a lot of racists... but I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude the world promote racism.

Re: Closed for Business

#48

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

jamesjguthrie wrote: post #38
bryanlarsen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a much better example. Being an existing franchise, it should avoid what I believe to be the primary problem for both Android and iOS: app discovery. I remember an anecdote about a 90% piracy rate. It turns out that the game was prominently listed on a popular pirate board, but was buried deeply on the app store. Combine that with a tendency for pirates to install huge numbers of games that they'll n…

"So I believe that the biggest problems on both Android and iOS are pricing and discovery. Piracy is a problem, but not as much as pricing and discovery, IMO." I completely agree with you.

I'm not sure I'd want to rank problems, but I'd like to see everyone working on the problems they can solve (such as pricing and discoverability) before they start saying with certainty that piracy is killing everything.

Re: Closed for Business

#49

Post by tptacek »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #47
tptacek wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't cut off context. You just disagree with his idea so strongly that it upsets you for him to even have it. I don't believe "openness" connotes "intent to enable piracy", but "piracy is far more rampant in the open Android ecosystem than the closed iOS ecosystem" isn't an unreasonable observation to make, and, having made it, "openness promotes piracy" isn't a totally unreasonable conclusion to draw from it. S…

The internet has a lot of porn... but I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude the internet promotes porn. The world has a lot of racists... but I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude the world promote racism.

The Internet definitely promotes porn.

Reasonable people have observed that Google profits off piracy in other contexts.

Your last sentence is a non sequitur.

Re: Closed for Business

#50

Post by mindcrime »

tptacek wrote: post #46
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really bugs me when people lop off parts of sentences to make a quote in a different context. What he actually wrote was " it's downright shameful for this guy to run around promoting the idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy ". The idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy should not really be one of those "well, that is your opinion" type of things. It is a broad generalization that is…

I haven't cut off context. You just disagree with his idea so strongly that it upsets you for him to even have it. I don't believe "openness" connotes "intent to enable piracy", but "piracy is far more rampant in the open Android ecosystem than the closed iOS ecosystem" isn't an unreasonable observation to make, and, having made it, "openness promotes piracy" isn't a totally unreasonable conclusion to draw from it. S…

and, having made it, "openness promotes piracy" isn't a totally unreasonable conclusion to draw from it.

And that isn't what I quoted and replied to. If that was all TFA had said, I probably could have nodded my head and said "Yeah, whatever" and kept going. But TFA made a much stronger statement than that, which you seem to conveniently be ignoring here, since you apparently want to win an argument that no one else seems to be having.

Stop telling people to be embarrassed about their ideas. It's a very poor rhetorical strategy. The only benefit it accrues to you is that it riles your supporters up into similarly gnarly expressions of contempt. It certainly doesn't persuade anyone of anything.

Who said they were trying to persuade anybody?

Post reply on HN