Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol • Hacker News Board

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#131

Post by BinaryIdiot » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

liotier wrote: post #130

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lack of open protocol implies that client choices will be essentially limited to what the service provider offers. This is bad user experience. You're conflating the inability to develop for a protocol / platform for user experience. Having an open protocol can make a user experience better but it certainly doesn't have to.

I understand your point - the proprietary applications offered might be so vastly superior to any potential alternatives that would use an open protocol as to make the whole idea irrelevant. But that supposes that all user needs can be met that way, which in a resource-constrained world cannot be true: the proprietary application provider will inevitably have to prioritize some classes of users over others. Those use…

> But that supposes that all user needs can be met that way[...]

No, it doesn't. Giving the user a good user experience does not mean it's the absolute best-end-all experience.

> the proprietary application provider will inevitably have to prioritize some classes of users over others. Those users whose needs are not within the functional scope of the application are going to find their experience quite horrible.

The problem you're outlining here completely applies to open source communities, standard bodies and companies (it has nothing to do with open versus proprietary protocols). Everyone has to prioritize things and certain priorities will not meet the needs of all users. I would also argue that users whose needs are not within the functional scope of an application...should look for an application that meets their needs as best as possible. Not everyone is going to have all of their needs met with anything.

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#132

Post by O____________O » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 8:05 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #121

O____________O wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my problem. I'm only pointing out that the parent comment asked a question that implied a misunderstanding of GP.

I don't think the parent to your comment misunderstood the GP. I think he was making a valid point: that in order to pick the "right" value of N, you have to know what value of N will maximize the greater good. Unless you can do that, the proposed law does not make sense; and saying "I'm not trying to specify what the greater good is, I'm just picking a number N" does not change that.

in order to pick the "right" value of N, you have to know what value of N will maximize the greater good.

What? No. The comment said nothing whatsoever about 'N'. GP's comment was exactly this, and nothing more:

How would you even start to define a term like "the greater good" in a way that a law like this could event begin to make sense?

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#133

Post by qbrass » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:42 AM UTC

cbd1984 wrote: post #124

mangecoeur wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the saying goes - if you aren't paying for it, then you are the product, not the consumer. People using twitter or google or facebook are not clients because they aren't paying. The clients are the people who pay those companies for valuable information and advertising space.

> if you aren't paying for it, then you are the product, not the consumer. That explains all of the ads I see on GNU Emacs. /s

You're intended to be free labor, working to improve their software.

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#134

Post by pdonis » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:50 AM UTC

O____________O wrote: post #132

pdonis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the parent to your comment misunderstood the GP. I think he was making a valid point: that in order to pick the "right" value of N, you have to know what value of N will maximize the greater good. Unless you can do that, the proposed law does not make sense; and saying "I'm not trying to specify what the greater good is, I'm just picking a number N" does not change that.

in order to pick the "right" value of N, you have to know what value of N will maximize the greater good. What? No. The comment said nothing whatsoever about 'N'. GP's comment was exactly this, and nothing more: How would you even start to define a term like "the greater good" in a way that a law like this could event begin to make sense?

> The comment said nothing whatsoever about 'N'.

Not explicitly, no. I drew an inference about what the GP commenter meant (or at least an obvious implication of what I think he meant). He's welcome to correct me if my inference was wrong.

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#135

Post by pdonis » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 6:32 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #129

pdonis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can be" in some cases, yes. But in order for the proposed restriction on company size to make sense, it would have to be possible in every case. That's a much stronger claim, and one I find extremely improbable.

Well, we already know that the current form of capitalism isn't perfect either. So I don't think there is a need to prove anything for every possible case. Also, we can make exceptions when we get there (even though I don't believe they need to be made).

> we already know that the current form of capitalism isn't perfect either.

Sure, but the question is whether any proposed change will be likely to make things better, or worse.

> I don't think there is a need to prove anything for every possible case.

Maybe not, but it doesn't look to me like you've even considered what fraction of cases would lead to a net benefit under your rule vs. the current rules.