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

Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

hardware.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 305 posts

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#291

Post by yepthatsreality »

ubermonkey wrote: post #255
yepthatsreality wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to dislike them in such a public and performative way? Ask yourself the reverse too while you're at it: > What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to like them in such a public and performative way?

I see the former CONSTANTLY here. I never see the latter.

You never see people going on about how Apple products work for them and how much they love their products? You never see people defending Apple’s premium pricing because they believe Apples products just work even though it’s unlikely that every iteration is perfect off the factory line? John Gruber articles gushing about Apple products are never posted to HN?

Just because there’s healthy criticism doesn’t mean it’s some negative malevolent argument. Most criticism of Apple is activist focused. Most gushing about Apple is consumerist focused.

People are actively trying to move off closed platforms. So what?

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#292

Post by webmobdev »

rglullis wrote: post #249
webmobdev wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am advocating political action for change in a democracy. Unless you live in a country that doesn't claim to be a democracy, this applies to any democracy. Just because your democracy is being screwed by the power to be, doesn't mean you stop believing in it and stop fighting for it.

The issue is that the medicine you are proposing is oftentimes worse than the disease. You call for increased regulations as a way to control corporations and "more power to the Government" but don't acknowledge the number of times that the elites have subverted the institutions for their own benefit. Sorry for the bluntness, but that is either malice or stupidity. You completely ignored my argument that is important…

> It seems your idea of "fighting for democracy" is in advocating more power and authority in an single entity and more central planning.

No, that isn't my idea at all - decentralisation and independence of institutions matter in a democracy. And I consider regulatory bodies as a NECESSARY institution of democracy that strive to balance the needs of the executive, the corporates and the people (consumers). Democracy is all about balancing everyone's needs and corporates too have a role, just as the consumers do too.

As a citizen of a country that was once enslaved by one of the largest corporate of its time (East India Company)^, to me you are the ignorant one here if you think that regulation has no role in a democracy.

^(The British East India Company — the Company that Owned a Nation (or Two) - http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/eic.html ).

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#293

Post by webmobdev »

rglullis wrote: post #287
tiktokdoc wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see any mention of "federal government" in his statements. Regulations can be localized.

Every mention from OP is regarding democracy in the "country" and in the context of a powerful State to "fight" corporate interests. The discourse rings all the Socialist/Social-Democratic talking points. Not buying the idea that he is talking about local communities and direct democracies.

While I do believe in decentralization and am an advocate for it, I don't think it works well in the context of consumer rights that we are discussing. Different regulatory laws at different levels and in different states will just create a hassle for both the consumer and the corporate.

Democracy is about balancing the needs of everyone, and that includes the corporate too. Regulatory bodies should have the necessary independence to hold regular discussions with the stakeholders (the executive, the corporates and the people) so that appropriate regulations can be drafted and more importantly fairly enforced.

It is in the nature of corporate to vie for power with the sovereign and thus in a democracy it is very much necessary to ensure that the corporate never gain gain an upper hand to do so. Regulations can definitely help with this. But ultimately it all about finding the right balance as hurting the corporates too is not the aim and in the best interest of a nation.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#294

Post by zepto »

fsflover wrote: post #286
zepto wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t change anything that supports the claim that this was a forced choice and therefore the OP didn’t ‘want’ Apple. No finite number of businesses is guaranteed to produce a product to a given person’s liking, duopoly or not. In any case, according to you, GNU/Linux phones are an option, so it’s not a duopoly. Also, let’s note that you’ve conceded they they do want Apple, but are now trying to make the case…

Yes, it does change something. I know many people who hate both companies, but choose Apple as a lesser evil. And yes, this is exactly not a 'real' kind of want. Given that, and that the OP didn't say they like Apple, you cannot neglect a poosibility of them not wanting Apple.

This is a straight up fallacy. You are attempting to redefine want as like.

Want doesn’t imply like and you can want things that are available even if you’d prefer (or want even more) an option that isn’t. In fact this is always true of things we want.

It doesn’t invalidate the meaning of the word want.

Examples: “The prisoner wants to be released from solitary confinement back into general population.”, “Voters wanted a candidate who would reduce taxes.”, “Jack wants his father to beat up the bullies at school”.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#295

Post by pmontra »

oblio wrote: post #50
pmontra wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but I don't want that place to be tightly tied with the maker of my phone. I want to be able to change phone and not loose anything. Phones are commodities to me. Who makes them is as important as the brand of gas I put in my car. Browser, mail client, WhatsApp, camera, maps, banking apps are about all I need. The subscription management service should be a third party.

It should actually be a banking service and it should be portable between banks. There should be a banking standard for this.

Some of them are portable between banks, at least where I live (Italy). Anything I authorize to be paid for automatically (usually periodically) from my bank account can be ported to another bank (utilities, etc.). I give the authorization to the new bank and they do the work because it's in their best interest. I expect this to work in most of the EU and/or the SEPA area because the regulations and the tools are the same.

Handling periodical billings on my credit cards is probably a pain, I'd have to go through all those services and update them. It would be nice if VISA or MasterCard would do that for me. Luckily all those services send me mail when my credit card expires and I get the new one.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#296

Post by jsjohnst »

webmobdev wrote: post #290
jsjohnst wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, it is a "bitter criticism" of Apple Exactly what I said it was > It is not a "bitter criticism" of you or your beliefs. Which I never said it was, I rather said you were replying to me with your vitriol for Apple .

This doesn't add to the debate and detracts from it. To come back to it - we were not discussing whether it is fair for Apple to charge how much ever percentage it does on its app store vs Amazon (or anyone similar). The crux of the matter is that neither Amazon or Walmart or any other online or offline supermarket restricts anyone from buying a product directly from the producer / manufacture or from elsewhere. Appl…

> The crux of the matter is that neither Amazon or Walmart or any other online or offline supermarket restricts anyone from buying a product directly from the producer / manufacture or from elsewhere.

That’s not true either. Just because you aren’t away of it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Trust me, the retail world has lots of dark corners that you learn when you have to deal with it directly.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#298

Post by zepto »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #282
zepto wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are not recording your location or your “travel history”. The best you can do is suggest that they might have the possibility of using geoIP to deduce locations from logs whose storage duration you do not know . That simply isn’t the same thing. If sneak were to have said something like this: “Apple could be lying to us, and may in fact be using geoIP to deduce people’s location from IP addresses in their lo…

> No, they are not recording your location or your “travel history”. Another lie. They are recording your location. You already agreed to that except last time, you said it was "anonymized." Then you said that it was recorded but not queried. Now you're saying they're not recording it at all? Keep your facts straight. The worst part is that you're paying for this abuse from Apple and then justifying it to others. Nob…

You keep saying ‘Apple is recording your location’. You haven’t provided a single link to a single piece of evidence.

‘You already agreed to that except last time, you said it was "anonymized."’

If this is true you’ll be able to find a link to where I agree that Apple records your location.

As to me saying it’s anonymized. It’s not just me. Apple states that the location data is anonymized. I’m basing my statement on their published statements.

Do you claim that Apple is lying?

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#299

Post by rglullis »

webmobdev wrote: post #292
rglullis wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that the medicine you are proposing is oftentimes worse than the disease. You call for increased regulations as a way to control corporations and "more power to the Government" but don't acknowledge the number of times that the elites have subverted the institutions for their own benefit. Sorry for the bluntness, but that is either malice or stupidity. You completely ignored my argument that is important…

> It seems your idea of "fighting for democracy" is in advocating more power and authority in an single entity and more central planning. No, that isn't my idea at all - decentralisation and independence of institutions matter in a democracy. And I consider regulatory bodies as a NECESSARY institution of democracy that strive to balance the needs of the executive, the corporates and the people (consumers). Democracy…

If your best example of a "corporate" that got so big and powerful to the point of enslaving a nation is one that was financed and supported by the largest Empire at the time, we should really re-frame the debate.

Which regulations do you think would've stopped East India from becoming what it did, and what democratic institutions do you think would have effectively restricted their unchecked expansion and abuse of power?

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#300

Post by rglullis »

webmobdev wrote: post #293
rglullis wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every mention from OP is regarding democracy in the "country" and in the context of a powerful State to "fight" corporate interests. The discourse rings all the Socialist/Social-Democratic talking points. Not buying the idea that he is talking about local communities and direct democracies.

While I do believe in decentralization and am an advocate for it, I don't think it works well in the context of consumer rights that we are discussing. Different regulatory laws at different levels and in different states will just create a hassle for both the consumer and the corporate. Democracy is about balancing the needs of everyone, and that includes the corporate too. Regulatory bodies should have the necessar…

Again, your discourse comes with lots of "shoulds" that History has shown to fail whenever it gets confronted with the reality of geopolitics and the structure of power. It sounds oh-so-nice on paper, but paper accepts anything.

It is very abstract. You constantly talk about "the need of regulations" but don't get to specifics. You hope that by hiding in complexity under some abstract body things will work out. In reality, those "regulatory bodies with necessary independence to balance the needs of everyone" will be undeniably influenced by interests groups and shaped by the very people you want to avoid having too much power. Worse still, they get to be put in this position of power indirectly and out of reach from people to express their will through vote or elections.

No matter how much you talk, at the end of the day we all should be asking ourselves what are the things that we want to "regulate" and make it the systems as clear as possible to avoid regulatory traps.

Here is my proposal for a system that can control the abuse of power by corporate entities and at the same time avoid this trap of believing that "regulations" are magic dust that makes anything better:

1. Put a hard cap on the headcount of a corporation. Any company that gets past a certain size (say a few hundred employees) has to be split up by the end of the fiscal year.

2. No single person can be a board member or manager at more than one corporation. No subsidiaries shenanigans, no shell corporations, no "holdings". People and companies can have investments anywhere they want, but these should grant them any executive control over the board.

3. Governments must never bail out a company. If no company is "too big to fail", there are no systemic risk and bail-outs are not required.

That is it. By limiting corporations by size, you avoid any single entity to dominate the space, you promote healthy competition, you avoid systemic risks, you avoid rampant inequality and corruption, we don't get lost in a sea of abstractions and we avoid the hell of regulatory capture. We might lose the "benefit" of economies of scale and we will never see a "Unicorn-style startup" and we will never be talking about "FAANG" again, but I think that would be a good thing overall.

Post reply on HN