Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoshuaRogers | Hacker News Reader

I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be.

Those who argue that forcing Apple to open up their ecosystem is a good thing appear to believe that increased user freedom will lead to more option for all and increase freedom further. Those of us who argue that being forced to open their ecosystem is a bad thing believe (speaking personally) that any user freedom added would quickly be lost and set further back than we started as larger organizations would end up strong-arming or tricking users into giving away their freedom or fear missing out.

Personally I think we all want to see long-term user freedom, and I think whether we expect it to move forward or backward is what differs between us seeing this as good or bad.

View on HN

> I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be.

Apple is the wealthiest single organization in the history of the world, and they just make consumer electronics. This isn't some deep ecological problem. Very little good has come out of letting these big corporations go completely unchecked.

Just some consumer electronics? Phones and computers run the world now.

Yeah, and the ones Apple makes are both consumer grade and nothing special.

“Consumer grade” is literally the best though. The iPhone isn’t some watered down version of the good thing that governments and rich people use. It’s as good as money can buy.

That is debatable, and it also doesn't negate the fact that they're nothing but a consumer electronics company.

They aren't 'literally' the best, not in software or hardware. They might be high tier consumer items, but that makes them luxury items and does not magically elevate them to best business grade software or hardware (broadly speaking).

> They might be high tier consumer items, but that makes them luxury items and does not magically elevate them to best business grade software or hardware (broadly speaking).

You mean 'lower', now 'elevate'. Business-grade software is usually a tier below consumer-grade. After all, you only have to convince management on the business-advantages of your software, not the actual users who have to use it on a day-to-day basis. They don't get a vote. That's why business software gets away with terrible performance and UX.

What are those superior "business-grade" phones, computers, OSes? Please provide some examples.

Feel free to wake me when IOS and Macs are running most of the IT infrastructure in the world.

That’s not a refutation. Show us the phone that only billionaires can afford because it’s better.

Why are you suddenly bringing in billionaires in this picture? This is about Apple software and hardware not being the best in class, an example no-one can refute being the hardware/software needs for businesses. Hell, depending on what you're looking for you can buy better consumer level items (and often cheaper).

Apple makes luxury consumer items, this shouldn't even be questioned.

I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be.

Yes, and when the first order effect is that a giant corporation gets total control over how you use "your" property, you need to be very confident in your predictions to outweigh that.

Personally I think we all want to see long-term user freedom

Apple certainly doesn't.

Exactly.

Worrying about second order effects here considering the current situation is like saying:

We're worried that removing our heel from the throat of the user might allow all sorts of things to go down there, some of which might be dangerous.

Maybe this will happen in some cases but we can be fairly confident it will also help the user to breathe.

(just about app stores) I'd love a middle ground, but if I'm forced to choose, I'd prefer that there weren't other "app stores" on the iPhone, for many of the reasons stated above.

But the funny thing is, both of us have the same argument of "I want the cake and eat it too".

> "Why does it harm you to have another app store? If you don't like it don't use it!" > But I want to use Whatsapp / etc! I just want to have the Apple policies protect me from what those apps can do on my phone![]

> "Why does it bother you that Apple sells phones under the condition of 'my app store or nothing'? If you don't like it, buy another brand! > But I want to use the quality of iPhones and iOS!

[] This is what I mean by "middle ground". Today, I """trust""" Apple to protect me (somewhat) against random developers. If there are alternative appstores, but either they must follow the same protection policies from the one from Apple[*] or their apps must also be listed in the Apple store, I'd be happy with multiple app stores. But that would defeat the purpose of other stores.

[*] (eg I must be able to use Apple Pay, the code still goes through Apple review, etc)

> that any user freedom added would quickly be lost and set further back than we started as larger organizations would end up strong-arming or tricking users into giving away their freedom or fear missing out

Regulate away their ability to do that. Even if it kills them.

Just literally write it into law. Make computer device users a protected class of consumer. Owners of computing devices shall have complete access to the devices they buy and shall not be discriminated against based on the software they choose to run, including but not limited to refusal to interoperate.

So less freedom is good because freedom is good but any extra freedom will be stolen anyway? This is an idiotic take.

Yes, you're poorly explaining the difference between freedom-as-in-liberty and freedom-as-in-anarchy and then calling it idiotic.

You are literally more free if there were no laws about murder but your actual real life freedom would be reduced because you of all the precautions you now have to take.

Apple right now is operating as a de facto governing body forcing developers on the platform to follow its rules that whether or not you like it do sometimes benefit the user against some of the very worst actors. Taking away their ability to have those rules does also take away the benefits users get. And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Whether or not that's worth it to you is fine, both stances are valid but it does logically follow.

> And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections.

Ah yes, we don't trust an actual elected government to enforce consumer protections, so we'll trust a private monopoly instead. In a thread about said government enforcing said consumer protections, no less.

Just because you call it consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives, which is the point the other commenter is trying to make but you insist on flattening into a straw man.

You are making a strwman here, not GP. GP litterally responded to, and quoted, this sentence: "And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections.". How do you get that sentence to mean that "consumer protections doesn't mean that they actually improve consumers' lives"? How?

Picking a single sentence in a long comment is flattening.

Apple is not a monopoly. That is why we have contrast points - eg the Android ecosystem, to see how privacy and user centric reality is.

Users are the end customers for apple. For platforms, advertisers are end customers.

All arguments in this thread roll up to -

- You cant have open systems with an advertiser driven economies.

Until people are the end customers for platforms, as ridiculous as it may sound, Apple is the only other choice.

Even MSFT has started inserting ads into Windows. Good grief.

Apple is a monopoly on the market of Apple apps. You can’t just hand-wave away self-created platforms, and given how absolutely important and essential mobile phones are, it’s only fair that the government gets a say there.

That is not the definition on a monopoly.

And if the question is of "its only fair that govt gets a say", then its a question of what Govt says fairly.

If your goal is user freedom, then Apple is the only eco system that is actually pro user, compared to the alternative (Android).

In which case, Govt should be tearing into Android/Google and all advertising driven/invasive platforms.

Govt would have to advocate that Android be out of Google's purview, or all mobile OS dev be separated.

The issue isn't Apple. Its Economics.

We can call it “exerting their power in unrelated markets” as well.

Apples market share is less than Android. Your argument is like saying Amazon is a monopoly in the kindle store.

Some folks are just power hungry and like to wield force unnecessarily.

This but also because of the size of Apple's market. If they sold 1000 phones per year nobody would give a f... about their commercial practices. In the USA apparently Apple is bigger than Android, so about phones Apple is a larger monopolist than Google. In the EU, not as much but still a relevant one.

Android has a 66% market share in the EU, and ~55% in the US - which it gained only recently (~2021/22). Otherwise Android has had the largest share globally.

By definition, A monopoly force does not have a 33% or 50% market share. It has full control.

If you want, you can switch. If you want, you can use products that are NOT locked to a vendor. You have Dropbox, you have obsidian, email - any number of tools that are not vendor locked.

If you want a phone, you can take many of the comparable or superior phones in the Android ecosystem.

This is being phrased as a goal for "User Freedom". If a user wants the freedom to have a locked ecosystem, where they are the actual paying customer, so what?

Any absolutist user freedom argument has to also deal with users who dont want that freedom.

If this is about meaningful freedoms, then the threat is revenue models. There is no reason the Apple ecosystem should outperform Android - yet it does.

While I agree with the distinction between freedom-as-in-{anarchy, liberty), I don’t think this argument stands in case of Apple. Their OS is very secure and has a top notch sandbox - that’s the actual defense boundary on their devices. They do barely any AppStore checks.

I think the optimum would be a well-hidden (like android dev mode, click 6 times on whatever option), but possible sideloading without hacks like AltStore/7-day resigns, etc. Maybe they shouldn’t even allow other stores, just apps - as installing is a very specific permission.

> And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections

The EU probably has the strongest consumer protection laws. And they do enforce them. Which is the subject of the linked story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com