Hacker News Reader

Comment by _benton | Hacker News Reader

That's exactly backwards. I have no desire to limit the types of phones you can purchase, and you have an enormous amount of choices in phones outside Apple that provide essentially the same functionality, and can be as open as you wish. You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone, and third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.

View on HN

How about people who want a Mac (which is still "open" to the extent that it makes a difference), and therefore would also like an iPhone because of the propitiatory APIs Apple makes available solely to the iPhone?

I don't particularly like my iPhone, in fact I see as a worse device in many ways to my old Android phone, but the interoperability with my Mac makes the trade-off worth it. So ironically, the only reason I want it is because of even _more_ anticompetitive practices.

And yes, the day the Mac is as closed off as the iPhone, there will be zero Apple devices in this house.

Same. Considering the Mac is my work device, it's not even out of principle but purely because it would be a useless brick.

> You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone

As others have repeatedly said, you can still opt to not use any other kind of app from outside the AppStore.

But as I asked on another thread, as a thought experiment: What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only "open" 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you?

> third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.

It's actually Apple that wants to intervene in transactions where I don't want them to be a part of. I don't want to pay 10 euros and give 3 to them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com