Because app developers will never fully support two interaction modes. They will focus on one while the other will be an after-thought.
2,601 karma · joined March 2, 2009
Also the people who fought tooth and nail against transitioning to oil's natural successor: nuclear power.
In effect we regulated doing stuff so much in the name of safety that we ended up in an infinite "analysis paralysis" mode where the you have to absolutely prove zero harm from new products/services while completely ignoring the harm the current status quo does.
See current debates over AI, self-driving cars, and of course, meds.
Like sharks in the sea or wolves in the wilderness, they identify and remove sick and ailing businesses. Additionally they offer a convenient exit to tired owners and investors, thus incentivizing further business creation. Finally, they identify and exploit regulation-created monopolies, enabling the government to re-allow competition through deregulation - something more and more important in today's populist and regulation-happy climate.
61% of Americans, says Gallup [1]. Not sure if this includes those indirectly owning stocks, through pension funds.
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
As I said, I was hoping for more personal experiences like "this happened to me so I decided to leave" than just perceptions and perceived fears which can be too easily influenced or biased. I can understand how they add up and create stress but so does flying for a lot of people - while being one of the safest modes of transportation.
For example, going to the US, my main fear was violence, and more specific gun violence and terrorism. Luckily I never encountered either, even if there were quite a few shootings and even 9/11! during my very stay. Today I'd just say these are statistically insignificant events (as horrifying as they are).
Secondly I was terrified of losing my job - with everything it entailed, especially my work visa. And I did get fired, eventually. Luckily the whole thing went swimmingly, with COBRA & severance pay picking up the slack during a short search and my next company continuing my visa sponsorship.
I was also afraid of cops (thanks, Hollywood!) but all encounters I actually had (noise complaints during parties and traffic stops) were quite amusing & polite.
In the end I had an amazing, positive experience living in the USA and it also helped me appreciate and understand Europe better. After all the years living in the EU now I could write a whole lot more about the horrors here (corruption, bureaucracy and the Russian threat easily come to mind) but that's not the topic and I am too old to believe there is a perfect place for everybody. Each choice is personal and it's composed from countless subjective, even subconscious factors - so good luck with yours!
I live in the EU and I used to live in USA for a while so I am always looking for similar experiences and comparisons.
Thanks again!
EU's per-capita GDP growth was aligned to USA's.
> You really are clueless.
I live in EU and I've been running software startups for over 20 years now, while doing angel/seed-investments on the side. Never encountered any issues from lack of funding or fragmented markets. Tons of problems from regulations though. Labor regs are the most onerous, but recent high-tech ones come close, even if I haven't reach the growth stage to be heavily impacted yet.
> Please tell me exactly which specific EU regulations
Again, have you ever built anything?! Regulations break startups in other ways, not only directly. Running a startup is like running on a track. Regulations are like potholes: they can break your legs if you fall in one, but even if you are agile and maneuver around them they will slow you down and tire you out until you simply give up.
You simply switch to a producer with more acceptable terms or one that doesn't dictate at all. Unless the competition was curtailed through excessive regulation, of course.
Why is it so hard to understand how the free market works and so hard to accept that different people can make different choice from you and that is ok because you it doesn't impede on your right to make your choices?
Why this desperation to impose your choices on other people?
Is it hard for you to accept the fact that other people make different choices? The market has spoken already and Apples success indicates that yes, people do want closed platforms as well.
Pretending iOS's security is not the best on the market right now is simply being in denial.
But I am not arguing for closed solutions. I am arguing for an ecosystem with both closed and open solutions.
> Europe can't keep up with the US in this field because
Europe was keeping up with USA just fine until about 15 years ago. So the problem can't be one of the reasons you listed (certainly not the ancient history of the WW2), those existed before as well. What changed lately was the onerous amount of regulation being added and a strong left turn in economic policy. Together they brought the unfolding disaster we are witnessing today.
I am willing to bet you've never build a startup in your life. Do that please and then come back and tell me which is worse: regulation or big competition.
> Why should Appel decide what you can run on the device you bought and own?
Because they aren't selling you a device. They are selling you access to their platform. Interfering with how they build and run that platform will just ensure we'll get fewer platforms in the future. You get either competition or regulation - the later logically diminishes the first.
I totally agree with you. I love open computing! I grew up with it and it afforded me the chances in life that allowed me to get where I am today.
And I hate what Apple has done to it and how it treats us, developers. But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but we need to give up short-term interests for the long-term gain.
Because it's clear we need both closed and open platforms on the market - each has its use cases and customers. But for that to exist - we need competition in the platform market (not only the platforms to be open to competition - this is an important aspect). And you know what the biggest competition killer is? Regulation. Even well-meaning regulation (which DMA isn't, btw). Regulation always favors incumbents. Regulation ensures startups have a harder job while big corporations simply add another lawyer on the payroll. Regulation is why Europe is so far behind in the high-tech field.
Anything EU throws at Apple - Apple will eventually (begrudgingly) implement. But they will still be market leader, they will still be big and arrogant and treating devs like crap. Meanwhile every rule will became another obstacle in what way of a new, better platform to appear. Regulations ossify markets and kill innovation. In the end we will be left with a few, "well" regulated, mammoths corporations.
Personally, I'd rather have a whole bunch of chaotic startups trying everything and fighting Apple every which way. The few negatives will lead to a net positive in the grand scheme of things.
I moved my family from Windows to Linux and then iPads as soon as I could. I still encounter hacks (iOS's calendar for some reason is vulnerable to appointments from spam emails) but it's incomparable to how it was before.
And of course I did. None of the politicians I voted for won. Turns out proposing populist measures, like "be tough on those evil multinational corporations" is much more electable than saying uncomfortable truths like "EU is falling behind on tech - we need to lower taxation and reduce regulation if we want to have a fighting chance of catching up".
> What you have zero of is knowledge of how the EU works
Please teach me then. What you said so far ("vote") is not only well known but is also quite ineffective - if you know how EU works actually, not just apparently.
You see, here is how it worked in my country: populist parties share the power and easily crush competition. They get elected by promising populist measures: higher pensions, higher minimum income and a tougher stance on the only thing they can attack: foreign corporations, which are made to be the scapegoats - root of all evils.
Then in EU elections their list is filled with the most useless, moronic, deeply corrupted and easily controlled politicians. This is because the EU parliament is seen as a well paid, easy comfy job tailor made for politicians too stupid or too visibly corrupt to prepare the next election cycle at home.
Those are "my MEPs". The only people they listen to are the handlers from back home. The only interests they represent is that of the highest bribe.
I lived both under a communist dictatorship and democracy. My actual vote (well, my parent's, I was too young to vote then) was wasted under both.
But every time I purchase a product I know that I act as natural selection in an ecosystem of companies which cannot exist unless their actions are (partially) aligned with my interests. It works.
While multinational companies?! I can actually stop being their customer and vote with my wallet. Much more democratic, IMHO.
EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate.
It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market.
> This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase.
"For your own safety" is how authoritarianism raises.
As an individual you are entitled to hate whomever you want. After all, we all have the racist uncle or the commie nephew. But the law should shield the public from people like you, not help you hunt your victims. Anti-segregation, anti-discrimination and privacy laws are good for that.
Have you try to inflation-adjust that? You may find the price jump is not that great for the last ~10 years.
Considering the astonishing inefficiency of government works I really doubt confiscation compensations is a significant expenditure.
I mean if you're gonna f_ck me in the end anyway, at least have the decency to buy me dinner first.