I'd want an infrastructure where I am allowed to make either a left or right turn, rather than having to swing along the only road. And saying Apple makes (near) flawless software is laughable. Android (or one of its privacy-oriented alternatives) looks really good today, but also gives one the option to finetune it to ones liking.
Fair point but some Apple services are cross-platform so I don’t see why they couldn’t do the same here.
Privacy and Sharing just don’t go together. Apple would never be able to do anything “social” as you can’t have a successful social network for free without the kind of compromises that lead to low engagement.
Fair point. I have never used Facebook because I’m concerned about their privacy policies. There doesn’t seem to any real alternatives.
And THAT is the correct answer. If Apple doesn’t provide an experience one likes, they should obtain a device that DOES provide the experience they like. If they can’t find a device that provides the experience they like, they should design their own and sell it. However, I’m under the impression that the largest group of people that can’t find a device that provides the experience they like is because the experience they like is not profitable. And, unless someone can convince a government to fund the devices, it’s got to be profitable.
Dude, everyone doesn't even understand how to properly charge their phones without having battery health going down 10% within the first year, do you really think they can handle security risks? And I agree with you that everyone needs to, but they don't and they won't.
I know, right? It's as if it is easy to create an App Store and an ecosystem. Apple worked hard for it, and (I would argue) the rules made it the success it is. I also believe there is a need for some regulation when companies and their offerings become too big, but I hate freeloaders like Meta and Epic...They tried and failed.If you read stories about that time, people were writing that it was going to be the next big thing! What software companies ALL around the world have found, is that hardware is hard. Not only just getting all the pieces and parts required and putting them together in a people pleasing fashion, but developing the OS level software to work in a way that’s performant AND provides proper hooks for developers to do the last yard of effort and put their little cherry on top.
Plus, with software you just go cheap until you squeeze out all competitors, like Facebook did, then raise your prices until profit. Hardware doesn’t work that way. The reason why Meta and App developers formed a “coalition” to complain about Apple is ALLL of them know that, if they put their entire might to the problem, focused on it and tried to build hardware OS platform that could compete against Apple/Google, they couldn’t. They’re incapable. Not because it’s impossible, and I’m certain someone someday WILL challenge them, it’s because they can’t see past the fence posts of the house they’ve built on SOMEONE ELSE’s hill!
Not my problem. Not Apple's problem. Stupid is its own reward. I'm tired of my rights being restricted because someone can't be arsed to take responsibility (and suffer the consequences) for their own actions. I expect government to set a baseline of responsibility and restriction, within boundaries defined by the constitution. When corporations play nanny state, the desire to shape those restrictions toward their own profit motives is too great for even the most pious among them to avoid—as Apple has clearly demonstrated time and time again.
The existence of a duopoly is not enough to shield companies from Apple's anti competitive practices. Yes, companies can protest (for example like Epic did with Fortnite) by leaving iOS but they lose half their revenue. There needs to be much more real competition before we can rely on solely on market forces without government intervention. On iOS Apple acts as a defacto government accountable to no one but shareholders, controlling speech and taking a large proportion of every dollar that flows through their ecosystem. This limits consumer choice, stymies innovation, and raises prices. It also makes the experience of using the platform much worse. Have you ever wondered for example why Amazon's Kindle app does not actually allow you to buy eBooks? It's because Apple demands a 30% cut of the revenue and forbids Amazon from even explaining this to consumers in the app or directing them to the web. This is not something that would be possible with real competition.
Yea... but Apple doesn't want this, so saying it's not Apple's problem is rather strange. I mean you're right — it's not Apple's problem because they aren't doing it, except where they are forced to.
I think you misinterpreted my post. I was solely speaking about Apple/iOS. I think generally analogies make no point, but I went along with the infrastructure one about iOS. In a way it works, as for a lot of people you can't just change infrastructure without having to make vast investments (moving to another country). But again, there are so many obstacles here, like the complexity and the inability to simply compare to other situations that analogies – although widely used here on MR – make no sense.
That's the thing. It's in their incentive to push the envelope, legal or not, to increase revenue per user or revenue per thousand views.
