True, I do not care about how apple users are treated. They have - voluntarily - decided to buy a device that is known to be anti-consumer.
If we talk about restricting stuff like rent, food prices etc, so essentials, I’m on board. But Apple? Nah. Nobody forces you to shell out that much money for a smartphone.
Anti-competitive and monopolistic, sure. Anti-consumer? Eh.
Don’t get me wrong, Apple is just as evil as the next guy. Their practices reinforce their market position in an insidious way. But in many respects Apple performs better on the consumer front than, say, their primary competitor Google. Not in every way, but I wouldn’t call their devices “anti-consumer.”
If one of your primary concerns as a consumer is an open platform then yeah, I can see you rejecting outright Apple devices. This could in turn lead to being dismissive of the concerns of those whose priorities differ from yours, though I would strongly advise against such a lack of empathy over something as insignificant as a platform choice. Regardless, curtailing their practices is still important.
If we don’t stop bad behavior because it doesn’t affect us directly, we set bad precedents. Regulatory actions are an important tool.
If we talk about restricting stuff like rent, food prices etc, so essentials, I’m on board. But Apple? Nah.
Fallacy of relative privation. “X is worse than Y, so Y doesn’t matter.” Rent and food prices are important, too, but regulatory bodies don’t operate on a zero sum system. Multiple things can be addressed with multiple efforts. It’s not like the EU is saying “we can ignore starvation and homelessness because at least we cracked down on Apple.”
Inventing your own “standard” and forcing everyone to use it (lightning and webkit) and preventing consumers from having their device repaired from anyone else than a “certified technician” at 4x the markup is definitely anti-consumer.
But in many respects Apple performs better on the consumer front than, say, their primary competitor Google.
Google pixels are not OEM-locked and I can easiely install graphene or any other operating system on them. In the smartphone category, google is the only good vendor, ironically. I bought a used pixel 6 2 years ago, flashed it with graphene and it’s the best phone I ever had.
Regulatory actions are an important tool
Yes, but they’re the last resort. And it should be treated as such. If apple had like 90% of the market share, okay, we can talk about regulations, but right now, apple only has 1/3 of the market, so people can still easiely choose any android device.
It’s not like the EU is saying “we can ignore starvation and homelessness because at least we cracked down on Apple.”
I never said that. I said that these are cases where I would support drastic regulatory actions because this is no longer within the rules of supply and demand - people can’t choose to “not eat”. People can damn well choose to not buy an apple device.
Inventing your own “standard” and forcing everyone to use it (lightning and webkit)
It’s like people don’t remember history anymore. WebKit was a joint venture between many groups. It wasn’t “inventing your own standard” any more than any web browser engine. The restriction to WebKit on iOS devices can be frustrating, but this practice is anti-competitive.
And Lightning replaced another proprietary port, the iPod 30-pin connector. That 30-pin connector was born in a time when standards for device-side connections were not very often utilized. Many devices used proprietary connectors. When Apple transitioned away from the 30-pin, the industry at large was operating with both Mini-USB and Micro-USB, which were both straight-up inferior to Lightning.
The problem with Apple and Lightning is that they didn’t drop it when they should’ve. When USB-C became the clear de facto standard, and they began transitioning all of their other devices to it, they should’ve moved the iPhone over and bit the bullet then. Not doing so, and continuing to charge for MFi certification was, again, anti-competitive. But the existence of Lightning wasn’t anti-consumer.
preventing consumers from having their device repaired from anyone else than a “certified technician” at 4x the markup
Right-to-repair is an important issue and Apple are really shitty about it. I agree. They are not unique, and this also needs to be addressed.
Google pixels are not OEM-locked and I can easiely install graphene or any other operating system on them. In the smartphone category, google is the only good vendor, ironically.
Like I said, “in many respects.” For your use-case, one that you must admit is infrequently utilized, statistically speaking, Google makes a better product that fits your needs. The vast, vast majority of smartphone users are not flashing alternate ROMs to their devices. Most people aren’t power-users, and even most power-users don’t bother. That’s not to say your use-case isn’t meaningful; I’m glad there are still solid options available for a world I used to be a part of!
People can damn well choose to not buy an apple device.
Sure, but does that mean Apple should be allowed to get away with anti-competitive behavior? With practices that seek to force others to use their systems, or to keep users they have from exploring other options? I don’t think so. Bad business practices need to be addressed regardless of whether users have an option to look elsewhere. Especially when the company has a sufficiently large percentage of the smartphone market to force developers to work within their walled garden to hit target audiences.
They have - voluntarily - decided to buy a device that is known to be anti-consumer.
Many Apple users bought their devices before they were aware of Apple’s user look in tactics, let alone how they could be problematic. Most people are not into tech, so they wouldn’t know. Data on tech illiteracy.
True, I do not care about how apple users are treated. They have - voluntarily - decided to buy a device that is known to be anti-consumer.
If we talk about restricting stuff like rent, food prices etc, so essentials, I’m on board. But Apple? Nah. Nobody forces you to shell out that much money for a smartphone.
Anti-competitive and monopolistic, sure. Anti-consumer? Eh.
Don’t get me wrong, Apple is just as evil as the next guy. Their practices reinforce their market position in an insidious way. But in many respects Apple performs better on the consumer front than, say, their primary competitor Google. Not in every way, but I wouldn’t call their devices “anti-consumer.”
If one of your primary concerns as a consumer is an open platform then yeah, I can see you rejecting outright Apple devices. This could in turn lead to being dismissive of the concerns of those whose priorities differ from yours, though I would strongly advise against such a lack of empathy over something as insignificant as a platform choice. Regardless, curtailing their practices is still important.
If we don’t stop bad behavior because it doesn’t affect us directly, we set bad precedents. Regulatory actions are an important tool.
Fallacy of relative privation. “X is worse than Y, so Y doesn’t matter.” Rent and food prices are important, too, but regulatory bodies don’t operate on a zero sum system. Multiple things can be addressed with multiple efforts. It’s not like the EU is saying “we can ignore starvation and homelessness because at least we cracked down on Apple.”
Inventing your own “standard” and forcing everyone to use it (lightning and webkit) and preventing consumers from having their device repaired from anyone else than a “certified technician” at 4x the markup is definitely anti-consumer.
Google pixels are not OEM-locked and I can easiely install graphene or any other operating system on them. In the smartphone category, google is the only good vendor, ironically. I bought a used pixel 6 2 years ago, flashed it with graphene and it’s the best phone I ever had.
Yes, but they’re the last resort. And it should be treated as such. If apple had like 90% of the market share, okay, we can talk about regulations, but right now, apple only has 1/3 of the market, so people can still easiely choose any android device.
I never said that. I said that these are cases where I would support drastic regulatory actions because this is no longer within the rules of supply and demand - people can’t choose to “not eat”. People can damn well choose to not buy an apple device.
It’s like people don’t remember history anymore. WebKit was a joint venture between many groups. It wasn’t “inventing your own standard” any more than any web browser engine. The restriction to WebKit on iOS devices can be frustrating, but this practice is anti-competitive.
And Lightning replaced another proprietary port, the iPod 30-pin connector. That 30-pin connector was born in a time when standards for device-side connections were not very often utilized. Many devices used proprietary connectors. When Apple transitioned away from the 30-pin, the industry at large was operating with both Mini-USB and Micro-USB, which were both straight-up inferior to Lightning.
The problem with Apple and Lightning is that they didn’t drop it when they should’ve. When USB-C became the clear de facto standard, and they began transitioning all of their other devices to it, they should’ve moved the iPhone over and bit the bullet then. Not doing so, and continuing to charge for MFi certification was, again, anti-competitive. But the existence of Lightning wasn’t anti-consumer.
Right-to-repair is an important issue and Apple are really shitty about it. I agree. They are not unique, and this also needs to be addressed.
Like I said, “in many respects.” For your use-case, one that you must admit is infrequently utilized, statistically speaking, Google makes a better product that fits your needs. The vast, vast majority of smartphone users are not flashing alternate ROMs to their devices. Most people aren’t power-users, and even most power-users don’t bother. That’s not to say your use-case isn’t meaningful; I’m glad there are still solid options available for a world I used to be a part of!
Sure, but does that mean Apple should be allowed to get away with anti-competitive behavior? With practices that seek to force others to use their systems, or to keep users they have from exploring other options? I don’t think so. Bad business practices need to be addressed regardless of whether users have an option to look elsewhere. Especially when the company has a sufficiently large percentage of the smartphone market to force developers to work within their walled garden to hit target audiences.
Many Apple users bought their devices before they were aware of Apple’s user look in tactics, let alone how they could be problematic. Most people are not into tech, so they wouldn’t know. Data on tech illiteracy.
The problem is they have critical mass so developers are forced to target iPhone. Its a natural monopoly.
The US won’t care as well since they benefit.
Dunno about that critical mass, iOS only has 1/3 of the market in europe while android has the remaining 2/3.