'For too long, Apple has operated a walled garden around its products': The EU forces Apple to open its closed system to third parties
-
you don’t care about how other people are treated
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.
a device that is known to be anti-consumer.
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.”
-
a device that is known to be anti-consumer.
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.”
Anti-consumer?
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.
-
This is why the only Apple product I've owned was a free iPad. It feels claustrophobic to be trapped in their ecosystem.
The only Apple product I've owned was my first smartphone an iPhone 4, Never again.
-
How do you leave when your friends, family and coworkers are all on iMessage and refuse to use anything cross platform
"Hey, since I don't want to use apple devices anymore because the company sucks, I've decided to ditch it, therefore, I will not longer have access to iMessage. If you need to contact me, you can use XYZ (insert alternative here) or just call me/send a SMS."
That's what I did when ditching whatsapp. Is it easy? No, ofc not. But it gets other people to think about it. Some will laugh about it and say: "haha my funny nephew who wants to save the world himself (insert laugh emoji here)" while other will be genuinely interested in why you made this decision and might follow it. That's how you get people to think by the way.
Pretending like you need a specific messenger like iMessage for communication is dishonest at best and straightup stupid and manipulative at worst.
"Hey, since I don't want to use apple devices anymore because the company sucks, I've decided to ditch it, therefore, I will not longer have access to iMessage. If you need to contact me, you can use XYZ (insert alternative here) or just call me/send a SMS."
that only works when a majority of them relies on you. That's rarely the situation in reality
Pretending like you need a specific messenger like iMessage for communication is dishonest at best and straightup stupid and manipulative at worst.
thinking like this is ignorant at best and intentionally manipulative at worst
-
Do you want the world to collectively suffer from products that are artificially made worse
I want a world in which corporations are scared to release anti-consumer products because they know it'll tank their income.
Android is also getting more locked down with each major release
There's stuff like graphene or other open source OS's - installing graphene is literally connecting your phone to a PC and opening a website, something even a chimp can do.
You can say that ignorant people deserve what they get, but do the others deserve to get dragged down to their level
Nobody is affected by apple devices getting locked down except apple users, and they chose that.
I want a world in which corporations are scared to release anti-consumer products because they know it'll tank their income.
I wish. Celebrating customers getting shafted seems counterproductive though. In reality, companies aren't afraid of making anti-consumer products. Regulation can keep them in check and consumers sure as hell won't.
There's stuff like graphene or other open source OS's - installing graphene is literally connecting your phone to a PC and opening a website, something even a chimp can do.
I know, I run a custom rom too. I also know that custom roms are still Android, meaning they aren't safe. What do they do when Google makes some restrictive bullshit change again, for example to the android API? Fork it and become incompatible with apps meant for stock android?
Nobody is affected ... except apple users
Yes they are. All large companies are constantly looking for more things they can get away with and are ratcheting towards user hostility.
When the non-hostile options are gone, or reduced to a few crappy ones, the educated consumer is fucked. Because what else are they gonna do, not buy a phone? How is a chimp gonna install Graphene when unlocked bootloaders are extinct?
-
This post did not contain any content.
It’s a shame Epic lost this lawsuit in the US because “just switch to Android”
-
Not skilled enough hackerboy
🫶
Mod your damn consoles!
While I don’t think people get consoles without homebrew being unlocked first it is still better for homebrew to be unlocked on day 1
It will also give the possibility of open development
-
"Hey, since I don't want to use apple devices anymore because the company sucks, I've decided to ditch it, therefore, I will not longer have access to iMessage. If you need to contact me, you can use XYZ (insert alternative here) or just call me/send a SMS."
that only works when a majority of them relies on you. That's rarely the situation in reality
Pretending like you need a specific messenger like iMessage for communication is dishonest at best and straightup stupid and manipulative at worst.
thinking like this is ignorant at best and intentionally manipulative at worst
a majority of them relies on you
Imagine friends and family only want to stay in touch because they "rely" on you. Bro that's outright sad.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Well, they did get them to switch to USB-C, so I'm not holding my breath, but I do hope that this will lead to more interoperability. I'm tired of Apple making Android/non-Apple users feel like second-class citizens.
-
Anti-consumer?
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.
-
I want a world in which corporations are scared to release anti-consumer products because they know it'll tank their income.
I wish. Celebrating customers getting shafted seems counterproductive though. In reality, companies aren't afraid of making anti-consumer products. Regulation can keep them in check and consumers sure as hell won't.
There's stuff like graphene or other open source OS's - installing graphene is literally connecting your phone to a PC and opening a website, something even a chimp can do.
I know, I run a custom rom too. I also know that custom roms are still Android, meaning they aren't safe. What do they do when Google makes some restrictive bullshit change again, for example to the android API? Fork it and become incompatible with apps meant for stock android?
Nobody is affected ... except apple users
Yes they are. All large companies are constantly looking for more things they can get away with and are ratcheting towards user hostility.
When the non-hostile options are gone, or reduced to a few crappy ones, the educated consumer is fucked. Because what else are they gonna do, not buy a phone? How is a chimp gonna install Graphene when unlocked bootloaders are extinct?
In reality, companies aren’t afraid of making anti-consumer products
Because people will still eat the shit thrown in front of them. Why bother with good products when the doofus buys it anyways?
What do they do when Google makes some restrictive bullshit change again, for example to the android API? Fork it and become incompatible with apps meant for stock android?
Well, yes, that would most likely be the result. Even now, some apps aren't working - the commerzbank banking app, for example, didn't work on graphene (because of play protect tho, not incompatibility). I was emailing them, asking if they planned to change it, they said "nah fam sorry no time" so I was switching to revolut. Recently, revolut made some steps into that aswell and I'm more than ready to switch again, but it seems like they didn't pull through with their plans.
Again - rejecting somethign for moral reasons is never easy or comfortable.
When the non-hostile options are gone, or reduced to a few crappy ones, the educated consumer is fucked.
Yes, but that never happens. If there is no good option left, there will be another company filling the gap. Just look at what happened with lego - nobody was bothering creating a competition for them, they were the defacto standard if you wanted ... well, lego. However, they because more expensive and worse and suddenly we have blue bricks and cobi, both much cheaper at a higher quality.
I know people on lemmy don't want to hear it, but the free market works. It actually works extremely well. The only time when it does NOT work if there's too much government interference so building a competition is too hard or when there is no choice on the side of the consumer, which is only really the case for crucial things like housing, food, healthcare etc.
I already wrote it somewhere, but people can't choose to "not eat". They can damn well choose to not buy a device from a company that is known to be anti-consumer.
-
Of those steam is the only one that doesn't force you to buy software through them on their own hardware. Obviously they would like you to, but you are free to buy elsewhere.
-
As a new user of GrapheneOS, I have yet to see the difference with regular Android except that it's way more secure.
-
This post did not contain any content.
As someone who switched from mac to linux the whole "trapped in ecpsystem" claims are nothing I ever experience because you can actually use macos without using the apple ecosystem at all. People don't seem to understand this. MacOS is a very polished OS, it is a joy to work with. I still prefer my current setup with linux, but I think there are a a lot of things wprth criticising with Apple. People being to lazy to migrate their notes and photos is not really one of them.. Like sure, I get it with purchases but everything else can be moved easily.
-
How do you leave when your friends, family and coworkers are all on iMessage and refuse to use anything cross platform? This literally affects people's professional relationships and close personal connections.
No my friend, Apple has perfected lock-in and turned it into an art. Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's not an issue.
You can see how much of an impact this has - in my (rich European) country only 30% use apple devices and everyone uses WhatsApp for communication (also not good but far better than imessage, and there's a slow shift towards signal happening)
-
Well, they did get them to switch to USB-C, so I'm not holding my breath, but I do hope that this will lead to more interoperability. I'm tired of Apple making Android/non-Apple users feel like second-class citizens.
I have to agree. Switching to USB-C is a big step, but I doubt Apple will become more interoperable unless they are forced to.
-
Voting with the wallet is mostly bullshit
Disagree completely. It's the most effective tool we have to control corpos that does not rely on another entity.
they bought a politician or twelve ... the only way to fight corpos is the governmental power or regulations
So, you yourself say they buy politicians, but in the same sentence, you want the people they are buying to fight their power with regulations?
Do you see where you went wrong here?
That's the whole point, when you do useless shit like buying from one corpo instead of another, they only need to buy couple of politicians to succeed. The only way for you to combat it is to elect politicians they can't buy and apply political pressure to the rest of them, so they can't buy them all. If instead of that you play their game and try to outbuy a corpo that owns half of your country already, not only you will lose every time, you are actually doing exactly they want you to do.
"No ethical consumption under capitalism" is about this, not anything else. -
Yes but only oatmeal (no toppings).
Oh goddamnit
-
There isn't really any getting away with.
If what Apple does is within the law then the EU can't prevent it. I'm sure somebody is looking into preventing Apple from doing it, but propper legislation takes time.There isn't really any getting away with.
But they are. Right now.
propper legislation takes time
They should have thought of that when they created the legislation.
-
Well, they did get them to switch to USB-C, so I'm not holding my breath, but I do hope that this will lead to more interoperability. I'm tired of Apple making Android/non-Apple users feel like second-class citizens.
Even then, for whatever reason, a (grantedly cheap) 3,5mm->USB-C adapter my dad bought didn't work at all on his iPhone while it works just fine on my Android
