I think they might just survive without your business. And pretty sure it demonstrates that their formula of security and privacy over openness is the right one for them.
> I think they might just survive without your business.
The parent post makes some the argument that the restrictive nature of iOS makes it unappealing to certain users. You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes.
Not everything that makes billions of dollars is immune to criticism. Especially since Apple markets the iPad as a "computer", a term that traditionally referred to unrestricted computing devices.
The implication is that Apple's design decision favors far more users than it doesn't.
In other words, the same design decisions that cost Apple one HNer nets them general consumers - so Apple can definitely survive without the HNer's business.
Lots of people disapprove of Facebook's data practices, yet they still run several of the overwhelmingly most popular social networks. Apple could be in a similar position: producing an otherwise excellent product that has a limitation people tolerate.
The fact that Apple makes billions of dollars is not evidence that every single decision of theirs is the best decision for their profitability. In order for their profit to be used against the argument and comfort of a certain Hacker News commentator, we need some evidence that the revenue is because of, not despite (or unaffected by), the decisions that made the random Hacker News commentator unhappy. At best we can conclude that the decision is not such a howler that it's cost them their market viability, but perhaps if they'd made a different decision they could have owned the entire smartphone market in a way that Windows used to own the desktop OS market.
(Another logical fallacy implicit in the argument is that a decision made by a powerful person is more worthy of respect than another decision. I must admit these kinds of reactionary values are extremely far from me, and I am shocked and uncomfortable to find how common they are.)
Me: "Great, do not buy an Apple protect." HN: "But I like their HW." Me: "Well then you have to deal with their SW restrictions." HN: "But I do not want to, why cannot they not just do this for me, it's just SW."
Wash, rinse, repeat on every story on AppleHW. I would really love to be able to read the comments on the interesting aspect of the story without 80% of the comments going back to this debate for once.
Apple is NOT a monopoly, therefor you cannot force them to change this. You can buy another device that allows you to install 3rd party stuff. Do that.
They're a monopoly on imessage which most people who own iphones think is just more advanced text messaging. You'll get left out of groups if you do this.
All we want is to be able to run our own binaries, I can't believe this is even controversial especially on a forum full of software developers.
The fact that you are left of a chat does not make Apple a monopoly. The people in your group could choose to all switch to the same application, of which most of are closed source. I spent a ton of time in APAC and while each country has different most popular chat apps, the group of us that have spent years working together on and off at different companies all agreed on a common chat app. It's just not hard.
I have a few long term friend groups where a member has an Android and the text is green. No issues sending them text at all. The MMS stuff can be broken but that is not Apples fault.
Your argument is Apple once again the same as everyones else, and appeal to everyone be open because it is your philosophical view of things and it would make your life simpler.
Apple is a for profit company. They are not a monopoly on chat because they choose to offer their users a better experience over the standard SMS (which they supported).
I am frustrated with all the people that miss that distinction. They are a private entity and can do what they way within the outline of the law. You can vote with your pocketbook, or run for office and get the laws changed.
Also, the OSS vs non-OSS comment: you cannot take for granted that everyone here comes down on the side of the GPL 100%. There are a ton of us that work/worked at companies that did priority software because that is what made sense for the business model. We do not write software for free - ie, there has to be a method to pay our bills. I personally have major issues with GPL3 when it comes to creating works for a profit company. No major ones with GPL2, Apache, MIT, etc.
In fact by that ridiculous definition everything in life is a monopoly.
Also, Apple knows as much as anyone that terms change over time. Last week the RSA experts were angry that “crypto” now meant “cryptocurrency” instead of the historical “cryptography”.
Do they? I don’t follow their ads closely, but I can’t find the word “computer” on https://www.apple.com/ipad-pro/ (given the 8tneractivity on that page, it still may be there, but I tried looking hard, and couldn’t find it), and they have an explicit ad saying “iPad Pro — Your next computer is not a computer” (https://youtube.com/watch?v=09_QxCcBEyU)
Can you point to that marketing?
For a business that makes it's money from consumer spending habits, I think this is a perfectly valid argument. Apple isn't a utility company or something the users are locked in to. If they decided openness was more important, why are they still buying so many iPhones?
Except when it's not a computer https://youtu.be/pI-iJcC9JUc (/s)
The global fashion ecommerce industry was expected to decline from $531.25 billion in 2019 to $485.62 billion in 2020. The negative compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of -8.59% is largely due to the coronavirus pandemic. However, the market is set to recover and hit $672.71 billion by 2023
The general clothing market is even bigger, obviously:
In 2019, global retail sales of apparel and footwear reached 1.9 trillion U.S. dollars, and were expected to rise to above three trillion U.S. dollars by 2030.
It looks like you are trying to discredit the poster or accuse them of dishonesty without adding new information to the thread.
If they are wrong, you can trivially demonstrate that with a link of your own.
If you want to accuse them of lying or being mistaken, you can provide a link. If their claim is implausible, you can comment on why.
Just asking for a link without adding one of these doesn’t add anything to the conversation except a demand they do work.
