Hacker News Reader

> This is the same sort of logic that some people have that people shouldn't be allowed to make choices in life because they "might get it wrong".

No, it's not at all the same sort of logic. We are talking about technology here, not overall life experience. Everyone starts out life on the same footing, with zero experience, and has the innate potential to learn how to live it. But computers are a very specific, highly specialized machinery that the vast parts of the population will never be able to directly understand or fix. I can drive a car but I don't know the first thing about fixing it.

You could claim that no one should own technology if they don't understand it intimately, but that is a different kind of logic and argument. It's silly to conflate the two.

All you are advocating for is a new priestly class.

> Everyone starts out life on the same footing, with zero experience, and has the innate potential to learn how to live it. But computers are a very specific, highly specialized machinery that the vast parts of the population will never be able to directly understand or fix.

I started off with zero experience and learned more over time to throw your own words back at you.

I learned how to program on a computer when I was 10 years old (which was 28 years ago now) after my Grandfather (who was born in the 1920s) learned how to operate his own computer at home. We had manuals and trial and error and the library. It was much more difficult to learn back then because there was no internet, no youtube and almost nobody had a computer. Computers back then were a lot more difficult to use as well. So don't give me this nonsense about it being so opaque it is impossible for an ordinary person.

Also most people will know a friend or relative that is handy with a PC or you could go to a local specialist for help. A large multi-billion company "looking out for the plebs" isn't required.

Apple has been quite good it seems as selling this narrative.

> I can drive a car but I don't know the first thing about fixing it.

Plenty of people used to be able to work on their own cars in the past (and still do today). Most of them would be considered "laymen". Plenty of people fix their own phones and computers, or go to a repair shop where people have taught themselves to repair electronics and turned it into a business. Just because you choose to be ignorant (which is absolutely fine) doesn't mean other people aren't able or willing to.

> I started off with zero experience and learned more over time to throw your own words back at you.

Do you think that all people are born with the innate ability to master computers, programming, and other technical tasks?

Just as not all people are born with innate ability to write a good novel, paint a masterpiece, write a symphony, or lead a nation, I'd say no.

But all people are born with the ability to live their own life and learn how best to do it in the direction that seems natural for themselves.

You are confusing the spirit of this discourse.

> You could claim that no one should own technology if they don't understand it intimately, but that is a different kind of logic and argument. It's silly to conflate the two.

Can you point out where he made such a claim? Because I don't see it.

>But computers are a very specific, highly specialized machinery that the vast parts of the population will never be able to directly understand or fix.

Computers are all that only in the vaguest of sense. They're actually not specialised at all. They're actually extremely general purpose. But whether that's the case at all there's a lot items, equipment and tools that are very specialised that most people don't understand but if they were made in act in any way similar to this because someone somehow managed to use them in a retarded way it would surely raise some eyebrows.

Company incentives are trash and I trust them A LOT lot less to not make stuff designed to fail, to lock in customers, to snoop data, etc, etc than I trust myself to not do stupid shit when i want an exception to some safety feature or the like.

>I can drive a car but I don't know the first thing about fixing it.

And would you buy a car with the hood welded shut? With the tires needing some kind of manufacturers signature to not be locked? One that locks up if you try to use some 3rd party seatcovers? No.

And yeah there's some type of modifications to them and actions that we generally try to prevent...but that's because we're talking about a highspeed deathmobile to surrounding drivers/pedestrians if you start putting spikes on it or fuck up your breaks. That however is not the case for a pc, phone, printer or what have you.

> Can you point out where he made such a claim? Because I don't see it.

Please see again the phrasing I used. Specifically, the clause using the word “could“.

Apologies. I completely misread there.

> People should be allowed to make their own choices in what they believe to be their best interests

> You should be able to run whatever you like on it.

You are contradicting yourself. People are explicitly choosing iphone, a walled garden. Then you say that that's a wrong choice because you believe it's a general purpose computing device and should work differently.

If people buy it then, well, they are fine with it.

Those statements aren't mutally exclusive. People should as a matter of principle be able to run whatever they like, however if they want to stay in the walled garden they can.

If you read the rest of my comment I specifically mentioned some sort of mechanism for turning off the walled garden protections. I would imagine it would work something like secure boot. I have a motherboard that lets me turn off that machanism if wanted to via the BIOS software.

If the only way for it to happen is through lobbying politicians and requiring it by law (not a solution I would prefer) so be it.

Also it is quiite clearly a general computing device as it has all the characteristics of one. It isn't a matter of belief.

> People should as a matter of principle be able to run whatever they like

Well you are free to provide a platform that is as convenient as ios and as free as linux.

In practice that's not easy to say modestly since convenience require quite an investment in design and developement which free platforms tend to lack.

So in reality it's either a well monetized platform (which is either a walled garden or just sells your data), or free platform which is far behind in terms of convenience and support.

> Also it is quiite clearly a general computing device as it has all the characteristics of one. It isn't a matter of belief.

No, it's exactly your belief. Apple doesn't advertise it to you that way, they doesn't say you'll be able to run whatever you'd like on it, so I dunno where did you get this misconception that they should provide you such an ability.

> Well you are free to provide a platform that is as convenient as ios and as free as linux.

Respectfully you obviously don't understand what I wrote.

I was quite clearly talking about the ability to run an alternative OS on the platform. Not whether there Lineage OS or similar is as good as iOS.

You can install whatever operating system you want on a Laptop or a PC. You can already run other ROM images on Android (though some phones you have to root the device which is not okay.

It isn't about an OS already being there. It being able to run whatever OS might be available.

> No, it's exactly your belief. Apple doesn't advertise it to you that way, they doesn't say you'll be able to run whatever you'd like on it, so I dunno where did you get this misconception that they should provide you such an ability.

There is no misconception on my part. If you look up what makes a general purpose computer, that includes things such as PC, laptops, servers and smartphones. The iPhone has all the properties that make it one.

So whether you like it or not, it fits all the criteria. It doesn't matter what Apple market it as or whether they artifically lock it down. That doesn't fundamentally make it a different thing.

> I was quite clearly talking about the ability to run an alternative OS on the platform.

I got it, and explained how it will hurt monetization of their product. Android is a different story with different (I dare say way more scummy) strategies of monetization.

The point is you can't have a convenient platform which doesn't produce revenue allowing to make it convenient and rewarding the investment.

It was quite clear that you were conflating many things.

As to whether it would hurt monitisation. I don't think it will and even if it did I don't care they have more money than most countries do. If they must be required to by legal means so be it.

Also they already kinda allow some of this when you enable developer mode via a Mac with the appropriate iOS developer account. So there is no reason why they cannot do this tomorrow without the paywall.

> and even if it did I don't care

> So there is no reason why they cannot do this tomorrow without the paywall

Sure you don't when you are dismissing economics of software development so vigorously. Try to look at things from the perspective of economic incentives, not pure technical standpoint. You'll understand why free platforms are way less convenient, and closed platforms are as they are.

The incentives can change through eg law as forest_dweller has already mentioned in his comments. I think most people "understand" the current economic situation works out quite well for closed platforms, but it doesn't mean a better way does not exist and can work out just fine economically

As I said if it has to be mandated legally through a movement similar to right to repair so be it. The incentive will be "you must follow the law or be sued".

> If people buy it then, well, they are fine with it.

I don't think people have much choice these days. If you want a smartphone then you will either get something from Apple or from Android people. There are other choices but are they mainstream? In my local shops I can't see anything else. Android or Apple.

That's why I'm buying PinePhone and going to waste lots of my life to make it fit my needs, but I hope once time is spent I will be happier human being ;)

> I don't think people have much choice these days.

Well, choice is about compromise. You have to choose between freedom and convenience, but you can choose. I'm saying that as a person who used 4 linux phones as daily drivers for last 10 years (n900, n9, jolla, xperia with sailfish).

> There are other choices but are they mainstream

Well there are. Maybe they are not mainstream because people value convenience over freedom, which is unfortunate to me, but who am I to dictate them my values.

At least there are always some linux phones to choose from, and hopefully fabless/new open platforms would even increase the amount of such. I mean, 10 years ago it was nokia or nothing, today there are pinephone, fairphone, librem

Why should you choose between freedom and convenience? They are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are. You need to invest a lot in your platform to make it convenient, so you have to be able to monetize it well enough.

I agree with forest dweller - they are not mutually exclusive.

There are many open source products that have had huge investments without monetization.

> There are many open source products that have had huge investments without monetization.

Like what?

I am not talking about the software itself. I am talking about the ability to run whatever software you like. This means alternative OS or allowing someone to install another app store.

They could literally put in a button to let you install what you like. In fact they already did this in the past.

“This is the same sort of logic that some people have that people shouldn't be allowed to make choices in life because they "might get it wrong". People should be allowed to make their own choices in what they believe to be their best interests and they should be allowed to get things wrong.“

I am not making any argument that can be construed as this. You are misreading me if you think I am. I agree that people should be allowed to make their own choices which is why I strongly oppose government regulation of software distribution. It’s also why I support people’s right to choose platforms like iOS.

“Something has to change. We are sliding back into the 1980s where all the computer hardware was incompatible with one another.”

I’m not sure freedom and compatibility always go hand in hand, but I agree that something has to change.

As to the tinkerers and people building their own rigs - the idea that there is a large spectrum. I potentially agree.

Serving those people well is a hugely untapped potential. I used to believe that Apple would see this, but I no longer do. I suspect that Jobs would have done.

I would like to think the open source community and commercial ecosystem outside of Apple and Microsoft can seize the opportunity.

We won’t if we spend our time feeling victimized by corporations doing what corporations do.

> I am not making any argument that can be construed as this. You are misreading me if you think I am. I agree that people should be allowed to make their own choices which is why I strongly oppose government regulation of software distribution. It’s also why I support people’s right to choose platforms like iOS.

Fair enough. I've read some of your other replies on here and I got the wrong end of the stick.

As for the rest of your comment here. I agree.

This is hardly about choices and more about shared resources and interaction. You can do whatever you want, but you can't do it to whatever/whoever you want.

All your recent comments are dead. Don't bother. It's unfortunate that contrarian opinions are silenced but this is the result of another walled garden