Consumers have always come first, and they've already spoken.
For example:
iOS: Better for privacy than Android but less open to sideloaded apps
Android: Sends tons of data to Google about all kinds of things. Furthermore Google bricked one of my old Android phones by disabling the DNS for the authentication server so I could no longer sign into the phone. (It was too old to support Cyanogen).
Samsung: The last Samsung S-series smartphone in my house had apps pre-loaded on it including Blockbuster (it wasn't that many years ago) that could not be removed without loading new firmware or something. I guess Tizen is open source so theres that? But then again Samsung is one of the most cruel companies on Earth with a long track record of polluting, worker abuse, and blatantly copying others products and inside deals with the government to look the other way.
Microsoft: Abandoned the entire space. Was basically a copycat product with a UI based on squares anyway.
Essential Phone: Dead on arrival
Palm: Got left behind. Missed the whole app store wave
Blackberry: Wasn't really designed for non-business users with all kinds of upcharges for Blackberry data services. Missed the whole app store wave. Pivoted into automotive software after they couldn't keep up
So sure its easy to critique Apple for this or Google for that but ultimately what are the other options that can realistically compete with the above megacorps?
Not that I don't know how you feel, there are areas where I hate all the options too. I don't always get what I want, that's life. It would be perverse for me to force legions of others to dedicate their efforts towards what I would like instead.
Well yeah. But yeah they control the market. So you buy the least evil product you can that is fairly priced and works with all your other stuff.
Or just blame the consumer cause they didn't choose the mythical Linux phone with great battery life and no spyware.
I'm not here to tell you that you should have just not bought X phone, I'm here to tell you that you have a choice as a consumer to buy what you want, and if you don't want anything available, that's not anyone's problem.
For millions of consumers, an Android phone or iPhone or Samsung phone is a great option and is largely what they really want. The phones that people buy today are phones that most people have repeatedly chosen over others, including some phones you may have liked. Sorry you don't like the current choices, society has never owed anyone a mythical Linux phone. If you want something that doesn't exist, make it yourself or convince other consumers to buy it as well so companies find it worth their while. Go buy Purism. Don't whine to the government that it's not fair you can't get a mythical Linux phone.
My point was that your claim to "just not buy it" doesn't work when its an essential item in modern society like food, water, housing, or a computer.
Its easy to sit here from your armchair and say "well if dumb consumers hadn't bought smartphones like this then we wouldn't have them so they shouldn't complain." But you, of course, have a smartphone from one of these manufacturers because like everyone else you realized you basically need one these days if you work or travel. We created rules that favor tech mega corps and now they dominate the industry.
So your "solution" isn't really a solution. You say people should have made some amazingly insightful decision to boycott all smartphones fifteen years ago but since they didn't we are stuck with the brands we have and its the consumers' fault...
Let me be clear: it's your problem to deal with as a minority consumer who apparently doesn't like anything most other consumers like. The tech world we live in today is the world that most consumers want and are happy with. You are stuck with the brands we have, the rest of the consumer market have bought the smartphones that they've happily, willingly and repeatedly chosen.
Whatever you may think of the tech industry, it very closely reflects what most consumers want. If you want something no one else wants, make it or evangelize, asking the government to forcibly change outcomes is awful.
Why is it so hard to understand?
I like my iPhone. I worked at Apple. I still recognize its limitations. I'm not going to go without a phone to make a point to a $2 trillion company.
I'm not saying I like what Apple does, but I do recognize that the majority of consumers want the sort of locked down experience that Apple provides.
I don't expect you to make a point to a trillion dollar company, I expect you to recognize that Apple became a trillion dollar company because consumers really want what they're making, as locked down as it is.
Its an Apple marketing point. Its not why people buy iPhones.
And it only matters when it's backed by a purchasing decision. Someone can swear up and down that they hate walled gardens a lot but words mean nothing; if they turn around and purchase an iPhone over the plenty of open alternatives, it only signals that either they don't know what a walled garden is or they care about other stuff far more. Actually paying money for something cuts through all the bullshit consumers say to their friends or the internet about what they really want and what their priorities are.
Markets don't give each individual consumer precisely what they want, they give large groups of consumers what they want weighted by consumer priorities. In that way, most consumers get what they really want. Obviously that means some consumers don't get what they want and perhaps that's you, I don't always get what I want either. But sorry, if most consumers really wanted a device without a walled garden, they wouldn't have willingly and repetitively bought iPhones over more open devices. If there were a large consumer group of people that really want a good device without a walled garden and are willing back up their desires by paying for one, businesses will be aching to take their money. In fact, there already are many open alternatives that serve these people well. According to you your iPhone has issues even though you own one, but evidently these issues are so minor that you won't even give alternatives your money to avoid them. "But I really don't like it" is worth as much as it cost to say that, which is absolutely nothing.
My iPhone has THOUSANDS of features. Battery life, interoperability with other devices, reliability, familiarity, particular apps that I’ve purchased already, and hundreds of other reasons all contribute to why I like one smartphone brand over another.
And yes access to third party apps is one of those thousands of contributing factors but ultimately I’m not going to buy a phone that has a crappy battery and doesn’t work with any of my other devices just so I can download a couple extra cool apps without the App Store. Besides I can jailbreak this iPhone (at a privacy risk since I have to flash the whole firmware) and run sideloaded apps if I want to but it’s usually not necessary.
So you keep equating making a choice based on thousands of variables with a large scale consumer endorsement of one particular variable which is not at all scientific or logical.
For the average consumer, the fact that they have $200 in iOS apps they’ve already purchased over the last decade and their entire family is on Macs and iPhones that have generally been reliable is enough reason to stay with another iPhone. They’re not thinking about walled gardens when they’ve probably never even realized the distinction.
There's only so many ways you can tell me you care so little about walled gardens that it ranks below about a thousand features that you actually base your purchasing decision on. Let me explain it very, very simply: I and many others actually give a shit about walled gardens, we actually make purchasing decisions based on that by not buying Apple. I personally refuse to buy Apple devices for myself that are incredibly locked down and limited and so intentionally incompatible with every other device on the market; Oh, that describes every single Apple device including the very first iPhones since before Apple became a trillion dollar company by selling a billion iPhones. You and millions of others could have made a similar decision but you didn't, you found about a thousand other things more important.
Over countless choices of countless combinations of thousands of features from companies all vying for more money and attention, consumers have consistently demonstrated that walled gardens are not just a very distant concern that they won't bother paying for, it's often a desirable choice and a top priority amongst many consumers who openly desire features & limitations that are only possible in Apple's locked down walled garden.
I don't think it's helpful to continue this conversation any further. I find your depiction of consumers to be hopelessly out of touch and I think it's kind of pathetic to claim that walled gardens are important yet find a thousand other reasons to ignore it. Every purchasing decision is a trade-off, not everyone gets literally every last thing their heart desires, nor should they because that's a waste of resources. Consumers get what they really want, the market has done well to ensure that, and evidently you've fulfilled your top thousand most desired features in a phone with Apple too.
Calling for the government to step in and override the choices of millions of consumers is the last thing I want, even if it runs contrary to my own consumer choices.
You care very strongly about the walled garden so much so that you’ll ignore thousands of other compromises compared to other devices that you may not like. That’s rare, but you’re on Hacker News so of course you aren’t like normal people when choosing a phone. You can’t assume most people will do what you do when they haven’t even heard of the walled garden issue so it literally could not be on their list of considerations.
I’m guessing I could say you don’t care about privacy or usability or something else based on your phone choice. But you’d say no I care about not having a wallet garden and thats why I chose it. Well in the same way most people didn’t choose to have a walled garden. They went to the store and bought one of the most popular phones and regardless of brand all their apps came from an App Store so they didn't even know the difference when they were deciding between other compromises like price, availability, network, battery life, ease of use, etc.
In fact, most these people never had an App Store before their iPhone so it seemed like an extra thing no one else had instead of a locked down Apple monopoly. Hindsight is 20/20.
None of these people would be upset if you put in a power user setting to allow third party apps. They wouldn’t even know it was there. So don’t say they “chose” that they didn’t want it. You can’t say people chose to ban something they don’t even know exists.
Of course it's rare to prioritize walled gardens, that's the point. That's why the industry is like this. No one really cares about walled gardens, they don't care about it enough for them to make any real decisions about it.
People don't go "I really want a walled garden", they just say "I really want a phone that does and chooses everything for me" and proceed to buy a locked down device that applies restrictions that are only possible in a locked down platform.
By the way, Android already does put in a power user setting to allow third party apps. They're still being sued by Epic, and Google believes that allowing third party stores are needed to resolve potential antitrust issues (Google has started working on this). I'd be very surprised if antitrust action doesn't tread similar ground with Apple, and you can bet that all the people who liked & supported Apple's iron fist are going to start complaining if a bunch of popular apps move to their own app stores to keep their revenue cut.
So you admit after all this my exact point in the first place. Almost nobody is deciding based on this because there are thousands of other things that are either more important, easier to understand, more talked about in marketing and reviews, or simply because they've never even heard that some are walled gardens and some aren't. Clearly someone who has never had a smartphone before wouldn't choose based on specifics of the App Store when they're probably trying to figure out how to make a phone call.
"Walled garden" is just some jargon that some of us use to describe this kind of platform. Consumers have long been familiar with the concept of a platform that is locked down and makes decisions for you. "Walled garden" isn't a magic phrase that one needs to utter in order to want.
No, people DO want phones like that. You are in a niche group of users that don’t want it. Most iPhone users and even many developers love the walled garden and the security and quality it brings with it.
There is no choice and the markets for highly sophisticated technologies are not free or efficient. It's farcical.
There is plenty of choice, many of which I'm happy with and many of which I'm not. I think it's farcical to say that there is no choice, millions of consumers have chosen freely without coercion from many options. The choices we have today are options that consumers have chosen willingly and repeatedly over other options that no longer exist.
I was responding to the other person's argument that you can simply not buy products like Apple's to show you don't like their lack of openness. My point was that all of the available products have different drawbacks so its not so simple as "don't buy Apple" when there are only a few options left from monopolies and they all have similar issues.
I often wonder if we would have gotten rid of things like lead and asbestos faster if consumers had to decide for themselves rather than depending upon regulators to determine what is safe.
The government's job here is to do that tedious research and ban/regulate anything that's hazardous to health and safety. The alternative would be a grassroots campaign by citizen experts who decide to go against the advice of what should be trusted sources, which is how you end up with stuff like the anti-vax movement.
If they're unaware of the negative effects of lead or a business is being dishonest about what's in the fuel, that definitely falls under unfair/dishonest practices and the government should prosecute that.
But how on earth is that relevant to Facebook or Apple antitrust? Facebook operates a bunch of websites that millions of people voluntarily sign up for and can leave at any time. The government isn't suing Facebook for safety issues or anything, they're suing them for antitrust which means they believe Facebook has somehow unfairly coerced consumers into using their product over their competitors.
Consumers really didn't like having lead in their gas or asbestos in their walls, the problem was that the dangerous effects of leaded gas and asbestos weren't well-known at the time.
Maybe you should elaborate on what you believe isn't well-known about Facebook that warrants an antitrust lawsuit.
Extremes are never good or useful. We need moderation. Capitalism with guardrails. We already have regulation to ensure certain corporate behaviors don't harm consumers, and even protect them from themselves, which has massively improved quality, safety and reliability of the things we buy.
Sure some regulations are overreaching or outdated, but the rise of giant software/internet companies has upended all of the old considerations of antitrust. There are a few trillion-dollar companies that impact a vast amount of our lives and there's no effective way to disengage from them while living in modern civilization. That's a major problem because pretty soon they will be the "government" that controls your life - but without any of the accountability or transparency.
My points apply to Apple as well, consumers wanted this and continued buying devices like this. I don't doubt that some people complain about various flaws in the products they buy but it's largely meaningless because they clearly don't care enough about these flaws to put their money where their mouth is. No one forced them to buy hard-to-repair, locked down Apple products when there were more open alternatives, they simply decided that repairability is so unimportant they'd still buy Apple products over a product that is more repairable.
It's one thing if Apple were dishonest or consumers were somehow forced to buy Apple, but they're not. There's nothing actually stopping consumers from buying the phone they want. Consumers aren't being harmed, they're getting what they really want.
This is the choice I lose with this: the ability to buy a product that is locked down and tightly integrated/controlled by Apple. It's a choice millions of consumers have already willingly made. I'm personally living happily without buying Apple's locked down products for myself, I and every other non-Apple consumer didn't need the government to make this choice for me. I don't want the government to remove a choice that millions of consumers have made on their own.
Instead of buying oil from jobbers, they made the jobbers’ profit by sending their own purchasing men into the oil region. In addition, they made their own sulfuric acid, their own barrels, their own lumber, their own wagons, and their own glue. They kept minute and accurate records of every item from rivets to barrel bungs. They built elaborate storage facilities near their refineries. Rockefeller bargained as shrewdly for crude as anyone before or since. And Sam Andrews coaxed more kerosene from a barrel of crude than could the competition. In addition, the Rockefeller firm put out the cleanest-burning kerosene, and managed to dispose of most of the residues like lubricating oil, paraffin, and vaseline at a profit.
Between 1870 and 1885 the price of refined kerosene dropped from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon. In the same period, the Standard Oil Company reduced the [refining] costs per gallon from almost 3 cents in 1870 to 0.452 cents in 1885. Clearly, the firm was relatively efficient, and its efficiency was being translated to the consumer in the form of lower prices for a much improved product, and to the firm in the form of additional profits.
https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-compan...
It is difficult to overstate how much Standard Oil revolutionized the oil refinement process, resulting in oil that was significantly cleaner and cheaper than its competitors’.
Sounds like the government should and did step in at the "until they couldn't" part, which is not where we're at. Hard to imagine someone unable to stop using Facebook or Instagram or whatever, there's a lot of social media out there.
> Railroads
Considering the US returned control of the railways to their original owners in 1920 and most rail today is privatized, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
But even though it takes time to determine wrongdoing, we still prosecute crimes after they happen instead of before for obvious reasons. You wait until there is evidence of harm to consumers. Maybe the government has evidence, this is just an early article after all, but again, it's hard to imagine someone unable to stop using Facebook or Instagram or whatever, there's a lot of social media out there.