Hacker News Reader

Comment by themacguffinman | Hacker News Reader

All you're telling me is that there are no choices that you like. All of those are viable choices (except the ones that literally don't exist anymore), and there were many more viable choices before FAANG began their dominance that consumers saw and abandoned in favor of the dominant products we have today.

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.

View on HN

No. You said "just don't buy it" if you don't like it. But I need a smartphone. So I'm going to buy one. My point is if they all have different drawbacks (this one is better for "openness", that one is better for privacy, this one is better for security) then saying people should just not buy Apple to protest one decision isn't helpful. Because by doing that I would probably end up needing to buy an Android phone which means I would give up other things like privacy. And then if I mention that you'll say we should have just not bought Google phones.

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.

Again, you just don't like your options. You've decided that our modern smartphones are evil and also decided that you must have a smartphone.

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.

Lol I never whined about not getting a mythical Linux phone. I don't even want one particularly.

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...

It does work, you just don't like the results. Most consumers have gotten exactly what they wanted. I never said everyone should have boycotted all smartphones, I said that if consumers didn't like the smartphones we have they wouldn't have bought them. They practiced "just don't buy it" for all the other dead tech options that no longer exist today. Consumers clearly don't believe that there is a problem that needs a "solution".

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.

Nobody wants a phone that doesn't allow them to add a third party app. They tolerate it due to lack of choice because the device still provides exceptional utility.

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.

Because people do want a phone that doesn't allow them to add a third party app? A lot of people want Apple's walled garden to effectively make their choices for them and stop them from installing malicious garbage. They don't want to care or be conscious of the security decisions that users of more open platforms have to make.

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.

I've bought tons of iPhones. You can imply that I want a walled garden. But I don't and I've never met anyone who claimed they did.

Its an Apple marketing point. Its not why people buy iPhones.

I can believe you've never met them, but there they are. And they don't outright say they "like walled gardens" or something like that, they just love everything about the walled garden experience the iPhone provides them. You can even spot some of them in this thread, they want Apple to decide how much privacy they have, they want Apple to control and vet every app they install, they want Apple to limit what other software can do on their devices in ways that you can't limit in open platforms.

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.

You still somehow don’t get it so I’ll explain it very, very simply.

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.

Every other iPhone alternative has thousands of features as well, they're all very competitive with an iPhone yet don't have such a locked down system. Smartphones that no longer exist also had thousands of features, that didn't stop consumers from abandoning them.

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.

What phone do you use?

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.

I use a Google Pixel. You can definitely say I don't care about data collection/privacy because I don't. You can also say I care less about usability than I do about walled gardens / software limitations because that's true.

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.

You said: People don't go "I really want a walled garden".

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.

No, I said that people don't say something as obvious as "I really want a walled garden", they express their desire for a walled garden through action and by wanting things that are only possible through a walled garden. People want Apple to make their decisions for them, that's a vote for Apple's walled garden.

"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.

> Nobody wants a phone that doesn't allow them to add a third party app. They tolerate it due to lack of choice because the device still provides exceptional utility.

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.

You're assuming that. Apple may position it as a feature but I've never heard one person say they want that. You're making a big jump simply because they buy the phone. Look you could make it so most software goes through the store but no one wants their own program to need to get approved to go on their own device. Clearly.

Our governments are empowered to change behaviors by threat of force, but we're letting corporations conduct an authoritarian insurgency within our national borders while libertarian apologists cry "free markets" and "consumer choice".

There is no choice and the markets for highly sophisticated technologies are not free or efficient. It's farcical.

If the government really believed that FAANG is conducting an authoritarian insurgency within our national borders, they wouldn't be pursuing antitrust. If that's what you want to argue, fine, but it's not relevant to antitrust action discussed here.

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.

That was really well phrased - there are options, but just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean you get to force other people to make something you do like.

I didn't say people should be forced to make something.

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.

But on the other hand if a majority of us feel this way and the free market doesn’t seem to be doing the job, then that is the job of government and regulation - that is our voice.

Of course, an obvious counter-example is the Defense Production Act, which allows the government to force other people to make something they like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com