Hacker News Reader

Comment by harry8 | Hacker News Reader

This is why we have always had consumer regulation. Note the relative difference in power here. In the short to medium term apple can do whatever they like and the customer can get stuffed. In the longer term we have regulation so the the strongest might not always get their way.

It's yet another kind of bait and switch. Bait you with good service then switch to behavior that would be considered abusive inside any bricks and mortar shop anywhere in the world.

Apple aren't your friend. They'll show you this whenever it suits them. If you have feelings other than suspicion and dread about Apple (or any other big tech company) you need to address those because you're having your basic human responses of being kind and decent hacked by highly paid and trained professionals.

"I don't like Apple but some of their products are better than the competition" Is the absolute best they should ever get from your emotions.

View on HN

Particularly these days, Apple's scale and power strikes me as monopolistic. I know that's a bit of an unpopular opinion around here, but I honestly don't know what else to call it. Their negligence on the behalf of the consumer borders on intolerable, and their treatment of developers has been the topic of discussion for years now. If they continue to integrate like this, I fear they'll lose sight of the finish line.

I'm particularly nostalgic for the older days of the Mac, where integration was between my apps and my operating system, not my operating system and my life. Part of what I enjoy about computing is that it isn't all-consuming, so it strikes me as suspicious when I hear that Apple wants to take control of my finances.

Perhaps we need a new name for this category of companies. Companies that may or may not have a monopoly, but are so big and rich that they do not have to care about what people and most governments think. They are shielded, to a great extent, from normal market forces because of their wealth and market share.

I propose "too big to care". It should be up to the governments to force "too big to care" companies care about their customers, because in the absence of regulatory pressure, they can simply ignore them and still bring in billions.

A novice asked the master: “I perceive that one computer company is much larger than all others. It towers above its competition like a giant among dwarfs. Any one of its divisions could comprise an entire business. Why is this so?”

The master replied: “Why do you ask such foolish questions? That company is large because it is large. If it only made hardware, nobody would buy it. If it only made software, nobody would use it. If it only maintained systems, people would treat it like a servant. But because it combines all these things, people think it one of the gods! By not seeking to strive, it conquers without effort.”

— The Tao of Programming (Geoffrey James, 1987), chapter 8.1

We don't refer to companies in the plural. The correct phrasing is "Apple isn't your friend". Apple is one company. It makes things.

You don't. I do.

A company is people. A company does not make a decision. One or more people do.

It is customary in UK english to refer to companies as plural.

If we are using British English, which we might do if we are (for example) British, then we generally do in fact refer to companies -- as well as rock bands, teams, and other collective nouns -- in the plural.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com