What you are describing is not a tradeoff but a magnificent bribe. They bribe us with measly benefits in order to accept the deal that is incredibly favourable for them.
Really? Please name them. Over the past 10 or 15 years, I've never seen anything other than the iPhone/Android or Mac/Windows duopoly for sale in any retail store. I've never seen any advertising for other than those duopolies. The HN crowd may be aware of obscure options, but for the vast majority of consumers, they don't exist. And since we as developers make money catering to the vast majority of consumers, we're kind of stuck with the duopoly too, at least as far as our work is concerned.
That's purely hypothetical. How could any prove or disprove the assertion?
The general point, though, is that consumer awareness is essential for sales. People won't buy things that they don't know about. As an indie developer myself, I'm painfully aware of this. It doesn't matter how great one's product is if nobody knows about it. Advertising is very expensive, so it requires vast capital outlays in order to get your products into the minds of consumers and onto the shelves of stores. The big established brands have a massive advantage, making it difficult for competitors to break into the market. Apple itself leveraged its existing brand, with Mac and iPod, in order to promote iPhone. And Apple's primary competitor is Google, who also was already an established brand via search and Chrome.
Remember that back in the day, Microsoft almost destroyed the entire desktop OS market. They almost killed Apple too. Only the Department of Justice put some kind of break on it, and Microsoft let Apple live in order to provide antitrust cover. If MS had for example simply withdrawn its apps from Mac—Office, Internet Explorer (remember that Internet Explorer was originally the default web browser on Mac OS X before Safari!)—Apple likely would have died.
The hardest part about switching from Facebook isn't installing some other app or anything like that, it's getting everyone else you know to switch from Facebook.
The hardest part about switching from Windows isn't installing Linux, it's getting e.g. game developers to target Linux before it has significant consumer market share.
That isn't to say that doing these thing is impossible, but it certainly isn't trivial, so anyone wondering why it hasn't happened already can't seriously think the only explanation is that nobody cares. It's like saying nobody cares about high healthcare costs -- of course they care, the question is what do we have to do to fix it?
Now, how many of you guys have this? Or anything like this? I bet 95% of the HN crowd happily uses iOS/Android daily.
Anyway, desktop computers aren't really the main problem here. For example, Apple Macs offer vastly more personal freedom than Apple iPhones. If iPhones behaved like Macs in that respect, then we might not be having this debate. To the extent that Macs have been increasingly locked down over the past 15 years, it's mostly just copying the iPhone, porting the "features" over from one platform to the other.
That's quite an assumption.
I think the reason people don't care, is because they don't know. The average person either doesn't know or barely knows That anything deeper than what they see in the user interface is happening on their system.
We humans are very much an out of sight out of mind type of creature. If we can't see it, it's hard for us to imagine that it exists.
The reason people don't care is because digital freedom/privacy is largely irrelevant to most people's lives. You can't convince someone to care about something that doesn't affect their life, they're too busy for that.
GP is correct about Apple products; even among the HN crowd they are likely the most popular devices. I think this is because most readers aren't trying to die on the hill of openness. They're more concerned with software and ubiquity, two areas where Apple is doing very well.
You do get many here enthusiastic about open access to your own hardware, but I think we're talking about a Venn diagram; we're not all the same. (I'm an Android user.)
The thing about all this is, Apple's products being well-integrated and well-designed doesn't require them to be locked down the way they are. The EU move to force them to use USB-C/Thunderbolt over Lightning is a perfect example of this. It unilaterally improved things for users, and iPhone 14 vs. 15 sales reflected that pretty clearly.
So I'd especially describe Apple as the "least bad" rather than "completely acceptable." They're specifically what I had in mind saying that.
That's definitely true, and it's what has made me favor Google over Apple for decades now. Google's deal has been free software for the price of your user data, but I've accepted that deal because Google has never practiced predatory lock-in. Apple makes claims to value your privacy (I wouldn't know) while making predatory lock-in fundamental to everything they do. Denying access to your own device is part of this.
The irony is that I loathe the data economy. I think it has gone far beyond what Google ever envisioned (for years it seemed they had yet to discover a way to make money at all). The privacy aspect matters, but I also hate the way it makes companies and their products behave; the way it feels like every click results in an attempt to directly advertise to you. And it's all clumsy and broken. How often are ads even correctly targeted? I feel about conglomerated user data the way I feel about meme coins: it's all built on speculation, hopes, and dreams, and has less to do with people actually buying your product. I can't wait for the bubble to burst and/or for a global ban on the sale and purchase of user data.
For your last sentence, though... user data and its utilities are arguably not a "bubble." And as we've seen with AI training, use of data being illegal doesn't really stop companies from doing it. I think we'll have better actual results from governments forcing Apple to let us run our own software on the hardware we buy, as opposed to governments trying to prevent Google, Meta, et. al. from abusing customer data.
A lot of this has to do with the fact that the former is about regulating our rights with hardware, while the latter is about software. Hardware is just easier for governments to regulate. When you try to regulate software, companies will do things like the deliberately-annoying cookie popups we got after GDPR/CCPA, because it's cheap to produce lots of bullshit to experiment with ways around those regulations.
You make a fair point though; the case does need to be made as to why this is a market failure and not just consumer choice working as expected. Why _do_ consumers tolerate manufacturers retaining ultimate control of consumer's property after the sale? It certainly doesn't seem to be that important to them. Maybe greater awareness of the issue would help somewhat?
Just my opinion from many conversations with normies about this: It's because most of them don't know (the marketing material from these companies certainly doesn't advertise it), and the ones who do know don't care because they wouldn't be able to (technical knowledge) or want to root/unlock and utilize the capabilities.
This is a good point. Some of that is perhaps self-perpetuating: Why root if there's nothing you can do with root? And why develop stuff you can do with root if there's nobody who can use it? If there weren't so much active suppression of software freedom by manufacturers maybe the situation would change and the benefits of consumers having full control of their devices would be more apparent.
Agree fully. Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. I accept the risk or tradeoff of Apple or MS spying on me. It’s not that, but the right to repair, to tinker, to hack. Those things have brought us so much interesting wonderful things. My entire generation (millennial) has superior tech literacy to both those that came before and after (no shade to the older gen - some of you are better than us, but with millennials it’s so much more widespread than eg gen X). Many younger gens never use ”real” computers (only tablet & phone). The gilded age was an anomaly, and is over.
> the case does need to be made as to why this is a market failure and not just consumer choice working as expected
I swear this consumer choice navel gazing will be the death of innovation. The US is obsessed with this narrative, that the magic market hand will self-correct, without any justification or scrutiny. Yes, consumer choice is necessary, but not sufficient. Just look at the developments in tech over the last decade+. I don’t have the solution but anyone who’s not entirely lost in dogma should be able to see the failures.
There are costs to any regulation, and lots of possible unintended consequences. So even though I'm personally a strong advocate for user control and software freedom, I'm wary of acting without strong justification and careful consideration of the underlying reasons behind the status quo.
> I accept the risk or tradeoff of Apple or MS spying on me.
For what it's worth, I do think this issue has indirect effects on privacy. If you have ultimate control of the software on your device, you can use that control in ways that help protect your privacy. Otherwise you're limited to whatever protections the manufacturer decides to grant you.
There are lots of similar positive possible downstream effects of software freedom, which is why I think this is an issue worth serious consideration despite my misgivings.
The underlying premise here is that the alternative is available for consumers to choose, i.e. that you can buy something which is otherwise equivalent to an iPhone but supports third party app stores or installing a third party OS. But that isn't the case.
What you get instead is e.g. Fairphone, which has the specs of a $200 phone but costs $800 and if you actually have root your bank app might break etc. And still many people buy it. So all you can conclude from this is that the price the mass market places on freedom is less than $600 plus some non-trivial usability issues, not that they value it at zero and don't care about it at all.
On top of this, it's a threshold issue. If the median phone was rooted, people would develop apps that need root. When the percentage is some low single digit if not a fraction of a percent, they don't, and then taking the trade offs of a phone that can be rooted isn't buying you what it should because you need a critical mass in order to achieve the expected benefits, but you need the benefits in order to achieve the critical mass. This is the sort of situation where a mandate can get you over the hump.
> There are costs to any regulation, and lots of possible unintended consequences.
A good way to handle this is through anti-trust, because then you can do things like exempt any company with less than e.g. 5% market share. That means not Apple or Google or Samsung, but if there is any major problem with the rule then the market can work around it by having 20+ independent companies each provide whatever it is that people actually want. Meanwhile that level of competition might very well solve the original problem on its own, because now a couple of them start selling unlocked devices without any countervailing trade offs and that's enough to make the others do it.