Comment by xvokcarts | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xvokcarts | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that.

I think that means to treat others as you’d like to be treated when you interact, not actively do to people what you’d like others to do to you. “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say, and that was my point about regulation enacted by expert groups without public vote.

> An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out.

When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android and hasn’t looked back since. No additional regulation was necessary and nobody was left behind.

> Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that.

Only when monopoly was involved.

I’m not against interoperability, but I think it’s wierd to force anyone into it, be it a company, or a consumer, since nobody is in a monopolistic position, and everyone has a choice. When people have a choice they can make it as they wish, and they do, that’s why Apple is not in a dominant position - because people can make a choice.

The thing that’s funny to me is that regulation now caters to people that want a specific device type with specific functionality dictated by government allegedly on behalf of the average consumer.

> “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say

How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone?

> When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android

"I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony.

> Only when monopoly was involved.

Word of the day: duopoly.

When there are only two platforms, and the world is very much dependent on them for a huge chunk of people's lives (to the point that banks refuse to support other platforms), it's strange to claim that a requirement for interoperability is a threat, or is forcing someone to do something, or is bad, or shouldn't be done.

Just listen to yourself. At which point did simple things like "setting default apps" or "letting apps use OS-level functionality" become "threats", "weird to force" and "government dictate"?

BTW. This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc.

> How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone?

It's not and I never said it was. I was replying to your "do unto others" quote which I find is not applicable in this case: I think in regulatory cases you shouldn't assume you know what's best for others (let them vote instead). So, if you say "we're a group of experts, we know you don't need product X, so we're pushing for additional taxation of it" it's a threat. Sorry if I was not clear enough the first time.

But on another note, if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point? If people have a choice to buy something else, who am I hurting here and how?

> "I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony.

I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher either publish on every platform or on none in order not to discriminate users is needed or positive.

> Word of the day: duopoly.

First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly. Tell me, when there are 3 dominating companies, will there be a "triopoly"?

> This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc.

This makes sense in a lot of cases, but less so when people have choices.

> It's not and I never said it was. I was replying to your "do unto others" quote which I find is not applicable in this case: I think in regulatory cases

My quote was in relation to the context about some unnamed activists and expertise that is somehow harmful to people.

> if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point?

Depends on the product, of course. E.g. you can sell an exclusive phone, and companies like Vertu made good money on it. What you can't do is make it non-interoperable with other phones, or phone networks, or...

> I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher

In short response you've now come up with the following attempts at analogies: additional taxation, game publishing, triopoly...

And none of them are applicable in this case.

> First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly.

If you were discussing this in good faith, you wouldn't have typed this. I never claimed Apple was a monopoly. The EU never claimed it was a monopoly.

I described the situation as it exists, and why this regulation appeared. Yes, if there's a third company with the same size, influence, and problems, it will also be subject to the same regulation.

Since you are a fan of analogies: just like car manufacturers are subject to standards and regulations, and electronics manufacturers, and construction companies, and ship builders, and airlines, and food companies, and...

Why is this such a difficult concept to wrap your head around when it comes to supranational corporations, is beyond me.

While also ignoring the simple facts that people do want interoperability, and that it's government's literal job to enforce standards and interoperability.

"I know what's best for you and I'm going to make sure it happens" is Apple's entire ethos. So as we're going to have that anyway, I much prefer it done by elected officials.

Only if I buy their products does what they do affect me. So it can't be a threat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com