Comment by gavinlynch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gavinlynch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>> "Still, it's a new kind of gatekeeper, and it holds the keys to a platform used by millions of people around the world. While not as horrifyingly Orwellian as it could be, the fact that the biggest company in U.S. history makes decisions about which content is too "objectionable" for its customers is unsettling."

I am forever bewildered by consumers that have this sense of entitlement around a company and "demand" this action or that action.

It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, that's great. Dissenting opinions are a foundation of this great country. But Apple also deserves the right to not care what you think, and not care if you go somewhere else. The majority of consumers have no problem with it.

If Apple wanted to wall of the entire platform, they could do that. But instead they have created the biggest app market for mobile devices (from what I understand, please correct me if this is not 100% accurate, but the point remains it's huge). Does it suck that a few apps are rejected for seemingly dubious reasons? Sure, I guess it does for those developers. But I've been hearing dire warnings about mass exoduses and public outcries since the inception of the app store. Hasn't really happened besides a few edge cases that we see on Hacker News every other month or so.

To be honest, I feel that this particular app's story is only popular because it has to do with the politics of the drone program.

>> "Some consumers are already beginning to grow uncomfortable with Facebook's privacy policies, Google's targeted advertising, and other cases in which, whether justified or not, technology starts to feel a little creepy. Twitter takes protecting privacy and free speech very seriously, and even if most users don't notice or care yet, that stance will serve the company well as social media continues to part and parcel of our daily lives."

Got it. FB and Google evil. Twitter good.

Except that's not really true either. Twitter has worked with several law enforcement offices, particularly when identifying Occupy Wall Street protestors that were accused of crimes.

So I just don't find this article very credible on the facts, or the opinions persuasive at all.

Tell me why we shouldn't demand devices that we can change, do whatever we please with? Why shouldn't we demand that computing devices has an override, or some way of running whatever software the owner wants it to? What would happen to Apple if we had these kinds of regulations? Would the iphone never have happened? I doubt it.

Businesses don't have any rights on their own, only the rights we give to them. When the interests of companies goes against the interests of the people, then we regulate. It's that simple. I'm against regulations that impose overhead for companies without good reason. Regulation to PREVENT companies from expending energy to actively keep users from doing what they want is not overhead. Forcing companies to keep their system somewhat open won't hurt them as much as it would benefit the world.

Tell me why we shouldn't demand devices that we can change, do whatever we please with?

You can demand this all you want, as long as the only way you enforce your demand is by choosing what products to buy.

But if you mean "demand" as in "make laws and regulations", as it's clear you do, then I disagree.

When the interests of companies goes against the interests of the people, then we regulate.

No, we buy something else or go without.

At the end of the day, we're talking about smartphones and apps here. You do not need to have an iPhone. You do not need to have apps. If you don't like what's on offer, and all your efforts at persuasion fail, then, as I said, you buy something else or go without.

For example, I can't stand the MPAA and RIAA. I've blogged repeatedly about their stupid, shortsighted business practices and their attempts to get draconian laws passed to emasculate general purpose computers. But I have no right to demand that they make their products the way I want them to, or else we'll get the government to regulate them. If they refuse to listen to reason, as they have, I simply buy something else or go without. Which means that I almost never buy music or movies now. I do not have an iPhone, or an iPad, or any other iDevice, and have no plans to buy one, for the same reason.

So the OP cannot express an opinion about what Apple should do, without "having a sense of entitlement"? Can you describe what an "un-entitled" criticism would look like, or how it would differ from the OP? Or should we just not ever criticize Apple because they are a private company and we can buy Android devices?

No not at all. My comment regarding bewilderment at the sense of entitlement behind making demands of companies has more to do with personality differences than anything else. I realize that I am a consumer, and they are the producer of a consumer good. That is my relationship with Apple. That's it.

The "entitlement" is just my perspective of what I see as a group of individuals who align themselves with the OP's viewpoint in scolding Apple, taking shots at, and generally nitpicking it's wall-garden philosophy; A very vocal, relatively speaking extremely small minority of consumers who demand that the company change it's policies to fit their whims and philosophies.

I guess I would never be so presumptuous to think like that. To me, the company does what it wants, and when the public votes with their dollars, their business decisions are either validated or they are not.

And there is something that I just can't grasp about the hand-wringing and scolding about the app store. The iPhone is a great product, the app store is arguably one of the most successful new ventures of apple in the last decade, arguably the most successful app store for any mobile device. And by and large, the system works. So this barrage of criticism of edge cases is just...confusing to me, to say the least.

I appreciate that the writer is concerned about Apple and about consumers. But this concept that the writer's ideas are protecting Apple's long-term survival as a company in a fluid land-scape while at the same time bringing about pro-consumer changes just rings hollow to me. It feels like energy misplaced.

It's their company. They can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, that's great. Dissenting opinions are a foundation of this great country. But Apple also deserves the right to not care what you think, and not care if you go somewhere else. The majority of consumers have no problem with it.

Too bad Bill Gates isn't looking for a lawyer or advocate now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Are you suggesting Apple is a monopoly?

If they succeed in enjoining everyone else's smartphones, then yes, they are a monopolist, and should be held to the same standards that Microsoft was held to.

No, not yet (~30% share) but what you said it's not true. They cannot do "whatever they want." Eventually the Feds will start asking questions.

What kinds of questions will Federal Agents be asking Apple? What kinds of illegal activity are you insinuating Apple has perpetrated?

(edit: Disclaimer I previously assumed was unnecessary: Apple can't "do whatever they want", you are correct. For instance, if Tim Cook killed a hooker, that would be bad.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com