> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate.
EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate.
It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market.
> This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase.
"For your own safety" is how authoritarianism raises.
> It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market.
The EU is a regulatory body and a union of democratic sovereign states. There is no comparison to be had whatsoever with a multinational for-profit company.
I actually live in the EU. We (the citizens) have zero control over that regulatory body. ZERO. None of those represent me and I have no way of influencing them in any way.
While multinational companies?! I can actually stop being their customer and vote with my wallet. Much more democratic, IMHO.
I live in the EU too, and I've lived in other kinds of countries.
I don't think you realize what it is to have zero control over your government, and to be represented by no one. Your statements are grossly hyperbolic and a misrepresentation of the (real) failings of our democracies.
The whole point of the current discussion is how little power you actually have over Apple and other companies as a consumer. You cannot actually "vote with your wallet" by not buying any smartphone or not mowing your grass, it doesn't work.
>The whole point of the current discussion is how little power you actually have over Apple and other companies as a consumer. You cannot actually "vote with your wallet" by not buying any smartphone or not mowing your grass, it doesn't work.
I don't know about you, but I've never owned an iPhone. Android phones have worked, and still work, great for me. You don't have to buy an iPhone to have a smartphone.
I have power over Apple by simply not buying their crap, which is exactly what I've done. If other people like you did this instead of expecting someone else to control the company you willingly shovel your money to, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> I have power over Apple by simply not buying their crap
Do you? We both don't have iPhones (actually, I do have one at work because it's required for some of the things we do, but that's another problem) and Apple still exists, and still locks in my less technically aware relatives which becomes my problem.
Using an Android phone isn't a solution to all problems anyway, since many bank or identity apps require a locked, unrooted phone, which basically means they only run on unsecure phones that might report whatever to their actual owners in the US, China or South Korea.
Maybe in theory. But in practice, I've enacted much more change in the society voting with my money than I ever did with my actual vote. In fact, I think my actual vote has never in my life counted. My choice never won, my candidate never got in.
I lived both under a communist dictatorship and democracy. My actual vote (well, my parent's, I was too young to vote then) was wasted under both.
But every time I purchase a product I know that I act as natural selection in an ecosystem of companies which cannot exist unless their actions are (partially) aligned with my interests. It works.
coming back to this comment, and i just wanted to say...
i take your points well. and would also offer that you have a personal life experience which is fascinating to me given my upbringing in quintessential USA.
'voting with one's wallet' as a concept has more to do with the (English anyway) word for 'boycott.' a boycott, unlike governmental regulation, is something strictly reserved for private individuals to carry out. governments cannot legally boycott anything, at least that comes to mind. but they do have implicit (sometimes called 'plenary') authority to regulate the private market.
both, boycott (i.e. freedom of speech and to assemble, etc.) and lawful governmental regulation, are but of course myriad components of a healthy, functioning democracy.
> I actually live in the EU. We (the citizens) have zero control over that regulatory body. ZERO. None of those represent me and I have no way of influencing them in any way.
Wrong. You can vote for your local representatives who control the EU executive. You can vote for your EU member who control the EU parliament.
What you have zero of is knowledge of how the EU works, apparently.
And of course I did. None of the politicians I voted for won. Turns out proposing populist measures, like "be tough on those evil multinational corporations" is much more electable than saying uncomfortable truths like "EU is falling behind on tech - we need to lower taxation and reduce regulation if we want to have a fighting chance of catching up".
> What you have zero of is knowledge of how the EU works
Please teach me then. What you said so far ("vote") is not only well known but is also quite ineffective - if you know how EU works actually, not just apparently.
Welcome to democracy: you get one vote among millions. If you want more influence you can convince and organise other people, or run for office, but no individual voter gets to dictate anything.
Thank you. And this is why capitalism is such a great complement to democracy: it fixes policy failures. This is also why socialism is so dangerous under democracy: policy failures spill over and break the economy as well.
> I actually live in the EU. We (the citizens) have zero control over that regulatory body. ZERO. None of those represent me and I have no way of influencing them in any way.
Do you think I didn't vote?! Do you really believe a single vote changes anything when populist politicians promise to fleece "evil foreign corporations" while giving free money to their constituents?
Democracy isn't a silver bullet, and doesn't work well when the voters are stupid and make bad choices. IMO, it really requires an educated and reasonable populace to work out well. Otherwise, you get what we're seeing in the US and Hungary lately.
Are you being serious?! I know those guys. I voted in their election. I didn't vote for any of them, of course, since I know how weak they are.
You see, here is how it worked in my country: populist parties share the power and easily crush competition. They get elected by promising populist measures: higher pensions, higher minimum income and a tougher stance on the only thing they can attack: foreign corporations, which are made to be the scapegoats - root of all evils.
Then in EU elections their list is filled with the most useless, moronic, deeply corrupted and easily controlled politicians. This is because the EU parliament is seen as a well paid, easy comfy job tailor made for politicians too stupid or too visibly corrupt to prepare the next election cycle at home.
Those are "my MEPs". The only people they listen to are the handlers from back home. The only interests they represent is that of the highest bribe.
> EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate.
Who is economically illiterate here exactly? If I buy an iPhone, who owns it? Me, or Apple? According to you, it's Apple. Because they own the "platform" they get to decide what software you can run on it. No option to opt out.
Apple denying user choice for their own interest, on user owned hardware, is so obviously anti-consumer that only an ideologue would deny it.
> "For your own safety" is how authoritarianism raises.
Do you mean how Apple denys user freedom "for their own safety", literally?
Dictatorship from an unelected, self appointed corporation is actual authoritarianism.
It's not a dictatorship, though: you're free to buy an Android phone like me. Just like you're free to buy a shirt from Uniqlo or H&M or wherever instead of Louis Vuitton. Microsoft has something much, much closer to a dictatorship, but I haven't seen much action on regulating them; the only thing that finally reigned them in (a little) was the move to web apps.
Yes so what happens when Uniqlo or H&M starts dictating which items you can wear together or on what days you can wear them?
You're entirely missing the point. Tech companies don't get to dictate what we can do with their products. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. You think that going to a competitor is the answer but the competitor is doing the same thing and so would every company over time because it gives the companies so much power and profit, at the cost to user freedom. This is particularly dangerous in a market that is basically an oligopoly.
The "free market" is great but it doesn't solve every problem or abuse. Users and customers have rights that need to be protected. Why you thing giving up your natural rights to corporations is a good idea I'll never know.
> what happens when Uniqlo or H&M starts dictating
You simply switch to a producer with more acceptable terms or one that doesn't dictate at all. Unless the competition was curtailed through excessive regulation, of course.
Why is it so hard to understand how the free market works and so hard to accept that different people can make different choice from you and that is ok because you it doesn't impede on your right to make your choices?
Why this desperation to impose your choices on other people?
>Yes so what happens when Uniqlo or H&M starts dictating which items you can wear together or on what days you can wear them?
You go find a new clothing store.
>You're entirely missing the point. Tech companies don't get to dictate what we can do with their products.
No, I'm not, and yes, sometimes they do, if you agree to it. Lots of enterprise vendors dictate how their customers can use their products.
>You think that going to a competitor is the answer but the competitor is doing the same thing and so would every company over time
No, they aren't doing the same thing. I can use other app stores (or side-loaded apps) on Android right now. Why is this SO hard for you to understand? No, there's no evidence this is going to change. If it does, then you have a very good reason for government to step in and force changes.
EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate.
It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market.
> This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase.
"For your own safety" is how authoritarianism raises.