this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
398 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
59292 readers
3884 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes but imagine in an established system, let's use the US mail as an example, I create a stamp that meets the criteria of postage stamps but also (somehow; after all it is proprietary) requires the opening of the mailed parcel to be contingent upon something like watching an ad, or "signing in" unless you have a subscription at my fancy new parcel stamp company...
I would imagine that most of us would not want to simply "accept this new ecosystem" and would struggle with legitimizing it.
The sunken cost fallacy comes to mind; as those who have "subscribed" to such a business model don't perceive themselves as inconvenienced... And only when comparing themselves to those who aren't subscribed could they even know the shady business model even exists!
In the end, it feels like Apple is intentionally creating systemic division so that it's customer base feels like they are a part of something exclusive (even if said exclusive content/system doesn't appear to serve them in any way other than "feeling exclusive").
Apple could very easily mitigate the echo chamber they have created. But they created it to serve the Apple shareholders, alone.
No?
I think the argument comes in that, this actually doesn't apply to those who don't have said system. Imagine instead it's a stamp that only applies differences if the recipient also subscribes to said stamp service. To everyone else, it's just a regular letter. I can easily go use a different service of the same type to achieve the same benefits.
And yeah, they do use their system to benefit their shareholders, which is what businesses do with their proprietary services.
Im not arguing for this by any means, just trying to play devils advocate as for why Apple would want to maintain control over it and why I think it's odd that the government wants to get involved. I feel like companies like amazon do more impractical shit to maintain control over the market, but bubble colors just aren't anywhere near the top of the list for things I think politicians need to spend time talking about.
I wouldn't be upset if they forced apples hand, though, others have pointed out that it would even the competive market for other manufacturers
First off, just want to thank you for the civil discourse. It's why we are here, right?
But in your rebuttal... keep in mind that the iPhone users are effected in as much as the only solution an iPhone user can currently offer (when their iPhone image is compressed to a nearly illegible degree after being sent to any non-iPhone user) is "maybe you should buy an iPhone like I did" or they have to use an entirely different system to resend the image (this latter solution being more inconvenient to the iPhone user).
As someone said below:
"Apple could release their own iMessage client for Android if this were really about trusting beeper, but it's not. It's about using peer pressure with blue bubbles to sell more iPhones."
I feel its either sunken-cost-fallacy-as-brand-ambassadorship or simply (yet another example of) bad faith arguments to support such underhanded "but... is it illegal?" behavior that borders on needing current anti-trust requirements to be reevaluated.
iMessage is not a stamp in this analogy - it is a whole separate post office and infrastructure, including staff and policies.
You’re mischaracterising the argument.