> Maybe, but when regulation made by activists starts touching the lives of people that don't care about the thing activists want, they may not like the idea of activists deciding for them.
That's not just any regulation, that's any act of government.
> we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants.
My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place.
> My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place.
Exactly. A few people want interoperability and everyone accepts it because they don't care since it doesn't affect their lives. I'm not a policy expert, but this seems a bit like riding the high horse. The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise.
We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big, in the name of enabling competition, which will again, due to the real reasons for EU tech decline, come from the USA.
> The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise.
Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that.
On top of that, a lot of people want interoperability, they just don't know how to express it in terms that the regular highly technical divorced from reality crowd on HN understands.
An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out. Apple keeps redesigning the app, and making it worse and more cumbersome to use. Even if there is an app that better suits my mom, I can't recommend it to her because Apple in its infinite wisdom does not let you change the default epub reader on iOS/iPadOS.
And it's just on anecdote out of hundreds. There won't be a single person who wants all of the interoperability. There will be multiple people with multiple different requirements for interoperability. From epub readers to navigation apps to Pebble watches (https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...).
Too bad they can't express their wishes in terms of "we want interoperability", and instead express them in terms of "why the hell Apple redesigned Books again" and "why can't Pebble show notifications". Then their wishes don't count, apparently.
> We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big
How did "Let's make platforms more open to increase competition and the umber of things people can do on those platforms" become "it's bad, and only exists to stick it to big US companies" is beyond my understanding (and defies all logic, if we're honest).
Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that.
About epub, Apple is just mad because they were not able to corner the market in a way that would allow them to dictate everything about it.
Their proprietary format is a failure (the only benefit was to be able to use their publishing app, that they killed) and their marketplace sucks for all the usual Apple reasons.
Even though Amazon is not a great actor in the field, they still manage to be not as bad as Apple so people went there.
In any case, there is something fundamentally broken with ebooks, because of DRM. Because you know, somehow you weren't able to share books before. I know that don't "lose" your copy when you share digitally but for all intent, once a book has been read it is "consumed" the residual value it has for the owner is very little and mostly about archiving or collecting.
Sadly, as with many things of modern Apple they had a bad influence on the market and they continue to do so and it is especially aggravating since, like you explained, their software isn't even good anymore.
iBooks and macOS is just as bad, if not worse, which is something.
> 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.
> Apple in its infinite wisdom does not let you change the default epub reader on iOS/iPadOS.
Stuff like that is why I can never use Apple products. It's my device, not theirs; I own it, I'm not renting it. Let me do what I want with it. Or be honest and rent it out to people instead.
Well they are kind of doing that with their buyback-recycling and no interest loan program on top of their programmed obsolescence but they are not upfront about it. I agree that it should be made clearer to the customers that they don't actually fully own the device.
When a modern Apple device stops getting updates, for all intent and purpose it is mostly a useless brick to most people.
The saving grace of their older computers was that they could run alternative OS because they used a mostly compliant PC architecture, but with Apple Silicon it's not even on the table anymore.
It's like if a car manufacturer could decide exactly the date at which will stop using the car, no matter how many miles you put on it or how useful it is to you in the current situation.
> It's like if a car manufacturer could decide exactly the date at which will stop using the car, no matter how many miles you put on it or how useful it is to you in the current situation.
That's why I think it should be regulated, and don't find the arguments about stifling innovation to ever be convincing.
To be clear, I do think this regulation is best for everybody and will improve human lives, including for people in the USA. Not including the companies affected, but I don't think they're morally deserving of protection beyond the necessary.
That's not just any regulation, that's any act of government.
> we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants.
My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place.