Comment by ceejayoz
2 days ago
> Right but granny is not a child, she is kind of the opposite of a child.
The failure modes are often quite similar - cognitive/motor issues and lack of experience with the tools offered.
> Appeal to the lowest common denominator and DO NOT offer back doors.
Back doors accessible by scammers are bad for the same reasons back doors accessible by governments are.
> This really is "no sale of knives" type stuff. That sounds ridiculous, right? Because it is, and we let Apple get away with murder.
Apple's more like a shop that declines to sell knives. There are other shops that will sell you one.
> The failure modes are often quite similar - cognitive/motor issues and lack of experience with the tools offered.
Okay but again we cannot form all technology to only work for people with cognitive issues and nobody else. Again, this is ridiculous, there's no other way to describe it. It's just not a reasonable viewpoint and I feel it's a bit insane I even have to argue against it.
Look, it's great if we have the option to lock these phones down for more vulnerable people. What we CANNOT do is make the entire world locked down. It's not reasonable.
> Back doors accessible by scammers are bad for the same reasons back doors accessible by governments are.
My mistake, these are front doors. Not back doors.
> Apple's more like a shop that declines to sell knives. There are other shops that will sell you one.
NO, there are not, because Apple chooses to only allow their app store. The market we are talking about here is not "all smartphones". It's "the market of software available for iPhones", in which they hold 100% control over. This should be legislated against.
> Okay but again we cannot form all technology to only work for people with cognitive issues and nobody else.
We can take their needs into consideration, just as we legally require businesses to put wheelchair ramps in.
> NO, there are not, because Apple chooses to only allow their app store. The market we are talking about here is not "all smartphones". It's "the market of software available for iPhones", in which they hold 100% control over. This should be legislated against.
Should Gucci have to sell Coach handbags? Should Ford have to sell Toyotas?
> We can take their needs into consideration
Yes, I agree, and I said exactly that.
> Should Gucci have to sell Coach handbags? Should Ford have to sell Toyotas?
If Gucci was a Walmart, then yes. If Walmart claimed to be a grocery store, and exclusively served only Walmart goods, that's a problem.
There's a difference between a brand and a marketplace. Apple is a brand. The App Store is a marketplace. The marketplace should be relatively free, in the market sense.
In addition, these are general computation devices. Some people disagree, I don't care, they're obviously wrong. It's not like a washing machine. These are supposed to be for general software and computing purposes, much like your PC. But they aren't, because unlike your PC, they are nonfree.
The bigger thing that I'm kind of hinting at is: we are not trapped into some make believe structure we have to live by. You think Apple shouldn't open their app store. That's just a belief, and one I reject. We can, and should, force their hand. We do it ALLLL the time with corporations, it's very common.
Just because things have worked one way, doesn't mean they should continue to work that way. We can change things at any time, if it is for the better. If we decided we should pass legislation to force Guccie to also sell Prada, then sure. I say why the fuck not? If that's what consumers want, then we should do it. The consumer is king. I give less than zero fucks what Apple wants. If it hurts Apple's bottom line, I still don't care. In fact, I'd argue that if we're hurting Apple's bottom line then we're probably doing something right. I will always side with the consumer 100% of the time.
1 reply →
> The failure modes are often quite similar - cognitive/motor issues and lack of experience with the tools offered.
Children are either not allowed to have devices, or they have them but locked down with parental controls (hopefully).
Apple could easily have a separate mode for this. Maybe there's some overlap with lockdown mode where it can be bundled together. There is no reason to force it on everyone except to benefit Apple.
> Children are either not allowed to have devices, or they have them but locked down with parental controls (hopefully).
How many children have you met lately?
Who is at fault for allowing children unlimited access to their devices? Their caregivers or Apple?
1 reply →