Comment by throwaway743950
16 hours ago
Maybe I'm uneducated here, but wouldn't this just commoditize the products of companies? Would it disincentivize them from creating their products in the first place?
16 hours ago
Maybe I'm uneducated here, but wouldn't this just commoditize the products of companies? Would it disincentivize them from creating their products in the first place?
YouTube's product is the commercials it targets with the collected user data, not the web or phone client. So as long as the client doesn't get in the way of showing these advertisements and collecting that user data, it should not matter to them.
In more general case, you don't pay for the client software (or web page), you pay for the service provided trough it, so it should not matter if you use the service trough different client.
Of curse, many of these new clients do provide options for getting around the data collection or make it possible to block the advertisement, and that makes the companies so strict about who makes clients and how.
In a sense, yes - intuitively, you'd think it's bad but historically it's actually a major accelerant to innovation.
Essentially, if competition entered the market, Apple (and co) aren't going to give up, they'd be forced to innovate in order to retain market share.
If individuals (like me, some random on the internet) were permitted to create competing services on top of hardware and software that exists, you'd be running SteamOS on your MacBook, you'd be plugging your phone into a USB-C dock or lapdock, you'd be able to export data from your health tracker so you can buy a new one and keep your existing data, etc.
By contrast, the status quo of permitting corporations to attain functional monopolies by making it practically impossible to compete is a far worse outcome for the general consumer.
Also, when you consider that the EU is looking at cutting their reliance on US technologies - they are literally not going to make a MacBook or iPhone in this decade - but if Europeans were allowed to install their own software on these devices, the road to sovereignty gets a whole lot less impractical
Also, as stated below, as long as you don't prevent YouTube (or similar) from making money from ads (ad blocking, etc) - there is no reason to not allow you do to this.
Did TV, VCR, soundbar, monitor, laptop manufacturers end up stop manufacturing their devices because they had to talk to each other with a compatible HDMI format? And the user could swap out the TV device that played media from Apple TV?
Where do you get those silly ideas?
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that products with open APIs are commoditized faster than ones without? Why would that be?
i think they meant the hardware becomes more fungible. This is what made IBM lose their competitive advantage when it came to PCs, because others were able to make IBM-compatible ones that are cheaper and still able to use the same old software.
Right. But viewed differently, that made everyone have to compete at actually making good PCs, instead of relying on customers unable to escape to another vendor due to lock-in.
We want this. Software and other modern tech desperately need this! How many companies are stuck with an absolutely terrible suite of MS products because you can't easily rip out and replace just the IM or videoconferencing part, for example?
6 replies →