[gambiting]

So....if you buy something, you automatically lose the right to complain about the way it works? Do you apply that rule to the other areas of your life?

Maybe a different example - until very recently, if you bought a BMW, you could only get Apple CarPlay as a subscription, you couldn't just pay upfront to have it. Which is not how this works literally anywhere else, every other brand has it as a one-time unlock and then you have it for life.

Surely, every person buying a brand new BMW knew this, it's clearly advertised. So....should they not have complained about this? After all, they knew what they were buying. But, people have been complaining, and BMW has finally changed it recently. Good riddance I say.

But back to the iphone dillema. The problem with your argument is that this is traditionally not how markets work. If company X wants to sell something to John Smith(let's say an app for their iphone), but cannot without going through some kind of licence holder(Apple in this case) - it's totally a valid question to ask if Apple is stifling competition here or not. In my opinion - they are. Maybe the company X is making a completely legitimate web browser, that John Smith wants to buy and pay money for - but Apple will say nope, you can't buy that, because that would compete with our own product. That's anticompetitive behaviour, and traditionally it does eventually get stopped in court. Like I said in my example several posts ago - volkswagen cannot do anything to stop the company X from selling brake pads to John Smith, yes they fit a car that Volkswagen made but Volkswagen doesn't get to say whether John Smith is allowed to purchase and fit those parts or not. Courts all over the world have decided, many times, that corporations shouldn't have that power. Why do smartphone manufacturers get to keep that power now then? That will change in my opinion, and they will be forced to open up.

[spacedcowboy]

Here's the thing: I don't care about BMW. I have a nice situation with Apple holding the keys to the castle, without the horrendous problems that friends of mine have had with Android malware, and you're threatening it. I don't want that.

End of story.

I don't care who makes money and how they do it. I don't care about any wider point. I care that my experience on the phone that I bought for that experience doesn't get worse. I believe that experience would get worse, if there was open-season on the apps that could be installed. Capitalists are going to capitalize. The walled garden comes with restrictions that I signed up for, and I'm happy about that. That was why I signed up in the first place.

[gambiting]

So....why are you here at all? Why bother replying to any of these comments, if you're not actually interested in the discussion in the slightest? Like, I get it - you don't care. And? Not caring isn't some new radical stance you know.

[chrisseaton]

We’re not ‘not interested’ we actively don’t want what you’re proposing because we think it’s unjust and harmful and so we’re arguing against it.

[gambiting]

But I think I had a very interesting discussion with yourself, you laid out some arguments, I did the same, at the end we disagreed but that's fine, I'm not on some sort of crusade here, it's just a discussion. But then spacedcowboy comes in to basically say "I don't care about any of this or any of your arguments". Ok then, of course they are free to do so, but then why bother commenting? I only continued replying because I hoped we can have explore the topic a bit more but no, spacedcowboy just straight up says he doesn't care about any of it, so I guess that's really, as they put it, "end of story".

[spacedcowboy]

I don't care about your arguments because I don't want their expected effects on my life.

I very do much care about the results of your proposals becoming popular, and I don't want what you're proposing to come about. I want it to be known that there are people who oppose your point of view, in case it becomes de-facto the "popular opinion".

[gambiting]

Well, then this approach stands against everything I thought HN represented. I have discussed things I very much don't want to happen before here and the "I don't even want to see your side, I just don't want this thing to happen" has never seemed to me like a good tactic - it just doesn't get anyone anywhere. I've been convinced many times to change my mind on HN(and I hope I have changed some minds too) but that's just not possible if the other side isn't engaging in the debate. And if not for the debate, what are we even here for?