[idle_zealot]

I am quite aware of the landscape. I use a Pixel phone with GrapheneOS and an iPhone. I prefer many aspects of my iPhone, and can understand why many people choose one as their primary or sole mobile computer. A phone is a very special product category, it's where most users keep their digital lives. As such switching costs are quite high, and user agency is quite important. In general software introduces some very odd dynamics into ownership. If you buy a vacuum cleaner you can take it home, plug it in, and vacuum every room in your house; the vacuum cleaner is yours. If you buy a Roomba and take it home, it demands that you sign a unilateral EULA, then install an app on your phone, and then informs you that it will only clean one room unless you sign up for Roomba Pro for $20/mo[0]. So clearly Roomba still owns the vacuum cleaner they just sold you; they have the final say in what it does or doesn't do. That's ownership. Now, technically, you can legally disassemble your Roomba, and if you manage to dump, modify, and reflash its control software, then you'd be allowed to use your product to clean multiple rooms without paying monthly for the privilege. That would require a lot of effort and specialized skills and tooling, and you would then not be allowed to share your modifications with less skilled Roomba owners because doing so would almost certainly involve trafficking DRM circumvention technology, which is a crime. So in practical terms you only own the Roomba as an inanimate plastic puck.

This whole situation maps to iPhones as well. As things stand when you purchase an iPhone you own a glass brick, and Apple owns the phone part. They graciously allow you to use their phone to perform a certain limited set of activities. I am fundamentally opposed to this sort of non-ownership. Whether the buyer had an option to purchase a roughly-equivalent item with different terms is irrelevant; selling someone a product while retaining ownership of it is a mockery of property rights. Some rights are too important to allow people to sign them away with the tap of a button. When the market missteps by rewarding bad behavior like this it is the job of our democratic governments to step in and mandate good behavior.

[0]: this is made up to illustrate a point, I don't actually know how Roomba service works

[hparadiz]

This is all so exhausting and goes in circles over and over. I honestly can not believe that there are people on HackerNews of all places that want two companies to control pocket computers and just because one is only marginally better it's totally okay that the first one is draconian.

I feel like someone who woke up in the middle ages with a fever and they are trying to cure me with leeches. Yes yes. No need to worry. Let the leech do it's work and you too will be secure from the plague.

Does anyone actually know anyone that has gotten hacked on their Android phone?

[jakupovic]

People like their iPhone and get mad when you point out it is not the best for everyone and go back to I got mine. Really sad to see on HN especially.

[d35007]

Great news! I don’t see many people on HN getting mad when you point out that Apple isn’t the best for everyone. I’m not saying you made it up. Maybe I just don’t read enough comments.

I do see people saying they like how Apple devices work, and that they consciously choose Apple devices over devices from other manufacturers. Those are informed consumers making a choice you wouldn’t make. It’s not sad. Some people won’t agree with you in life. That’s normal.

Choice does exist in the market. There are far more than 2 manufacturers, and some of them focus on more HN-ish people who have more principles than I do.

I don’t really want the government to limit my smartphone choices in this way, but I also realize that Apple devices will continue to exist and will mostly work the way they do today, so it’s not that big a deal to me.

[jakupovic]

There are 2 parts to this argument, first being people are justifying their iPhone ownership,(and cult membership) with "Apple should do exactly what they are doing" because I like what I get, and I don't want the other folks in my cult ;).

Point 2 being the H in HN stands for Hacker defined as: "a person who uses computers to gain unauthorized access to data." Then the argument becomes why are people who are reading HN and, presumably, calling themselves hackers so interested in keeping status quo and letting Apple control everything? I think we go back to argument 1 and excluding others, green bubbles and such making a subset "better" than others. Elitist as F and some folks, like myself cannot stand for this and take time to explain the failure to others.

Pretty simple really ;)

[d35007]

> There are 2 parts to this argument, first being people are justifying their iPhone ownership,(and cult membership) with "Apple should do exactly what they are doing" because I like what I get, and I don't want the other folks in my cult ;).

It sounds like you’re assuming that people are in a “cult” because they don’t share some of your opinions. I’m sure that’s not what you’re doing, because you are a rational person engaging in a rational discussion. Can you help me understand what you really meant?

> Then the argument becomes why are people who are reading HN and, presumably, calling themselves hackers so interested in keeping status quo and letting Apple control everything?

Because they like Apple devices. Next question.

> I think we go back to argument 1 and excluding others, green bubbles and such making a subset "better" than others. Elitist as F and some folks, like myself cannot stand for this and take time to explain the failure to others.

It sounds like you’re upset because some people who buy Apple devices make jokes about “green bubbles” and “blue bubbles”. I’m sorry that happened to you. Nobody likes getting their feelings hurt.

I’m generally opposed to snobbery, but I don’t think it’s illegal.

> Pretty simple really ;)

Cool winky face.

[jakupovic]

The reply was mostly tongue in cheek via elaboration... The point about hackers wanting to change their devices still stands though and as one of other replies noted there is no reason both cannot coexist, some use their iPhone as Apple wants and some don't, if Apple doesn't want to relinquish control, we'll make them, just like MSFT was made to do things it didn't want to.

I don't even use an iPhone, I do use some Apple hardware as well as my household, but still stand for openness and am not in favor of walled gardens.

Snobbery is mostly about people trying to explain their usage of devices that break core tenements of open [internet, hardware, software ...] with poor arguments of "I like what I get" or simply "I got mine" and you can't for reasons.

[umanwizard]

No… I like my iPhone and get mad when people want the government to force Apple to change how it works. I like how it works now, which is why I bought it.

[bfdm]

And you could continue to enjoy that experience by only using Apple's own app store, while everyone else would also be free to use other app stores to install apps they want which Apple does not like. See how this still works? You don't lose here, you win freedom even if you don't want to take advantage of it. You might even win financially because competition from other app stores might force Apple to lower their fees.

[arvinsim]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Pretty sure some of the shills here are heavily invested in Apple stocks.

[hparadiz]

Apple revenue would likely go up in an open ecosystem. See Microsoft if you don't believe me.

[astrange]

Everyone is, it's the second biggest company in SPY.

[hilbert42]

"...selling someone a product while retaining ownership of it is a mockery of property rights."

Excellent comment, it sums the situation up very well. And the above extract encapsulates the matter in just a few words.

[d35007]

If I buy an iPhone, I can legally sell it. Thats ownership.