I'm not saying this is the most practical solution to this problem but at least it's a possibility.
Beyond that, have you considered the actual average user? You either never worked tech support or forgot. It’s bad out there, it’s like people are moving backwards with computer skills because of phones.
That's still a way better outcome than having a single uncountable company being able to do audits.
> Beyond that, have you considered the actual average user? You either never worked tech support or forgot. It’s bad out there, it’s like people are moving backwards with computer skills because of phones.
People are becoming worse with computer skills because manufacturers try very hard to remove owners from how their machine works, I'm not sure going further into this way will help. In a very locked down device like the iPhone, the phone owner can't even understand what it's doing even if they wanted to.
I think the point stands.
By defending user privacy, Apple is able to have a direct affect on the bottom line of its rival corporations.
All corporations behave according to incentives that will help they to progress further than their competitors. If they don't rival coporations will take the lead.
--
So following on from this. Is the crux of these arguments anti-capitalist?
No .. it's not anti-capitalism. It's realistic. Even more realistic if you believe in a capitalism system and want to compete.
I feel that capitalism works most successfully when it provides more people with a better quality of life.
Fundamentally, there are conceptual problems with a capitalist system .. factors that lead to scenarios that are likely to lead to the system operating sub-optimally.
An example of a problem; if a corporation is allowed to grow without limit, how can new companies realistically compete?
The remedy? I guess it's up for discussion. But I think regulation can prevent the worst form occurring, and many markets have measures in place to carry out this type of regulation.
--
Why am I saying this?
Because I feel that open-source is simply a remedy to a conceptual problem that exists within our capitalist economy. It is not antithetical to capitalism.
Namely, the question it serves to answer is; how do we balance the power provided by digital technologies with the incentive companies have to exploit these powers for commercial gain?
Open-source is a logical answer to this. You could argue, we don't have the tools available to highlight any injustices contained in a code-base. My answer would be .. that doesn't mean we conceptually couldn't or won't in the future.
Closed source is a conceptual dead end - and won't lead to a better future.