We are living Stallman's Nightmare where some supernational empire decides what programs we're allowed to run on our computers.

Indeed, though thankfully we have the alternatives.

Which is why Microsoft's attempts to make UEFI their own little fiefdom need to be resisted.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/security-measure-forces-wi...

Even aside from the most egregious cases like that linked above, operating systems like Linux need their bootloader signed by Microsoft in order to boot on a Secure Boot enabled PC. The conflict of interest is obvious.

Yeah, TPM 2.0 is a real ass. Looks like classic anti-competitive lawsuit to me, has any org pursued this?

"You won't be able to imagine the things we have in the future. Supercomputers in your pocket, the size of a candy bar!"

> "Cool, does it play Doom?"

"Funny thing, that..."

"Can your computer do <insert something simple>?"

No, it cannot do simple things anymore. We've just come that far.

It's always bothered me how they call it a "supercomputer in your pocket".

Not very super if it doesn't do the things I want, sigh.

Unlike the other two, Google used to be good about avoiding walled gardens and simply monetizing services provided on open platforms. Buzz was federated. Gchat was federated. Android lets you run what you want. Chrome never stagnates and actively builds new features to make the web more useful. Then Google+ (instead of Buzz on pubsubhubbub), Hangouts Chat (instead of XMPP) and now Google Chat (instead of Matrix) came along with the Facebook and Apple style walled garbage dump lock-in.

Don't forget that, specifically, Apple has kicked apps off the App Store whilst outright stealing their functionality.

They think copyright law should apply to everyone except themselves. Such bravery.

App functionality is generally not covered by copyright. Code yes, some assets/images/etc. sure, look-and-feel maybe, but functionality no.

I agree with your first paragraph. However, I can't agree with your second. Most people who work there are just regular people, they are not "morally derelict" sociopaths. Indeed, the main reason they work there is money and prestige, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Blame the executives who make the decisions, not the workers who implement them.

Would you say the same about workers at Philip Morris or Shell? If the money and prestige is ill-gotten, I’d say those workers are complicit.

I would say the same. Just because some minimum wage worker runs the cash register at a Shell gas station does not mean they're complicit. Even if they worked at corporate, I still wouldn't expect it. The one's who make the decisions are the ones who are complicit.

Apple, by creating the iPhone and a standardized App Store, have essentially created billions of revenue for developers throughout the years.

I find your sense of entitlement morally derelict.

Let's see if I can paraphrase your argument:

"The iPhone and the App Store exist, therefore developers should be thankful they exist regardless of how Apple treats them as they try to get their apps approved."

What would that dev do without their 80% they are making now if there was no iDevices? That 80% looks pretty good compared to 0%

If there were no iDevices, the developers would make their apps for more open platforms instead. Don't pretend the apps just wouldn't exist at all.

Right, because the millions of people that have a mobile device as the one and only compute device would magically be buying a different type of computer?

They would be buying the same computer from a different manufacturer.

In what world can anyone afford an iDevice but not an Android device?

I read open platforms as not just Android. I was thinking more traditional compute vs mobile

Apple, by creating the iPhone and taxing every app purchase, have single-handedly lifted billions of dollars out of the pockets of those developers they're supposedly helping.

So yes, they're entitled to 'something' because clearly Apple thinks they're entitled to the money of thousands of developers. Maybe they are, but the only way to find out is opening their platform, which they're obviously too afraid to do even as an experiment. They know apps like TikTok, Facebook and Fortnite have the ability to tip the scales away from their favor; so why shouldn't they? Why doesn't the customer have a right to decide?

You have a reasonable counterpoint. Maybe ditch the personal attack?

And I find your preference for hyperbole mildly distasteful.

Prior to the iPhone and the AppStore, it wasn't possible to monetize computer software. We should be grateful our overlords allow us to develop the applications that are the foundation of that business model.

"Finally, developers are getting a tiny percentage of the revenue they deserve. Therefore, it's okay to steal from them, and destroy them completely."