←back to thread

2071 points K0nserv | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
idle_zealot ◴[] No.45088298[source]
This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a developer to alter their software, but let's be real: Google and Apple have more power than most nations. I'm all for mandating that they change their code to be less user-hostile, for the same reason I prefer democracy to autocracy. Any party with power enough to impact millions of lives needs to be accountable to those it affects. I don't see the point of distinguishing between government and private corporation when that corporation is on the same scale of power and influence.
replies(14): >>45088317 #>>45088413 #>>45088437 #>>45088617 #>>45088634 #>>45088767 #>>45088805 #>>45088812 #>>45089073 #>>45089349 #>>45089473 #>>45089554 #>>45089569 #>>45091038 #
jacquesm ◴[] No.45088767[source]
> Google and Apple have more power than most nations.

And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation. But corporations are now more powerful than most nations, including some really big ones. So the only way to solve this is to for an umbrella for nations that offsets the power that these corporations have.

The first thing you notice when you arrive at Brussels airport is the absolute barrage of Google advertising that tries to convince you that Google is doing everything they can to play by the rules. When it is of course doing the exact opposite. So at least Google seems to realize that smaller nations banding together wield power. But they will never wield it as effectively as a company can, so we still have many problems.

replies(3): >>45088835 #>>45089434 #>>45089608 #
vbezhenar ◴[] No.45089608[source]
These are basics of capitalism.

Company aims for profit.

Bigger scale allows for better efficiency.

So companies naturally grow big. The bigger they are, the easier for them to compete.

Big companies have access to tremendous resources, so they can push laws by bribing law makers, advertising their agenda to the masses.

There's no way around it, not without dismantling capitalism. Nations will serve to the corporations, no other way around.

There are natural boundaries of the growth scale, which are related to the inherent efficiency of communications between people and overall human capability. Corporations are controlled by people and people have limited brains and mouths. I feel that with AI development, those boundaries will move apart and allow for even greater growth eventually.

replies(2): >>45089861 #>>45091739 #
tremon ◴[] No.45091739[source]
Bigger scale allows for better efficiency.

This is dogma, not proven fact, and most people that argue this tend to use self-serving metrics and a tailored definition of "efficient". Some counterexamples: early Google was much more efficient in responding to market changes than the current top-heavy organization; small hospitals tend to have better health outcomes (both per patient and per dollar) than large chains. Tesla was able to innovate much faster than established behemoths.

replies(1): >>45091847 #
1. MangoToupe ◴[] No.45091847[source]
I think you mean "nimble", "versatile", or "agile". None of these imply efficiency in the same sense economy of scale does (ie cost to produce a single deliverable unit).

There are good examples, though—you can produce a single gold ring a lot cheaper than you can produce a one-of-a-trillion of them, cuz at some point you simply run out of gold. Another example is running into a cap in demand. Classic sigmoid vs exponential patterns.