Dutch organizations start a claim against Apple for slowing down iPhones – Tablets and telephones – News

What I find particularly strange about these types of claims is that Apple does not provide any hard guarantee on a specific performance level. So how can you ever prove that you are not getting what you are entitled to?

My vision starts with the fact that the owner of the device should always be in charge of that device, not the supplier. The user should have the right and ability to refuse any unwanted updates or changes to the software. That may be easier said than done, but that’s how I think it should be.

There are two major problems with this ideal, the first is simple, namely that the user typically does not know what exactly has changed and what influence it has. That can be solved with documentation.
A more difficult problem is that software cannot be cut into pieces in an arbitrary manner so that the user can choose features/fixes themselves, even if they had the source it remains difficult.

Realistically you need companies to help people with software, in practice only Apple can do that. Usually that goes well and the users are satisfied, but not everyone wants the same thing, there will always be different opinions/wishes/target groups. That will always clash with a one-size-fits-all solution. My solution is to ensure that there are several companies that can make software for the iPhone hardware. Then customers can choose the best compromise between features, fixes, speed, advertising, price, etc…

However, competing with Apple on their own hardware is not going to work. Apple holds all the cards, the price and features of the hardware, the documentation, new developments and what hoops you have to jump through to use it. Things can be made endlessly difficult for new competitors.

I would like to solve it by splitting Apple into multiple companies. One of them makes hardware for mobile phones. Another (or more?) makes operating systems for mobile phones. (A third makes applications, etc.).

The hardware and software are then made by different companies. The hardware manufacturer now no longer has an interest in exclusively helping the software manufacturer. It becomes important to have multiple partners who provide good software so that you do not become dependent on one.

Then the consumer has something to choose from again. That will always be a limited choice, but it is much better than nothing. The knowledge that people can switch to another software supplier will help to ensure that developers think more about what customers want from the software (instead of shareholders / media partners / advertising farmers / …).
If someone really goes too far, the competition will be ready with an alternative.
If they all make the same choice, the consumer will understand that it is really necessary.

But CAPLOCK2000, you always say with every problem that the megatech companies will be split up… That’s right, the size of those companies is the source of endless problems and that is why the solution is always the same.

[Reactie gewijzigd door CAPSLOCK2000 op 24 april 2024 12:41]