put your reply in the comment box

Done

Anyway, did you miss this part of my reply?

No, I didn't, but the substance of your reply is based on the assumption that any complaint against the behavior of a market player is an argument for state control. The disclaimer doesn't change the fact that you're arguing against something that K. didn't actually say. In fact, it's kind of worse, because it becomes clear your argument is against a straw man.

I am defending Apple's right to engage in such behavior.

But you're really not - you're elevating something that is legally permissible to something that should not be objected to. This is similar to our net neutrality discussion - you criticize those who would have the government regulate service providers, while placing no blame whatsoever on the market-stifling and corporatist behavior of those providers. By defending Apple's behavior, you go beyond defending their right to act and sound more like you're defending the actions as upright and noble.

If the marketplace is not encouraged to heap scorn and ridicule upon questionable business practices, then people are going to be that much more likely to seek resolution from the state. And that is much, much worse.

Why? Seriously.

Do you really want to debate an exceptionally hypothetical situation that has little relation to reality? Are you that bored? Well, OK. To put it as briefly as possible (because I don't think this discussion will be very fruitful), in a world where Apple (or anyone else) is the sole manufacturer of mobile computing devices, they are monopolists. And if they use that monopoly to impose draconian rules which inhibit competition then the government should intervene to protect the consumer (and the larger market - i.e. other corporations - for that matter).

"Control" today is worthless tomorrow. Again, look at Apple's iPhone. It's only been out a few years, and it's got competition out the wazzu. One could argue that Apple's "control" in it's vision of a smart phone birthed even more innovations.

I'm not sure control is "worthless tomorrow." The iPhone was barely outsold by the Droid in their respectively first 74 days of release. When you stop to consider that Verizon has many more subscribers than AT&T (89 million vs 63 million), you see that the iPhone's penetration was almost 34% greater (1.58% versus 1.18%). And the iPhone is enjoying strong sales growth as more people get comfortable with the idea of smart(er) phones and expensive data plans. Undoubtedly the iPhone played a big role in making consumers comfortable with and/or desirous of smart phones. But the fact remains that iPhone remains arguably the most popular. Apple's "control" is worth a lot to them (and AT&T).

You seem to see consumers as victims of the market instead of drivers. They "sacrifice their freedom" by purchasing Apple's stuff. Hogwash. They freely make a choice to purchase a product that you seem to think doesn't include enough freedom of applications for them.

I guess I'm not making myself clear. Or perhaps you are conflating my opinions on things like health care with consumer electronics. Your assumption that I see consumers as victims (because I used the word sacrifice?) is erroneous. They are making a sacrifice, but one of their own free will. My concern is that by doing so, they will drive the market in a direction that is detrimental to mobile computing in general. I'm not extremely concerned, however, because there is a lot of strong competition, and there are a lot of people who are rightly bringing up the issue of control and discussing it's ramifications. In the end, I don't think Apple's model will prove to be disastrous to the larger market or the web in general.

So what. If the market is there for devices that are not "dumbing down the user base" — and producing products that are "dumb" is a risky business strategy, if you ask me — it will be filled by others, and even Apple once the market tells them to get wise.

Producing "dumb" products is not risky, historically, if you understand what I mean by "dumb." The television is probably the best example of this type of product. Scores of companies have made fortunes producing them, and despite the rise of the web, I think TVs will be around for a while to come.

But again, I think you are misunderstanding me here on the philosophical level. I'm saying that the iPad is not a good device because it is a step backward (toward the TV in fact) away from a truly interactive web. I'm not saying we should outlaw it, or that the government should force Apple to include a camera, a USB port, or soft-core porn apps, or even the Google Voice app. I'm just saying the iPad has serious flaws, and I hope it is not strong enough in the market to drag us back to the mid 1990s.

There are two choices for how technology will be presented to us. Either companies have the liberty to meet what they think are the desires of consumers participating in a free market, or the details of those products are managed by a centralized group of people who — in their infinite, yet unearned and uniformed wisdom — will determine what those products are and how they operate.

This, I think, sums up the crux of my problem discussing things with you. You see the world in black and white. Either we have total market freedom, or there is one small cadre of stupid people making decisions for everything and everyone. That fantasy is absurd. The free-market ideal hasn't ever existed (and I'm sure you would say, "for shame") and your Centrally Planned Nightmare didn't even play out that way in the Soviet Union. There, very obviously, is a huge middle ground.

I'm not saying that a small group of individuals should decide how the Apple and the iPad should behave. I'm saying that I think they made some bad decisions, and I hope the their competitors do well enough that we aren't irrecoverably hurt by Apple's strategy (and like I said, I think they will).

Again, I am not proposing that you, Khabalox, propose government micromanaging of the technology market.

You keep saying this, but the tone of your posts imply otherwise. *shrug* Perhaps we should have a beer (summit) before you move so we can work on this communication problem. :P

I did want to address this point you made to Robb.

And you're right. Apple doesn't want a free market system. But neither does Google and Microsoft and Intel and Skype, etc.

I disagree that Google (and maybe Skype, but I'm not as familiar with them) doesn't want a free-market system, but perhaps we are thinking of slightly different things. Google wants a better, faster, more open, more indexed internet. The more people use the web, the more money they make. And if users are able to use the web more efficiently (i.e. find what they are looking for faster and more easily) then they stand to make even more money (with more efficient advertisements). Google wants you identify what you are looking for, and put an ad for a company that can deliver it in front of you. They have (correctly in my opinion) decided that the best way to do that is to encourage openness. Conversely, Apple wants to deliver pre-packaged content to you in a very controlled fashion. The have made a (mostly winning) bet that consumers will appreciate the stability that comes with that control. To that end (control), Apple wants to restrict the market much much more than Google does. In fact, I can't think of a good example of an action Google has taken that does work against free markets.