
Tourists on Tech's Toll Roads - teddyh
https://puri.sm/posts/tourists-on-techs-toll-roads/
======
4cao
This is a very good, if a bit windy, argument.

There would have been no technological progress we were able to enjoy in the
past decade or two without the foundations laid by the open PC platform, and
the Internet based on open standards.

These open foundations are now slowly being substituted piece by piece with
proprietary walled gardens, and conversely we can now witness the pace of
innovation subsiding.

In the current environment, there could not be another Google emerging as a
successful contender the same way the original Google did, very much like
there could not have been another Disney for quite a while, due to all the
regulatory restrictions put in place largely as a result of the lobbying on
the part of the original Disney: only this time it's more than Mickey Mouse's
future that's at stake.

However, as the situation appears to be largely made possible by regulatory
failure, the problem is inherently political, and any lasting solution would
also have to be of such nature. Thus, while I wish Purism all the best,
expecting them to be able to significantly change the situation is
unfortunately not realistic.

~~~
m463
I believe the pc revolution was created two ways:

Microsoft became a software giant, and to sell more copies of its software, it
had to drive the price of hardware to zero.

This is "complements" joel talks about here [1]

By the commoditization hardware, people bought more copies of windows, and we
all benefitted by the relentless march of faster, better, cheaper that
resulted.

(The thing is they caused linux to flourish as software got more expensive)

Then apple did the opposite.

Apple is actually commoditizing software to sell hardware. Before the app
store, software - very good apps actually - were frequently $39.95 or more.

Apple drove software to zero. It gives away the OS with it's hardware, and
apps on the app store started at a few dollars, then 99 cents, then all the
top apps were free.

and now data has become the way these free apps can survive and compete.
advertisers and data brokers are the ones who fund things, by monetizing our
data.

The thing is - I think hardware vendors can be aligned with free software. it
sells hardware. purism can succeed. so can pine. and system76.

[1] [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-
letter-v/](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/)

~~~
entropicdrifter
Likewise, we can thank Apple's commoditization of the software market for the
rapid proliferation of microtransactions over the last decade.

Hopefully we'll soon see a new paradigm come along and dethrone the whole, "be
annoying but just fun/useful enough to exploit the impatient and impulsive"
monetization scheme so many microtransaction-heavy apps have taken up in lieu
of just charging $5 up front.

------
ksdale
As an aside, here's me totally getting hung up on the chosen analogy - I find
it somewhat interesting how fervently some people dislike private toll roads.

"Road I have to drive on and pay for" also describes public roads, it's just
not as obvious when you're doing the paying. For the most part, I just have to
suck it up and drive the places I need to go, and unlike the private road, I
have to pay for public roads even if I don't use them at all.

Besides that, "expensive and well-maintained good/service that everyone is
forced to use" basically describes the ideal in government provisioned
anything, does it not? I mean, cheap and well-maintained would be better, but
I'm not sure that exists anywhere...

~~~
untog
The difference (as I see it) is that taxes are paid relative to how much you
earn/are worth, while road tolls are the same for all. Everyone (outside of
major metro areas where you can use public transit) needs roads, and driving
to work on a tolled road will hurt the wallets of poor folks a lot more than
it will rich folks.

~~~
usetaxes
Public roads are paid for via gasoline taxes, eg a flat usage tax, and are
thus nearly exactly as regressive as a toll.

The only difference is that a poor person could choose to drive an economy
car, or an electric vehicle, in order to avoid paying their share of use tax.
But so could a rich person.

The other difference is that the usage tax is a hidden cost and tolls are not.

~~~
dmurray
Only about 40% of spending on roads in the US comes from tolls and fuel taxes
[0]. It's not correct to call them "nearly as regressive as a toll": in terms
of regressiveness, they're halfway between funding them from tolls and funding
them from income/property/sales taxes.

[0] [https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-
funding-2019/](https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/)

------
nodamage
> _These measures are always marketed as being for security from hackers and
> more recently also in the name of privacy_

That's because _they are_. The reality is the existence of side-loading and
third-party stores on Android contributes directly to the spread of malware on
the platform, which is why Google has made it more difficult to do so with
each successive release of Android.

According to Nokia's threat intelligence report
([https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/205835](https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/205835)),
Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of malware infections compared to
0.85% from iPhones. (Note that even after scaling for the number of devices
there is still an order of magnitude difference.) Windows/PCs at 35.82% and
IoT devices at 16.17% make up the rest. That's right, Android has overtaken
Windows as the biggest malware vector on the planet.

According to Kaspersky's mobile malware report
([https://securelist.com/mobile-malware-
evolution-2019/96280/](https://securelist.com/mobile-malware-
evolution-2019/96280/)), 13.89% of users in the United States were attacked by
mobile malware in 2019. In some other countries the numbers are significantly
higher: 21.23% in Brazil, 24.14% in Mexico, 27.36% in Malaysia, 37.98% in
India, and 60.64% in Iran. The overwhelming majority of mobile malware targets
the Android platform.

If you want to argue that your right to "freedom" over your device is so
important to you that you believe the risk of malware is worth the tradeoff,
that's one thing, but don't hand-wave away the very real security benefits of
strictly controlled devices as "marketing". It's disingenuous.

~~~
jdofaz
How much of that malware came from the play store?

------
valuearb
“ These measures are always marketed as being for security from hackers and
more recently also in the name of privacy, but from the beginning it has
always been about ensuring that Apple can control which applications and
accessories are allowed on the iPhone, in particular when those applications
compete with their own offerings.”

Uh, well ok unsupported assertion. Apple has always allowed third party
calendars, email clients, messaging apps, etc.

It’s always been security, privacy AND battery life. This original iPhone
didn’t allow third party apps for a year, and they were only going to be web
apps. Eventually they game up with a tight sandbox with strict limits on
background processing that protected battery life, privacy and the essential
phone functionality from rogue apps.

Being able to buy a tightly managed device that maximizes its battery life and
your privacy and security is an important choice for consumers.

~~~
bananaface
Apple's calender, email client and messaging app don't generate revenue,
they're loss leaders. There's no reason for them to block competitors to those
apps.

~~~
valuearb
So what competitors are they blocking? Very few.

~~~
bananaface
Competitors to the app store and competitors to Apple's payment processor.

------
hyko
Such a weird analogy/anecdote/humblebrag, because it basically admits that the
public roads are technically inferior, and to want to drive on them you have
to make up a story about how you’re making the world a better place _while
literally accepting it as a worse place_.

This basically boils down to the old _people want the wrong things_ argument.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Public roads are significantly cheaper to utilize, paid for by gas taxes.
Using toll roads involves that has tax and then some. And the tolls don't
always produce better quality considering the money and resources invested
compared to usage.

------
mark_l_watson
I certainly support the broad philosophy of the article, but for myself, I
personally diverge a bit:

I worry most about control: visiting a web site and having political and other
ads being based on my browsing history and the treasure trove of my data that
gets collected from credit card purchases, web activity, etc. Read Zuboff's
surveillance capitalism book.

My Apple Watch and iPhone are mostly stock - I don't generally install 3rd
party apps. I feel that the use of these devices is consistent with my
dedication to fight back against surveillance capitalism.

I have blogged about this a lot: it is easy to take basic steps like: install
the freedom.to app on all your devices and block social media and other time
wasting sites for most of the day; use private browsing tabs, and frequently
delete all cookies from all browsers you use on all devices; etc.

~~~
m463
ios and safari are incredibly "leaky" even if you do not install third-party
apps.

It would be nice if you could block network connections to the sites you
disagree with. Or even find out if they were occurring. But you don't have any
control over that - apple prevents it. At least macos has tcpdump and a
firewall (for now)

~~~
mark_l_watson
The app available at [https://freedom.to](https://freedom.to) supports
blocking specific sites, with lots of flexibility. I have been using Freedom
for four days, and I already see a positive effect in my day to day life.

