It is a theory that a group of people with power have a hidden agenda that is contrary to what they have public stated, despite the facts being consistent with the public claims.
That is pretty much the definition a conspiracy theory.
A group of people that already understand and take great advantage of locked down platforms and services. And we're talking about a product (Mac) that was specifically much more locked down than its predecessor when it was launched.
>For you to be right, this must be a planned deception.
Sure, you're right, it's conspiracy theory -- but one doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to predict further anti-consumer action from companies that have a long and sordid past with anti-consumer actions.
Apple , quite literally, wrote the playbook for establishing gilded cages and vendor lock-in within the (modern) computer industry.
I mean.. most companies in the world don't generate enough ire that the public get together and maintain a wikipedia page about the criticisms that apply to the company separately from the parent page.[0]
But absolutely, I agree -- it's conspiracy theory. The problem I have personally with conspiracy theory regarding Apple is that over the past 30+ years i've seen a lot of it turn into fact gradually over time.
I have very few doubts that the trend will continue onward. -- as such I have little problem with entertaining conspiracy regarding Apple, as long as it's not absolutely insane.
Apple seems to be masterful at the magicians' game of misdirection. That's the best way I can put it.
'Ignore the man behind the curtain.'.
The most modern example?
Let's talk about how fast and cool and battery conserving their new processors are without taking into account the vast amounts of software breakage that came along with the architecture change and the future software landscape reform that's going to take place that will establish Apple customers even more firmly into territory they can't ever hope to leave.
...and this is coming from someone who , historically, has loved ARM. MY problem with it is that the architecture change, IMO of course, is going to undoubtedly be used to leverage and strong-arm customers into Apple-centric 'app-store' interfaces, pulling the market apart just like in the PPC days between Apple OK-d software and the rest of humanity -- for the sake of a lot of quick bucks for Apple and a lot of additional developer/customer friction for the rest of the world.
We'll see, I guess. I like the new M1 on paper, I just trust Apple about as far as I can throw them.
The presence of a Wikipedia page critiquing the worlds most valuable corporation doesn’t seem like evidence of anything much.
It’s worth noting that many of the criticisms on that page, while valid, are true of all their competitors too, and of comparable capitalist businesses.
What that page leaves out is that in many areas, Apple has made more progress at mitigating the problems than anyone else.
I have spoken to activists about this discrepancy, and received the answer that they are aware of this, but it is politically more effective to critique Apple because they are the market leader, than to critique their competitors.
I don’t really agree with this tactic, but I understand it.
Nevertheless why even bring this page up?
It seems like you think it supports a generalized narrative of ‘Apple as bad guy’, which then makes the conspiracy theory more plausible.
This is unsurprising because it is the normal way conspiracy theories are supported: some real problems are tied together with woven together with exaggerated claims in a grand narrative with a villain at the center.
We are asked to believe in the conspiracy because some of the things that are part of the theory are based in fact, despite the fact that the rest is just innuendo and naked assertions.
That is what you are asking us to do here.
See examples:
[1] “Apple seems to be masterful at the magicians' game of misdirection. That's the best way I can put it.”
Take this for example. Here you just affirm the consequent. Of course, as I said earlier for you to be right there must be a deception, and here you say that Apple are masters of deception.
But really that’s a naked assertion. If
there is a conspiracy this would be true, but there is actually no evidence of it.
[2] “Apple, quite literally, wrote the playbook for establishing gilded cages and vendor lock-in within the (modern) computer industry.”
Obviously this is fantasy. If Apple had literally written such a playbook, you would be able to present it as evidence.
What they have written and presented literally, is a large body of work on how to produce a secure computing environment that mitigates most forms of security threat and is therefore trusted by consumers as a platform where they can purchase software.
That is literally what they have written.
Again you are just asking us to accept a conspiracy as if it were fact.
Sure. We're pretty far down the rabbit hole, but I'm responding to people that think my suggestion that Apple might lock down Macs is unfounded. You seem to agree with me that there's some reason to believe it's plausible.
It is a theory that a group of people with power have a hidden agenda that is contrary to what they have public stated, despite the facts being consistent with the public claims.
That is pretty much the definition a conspiracy theory.