- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Mozilla is unhappy because the use of browser engines other than WebKit will be restricted to the EU, forcing them to develop two different apps.
For an independent browser like Firefox, managing two browsers is not easy, so it can be forgiven that this could be seen as almost harassment.
Also, the fact that the use of browser engines other than WebKit is limited to iOS means that the use of WebKit is still forced on iPadOS, which also increases the effort for Mozilla.
sunk cost fallacy
Not sure if it’s a fallacy if it’s about addressing people who have spent a ton on an ecosystem and can’t just devote more money to buy the alternative and time to figure out the parts that aren’t compatible
What parts aren’t compatible? And you can load Linux and Windows on all Mac’s. You can also sell your iPhone and buy an android phone with money left over… getting out of the apple closed ecosystem is cheaper than sticking with it.
For most people, time is not regarded to be free (i.e. not a cost). As a devoted Linux user, the adage that “Linux is only free if you don’t value your time” is absolutely true.
Uhh ok install windows then?
Learning Windows is still a time cost. You’re also losing your library of Mac software and quite a few interoperability features between your other Apple products.
??? So you’re plan is to just say fuck it, and continue to be fucked over by apple? The fuck logic is that? Almost all software has a replacement in windows/Linux. I work in all 3 ecosystems, there is very little that lacks an alternative in each os. Sticking to osx/iOS is just a cop out.
No. My argument is that if Apple isn’t going to open up their ecosystem to genuine competition and genuine interoperability then they need to have their hand forced through regulation.
Telling people to just stop buying Apple products is a lazy, knee-jerk self-righteous response that ignores the realities of platform lock-in.
Good luck with that…I vote with my wallet instead of buying into fad shit.
Can’t do that on ARM. Windows on ARM sucks and there isn’t a good app ecosystem.
There isn’t a good app ecosystem for arm on osx either? What’s your point?
You’re incorrect. Tons of apps are native ARM on Mac now, also rosetta2 emulation is really fast. Obviously not as fast as native ARM but it surprised me.
Most might be native but tell me what apps don’t have an alternative on x86 and I’ll agree with you.
I’m not the parent commenter, but Apple Silicon has much wider app support than ARM on Windows. There’s also Rosetta, which works alright, I suppose. Not spectacularly and usually not anywhere near native performance but it’s at least okay.
You can’t refund anything that’s not physical, for one…
Where did I say refund anything?
You asked what parts aren’t compatible, and one answer is everything bought for Apple computers, iPhones, iPads, etc. Apps, media, anything that isn’t subscription based.
And windows/Android/Linux all have alternatives. This is not an excuse.
What’s the alternative to $5,000 of DRM encrypted media exclusively served by Apple?
The point of this thought experiment is to understand that sunk cost is a real thing outside of a fallacy.
What media is served by apple only?
Okay, so you would advise someone who bought, say, Photoshop on a Mac OS to consider that cost sunk, and then to purchase what on Linux?
Gimp for Linux. It’s free even.
On top of that the Photoshop license is not os specific. You can use it for Windows or osx.
No, it’s not a sunk-cost fallacy.
If you already have a bunch of Apple stuff, it makes more sense to continue using Apple stuff, because switching would cost money and effort. You’d also lose access to the software library that you paid for.
Having a bunch of Apple stuff also makes buying more Apple stuff in the future a better value proposition because you gain access to features that you wouldn’t otherwise have. Platform lock-in is not a sunk-cost fallacy. You’re just uninformed and being smug about it.
The sunk cost fallacy only applies when stopping is free or the cost is low enough (in money or effort) that it makes more sense to quit than continue.