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.
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.
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.
Not a solution.
This not only has a time and effort cost attached to it but selling your used hardware to buy new hardware is always a bad value proposition.
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.
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.
That’s not a solution. It’s a way for you to avoid the problem. It does nothing to help the millions of people who are already deeply invested in the Apple ecosystem.
Think about how this would actually work. Suppose you paid some small sum for access to a piece of content.
Fairly speaking, you should only get one chance to download it or one physical copy. That’s how it’s traditionally been. The ability to download it multiple times (which is what happens when you stream content) is a service, and it costs a lot of money.
Streaming would therefore be pay-per-view, since you are paying for each individual copy of the data that has to be transmitted to you. It wouldn’t be fair for you to just pay once and watch once and have paid the same price as someone who paid once but watched it fifty times, thereby consuming fifty times as much server power.
Most people would find it more convenient to pay a large sum upfront in exchange instead of going through the hassle of making dozens of micropayments.
In order to encourage people to make those large upfront payments, content creators would probably offer deals whereby users could get unlimited streams of their content if they commit a certain amount each month. This means their revenue is predictable and the expense is also predictable for the viewer.
Congratulations. We have invented the pricing scheme of cable television.
Same here. I get $10 off for using my own router. That’s $120 off per year. A cheap router bought from a supermarket cost me $60. It works fine, the signal quality is only okay but my flat’s pretty small anyway. Getting your own router is just a financially sensible option.
IPv4 address depletion isn’t really the ISP’s fault. It’s a shitty solution to a shitty situation, to be sure, but it’s either that or employing rationing strategies to stretch the remaining supply of IPv4 addresses.
Bingo. The problem with a pure free market is similar to the paradox of tolerance. The participants in a free market don’t want to participate in a free market. They want to be a monopoly where they hold all the cards. A real free market with perfect information is great but it will never happen. It’s the Government’s job to ensure that there is still an equitable distribution of surplus in an unfree market.
One who lives by the free market shall die by the free market.
You seem to think that regulation doesn’t work. Luckily, we have a test case set up for us in real-life.
In the United States, consumers relied on voting with their wallets. In the European Union, regulatory agencies forced Apple to take pro-consumer moves through regulation.
Now take a look at which approach produced results and which approach left consumers continuing to complain about the lack of interoperability and the lack of competition in Apple’s walled garden.