Because the scale of these companies gives them immense power and control over people's devices and (digital) lives. The size of the corporation leads to a geometric increase of power through network effects.
Now that you have an answer, what are you actually trying to ask? Do you have an issue with megacorps providing more control to users?
I have a problem with any kind of absolutes. I also have a problem with a self-appointed tech commenters deciding what is best for everyone else due to their own biases. There is essentially a Google/Apple duopololy, but let's not pretend there are no other choices. Neither company is stopping anyone buying Fairphones, Pinephone, or whatever other libre devices exist on the market if that's what the individual wants.
> "I also have a problem with a self-appointed tech commenters deciding what is best for everyone else due to their own biases."
This sounds like you.
> "but let's not pretend there are no other choices."
Nobody is confused by the current choices. Saying that the iPhone can't do the thing today that we want it to do in the future is just repeating a fact that is literally the reason for the discussion in the first place.
And yes it's strange to take the side of a trillion-dollar megacorp instead of users, especially considering the size and power of such a company.
"Trillion dollar corporations should give their users all the choice and flexibility they want, not the other way around." is an absolute.
> "This sounds like you."
My 5 year old would respond with a better comeback than "I know you are, but what am I?"
> "Saying that the iPhone can't do the thing today that we want it to do in the future is just repeating a fact that is literally the reason for the discussion in the first place."
Who the fuck are we?! Have you asked iPhone users? Or just your immediate circle? No. We is the arrogant, opinionated "power users" and tech-commenters that think that the know what is best for everyone else.
> "And yes it's strange to take the side of a trillion-dollar megacorp instead of users, especially considering the size and power of such a company."
I'm not. I'm siding with the status quo, which is a considerably safer environment for the vast majority of iPhone users (yes, including me, a actual user of the software and hardware made by the megacorp) than that of what your are espousing.
At least I know not to invest in your fund, especially given your aversion to businesses that make money.
> "My 5 year old would respond with a better comeback""No. We is the arrogant, opinionated "power users" and tech-commenters that think that the know what is best for everyone else."
What are you doing? Why is this discussion so triggering for you? You made the initial accusation and failed to see that it describes you.
The "we" is the commenters here talking about features they want, representing themselves and others, just like millions of other users who also have their own specific needs. The discussion is about why these features should exist, the benefits they bring, and the effects they might have.
Do we need to poll a billion users to discuss any functionality? Isn't Apple itself also just a few people deciding on changes that affect billions, while adding features that might only support a small minority? If someone says they want bigger buttons or slower animations, is that invalid because they're saying "what is best for everyone else" or are they just talking about what they want and why?
> "I'm siding with the status quo"
Cool, so just say that and make your argument. Many others have said similar things and there's been plenty of discussion about how this would affect the vast majority. But why get upset and call everyone arrogant because they have a different need or opinion? That's neither helpful nor productive.
> "At least I know not to invest in your fund, especially given your aversion to businesses that make money."
This is juvenile. Maybe take a break from the internet if you need to make personal attacks over this. We're also not open to outside money, perhaps if you weren't anonymous we can help you with investments more fit for you.
> The "we" is the commenters here talking about features they want, representing themselves and others...
That's not the case here, and never has been. "Others"? Please. Were that actually the case, I have less of a problem, but it isn't.
> "Do we need to poll a billion users to discuss any functionality?"
Not at all. Never suggested we did. The issue at hand is speaking on behalf of "everyone".
> Isn't Apple itself also just a few people deciding on changes that affect billions, while adding features that might only support a small minority?
They're the ones making the device in a free market. They get to choose what goes into the product. They offer it for sale in an open market, selling at the price point they have set. If people didn't want the devices as they are, they wouldn't be a "Trillion dollar mega corporation". So there is clearly a market for this small group of people to sell product into. Given the price point of iPhone's, I'd strongly argue they are a deliberate choice, much like any "flagship" device. It has been ever thus from Apple, and they have done rather well off the back of it. For those that want other features, as we've established, other options exist, one is significantly more successful. After all, the more open Android handsets outsell Apple 4:1 or 5:1, depending on the quarter.
Here is where I take umbrage with your assertion. Clearly, there is a choice. In fact the individual that you replied to made this point eloquently, but here you are essentially demanding that this trillion dollar megacorp be forced to bow to these requests by people that clearly don't use the devices, and that already have a choice not to use the devices. The issue as fas as I see it, is that you seem to want to punish a company that is successful because you don't like what they offer, and that they should offer whatever you (disguised as "users") want, despite being catered to by a segment of the overall market that is 4-5 times larger, that offers significantly more choice. When there is push back, the retort is always along the lines of thinking of the children.
> If someone says they want bigger buttons or slower animations, is that invalid because they're saying "what is best for everyone else" or are they just talking about what they want and why?
Absolutely not, but that is very different from "Trillion dollar mega corporations should give their users all the choice and flexibility they want..." and is not what is being discussed. No business, trillion dollar valuation or otherwise, can cater to, or indeed please all the people all the time. It's a pointless endeavour to pursue. Neither should any business be forced to produce products to cater to everyone.
The argument made here, as illustrated by the start of this particular thread, is that the "walled garden" is bad for those whom are choosing it and it's a false choice anyway, because "walled garden", lock in, etc. This comes across to me as arrogant. The tone is very much "I know best", and the reasons of dubious benefit. It almost alway boils down to "because that's what I want", which inevitably circles back to the choice discussion.
> "This is juvenile."
You are, of course, absolutely right. Genuinely, I can only apologise.
