Connecting online is the primary social space for many kids nowadays, not in person.
Some parents (or those without kids) have a bit of a naive view and think ‘social media’ and just imagine Facebook, instagram etc - things they understand and that don’t provide much connection.
The kids connect using private accounts, completely different apps, or even just inside the chat of other apps like games, if that is where your specific group hangs out.
I agree with what you're saying (including saying that arcfour is out of touch and doesn't really know what they're talking about), but... I do agree with them to an extent. And I have a kid (with another along the way). Kids adapt. They want to be on social media, or games, or Discord, or whatever because their friends are. If they have enough friends in real life doing something fun, that becomes where their specific group hangs out. The number of people you need in that group before it crosses that threshold is really low... 4, 5 people? That's all you need to have a tight knit friend group.
I've seen things like after school D&D club at the elementary school down the street where my son now goes to preschool. I'm optimistic that by the time he's older, there will be even more groups like this and more opportunities for him to have friends where they're doing activities that aren't mediated by screens.
To be clear, I'm not weighing on in on whether or not I think a ban is a good idea. I tend to think it is. But I do think the idea that there's nothing parents can do from the ground up without the help of government (which I'm not opposed to!) is also a bit misguided.
That's rather rude of you, especially since I was actually a kid and grew up during the mass proliferation and ubiquity of social media, to suggest that I am "out-of-touch" compared to... you? (who are likely much older than me, or at best the same age) is pretty ridiculous. I was on Twitter and Facebook at like 12 years old, I've experienced this. And to dismissively suggest I don't know what I'm talking about, on what basis do you say that? The basis that you just disagree with me...saying that a law for this is stupid and an example of paternalistic government overreach? Many people who decidedly do know what they are talking about agree, just as there are many who disagree and know what they are talking about; simply because you are on the other side doesn't mean I must be clueless.
The part you’re missing is that the decision to be online isn’t like choosing to do drugs. It’s closer to deciding to go to parties and socialise at all.
Social media for teens is ubiquitous and where your peers connect. It’s being included in your social group, not opt-in thrill seeking.
Most teens will have multiple accounts for various networks - private accounts for their friends, and then again for closer friends. Or they use apps like Discord that parents have no visibility into at all. There is a lot that most parents never see.
I find Copilot is great if you add a small comment describing the logic or function. Taking 10s to write a one line sentence in English can save 5-10 mins writing your code from scratch. Subjectively it feels much faster to QA and review code already written.
This is about lifestyle ergonomics and your community. Like it or not, social media has significantly reshaped the world. Issues aside, it has brought people together and made communication significantly easier than in the past. There is a reason 1/3 of the world is on Facebook.
So, my point is that if you're choosing to be difficult, that is fine but you need to accept the burden falls on you. This is similar to adopting a vegan diet - your body your choice, but don't be intentionally difficult at dinner parties.
Personal example here: I've cut down social media significantly, in my case all notifications are off even if the apps are installed. So you're not bombarded and can engage on a cadence that makes sense to you. That said, I need to dedicate time to checking up on extended family, friends etc - as otherwise you do miss announcements and major events.
I don’t understand how you’re being “difficult” by not keeping up to date on the Facebook updates of your friends. I will of course update all my close friends 1:1 on any life changes, and I expect they will do the same to me. For everyone else, there’s nothing “difficult” about asking for a life update the next time you see them. If anything, it shows interest and is a kind thing to do.
I might guess my comment here in a "meta sense" is looked down upon here (for good reason) but that comment you responded to rings a certain way and along with other dialog here and the issue at hand (world scale industry of eyeballs and diversion) i have to politely guess the thought of astroturfing that came to me might be fair.
> Like it or not, social media has significantly reshaped the world.
Certainly! I don't think that fact is in dispute. But we can definitely debate the quality of relationships that have resulted from that reshaping, and make our own personal determinations as to whether social media has been a net positive or negative in our lives.
The problem is that, for some people, it really has had a negative impact on their lives, but they don't or can't see it.
I'd say this goes one step further. We hand down older devices to our parents. They are completely happy with a device several generations back. The current product philosophy has completely cut them out as purchasers. They are product users, but will never purchase again.
In fact, without planned obsolescence/battery degradation I suspect they would be happy never replacing their phones until they physically broke. It's a shame that they continually slow down to such a degree - the decreased speed is actually the only Apple 'feature' they notice.
>Instead, many people seem to have had a head-in-the-sand view that many of the services Apple provided were no-cost, or done out of goodwill.
The only service an alternative app store needs it the ability to be made and sideloaded. Apple justifies the 30% cut in teh App Store with all the stuff they do for you in packaging, distributing the app and updates, payment processing, etc.
But somehow they are making it a worse deal to not deal with those services. They are making it more expensive for any moderately popular app to opt out by suggesting that they need 50 cents anytime someone presses the install button. Which feels less like convenience and more like rent seeking.
The do not sell hardware at a loss, they charge yearly for seats to develop for IOS, and they have various other opt in services to incentivize making use of Apple and its App store. They will not be bleeding money if some companies decide to instead roll their own stack.
>It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate.
except they can't because they still gotta pay apple to exist, apparently. That's where it starts to reek of anti-trust.
All of the developer tools and SDKs have value and are used regardless of distribution channel. Those haven't been free, they've just been included in the App Store commission structure. Developers pay for those based on the value they generate (i.e. revenue). If you want out of the App Store as a distribution channel, Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.
Okay. So... charge more for the tools and SDK's. If you never launch an app or launch a completely free app, you still gotta pay apple. if those tools are more expensive, just push the cost where it belongs. Developers pay for being hosted on the app store on top of the tools and SDKs they access, it doesn't feel like a proper value to still be charged for that indirectly just because you don't want to be trapped in their walled garden.
>Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.
Well I wish them the best of luck in their future fights with the EU. Glad some government seems to not be thinking of the trillionaires first.
Part of the appeal about iOS for me is that apps are reviewed for quality and don't have obvious scams or spywear inside.
I'm happy to guide my parents to use and download apps from the app store without worrying about it. Compare this to the constant education and guidance I need to provide about websites, phone calls, text messages etc. The amount of targeted scams and spam we receive nowadays is excessive.
I think this is the problem: people want access to the 'app store' while forgetting/ignoring that the tight security and rigid processes are a feature, not a liability.
The problem is that big publishers have different rules than the smaller ones. As a small company you an risk losing everything. Big publishers have private accountmanagers working at Apple. There are literally 1000 stories of this.
Many users, myself included, choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware - that is the benefit of the review process. If you don’t want that, you can use Android.
The regulation allows for apple to still do malware scanning and blocking on apps installed even by third party stores. Google also does the same thing, this point is a nothingburger.
The human review part of the app store review does nothing to catch viruses.
Quality and good engineering is one of the main reason you people cite for buying Apple in this very thread.
Now you're suggesting that there ought to be a "warranty void if app is installed" sticker on Apple's supposedly premium hardware which is running Apple's supposedly hyper-secure operating system, otherwise some unwashed piece of software is going to damage it?
No such requirement exist on macOS, for obvious reasons. The double-think in these threads is astounding, repent.
I don’t have any skin in the game as far as Apple’s security reputation goes. No technically competent person would believe that malicious code running on a machine can be contained.
I don't believe there's such a thing as perfect security, I'm just astounded that someone who's not (1) a senile lawmaker being influenced by lobbyists, or (2) holding significant shares of AAPL; would even suggest that voiding warranty is a reasonable course of action if third-party software is installed on a general-purpose computing device.
Furthermore, claiming that Apple's review or signing processes are effective measures for preventing malware has no basis in reality. Apple has reviewed, approved and signed malware before, and they'll do it again because detecting malware is borderline impossible.
They do not possess magic powers that can suss out malware any better than industry average because (1) automated virus scanning is almost entirely ineffective against new malware and (2) they're not paying a team of specialists to reverse engineer and analyze app updates.
I get the thrust of your argument but I don't think that's a good analogy. Bad fuel can cause physical (including catastrophic) damage to the engine. Bad software cannot do something similar to the phone. At worst you will have to reinstall the OS.
Now I do agree that bad software can wipe all your data or hold it hostage, but Apple currently provides no such guarantees that software downloaded from the App Store won't do that.
How would that void a warranty? By the way those stupid stickers they put over screws also don’t void warranties either. Just because a corporation says something doesn’t make it true.
I agree, Apple’s servers aren’t free, sending push notifications isn’t free, sending down Apple Map tiles isn’t free. An alternative is you get a side loaded App Store with no costs but you don’t get access to Apple frameworks that cost them money.
What? How do you think they support developing the OS, running security, notarizing and reviewing your apps etc.
This needs to be funded somehow.
I'm surprised there are commenters who have such a strong view - that they should just be able to access all the benefits of the iOS ecosystem that Apple has built over many years, and then have all that access for free too.
Apple sells hardware. They don't give away software for free, you (generally) need their hardware per their licensing agreements.
You have to pay Apple $99/year to develop software for their ecosystem.
I pay them for their hardware, I pay them to let me write software -- you want me to pay them when others use my software? What about when others view photos I take with my phone? Do they want a cut of that too?
How anyone can think Apple's stance here is reasonable is beyond me. I haven't paid Microsoft anything in over a decade, I wonder how they can afford to fund Windows development?
But why? Apple is providing the whole ecosystem, operating system, security, notarization etc - there are costs to be covered.
Of course there are costs incurred per install. Previously there were covered by a higher 30% fee on app costs. Now, with opening up the platform to alternative stores, the EU has pushed Apple to a per-install model.
So to me, this seems completely reasonable as a standard iPhone user.
I understand the security and performance of the platform costs more - that is why I use an iPhone not an Android.
Connecting online is the primary social space for many kids nowadays, not in person.
Some parents (or those without kids) have a bit of a naive view and think ‘social media’ and just imagine Facebook, instagram etc - things they understand and that don’t provide much connection.
The kids connect using private accounts, completely different apps, or even just inside the chat of other apps like games, if that is where your specific group hangs out.
reply