6 ms·

Essential - adjective - absolutely necessary; extremely important. Game consoles are not. Smartphones are. Obviously.

RIMR 5y ago
There's literally nothing I can do with my phone that I can't do with a laptop. Most people here work in tech and know what I'm talking about. You could carry a laptop and a flip phone and be fine. There's literally nothing essential about a smartphone. It's just a luxury you've become inseparable from.
- clusterfish 5y ago
  You can't carry your laptop in a pocket. And laptops are also "a luxury you've become inseparable from", doesn't make them any less essential. You'll need a stronger argument to claim that something that almost everyone uses despite significant cost isn't essential.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    So cars are essential? What about grocery stores? Is gasoline essential? And to be clear when you say essential you mean for everyone alive right?
    - clusterfish 5y ago
      I don't even know what you're playing at. Yes, grocery stores are essential. Yes, gasoline is essential, being the only source of energy for all long range transportation. Yes cars are essential in many places where there's no good alternative. For example most of America, geographically.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        I’m not playing at anything. Not sure why you have such a defensive tone here. I’m trying to establish what other industries are “essential” so I can try and understand how we regulate such industries and in what ways they are similar to the discussion here about Apple. If grocery stores are essential for example does that mean they should have to stock competitor store brand products if the competitor want to sell at that store? If I live in a town with only one grocery store and I want to pay with Bitcoin should they have to set up that payment mechanism? Should they have to accept all payment mechanisms? There are lots of questions here that you can open up that draw parallels with Apple here w.r.t being “essential”.
        clusterfish 5y ago
        Not everything that is essential should be regulated the same just because they have this factor in common. Stop being so dense. A market being essential simply means that optimal outcomes in that market are very important, so regulation is more justified if that market is a failure (such as a duopoly). One of the many differences is that the duopoly of Apple and Google in mobile markets is effectively unbreakable without government regulation. Today there is no amount of billions you can spend to break their moat. In contrast, grocery stores are highly competitive because they don't have insurmountable barriers to entry. Anyone can lease retail space and sign up with a distributor. There are lots of independent grocery stores operating in many towns.
    - Daishiman 5y ago
      During the pandemic a huge number of businesses recurred to phone-first scheduling software where you have to show some kind of QR code. Bars offer QR menus by default. Contactless payments have become the default. A lot of banks require 2FA to log into their systems. They're about as essential as they can be. And for the record, governments have laws to step in when gasoline or food supplies become unavailable. And in the US, at least, being able to drive is seen as a right in the eyes of the public.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Daishiman 5y ago
        I'm not sure if you understand that if any of these things had the sort of arbitrary restrictions and lack of competition as the phone space, you would definitely be seeing government intervention. If Amazon was only one of two online retailers that would imply monopoly breakup or serious regulation. If FedEx or UPS stopped working or imposed random and unjustified restrictions on their deliveries you'd see quite a few angry lawmakers and senate meetings on the topic.
        ericmay 5y ago
        I disagree and we see that play out in the market. If UPS tomorrow added a 30% fee to all deliveries we wouldn’t be suggesting that you be able to pick any delivery service you want and that UPS still had to deliver products to your door so you could skip out on paying that fee. Amazon is one of many retailers but holds a dominant market position. No different than Apple being one of many smart phone makers holding a dominant market position.
        noptd 5y ago
        How about you explicitly state your point? Sea lion-ing is typically frowned upon on HN.
        5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ericmay 5y ago
I didn’t ask what the definition of essential was. I asked at what point something crosses over to being essential, and why being essential matters here specifically.
- stale2002 5y ago
  This is Loki's Fallacy. There is no exact point. It is a spectrum. And phones are clearly on the side of essential. We do not need an exact cutoff point to make judgements about an obvious case.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    We do need some criteria though. You’re invoking the fallacy, not me. What is the criteria for being essential?
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > What is the criteria for being essential? The criteria would be "Whatever a jury or judge determines what the definition of essential is, in each specific lawsuit or case". Thats how the law works. The law is not determined by some sort of exact programming code. Instead, the law is determined by people. "I'll know it when I see it" is an actual argument, that the supreme court gave, for determining a similar question about what the definition of pornography is. So, the answer for what "essential" is, is the same answer that the literal supreme court used, which is "I'll know it when I see it" or "whatever the judge/jury decides". If that answer is good enough for the supreme court, then it is good enough for me. > You’re invoking the fallacy, not me Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time. Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        > Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time. Again this is incorrect. I have not “demanded an exact cutoff point” at any time. > Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial. So in other words you’re making a claim and then your defense of that claim is “the law will decide in a court case”. Ok… lol.

RIMR 5y ago

There's literally nothing I can do with my phone that I can't do with a laptop. Most people here work in tech and know what I'm talking about. You could carry a laptop and a flip phone and be fine. There's literally nothing essential about a smartphone. It's just a luxury you've become inseparable from.

clusterfish 5y ago
You can't carry your laptop in a pocket. And laptops are also "a luxury you've become inseparable from", doesn't make them any less essential. You'll need a stronger argument to claim that something that almost everyone uses despite significant cost isn't essential.
- ericmay 5y ago
  So cars are essential? What about grocery stores? Is gasoline essential? And to be clear when you say essential you mean for everyone alive right?
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    I don't even know what you're playing at. Yes, grocery stores are essential. Yes, gasoline is essential, being the only source of energy for all long range transportation. Yes cars are essential in many places where there's no good alternative. For example most of America, geographically.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      I’m not playing at anything. Not sure why you have such a defensive tone here. I’m trying to establish what other industries are “essential” so I can try and understand how we regulate such industries and in what ways they are similar to the discussion here about Apple. If grocery stores are essential for example does that mean they should have to stock competitor store brand products if the competitor want to sell at that store? If I live in a town with only one grocery store and I want to pay with Bitcoin should they have to set up that payment mechanism? Should they have to accept all payment mechanisms? There are lots of questions here that you can open up that draw parallels with Apple here w.r.t being “essential”.
      - clusterfish 5y ago
        Not everything that is essential should be regulated the same just because they have this factor in common. Stop being so dense. A market being essential simply means that optimal outcomes in that market are very important, so regulation is more justified if that market is a failure (such as a duopoly). One of the many differences is that the duopoly of Apple and Google in mobile markets is effectively unbreakable without government regulation. Today there is no amount of billions you can spend to break their moat. In contrast, grocery stores are highly competitive because they don't have insurmountable barriers to entry. Anyone can lease retail space and sign up with a distributor. There are lots of independent grocery stores operating in many towns.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    During the pandemic a huge number of businesses recurred to phone-first scheduling software where you have to show some kind of QR code. Bars offer QR menus by default. Contactless payments have become the default. A lot of banks require 2FA to log into their systems. They're about as essential as they can be. And for the record, governments have laws to step in when gasoline or food supplies become unavailable. And in the US, at least, being able to drive is seen as a right in the eyes of the public.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      - Daishiman 5y ago
        I'm not sure if you understand that if any of these things had the sort of arbitrary restrictions and lack of competition as the phone space, you would definitely be seeing government intervention. If Amazon was only one of two online retailers that would imply monopoly breakup or serious regulation. If FedEx or UPS stopped working or imposed random and unjustified restrictions on their deliveries you'd see quite a few angry lawmakers and senate meetings on the topic.
        ericmay 5y ago
        I disagree and we see that play out in the market. If UPS tomorrow added a 30% fee to all deliveries we wouldn’t be suggesting that you be able to pick any delivery service you want and that UPS still had to deliver products to your door so you could skip out on paying that fee. Amazon is one of many retailers but holds a dominant market position. No different than Apple being one of many smart phone makers holding a dominant market position.
      - noptd 5y ago
        How about you explicitly state your point? Sea lion-ing is typically frowned upon on HN.
        5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

ericmay 5y ago

I didn’t ask what the definition of essential was. I asked at what point something crosses over to being essential, and why being essential matters here specifically.

stale2002 5y ago
This is Loki's Fallacy. There is no exact point. It is a spectrum. And phones are clearly on the side of essential. We do not need an exact cutoff point to make judgements about an obvious case.
- ericmay 5y ago
  We do need some criteria though. You’re invoking the fallacy, not me. What is the criteria for being essential?
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > What is the criteria for being essential? The criteria would be "Whatever a jury or judge determines what the definition of essential is, in each specific lawsuit or case". Thats how the law works. The law is not determined by some sort of exact programming code. Instead, the law is determined by people. "I'll know it when I see it" is an actual argument, that the supreme court gave, for determining a similar question about what the definition of pornography is. So, the answer for what "essential" is, is the same answer that the literal supreme court used, which is "I'll know it when I see it" or "whatever the judge/jury decides". If that answer is good enough for the supreme court, then it is good enough for me. > You’re invoking the fallacy, not me Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time. Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time. Again this is incorrect. I have not “demanded an exact cutoff point” at any time. > Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial. So in other words you’re making a claim and then your defense of that claim is “the law will decide in a court case”. Ok… lol.