4 ms·

I'm not sure that this article is that contentious. Modern smartphones are unabashedly consumer devices made for the mass market and several of the criticisms

I'm not sure that this article is that contentious. Modern smartphones are unabashedly consumer devices made for the mass market and several of the criticisms in this article are features that most people don't want/need. What most people want/need from a smartphone is a device that lets them do things (e.g. send messages, keep up with friends, make phonecalls, browse the Internet) without getting in their way. They're not really in the market for a general purpose computing device like a PC. If you want that kind of device in a smartphone there are less mainstream options, but I don't regard it as surprising that larger companies don't actively cater to them (it's a niche market place) Personally I've got a range of computing devices that I use for different tasks. When I want to read a book, or surf the Internet I use my iPad. When I want to write some code or do my technical job, I use Linux. Now there's the obvious argument that people should have the freedom to control all their computing devices, but that freedom comes at a cost, which is that freer devices are, I would suggest, harder to maintain.(i.e. you need to understand more about the operation of the device in order to manage it). If you're a technical person, you may not see this as a problem, but remember mass-market consumers aren't necessarily very technical...

madeofpalk 11y ago
> "Mom I have told you thousands of times! Configure, make and make install, not configure and make install!" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11086290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11086290
- merb 11y ago
  If you running configure and make as root you could actually just invoke make install instead of make; make install. Also I wouldn't make install without a local prefix, something like ./configure --prefix=/home/$USER/usr/ or something along the lines. I mean common prefix is /usr/local, but still you shouldn't install anything globally without using your package manager.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
VarunAgw 11y ago
But I am neither getting freedom nor security with smart phones. My 2 year old smart phone have never received a security update. It has become a piece of crap just within 2 years.
- leadingthenet 11y ago
  The iPhone receives plenty of security updates, and does so relatively quickly after the fix has been implemented.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    Not only isn't this relivant it isn't even true or at least very misleading. Apple patches the newests version of iOS. Sometimes older versions get a security update here or there, maybe. So you'd have to be running the latest version of you want security fixes. Which isn't always possible due to compatibility or performance/stability. If your iPhone is 3 or more years old you can forget any support from Apple whatsoever.
    - eunice 11y ago
      the 4S from 2011 runs the latest iOS
      - nommm-nommm 11y ago
        The iPhone 4s wasnt discontinued until September 9, 2014. The 4s is the first iPhone to last 4 generations but 4s users have complained (and even filed a lawsuit) about the performance of iOS9 on the 4s.
    - marincounty 11y ago
      I guess the reason is cost. There are times I want to reinstall on older operating system, and Apple seems to go out of their way to make it difficult? In some cases impossible. Why not please your customers? Give them what they want? I don't even think the average customer would need a TOS of all the negatives using an older operating system brings. They have a huge war chest. If a customer wants to be on the operating system that came on their device ten years ago; why make it difficult? Could it be they want us to upgrade/buy regularly? For myself, I don't think I will ever buy another new Apple product. I will still give them as gifts though.
izacus 11y ago
> Now there's the obvious argument that people should have the freedom to control all their computing devices, but that freedom comes at a cost, which is that freer devices are, I would suggest, harder to maintain.(i.e. you need to understand more about the operation of the device in order to manage it). If you're a technical person, you may not see this as a problem, but remember mass-market consumers aren't necessarily very technical... That's a common fallacy perpetuated by Apple and similar companies but it's simply not true. Having the ability to unlock your device, install apps after you enable unknown sources and hange other parts of it do not have to come at the cost for "average user" (whoever that is). You can make a secure simple default and still not waste development time and resources locking down the devices.
- raesene9 11y ago
  Sorry but I entirely disagree with you. From a security perspective allowing software installations form unknown sources is absolutely a concern for average users. It's hard enough for IT professionals to maintain the security of general purpose computing devices, let alone non-technical users achieving the same goal. Lets take a real-world exmaple. Look at the incidence of malware on a platform that allows unrestricted software installation (e.g. Android), with one that doesn't (e.g. iOS). The problem is that making informed choices about whether a given piece of software is "trustworthy" is extremely difficult. Delegating that to a 3rd party (e.g. Apple) is for most people, likely the best option.
  - izacus 11y ago
    And now compare it to OS X installations. Or Linux. A platform that doesn't have a rampant malware problem and still isn't completely locked down. We managed to somehow survive 30 years of unprecedented innovation and computer usage and NOW we suddenly need locked down devices where a single company decides which applications may be used on them and can forbid and innovative competition at will? Why would you defend that?
    - Zoon 11y ago
      You can't seriously compare iOS users to OS X and Linux users. iOS is for the masses while the other two have a relatively high percentage of tech savvy users.

madeofpalk 11y ago

> "Mom I have told you thousands of times! Configure, make and make install, not configure and make install!" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11086290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11086290

merb 11y ago
If you running configure and make as root you could actually just invoke make install instead of make; make install. Also I wouldn't make install without a local prefix, something like ./configure --prefix=/home/$USER/usr/ or something along the lines. I mean common prefix is /usr/local, but still you shouldn't install anything globally without using your package manager.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

VarunAgw 11y ago

But I am neither getting freedom nor security with smart phones. My 2 year old smart phone have never received a security update. It has become a piece of crap just within 2 years.

leadingthenet 11y ago
The iPhone receives plenty of security updates, and does so relatively quickly after the fix has been implemented.
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
  Not only isn't this relivant it isn't even true or at least very misleading. Apple patches the newests version of iOS. Sometimes older versions get a security update here or there, maybe. So you'd have to be running the latest version of you want security fixes. Which isn't always possible due to compatibility or performance/stability. If your iPhone is 3 or more years old you can forget any support from Apple whatsoever.
  - eunice 11y ago
    the 4S from 2011 runs the latest iOS
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
      The iPhone 4s wasnt discontinued until September 9, 2014. The 4s is the first iPhone to last 4 generations but 4s users have complained (and even filed a lawsuit) about the performance of iOS9 on the 4s.
  - marincounty 11y ago
    I guess the reason is cost. There are times I want to reinstall on older operating system, and Apple seems to go out of their way to make it difficult? In some cases impossible. Why not please your customers? Give them what they want? I don't even think the average customer would need a TOS of all the negatives using an older operating system brings. They have a huge war chest. If a customer wants to be on the operating system that came on their device ten years ago; why make it difficult? Could it be they want us to upgrade/buy regularly? For myself, I don't think I will ever buy another new Apple product. I will still give them as gifts though.

izacus 11y ago

> Now there's the obvious argument that people should have the freedom to control all their computing devices, but that freedom comes at a cost, which is that freer devices are, I would suggest, harder to maintain.(i.e. you need to understand more about the operation of the device in order to manage it). If you're a technical person, you may not see this as a problem, but remember mass-market consumers aren't necessarily very technical... That's a common fallacy perpetuated by Apple and similar companies but it's simply not true. Having the ability to unlock your device, install apps after you enable unknown sources and hange other parts of it do not have to come at the cost for "average user" (whoever that is). You can make a secure simple default and still not waste development time and resources locking down the devices.

raesene9 11y ago
Sorry but I entirely disagree with you. From a security perspective allowing software installations form unknown sources is absolutely a concern for average users. It's hard enough for IT professionals to maintain the security of general purpose computing devices, let alone non-technical users achieving the same goal. Lets take a real-world exmaple. Look at the incidence of malware on a platform that allows unrestricted software installation (e.g. Android), with one that doesn't (e.g. iOS). The problem is that making informed choices about whether a given piece of software is "trustworthy" is extremely difficult. Delegating that to a 3rd party (e.g. Apple) is for most people, likely the best option.
- izacus 11y ago
  And now compare it to OS X installations. Or Linux. A platform that doesn't have a rampant malware problem and still isn't completely locked down. We managed to somehow survive 30 years of unprecedented innovation and computer usage and NOW we suddenly need locked down devices where a single company decides which applications may be used on them and can forbid and innovative competition at will? Why would you defend that?
  - Zoon 11y ago
    You can't seriously compare iOS users to OS X and Linux users. iOS is for the masses while the other two have a relatively high percentage of tech savvy users.