5 ms·

I have been logging, redirecting and blocking these queries for these domains and more for years. It is one of our biggest complaints about the "new" Apple. T

I have been logging, redirecting and blocking these queries for these domains and more for years. It is one of our biggest complaints about the "new" Apple. There is no option for the user to disable the nonstop phoning home. iOS is a BSD-like OS configured so that the user does not fully control it (e.g. can't stop someone else's software from incessantly trying to phone home). The user cannot fully configure it (e.g., can't access HOSTS file). Only Apple can (they get root and they do not even own the device). Important settings are placed off limits to the owners of these devices. This is no fun. Turn on an iOS device and it will keep trying to connect to Apple servers; it will not stop. An incredible tracking device if those servers keep logs, irrespective of Apple's reasoning. Not to mention lots of unnecessary network chatter on the home network. Clarification: After many years of desensitization to this practice since the first iPhone, it is neither "a secret" nor "scandalous", but it is still disappointing. Moreover, I am not advocating any other mobile OS simply by making a comment about iOS. In fact, none of the "smartphones" being sold today are satisfactory to me as portable computers when compared with the control I get using an open source OS with i386, amd64 or even a development board.

scarface74 9y ago
As opposed to "we are open Android" but everything that most people define as Android includes closed source Google Play Services and proprietary drivers?
- saurik 9y ago
  The comment you are responding to explicitly says no alternatives are good and disclaimed any idea that they were telling people to use something different. They shouldn't have had to make that disclaimer, but apparently it didn't even work.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Depending on when scarface replied, that last paragraph did not exist in the original post.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    This part of the comment did not exist when I replied.... Clarification: After many years of desensitization to this practice since the first iPhone, it is neither "a secret" nor "scandalous", but it is still disappointing. Moreover, I am not advocating any other mobile OS simply by making a comment about iOS. In fact, none of the "smartphones" being sold today are satisfactory to me as portable computers when compared with the control I get using an open source OS with i386, amd64 or even a development board.
freehunter 9y ago
I want to mention that I think it's incredibly disingenuous to edit your comment to argue against my reply without mentioning that you've edited what I was arguing against. It's even more so when you use the exact same wording I did, making it look like I'm arguing something that was explicitly stated in your post, when it wasn't there at the time I wrote my reply. I am seriously disappointed in this level of discourse. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you'll stop pulling shit like that in the future. Shame on you.
- jjoonathan 9y ago
  I would be a lot more sympathetic if your reply had been something other than > Don't act like you're scandalized about discovering the big secret that Apple won't let you fully control your iPhone in 2017.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    I'm not sure why you seem to have a personal vendetta against me, unless you're an alt of feelin_googley. If you want to argue, I think we can keep it to the one chain we already have going, yeah?
stanlarroque 9y ago
Does your device behave correctly when you block these domains? If so, what is the impact on your service and battery life? I really feel a dissonance between Apple's marketing position with privacy and the behavior of their devices in the background.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  Is there really a dissonance? iOS lets you keep everything as local as possible if you want, and lets you limit the exposure of personal information.
freehunter 9y ago
>iOS is a BSD-like OS configured so that the user does not fully control it Oh come on. You act like this is some malicious or unexpected new behavior when this is how Apple has behaved for at least 15 years now. And if the BSD guys didn't want their software used in that fashion, they'd change their license. But since BSD wrote their own license that allows for that, they explicitly approve of it. Don't act like you're scandalized about discovering the big secret that Apple won't let you fully control your iPhone in 2017.
- tomcam 9y ago
  How do you know when the parent poster knew what? Must all Apple users know the entire history of Apple device DNS usage? Where is the universally known documentation on such usage?
  - freehunter 9y ago
    I'm not talking about DNS usage because neither were they. They were talking about being able to fully control their iOS device, which has never been the case, even dating back to the original iPod. There is pretty universal documentation on that called "every sentence ever uttered about iOS since ever".
  - akerl_ 9y ago
    I'd expect somebody commenting about "the 'new' Apple" to have awareness of Apple's historical activity, yes.
- jjoonathan 9y ago
  > You act like this is some malicious or unexpected new behavior No, I'm pretty GP "acts like" > After many years of desensitization to this practice since the first iPhone, it is neither "a secret" nor "scandalous" I've never really understood the absurd (but common!) argument that a repugnant state of affairs isn't worth discussion if it isn't new. Usually, the heckler even agrees with the person they're heckling! What's the goal? Sabotage of a cause one agrees with merely to redeem hipster / cynic points? I don't get it. It's disappointing that GP felt the need to preemptively address this possibility in their post, but it's downright silly that parent didn't even let this fact stop them. So it goes.

scarface74 9y ago

As opposed to "we are open Android" but everything that most people define as Android includes closed source Google Play Services and proprietary drivers?

saurik 9y ago
The comment you are responding to explicitly says no alternatives are good and disclaimed any idea that they were telling people to use something different. They shouldn't have had to make that disclaimer, but apparently it didn't even work.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Depending on when scarface replied, that last paragraph did not exist in the original post.
- scarface74 9y ago
  This part of the comment did not exist when I replied.... Clarification: After many years of desensitization to this practice since the first iPhone, it is neither "a secret" nor "scandalous", but it is still disappointing. Moreover, I am not advocating any other mobile OS simply by making a comment about iOS. In fact, none of the "smartphones" being sold today are satisfactory to me as portable computers when compared with the control I get using an open source OS with i386, amd64 or even a development board.

freehunter 9y ago

I want to mention that I think it's incredibly disingenuous to edit your comment to argue against my reply without mentioning that you've edited what I was arguing against. It's even more so when you use the exact same wording I did, making it look like I'm arguing something that was explicitly stated in your post, when it wasn't there at the time I wrote my reply. I am seriously disappointed in this level of discourse. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you'll stop pulling shit like that in the future. Shame on you.

jjoonathan 9y ago
I would be a lot more sympathetic if your reply had been something other than > Don't act like you're scandalized about discovering the big secret that Apple won't let you fully control your iPhone in 2017.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I'm not sure why you seem to have a personal vendetta against me, unless you're an alt of feelin_googley. If you want to argue, I think we can keep it to the one chain we already have going, yeah?

stanlarroque 9y ago

Does your device behave correctly when you block these domains? If so, what is the impact on your service and battery life? I really feel a dissonance between Apple's marketing position with privacy and the behavior of their devices in the background.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
Is there really a dissonance? iOS lets you keep everything as local as possible if you want, and lets you limit the exposure of personal information.

freehunter 9y ago

>iOS is a BSD-like OS configured so that the user does not fully control it Oh come on. You act like this is some malicious or unexpected new behavior when this is how Apple has behaved for at least 15 years now. And if the BSD guys didn't want their software used in that fashion, they'd change their license. But since BSD wrote their own license that allows for that, they explicitly approve of it. Don't act like you're scandalized about discovering the big secret that Apple won't let you fully control your iPhone in 2017.

tomcam 9y ago
How do you know when the parent poster knew what? Must all Apple users know the entire history of Apple device DNS usage? Where is the universally known documentation on such usage?
- freehunter 9y ago
  I'm not talking about DNS usage because neither were they. They were talking about being able to fully control their iOS device, which has never been the case, even dating back to the original iPod. There is pretty universal documentation on that called "every sentence ever uttered about iOS since ever".
- akerl_ 9y ago
  I'd expect somebody commenting about "the 'new' Apple" to have awareness of Apple's historical activity, yes.
jjoonathan 9y ago
> You act like this is some malicious or unexpected new behavior No, I'm pretty GP "acts like" > After many years of desensitization to this practice since the first iPhone, it is neither "a secret" nor "scandalous" I've never really understood the absurd (but common!) argument that a repugnant state of affairs isn't worth discussion if it isn't new. Usually, the heckler even agrees with the person they're heckling! What's the goal? Sabotage of a cause one agrees with merely to redeem hipster / cynic points? I don't get it. It's disappointing that GP felt the need to preemptively address this possibility in their post, but it's downright silly that parent didn't even let this fact stop them. So it goes.