4 ms·

FWIW, the current case seems to be "hardware works just as the spec says, OS blocks in anyway." Mind you, I've seen many types of HW, some of which indeed woul

FWIW, the current case seems to be "hardware works just as the spec says, OS blocks in anyway." Mind you, I've seen many types of HW, some of which indeed wouldn't work "with a PC." The expected course of action was always "complain at peripheral vendor," this "we know what you want, but nope because FU that's why" has historically been reserved for vendors trying to keep out competition. So, while it is theoretically possible that an OS-enforced soft block is there to protect the user, a statistically more probable version is that it exists to protect the OS maker from competition; IMNSHO the ball is in Apple's court to prove otherwise.

userbinator 9y ago
FWIW, the current case seems to be "hardware works just as the spec says, OS blocks in anyway." I've noticed a disappointing and somewhat repulsive trend increasing over the past few years, one which not only Apple participates in (but they are one of the most notable), of moving from "not supported" meaning "we won't help you with it" (fair enough) to "we will actively stop you from doing it" (FU for even trying to do something we didn't think of/don't want/etc.). IMHO it's perfectly reasonable for a company to not offer support for literally every hardware combination out there, because that's a huge space; but to deliberately sabotage attempts at doing things outside of that boundary is incredibly hostile. I have no definitive evidence but this trend seems at least somewhat correlated with the rise of authoritarianism. As a developer myself, and also someone who has done many "unsupported" things with no ill effect, I constantly try to fight this position from others, but it's difficult.
abakker 9y ago
“Statistically more probable”. Based on what statistics, exactly? Apple has a long history of blocking many things to protect users, e.g. unrecognized app developers and unsigned kexts. OTOH, blocking certain TB3 devices hardly seems like a move that puts their competitors at any disadvantage. Apple doesn’t make any TB3 peripherals.
95014_refugee 9y ago
> FWIW, the current case seems to be "hardware works just as the spec says, OS blocks in anyway." Based on what? The comments from Plugable make a strong case that there's one or more un-fixable issues with certain combinations peripheral silicon that lead to an unacceptable customer experience. As can be clearly seen in this thread, given the opportunity a significant slice of the population will choose to blame Apple, so the only sensible response is to avoid the situation. Put yourself in their shoes; given these two scenarios: a) some set of customers' peripherals stop working with "this peripheral isn't supported" b) some set of customers suffer random hangs, crashes, freezes, data loss And given that you only get to choose one of those two, which one demonstrates a real commitment to the customer? I realise this doesn't fit the "Apple is always out to screw you" narrative, but I guess you have to ask... if it doesn't, perhaps your story's not so true?

userbinator 9y ago

FWIW, the current case seems to be "hardware works just as the spec says, OS blocks in anyway." I've noticed a disappointing and somewhat repulsive trend increasing over the past few years, one which not only Apple participates in (but they are one of the most notable), of moving from "not supported" meaning "we won't help you with it" (fair enough) to "we will actively stop you from doing it" (FU for even trying to do something we didn't think of/don't want/etc.). IMHO it's perfectly reasonable for a company to not offer support for literally every hardware combination out there, because that's a huge space; but to deliberately sabotage attempts at doing things outside of that boundary is incredibly hostile. I have no definitive evidence but this trend seems at least somewhat correlated with the rise of authoritarianism. As a developer myself, and also someone who has done many "unsupported" things with no ill effect, I constantly try to fight this position from others, but it's difficult.

abakker 9y ago

“Statistically more probable”. Based on what statistics, exactly? Apple has a long history of blocking many things to protect users, e.g. unrecognized app developers and unsigned kexts. OTOH, blocking certain TB3 devices hardly seems like a move that puts their competitors at any disadvantage. Apple doesn’t make any TB3 peripherals.

95014_refugee 9y ago

> FWIW, the current case seems to be "hardware works just as the spec says, OS blocks in anyway." Based on what? The comments from Plugable make a strong case that there's one or more un-fixable issues with certain combinations peripheral silicon that lead to an unacceptable customer experience. As can be clearly seen in this thread, given the opportunity a significant slice of the population will choose to blame Apple, so the only sensible response is to avoid the situation. Put yourself in their shoes; given these two scenarios: a) some set of customers' peripherals stop working with "this peripheral isn't supported" b) some set of customers suffer random hangs, crashes, freezes, data loss And given that you only get to choose one of those two, which one demonstrates a real commitment to the customer? I realise this doesn't fit the "Apple is always out to screw you" narrative, but I guess you have to ask... if it doesn't, perhaps your story's not so true?