7 ms·

I never wanted to "waste money" on a mac, but I feel like Apple takes user privacy seriously, and I'm genuinely considering making the switch from Windows just

I never wanted to "waste money" on a mac, but I feel like Apple takes user privacy seriously, and I'm genuinely considering making the switch from Windows just to support that practice. I dunno, maybe that's silly, but it seems like the whole world stopped caring about user security and privacy, and this is refreshing to see fairly consistently.

NathanCH 8y ago
Try developing for Safari and get back to us. Safari is easily the worst browser to develop for this year.
- kevinherron 8y ago
  And this is the end users problem... how?
  - sbarre 8y ago
    Lack of support for one.. Safari doesn't have the market share to force developers to support it when it's painful to work with..
    - ectospheno 8y ago
      If you can't make a web site work with Safari then you have no business calling yourself a web developer. Not even joking.
      - bobwaycott 8y ago
        I was under the impression the discussion was about developing extensions for Safari, not websites.
      - hegz 8y ago
        I am perfectly capable of making a website work in safari but I am not able to test it because I don't want to spend $xxxx buying a macbook for the purpose of refreshing a web page. Firefox and chrome run on my dev machine and Microsoft gives out a free VM image with edge.
    - Qwertie 8y ago
      I'd say the majority of websites were never tested on safari because most small dev places can't afford to buy macbooks just to test one browser.
      - codezero 8y ago
        They could use Sauce labs or some similar very affordable solution.
        Qwertie 8y ago
        Potentially. Although in my experience safari works 99% the same as chrome so I'd bet a bunch of devs just assume if it works on chrome it will work on safari.
- tomp 8y ago
  Can you elaborate on that, why, what exactly makes is so bad?
beenBoutIT 8y ago
Warm feelings aside, security experts are typically more objective than Apple's keynote bullet points. The key thing to remember is that there is no privacy without security. Factually speaking, ChromeOS is far more secure than either Windows or macOS. https://www.cnet.com/news/how-google-chromebooks-became-the-go-to-laptop-for-security-experts/ https://www.cnet.com/news/how-google-chromebooks-became-the-...
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  > there is no privacy without security This is factually incorrect. You can have privacy without security, and you can have security without privacy. Security keeps things safe, privacy keeps things hidden. Also, ChromeOS devices ship with a rootkit called the Play Store. There are also hundreds of apps on the play store that install malware on Android devices. You may not need to install an anti-virus, but you may also very easily install what looks like a fun game, and then find your funds being drained from your bank account.
  - kurtisc 8y ago
    ChromeOS devices don't ship with Play Store, you have to enable it.
  - acaibowl 8y ago
    > This is factually incorrect. You can have privacy without security, and you can have security without privacy. Security keeps things safe, privacy keeps things hidden. Uh that's not factually incorrect. You can definitely have security without privacy, but not the other way around. Without security that means your privacy can't be protected.
    - peterwwillis 8y ago
      "The domain of privacy partially overlaps security (confidentiality), which can include the concepts of appropriate use, as well as protection of information." [1] It does not, however, implicitly provide security. If I send and receive e-mails with a reporter off the record, we are communicating privately. But the communication may not be strictly confidential, nor secure, unless I take additional steps to ensure it. If I keep files in my home directory, on my own hard disk, with permissions so only my user can access the files, then my files are private. They are not, however, implicitly secure. Another example: an SSH private key. Without a password on the key, the key is private, but not secure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy
dijit 8y ago
>I never wanted to "waste money" on a mac it's a pedantic point I'll make, but one that's important to articulate: Apple hardware has incredible build quality- and you pay for that. An equivelant build quality Windows laptop will cost roughly the same. The Entry level Apple MacBook pro 15" is £2,349.00 with: 256GB Storage (m.2 SSD, high speed)) 2.2GHz 6-core 8th-generation Intel Core i7 processor Radeon Pro 555X with 4GB of GDDR5 memory 16GB 2400MHz DDR4 memory Retina Display, -- The same spec DELL Precision 5530 is: £2,481.49 256GB M.2 NVMe PCIe SSD Class 40 (Much slower) Intel Core i7-8850H, Six Core 2.60GHz, 4.30GHz Turbo, 9MB 45W nVidia P1k 16GB, 2 DIMMS, DDR4-2666MHz SDRAM, Non-ECC 15.6" Ultrasharp UHD IGZO4, 3840x2160, Touch, w/Prem Panel Guar 100% color gamut, Brushed Onyx -- So, more powerful CPU, slower storage and less pixels with a touch screen. -- For the same price. The issue when comparing price is that it's often Apples (heh) to Oranges, Apple only sell high quality hardware thus the cost to play is higher. (FWIW they also charge too much for upgrades; but this is just smart business as those who need that much power are willing to pay) (PS: I actually own a Precision 5520 and I love it; I don't buy into the Apple hype train but I don't buy into the anti-apple hype train either- all systems should be weighed on their merits but my point is that price is often an unfair metric when people talk about laptops due to the abhorrent build quality of most laptops)
- code_duck 8y ago
  I bought a MacBook Pro for 2.2k in 2010 and 8 years later, everything still works. I highly doubt I could say that about a Dell or Toshiba of any price.
- Hobohodo 8y ago
  It is about the same price or more expensive to get an equivalent windows machine, the Thinkpad P52 is similarly priced if you go for those specs. I think part of the issue is that you don't have a choice of specs. If PCI-E SSD speeds are enough for you, you don't have a choice to save the money on it. If you want to go for a cheaper 4-core processor with higher clock speeds and put the money into more/better RAM, you can't make that trade-off. I do agree that macbooks are pretty good value for the components you're getting, but I think unless your view on what you want in your computer matches what Apple will give you then you will end up "wasting" some money on your machine.
phito 8y ago
Why not Linux then? Apple can still change their minds in the future and sell previously gathered data.

NathanCH 8y ago

Try developing for Safari and get back to us. Safari is easily the worst browser to develop for this year.

kevinherron 8y ago
And this is the end users problem... how?
- sbarre 8y ago
  Lack of support for one.. Safari doesn't have the market share to force developers to support it when it's painful to work with..
  - ectospheno 8y ago
    If you can't make a web site work with Safari then you have no business calling yourself a web developer. Not even joking.
    - bobwaycott 8y ago
      I was under the impression the discussion was about developing extensions for Safari, not websites.
    - hegz 8y ago
      I am perfectly capable of making a website work in safari but I am not able to test it because I don't want to spend $xxxx buying a macbook for the purpose of refreshing a web page. Firefox and chrome run on my dev machine and Microsoft gives out a free VM image with edge.
  - Qwertie 8y ago
    I'd say the majority of websites were never tested on safari because most small dev places can't afford to buy macbooks just to test one browser.
    - codezero 8y ago
      They could use Sauce labs or some similar very affordable solution.
      - Qwertie 8y ago
        Potentially. Although in my experience safari works 99% the same as chrome so I'd bet a bunch of devs just assume if it works on chrome it will work on safari.
tomp 8y ago
Can you elaborate on that, why, what exactly makes is so bad?

beenBoutIT 8y ago

Warm feelings aside, security experts are typically more objective than Apple's keynote bullet points. The key thing to remember is that there is no privacy without security. Factually speaking, ChromeOS is far more secure than either Windows or macOS. https://www.cnet.com/news/how-google-chromebooks-became-the-go-to-laptop-for-security-experts/ https://www.cnet.com/news/how-google-chromebooks-became-the-...

peterwwillis 8y ago
> there is no privacy without security This is factually incorrect. You can have privacy without security, and you can have security without privacy. Security keeps things safe, privacy keeps things hidden. Also, ChromeOS devices ship with a rootkit called the Play Store. There are also hundreds of apps on the play store that install malware on Android devices. You may not need to install an anti-virus, but you may also very easily install what looks like a fun game, and then find your funds being drained from your bank account.
- kurtisc 8y ago
  ChromeOS devices don't ship with Play Store, you have to enable it.
- acaibowl 8y ago
  > This is factually incorrect. You can have privacy without security, and you can have security without privacy. Security keeps things safe, privacy keeps things hidden. Uh that's not factually incorrect. You can definitely have security without privacy, but not the other way around. Without security that means your privacy can't be protected.
  - peterwwillis 8y ago
    "The domain of privacy partially overlaps security (confidentiality), which can include the concepts of appropriate use, as well as protection of information." [1] It does not, however, implicitly provide security. If I send and receive e-mails with a reporter off the record, we are communicating privately. But the communication may not be strictly confidential, nor secure, unless I take additional steps to ensure it. If I keep files in my home directory, on my own hard disk, with permissions so only my user can access the files, then my files are private. They are not, however, implicitly secure. Another example: an SSH private key. Without a password on the key, the key is private, but not secure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

dijit 8y ago

>I never wanted to "waste money" on a mac it's a pedantic point I'll make, but one that's important to articulate: Apple hardware has incredible build quality- and you pay for that. An equivelant build quality Windows laptop will cost roughly the same. The Entry level Apple MacBook pro 15" is £2,349.00 with: 256GB Storage (m.2 SSD, high speed)) 2.2GHz 6-core 8th-generation Intel Core i7 processor Radeon Pro 555X with 4GB of GDDR5 memory 16GB 2400MHz DDR4 memory Retina Display, -- The same spec DELL Precision 5530 is: £2,481.49 256GB M.2 NVMe PCIe SSD Class 40 (Much slower) Intel Core i7-8850H, Six Core 2.60GHz, 4.30GHz Turbo, 9MB 45W nVidia P1k 16GB, 2 DIMMS, DDR4-2666MHz SDRAM, Non-ECC 15.6" Ultrasharp UHD IGZO4, 3840x2160, Touch, w/Prem Panel Guar 100% color gamut, Brushed Onyx -- So, more powerful CPU, slower storage and less pixels with a touch screen. -- For the same price. The issue when comparing price is that it's often Apples (heh) to Oranges, Apple only sell high quality hardware thus the cost to play is higher. (FWIW they also charge too much for upgrades; but this is just smart business as those who need that much power are willing to pay) (PS: I actually own a Precision 5520 and I love it; I don't buy into the Apple hype train but I don't buy into the anti-apple hype train either- all systems should be weighed on their merits but my point is that price is often an unfair metric when people talk about laptops due to the abhorrent build quality of most laptops)

code_duck 8y ago
I bought a MacBook Pro for 2.2k in 2010 and 8 years later, everything still works. I highly doubt I could say that about a Dell or Toshiba of any price.
Hobohodo 8y ago
It is about the same price or more expensive to get an equivalent windows machine, the Thinkpad P52 is similarly priced if you go for those specs. I think part of the issue is that you don't have a choice of specs. If PCI-E SSD speeds are enough for you, you don't have a choice to save the money on it. If you want to go for a cheaper 4-core processor with higher clock speeds and put the money into more/better RAM, you can't make that trade-off. I do agree that macbooks are pretty good value for the components you're getting, but I think unless your view on what you want in your computer matches what Apple will give you then you will end up "wasting" some money on your machine.

phito 8y ago

Why not Linux then? Apple can still change their minds in the future and sell previously gathered data.