6 ms·

And it is time for running whatever we want on our device.

by chj 8y ago

sjwright 8y ago
Tell that to the manufacturers of TVs, cars, home alarms, AV receivers, smart watches, digital cameras, smart home devices, dash cams, game consoles, universal remotes, cordless phones, cable tv boxes, baby monitors and printers. The world is full of devices that are not open platforms for alternative operating systems. If you don't like Apple's choice in focusing on their particular solution which involves intimate software-hardware integration, the answer is to buy from a competitor. There are lots of them and they make an extremely diverse array of alternatives. Personally I'm pleased that Apple is making the product the way they do. If Apple changed to suit your needs, that would come at the expense of my needs.
- chj 8y ago
  well, phones and pads are good starters update: I compare it to computing slavery.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    Yes, taking on large market monoplists has always worked so well in the past, let's try that again /s
  - sjwright 8y ago
    You don't need to demand Apple change. There are countless phones and pads available from other companies, many of which will satisfy your requirements.
    - chj 8y ago
      Look, I am not saying these things to satisfy my personal needs, and I am not demanding Apple anything, that's only a piece of advice. A reminder that there is a bigger elephant in the room. I have been using Android since my iphone6 retired, and everything is great.
- vinay427 8y ago
  This is a textbook example of Whataboutism. No one is saying that TVs, etc. shouldn't be different, but asking for more flexibility of software on Apple's devices is a reasonable follow-up to Tim Cook's stated desire for more data privacy. Your following statement is roughly equivalent to saying the following, which I don't endorse: "If you don't like Google's choice in focusing on their particular solution which involves intimate user-data integration for more intelligent assistance, the answer is to buy from a competitor." You can buy from a competitor to avoid data privacy issues as well. However, to some people that doesn't justify offering and marketing an option that compromises that value.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    > "If you don't like Google's choice in focusing on their particular solution which involves intimate user-data integration for more intelligent assistance, the answer is to buy from a competitor." No, that's exactly right. Competitors exist. Using them makes them stronger.
- DavideNL 8y ago
  "If Apple changed to suit your needs, that would come at the expense of my needs." Not really, if apple locks down iOS devices by default, and would create the ability to opt-out for developers/people who want to be able to create/install their own code, nothing changes for you/most people. Much like how SIP works on macOS, enabled by default, ability to disable if needed.
  - intopieces 8y ago
    This is an interesting idea. Say, on first boot of your new iPhone, you get a screen that says, "Which experience do you want?" with options, "Apple's curated" or "Choose your own adventure" with the proper caveats for the latter: "Choosing this option will allow you to install 3rd party software not reviewed by Apple. Such software could contain features which could harm your device. Some award-winning features designed by Apple will be unavailable in this mode. You may revert to the "Apple Curated Experience" at any time by navigating to Settings -> General -> My Experience." In other words, keep the walled garden, but give your users a key to the gate. The question is, will we then see users demand Apple make their software available outside the gate? I would want Apple to make no commitments to developing there. No Music.app, no iCloud, no iMessages, no Safari. You get a 3rd party store with 3rd party apps on Apple's hardware.
zapita 8y ago
I agree, but that problem can wait. Rooting out corporate mass surveillance before it strangles democratic society... that can’t wait.
- chj 8y ago
  I disagree. Limit what we can do on computing devices we own is the worst offence to a democratic mind. Data privacy is of course important, but we don't need Apple to fix that, we can fix it on our own once the first problem is addressed.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    That is horrifically naive, as it would only solve the problem for the few. It would create a two tier society where the highly technically literate get privacy and everyone else are limited to whatever the big companies ship by default. Apple's products already respect my privacy; they don't need to be "fixed." Further, it is absurd to contend that there will be a net gain in privacy by letting the unwashed masses choose random shit they found on the internet to control the core of their devices. After all, installing random shit from the internet has totally never been a problem for privacy, ever.
    - chj 8y ago
      To show the kind of real respect for privacy, we need to access every piece of code that we are running. If you don't have time or technical ability to do that, there are enough eyeballs out there. Can apple do that? Or are you going to simply trust?
      - sjwright 8y ago
        If you want to run entirely open source software on entirely open source hardware with every software component compiled by a personally verified compiler and with every hardware component manufactured under your personal scrutiny then you might have a point. Otherwise you are ultimately forced to trust someone—probably many someones—and I'd rather place that trust in as few entities as possible. For myself I've chosen an entity that I believe has an economic incentive to respect my privacy and has proven with their actions that they deserve my trust.

And it is time for running whatever we want on our device.

by chj 8y ago

And it is time for running whatever we want on our device.

Tell that to the manufacturers of TVs, cars, home alarms, AV receivers, smart watches, digital cameras, smart home devices, dash cams, game consoles, universal remotes, cordless phones, cable tv boxes, baby monitors and printers. The world is full of devices that are not open platforms for alternative operating systems. If you don't like Apple's choice in focusing on their particular solution which involves intimate software-hardware integration, the answer is to buy from a competitor. There are lots of them and they make an extremely diverse array of alternatives. Personally I'm pleased that Apple is making the product the way they do. If Apple changed to suit your needs, that would come at the expense of my needs.

chj 8y ago
well, phones and pads are good starters update: I compare it to computing slavery.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  Yes, taking on large market monoplists has always worked so well in the past, let's try that again /s
- sjwright 8y ago
  You don't need to demand Apple change. There are countless phones and pads available from other companies, many of which will satisfy your requirements.
  - chj 8y ago
    Look, I am not saying these things to satisfy my personal needs, and I am not demanding Apple anything, that's only a piece of advice. A reminder that there is a bigger elephant in the room. I have been using Android since my iphone6 retired, and everything is great.
vinay427 8y ago
This is a textbook example of Whataboutism. No one is saying that TVs, etc. shouldn't be different, but asking for more flexibility of software on Apple's devices is a reasonable follow-up to Tim Cook's stated desire for more data privacy. Your following statement is roughly equivalent to saying the following, which I don't endorse: "If you don't like Google's choice in focusing on their particular solution which involves intimate user-data integration for more intelligent assistance, the answer is to buy from a competitor." You can buy from a competitor to avoid data privacy issues as well. However, to some people that doesn't justify offering and marketing an option that compromises that value.
- sjwright 8y ago
  > "If you don't like Google's choice in focusing on their particular solution which involves intimate user-data integration for more intelligent assistance, the answer is to buy from a competitor." No, that's exactly right. Competitors exist. Using them makes them stronger.
DavideNL 8y ago
"If Apple changed to suit your needs, that would come at the expense of my needs." Not really, if apple locks down iOS devices by default, and would create the ability to opt-out for developers/people who want to be able to create/install their own code, nothing changes for you/most people. Much like how SIP works on macOS, enabled by default, ability to disable if needed.
- intopieces 8y ago
  This is an interesting idea. Say, on first boot of your new iPhone, you get a screen that says, "Which experience do you want?" with options, "Apple's curated" or "Choose your own adventure" with the proper caveats for the latter: "Choosing this option will allow you to install 3rd party software not reviewed by Apple. Such software could contain features which could harm your device. Some award-winning features designed by Apple will be unavailable in this mode. You may revert to the "Apple Curated Experience" at any time by navigating to Settings -> General -> My Experience." In other words, keep the walled garden, but give your users a key to the gate. The question is, will we then see users demand Apple make their software available outside the gate? I would want Apple to make no commitments to developing there. No Music.app, no iCloud, no iMessages, no Safari. You get a 3rd party store with 3rd party apps on Apple's hardware.

zapita 8y ago

I agree, but that problem can wait. Rooting out corporate mass surveillance before it strangles democratic society... that can’t wait.

chj 8y ago
I disagree. Limit what we can do on computing devices we own is the worst offence to a democratic mind. Data privacy is of course important, but we don't need Apple to fix that, we can fix it on our own once the first problem is addressed.
- sjwright 8y ago
  That is horrifically naive, as it would only solve the problem for the few. It would create a two tier society where the highly technically literate get privacy and everyone else are limited to whatever the big companies ship by default. Apple's products already respect my privacy; they don't need to be "fixed." Further, it is absurd to contend that there will be a net gain in privacy by letting the unwashed masses choose random shit they found on the internet to control the core of their devices. After all, installing random shit from the internet has totally never been a problem for privacy, ever.
  - chj 8y ago
    To show the kind of real respect for privacy, we need to access every piece of code that we are running. If you don't have time or technical ability to do that, there are enough eyeballs out there. Can apple do that? Or are you going to simply trust?
    - sjwright 8y ago
      If you want to run entirely open source software on entirely open source hardware with every software component compiled by a personally verified compiler and with every hardware component manufactured under your personal scrutiny then you might have a point. Otherwise you are ultimately forced to trust someone—probably many someones—and I'd rather place that trust in as few entities as possible. For myself I've chosen an entity that I believe has an economic incentive to respect my privacy and has proven with their actions that they deserve my trust.