4 ms·

That's not their quality control you are referring to but the content guidelines (censor). It's a choice they are free to make, and are probably mostly copied o

That's not their quality control you are referring to but the content guidelines (censor). It's a choice they are free to make, and are probably mostly copied off some American idea on what should be public or not. The problem you are running in to is that your ideas don't match their ideas and you want them to match your ideas (which they won't because they don't live in your world, they live in their world, which at this time is mostly the USA world). If in your country the government would enforce some law stating that companies should not block sex in their content pipelines, then Apple, just like they do in every other country, will comply. This is also the reason they censor stuff in China, it's the law over there. So while their ideas and values might not match with you, they do still have to follow the law. If you believe companies with a large impact should not block certain information from flowing, that is something you can enforce by law. A company has to deal with the law, and cannot go and be an anarchist whenever it feels like it (but people can) because then they cease to exist.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
If Apple did not block sideloading on iOS, they wouldn't practically be able to implement this kind of censorship in China and elsewhere. They would be able to remove it from the App Store, but people would be able to acquire the software via other means. (This topic doesn't really apply to macOS though, just iOS.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- fauigerzigerk 8y ago
  I agree, but now it appears to apply to the Mac as well, at least to some degree. That's what I find so concerning. There has to be some general purpose computing device that allows me to take full responsibility in terms of security and in terms of complying with the law. Other platforms often tend to imitate Apple. So if this is the general direction of travel then I find that very worrying
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    Someone downthread says the macOS signing requirements still go away fully when Gatekeeper is disabled, which is a simple terminal command. As long as that's the case, I don't think there's a real problem here. It's hard to quantify "moving in a direction", but Gatekeeper was introduced nearly a decade ago and has always been possible to disable via a quick Terminal command. Apple did remove it from the UI in Sierra, so perhaps you could say that's a sign of things to come, but I honestly doubt it.
fauigerzigerk 8y ago
>you want them to match your ideas No. I don't want them to match my ideas. I want them to respect the fact that people have different ideas and values. To allow that diversity of ideas to exist, it is necessary to keep the separation of concerns and legal responsibilities as it has been since the invention of the Mac (and the PC). They make the hardware and the OS. I decide what software to install and what content to store. This has always been my legal responsibilty and it is on that basis that I decided to purchase my Mac. If they change that equation, I'm out. I'm out as user. I'm out as developer. I'm out as decision maker and as a go-to person for others who make purchasing decisions.
- oneplane 8y ago
  Well, "your ideas" contains your idea of them respecting the fact that people have different ideas and values and that they should be allowed to use their platform in ways they see fit that might differ form the stakeholders that currently decide what is and isn't allowed. The notion that they supply hardware and software and you then decide how they are going to work for you is no longer valid for the Apple products as they are. By default, macOS is being more like iOS now, which diverges from the generic idea of the personal computer. This problem is of course far wider than just computers and Apple, more devices, services and companies are headed this way in varying degrees. I suppose that means you are out as a user, developer and decision maker etc. Apple probably won't care unless you take 10 million customers with you at the same time. Anything less than 1 million is probably not even going to register on their metrics, and anything less than 10 million is only marginal. This is both the problem (our problem as users) and the benefit (their benefit as a company at scale) of this broad customer base many companies now have. It's not really a globalisation thing, but more a combined globalisation+commercialism+scale thing that makes this kind of thing common. It's not that they want to make things less attractive to certain users on purpose either, that would be counter to their purpose of making money; it's probably far more likely that it's a case of Hanlon's razor. Take the way PKI is used to enforce some rules on hardware (i.e. iBoot and the A-series SoCs from Apple but also Intel's BootGuard on a much larger scale); it's not that they want to block people that want to fiddle with their hardware and software, it's just that this is the best they could come up with to defend against generic attacks. And it's far from ideal.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

If Apple did not block sideloading on iOS, they wouldn't practically be able to implement this kind of censorship in China and elsewhere. They would be able to remove it from the App Store, but people would be able to acquire the software via other means. (This topic doesn't really apply to macOS though, just iOS.)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fauigerzigerk 8y ago
I agree, but now it appears to apply to the Mac as well, at least to some degree. That's what I find so concerning. There has to be some general purpose computing device that allows me to take full responsibility in terms of security and in terms of complying with the law. Other platforms often tend to imitate Apple. So if this is the general direction of travel then I find that very worrying
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Someone downthread says the macOS signing requirements still go away fully when Gatekeeper is disabled, which is a simple terminal command. As long as that's the case, I don't think there's a real problem here. It's hard to quantify "moving in a direction", but Gatekeeper was introduced nearly a decade ago and has always been possible to disable via a quick Terminal command. Apple did remove it from the UI in Sierra, so perhaps you could say that's a sign of things to come, but I honestly doubt it.

fauigerzigerk 8y ago

>you want them to match your ideas No. I don't want them to match my ideas. I want them to respect the fact that people have different ideas and values. To allow that diversity of ideas to exist, it is necessary to keep the separation of concerns and legal responsibilities as it has been since the invention of the Mac (and the PC). They make the hardware and the OS. I decide what software to install and what content to store. This has always been my legal responsibilty and it is on that basis that I decided to purchase my Mac. If they change that equation, I'm out. I'm out as user. I'm out as developer. I'm out as decision maker and as a go-to person for others who make purchasing decisions.

oneplane 8y ago
Well, "your ideas" contains your idea of them respecting the fact that people have different ideas and values and that they should be allowed to use their platform in ways they see fit that might differ form the stakeholders that currently decide what is and isn't allowed. The notion that they supply hardware and software and you then decide how they are going to work for you is no longer valid for the Apple products as they are. By default, macOS is being more like iOS now, which diverges from the generic idea of the personal computer. This problem is of course far wider than just computers and Apple, more devices, services and companies are headed this way in varying degrees. I suppose that means you are out as a user, developer and decision maker etc. Apple probably won't care unless you take 10 million customers with you at the same time. Anything less than 1 million is probably not even going to register on their metrics, and anything less than 10 million is only marginal. This is both the problem (our problem as users) and the benefit (their benefit as a company at scale) of this broad customer base many companies now have. It's not really a globalisation thing, but more a combined globalisation+commercialism+scale thing that makes this kind of thing common. It's not that they want to make things less attractive to certain users on purpose either, that would be counter to their purpose of making money; it's probably far more likely that it's a case of Hanlon's razor. Take the way PKI is used to enforce some rules on hardware (i.e. iBoot and the A-series SoCs from Apple but also Intel's BootGuard on a much larger scale); it's not that they want to block people that want to fiddle with their hardware and software, it's just that this is the best they could come up with to defend against generic attacks. And it's far from ideal.