3 ms·

I agree with you in principle, but disagree in practice. For every person who knows what they're doing and can trust themselves, there are 1000 who will instal

I agree with you in principle, but disagree in practice. For every person who knows what they're doing and can trust themselves, there are 1000 who will install malware and other crap and end up at an Apple store getting it fixed, and they'll blame Apple instead of themselves.

jjeaff 6y ago
You talk like this is some unique problem. This has been solved for a long time. Warranties have terms of service. If your car is under warranty and the engine fails due to a defect, warranty covers it. If your engine fails because you drove it into a river, then the warranty don't cover it and you'll pay out of pocket for repairs.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  So you're effectively saying that Apple must allow a user to install malware (likely unintentionally), but then Apple is also responsible for paying to fix it? I feel like I have to be misunderstanding you because that makes no sense.
  - minedwiz 6y ago
    What it seems like they're saying is that Apple should operate like a car manufacturer, wherein if you put some aftermarket shite in your engine, you can't get a warranty service, and likewise if you don't do your due diligence with what you put on your PC, Apple should be able to deny service.
    - thirdsun 6y ago
      While perfectly fair, it would still lead to unhappy customers, which aren't exactly known to be receptive to reason. While I may not always agree with Apple's approach I can understand their reasoning and don't believe that it simply comes down to earning a few extra bucks with the 30% cut in question and all the seemingly drastic measures that come with it.
  - rhn_mk1 6y ago
    Apple is put in the position of a judge right now. They decide what malware is, and the user has no say. The problem is, the user should be allowed to choose not to delegate the task of setting definitions. Most users do not want this, but some do. Some users will consider a RAT a way to fix things, while others will consider some game to be a malicious drug. Both should be allowed to make their own decisions if they really want to.
- jlarocco 6y ago
  That's not a good analogy, though. What's the car equivalent of a ransomware app that pretends to be a video game? And, now that I think about it, I don't even know what the equivalent of "driving into a river" would be, and that's as a software engineer who's been working with computers for 25 years.
  - rhn_mk1 6y ago
    A car with cut brake lines? A remotely controlled car?

jjeaff 6y ago

You talk like this is some unique problem. This has been solved for a long time. Warranties have terms of service. If your car is under warranty and the engine fails due to a defect, warranty covers it. If your engine fails because you drove it into a river, then the warranty don't cover it and you'll pay out of pocket for repairs.

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
So you're effectively saying that Apple must allow a user to install malware (likely unintentionally), but then Apple is also responsible for paying to fix it? I feel like I have to be misunderstanding you because that makes no sense.
- minedwiz 6y ago
  What it seems like they're saying is that Apple should operate like a car manufacturer, wherein if you put some aftermarket shite in your engine, you can't get a warranty service, and likewise if you don't do your due diligence with what you put on your PC, Apple should be able to deny service.
  - thirdsun 6y ago
    While perfectly fair, it would still lead to unhappy customers, which aren't exactly known to be receptive to reason. While I may not always agree with Apple's approach I can understand their reasoning and don't believe that it simply comes down to earning a few extra bucks with the 30% cut in question and all the seemingly drastic measures that come with it.
- rhn_mk1 6y ago
  Apple is put in the position of a judge right now. They decide what malware is, and the user has no say. The problem is, the user should be allowed to choose not to delegate the task of setting definitions. Most users do not want this, but some do. Some users will consider a RAT a way to fix things, while others will consider some game to be a malicious drug. Both should be allowed to make their own decisions if they really want to.
jlarocco 6y ago
That's not a good analogy, though. What's the car equivalent of a ransomware app that pretends to be a video game? And, now that I think about it, I don't even know what the equivalent of "driving into a river" would be, and that's as a software engineer who's been working with computers for 25 years.
- rhn_mk1 6y ago
  A car with cut brake lines? A remotely controlled car?