6 ms·

Sorry, but the only rational consumer response to a device that actively works against you is not to purchase it, not hack it. Once millions of people pay to be

by yholio 6y ago

Sorry, but the only rational consumer response to a device that actively works against you is not to purchase it, not hack it. Once millions of people pay to be imprisoned on their own devices, the long game is lost no matter how good the hackers are, the firm has the upper hand and the resources to prevail in the long run. And I am perfectly happy to assert this as a political preference, and vote in office people that vow to protect consumers from this kind of racketeering. I understand this might not be your cup of tea, and that some people prefer unfettered capitalism, its your political right. However I fell that allowing this in our society limits my freedom and choices, because the things you buy affect me too.

fastball 6y ago
Many people buy iPhones / Macs because of the (intended) security provided by things like the T2 chip.
- yholio 6y ago
  Such people would have no issue if they were to be provided with a 20 character secret code that allows rooting and fine grained security control. They would simply not enter it and rely on Apple's decisions for them. This pretty much kills the whole "intended" security line, the intent is user control.
  - fastball 6y ago
    That's definitely a fair point! Though I think this could probably open you up to some MITM style attacks where someone intercepts a Macbook in transit and steals the root key that comes with it or something. Maybe not though, I guess it really depends on how you accomplish this. But on the surface it does seem like that could work.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >This pretty much kills the whole "intended" security line Only if the "20 character secret code" had the same security characteristics, which it doesn't.
    - yholio 6y ago
      It has the same security as the scenario of buying vs non buying a product for its alleged security: you either use it or you don't. If you do, you are greeted with copious warnings and voiding of warranty, so it would definitely be a conscious act.
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    Or perhaps Apple doesn’t want to have to build and support a complicated alternate signing mechanism that virtually none of their users want? I don’t see how a company should have an obligation to offer you exactly the product you want, particularly when there are tons of viable alternatives (which I’m guessing you’re using right now to type these messages).
    - yholio 6y ago
      Oh come on. It is a similar issue with network locked terminals - networks fought tooth and nail to keep the unlock codes away from the people who finished their contracts. In the end, it costs them nothing to provide the codes, but real money to lose customers. The "none of the users want it" is circular reasoning. If unlock was possible on a mass scale, developers would build for the unfettered iDevices and a market would emerge separate from the one Apple controls. Then users would want it, since it provides value for them - cheaper apps, legal apps that are banned in the Store etc. Of course Apple will fight to the death to prevent such a thing.
      - johncolanduoni 6y ago
        The difference was when that was common, virtually all the carriers in certain countries did it because as you said it netted them more money and for a while they mostly refused the compete on it. There are plenty of competitors selling rootable phones and laptops, there’s even ones completely without stuff like Intel’s Management Engine. These are more niche, because the desire for them is more niche, but they’re by no means extinct or on the way out. The users have the option to opt for different products with the properties you want. There is less money overall put into these products, and correspondingly less software, but that’s not because of anti-competitive practices. It’s because the reality is less people care about this stuff. I don’t think “people are obligated to put effort into the products I want” is a particularly noble political position, since you seem to be insistent on framing it that way. The position you’re talking about in the carrier case is different, it’s “people are obligated not to conspire together to do things that none of their users want and give them no options to vote with their feet”.
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    You're completely ignoring the fact that a large part of the user base of these products explicitly buys these products because they don't have these options. Windows attempted to add UAC control to the OS so that people wouldn't install random files from websites without being notified of the changes being made and browsers tried to add systems where users had to go into the options and turn off protections in Windows Defender to be able to install. What was the end result? These websites just started offering tutorials that showed users how to turn off those protections and bypass them completely. If you give people a way to bypass security, they'll do it in order to get to what they think they want. The problem is that most people don't understand the unintended consequences of those actions. That's the entire reason why people trust Apple to make those decisions on their behalf.
    - yholio 6y ago
      Ah, the ole "idiot user" rhetoric, imprisoned for their own sake. Say I call the Apple support center, ask for the code, and they warn me in no uncertain terms that I'm voiding my warranty and would not be eligibile for continued support. How can this prevent any mentally sane person from trusting Apple made the correct decisions and not root their device?
      - dkonofalski 6y ago
        No, not "idiot user". No one is imprisoned. In the same way that people choose to be part of organizations and groups with rules and limits to what can be done, people choose to use devices that are slightly limited in exchange for reliability and security. I don't want Apple waste time and resources to need to support the people that call the call center to ask for this supposed code and most people using their devices don't either. If they did, wouldn't the market make that movement?
        yholio 6y ago
        No, it wouldn't, see the terminal unlock code for contract phones discussed below. If your opinion is that the free market is all correcting and magical and that laws and regulations should never intervene in private consumer choices, I have a failed state I can introduce you to, not to mention a salmonela infested burrito.
coldtea 6y ago
>Sorry, but the only rational consumer response to a device that actively works against you is not to purchase it, not hack it. "Actively works against you" is your reading. I very much appreciate what the T2 does, and hope the next update will be even more difficult to hack (aside from its other functionality).
- appleshillnews 6y ago
  then perhaps you would be better suited on a forum focused on your interests... I'm thinking "Apple Shill News" instead.
johncolanduoni 6y ago
How does me (or anyone else) buying a MacBook affect your freedom and choices? Was there some extinction of e.g. Linux-capable devices I didn’t hear about? And if I actually want the security features, who are you to say that’s not an option for me?
- amelius 6y ago
  The more people use X, the more developers will focus on X and not on Y. From there, even fewer people will use Y and the downward cycle continues.
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    Okay, so why do your preferences for the device take priority over the majority of users who don’t care about what the T2 does and the ones who do and actually want it? Why should it be illegal for a company to make a product for us instead of you?
    - yholio 6y ago
      Clearly the majority has won thus far and Apple is not restrained in any way. But I have the right to a differing political opinion, and when the majority shifts, your freedoms are not encroached, just like when the majority of people decide smoking should not be allowed in airplanes.
      - johncolanduoni 6y ago
        That’s a bizarre analogy to me, and you’re implying a symmetry to the situation that doesn’t exist. I want to be able to buy a product that has the properties that I want, and I want you to be able to buy a product with properties that you want (in part because I also want and own products with the properties you want). You want the only option to be products made with the properties you want, so that other businesses are forced to make more software for the products you want. Which of these is restricting freedom more? I think you’re going to have to try harder to convince anyone that this situation is analogous to second hand smoke. You probably want to come up with better arguments for your “political” movement.
amelius 6y ago
The main problem is that: - on the one hand (I believe) developers would prefer owning more open devices (like Librem/Purism, Pine64 etc.) - on the other hand they want to develop for the masses, which means they will need access to Apple hardware.
cwhiz 6y ago
Some of the people here can’t understand that some people have different opinions. I don’t care that I can’t easily change the SSD. If that were important to me, I would buy a different laptop. I don’t consider my MacBook Pro to be working against me, at all.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  You don't care that you can't change out the SSD, but you will care when you take your dead laptop to the Genius Bar and they tell you it's going to be cheaper to buy a new one and that your data is already gone.
  - pvg 6y ago
    One reason Apple laptops are popular is that people, on average, like both the laptops and the service they get from Apple.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I don’t see how this changes the calculus. Presumably the parent knew this when they bought the laptop. People buy cars that are stupidly expensive to repair all the time. Just because the cost of ownership of a Honda Civic is lower than a Mercedes doesn’t mean everyone’s gonna go with the Honda. If it works like iOS and just flashes a warning then I don’t see the issue. The self-check thing is invaluable when buying used devices.
    - wltprgm 6y ago
      I could be wrong, but most mac users excluding developers don't know anything when they bought the laptop. > that your data is already gone. By the way, the parent comment was talking about this
  - dlivingston 6y ago
    All I care about is having a high-quality *nix machine. Right now, a MacBook Pro with macOS fits that bill well: the calculus may very well change, on both the hardware and OS side, when x86 is replaced with ARM64, though.

by yholio 6y ago

fastball 6y ago

Many people buy iPhones / Macs because of the (intended) security provided by things like the T2 chip.

yholio 6y ago
Such people would have no issue if they were to be provided with a 20 character secret code that allows rooting and fine grained security control. They would simply not enter it and rely on Apple's decisions for them. This pretty much kills the whole "intended" security line, the intent is user control.
- fastball 6y ago
  That's definitely a fair point! Though I think this could probably open you up to some MITM style attacks where someone intercepts a Macbook in transit and steals the root key that comes with it or something. Maybe not though, I guess it really depends on how you accomplish this. But on the surface it does seem like that could work.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >This pretty much kills the whole "intended" security line Only if the "20 character secret code" had the same security characteristics, which it doesn't.
  - yholio 6y ago
    It has the same security as the scenario of buying vs non buying a product for its alleged security: you either use it or you don't. If you do, you are greeted with copious warnings and voiding of warranty, so it would definitely be a conscious act.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  Or perhaps Apple doesn’t want to have to build and support a complicated alternate signing mechanism that virtually none of their users want? I don’t see how a company should have an obligation to offer you exactly the product you want, particularly when there are tons of viable alternatives (which I’m guessing you’re using right now to type these messages).
  - yholio 6y ago
    Oh come on. It is a similar issue with network locked terminals - networks fought tooth and nail to keep the unlock codes away from the people who finished their contracts. In the end, it costs them nothing to provide the codes, but real money to lose customers. The "none of the users want it" is circular reasoning. If unlock was possible on a mass scale, developers would build for the unfettered iDevices and a market would emerge separate from the one Apple controls. Then users would want it, since it provides value for them - cheaper apps, legal apps that are banned in the Store etc. Of course Apple will fight to the death to prevent such a thing.
    - johncolanduoni 6y ago
      The difference was when that was common, virtually all the carriers in certain countries did it because as you said it netted them more money and for a while they mostly refused the compete on it. There are plenty of competitors selling rootable phones and laptops, there’s even ones completely without stuff like Intel’s Management Engine. These are more niche, because the desire for them is more niche, but they’re by no means extinct or on the way out. The users have the option to opt for different products with the properties you want. There is less money overall put into these products, and correspondingly less software, but that’s not because of anti-competitive practices. It’s because the reality is less people care about this stuff. I don’t think “people are obligated to put effort into the products I want” is a particularly noble political position, since you seem to be insistent on framing it that way. The position you’re talking about in the carrier case is different, it’s “people are obligated not to conspire together to do things that none of their users want and give them no options to vote with their feet”.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  You're completely ignoring the fact that a large part of the user base of these products explicitly buys these products because they don't have these options. Windows attempted to add UAC control to the OS so that people wouldn't install random files from websites without being notified of the changes being made and browsers tried to add systems where users had to go into the options and turn off protections in Windows Defender to be able to install. What was the end result? These websites just started offering tutorials that showed users how to turn off those protections and bypass them completely. If you give people a way to bypass security, they'll do it in order to get to what they think they want. The problem is that most people don't understand the unintended consequences of those actions. That's the entire reason why people trust Apple to make those decisions on their behalf.
  - yholio 6y ago
    Ah, the ole "idiot user" rhetoric, imprisoned for their own sake. Say I call the Apple support center, ask for the code, and they warn me in no uncertain terms that I'm voiding my warranty and would not be eligibile for continued support. How can this prevent any mentally sane person from trusting Apple made the correct decisions and not root their device?
    - dkonofalski 6y ago
      No, not "idiot user". No one is imprisoned. In the same way that people choose to be part of organizations and groups with rules and limits to what can be done, people choose to use devices that are slightly limited in exchange for reliability and security. I don't want Apple waste time and resources to need to support the people that call the call center to ask for this supposed code and most people using their devices don't either. If they did, wouldn't the market make that movement?
      - yholio 6y ago
        No, it wouldn't, see the terminal unlock code for contract phones discussed below. If your opinion is that the free market is all correcting and magical and that laws and regulations should never intervene in private consumer choices, I have a failed state I can introduce you to, not to mention a salmonela infested burrito.

coldtea 6y ago

>Sorry, but the only rational consumer response to a device that actively works against you is not to purchase it, not hack it. "Actively works against you" is your reading. I very much appreciate what the T2 does, and hope the next update will be even more difficult to hack (aside from its other functionality).

appleshillnews 6y ago
then perhaps you would be better suited on a forum focused on your interests... I'm thinking "Apple Shill News" instead.

johncolanduoni 6y ago

How does me (or anyone else) buying a MacBook affect your freedom and choices? Was there some extinction of e.g. Linux-capable devices I didn’t hear about? And if I actually want the security features, who are you to say that’s not an option for me?

amelius 6y ago
The more people use X, the more developers will focus on X and not on Y. From there, even fewer people will use Y and the downward cycle continues.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  Okay, so why do your preferences for the device take priority over the majority of users who don’t care about what the T2 does and the ones who do and actually want it? Why should it be illegal for a company to make a product for us instead of you?
  - yholio 6y ago
    Clearly the majority has won thus far and Apple is not restrained in any way. But I have the right to a differing political opinion, and when the majority shifts, your freedoms are not encroached, just like when the majority of people decide smoking should not be allowed in airplanes.
    - johncolanduoni 6y ago
      That’s a bizarre analogy to me, and you’re implying a symmetry to the situation that doesn’t exist. I want to be able to buy a product that has the properties that I want, and I want you to be able to buy a product with properties that you want (in part because I also want and own products with the properties you want). You want the only option to be products made with the properties you want, so that other businesses are forced to make more software for the products you want. Which of these is restricting freedom more? I think you’re going to have to try harder to convince anyone that this situation is analogous to second hand smoke. You probably want to come up with better arguments for your “political” movement.

amelius 6y ago

The main problem is that: - on the one hand (I believe) developers would prefer owning more open devices (like Librem/Purism, Pine64 etc.) - on the other hand they want to develop for the masses, which means they will need access to Apple hardware.

cwhiz 6y ago

Some of the people here can’t understand that some people have different opinions. I don’t care that I can’t easily change the SSD. If that were important to me, I would buy a different laptop. I don’t consider my MacBook Pro to be working against me, at all.

kmeisthax 6y ago
You don't care that you can't change out the SSD, but you will care when you take your dead laptop to the Genius Bar and they tell you it's going to be cheaper to buy a new one and that your data is already gone.
- pvg 6y ago
  One reason Apple laptops are popular is that people, on average, like both the laptops and the service they get from Apple.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I don’t see how this changes the calculus. Presumably the parent knew this when they bought the laptop. People buy cars that are stupidly expensive to repair all the time. Just because the cost of ownership of a Honda Civic is lower than a Mercedes doesn’t mean everyone’s gonna go with the Honda. If it works like iOS and just flashes a warning then I don’t see the issue. The self-check thing is invaluable when buying used devices.
  - wltprgm 6y ago
    I could be wrong, but most mac users excluding developers don't know anything when they bought the laptop. > that your data is already gone. By the way, the parent comment was talking about this
- dlivingston 6y ago
  All I care about is having a high-quality *nix machine. Right now, a MacBook Pro with macOS fits that bill well: the calculus may very well change, on both the hardware and OS side, when x86 is replaced with ARM64, though.