6 ms·

I wish the article had actually elaborated on the question posed in the title, rather than assuming the implications are obvious. I think it’s a vital question,

I wish the article had actually elaborated on the question posed in the title, rather than assuming the implications are obvious. I think it’s a vital question, but I have a hard time figuring out why I’m so uncomfortable with Apple’s decision here. I think the thing that this article could and should have made clear now that I think about it is that you are being forced to choose between a computer secured against Apple or one where you are secured against others. You are not allowed to secure it against others and Apple.

spiffytech 6y ago
I think the crux of the issue is OS vendors are withholding agency that users and developers are used to having over computers, and getting away with it by a combination of being duopolies and PR spinning restrictions as good for the user, even when that's clearly not the primary justification. Everyone is debating whether any given restriction is good or bad, warranted or not. The bigger issue is that vendors get to set whatever rules they want, because if users or developers don't like it, where are they gonna go?
- Rury 6y ago
  Sometimes they withhold agency for good purpose though. Actually, a good anecdote from today. We have an internal app within our company that a user had gone in and messed with a file it relies on. Consequently, the app stopped working correctly and multiple other people started complaining that the app wasn't working. To prevent the issue from happening again - we've "Secured" the file away so users can't mess with it like they did ever again... As so - vendors sometimes withhold agency to control how the product works - so it works as designed for their customers.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > Actually, a good anecdote from today. We have an internal app within our company That's not a good anecdote. The user is an employee of the company and not the owner of the app. I paid thousands of dollars for my Mac. I legally own it. I expect to be able to use it as I please.
    - Rury 6y ago
      >I expect to be able to use it as I please. This is your problem. Apple doesn't sell the product: "computer devices at which you can do whatever you want with". They sell "computer device which does lots of things easily. To ensure these things work properly, the nitty bits are secured away from you"
      - _qulr 6y ago
        > This is your problem. No, my problem is that Apple keeps changing the terms. The Mac that I purchased is no longer the Mac that I have. Apple now only provides 3 years of security updates for the OS that came with your Mac. You can't even buy an extended service contract! So then you're forced to "upgrade" the OS or else live with a bunch of known vulnerabilities. But every new version of the OS locks down the Mac even more. That's not what I paid for. Moreover, it was Apple's decision to start shipping major new OS versions on a yearly schedule. That's not how it was in the past. Mac OS X Jaguar lasted 14 months, Panther 18, Tiger 30, Leopard 22, Snow Leopard 23 months. But then Steve Jobs stepped down for health reasons, passed away, and Tim Cook "altered the deal".
        Rury 6y ago
        >No, my problem is that Apple keeps changing the terms. The Mac that I purchased is no longer the Mac that I have. Uh, did you read their terms and conditions? They held that right when you bought it...
        _qulr 6y ago
        See above for my response to the exact same point by another commenter. See also: https://youtu.be/2gBvYJ21SoQ https://youtu.be/2gBvYJ21SoQ
        Rury 6y ago
        If you don't like their terms or products - then don't agree to their terms and don't buy their products. If you want things your way - don't outsource - make it yourself. Apple made their product. As so, why shouldn't they have the right to make their own terms?
  - spiffytech 6y ago
    I think an employer wanting to make decisions about how employees can interact with internal software isn't a good stand-in for OS vendors dictating terms to third parties. But even given that example, we can learn from how Windows protects it's critical system files. They're hidden unless the user goes out of their way looking for them. But if you think you know what you're doing, MS lets you take control, for good or ill. Even assuming OS vendors are truly benelolent, I'm not sure that makes it okay for them to make themselves the sole arbiters of how we use our computers.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    This is something RMS[1] and others[2] have warned about for nearly two decades now. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html [2] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
- eikenberry 6y ago
  > [..] where are they gonna go? Ummm... free software? This is pretty much the crux of the ethical argument for free software. That you should have the freedom to control your own system. You're lamenting this issue while ignoring your biggest ally. Why?
arexxbifs 6y ago
> I wish the article had actually elaborated on the question posed in the title The answer is, as it has been for the last decade or so, "not yours even though you paid for it." > assuming the implications are obvious They are to me. Computers are great because we can control everything about them. Now we're not allowed to do so anymore, because the manufacturers said so. And, since a computer today is likely connected to the internet, control is more important than ever. Because if you're not in control, then who is? > I have a hard time figuring out why I’m so uncomfortable with Apple’s decision here. Maybe because they, like most other tech companies, go on and on about security and privacy while time and time again showing they do not actually give one single fuck whatsoever about it? > choose between a computer secured against Apple or one where you are secured against others Not quite sure I follow you. I'm pretty sure any Linux or *BSD box can be as firewalled as you like to as many parties as you like.
webmobdev 6y ago
> but I have a hard time figuring out why I’m so uncomfortable with Apple’s decision here. You are facing what marketers fear the most - a "cognitive dissonance". Basically, when words don't match deeds, you start questioning and start thinking instead of blindly believing someone. When customers start to do that, it creates a lot of headaches for brand managers and marketers because it implies that you are starting to lose trust in them, and that obviously doesn't bode well for a company's profit margins. With respect to Apple here, I have been quite vocal on HN for a long time that Apple has been repeatedly LYING to us that they care about our privacy. They absolutely do not. They are using the exact same tactic that Google used in the beginning - pretend to be trustworthy and than slowly change the terms and policy to mine our data for profit. In fact, Apple has been increasingly becoming more and more intrusive in mining our personal data. And their marketing narration has been to try to paint this as a good thing - that they are protecting our privacy by being the sole custodian of it, but you have to "trust" them to do the right thing.

spiffytech 6y ago

I think the crux of the issue is OS vendors are withholding agency that users and developers are used to having over computers, and getting away with it by a combination of being duopolies and PR spinning restrictions as good for the user, even when that's clearly not the primary justification. Everyone is debating whether any given restriction is good or bad, warranted or not. The bigger issue is that vendors get to set whatever rules they want, because if users or developers don't like it, where are they gonna go?

Rury 6y ago
Sometimes they withhold agency for good purpose though. Actually, a good anecdote from today. We have an internal app within our company that a user had gone in and messed with a file it relies on. Consequently, the app stopped working correctly and multiple other people started complaining that the app wasn't working. To prevent the issue from happening again - we've "Secured" the file away so users can't mess with it like they did ever again... As so - vendors sometimes withhold agency to control how the product works - so it works as designed for their customers.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Actually, a good anecdote from today. We have an internal app within our company That's not a good anecdote. The user is an employee of the company and not the owner of the app. I paid thousands of dollars for my Mac. I legally own it. I expect to be able to use it as I please.
  - Rury 6y ago
    >I expect to be able to use it as I please. This is your problem. Apple doesn't sell the product: "computer devices at which you can do whatever you want with". They sell "computer device which does lots of things easily. To ensure these things work properly, the nitty bits are secured away from you"
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > This is your problem. No, my problem is that Apple keeps changing the terms. The Mac that I purchased is no longer the Mac that I have. Apple now only provides 3 years of security updates for the OS that came with your Mac. You can't even buy an extended service contract! So then you're forced to "upgrade" the OS or else live with a bunch of known vulnerabilities. But every new version of the OS locks down the Mac even more. That's not what I paid for. Moreover, it was Apple's decision to start shipping major new OS versions on a yearly schedule. That's not how it was in the past. Mac OS X Jaguar lasted 14 months, Panther 18, Tiger 30, Leopard 22, Snow Leopard 23 months. But then Steve Jobs stepped down for health reasons, passed away, and Tim Cook "altered the deal".
      - Rury 6y ago
        >No, my problem is that Apple keeps changing the terms. The Mac that I purchased is no longer the Mac that I have. Uh, did you read their terms and conditions? They held that right when you bought it...
        _qulr 6y ago
        See above for my response to the exact same point by another commenter. See also: https://youtu.be/2gBvYJ21SoQ https://youtu.be/2gBvYJ21SoQ
        Rury 6y ago
        If you don't like their terms or products - then don't agree to their terms and don't buy their products. If you want things your way - don't outsource - make it yourself. Apple made their product. As so, why shouldn't they have the right to make their own terms?
- spiffytech 6y ago
  I think an employer wanting to make decisions about how employees can interact with internal software isn't a good stand-in for OS vendors dictating terms to third parties. But even given that example, we can learn from how Windows protects it's critical system files. They're hidden unless the user goes out of their way looking for them. But if you think you know what you're doing, MS lets you take control, for good or ill. Even assuming OS vendors are truly benelolent, I'm not sure that makes it okay for them to make themselves the sole arbiters of how we use our computers.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  This is something RMS[1] and others[2] have warned about for nearly two decades now. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html [2] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
eikenberry 6y ago
> [..] where are they gonna go? Ummm... free software? This is pretty much the crux of the ethical argument for free software. That you should have the freedom to control your own system. You're lamenting this issue while ignoring your biggest ally. Why?

arexxbifs 6y ago

> I wish the article had actually elaborated on the question posed in the title The answer is, as it has been for the last decade or so, "not yours even though you paid for it." > assuming the implications are obvious They are to me. Computers are great because we can control everything about them. Now we're not allowed to do so anymore, because the manufacturers said so. And, since a computer today is likely connected to the internet, control is more important than ever. Because if you're not in control, then who is? > I have a hard time figuring out why I’m so uncomfortable with Apple’s decision here. Maybe because they, like most other tech companies, go on and on about security and privacy while time and time again showing they do not actually give one single fuck whatsoever about it? > choose between a computer secured against Apple or one where you are secured against others Not quite sure I follow you. I'm pretty sure any Linux or *BSD box can be as firewalled as you like to as many parties as you like.

webmobdev 6y ago

> but I have a hard time figuring out why I’m so uncomfortable with Apple’s decision here. You are facing what marketers fear the most - a "cognitive dissonance". Basically, when words don't match deeds, you start questioning and start thinking instead of blindly believing someone. When customers start to do that, it creates a lot of headaches for brand managers and marketers because it implies that you are starting to lose trust in them, and that obviously doesn't bode well for a company's profit margins. With respect to Apple here, I have been quite vocal on HN for a long time that Apple has been repeatedly LYING to us that they care about our privacy. They absolutely do not. They are using the exact same tactic that Google used in the beginning - pretend to be trustworthy and than slowly change the terms and policy to mine our data for profit. In fact, Apple has been increasingly becoming more and more intrusive in mining our personal data. And their marketing narration has been to try to paint this as a good thing - that they are protecting our privacy by being the sole custodian of it, but you have to "trust" them to do the right thing.