5 ms·

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 i

by 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?
        _qulr 6y ago
        > Apple made their product. As so, why shouldn't they have the right to make their own terms? The issue is not legal rights. I have the legal right to be a complete jerk to other people. As a businessperson, I have the legal right to be a complete jerk to my customers. Normally, in a competitive market, I wouldn't be able to get away with that. But if the market is not very competitive, I can. Apple has choices, legally. My problem is that they keep making the wrong choices. Apple didn't always make the right choices under Steve Jobs, but they generally made much better choices than under Tim Cook, at least as far as the Mac is concerned.
        colejohnson66 6y ago
        > Apple has choices, legally. My problem is that they keep making the wrong choices. Wrong according to you. I’m not going to argue either position here, but let’s be clear: what you see as wrong, others see as right.
- nine_k 6y ago
  You own the hardware, but not the software. Re-read your EULAs. The hardware is fine, you can (still) go and install Linux or maybe the open-source Darwin on it. Then you'll have the complete control, and also the complete responsibility. The idea of iOS, and increasingly macOS, is that it's like a hosted service controlled by Apple, but on your local device. This allows for various valuable security and usability guarantees, and for an ecosystem for which commercial vendors are willing to develop software. It works exactly because much of the agency is removed from the user, and given to Apple, which has both different expertise and incentives. I like my distro's package manager more than App Store, it gives me more freedom and a different set of choices. Most people, who are not versed well in computer internals, won't be happy to trade App Store to a package manager, and limit themselves with free software. Freedom has a cost, and for many people the cost of a particular piece of freedom is too high.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    spiffytech: "The bigger issue is that vendors get to set whatever rules they want" nine_k: "Re-read your EULAs." Missing the original point.
    - nine_k 6y ago
      This is free market for you. They offer something, you accept the offer if you want. Re-read the EULAs, for you have agreed with their provisions. Would you prefer the government to set rules about what kind of access you have to have to your computer (and maybe force the evil corps give you more freedom)? That won't even be funny. Corporations at the very least are interested in keeping you as a customer. Any government, given a chance, would mandate spyware and backdoors, for your safety, but mostly for their safety. Examples abound; look at China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc. Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        > This is free market for you. 2 vendors, Microsoft and Apple, have almost 100% of desktop OS market share, so no, that's not a particularly free market. > Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it. This is completely false, because Apple has radically changed how they've operated the Mac in the past 20 years. That's my complaint. Apple keeps getting worse and worse, year after year. I was quite satisfied with the Mac years ago. In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased.
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

by Rury 6y ago

_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?
        _qulr 6y ago
        > Apple made their product. As so, why shouldn't they have the right to make their own terms? The issue is not legal rights. I have the legal right to be a complete jerk to other people. As a businessperson, I have the legal right to be a complete jerk to my customers. Normally, in a competitive market, I wouldn't be able to get away with that. But if the market is not very competitive, I can. Apple has choices, legally. My problem is that they keep making the wrong choices. Apple didn't always make the right choices under Steve Jobs, but they generally made much better choices than under Tim Cook, at least as far as the Mac is concerned.
        colejohnson66 6y ago
        > Apple has choices, legally. My problem is that they keep making the wrong choices. Wrong according to you. I’m not going to argue either position here, but let’s be clear: what you see as wrong, others see as right.
nine_k 6y ago
You own the hardware, but not the software. Re-read your EULAs. The hardware is fine, you can (still) go and install Linux or maybe the open-source Darwin on it. Then you'll have the complete control, and also the complete responsibility. The idea of iOS, and increasingly macOS, is that it's like a hosted service controlled by Apple, but on your local device. This allows for various valuable security and usability guarantees, and for an ecosystem for which commercial vendors are willing to develop software. It works exactly because much of the agency is removed from the user, and given to Apple, which has both different expertise and incentives. I like my distro's package manager more than App Store, it gives me more freedom and a different set of choices. Most people, who are not versed well in computer internals, won't be happy to trade App Store to a package manager, and limit themselves with free software. Freedom has a cost, and for many people the cost of a particular piece of freedom is too high.
- _qulr 6y ago
  spiffytech: "The bigger issue is that vendors get to set whatever rules they want" nine_k: "Re-read your EULAs." Missing the original point.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    This is free market for you. They offer something, you accept the offer if you want. Re-read the EULAs, for you have agreed with their provisions. Would you prefer the government to set rules about what kind of access you have to have to your computer (and maybe force the evil corps give you more freedom)? That won't even be funny. Corporations at the very least are interested in keeping you as a customer. Any government, given a chance, would mandate spyware and backdoors, for your safety, but mostly for their safety. Examples abound; look at China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc. Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > This is free market for you. 2 vendors, Microsoft and Apple, have almost 100% of desktop OS market share, so no, that's not a particularly free market. > Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it. This is completely false, because Apple has radically changed how they've operated the Mac in the past 20 years. That's my complaint. Apple keeps getting worse and worse, year after year. I was quite satisfied with the Mac years ago. In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased.

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