4 ms·

I was really torn on whether to up or downvote here... On the one hand, no. Probably, statistically, apple will know better. On the other hand, despite the ab

I was really torn on whether to up or downvote here... On the one hand, no. Probably, statistically, apple will know better. On the other hand, despite the above, if you want to call apple devices "owned" (vs "leased") then yes, the user must be the ultimate decision maker. They might want to delegate these things to apple (or someone else for that matter) most of the time. But they must have the possibility to simply run what they want. I think we're seeing the "HN crowd" be so frustrated about this because it is a pretty transparently anti freedom thing to do, and HN folks do love themselves some freedom.

Someone 6y ago
So, if they started leasing their hardware to users, it would be fine? I can see the argument, but at the same time, if they really did, I’m not sure I would agree. I also am not sure that’s completely theoretical. Apple (almost?) has the money to do so (yearly revenues about $260 billion, cash reserves about $190 billion), and I think ‘the world’ is getting used to not owning stuff more and more. Many users already pay per month for their phones, anyways.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  Personally I'd be very much more fine with them honestly stating: you get a compute resource, don't expect to control it, pay a monthly fee. Would I sign up for that? Certainly not. But if that sounds unattractive, then they should just accept that when you sell something and the buyer owns it, you don't control over anymore. I keep pushing this distinction in DRM contexts, too. It's kinda my personal soapbox. :)
  - zepto 6y ago
    The issue I have with this, is that anyone who is technical enough to install an operating system from source, must necessarily have an understanding what hardware they will be able to install it on. I’m curious if you have ever done this. No such person would have any illusion about what Mac hardware they could use. Everyone else, reasonably expects Apple to take care of the OS for them. Indeed that is arguably the selling point and key differentiator of the Mac. Nobody is misled. See elsewhere where I respond to the distinction you are making about ownership: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25093873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25093873
gfodor 6y ago
You shouldn't downvote things you disagree with. This place would be a lot more interesting if less people did that.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  Well I said I was torn. I opted to up+comment in the end. :) Also, I think while we're exchanging meaningless and besides-the-point platitudes: "fewer people" ;)
zepto 6y ago
This owned vs leased analogy is not a valid one. The user is the ultimate decision maker - the user gets to decide whether they want MacOS or not. The only people talking about constraining this freedom are the ones asking for the government to regulate software distribution. What you are asking for is for Apple to make a design change to their software to support your use case. That is a very reasonable thing to want, and to reject Apple for not providing, but it has nothing to do with some ideology of what it means to ‘own’ something. My car has software problems I don’t like - the digital speedometer only reads kph, whereas I live in a place where mph is standard. There is no facility for changing the software. Obviously I still own the car.
- arvindamirtaa 6y ago
  > Obviously I still own the car. Do you still own the car if it'll just turn off the engines when attempt to drive into a sketchy neighbourhood? Let's assume the car manufacturer knows the city/town's crime rates well and they have your best intentions in mind. They want you to be safe. Do you still own the car?
  - zepto 6y ago
    If I bought a car knowing that is how it worked, then of course I do. Note: I agree that scenario isn’t desirable. However there is no slippery slope.
    - black_puppydog 6y ago
      For me, the slippery slope is exactly allowing this sort of transaction to be called "buying". And yeah, when people lost access to their zune music, or their steam stuff, they did get upset. Mind you, I would not outlaw the transaction. But calling it a "sale" is false advertising in my book.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I own my Mac. I can do anything I want with it. How is that not ‘buying’?
mantap 6y ago
It's not about freedom it's about the fact that those computers cost thousands of dollars and every year Apple wants more and more control after I already gave them a huge wad of money. I am not upgrading to Big Sur, I didn't upgrade to Catalina either, but not upgrading creates its own complications in the long term.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  I don't think the price was anything to do with it, we would be having the same discussions if it was Microsoft instead of Apple.

Someone 6y ago

So, if they started leasing their hardware to users, it would be fine? I can see the argument, but at the same time, if they really did, I’m not sure I would agree. I also am not sure that’s completely theoretical. Apple (almost?) has the money to do so (yearly revenues about $260 billion, cash reserves about $190 billion), and I think ‘the world’ is getting used to not owning stuff more and more. Many users already pay per month for their phones, anyways.

black_puppydog 6y ago
Personally I'd be very much more fine with them honestly stating: you get a compute resource, don't expect to control it, pay a monthly fee. Would I sign up for that? Certainly not. But if that sounds unattractive, then they should just accept that when you sell something and the buyer owns it, you don't control over anymore. I keep pushing this distinction in DRM contexts, too. It's kinda my personal soapbox. :)
- zepto 6y ago
  The issue I have with this, is that anyone who is technical enough to install an operating system from source, must necessarily have an understanding what hardware they will be able to install it on. I’m curious if you have ever done this. No such person would have any illusion about what Mac hardware they could use. Everyone else, reasonably expects Apple to take care of the OS for them. Indeed that is arguably the selling point and key differentiator of the Mac. Nobody is misled. See elsewhere where I respond to the distinction you are making about ownership: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25093873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25093873

gfodor 6y ago

You shouldn't downvote things you disagree with. This place would be a lot more interesting if less people did that.

black_puppydog 6y ago
Well I said I was torn. I opted to up+comment in the end. :) Also, I think while we're exchanging meaningless and besides-the-point platitudes: "fewer people" ;)

zepto 6y ago

This owned vs leased analogy is not a valid one. The user is the ultimate decision maker - the user gets to decide whether they want MacOS or not. The only people talking about constraining this freedom are the ones asking for the government to regulate software distribution. What you are asking for is for Apple to make a design change to their software to support your use case. That is a very reasonable thing to want, and to reject Apple for not providing, but it has nothing to do with some ideology of what it means to ‘own’ something. My car has software problems I don’t like - the digital speedometer only reads kph, whereas I live in a place where mph is standard. There is no facility for changing the software. Obviously I still own the car.

arvindamirtaa 6y ago
> Obviously I still own the car. Do you still own the car if it'll just turn off the engines when attempt to drive into a sketchy neighbourhood? Let's assume the car manufacturer knows the city/town's crime rates well and they have your best intentions in mind. They want you to be safe. Do you still own the car?
- zepto 6y ago
  If I bought a car knowing that is how it worked, then of course I do. Note: I agree that scenario isn’t desirable. However there is no slippery slope.
  - black_puppydog 6y ago
    For me, the slippery slope is exactly allowing this sort of transaction to be called "buying". And yeah, when people lost access to their zune music, or their steam stuff, they did get upset. Mind you, I would not outlaw the transaction. But calling it a "sale" is false advertising in my book.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I own my Mac. I can do anything I want with it. How is that not ‘buying’?

mantap 6y ago

It's not about freedom it's about the fact that those computers cost thousands of dollars and every year Apple wants more and more control after I already gave them a huge wad of money. I am not upgrading to Big Sur, I didn't upgrade to Catalina either, but not upgrading creates its own complications in the long term.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
I don't think the price was anything to do with it, we would be having the same discussions if it was Microsoft instead of Apple.