4 ms·

>>There is no way I can understand this policy. I dont now why. this is has been apple's stated position for a long time and the primary reason they are movin

by syshum 6y ago

>>There is no way I can understand this policy. I dont now why. this is has been apple's stated position for a long time and the primary reason they are moving to ARM for the Mac, to make them more iDevice like, meaning you do not own the computer, they do, and you can only use it in a manner they (Apple) allows and bless. Apple has been moving away form the professional / hacker market for a long time, they want to sell to normal consumers and could give a shit less about the pro or hacker market.

coldtea 6y ago
Besides the general hand waving that doesn't mean much ("make them more iDevice like", "you don't own your computer, they do") which doesn't say anything, the parent is talking about this particular decision. As for "you don't own your computer, they do", what it translates to is: "The OS places certain restrictions that work and make it safer for the large majority of users, but might not give full tinkering abilities to everybody". Which you never have (full tinkering ability) in a closed source OS, anyway. While "we bypass firewalls for our domains" can be thought of in the same vein ("we think it's better and safer for most users to work this way, and leads to less head-scratching why X Apple service doesn't work etc"), it's not exactly the same. Apple can go towards the "no tinkering direction, it's a device that just works", without disallowing preventing user firewalls from blocking Apple domains (provided of course the user understands that by blocking them they get no iCloud and other services). >Apple has been moving away form the professional / hacker market for a long time, they want to sell to normal consumers and could give a shit less about the pro or hacker market. On the other hand, the pro market (video, music, graphics, office, programming, writing, data analysis, etc) shouldn't have workflow issues with what Apple did, and the hacker market is small (and has never been a target market).
- syshum 6y ago
  I think a large amount of people will disagree that these OS restrictions work or make it safer, but that is really besides the point There is a HUGE difference between passive secure defaults, which a normal user will never change, and active blocks / overrides that can not be removed. An example of this is iphone vs android store policy, by default on Android you can not install untrusted APK's or other stores, however inside the phone there is a simply way to disable this block. This is an example of a passive secure default. Where on iPhone it is simply impossible to disable this block One OS (android) is respecting your ownership rights while protecting the normal users, the other (iOS) is asserting their ownership over the device. Surely you can see the difference it is clear that apple intends to bring this type of Active Ownership control to the Mac ARM platform, this is just the first step, a warning shot if you will, of what is to come
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >There is a HUGE difference between passive secure defaults, which a normal user will never change, and active blocks / overrides that can not be removed. Yes. That's why I think while this change is OK as a default, it's problematic to not be overridable -- and even if it was just a default it should be communicated clearly as a change, so those affected (e.g. people relying on VPN under some regime) know about them. Those people are not the typical user case, but it's an important consideration still. >An example of this is iphone vs android store policy, by default on Android you can not install untrusted APK's or other stores, however inside the phone there is a simply way to disable this block. This is an example of a passive secure default. Where on iPhone it is simply impossible to disable this block One problem with this duality is that people will disable the block, and then complain plus have their info/data and those of others compromised etc, when they install malware at the first BS prompt that tells them to do so (to get some cool new game or some pirated stuff). That is, it's not just those "knowing what they do" that will bypass those kind of defaults.... Apple chose to go with the "Most people don't know what they're doing, and if we allow it they will do it anyway", which is a defensible position. You use their OS knowing that they do that. But this change now, was not the same kind or communicated as well. >it is clear that apple intends to bring this type of Active Ownership control to the Mac ARM platform, this is just the first step, a warning shot if you will, of what is to come If "what is to come" is a machine that "just works", has no malware, but has to get its software from the App Store and/or notarized by Apple, I'm fine with it. And hundreds of millions will probably also be. Apple was never about tinkerers and customizations, they were always about cohesive, all-in-one, curated -- and that's ever since the Apple II. It's not their fault that people who don't like this model feel like they have to still stay with Apple. It's not 1999 anymore. Those days if they broke into your computer or if you got a virus you would lose some useless files and a few hours/day to reinstall your Windows. Nowadays you can lose a lot, and with working from home etc becoming more the norm, even more so...
    - syshum 6y ago
      Well again we can debate on the "just works" part, as Apple has alot of problems in their hardware reliability as well but that is another debate all together. It is also revisionist history to say "Apple was never about tinkerers and customizations", Apple was born out of the "tinkers" market, and did infact become popular pre-iphone days due to this hacker mentality, to deny this is to deny actual history Further your comment it it "not being 1999" anymore and if your system becomes infected to the point wher you need to "reinstall windows" you lose alot simply because you are working from home.. I fail to see the connection, today there are far better tools on both windows and make to backup and restore systems. For windows with OneDrive unless you have a massive amount of custom apps to install it is litterally just logging in to any other win10 computer and connecting your OneDrive to that computer and you have all you files If you do not want to use Cloud services, Free Agents like Veeam for Windows empower users to backup and restore a complete computer is just a few minutes. Also to claim mac is "Virus free" is moronic, and implies a level of security that is not really warranted, Mac like Linux is security through obscurity, Windows still has a 90+% market share, so of course threat actors will target windows more. Apple Mac is not target simply because there is not enough people to justify the investment. As Mac's have become more popular, the number of threats have increased, and has shown Apple is not this secure enclave simply because they are Apple, they are secure simply because no one cares enough to target the platform,
mantap 6y ago
Apple has benefited immensely from developers building apps for their iDevices. Apple in their infinite wisdom decided that such apps must be developed on a Mac. Making apps is not super profitable, most apps don't make enough revenue to support even 1 full time developer. If they turn the Mac into a toy computer that developers can't use then it will affect the app ecosystem.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Hint, Apple cares first and foremost about developers building apps for their iDevices, anyone else is just a nice to have to the bottom line. Just like NeXT didn't care about UNIX other than having a checkmark on bullet point list for the companies looking out for UNIX workstations.

by syshum 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

Besides the general hand waving that doesn't mean much ("make them more iDevice like", "you don't own your computer, they do") which doesn't say anything, the parent is talking about this particular decision. As for "you don't own your computer, they do", what it translates to is: "The OS places certain restrictions that work and make it safer for the large majority of users, but might not give full tinkering abilities to everybody". Which you never have (full tinkering ability) in a closed source OS, anyway. While "we bypass firewalls for our domains" can be thought of in the same vein ("we think it's better and safer for most users to work this way, and leads to less head-scratching why X Apple service doesn't work etc"), it's not exactly the same. Apple can go towards the "no tinkering direction, it's a device that just works", without disallowing preventing user firewalls from blocking Apple domains (provided of course the user understands that by blocking them they get no iCloud and other services). >Apple has been moving away form the professional / hacker market for a long time, they want to sell to normal consumers and could give a shit less about the pro or hacker market. On the other hand, the pro market (video, music, graphics, office, programming, writing, data analysis, etc) shouldn't have workflow issues with what Apple did, and the hacker market is small (and has never been a target market).

syshum 6y ago
I think a large amount of people will disagree that these OS restrictions work or make it safer, but that is really besides the point There is a HUGE difference between passive secure defaults, which a normal user will never change, and active blocks / overrides that can not be removed. An example of this is iphone vs android store policy, by default on Android you can not install untrusted APK's or other stores, however inside the phone there is a simply way to disable this block. This is an example of a passive secure default. Where on iPhone it is simply impossible to disable this block One OS (android) is respecting your ownership rights while protecting the normal users, the other (iOS) is asserting their ownership over the device. Surely you can see the difference it is clear that apple intends to bring this type of Active Ownership control to the Mac ARM platform, this is just the first step, a warning shot if you will, of what is to come
- coldtea 6y ago
  >There is a HUGE difference between passive secure defaults, which a normal user will never change, and active blocks / overrides that can not be removed. Yes. That's why I think while this change is OK as a default, it's problematic to not be overridable -- and even if it was just a default it should be communicated clearly as a change, so those affected (e.g. people relying on VPN under some regime) know about them. Those people are not the typical user case, but it's an important consideration still. >An example of this is iphone vs android store policy, by default on Android you can not install untrusted APK's or other stores, however inside the phone there is a simply way to disable this block. This is an example of a passive secure default. Where on iPhone it is simply impossible to disable this block One problem with this duality is that people will disable the block, and then complain plus have their info/data and those of others compromised etc, when they install malware at the first BS prompt that tells them to do so (to get some cool new game or some pirated stuff). That is, it's not just those "knowing what they do" that will bypass those kind of defaults.... Apple chose to go with the "Most people don't know what they're doing, and if we allow it they will do it anyway", which is a defensible position. You use their OS knowing that they do that. But this change now, was not the same kind or communicated as well. >it is clear that apple intends to bring this type of Active Ownership control to the Mac ARM platform, this is just the first step, a warning shot if you will, of what is to come If "what is to come" is a machine that "just works", has no malware, but has to get its software from the App Store and/or notarized by Apple, I'm fine with it. And hundreds of millions will probably also be. Apple was never about tinkerers and customizations, they were always about cohesive, all-in-one, curated -- and that's ever since the Apple II. It's not their fault that people who don't like this model feel like they have to still stay with Apple. It's not 1999 anymore. Those days if they broke into your computer or if you got a virus you would lose some useless files and a few hours/day to reinstall your Windows. Nowadays you can lose a lot, and with working from home etc becoming more the norm, even more so...
  - syshum 6y ago
    Well again we can debate on the "just works" part, as Apple has alot of problems in their hardware reliability as well but that is another debate all together. It is also revisionist history to say "Apple was never about tinkerers and customizations", Apple was born out of the "tinkers" market, and did infact become popular pre-iphone days due to this hacker mentality, to deny this is to deny actual history Further your comment it it "not being 1999" anymore and if your system becomes infected to the point wher you need to "reinstall windows" you lose alot simply because you are working from home.. I fail to see the connection, today there are far better tools on both windows and make to backup and restore systems. For windows with OneDrive unless you have a massive amount of custom apps to install it is litterally just logging in to any other win10 computer and connecting your OneDrive to that computer and you have all you files If you do not want to use Cloud services, Free Agents like Veeam for Windows empower users to backup and restore a complete computer is just a few minutes. Also to claim mac is "Virus free" is moronic, and implies a level of security that is not really warranted, Mac like Linux is security through obscurity, Windows still has a 90+% market share, so of course threat actors will target windows more. Apple Mac is not target simply because there is not enough people to justify the investment. As Mac's have become more popular, the number of threats have increased, and has shown Apple is not this secure enclave simply because they are Apple, they are secure simply because no one cares enough to target the platform,

mantap 6y ago

Apple has benefited immensely from developers building apps for their iDevices. Apple in their infinite wisdom decided that such apps must be developed on a Mac. Making apps is not super profitable, most apps don't make enough revenue to support even 1 full time developer. If they turn the Mac into a toy computer that developers can't use then it will affect the app ecosystem.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pjmlp 6y ago
Hint, Apple cares first and foremost about developers building apps for their iDevices, anyone else is just a nice to have to the bottom line. Just like NeXT didn't care about UNIX other than having a checkmark on bullet point list for the companies looking out for UNIX workstations.