4 ms·

> Apple further locking down the platform > they just want to reduce the number of ways the OS can be installed and upgraded Isn't that synonymous?

by Lev1a 6y ago

vmception 6y ago
This is hilarious. They remind me of a politician.
- Waterluvian 6y ago
  It's just a temporary refund adjustment.
ossusermivami 6y ago
Hahah exactly, like Apple don't have the resources to support multiple installs and have to sacrifice one method in the name of stability.....
- vlovich123 6y ago
  Apple has an effectively infinite budget. Teams within Apple do not. You need to be able to cut costs to improve your ability to scale the eng org/reduce associated costs with that scaling. Reducing complexity in your SW stack is 100% critical as you age so that you can lay down technical debt and build new things faster with the freed up capital.
- kolinko 6y ago
  In case of software money will only go so far to offset the scope creep. If the scope is too large any company will fail, regardless of budget. Apple historically was always removing features that add bulk but are not necessary (although some people need them). To give some examples: - with one of the MacOS releases they announces there are no new features in the OS, just a cleanup of unnecessary stuff - they removed support for 32 bit apps a year ago - personally I found it painful as some stuff stopped working, but I understand this was done to streamline the system - and so on Sure it’s sometimes irritating, but otherwise you risk ending up with a mess that Windows is. As a side note - since they switched from physical medium it was weird to me personally that there even is a standalone installer - why not make it a system update? This year they finally did the switch.
Dylan16807 6y ago
No. Only reductions that affect user freedom fall under "locking down". If there are redundant ways to do something, removing one doesn't lock down anything.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Making it harder for users to review & inspect update installation packages does affect user freedom.
  - holstvoogd 6y ago
    like anyone does that
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    You just have to download it a slightly different way. Anyone who has any ability to actually review/inspect is able to do that. The impact on user freedom is negligible. But even if we decide this particular situation is in fact locking down, what I said is still true. Locking down is a subset of removing options, not synonymous with it.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      The impact on user freedom is negligible. Apple has been practicing incrementalism. Each small step by itself doesn't seem very significant. But the slow march continues, and the pieces add up. Current people with technical ability may be able to modify their behavior to work around it, but the technical bar has been raise slightly-- people without technical ability have one more small speedbump. If you're right and Apple stops here, then sure, no big deal, and I'd be happy to be wrong. This isn't the hill I'd die on for the issue. It's the trend I don't like. If a few years go by without Apple locking down the OS further, I'd be okay with the status quo. Looking at the trend of the past few years though, it seems like Apple is slowly taking MacOS towards the iOS model.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
onion2k 6y ago
"Locking down" implies that they're adding restrictions. They're not doing that. People are just as free to download updates as they always have been. Now they just have to use a different address. If I have two URLs pointing to my website and then I remove one, users can just go to the other one. I have not "locked down" my website or limited access at all.
cozzyd 6y ago
Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they're being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity of the group is waning? Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.

> Apple further locking down the platform > they just want to reduce the number of ways the OS can be installed and upgraded Isn't that synonymous?

by Lev1a 6y ago

> Apple further locking down the platform > they just want to reduce the number of ways the OS can be installed and upgraded Isn't that synonymous?

vmception 6y ago

This is hilarious. They remind me of a politician.

Waterluvian 6y ago
It's just a temporary refund adjustment.

ossusermivami 6y ago

Hahah exactly, like Apple don't have the resources to support multiple installs and have to sacrifice one method in the name of stability.....

vlovich123 6y ago
Apple has an effectively infinite budget. Teams within Apple do not. You need to be able to cut costs to improve your ability to scale the eng org/reduce associated costs with that scaling. Reducing complexity in your SW stack is 100% critical as you age so that you can lay down technical debt and build new things faster with the freed up capital.
kolinko 6y ago
In case of software money will only go so far to offset the scope creep. If the scope is too large any company will fail, regardless of budget. Apple historically was always removing features that add bulk but are not necessary (although some people need them). To give some examples: - with one of the MacOS releases they announces there are no new features in the OS, just a cleanup of unnecessary stuff - they removed support for 32 bit apps a year ago - personally I found it painful as some stuff stopped working, but I understand this was done to streamline the system - and so on Sure it’s sometimes irritating, but otherwise you risk ending up with a mess that Windows is. As a side note - since they switched from physical medium it was weird to me personally that there even is a standalone installer - why not make it a system update? This year they finally did the switch.

Dylan16807 6y ago

No. Only reductions that affect user freedom fall under "locking down". If there are redundant ways to do something, removing one doesn't lock down anything.

ineedasername 6y ago
Making it harder for users to review & inspect update installation packages does affect user freedom.
- holstvoogd 6y ago
  like anyone does that
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You just have to download it a slightly different way. Anyone who has any ability to actually review/inspect is able to do that. The impact on user freedom is negligible. But even if we decide this particular situation is in fact locking down, what I said is still true. Locking down is a subset of removing options, not synonymous with it.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    The impact on user freedom is negligible. Apple has been practicing incrementalism. Each small step by itself doesn't seem very significant. But the slow march continues, and the pieces add up. Current people with technical ability may be able to modify their behavior to work around it, but the technical bar has been raise slightly-- people without technical ability have one more small speedbump. If you're right and Apple stops here, then sure, no big deal, and I'd be happy to be wrong. This isn't the hill I'd die on for the issue. It's the trend I don't like. If a few years go by without Apple locking down the OS further, I'd be okay with the status quo. Looking at the trend of the past few years though, it seems like Apple is slowly taking MacOS towards the iOS model.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago

onion2k 6y ago

"Locking down" implies that they're adding restrictions. They're not doing that. People are just as free to download updates as they always have been. Now they just have to use a different address. If I have two URLs pointing to my website and then I remove one, users can just go to the other one. I have not "locked down" my website or limited access at all.

cozzyd 6y ago

Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they're being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity of the group is waning? Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.