6 ms·

That's fcking my mobile. I paid for it. I own it. If I want to install something on my owned device, who the f is Apple to stop it? Think about it this way: A

That's fcking my mobile. I paid for it. I own it. If I want to install something on my owned device, who the f is Apple to stop it? Think about it this way: A chair supplier telling Apple to only allow it's employees to sit a certain way. Or architects telling it to only build their HQ's a certain way. Not as an advice, but, enforced. How ridiculous is that!

pibechorro 5y ago
Apple has always been like this. Better hope they dont decide to throttle down your current hardware when they release a thinner one next year and deem yours obsolete.
- thebruce87m 5y ago
  They have no history of throttling phone hardware to drive sales of new devices. What makes you think they would start doing it now?
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  This only started with the iPhone. Apple has been around much longer and was a regular computer company before which treated their users like adults.
  - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
    Imagine for a moment you're an Apple exec who gets to see real usage numbers and revenue numbers per platform and is on board with the current company belief system. You see MacOS devices completely dwarfed in both users and profit per user by iOS devices. As that executive, who keep in mind probably doesn't share your opinions on open technology or they would never have got into that position. What decisions would you be making on the direction of their platforms. I can't help but think we're only going one way and it's not towards something more open.
    - orangecat 5y ago
      Exactly. Apple executives threw macOS under the bus in the Epic trial, saying that its capability to run arbitrary software makes it unacceptably insecure (e.g. https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22444353/mac-malware-not-acceptable-craig-federighi-apple-epic https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22444353/mac-malware-not-...). It shouldn't surprise anyone if a future macOS version requires a paid developer certificate to run unapproved apps or access the Unix layer.
      - judge2020 5y ago
        MacOS is indeed unacceptably insecure. Imagine someone downloads FortniteForMac.app (as in, a fake Fortnite for MacOS download since it's not available except on Windows right now) - that can lead to a keylogger and clipboard watcher beaming your data to some foreign data lake, where it'll soon be used to sign into your Bank (proxying requests to your computer to appear less suspicious, of course).
        flohofwoe 5y ago
        This is exactly how it works since forever on Windows, yet the sky hasn't fallen yet.
  - tl 5y ago
    The Apple II enabled expansion and the creation of (for the time, amazing) software like VisiCalc. Starting with the original Macintosh, Apple has had a continuous tug-of-war over whether "creative freedom" is better than a "curated experience". iPhone give the "curated experience" side an unprecedented amount of ammunition for their side. Malware apps like Facebook continue to feed that side. You can see it in the back and forth dance on the Mac. Will Apple ruin it by closing down too much? Time will tell.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    Apple has been trying to take control of users ever since the original Macintosh with its attitude of hiding things from them. DOS came with a debugger that let you modify and create your own software. The Mac didn't. Planned obsolescence was also not something new --- the infamous Lisa was designed with clock hardware and software that couldn't make it past 1995, for a machine released in 1983. (The PC AT, from 1984, has an RTC that went to at least 2000, and is still a design in use today.)
- swiley 5y ago
  I had a Mac before the iPhone came out. Apple used to be pretty great.
- benhurmarcel 5y ago
  There’s a lot of criticize Apple for, but they are among the best in the industry for supporting old mobile phones.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    Apple giveth: firmware updates for 5 year old phones Apple taketh away: "Apple on Wednesday agreed to pay $113 million to settle consumer fraud lawsuits brought by more than 30 states over allegations that it secretly slowed down old iPhones, a controversy that became known as "batterygate. Apple first denied that it purposely slowed down iPhone batteries, then said it did so to preserve battery life amid widespread reports of iPhones unexpectedly turning off. " https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay-113-million-to-settle-batterygate-case-over-iphone-slowdowns https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay...
    - thebruce87m 5y ago
      Extending the lives of phones with degraded batteries is a good thing. In fact, the feature still exists today. The thing they did wrong was not telling people. Now they do.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      As stated in the other comment, old batteries often physically couldn't handle the voltages required to run at peak performance, so if iPhone detected these conditions, it would temper those peaks so that the phones would stop randomly turning off for people. The issue was that they didn't tell affected device owners that this was happening, and now they do in Settings.
daemoon 5y ago
> How ridiculous is that! Not as ridiculous as being well aware of the limitations of iPhones wrt to installing applications outside of App Store and still buying one. People should vote with their wallets. Me personally I do not mind the limitations, but if you do - don't buy it.
- munificent 5y ago
  > People should vote with their wallets. That only works in efficient markets, which, obviously phones are not. An oligopoly where the barrier of entry requires like a billion dollars to spin up new phone hardware, a new OS, and an app ecosystem is not a place where effective competition is going to occur.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    If we require sideloading via untrusted sources, then that's just flipping the situation on its head to where, now, people who do want a phone with a single authority screening the entire software stack (from the bootrom to third party app code) don't have a phone to pick from that will suit their needs. With such a law, it becomes impossible to enter into the market at all with a product for these customers.
- Spivak 5y ago
  The phrase "vote with your wallets" should just be eliminated because it's completely meaningless. You're asking to "just" coordinate millions of people to do some collective action or to change their behavior. Do you know what the tool for doing that is called? Government. Vote with your actual votes.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    Ironically, there's a big overlap between the "my vote doesn't matter" groups and the "vote with your wallet" groups.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Vote with your wallet works in that, if someone made an undesirable product when right next to it at the Best Buy is a superior product, the inferior product sells zero units and thus the company loses millions or billions of dollars in sales. If both of those products suck, then why would consumers buy them and Best Buy stock them? Or is it that both of those products are invaluable and some people are just mad that the products have certain features (security restrictions) which they don't want.
pjmlp 5y ago
It is the Apple way, since the Apple Classic was introduced to the world, don't like it? Give other company your money.
the_dune_13 5y ago
Or states demanding yearly inspections if your car is up to safety standard and your modification didn't make it more dangerous / unlhealthy for the public. Absolutely ridiculous.
- gurleen_s 5y ago
  I don’t see how these two things are in any way related. If your car is unsafe, you could kill someone. If you sideload an app on your phone, that only affects you. There’s a line we must all draw between personal freedom and the right of others to also be free when you decide to live in a society with other people.
  - ziml77 5y ago
    An malicious app that turns your device into another botnet zombie definitely does affect others.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    If this happens, maybe the device should become unsellable since you could sideload unremovable adware and then sell it to an unknowing buyer.
  - the_dune_13 5y ago
    > If your car is unsafe, you could kill someone. If you sideload an app on your phone, that only affects you. If there is no authority / safety-check over the apps, potentially thousands could lost millions from new wave of scams. Some sort of oversight has to be in place for devices with that much personal data. In the worst case scenario, Apple could get sued for that.
ziml77 5y ago
I don't think they should remove it, but I also don't think it's that ridiculous. Apple has always been against tools that allow execution of arbitrary code. Which is fair; it gives applications on the App Store the ability to bypass review. At some point it's on you as the consumer to understand the limitations you're signing up for when you get an iPhone.
rchaud 5y ago
> A chair supplier telling Apple to only allow it's employees to sit a certain way. Chair suppliers don't have a history of decreeing sitting posture. The iPhone OTOH has been locked down from day 1.
mdoms 5y ago
I would bet my paycheque you'll buy another Apple device.

pibechorro 5y ago

Apple has always been like this. Better hope they dont decide to throttle down your current hardware when they release a thinner one next year and deem yours obsolete.

thebruce87m 5y ago
They have no history of throttling phone hardware to drive sales of new devices. What makes you think they would start doing it now?
flohofwoe 5y ago
This only started with the iPhone. Apple has been around much longer and was a regular computer company before which treated their users like adults.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  Imagine for a moment you're an Apple exec who gets to see real usage numbers and revenue numbers per platform and is on board with the current company belief system. You see MacOS devices completely dwarfed in both users and profit per user by iOS devices. As that executive, who keep in mind probably doesn't share your opinions on open technology or they would never have got into that position. What decisions would you be making on the direction of their platforms. I can't help but think we're only going one way and it's not towards something more open.
  - orangecat 5y ago
    Exactly. Apple executives threw macOS under the bus in the Epic trial, saying that its capability to run arbitrary software makes it unacceptably insecure (e.g. https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22444353/mac-malware-not-acceptable-craig-federighi-apple-epic https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22444353/mac-malware-not-...). It shouldn't surprise anyone if a future macOS version requires a paid developer certificate to run unapproved apps or access the Unix layer.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      MacOS is indeed unacceptably insecure. Imagine someone downloads FortniteForMac.app (as in, a fake Fortnite for MacOS download since it's not available except on Windows right now) - that can lead to a keylogger and clipboard watcher beaming your data to some foreign data lake, where it'll soon be used to sign into your Bank (proxying requests to your computer to appear less suspicious, of course).
      - flohofwoe 5y ago
        This is exactly how it works since forever on Windows, yet the sky hasn't fallen yet.
- tl 5y ago
  The Apple II enabled expansion and the creation of (for the time, amazing) software like VisiCalc. Starting with the original Macintosh, Apple has had a continuous tug-of-war over whether "creative freedom" is better than a "curated experience". iPhone give the "curated experience" side an unprecedented amount of ammunition for their side. Malware apps like Facebook continue to feed that side. You can see it in the back and forth dance on the Mac. Will Apple ruin it by closing down too much? Time will tell.
- userbinator 5y ago
  Apple has been trying to take control of users ever since the original Macintosh with its attitude of hiding things from them. DOS came with a debugger that let you modify and create your own software. The Mac didn't. Planned obsolescence was also not something new --- the infamous Lisa was designed with clock hardware and software that couldn't make it past 1995, for a machine released in 1983. (The PC AT, from 1984, has an RTC that went to at least 2000, and is still a design in use today.)
swiley 5y ago
I had a Mac before the iPhone came out. Apple used to be pretty great.
benhurmarcel 5y ago
There’s a lot of criticize Apple for, but they are among the best in the industry for supporting old mobile phones.
- rchaud 5y ago
  Apple giveth: firmware updates for 5 year old phones Apple taketh away: "Apple on Wednesday agreed to pay $113 million to settle consumer fraud lawsuits brought by more than 30 states over allegations that it secretly slowed down old iPhones, a controversy that became known as "batterygate. Apple first denied that it purposely slowed down iPhone batteries, then said it did so to preserve battery life amid widespread reports of iPhones unexpectedly turning off. " https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay-113-million-to-settle-batterygate-case-over-iphone-slowdowns https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay...
  - thebruce87m 5y ago
    Extending the lives of phones with degraded batteries is a good thing. In fact, the feature still exists today. The thing they did wrong was not telling people. Now they do.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    As stated in the other comment, old batteries often physically couldn't handle the voltages required to run at peak performance, so if iPhone detected these conditions, it would temper those peaks so that the phones would stop randomly turning off for people. The issue was that they didn't tell affected device owners that this was happening, and now they do in Settings.

daemoon 5y ago

> How ridiculous is that! Not as ridiculous as being well aware of the limitations of iPhones wrt to installing applications outside of App Store and still buying one. People should vote with their wallets. Me personally I do not mind the limitations, but if you do - don't buy it.

munificent 5y ago
> People should vote with their wallets. That only works in efficient markets, which, obviously phones are not. An oligopoly where the barrier of entry requires like a billion dollars to spin up new phone hardware, a new OS, and an app ecosystem is not a place where effective competition is going to occur.
- judge2020 5y ago
  If we require sideloading via untrusted sources, then that's just flipping the situation on its head to where, now, people who do want a phone with a single authority screening the entire software stack (from the bootrom to third party app code) don't have a phone to pick from that will suit their needs. With such a law, it becomes impossible to enter into the market at all with a product for these customers.
Spivak 5y ago
The phrase "vote with your wallets" should just be eliminated because it's completely meaningless. You're asking to "just" coordinate millions of people to do some collective action or to change their behavior. Do you know what the tool for doing that is called? Government. Vote with your actual votes.
- rchaud 5y ago
  Ironically, there's a big overlap between the "my vote doesn't matter" groups and the "vote with your wallet" groups.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Vote with your wallet works in that, if someone made an undesirable product when right next to it at the Best Buy is a superior product, the inferior product sells zero units and thus the company loses millions or billions of dollars in sales. If both of those products suck, then why would consumers buy them and Best Buy stock them? Or is it that both of those products are invaluable and some people are just mad that the products have certain features (security restrictions) which they don't want.

pjmlp 5y ago

It is the Apple way, since the Apple Classic was introduced to the world, don't like it? Give other company your money.

the_dune_13 5y ago

Or states demanding yearly inspections if your car is up to safety standard and your modification didn't make it more dangerous / unlhealthy for the public. Absolutely ridiculous.

gurleen_s 5y ago
I don’t see how these two things are in any way related. If your car is unsafe, you could kill someone. If you sideload an app on your phone, that only affects you. There’s a line we must all draw between personal freedom and the right of others to also be free when you decide to live in a society with other people.
- ziml77 5y ago
  An malicious app that turns your device into another botnet zombie definitely does affect others.
- judge2020 5y ago
  If this happens, maybe the device should become unsellable since you could sideload unremovable adware and then sell it to an unknowing buyer.
- the_dune_13 5y ago
  > If your car is unsafe, you could kill someone. If you sideload an app on your phone, that only affects you. If there is no authority / safety-check over the apps, potentially thousands could lost millions from new wave of scams. Some sort of oversight has to be in place for devices with that much personal data. In the worst case scenario, Apple could get sued for that.

ziml77 5y ago

I don't think they should remove it, but I also don't think it's that ridiculous. Apple has always been against tools that allow execution of arbitrary code. Which is fair; it gives applications on the App Store the ability to bypass review. At some point it's on you as the consumer to understand the limitations you're signing up for when you get an iPhone.

rchaud 5y ago

> A chair supplier telling Apple to only allow it's employees to sit a certain way. Chair suppliers don't have a history of decreeing sitting posture. The iPhone OTOH has been locked down from day 1.

mdoms 5y ago

I would bet my paycheque you'll buy another Apple device.