4 ms·

I have been a big Apple fan ever since my first computer. This is the first time I legitimately thought I need to start thinking about something else. It’s kind

I have been a big Apple fan ever since my first computer. This is the first time I legitimately thought I need to start thinking about something else. It’s kind of sad.

echelon 5y ago
Good! These assholes have been building a moat around all of computing, and now it's almost impossible to avoid the multi-trillion dollar monster. Think about all the startups that can't deploy software without being taxed most of our margin, the sign in with apple that prevents us from having a real customer relationship, and the horrible support, libraries, constant changes, etc. It's hostile! It's unfair that the DOJ hasn't done anything about it. A modern startup cannot succeed without Apple's blessing. To do so would be giving up 50% of the American market. When you're struggling to grow and find traction, you can't do that. It's so wildly unfair that they "own" 50+% of computer users. Think of all the device owners that don't have the money to pay Apple for new devices or upgrades. They can't repair them themselves. Apple's products are meant to go into the trash and be replaced with new models. We want to sidestep these shenanigans and use our own devices? Load our own cloud software? We can't! Apple, from the moment Jobs decreed, was fully owned property. No alternative browsers, no scripting or runtimes. No computing outside the lines. You're just renting. This company is so awful. Please call your representatives and ask them to break up the biggest and most dangerous monopoly in the world.
jeromegv 5y ago
Genuinely curious, why? This scanning was already happening server-side in your iCloud photos, just like Google Photos, etc. Now they are removing it from server-side to client-side (which still require this photo to be hosted in iCloud) What changed, really?
- zekrioca 5y ago
  You answered your own question and still don’t get it.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Then perhaps you could explain it? I also don't understand why server-side versus client-side CSAM inspection makes a big difference.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      If I ask you to store my images, and you therefore have access to the images, you can scan them for stuff using your computers. The scope is limited to the images I ask you to store, and your computers are doing what you ask them to. If you reprogram my computer to scan my images stored on my computer… different thing entirely. I don't have a problem with checking them for child abuse (in fact, I'd give up quite a bit of freedom to stop that), but nothing about this tech makes it specific to child abuse. I don't want my computer ratting me out for stuff that I have the right (or, possibly, the obligation) to be doing, just because the powerful don't want me doing it. At the moment, it doesn't. This tech makes Apple-controlled computers untrustworthy. It will probably lead to the deaths of political dissidents; these things always do. Is that worth it?
      - acdha 5y ago
        So far, this is only for iCloud photos so currently it seems highly similar to what we have now except that it’s on the device and could be done with end to end encryption, unlike the current approach. For me, the big concern is how it could be expanded. This is a real and valid problem but it’s certainly not hard to imagine a government insisting it needs to be expanded to cover all photos, even for people not using iCloud, and we’d like you to add these signatures from some images we can’t show you. Once the infrastructure is there it’s a lot easier to do that.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Yes. If Apple takes the “we're not going to” stance, then this could be okay… but they've been doing that less and less, and they only ever really did that in the US / Australia. Apple just isn't trustworthy enough.
- asimpletune 5y ago
  The problem for me is my device “informing” on me changes the fundamental nature of my device. Also the opaqueness of the whole system is concerning, along with the potential for false positives. And lastly is the “if this then what’s next?” And that is definitely a road I don’t want to go down on. For me it’s sad because I have literally always stood by them and they make amazing hardware and software. However at the end of the day I’d rather have the nature of my device be one where it is under my control, than all the wonderful apple tech. I just don’t know what to use instead.
voidnullnil 5y ago
Companies change. The sad part is, there is no next company to move to.

I have been a big Apple fan ever since my first computer. This is the first time I legitimately thought I need to start thinking about something else. It’s kind of sad.

echelon 5y ago

Good! These assholes have been building a moat around all of computing, and now it's almost impossible to avoid the multi-trillion dollar monster. Think about all the startups that can't deploy software without being taxed most of our margin, the sign in with apple that prevents us from having a real customer relationship, and the horrible support, libraries, constant changes, etc. It's hostile! It's unfair that the DOJ hasn't done anything about it. A modern startup cannot succeed without Apple's blessing. To do so would be giving up 50% of the American market. When you're struggling to grow and find traction, you can't do that. It's so wildly unfair that they "own" 50+% of computer users. Think of all the device owners that don't have the money to pay Apple for new devices or upgrades. They can't repair them themselves. Apple's products are meant to go into the trash and be replaced with new models. We want to sidestep these shenanigans and use our own devices? Load our own cloud software? We can't! Apple, from the moment Jobs decreed, was fully owned property. No alternative browsers, no scripting or runtimes. No computing outside the lines. You're just renting. This company is so awful. Please call your representatives and ask them to break up the biggest and most dangerous monopoly in the world.

jeromegv 5y ago

Genuinely curious, why? This scanning was already happening server-side in your iCloud photos, just like Google Photos, etc. Now they are removing it from server-side to client-side (which still require this photo to be hosted in iCloud) What changed, really?

zekrioca 5y ago
You answered your own question and still don’t get it.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Then perhaps you could explain it? I also don't understand why server-side versus client-side CSAM inspection makes a big difference.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    If I ask you to store my images, and you therefore have access to the images, you can scan them for stuff using your computers. The scope is limited to the images I ask you to store, and your computers are doing what you ask them to. If you reprogram my computer to scan my images stored on my computer… different thing entirely. I don't have a problem with checking them for child abuse (in fact, I'd give up quite a bit of freedom to stop that), but nothing about this tech makes it specific to child abuse. I don't want my computer ratting me out for stuff that I have the right (or, possibly, the obligation) to be doing, just because the powerful don't want me doing it. At the moment, it doesn't. This tech makes Apple-controlled computers untrustworthy. It will probably lead to the deaths of political dissidents; these things always do. Is that worth it?
    - acdha 5y ago
      So far, this is only for iCloud photos so currently it seems highly similar to what we have now except that it’s on the device and could be done with end to end encryption, unlike the current approach. For me, the big concern is how it could be expanded. This is a real and valid problem but it’s certainly not hard to imagine a government insisting it needs to be expanded to cover all photos, even for people not using iCloud, and we’d like you to add these signatures from some images we can’t show you. Once the infrastructure is there it’s a lot easier to do that.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Yes. If Apple takes the “we're not going to” stance, then this could be okay… but they've been doing that less and less, and they only ever really did that in the US / Australia. Apple just isn't trustworthy enough.
asimpletune 5y ago
The problem for me is my device “informing” on me changes the fundamental nature of my device. Also the opaqueness of the whole system is concerning, along with the potential for false positives. And lastly is the “if this then what’s next?” And that is definitely a road I don’t want to go down on. For me it’s sad because I have literally always stood by them and they make amazing hardware and software. However at the end of the day I’d rather have the nature of my device be one where it is under my control, than all the wonderful apple tech. I just don’t know what to use instead.

voidnullnil 5y ago

Companies change. The sad part is, there is no next company to move to.