6 ms·

Or maybe this is related to the security, and Windows is the only widely used platform that didn't enforce TPM until recently? macOS is even more locked down,

Or maybe this is related to the security, and Windows is the only widely used platform that didn't enforce TPM until recently? macOS is even more locked down, but they don't impede or force users to use Mac App Store.

antman 5y ago
Ofcourse they don’t force anything because of the competing windows platform which is more open up to now. Apple assumed market dominance and locked everything down on mobile. What I infer from your observation is that closing down Windows could also adversely affect Mac users, since Apple would not miss this opportunity.
- neilalexander 5y ago
  Apple could have done it with the Apple Silicon transition and yet didn’t. More inclined to believe actions over words at this point.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Not without massive loss of users. Both Microsoft and Apple would love to lock down their platforms, but they have to do it in tandem or users will flock to the other. So we will see a slow lock-in creep until they look like current day smartphones. Only way to stop this is to react strongly, so if most users are apathetic like you then it is inevitable. Of course I believe that you are right and most are this apathetic, so from my perspective this is inevitable. When they roll out the enforced appstore you will say something along the lines of "but this appstore is secure and I can get all the programs I wanted from it anyway, and even if I couldn't would I really want an insecure program?".
    - neilalexander 5y ago
      Apathetic — no. I’m aware of the control creep in the industry, but I do think that it seems unnecessarily alarmist to think that Apple just can’t wait to lock down macOS. There is nothing to gain by them doing so and I would be incredibly surprised if they didn’t already know that. iOS is and has always been a closed platform. We knew that the day they announced the first iPhone and they have been consistent in their messaging about that ever since. iPads and iPhones are globally successful though, far more so than the Mac, and with a far wider target audience that encompasses most people. It would be great for power users to be able to side-load without jailbreaking, but there are plenty of less technical people out there for whom side-loading actually presents much more of a risk than a benefit. That’s what makes it a complicated issue. The Mac, on the other hand, doesn’t stand to benefit from that same closed model in the slightest. The real target audiences for the Mac (i.e. software developers, professional photography/cinematography, music production, publishing) all live and depend on software that requires flexibility, plugins etc and they stand a much greater chance of knowing what they’re doing. They would walk away from Macs in an instant if the platform stops being useful to them. Apple Silicon was the perfect opportunity for Apple to close the platform if they really felt strongly enough to do so, but here’s the thing: Microsoft tried to do it with WinRT, it was an absolute disaster and the market spoke accordingly. It doesn’t seem worth the risk.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        > They would walk away from Macs in an instant if the platform stops being useful to them. Only if there was a better alternative. That is the point, both Microsoft and Apple works towards there not being any better alternatives out there. It wont happen in 5 years, but almost surely in 20, as they have to do it slowly enough for all major programs to get into the appstores. Just have to slowly make it more and more difficult shipping software that isn't in their appstores. Then you start paying for exclusives, imagine if Apple paid photoshop to only ship in their appstore and not distribute indipendent binaries for macOs for example, people would quickly learn to use the store. Ship cheaper variants of the OS with only access to the appstore etc. There are so many ways for them to reach that destination, and 20 years is an eternity in this space.
        DeathArrow 5y ago
        >Just have to slowly make it more and more difficult shipping software that isn't in their appstores. Valve established their Linux presence because they thought MS might force developers ship only through appstore. What is stping others to make the same move if they sense the same danger? Big software companies won't be dilighted to be forced to use the app store. Nor would smaller companies.
      - addicted 5y ago
        Is it really alarmist to believe that Apple would like to make their less popular OS more like their significantly more popular OS?
      - e12e 5y ago
        > iOS is and has always been a closed platform. We knew that the day they announced the first iPhone Didn't the phone launch without an app store an web/html based apps? https://www.businessinsider.com/first-phone-anniversary-2016-12?op=1&r=US&IR=T#so-what-15 https://www.businessinsider.com/first-phone-anniversary-2016... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_OS_1#Third-party_applications https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_OS_1#Third-party_appl...
    - DeathArrow 5y ago
      >So we will see a slow lock-in creep until they look like current day smartphones. So we will see the rise on Linux on the desktop.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        ...and on smartphones.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  > Apple assumed market dominance and locked everything down on mobile. Apple has about 26% market share on mobile globally, that's not exactly market dominance. Them locking down the platform limits piracy, which is one reason why developing for iOS is much more profitable for many kinds of apps, which causes better apps that drive consumers to the iPhone. That's the reason they put so much energy into locking down the platform
  - AwaAwa 5y ago
    I have to assume that them taking 75 percent of the profit in the smartphone industry, gives them a blank check to do as they wish, and the rest of the industry must follow. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-operating-profit-q2-2021/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-o...
  - addicted 5y ago
    The gulf between OSX apps and Windows/Linux apps in quality was far greater than any sort of edge iOS apps have over competing platform apps. So it’s hard to see how the argument that locking down the platform leads to better apps works.
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    Locking things down and snooping are always presented as an advantage. Stoping piracy, stoping CP, stoping drug dealers and so on. Maybe we should have some company lock us in our houses for safety? You know, if you wander outside you might get robbed.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wongarsu 5y ago
      Explaining the economic reasons why things are done is always seen as an endorsement of them. I don't think that's justified. I don't like how Apple locks down their phones, that's why I prefer Android. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate why they do it and why some people might prefer it.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  So if one OS company moves in a certain direction, the other one can do so safely. Implicit collusion. Apps need to run/execute in an open source runtime environment that operating systems can choose to integrate...and would need to if they wanted to run any of the applications on the market. The browser is not the answer. Once these guys get settled in they are going to push for regulation that will somehow preclude people from using Linux desktops.
pjc50 5y ago
> they don't impede or force users to use Mac App Store .. yet. The notarization and signing requirements are steps towards that; there's an escape hatch, but they could close it when it suits them.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
macOS still runs on Intel Macs without a T2 chip, if that’s the TPM-equivalent you’re thinking of.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  The first Mac with a T2 chip was the iMac Pro 2017, and that product line was discontinued as of March 5, 2021. Does Apple still sell machines without an equivalent level of TPM? For what it's worth, it looks like macOS tends to support hardware that's up to 7 years old[0] and macOS versions tend to stay supported for about 3 years[1]. My guess is that by 2027, all Windows and macOS releases for non-enterprise users will either require a TPM or be out of security support, and governments will start banning the latter versions from accessing the internet. [0] https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/what-version-macos-compatible-3776008/ https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/what-version-macos-compat... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Mojave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Mojave
cma 5y ago
> but they don't impede or force users to use Mac App Store. They briefly pulled Epic's desktop signing keys, which they promised were for security only, over an unrelated iOS business dispute.
- ryanlol 5y ago
  This is a terribly dishonest take. There was no “unrelated iOS business dispute”, Epic was simply using their keys to sign software that they had agreed not to sign. Epic made it clear that they can not be trusted with signing keys, you can’t claim that this is unrelated. Epic could have sued Apple and proceeded with their business dispute without abusing their signing keys, but instead they made a calculated decision to abuse their trusted position for a PR stunt. Even if you fully agree with the position Epic is pushing in their lawsuit, these facts remain the same.
  - cma 5y ago
    > Epic was simply using their keys to sign software that they had agreed not to sign. Epic never abused their desktop signing keys, which are stated to be for security only, what are you talking about? Apple did more than that too, they also briefly pulled their Apple logins, which they had surprise mandated on everyone who allowed third party logins. They went full mask off.
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      It is downright pathetic of you to attempt to differentiate between desktop and mobile signing keys. Epic made it clear that they can’t be trusted with any kind of signing keys.
      - cma 5y ago
        Apple made a distinction for desktop that the keys there were to be for security only. The iOS stuff was a payment/business dispute, not security related.
e12e 5y ago
> they don't impede or force users to use Mac App Store. They do for iOS, though? I'm not convinced we won't see something similar for desktop (possibly with an "opt-out" for power users, where you can manually sign and accept binaries - much like you can build a dev build of an ios app, but not distribute it).
DeathArrow 5y ago
>macOS is even more locked down, but they don't impede or force users to use Mac App Store. Until now. And because it faced competition from Windows. If they gain some market share, they will.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  Wouldn't it always face competition from desktop Linux?

antman 5y ago

Ofcourse they don’t force anything because of the competing windows platform which is more open up to now. Apple assumed market dominance and locked everything down on mobile. What I infer from your observation is that closing down Windows could also adversely affect Mac users, since Apple would not miss this opportunity.

neilalexander 5y ago
Apple could have done it with the Apple Silicon transition and yet didn’t. More inclined to believe actions over words at this point.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Not without massive loss of users. Both Microsoft and Apple would love to lock down their platforms, but they have to do it in tandem or users will flock to the other. So we will see a slow lock-in creep until they look like current day smartphones. Only way to stop this is to react strongly, so if most users are apathetic like you then it is inevitable. Of course I believe that you are right and most are this apathetic, so from my perspective this is inevitable. When they roll out the enforced appstore you will say something along the lines of "but this appstore is secure and I can get all the programs I wanted from it anyway, and even if I couldn't would I really want an insecure program?".
  - neilalexander 5y ago
    Apathetic — no. I’m aware of the control creep in the industry, but I do think that it seems unnecessarily alarmist to think that Apple just can’t wait to lock down macOS. There is nothing to gain by them doing so and I would be incredibly surprised if they didn’t already know that. iOS is and has always been a closed platform. We knew that the day they announced the first iPhone and they have been consistent in their messaging about that ever since. iPads and iPhones are globally successful though, far more so than the Mac, and with a far wider target audience that encompasses most people. It would be great for power users to be able to side-load without jailbreaking, but there are plenty of less technical people out there for whom side-loading actually presents much more of a risk than a benefit. That’s what makes it a complicated issue. The Mac, on the other hand, doesn’t stand to benefit from that same closed model in the slightest. The real target audiences for the Mac (i.e. software developers, professional photography/cinematography, music production, publishing) all live and depend on software that requires flexibility, plugins etc and they stand a much greater chance of knowing what they’re doing. They would walk away from Macs in an instant if the platform stops being useful to them. Apple Silicon was the perfect opportunity for Apple to close the platform if they really felt strongly enough to do so, but here’s the thing: Microsoft tried to do it with WinRT, it was an absolute disaster and the market spoke accordingly. It doesn’t seem worth the risk.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > They would walk away from Macs in an instant if the platform stops being useful to them. Only if there was a better alternative. That is the point, both Microsoft and Apple works towards there not being any better alternatives out there. It wont happen in 5 years, but almost surely in 20, as they have to do it slowly enough for all major programs to get into the appstores. Just have to slowly make it more and more difficult shipping software that isn't in their appstores. Then you start paying for exclusives, imagine if Apple paid photoshop to only ship in their appstore and not distribute indipendent binaries for macOs for example, people would quickly learn to use the store. Ship cheaper variants of the OS with only access to the appstore etc. There are so many ways for them to reach that destination, and 20 years is an eternity in this space.
      - DeathArrow 5y ago
        >Just have to slowly make it more and more difficult shipping software that isn't in their appstores. Valve established their Linux presence because they thought MS might force developers ship only through appstore. What is stping others to make the same move if they sense the same danger? Big software companies won't be dilighted to be forced to use the app store. Nor would smaller companies.
    - addicted 5y ago
      Is it really alarmist to believe that Apple would like to make their less popular OS more like their significantly more popular OS?
    - e12e 5y ago
      > iOS is and has always been a closed platform. We knew that the day they announced the first iPhone Didn't the phone launch without an app store an web/html based apps? https://www.businessinsider.com/first-phone-anniversary-2016-12?op=1&r=US&IR=T#so-what-15 https://www.businessinsider.com/first-phone-anniversary-2016... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_OS_1#Third-party_applications https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_OS_1#Third-party_appl...
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    >So we will see a slow lock-in creep until they look like current day smartphones. So we will see the rise on Linux on the desktop.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      ...and on smartphones.
wongarsu 5y ago
> Apple assumed market dominance and locked everything down on mobile. Apple has about 26% market share on mobile globally, that's not exactly market dominance. Them locking down the platform limits piracy, which is one reason why developing for iOS is much more profitable for many kinds of apps, which causes better apps that drive consumers to the iPhone. That's the reason they put so much energy into locking down the platform
- AwaAwa 5y ago
  I have to assume that them taking 75 percent of the profit in the smartphone industry, gives them a blank check to do as they wish, and the rest of the industry must follow. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-operating-profit-q2-2021/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-o...
- addicted 5y ago
  The gulf between OSX apps and Windows/Linux apps in quality was far greater than any sort of edge iOS apps have over competing platform apps. So it’s hard to see how the argument that locking down the platform leads to better apps works.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  Locking things down and snooping are always presented as an advantage. Stoping piracy, stoping CP, stoping drug dealers and so on. Maybe we should have some company lock us in our houses for safety? You know, if you wander outside you might get robbed.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    Explaining the economic reasons why things are done is always seen as an endorsement of them. I don't think that's justified. I don't like how Apple locks down their phones, that's why I prefer Android. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate why they do it and why some people might prefer it.
datavirtue 5y ago
So if one OS company moves in a certain direction, the other one can do so safely. Implicit collusion. Apps need to run/execute in an open source runtime environment that operating systems can choose to integrate...and would need to if they wanted to run any of the applications on the market. The browser is not the answer. Once these guys get settled in they are going to push for regulation that will somehow preclude people from using Linux desktops.

pjc50 5y ago

> they don't impede or force users to use Mac App Store .. yet. The notarization and signing requirements are steps towards that; there's an escape hatch, but they could close it when it suits them.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

macOS still runs on Intel Macs without a T2 chip, if that’s the TPM-equivalent you’re thinking of.

dane-pgp 5y ago
The first Mac with a T2 chip was the iMac Pro 2017, and that product line was discontinued as of March 5, 2021. Does Apple still sell machines without an equivalent level of TPM? For what it's worth, it looks like macOS tends to support hardware that's up to 7 years old[0] and macOS versions tend to stay supported for about 3 years[1]. My guess is that by 2027, all Windows and macOS releases for non-enterprise users will either require a TPM or be out of security support, and governments will start banning the latter versions from accessing the internet. [0] https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/what-version-macos-compatible-3776008/ https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/what-version-macos-compat... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Mojave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Mojave

cma 5y ago

> but they don't impede or force users to use Mac App Store. They briefly pulled Epic's desktop signing keys, which they promised were for security only, over an unrelated iOS business dispute.

ryanlol 5y ago
This is a terribly dishonest take. There was no “unrelated iOS business dispute”, Epic was simply using their keys to sign software that they had agreed not to sign. Epic made it clear that they can not be trusted with signing keys, you can’t claim that this is unrelated. Epic could have sued Apple and proceeded with their business dispute without abusing their signing keys, but instead they made a calculated decision to abuse their trusted position for a PR stunt. Even if you fully agree with the position Epic is pushing in their lawsuit, these facts remain the same.
- cma 5y ago
  > Epic was simply using their keys to sign software that they had agreed not to sign. Epic never abused their desktop signing keys, which are stated to be for security only, what are you talking about? Apple did more than that too, they also briefly pulled their Apple logins, which they had surprise mandated on everyone who allowed third party logins. They went full mask off.
  - ryanlol 5y ago
    It is downright pathetic of you to attempt to differentiate between desktop and mobile signing keys. Epic made it clear that they can’t be trusted with any kind of signing keys.
    - cma 5y ago
      Apple made a distinction for desktop that the keys there were to be for security only. The iOS stuff was a payment/business dispute, not security related.

e12e 5y ago

> they don't impede or force users to use Mac App Store. They do for iOS, though? I'm not convinced we won't see something similar for desktop (possibly with an "opt-out" for power users, where you can manually sign and accept binaries - much like you can build a dev build of an ios app, but not distribute it).

DeathArrow 5y ago

>macOS is even more locked down, but they don't impede or force users to use Mac App Store. Until now. And because it faced competition from Windows. If they gain some market share, they will.

shukantpal 5y ago
Wouldn't it always face competition from desktop Linux?