3 ms·

It requires more than zero engineering effort on their part so they won't. It is also, technically, an attack vector... A sufficiently sophisticated phisher mig

It requires more than zero engineering effort on their part so they won't. It is also, technically, an attack vector... A sufficiently sophisticated phisher might be able to convince somebody to replace their bootloader, but we both know that's not why Apple does it. They do it because it allows them to capture the revenue for use of their computing appliances and it saves them every headache of having to provide customer support for hardware they sell that isn't running an operating system they wrote. Serving your use case isn't what they make computers for. Google does though. I recommend switching platforms.

smoldesu 4y ago
Serving my use case is what computers are. If Apple doesn't make those devices, then why are their devices capable of doing everything I described? They already wrote the bootloader. They already wrote the sideloading code, app sandboxing model, filesystem isolation APIs and even the packaging standard needed to distribute iOS applications. What's the major engineering hurdle they're struggling with, relative to everything they've already done?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  I don't follow. They don't let you replace the bootloader; I thought that was your concern. So they can't do everything you want them to. I can run Doom on a refrigerator but it's still a refrigerator. Apple makes computing appliances.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    I don't follow either. If this refrigerator got an update that started showing you advertisements, you'd want the manufacturer to have some form of accountability that they don't further degrade the experience. Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to not make bone-headed moves. You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care? I already know that. I own many of their devices and experience it first-hand.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      > If this refrigerator got an update that started showing you advertisements, you'd want the manufacturer to have some form of accountability that they don't further degrade the experience. Me personally? I might just let it happen (especially if it goes hand-in-glove with some other benefit, like lower cost). Or if it's too annoying I'll switch refrigerators. > Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to not make bone-headed moves That's the business model of the alternatives to Apple. Apple's business model is value delivered through vertical integration. For their end-users, they're building a better product because they own and control the hardware, OS, and software ecosystem. It's Nintendo-Seal-of-Approval thinking, and it's not inherently wrong so long as there are alternatives (and there are many, just none that have a supported path to using Apple's hardware). > You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care? I don't think Apple sees opening the bootloader as a good thing. It increases the ways the machine can be in a broken state with the only benefit to people tech-savvy enough to just use other hardware. And, of course, from a pure-business standpoint, it might kick a leg out from under the money-made-through-vertical-integration stool, which is of concern to them.
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        > Or if it's too annoying I'll switch refrigerators. You think that having to switch a working major appliance for another because of a post-purchase update by the manufacturer is an acceptable cost for consumers to have to take on? I assume this is because you think the free market forces always end up optimal in the end somehow, and that regulation will cause more harm than good?
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        Just the second part in this case. Specifically because the customers for Apple products are those who want Apple making these decisions for them. People buy into Apple for a certain security that the company does its best to vet the store contents. Stepping on their ability to do that diminishes the product value for the intended consumer.
stale2002 4y ago
> I recommend switching platforms. Well, there are other options. Other options, such as how the EU is going to force Apple under threat of government force to make changes. Anti trust laws have existed for a century now. We can make new ones, or use those existing uncontroversial laws to apply to the newer tech monopolies. If Apple doesn't like it's then they can stop selling their product in every country where this is the law. (So that includes the entire EU, and hopefully the USA soon, as there are laws in Congress being considered right now).
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  EU antitrust differs from American antitrust, IIUC, because American is couched in harm to consumers while Europe is couched in harm to merchants. So I can see how the EU might see a way towards saying "Your ownership of the vertical stack makes you a market-maker and market-caller on a very lucrative app market; you bear some responsibility to making that market fair and competitive." This is the same kind of thinking that caused France to crack down on Amazon offering discounts on books that undercut local booksellers because they could collapse the booksellers' guild (even though Amazon's shipping integration means they actually can afford to charge so little). But in the US, the first hurdle such a case has to cross[1] is "Why doesn't the user and app maker just go to Android if Apple's so bad?" Which, indeed, is the question I'm asking myself here; Coinbase could just jump ship and offer their app only on Android, and then, hey, the Android ecosystem is slightly better than their competition. [1] ... unless the law changes, of course, as you've observed. I can imagine something coming out of the John Deere tractor "right to repair" angle, though I haven't been following this space.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

smoldesu 4y ago

Serving my use case is what computers are. If Apple doesn't make those devices, then why are their devices capable of doing everything I described? They already wrote the bootloader. They already wrote the sideloading code, app sandboxing model, filesystem isolation APIs and even the packaging standard needed to distribute iOS applications. What's the major engineering hurdle they're struggling with, relative to everything they've already done?

shadowgovt 4y ago
I don't follow. They don't let you replace the bootloader; I thought that was your concern. So they can't do everything you want them to. I can run Doom on a refrigerator but it's still a refrigerator. Apple makes computing appliances.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  I don't follow either. If this refrigerator got an update that started showing you advertisements, you'd want the manufacturer to have some form of accountability that they don't further degrade the experience. Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to not make bone-headed moves. You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care? I already know that. I own many of their devices and experience it first-hand.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > If this refrigerator got an update that started showing you advertisements, you'd want the manufacturer to have some form of accountability that they don't further degrade the experience. Me personally? I might just let it happen (especially if it goes hand-in-glove with some other benefit, like lower cost). Or if it's too annoying I'll switch refrigerators. > Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to not make bone-headed moves That's the business model of the alternatives to Apple. Apple's business model is value delivered through vertical integration. For their end-users, they're building a better product because they own and control the hardware, OS, and software ecosystem. It's Nintendo-Seal-of-Approval thinking, and it's not inherently wrong so long as there are alternatives (and there are many, just none that have a supported path to using Apple's hardware). > You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care? I don't think Apple sees opening the bootloader as a good thing. It increases the ways the machine can be in a broken state with the only benefit to people tech-savvy enough to just use other hardware. And, of course, from a pure-business standpoint, it might kick a leg out from under the money-made-through-vertical-integration stool, which is of concern to them.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      > Or if it's too annoying I'll switch refrigerators. You think that having to switch a working major appliance for another because of a post-purchase update by the manufacturer is an acceptable cost for consumers to have to take on? I assume this is because you think the free market forces always end up optimal in the end somehow, and that regulation will cause more harm than good?
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        Just the second part in this case. Specifically because the customers for Apple products are those who want Apple making these decisions for them. People buy into Apple for a certain security that the company does its best to vet the store contents. Stepping on their ability to do that diminishes the product value for the intended consumer.

stale2002 4y ago

> I recommend switching platforms. Well, there are other options. Other options, such as how the EU is going to force Apple under threat of government force to make changes. Anti trust laws have existed for a century now. We can make new ones, or use those existing uncontroversial laws to apply to the newer tech monopolies. If Apple doesn't like it's then they can stop selling their product in every country where this is the law. (So that includes the entire EU, and hopefully the USA soon, as there are laws in Congress being considered right now).

shadowgovt 4y ago
EU antitrust differs from American antitrust, IIUC, because American is couched in harm to consumers while Europe is couched in harm to merchants. So I can see how the EU might see a way towards saying "Your ownership of the vertical stack makes you a market-maker and market-caller on a very lucrative app market; you bear some responsibility to making that market fair and competitive." This is the same kind of thinking that caused France to crack down on Amazon offering discounts on books that undercut local booksellers because they could collapse the booksellers' guild (even though Amazon's shipping integration means they actually can afford to charge so little). But in the US, the first hurdle such a case has to cross[1] is "Why doesn't the user and app maker just go to Android if Apple's so bad?" Which, indeed, is the question I'm asking myself here; Coinbase could just jump ship and offer their app only on Android, and then, hey, the Android ecosystem is slightly better than their competition. [1] ... unless the law changes, of course, as you've observed. I can imagine something coming out of the John Deere tractor "right to repair" angle, though I haven't been following this space.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]