9 ms·

For the record I don’t believe Apple is collecting that info - having said that I think the biggest issue with Apple is that it is not possible to fully audit a

• amelius 4y ago
  It's freaking annoying that you can't use an Apple device without being connected to Apple. There should be a law against that sort of thing, for hardware that you fully paid for.
  • EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    While not specifically that, the EU's Digital Markets Act is moving things in that direction. I recommend reading the full text of the legislation, it has many gems.
  • whiddershins 4y ago
    You can wipe it and install Linux and use the hardware you paid for unencumbered. So do you mean use the software you paid for? (Fair) Or am I missing a nuance. Edit: Or are you referring to iDevices.
    • amelius 4y ago
      Running Linux on it is not the solution, as there is no documentation. Volunteers have been reverse engineering the GPU, but they still don't know whether their assumptions are all correct. Also, is the Linux support actually official? Considering the above, I think not. I can't vote with my wallet for a company that has no clear map for the future, for my particular usecases. Yes, iDevices are another problem. And yes, paying for the software when you use only the hardware is a problem too. Too many problems with this company. I honestly can't understand why so many other hackers are happy being tethered and parent-controlled by Apple.
      • cassianoleal 4y ago
        > I honestly can't understand why so many other hackers are happy being tethered and parent-controlled by Apple. Obviously it varies from person to person. Some just don't care about this at all and/or don't consider it an issue. Some are just really used to it, or invested in the platforms, and don't want to waste time moving. Some will just find much worse experiences for their taste anywhere else. There are likely other personas in this story, these are just off the top of my head.
        • shanebellone 4y ago
          I haven't used Apple in 5-8 years. I prefer to build my desktops and don't use my phone much, so Android is sufficient. Frankly, I do not understand the disdain for Apple. They built their stack. That should be admired. Also, it's one ecosystem in the market. Don't like it? Buy something else.
          • EricE 4y ago
            Amazing, isn't it - people love to act like if you don't buy an Apple device they will send jack booted thugs to confiscate your non-Apple tech. Sigh...
        • amelius 4y ago
          Yes, fair, thanks for the reminder.
    • cassianoleal 4y ago
      > You can wipe it and install Linux and use the hardware you paid for unencumbered. Not all the hardware, or at least not yet if you're on Apple Silicon.
      • snazz 4y ago
        Asahi Linux works decently well on Apple silicon Macs today.
        • EricE 4y ago
          Better than Linux on the vast majority of Windows laptops due to hardware stability and less variability.
        • cassianoleal 4y ago
          I was responding to this: > You can wipe it and install Linux and use the hardware you paid for unencumbered. My point is, it works. In fact, it works fairly well. Some people use it as a daily driver. Not all drivers are finished though, which is what I meant by "not all the hardware". By installing Asahi you are deliberately choosing to not use the GPU, not having brightness control and a few other things are missing. With that in mind, my point stands: by installing Linux on an Apple Silicon machine, you cannot "use the hardware you paid for unencumbered."
      • Gigachad 4y ago
        Apple doesn’t place any restrictions on doing this, in fact they have set it all up to make install Linux as convenient as possible without directly adding drivers to Linux. Mainline Linux can now run all the critical features of apple silicon laptops and the remaining stuff like power management is really just waiting on someone to work out what the best way to modify Linux to support it would be.
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    I agree, that's why I don't buy them. All of my computers are 9+ years old and run fully up to date Linux or Windows.
    • frankfrankfrank 4y ago
      I’m not sure what would make you think that Windows is even in the slightest better. In fact it is proven that not only is Microsoft deeply in bed with the whole US Government, but the amount of vulnerabilities and flaws and outright back doors that have been publicly exposed in Windows is wildly larger. I don’t even understand this immense focus on criticizing Apple, as valid as it is, when people use Android and Windows and Google services that are all shown as clear hangar door sized vulnerabilities. It really kind of boggles my mind. Apple is constantly being out under pressure by the government and is constantly pushing increasing security and privacy features, as imperfect as they may be, but that is in comparison to Windows and Android, folks.
      • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        I use Linux but have a barebones Windows 10 install for one stupid stressful game that doesn't work on Linux due to anticheat. I audibly groan when rebooting to Windows to play. With that said I can still use Windows without a Microsoft account.
        • daf203723087 4y ago
          > With that said I can still use Windows without a Microsoft account. Only because you are a power-user and know the magic trick to perform when installing Windows to avoid signing in with a Microsoft account.
        • CharlesW 4y ago
          > With that said I can still use Windows without a Microsoft account. It sounds like you may not realize that you have never needed an Apple account (i.e. an Apple ID, which might call an "iCloud account") to use macOS. No magic tricks are required, although some Apple services will naturally not be avaiable.
  • themitigating 4y ago
    I don't think more government regulation for such a specific reason is a good idea. Just don't buy their products.
    • alwayslikethis 4y ago
      At some point this "voting with your wallet" argument gets ridiculous. How realistic is going through life without one of these slaveware devices? (defining slaveware as hardware or software that treats you as a slave to the corporation that made it) Most people are coerced to using it, not even knowing the difference, forcing you to use the slaveware as well.
    • oneplane 4y ago
      Do you really think the general consumer knows about any technical details of the products they buy, and if they did, they would care enough to chose the less-comfortable option for no perceived gain? This almost never works, and I think you know that.
      • themitigating 4y ago
        Do you really think the general consumer knows any medical details of the vaccines they buy? Should we regulate misinformation?
        • LarryMullins 4y ago
          We regulate vaccines, don't we? If you're so opposed to government regulation, vaccines are a very strange example to bring up.
  • dotancohen 4y ago
    > There should be a law against that sort of thing, for hardware that you fully paid for. Why? That sounds like exactly the type of issue that the market will fix, by buying from a different vendor.
    • oneplane 4y ago
      It seems the market isn't what you tink it is. At the same time, people also don't understand that the issue isn't what they think it is. There is a vocal minority on most of these things: - Powerusers and "learnt just enough to be dangerous" users complain about products not being targeted towards their wishes - Privacy alarmists don't like what they can't control - Commercial interests don't like having to pay for things, but do like getting paid for their own things Technically all correct, but in practise this is nearly all in the same bucket as fastfood, sugar, air pollution etc. It's something that affects everyone, but it's much easier to deny it, ignore it, and just go with the nice, easy, comfortable, and profitable paths.
      • dotancohen 4y ago
        > It seems the market isn't what you tink it is. Then what is it? I think that the market is an opportunity for companies to compete on features, price, service, and quality. Is that incorrect? If Apple is not competing on features, then shouldn't the market provide an alternative company that does? Specifically, Apple requires a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality yet consumers do not like this. Other companies provide devices that do not require a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality, though possibly at a higher price (doubtful) or lower quality, or worse service. But the opportunity does exist. I'm happy to hear where either my understanding is wrong, or where the market is failing.
        • oneplane 4y ago
          Just look around you, do you see any critical mass on both the vendor or consumer side that does something the way you describe it? Every time someone comes up with some confident theory on markets or how things should be, or how bad the things are as they currently are, they forget that the reality is 'the market' (whatever their definition happens to be at that time) did not, in fact, change due to either supply or demand. So when you were to say "the market demands offline devices, and the big companies are failing because they don't deliver that", you're either talking about a theoretical market, or about a different market, but not about the mass consumer electronics market. Because the big companies aren't failing, and regardless of the demand, no significant portion seems to be supplied.
  • Someone 4y ago
    > There should be a law against that sort of thing, for hardware that you fully paid for. So, if Apple were to say you didn’t fully pay for the hardware, it would be OK?
  • EricE 4y ago
    You can. It's just if you do disconnect from Apple entirely, then certain features like Visual Lookups break - unsurprisingly. Not sure why there is this persistent myth that you can only use Apple tech if "connected" to Apple.
• marcosdumay 4y ago
  > It would be colossally stupid for them to betray user trust in that way Yes. Unless, of course somebody is pointing a gun to their heads and forcing them, like the US government was already caught doing to other companies.
  • slenk 4y ago
    Interesting. Do you have any more info I could read regarding that.
    • martin_a 4y ago
      Ever heard about the CLOUD Act? Or the PATRIOT Act?
  • NineStarPoint 4y ago
    I can think of lots of examples where the US gov secretly forced companies to hand over data they were already collecting, but not really any situations where the gov secretly forced companies to start collecting data they weren’t already. Are there examples of the second?
    • colanderman 4y ago
      Does this count? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
  "For the record I don't believe Apple is collecting that info - having said that I think the biggest issue with Apple is that it is not possible to fully audit and determine what they collect and what they don't." This begs the question why is it not possible. I monitor the traffic on the computers I own which means I have sometimes to decrypt traffic from applications and then re-encryot before sending from the loopback to the local network I own and then over the wire onto "the internet". I like to know what data applications are sending or trying to send. I like to have control over it. That's not unreasonable in the slightest. Yet, in the "tech" company model of computer network use, the computer owner is discouraged, e.g., scary browser warnings, SSL errors, connection failures, etc., from placing any trust in themselves. Instead it advocates, if not effectvely mandates, placing trust (and fees, i.e., for "domain names") in some other entity, e.g., Apple, other "Certificate Authorities", etc. The mere act of questioning this model is often attacked by "tech" workers commenting online. Watch it happen in the replies. Under this model, it is as if the the computer and local network owner does not also own the traffic. Who owns the computer. Who owns the local network. Who own the data. Who should be allowed to view it and control it. If anything, one would think the computer and network owner should be allowed to prevent any third party, including Apple, if they so choose, from initiating remote connections and sending data from the computer owner's computer. Even after purchase Apple believes it is entitled to collect data from someone else's computer, over someone else's network. And it also believes no computer purchaser ever has an interest in seeing what data is being collected, by monitoring the traffic, let alone an interest in preventing these connections. There is no option provided to globally disable all phoning home to Apple, to indicate "No, thank you." It was not always like this, folks. I owned older Apple computers that never made such assumptions. The computer belonged to the purchaser. Generally, firewalls were not used to block software pre-installed on the computer by Apple. The so-called "tech industry" has moved the needle and tried to normalise what is IMHO an entirely different scenario.
  • oneplane 4y ago
    > I like to know what data applications are sending or trying to send Good luck with that. Unless you are running a Commodore 64 it is unlikely that a single person can understand, inspect and make decisions on modern operating systems or even individual applications. There was a small window in which you had the option to use your computer as a 'digital typewriter' and 'sometimes send a fax', but expected and supplied functionality this day and age relies on many small components being heavily interconnected, much in the same way that social circles are interconnected, social networks (the digital variant) are based on critical mass (not technical prowess, legal status or privacy) and the amount of people that have narrow/well-defined use cases for their computers are at an all-time low making them less and less significant to cater to. If you had a Apple computer with 10.3 or newer, this was the norm. If you had macOS 9 with iTools, it was the norm as well (for a bit until it got dropped in favour of MobileMe). The old times weren't better, just different (and much less feature-rich). Great for a few power users, bad for everyone else.