3 ms·

> people want the right to repurpose hardware without a third-party services Is that wrong? Third-party services are temporary. Hardware lasts forever. If har

> people want the right to repurpose hardware without a third-party services Is that wrong? Third-party services are temporary. Hardware lasts forever. If hardware attestation comes at the cost of ephemerally-usable hardware, it's not worth it. It's certainly not worth forcing it onto devices that would otherwise be usable, but instead become landfill because their previous IT team went insolvent. People can (and should) get mad at this, and doing so with the Open Source community is not a mistake. Open Source represents leverage (AKA "Freedom") against corporations that would otherwise harm you for profit. You can excuse this behavior with all sorts of DRM and anticheat, but you'll never win until the kernel stops processing digital input and output. It's a snipe chase, and it's not worth pretending it's not a power grab.

altairprime 4y ago
Whether repurposeability should take precedence over secure attestation and antitheft is the correct question here. I’m glad to see you’re considering this in those terms now. I hope others do too. Note, however, that as Apple takes back all products they’ve ever produced for electronics recycling, in each case where an Apple product does reach a landfill, that could have been avoided. If, as in your example, an IT department refuses to recycle Apple electronics responsibly, then that’s not sufficient to declare repurposeability a landfill-prevention measure. So I worry greatly when I see such arguments refer to Apple and landfills, because they’re easily undercut, and that’s then used as an excuse to ignore the repurposeability debate I that I consider most important here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Your repurposability debate is right to be ignored. Apple does not deserve the ultimate authority on device usability; case closed. If you want further deliberation, watch European regulators do battle with Apple's copywriters. Either way you cut it, this fantasy of Apple products being "built different" doesn't make sense on an international scale. People want to hold Apple (the world's richest company) accountable. Why shouldn't they?
  - altairprime 4y ago
    I’d absolutely like this to be decided at a regulatory level one way or another, and I support Apple being compelled to adhere to whatever outcomes occur from that. Using this “Apple products in landfill” sensational headline to make the regulatory case is easily defeated by Apple PR, however, so find an argument that holds more water. For example: what’s the recycling story for Microsoft, Samsung, Google, and Lenovo handheld and laptop products? Do they all take back any of their mobile computing products for recycling? If not, using whichever of them refuse to recycle as an example will go a lot further towards making a case for regulation than using the one of them that takes back absolutely everything.

altairprime 4y ago

Whether repurposeability should take precedence over secure attestation and antitheft is the correct question here. I’m glad to see you’re considering this in those terms now. I hope others do too. Note, however, that as Apple takes back all products they’ve ever produced for electronics recycling, in each case where an Apple product does reach a landfill, that could have been avoided. If, as in your example, an IT department refuses to recycle Apple electronics responsibly, then that’s not sufficient to declare repurposeability a landfill-prevention measure. So I worry greatly when I see such arguments refer to Apple and landfills, because they’re easily undercut, and that’s then used as an excuse to ignore the repurposeability debate I that I consider most important here.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
smoldesu 4y ago
Your repurposability debate is right to be ignored. Apple does not deserve the ultimate authority on device usability; case closed. If you want further deliberation, watch European regulators do battle with Apple's copywriters. Either way you cut it, this fantasy of Apple products being "built different" doesn't make sense on an international scale. People want to hold Apple (the world's richest company) accountable. Why shouldn't they?
- altairprime 4y ago
  I’d absolutely like this to be decided at a regulatory level one way or another, and I support Apple being compelled to adhere to whatever outcomes occur from that. Using this “Apple products in landfill” sensational headline to make the regulatory case is easily defeated by Apple PR, however, so find an argument that holds more water. For example: what’s the recycling story for Microsoft, Samsung, Google, and Lenovo handheld and laptop products? Do they all take back any of their mobile computing products for recycling? If not, using whichever of them refuse to recycle as an example will go a lot further towards making a case for regulation than using the one of them that takes back absolutely everything.