4 ms·

Unfortunately, there’s always someone who is more than willing to read far too much into a low-level technical decision if it serves to, in their eyes, ‘prove’

Unfortunately, there’s always someone who is more than willing to read far too much into a low-level technical decision if it serves to, in their eyes, ‘prove’ their preconceived worldview. A company as large as Apple making this particular decision in service of a wider vision to “own user devices, is attributing to Apple a degree of organisational and coordination prowess that is well beyond unheard of in any organisation even one tenth of Apple’s size. But it’s Apple, right!?

smoldesu 3y ago
It would be a lot easier to agree with you if Apple didn't go out of their way in software, hardware and firmware to block third-parties from getting a fair shake. This is the company that stops you from repairing your own device using software that you cannot control - it's not a lack of organizational and coordination prowess that makes these things happen. Nobody cakewalks their way into manufacturing things on the Chinese mainland. Similarly, some intern at Apple did not authorize this change, write the patch, and then defend the decision when upstream questioned them about it. That requires coordination, which is frankly why this whole brouhaha is offensive. Apple could be working with upstream to close a critical vulnerability, but instead they're defending the merits of a faulty and dangerous fork. That is brazen and irresponsible behavior that requires just as much effort as working together with the community to solve the issue. Even companies a tenth Apple's size can get this right.