6 ms·

The problem is that this argument happens to conveniently align with Apple's financial interests.

ch4s3 2y ago
If your value prop to customers is seamless and secure default behavior, then of course blocking insecure peripherals aligns with your financial interests. This doesn't seem nefarious at all to me.
- wobfan 2y ago
  This is (I guess) not what OP meant. Apple obviously also gains financially from blokcing everything outside of there ecosystem, mainly because the majority of Apple users will only buy Apple hardware. Obviously, yeah, keeping the hardware a bit more safe also helps, but the main financial gain is definitely not coming from this.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    Note that I said seamless AND secure. Having preferential treatment for a limited set of well known hardware makes the experience seamless. I like the secure and easy hand-off between apple devices. I wouldn't want to give up the security to make it work.
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      > I wouldn't want to give up the security to make it work Android shows that you don't have to.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  Why doesn't Apple openly market that it's doing stuff in its financial interest? Is it too embarrassed to point that out?
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    I'm not sure I follow? Every company does what is in their own financial interest. Even b-corps and non-profits have to keep an eye on their balance sheets.
    - sunshowers 2y ago
      The point is that Apple does not actually care about you on the basis of principles. It only cares about you to the extent that it serves its own financial interests. This is important because Apple could one day decide that caring about you no longer serves its interests. This has already happened with user experience, where even the Settings app now has built-in ads pushing Apple's services. It has also happened with security, where Apple uses its robust security infrastructure to prioritize media company DRM over users' interests.
      - ch4s3 2y ago
        Do people expect a computer company to love them individually? > Apple uses its robust security infrastructure to prioritize media company DRM over users' interests You mean they follow the law so that they don't get sued into the ground?
        sunshowers 2y ago
        > Do people expect a computer company to love them individually? I expect corporations to be honest and sincere, and present the full argument for why they're doing what they're doing. I don't know if "people" in general expect this, but if they don't, then their expectations are too low. I am quite sure there is no US law which says Apple must build out support for media company DRM. Linux doesn't support it and hasn't been declared illegal.
        zimpenfish 2y ago
        > I expect corporations to be honest and sincere Mate, have I got bad news for you regarding literally the entirety of human commerce.
- rpdillon 2y ago
  The post you're replying to meant that it boosts Apple Watch sales because they hobble the functionality of competitors. I think your statement is simply saying that any competitor is insecure. I'd be surprised if that were a widely held view.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    Hobbling is a weird way to say that they aren't privileging unknown hardware. Yes, they make their own peripherals work better together. This seems like the only way to do some of what they do, airpods are so good because they use a proprietary standard that is better than bluetooth, using the open standard would be worse. My point is that it is good that they focus on making their own products work well together, it provides better value than being wide open and trying to work super well with everything. Windows tries to work well with any peripheral, and its a bad experience.
    - lelandbatey 2y ago
      That's not good enough. If you're Apple, and you're worth 3 trillion dollars, you can both do security and behave in a way that isn't anti-competitive. They could interoperate securely. Is it easier to just lock out your competition and use proprietary everything? Yes, duh. It's also blatantly anti-competitive, which is a thing that societally and (arguably) morally is not acceptable. I hope to read this blog post in an antitrust case from the DOJ one day.
      - ch4s3 2y ago
        It isn't anti-competitive to not open up your hardware and software security stack to any other OEMs who wander by. You can simply just buy a competitor's product, for less money even.
        Spivak 2y ago
        I mean the results of the lawsuits are it kinda is. You don't have to open it up technologically in the sense that just anyone ole' device can just pair but you should have to give any OEM access that wants to be part of the secure hardware club— they get to use the proprietary bits for interoperability. Any smart watch vendor should be able to call up Apple and make their own watch which is equally privileged to Apple's. And the requirements to the vendor to do so needs to be not so onerous as to be an effective ban.
- EA-3167 2y ago
  Something I learned a while ago is that there's a particular brand of very vocal person online who has a bone to pick with Apple. Sometimes it's for a good reason, sometimes less so, but the point is that they come to discussions of any Apple topic with a conclusion ready in hand and then work backwards from that. In this case the conclusion is, "Apple is wicked, perfidious, and monopolistic." Truthfully there isn't much you can say to people in that mindset.
  - avidiax 2y ago
    "We should not discuss how much of a monopoly Apple is. It's impossible to convince some people that it's actually not a monopoly."
  - commakozzi 2y ago
    it's tiring isn't it?
    - sunshowers 2y ago
      The fucking article is about this, so it's very relevant.
    - recursive 2y ago
      Yes. Probably in approximately the same way I find that there's nothing you can say to Apple fans that find a way to justify anything the Apple does.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    I think trillion dollar companies should not exist. They are inherently destructive to humanity.
    - EA-3167 2y ago
      Case in point. If the topic was that, then I'd welcome the discussion, but when you simply bring that to every discussion about Apple... it gets old. After all your statement only really needs to be said once for people to understand it, which makes the repetition over the years very grating. "Single issue posters" are generally the least engaging on the internet.
- avgDev 2y ago
  As a customer I would like to be able to make that decision. I don't need apple to hold my hand. They could inform me in the app store or when I install the app. Here apple is making that decision for me.
  - Propelloni 2y ago
    Apple is obviously the vendor for people who like to have their hands held. If you don't like that, make your decision earlier, just don't buy Apple. Worked for me the last decade.
    - ch4s3 2y ago
      I'm happy for them to hold my hand on commodity electronics. I don't ever want to have to think about how my phone and headphones work. I like to fiddle with computers, but not the stuff I need to run my day to day life.
    - jobs_throwaway 2y ago
      'If you don't like our business practices, don't buy from Standard Oil' type argument
      - op00to 2y ago
        Apple has a monopoly on mobile devices?
        jobs_throwaway 2y ago
        They have dominant market position on mobile phones in the US which allows them to act anti-competitively, yes
  - jmb99 2y ago
    > As a customer I would like to be able to make that decision. You can. There are dozens (hundreds?) of phones you can buy that aren’t an iPhone. It’s been well known for nearly 20 years at this point that iPhones are more closed than the competition (of which, again, there is a lot). They are successful because of this, not in spite of it, contrary to internet belief.
- tremon 2y ago
  Your argumentation itself is nefarious, because you're implicitly equating third-party with insecure.
wobfan 2y ago
That's the problem. Apple has two arguments. It obviously only tells us about the one that sounds good.
gretch 2y ago
It's not a problem, it's a good thing that someone's financial interests intersect with sound security practices. That like saying "people want reliable cars" conveniently aligns with Toyota's interest and implying there's something wrong happening.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  No, it's like saying that you can only buy Toyota aftermarket accessories at a steep markup, and other accessories are locked out via cryptography.
richwater 2y ago
I'm glad Apple's financial interests are aligned to my interests of not letting the eco system turn into a shitty Android-esque privacy wild west.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  Be careful what you wish for! Apple doesn't let you modify apps to remove tracking the way you can on Android.

If your value prop to customers is seamless and secure default behavior, then of course blocking insecure peripherals aligns with your financial interests. This doesn't seem nefarious at all to me.

wobfan 2y ago
This is (I guess) not what OP meant. Apple obviously also gains financially from blokcing everything outside of there ecosystem, mainly because the majority of Apple users will only buy Apple hardware. Obviously, yeah, keeping the hardware a bit more safe also helps, but the main financial gain is definitely not coming from this.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  Note that I said seamless AND secure. Having preferential treatment for a limited set of well known hardware makes the experience seamless. I like the secure and easy hand-off between apple devices. I wouldn't want to give up the security to make it work.
  - lern_too_spel 2y ago
    > I wouldn't want to give up the security to make it work Android shows that you don't have to.
sunshowers 2y ago
Why doesn't Apple openly market that it's doing stuff in its financial interest? Is it too embarrassed to point that out?
- ch4s3 2y ago
  I'm not sure I follow? Every company does what is in their own financial interest. Even b-corps and non-profits have to keep an eye on their balance sheets.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    The point is that Apple does not actually care about you on the basis of principles. It only cares about you to the extent that it serves its own financial interests. This is important because Apple could one day decide that caring about you no longer serves its interests. This has already happened with user experience, where even the Settings app now has built-in ads pushing Apple's services. It has also happened with security, where Apple uses its robust security infrastructure to prioritize media company DRM over users' interests.
    - ch4s3 2y ago
      Do people expect a computer company to love them individually? > Apple uses its robust security infrastructure to prioritize media company DRM over users' interests You mean they follow the law so that they don't get sued into the ground?
      - sunshowers 2y ago
        > Do people expect a computer company to love them individually? I expect corporations to be honest and sincere, and present the full argument for why they're doing what they're doing. I don't know if "people" in general expect this, but if they don't, then their expectations are too low. I am quite sure there is no US law which says Apple must build out support for media company DRM. Linux doesn't support it and hasn't been declared illegal.
        zimpenfish 2y ago
        > I expect corporations to be honest and sincere Mate, have I got bad news for you regarding literally the entirety of human commerce.
rpdillon 2y ago
The post you're replying to meant that it boosts Apple Watch sales because they hobble the functionality of competitors. I think your statement is simply saying that any competitor is insecure. I'd be surprised if that were a widely held view.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  Hobbling is a weird way to say that they aren't privileging unknown hardware. Yes, they make their own peripherals work better together. This seems like the only way to do some of what they do, airpods are so good because they use a proprietary standard that is better than bluetooth, using the open standard would be worse. My point is that it is good that they focus on making their own products work well together, it provides better value than being wide open and trying to work super well with everything. Windows tries to work well with any peripheral, and its a bad experience.
  - lelandbatey 2y ago
    That's not good enough. If you're Apple, and you're worth 3 trillion dollars, you can both do security and behave in a way that isn't anti-competitive. They could interoperate securely. Is it easier to just lock out your competition and use proprietary everything? Yes, duh. It's also blatantly anti-competitive, which is a thing that societally and (arguably) morally is not acceptable. I hope to read this blog post in an antitrust case from the DOJ one day.
    - ch4s3 2y ago
      It isn't anti-competitive to not open up your hardware and software security stack to any other OEMs who wander by. You can simply just buy a competitor's product, for less money even.
      - Spivak 2y ago
        I mean the results of the lawsuits are it kinda is. You don't have to open it up technologically in the sense that just anyone ole' device can just pair but you should have to give any OEM access that wants to be part of the secure hardware club— they get to use the proprietary bits for interoperability. Any smart watch vendor should be able to call up Apple and make their own watch which is equally privileged to Apple's. And the requirements to the vendor to do so needs to be not so onerous as to be an effective ban.
EA-3167 2y ago
Something I learned a while ago is that there's a particular brand of very vocal person online who has a bone to pick with Apple. Sometimes it's for a good reason, sometimes less so, but the point is that they come to discussions of any Apple topic with a conclusion ready in hand and then work backwards from that. In this case the conclusion is, "Apple is wicked, perfidious, and monopolistic." Truthfully there isn't much you can say to people in that mindset.
- avidiax 2y ago
  "We should not discuss how much of a monopoly Apple is. It's impossible to convince some people that it's actually not a monopoly."
- commakozzi 2y ago
  it's tiring isn't it?
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    The fucking article is about this, so it's very relevant.
  - recursive 2y ago
    Yes. Probably in approximately the same way I find that there's nothing you can say to Apple fans that find a way to justify anything the Apple does.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  I think trillion dollar companies should not exist. They are inherently destructive to humanity.
  - EA-3167 2y ago
    Case in point. If the topic was that, then I'd welcome the discussion, but when you simply bring that to every discussion about Apple... it gets old. After all your statement only really needs to be said once for people to understand it, which makes the repetition over the years very grating. "Single issue posters" are generally the least engaging on the internet.
avgDev 2y ago
As a customer I would like to be able to make that decision. I don't need apple to hold my hand. They could inform me in the app store or when I install the app. Here apple is making that decision for me.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  Apple is obviously the vendor for people who like to have their hands held. If you don't like that, make your decision earlier, just don't buy Apple. Worked for me the last decade.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    I'm happy for them to hold my hand on commodity electronics. I don't ever want to have to think about how my phone and headphones work. I like to fiddle with computers, but not the stuff I need to run my day to day life.
  - jobs_throwaway 2y ago
    'If you don't like our business practices, don't buy from Standard Oil' type argument
    - op00to 2y ago
      Apple has a monopoly on mobile devices?
      - jobs_throwaway 2y ago
        They have dominant market position on mobile phones in the US which allows them to act anti-competitively, yes
- jmb99 2y ago
  > As a customer I would like to be able to make that decision. You can. There are dozens (hundreds?) of phones you can buy that aren’t an iPhone. It’s been well known for nearly 20 years at this point that iPhones are more closed than the competition (of which, again, there is a lot). They are successful because of this, not in spite of it, contrary to internet belief.
tremon 2y ago
Your argumentation itself is nefarious, because you're implicitly equating third-party with insecure.

wobfan 2y ago

That's the problem. Apple has two arguments. It obviously only tells us about the one that sounds good.

gretch 2y ago

It's not a problem, it's a good thing that someone's financial interests intersect with sound security practices. That like saying "people want reliable cars" conveniently aligns with Toyota's interest and implying there's something wrong happening.

sunshowers 2y ago
No, it's like saying that you can only buy Toyota aftermarket accessories at a steep markup, and other accessories are locked out via cryptography.

richwater 2y ago

I'm glad Apple's financial interests are aligned to my interests of not letting the eco system turn into a shitty Android-esque privacy wild west.

sunshowers 2y ago
Be careful what you wish for! Apple doesn't let you modify apps to remove tracking the way you can on Android.