3 ms·
That's not a sad thing to be, at least recently. Apple is one of the major enemies of personal computing freedom.
by reginaldjcooper 13y ago
That's not a sad thing to be, at least recently. Apple is one of the major enemies of personal computing freedom.
- coldtea 13y agoI don't know, I seen to have a free compiler on my Apple laptop. And a handheld mobile OS with unprecedented capabilities people would be dreaming of just a decade ago -- that I can code for by spending like $100, including the ability to release my apps to half a billion with credit cards at the ready. Perhaps if you're young enough to only remember the "everything must be FOSS" times, and not the times we paid $100-$300 for a proprietary compiler this seems very restrictive.
- reginaldjcooper 13y agoI guess you can download the LLVM source but that has nothing to do with Apple. > that I can code for by spending like $100 Odd that you think that's freedom, because I can put my own apps on my own phone for actual free. I can put other people's apps on my own phone without signing up for an app store and without a third party's permission. I can send my apps to anyone I want and charge them via my own payment processor if I want. I agree we now have a "handheld mobile OS with unprecedented capabilities" and that iOS and the App Store were incredibly innovative a few years ago. But the problem is not whether or not I am allowed to develop an app, the problem is whether or not I am allowed to use my device on my terms. I couldn't even add a caller blacklist on iOS. Also let's say I without any argument accept the idea that the past was less free. That still doesn't make what Apple are doing now free in any shape or form, that's just a flat-out logical fallacy. If you have to appeal to a worse past to explain how you are relatively free you have basically conceded the argument.