The answer is pretty simple: these problems are extremely rare, they don't last very long, and they tend to have fairly simple workarounds. You seem to have a principle that any non-zero chance of being affected by a problem of a certain type is a complete deal-breaker, but most people when buying a computer probably just subconsciously estimate the likelihood and impact of this type (and all other types) of problems and weigh that against other unrelated factors like price.
A month from now? Different story.
Can't comment on the Surface, never looked into them much.
I know, and I _want_ this. In general, it effectively eliminates the possibility that I'm going to install malware.
What you said is like saying nothing except a social security number is used to identify you, as if that wasn't linked to the rest of the info about you.
I don't understand what you mean.
I knew and didn't care. If you care, you're going to be real upset when you look at your other alternatives.
That said, I don't think many people here actually care. I firmly believe that most of the people on this site just like to shit on Apple, because they prefer that to trust their privacy to an Advertising company.
Furthermore, I would sort of disagree with the answer to why people would buy this. In terms of "most people buying a computer", the overwhelming majority of Apple customers are likely ignorant to this issue, and will continue to be.
in this context those are simply weasel words in my opinion
This does not mean car crashes can be ignored, or cannot happen to be dangerous.
There is a balance between the possible damage because of not checking signatures remotely, and the possible damage from not being able to run a program when the remote checking service is unavailable. But there is no situation where the average damage is exactly zero :-/
And in this analogy, I'm not saying "we should ignore car crashes." I'm saying "the reason people still buy and operate automobiles despite the possibility of accidents is pretty simple."
Not caring about this now is like not caring about government or corporate privacy invasions because "I have nothing to hide". It completely ignores all the variables that have to align to make this benign that happen to at this point, but are in now was assured for the future.
Okay, sure, you could attempt to estimate future damage from what appears to be a simple (albeit bad) bug in MacOS. Maybe it means all Macs will completely stop working in 2 years. But again, I think consumers will subconsciously estimate the likelihood of this to be extremely low.
> Not caring about this now is like not caring about government or corporate privacy invasions because "I have nothing to hide".
What? I thought we were talking about the immediate user-visible bug here, where some third-party apps could not be opened on some Macs for some period of time today. Sure, there are separate potential privacy concerns any time an OS phones home for any reason. But the problem here is just a blatant bug that manifests when the OS phones home and the servers are having problems. Macs continue to work fine when they're not connected to the internet, so it's pretty clear this is just a bug that's not actually related to the privacy concerns with phoning home.
>>>>> these problems are extremely rare, they don't last very long, and they tend to have fairly simple workarounds.
This is about Apple controlling what software you can run on your computer, for all third parties, and in a way that if the system/service is malfunctioning or shut down there's a chance it blocks all non Apple software.
You can either choose to accept that Apple is a good steward of this because they haven't screwed up too much yet, and that you're okay with it because you have no or little need for third party software it might affect (or are willing to deal with it), or you can view this as an erosion of your rights to control the hardware you bought, which while only slightly inconveniencing now are still fundamentally the same as what could be used egregiously in the future.
You either vigorously defend the rights (or what you want to be a right) now, or you watch it erode slowly. That's how the system works. You want privacy or believe it's important? Protect it now and even if you don't have anything to hide. You want the ability to control your own computer and run your own software, and not be beholden to some companies deprecation schedule affecting things they didn't write, or at least believe it's important for a possible future? Then defend it now.
Given how iOS functions, and how Apple is moving to their own silicon for their other products, do people seriously doubt that a future where you actually can't run anything on MacOS except what you get through their store isn't at least a possible future? If that's something we care about, it's something we should be vocal about now.
I've set up a few Linux installations for people who only use their computers as Facebook and YouTube machines, and I haven't had a complaint. They also wouldn't be able to break their systems if they tried.
I'm of the opinion that if ChromeOS would fit a user's use case, then so would Ubuntu with Firefox or Chrome, most of the time.
Those same Linux systems would fit my needs as a developer with only a few small changes.
Security, simplicity, power and ownership don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can have a simple and secure computer, and also have power over your system and own your hardware.
Yet at the same time it makes it possible for the user to "grow" and make use of more advanced features of the system for creative endeavors.
On the other hand on a locked down mobile device or chromebook, there is not really any room to grow and be creative, it's only good for consuming content.
That's exactly what happened in Hong Kong: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kon...
But it could never happen here...
(As someone pointed out, this does more than just prevent apps from running - it also leaks which apps you use and how often. Someone could ask Apple exactly when you started Tor browser, for example)
After decades of production operations, I have no complaints about how this was handled, and I expect they’ll investigate and patch any defects exposed by the outage.
I went for a walk when this happened and when I got back it was fixed. Works for me.
What happens if you're trading securities, or if you have an imminent deadline? Apple sells a fail-closed security feature, without investing the resources necessary to keep it as near to 100% serviceable as possible, and never really discusses it with the user. When it hangs, most users don't even know why.
WTF!
Seems like they could partner with Akamai (or one of its competitors) to make the server-side component of this feature more robust.
If they are going to sell the MBP as a premium professional product, then they must recognize that it will sometimes serve as the linchpin of users' mission-critical activities.
Take a billion dollars out of the stock buyback, invest it in the product instead, and make this problem go away.
There’s also not exactly a huge market for rental computers when you consider that libraries offer them for free, and often with better Internet connections than those renting a computer could offer.
Renting computers is a lot easier if you host them in the cloud and deny physical access to your customers, though — they generally can’t do permanent damage, and there’s no issues with theft/loss. But this isn’t typically viewed as “renting” anymore, but instead something like “colocation” or whatever EC2 is.
Why do you ask?
Feels problematic.
(Hint: I have literally never seen an example of one of our bank's customers being unable to bank because of this. I have seen heaps and heaps of examples of endpoint compromises resulting in people having their accounts cleaned out.)
And frankly, a benevolent dictatorship is basically the best government you can have, as long as you're part of the "in-group" who doesn't push boundaries, doesn't cause trouble, and supports the supreme ruler, Kim jon... cough* Apple.
---
The problem is that no matter how good the dictatorship might be today, it will eventually bite you. You will either develop a need that isn't addressed, or they will change the rules so you are no longer able to satisfy an existing need.
We're seeing this now with Google - Their motto was literally "don't be evil" for a long time. And during that golden period their users loved them. But as Google has shifted from "don't be evil" to "Make lots of money" people are starting to shift away.
Apple is still in the golden phase, but I'm not really convinced they're going to be there much longer.
EDIT: I'd add another way in which Google is like Russia and Apple like Singapore. Everyone kinda knows that Russia's leaders are a bit/a lot evil. There's still a debate about whether Singapore's leaders are evil.
I think it makes Linux some sort of United States: users like the principles, but almost all use one of the 50 major implementations, which tend to have small differences. When defending any perceived shortcoming, they will point to a different implementation without the particular flaw, or argue that the feature is not only unnecessary but undesirable.
Many outsiders are uncomfortable with the unwavering commitment these users have for the principles. Others often talk about moving to the USA, or how they plan to, but few make the effort to do so.
[The last paragraph convinced me the analogy was better with the USA than the EU.]
And even when I've created a problem or chosen to do something way outside of standard usage, there has been a WEALTH of documentation, stack overflow discussions, and live Linux community support. I've never run into a problem that hasn't already been chewed over by the Linux community, solved, and the solution been posted in a clear, educational, and technically descriptive manner.
I've NEVER has that kind of support from Apple or Microsoft. From them, it's always some half baked, high level / middle management overview type of solution, usually outdated, that discusses why it's a problem, why fixing it is dependent on the system (their system, that I've paid for), and how I should contact my system administrator, who's going to go read through the same page, then spend the afternoon sipping Pepto and dreaming of having a more sane job. Using their OS's is like wading through mud.
It looks scary for outsiders — how to choose state? Building own house requires so much energy and time, why would anyone do this? Just rent an apartment, maybe change wallpapers and door, bring appliances. Yes, sometimes owner moves switches, adds cameras, puts advertisement, forbids all but own groceries where he takes 30% cut, but apart from that life is good.
But after about the third time that upgrading my system made it unbootable because I had missed some crucial step buried in the changelog or release notes, I also developed a deep appreciation of all the things modern distros handle for you. I rarely fear a dist-upgrade the way I did an emerge world.
Apple is more like a Vatican and Google is like Saudi Arabia. Both corrupt in different ways.
The honeymoon is already over. A post like yours would have got several downvotes up to less than two years ago. I noticed that honest critics to Apple are tolerated now, since at least about one year ago.
I also still consider Apple's PR game to be top notch. Which is why so many folks are talking about loving the Apple app store in the thread about the recent Epic case that also popped up today. Although I'll note it's interesting that originally those threads seemed about evenly divided on the topic, and currently the pro-apple, pro-dictatorship voices seem to be getting mostly downvoted.
Regardless - I'd strongly recommend everyone out there to consider free and open software, on devices that you own (and you don't own a device if you don't have root access). Open source just keeps getting better - We happily re-implement the ideas and products generated by these companies, but we care about you - not the bottom line -because we are you.
I got a bunch of 'Why on earth would I do that. I love the app store and will only ever have Macs.'
I feel like I've "bought" a ton of games through Steam, and now that my kids are a bit older, they want to play some of them. Unfortunately they can't play different games at the same time - even with Steam's family sharing. When one person plays a game, it locks the whole game library.
GOG all the way.
You can get around this by running steam in offline mode.
Google's customers are not the users, they are the advertisers who rely on the data harvested by Google. The incentive to be evil is directly baked into the business model, and most users end up tolerating it because it is "FREE", and often the only viable option.
Apple's customers are the users. If Apple rocks the boat too much, their users might not feel so good about paying the premium prices Apple demands for its products. Making users upset is a direct threat to their business model.
This doesn't mean, however, that Apple's incentives are aligned with the user's incentives. It's important to see that Apple's devices are also a sales channel for Apple. For example, an iPhone is essentially a vending machine for entertainment. And Apple will exert its power to use that sales channel (using the same techniques as advertising companies, like user tracking), whether the user likes it or not.
Just today I heard a colleague say how tough it would be to move away from Apple because of their iCloud. Then you have all the apps and content (iOS and macOS) you already paid for.
The difference in business model between G, Apple (or other tech behemoths) are very superficial. Yes, to google and apple operations they are very different, but to a consumer: it's the same. Both try to become essential, all encompassing locking you in and increasing the cost of switching. All brands try to do this. But it's much easier for me to pick a new brand toothpaste after I'm done with previous one than for me to move app ecosystems, specially when those apps ecosystems are all locked down as all non-libre app ecosystems are.
You may "feel" like you're an Apple product because you think you can just buy less Apple products or not at all. That's until you consider the consequences of losing access to third-party content/products you purchase.
Of course, you are quite right to point out that Google's business model does incentivize behavior that isn't what their users would want. But the same is true of Apple - their business model strongly incentivizes them to create lock-in to the platform. Whether this bothers you more or less than Google's need to mine your data is I guess a matter of personal preference.
In my opinion, right now Apple is rocking the boat for 3rd party developers. Historically, that hasn't worked out that well for platforms, but we also don't have a ton of data to work with. It's conceivable that Apple becomes the "Company store" on Apple hardware, and their users only use Apple software.
But if that happens, I think they'll suffer more regulation and governmental interference (and rightfully so, imo).
You can't really compare Google to Apple. You can switch to a different company if you don't like pixel phones and get almost the same experience. You can switch between manufacturers and use windows/Linux as well. The same isn't true about Mac os or iOS.
While you may think customers still have a choice, the reality is that they are locked in through their school, work or relationships (can't use imessage to talk to your spouse?). Apple makes it difficult to use third-party hardware and software it competes with so you will buy more and more Apple over time. People are prone to sunk cost fallacy and consistency. It's sales manual 101. I really can't recommend reading a good sales manual enough.
This doesn't really make much sense to me. Unless you are going with a niche privacy-oriented fork of AOSP, any non-iOS smartphone you move to will still be controlled by Google. And if you do move to one of those forks, you are essentially migrating to an entirely new ecosystem anyways. It's no easier to leave Google's Android ecosystem than it is to leave iOS or macOS.
Also, thanks to PinePhone finally providing open yet easily available hardware, there is now a new crop of fully open source mobile Linux distros being developed: https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_Software_Release...
Sire, not everything might work yet & PinePhone is not at the same level as the latest Android flagship phone (well, you can hardly expect that for $150) but there are multiple people communities of people building new mobile operating systems, right now! Ones that are not controlled by a control freak (Apple) or spymaster dropping services left and right (Google).
Users en masse would not switch, not from Apple, not from Microsoft. Their price is not that high in dollars, it is high in freedom. And most users do not value that.
As are a crack dealer's.
> "Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto.
> Following Google's corporate restructuring under the conglomerate Alphabet Inc. in October 2015, Alphabet took "Do the right thing" as its motto, also forming the opening of its corporate code of conduct.[1][2][3][4][5] The original motto was retained in Google's code of conduct, now a subsidiary of Alphabet. In April 2018, the motto was removed from the code of conduct's preface and retained in its last sentence.[6]
I know saying Google removed Don't Be Evil is something of a trope, but the truth is a little more complicated. And, of course, the presence or absence of this phrase has no necessary bearing on the degree to which they are perceived as evil or not!
“Don’t be evil” is nearly the opposite guidance.
Have you seen Louis Rossmann's videos on Apple hardware repair?
The benevolent days of Apple ended when they removed the expansion slots from their computers, if not earlier.
Let P = "Don't be evil" and Q = "make lots of money".
Q was nothing new. They always wanted Q. But Google made a fundamental breakthrough in business logic, discovering that P -> ¬Q.
It should be noted that ¬P -> Q is not automatically implied. Plenty of companies are ¬P ∧ ¬Q. Perhaps they are not ¬P enough? Perhaps they are too much ¬P? But very few manage to be purely P ∧ Q.
Like so much of the modern security activity, it doesn't seem to be fully thought out, nor was the possibility of failure considered.
Or maybe such failures were considered and then dismissed? I don't know.
They may move to edge servers instead of centralized datacenters now though...
Considered but not tuned. I've never noticed any delay launching or using software that doesn't require an internet connection while not being connected to the internet. (I definitely did notice slowdowns today - Zoom in particular which I tend to quit out of when I'm not using it because I don't trust it one bit but am compelled to use it for work)
Seems like apple was accepting connections for the signature check but were unable to actually service the connections, leading to the timeout/failover.
I honestly like the idea of signature checks on software that give me some confidence that the code that is running is the code that it claimed to be when it was published/installed and has not been manipulated via some other vector.
Whether apple is the appropriate steward of that system is certainly up for debate, but certainly other companies that run app stores have similar systems and similar risk. It certainly doesn't seem obvious to me what a secure, anonymous, performant and federated system to solve such a problem would actually look like.
Don't limit freedom at once. Do it one by one so the impact seems low.
What are the chances that any of the big tech companies take orders from a fascist to block all the harmful software in their country?
Non zero. People in HK know this. I want to know how they felt about their choice to buy iPhone at that moment.
Because we can't have nice things, Apple has to check that apps are signed with a current certificate for safety and security reasons. OCSP tells the client if the certificate has been revoked or not.
Try opening a non-https web page; you'll get a bunch of ominous warnings from all major browsers.
Browser certificates need to be OSCP signed for the browser to trust them. You can't even get a new cert if the issuer’s OCSP server goes down, which does happen on occasion.
There are so many dependencies to ensure we're not running malware infected apps that sometimes things break.
Let’s not get carried away; every major tech company has had some version of this happen at one time or another.
FWIW, I haven't experienced any issues with my iMac running Big Sur running Apple or 3rd party apps all day.
This is a very serious concern for Enterprise PKI systems: revoking certificates is now virtually impossible. CRLs and OCSP do practically nothing.
Google especially has unilaterally decided that Enterprise PKI systems don't matter. They have established a new "standard" called Certificate Transparency, which they use to make CRLSets that they publish as Chrome updates.
Which is fine I suppose for public CAs, but utterly useless on internal-use private CAs on local networks, especially those with lots of BYOD or guest/partner systems. Think universities or hospitals.
Google has become a juggernaut with more control over computing in general (not even just the Internet!) than all of the world governments put together.
They're getting truly terrifying.
OSCP is flawed because you can block the connection, meaning
1) Your browswer has to accept it (thus an attacker feeding you the bad certificate can bypass OSCP)
2) Your browswer blocks completely (thus DOSsing all connections), and people use another browser
CRLs don't scale - you can't keep a cached list of every revoked cert globally.
However I pull down the CRLs for my internal CA every few hours onto my internal https sites, which rely on a client presenting a valid certificate to connect. If that doesn't get pulled down, I get a warning about it in the monitoring system. When a client with a client certificate connects, I check against my local cache of the CRL, and if it's been revoked, it can't connect.
What problem do you have on your private CA internal network that CRLs fix but browsers don't? Are you that concerned that your server certificates get compromised? You should be working to massively reduce the time those certificate are valid.
With the introduction of CRLite, the default is disabled, but those using Firefox with internal-use private CAs on local networks can renable via preferences, which can also be controlled by enterprise policies and tooling.
But these browsers won't trust a cert if it can't be found a Certificate Transparency log. Yes, a cert should be in at least two of them but if there's a networking problem or infrastructure issue, you're SOL.
What is frustrating is they didn’t handle this situation like they do if I’m offline - don’t get a ping back in less than 500ms or whatever? Go ahead and open anyway. would have solved this eventuality
how do you do that without defeating the security? Now a malicious attacker just has to wait for a moment when you aren't connected before launching their payload.
Also, my understanding is that it’s a hash of the binary being checked so if it failed the verification the first time when you were connected you would have received a warning and the OS would block that executable on your system or given a warning or something? Not sure tbh.
In seriousness though, the problem with offline databases that are changed a lot is a problem antivirus programs always had: they need updating. You can’t have the “latest and greatest” protection if you don’t know about the newest threat. That’s probably what Apple is doing here: using a database on their end that they wouldn’t have to distribute to end users. It’s not the best way around it, but there isn’t really a “best” way.
Use compressed probabilistic data structures and ship minimal diffs to save bandwidth and storage; you can fall back to phoning home if there's a possibility of a collision with a known-bad hash. Apple's solved push messages at scale; it could piggyback an update mechanism on that, or use the techniques Dropbox uses to notify about file updates. It can do this at the OS level so there's no threat of a user process not being active to pull updates. And the check is already soft-failing (per the OP) so it won't break if the system is offline, so they're already not caring about threats that are so new, they were found while the computer was offline.
You need to solve a lot of timing diagrams and race conditions (and, if we're being snarky, maybe it's for the best that Apple isn't trying to do this!) but it should be doable.
The thing is, this is not a new security problem/challenge. It essentially can not be properly solved if you don't have a tightly controlled environment. If it's a general purpose environment, where you can't fully control what ends up running on it, this particular approach to "security" is pretty much doomed, no matter how you address it.
You should. It's noones business when and how often you run a known tor browser binary.
They know what times you're at home, and what apps you're using there. They know what times you're at work. They know what times you're tethered. They know when you travel, and to which cities. They know when you're on a friend's Wi-Fi, and they know which apps you open from that connection.
Apple is a partner in the US military’s PRISM spying program, so this log is available to US military intelligence at any time without a warrant.
Thanks to API changes in Big Sur, it’s impossible to use Little Snitch to block these system level connections, and they will also bypass any configured VPN. To control this, you’ll need to use external network hardware, like a travel router that you can operate a vpn/firewall on.
Big Sur is the only OS that will run on the new Apple Silicon macs, so it’ll be impossible to use the new machines without leaking your track log and app usage history in a way that is available to the FBI/CIA/et al whenever they want it.
Note also that Apple recently backdoored iMessage’s end-to-end encryption by defaulting the non e2e-encrypted iCloud Backup to on for all users: it backs up (to Apple) your device’s complete plaintext iMessage history, as well as your device’s iMessage keys, using Apple keys, each night when you plug it in. You should immediately stop using iMessage as a result of this, because even if you have disabled iCloud or iCloud Backup, your conversation partners likely have it enabled. iMessage is no longer meaningfully encrypted.
Apple’s marketing about privacy is lip service, not real.
False
If I knew - I might still have ordered one, because I like ARM and battery life. But this reaffirms the observed trend of Apple becoming more of an owner of the machine that supposedly I own.
I'll attempt to shut it down (at least now, it still observes /etc/hosts) - but when I can no longer do that, I'll leave Apple forever, hopefully by then other hardware manufacturers have caught up in UX.
I believe this is why there has never been any mass pushback against iOS/Android (even if Android is slightly better in this respect).
Further, neither iOS nor Android (and now OS X) have instituted huge restrictive changes all at once. Restrictions are gradual & creeping, basically moving the overton window of what is accepted.
Or just run BlueStacks, which is necessary to run Among Us (the popular game since lockdown), which isn’t signed because it’s an emulator. And it requires the “Control this mac” permission. Unsigned. There are many, many cases in which users are faced with unsigned apps.
I don't want that. I don't think it would serve Apple's customers to get rid of binary signing either.
Since there are no legal ramifications for security bugs that cause downtime, or for bugs that cause other functionality that goes down, I'm not sure why this particular bug would be any different. It's certainly not as bad as losing one's Google account permanently without recourse.
I really had no idea until today.
It will get fixed pretty easily: Apple will add some combination of a timeout and a request back-off to their client, to properly handle the situation of a server that is reachable but not sufficiently responsive.
Apple clearly does not mean to make their devices unresponsive if the server is offline, because pointing requests at localhost resolves the issue.
The solution won't be to fix a defect, but to change the design, which is completely flawed. They should have pushed revocations from the beginning rather than requiring every system on the planet to poll a service. What were they thinking? And that does make one wonder whether there weren't other reasons for this behaviour besides "security".
For the same reason every human frequently makes decisions with greater-than-zero risk: because we're either unaware of the risk, or because we believe the tradeoff is a good one, and the benefits are worth the risk-adjusted costs.
Having said that, it's not enough to get me to switch platforms. I'm able to work around the problem (using Little Snitch, see other replies), and there are a ton of factors that go into my decision of which hardware/OS to use, all of them involving tradeoffs. The only viable alternatives, Windows and Linux, have their downsides too. Some people prefer those over macs and that's fine; it's a choice people make based on their particular situation.
Still sounds to me like Apple rolled out a huge (logical) trojan horse, as a potential weapon in terms of nation state cyber warfare.
Probably not at all with that intention. But I doubt that any government willing to abuse this "opportunity" will give a fuck about that. Don't underestimate the power (and disruptive) effects of being able to practically disable a whole brand of popular computer hardware. Heck, even the ability to threaten with it (privately, through diplomatic channels) can (and probably should) be considered a serious weapon. So yeah .. "thank you" Apple.
Or can you still reboot without wifi?
(And that's after I realized that they will eventually open. Originally I rebooted the machine before any app had had a chance to open.)
The search is useless. On Linux, it's so much better.
I had to download and run a bunch of scripts to get rid of the amount of data it was sending back home. I had to remove the bloat and ads it came with.
Give https://pop.system76.com/ a try if you don't believe that Linux is easier to use. Most people don't need to open the terminal anymore.
Sorry what do you mean you can't install steam or chromium in Windows? Millions of people run this software on Windows. - A mint user.
But besides this bad example, I agree with you. Windows has always been a black box, but as time goes by it's become a stupid black box. It feels so incredibly refreshing when I go back to Linux and I feel in control of the entire system. Almost like a physical sensation.
For my grandpa, yes. Windows smart screen hides the run anyway button as more info link.
While OSX was demanding that I identify a bluetooth keyboard... I don't have a bluetooth keyboard at all.
OSX is buggy and getting less and less usable. I'm finding myself working on Ubuntu and Windows more, than OSX these days.
I'm sure I'll get downvoted, but I just had to get this off my chest. Why people still buy Apple today, I positively can not comprehend.
i really don’t get these kinds of comments.
Apple gave a detailed explanation. It was a server misconfiguration combined with a CDN issue which caused the OCSP certificate check to stop working, which caused Apple's system for ensuring certificates haven't been revoked to stop working:
“We have never combined data from these checks
with information about Apple users or their
devices. We do not use data from these checks
to learn what individual users are launching
or running on their devices,” clarified the
company.
“Notarization checks if the app contains known
malware using an encrypted connection that is
resilient to server failures,” says Apple,
further emphasizing, “These security checks
have never included the user’s Apple ID or the
identity of their device. To further protect
privacy, we have stopped logging IP addresses
associated with Developer ID certificate checks,
and we will ensure that any collected IP addresses
are removed from logs,” details Apple.
Turns our Apple's MacBook business grew 39% last quarter: https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/11/16/apples-macbook-bu...
Apple don't publicly go out of their way to tell you that this is how it works. You make a great point that the way it works is bad and I think everyone agrees with that. But it's the limited knowledge that the OS operates this way that keeps consumers purchasing their products.
This is the only reason I had to move away from (arch) linux and it saddens me every day.
The central company server didn't go down. If it was down there would be no problem. The problem is that the server is slow.
Consumer and commercial software is just all bad.
I'm thinking specifically of Firefox, but others too.
I'd love it if someone other than Apple made a competent PC that was as clean, reliable, and comparatively free of bullshit. Unfortunately Apple has a monopoly on cleanly designed computers.
Imagine if the USA actually comes under an attack.The apple spaceship would be high on the list of targets. All of sudden hospitals can't run their computers or communications. Disaster!
If Apple servers actually go down, there's no issue.
> All of sudden hospitals can't run their computers or communications.
If the scenario is an attack by the USA, there are so many better avenues.
If a country wants to defend from this (assuming they are heavily invested in Apple hardware), they just have to block at their firewalls. Done.
Even beyond unintentional glitches at Apple, just imagine what this could mean when traffic to this infra is disrupted intentionally (e.g. to any "unfavorable" country). That sounds like a really serious cyber attack vector to me. Equally dangerous if infra inside the USA gets compromised, if that is going to make Apple computers effectively inoperable. Not sure how Apple will shield itself from legal liability in such an event, if things are intentionally designed this way. I seriously doubt that a cleverly crafted TOS/EULA will do it, for the damage might easily go way beyond to just users in this case.
Again, maybe (and in fact: hopefully) I'm just getting this all wrong. If not, I might know a country or two where this could even warrant a full ban on the sale of Apple computers, if there is no local/national instance of this (apparently crucial) infrastructure operating in that country itself, merely on the argument of national security (and in this case a very valid one, for a change).
All in all, this appears to be a design fuck-up of monumental proportions. One that might very well deserve to have serious legal ramifications for Apple.