How does building closed source products fight open source? They’re not at odds with each other.

Because either you're struggling for human progress doing research and building tech that empowers people, or you're struggling for profit building harmful tech for the common people. Apple is in the latter category (to be fair, most if not all hardware/software manufacturers are) and has shown time and time again that they were strongly opposed to consumer rights:

- pushing updates to slow down older iOS to "encourage" users to buy a new phone

- starting with the iPhone they didn't even sell official spare parts, and did all they could to make it hard to crack the phones open (proprietary screw, fuck that) to repair them

- lying to consumers about warranty laws, implying their products would be covered only 1y despite european regulations mandating 2y minimum

- getting into cushy mafia-like agreements with phone providers which inundated the market with "cheap" iPhones subsided by non-iPhone subscribers

- using proprietary connectors wherever they can (no ethernet? no jack? FUCK)

- by making it harder to use non-Apple-approved applications on MacOS and making it so applications can't even start when their "approval" server is down?!

- and so much more, just like with every other company

We need tech that empowers people. Private companies and Nation States are building a dystopian nightmare that's the exact opposite of that (we're in a cross-over fanfiction mixing Orwell and Huxley). Apple is certainly part of that.

Sounds like you only read the headlines and not actually use any of their products

Also really? you are either all-loving-god or the devil, no greys for you

> Sounds like you only read the headlines and not actually use any of their products

How are these two things connected with the partent's post?

>you are either all-loving-god or the devil, no greys for you

No, but Apple is certainly a dark kind of grey: https://www.fsf.org/news/the-problems-with-apple-arent-just-....

"You're either with us or against us" is a successful rallying cry for extremists, but it's not how most people view the world. I think if you survey FOSS developers, you'll find a LOT of them (including me) use and enjoy Apple products - not sure how this fits into your world view. It's possible, I'd say completely normal, to both want to make money, and to improve the world. I think most people see this as a balance that needs to be struck.

> It's possible, I'd say completely normal, to both want to make money, and to improve the world.

Yes because we're all brainwashed into "making a living". In what world is it normal to have to pay just to live?! Making money is precisely the mindset that's destroying our entire planet.

I'm not saying things are binary good/evil but capitalism is certainly the one thing creating the most suffering on this planet, and is essentially the driving force behind everything climate change.

It's hard to find a corporation that can fill any form of ethical criteria. Maybe an organic bakery sources local products and produces quality breads, but when it comes to IT there is no "ethical company" because everything we build relies on slave labor from mines/factories and extreme pollution in the global south...

BUT i would be tempted to say an IT company is on the other side of the spectrum if it attempts to respect its users by fighting hard against planned obsolescence (only sourcing quality materials, making disassembly/replacement easy) and for free computing (full schematics for every single part of the hardware, full source code for all firmware). I just don't know a single IT corporation that fits the bill, although Purism/Pine64/Oxide get closer than most.

We need 30+ years warranty on all devices. How come washing machines from the 50s are still working today, but those produced 5 years ago are breaking down as we speak? Yes, that's because of profits, as explained previously. Eliminate profit as a driving force for society and suddenly you'll see a lot of data points starting to improve.

> - pushing updates to slow down older iOS to "encourage" users to buy a new phone

Apple down older iPhones to make their batteries last longer. They were penalized by court for not communicating this decision to iPhone owners, not for slowing down battery.

Because as long as you can do one, you have no reason to do the other if you are not philosophically inclined to. They are absolutely at odds with each other.

> if you are not philosophically inclined to

You can be pushed by shareholders/public opinion, in the same way they get pushed to be environmentally or privacy conscious

It's naive to think that a push by environmental/conscious reasons is as strong as one by the money.

Ironic given the original reason that GNU exists is not monetary.

Why is this ironic? It just proves my point: how large is GNU and how large is Apple?

Interesting - I didn't know you couldn't submit GPL-licensed code to the app store. It's surprising to me, but I can imagine a legal reason why it could be difficult for them to support. Still, seems like it should be possible.

But GPL isn't the only kind of open source. In fact, it's an extreme form. I've spent a lot of time contributing to open source projects, but I stay away from GPL, because they are really limiting in what you can do with them.

I'm not very principled about it (anymore at least). I like Apple for privacy and quality. But the back-end for my phone is NextCloud/Wireguard and Signal for messaging. I actively use Matrix and use Castamatic for podcasts (including lightning payments to creators). So I'm a fairly pro opensource/decentralization guy, but I need some apps and I want stuff to work reliably and fast. I tried Android with MicroG, it does not work for me, or rather, I'm not willing to make such a large concession for my "ideologies".

Edit: I know where you are coming from, and I respect and understand it. But to me maximum freedom is allowing devs and creators to set their own terms for allowing use of their products (nobody is forced in that scenario). If it's GPL/MIT/BSD, I think that is absolutely great. But I also respect you if you don't and I may use your software if feel I can trust you.