There is nothing terrible about Apple making devices my 80+ year old mother can safely and easily use.
I have a Mac, and I also have Linux machines. Nothing is stopping people learning about computers.
Why would anyone spend $1000 on a computer from Apple if it’s not what they want?
This - this line is the part of your argument I find fairly bullshit.
There is nothing stopping Apple from making the same device, but giving you the keys to install your own software on it. Hell - They can even bury it in the settings, or lock it down through a provisioned profile so you can help your mom by turning it off if you're worried.
Instead - you're arguing that apple should abuse their position to keep other competition locked out. Because you think it makes you "safer". I don't think it makes you safer. I think it makes life easy for you, at the expense of everyone in the long term.
You have fallen - hook, line, and sinker - for the marketing of the richest company in the world, telling you "trust us - we'll keep you safe". You should ask more questions about why they need to do it this way. Why keeping you safe involves abusing their power.
That's the same safety China promises with their great firewall. Trust us - we'll keep you safe, happy, and ignorant.
Maybe that's a good deal to you - I think it's a shitty trade.
They do, at the app level. As a developer you can install whatever app you want on your own devices, even apps which would never be allowed in AppStore or TestFlight (although still not with all the entitlements Apple’s own apps can get.)
OS level, your point stands.
You utterly do not own those devices. Apple sells a house where they kept the keys to all the locks, but people think it's ok "because they'll keep me safe and unlock my doors when I need them to!".
Nevermind the risk is mostly a marketing boogeyman in the first place.
You... don't think you can install your own software on MacOS?
They're both perfectly fine general purpose machines - except apple holds the keys to the engine, and only hands them out when they approve of the use case.
I don’t love where that leaves us but it does make me wonder whether a better compromise would be something like regulation requiring third-party app installs but with some kind of business liability & registration requirement so e.g. Epic could set one up but fly by night scammers couldn’t easily set something up and spam AARP members.
They bought them because it was a new category of device (and extensive marketing from Apple - although I don't mean to discount the product with that statement - very solid phones, but also very excellent marketing). If anything - the early tech adopters moved to the iphone because it was more open than the existing phones at the time, which were definitely not general purpose computers. The iphone got us halfway there - I'd like to see us take the last few steps.
Because marketing.
Then again, maybe the truth is that what people really want isn't the best tool for the job but the best-marketed tool for the job, and they spend their money accordingly.
Hell, it's easier and cheaper than ever. You can run Linux in your browser on an iPad, just by visiting a URL. Or shell into various free-tier VMs, for... free. Maybe a one-time cost for an SSH/Mosh client if you're on iOS I suppose. Swift Playgrounds and a hundred other learn-to-code apps and sites exist. And that's if you're "stuck" with a locked-down device running iOS—you can pick up cheap but pretty damn powerful second-hand x86 computers with money earned from a shift or two at McDonalds and do whatever you want with them. Practically all libraries have lots of computers now (and see again that you can run Linux in a browser, or remote into VMs from the browser, if you're concerned about how locked-down a library computer might be). I routinely end up with free or nearly-free surprisingly good computers (even Apple ones!) without even trying.
Resources, including entire books, available for free and on demand—and almost any information relating to computers is free if you're willing to sail the high seas and hoist the Jolly Roger, which is exactly what learners did back in the "good old days", too (but we pirated software, not books, mainly because the books were rarely available in digital form and we had worse ways to read them than we do now, even if they had been available).
I'm free to install software I write on that iphone, right?
I'm free to sell the software I write using those skills to those other people, without risk of Apple arbitrarily shutting me out, right?
Or much more malicious, moving me down below their own shitty version, right?
All of those things - the things someone who goes to the trouble to learn about computers might want to do - I'm free to do those?
I couldn't (practically) develop for my NES, either. But it'd have been rad if I could at least write software on it that'd run somewhere else. Or in a sandboxed environment on the NES, also allowing me to share it, even if the capabilities were a slightly nerfed. Way the hell better than nothing. ("Well yeah but you could have bought a Commodore 64"—OK, cool, sooo.... why are we worried about iOS devices when the same 'so get a different device' counter applies there, and also you actually can learn a great deal of computing on them?)
Meanwhile ordinary computers are practically free. Like you can probably go beg around and make a couple Reddit or Craigslist or Facebook posts (use the library computer I guess if somehow you live in the developed world and don't own or have access to any other Web-capable device?) and land one (maybe not a great one, but hundreds of times more powerful than what many of us learned on) for $0 in a matter of weeks, at most. Or scrape together $100 or so and go to Goodwill. Not $0, but it's very cheap. Your library probably even has free computer classes. So might your community college. Learning how to "really" use and program a computer is vastly more accessible now than it's ever been, and i-devices aren't harming that a bit.
You keep harping back to some bullshit hand-me-down machines, as though that's what my customers will want to carry in their pocket. As though that's the ideal machine to implement software on - and I'd argue you're just soundly avoiding the real discussion by mentioning them (perhaps intentionally, given your fascination).
Trust me, I fucking have those machines, they're great for some things (they run my home network, they run my home cluster) - but they're not the things that people walk around with. They're not the computer in everyone's pocket. They're not the laptop my potential user-base is working on at work.
Doesn't it strike you as somewhat sad and pathetic that you're arguing that folks who want to do general purpose computing should be relegated to cast off devices, or be subject to the whims and mercy of the richest company in the world? Begging for the scraps after Apple shoves their own products right to the top, cuts off and strangles any real competition, charges racket money to allow users to even install your damn software, prevents you from using the devices they claim you own?
Pathetic. Locked down proprietary systems that trap folks in what they believe is a benevolent dictatorship. At some point you'll look around and realize you're being robbed blind. You claim to value learning computer skills, without realizing the learning has NO value without the ability to use those skills. And if you can only use those skills when Apple lets you... who's really in control?
I just don't understand this argument. Never did and I don't think I ever will. If apple allowed you to install custom apps, it would change NOTHING for your 80+ year old mother. Literally nothing. Her device would still be just as safe and secure as ever before.
On iOS devices, you have to use a developer account to sideload the app and it only works for a short time, IIRC. I’m fuzzy on the details because the places where I’ve worked, it mostly just worked although the experience was way, way better on Android. At one point I was on a team that ran a system for deploying apps for sideloading, and for years I’ve been carrying both an Android and iOS phone, so I feel like I have a handle on these differences, but I also am missing out on some of the problems that our team already solved.
On macOS, you can download an app and run it. Depending on the provenance of the app and the security settings, you may get a message like “this app is from an unknown developer” with no apparent way forward. The solution is to right-click the app and select open from the context menu. When you open an app by right clicking on it, the OS gives you an option to open the app. This depends on security settings, but I think this is allowed by default.
There’s a lot of malware out there these days and I think it is good and correct that it should not be obvious how to run arbitrary software you downloaded. We know people will just click through dialog boxes to try and get where they’re going, which is way (for example) there’s no button to visit an HTTPS site with a broken certificate in most browsers these days. Some things should not come with instructions, because the risks are too great for unskilled users.
Some people apparently need help making judgment calls about what is and is not safe to install on their devices. I feel like Mac OS might strike the right balance here: you can install anything you want, but the OS throws up speedbumps if the app doesn't have the right signature, is not from the App Store, etc. These protections can be easily circumvented, but they send a signal that you should think twice about doing so if you don't really know what you're doing.
Not it would not still be as safe.
Malware and scams would come with instructions to install their custom bad app.
“Install this custom Deals app to save money”
I would love a single example of that happening(on android)
There very clearly is something terrible about this level of control. You're arguing that there's also some benefit -- yes of course there could be. But the point is that there are also massive problems with this level of control, some of which pose existential threats in areas far more important than (entirely debatable) usability improvements.
These problems can be solved in other ways. You can do what I did and remove administrator access entirely. You can create a curated list of appropriate apps without the totalitarian aspect. You can let people opt-in to various levels of filtering and control over software without excluding people who want to ahem think different.
You're presenting a pretext, not a credible and necessary conclusion.
only today, I was talking to a lady walking her dog, who's close to 80 (I don't ask her that), and she owns an iPhone. When my phone started talking, she commiserated that she's always getting woken up because the phone is making noise and she can't make it stop. I told her to keep it in another room like I do.
I have Android, but if I look it up : https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208353
apparently there IS a way. Either it doesn't work, or she doesn't know about it.
You're right. It's also true that there's nothing terrible about making devices that Chinese dissidents can safely and easily use. Luckily there is no government that wants to limit your mom's freedom (unless she happens to be a Chinese dissident).
I am tech savvy. iPhones are not "easy" to use. It's a nightmare of hidden gestures to accomplish even the most basic things.
Yes, for someone who spend 8 hours / day on their phone you eventually learn the necessary gestures. But that's no different from Android or any other electronic device.
in contrast to what other phone? Was your 80+ year old mother sideloading bootleg apks on her android after turning on developer mode? This is the reverse version of "but think of the children" except it doesn't even make any sense. In every one of these threads there's a mysterious influx of senile parents who apparently can be trusted with the call function of the phone and fend off every fake grandson phishing attempt but not the option to install software
It’s in contrast to the openness of the platform people seem to be demanding from Apple. Current Android is obviously not open enough for them, so it’s not a valid as a point of comparison.
Hoping some knowledgeable Android or Pinephone shills can prove me wrong here
My dream is to have an OpenBSD phone that can be used as both a phone and normal computer. To use it as a "real computer" with an actual keyboard, mouse and screen, you could just plug those peripherals into the phone. Then take it with you and plug in someone else's mouse etc. if necessary when traveling.
I plug a USB-C hub with an HDMI out to use a monitor/TV as display. Mouse, keyboard, flash drive, headphones, even cd drive, all work through USB in the hub.
On an unrelated note, my Google Pixel 7 just hanged up. It didn't happen to me since windows XP I think. It's the worst phone I've ever owned.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay...
I don't care what Apple's PR said, the court found that the AG complaint of "Many consumers decided that the only way to get improved performance was to purchase a newer-model iPhone from Apple, ... Apple, of course, fully understood such effects on sales." was correct and that Apple had to pay up.
Not an Apple apologist but I think you're leaving out a detail. Apples reasoning was due to older batteries[0]. You can see from the linked tweet the phones speed went back up when the battery was replaced. It may very well still be nefarious on their part.
[0] https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-might-be-slowing-down-y...
Apple decided to underclock CPUs when the battery had aged to the point where consistent voltage couldn't be applied at maximum power. They did this so users wouldn't complain about their phone randomly crashing. Really, they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
What you can criticize is that they did it without informing users or allowing an option — the lawsuit and backlash reversed that course and they now have a setting for it. You can argue they should have had that all along. You can argue they were doing it purposely for planned obsolescence, but the evidence isn't really there to support it.
Apple provides major software upgrades for years longer than most Android devices do. There are some exceptions for Android, but the rule is that you're lucky to get more than two years of software updates for your phone. Apple, on the other hand, supports for 4-6 years. That should earn them kudos compared to most Android manufacturers.
This is not a court of law and I am quite comfortable believing this was planned obsolescence for the simple that behaving in this way was advantageous to their profits. Otherwise it would not have taken lies (they initially denied the existence of the throttling!), outrage and lawsuits to do the right thing.
The alternative explanation is mass ignorance and/or incompetence on a level that would be hard to accept coming from Apple. Am I expected to seriously believe that nobody at Apple tested this throttle down behavior and saw (and likely measured) the impact on day-to-day performance?
One may say it’s the layers of transparency and other services, but I don’t care about those, my Macbook 2013 was the pinnacle of perfection.
Apple is still definitely slowing down Macs with every single little release.
This was true for Intel Macs 2014-2020. I bought a 14' M1 Macbook Pro with 32GB of memory / 1TB storage and it absolutely flies. Best machine I've owned in almost a decade (2014 15' MBP).
We also know that Apple is stubborn (see the removal of the headphone jack), so of course it's going to take a lawsuit for them to reverse course on something like this.
What was braindead was not giving customers information and control over if the slowdown was enabled.
What was happening is that the CPU was, at peak, pulling more power than an older battery was capable of delivering and it was causing a brownout.
Their solution was to restrict CPU performance as battery condition deteriorated to ensure that your phone was always giving you the maximum level of performance available to you.
Batteries are consumables and their performance degrades over time.
The whole thing was spun into "Apple is reducing performance of my old phone to make me buy a new one" - when the narrative could have just as easily been "Apple gets the most possible out a battery at all times." Note that competitors might have just used the lower performance level the whole time.
After the furor they gave you a 'set my performance to 100% at all times and let my phone take a dirt nap if it can't handle it' toggle switch in settings.
I can accept that for removable batteries. But if you have to essentially dismantle the device to replace the battery, it's part of the device and should be treated as such: the battery being a consumable means the entire device is a consumable.
But that doesn't change anything - the point is, they could have just limited the CPU power draw to below the minimum threshold at all times so performance was constant, but low. That would in my opinion be strictly worse.
[edit] To be clear, I also want replaceable batteries but that conversation is totally orthogonal.
One which I think is sensible.
Not quite as old but my Mum's still using an iPhone 5s from around 2014 which she had from new. She's not into apps so again, works fine for her as she doesn't need to be able to install anything. Thankfully homekit is still working on this and she's able to use it to tell siri to open the garage when she gets home.
Obviously these are very much edge cases, you can't find many apps in the app store still working on these older models.
I myself only upgraded from an iPhone 7 this September when the 14 came out. I'd had the battery replaced by Apple last year as it was a free recall thing which did massively improve its performance but it did eventually become too much of a pain in the arse to keep using.
I've got an old iPhone 5 which I keep for use as an occasional wifi hotspot too.
He’s replaced the battery but it’s still the same phone. They don’t care much for camera upgrades and it works for them.
For most people the hardware fails after 3 years lol
This is simply wrong.
My wife's still has her IPhone 6S and she absolutely loves it. We are able to take advantage of Apple free battery replacement program a couple of years ago. She doesn't see the need to upgrade to new phones as Whatsapp, Facebook, Insta and Google Maps etc. work just fine on her device.
I, on the other hand, have gone through several Android Flagship products in this period.
Eight years would be a bit long, but 6 years certainly isn't (the reason for my upgrade was that the battery wouldn't hold a charge for a full day and the "get a new phone" vs "upgrade the battery" was one I went with the new phone).
One of my coworkers has an iPhone 6.
My sister's SG9+ is 4 years old and the screen is broken in two different places, but is only asking for a battery replacement.
Iphones did provide security updates for longer, which is easier when you have few models and a huge userbase.
I have a shitty android smartphone. It costs 14 times less than iphone.
HN is heavily moderated to promote what it sees as "high quality discussions", and Apple flamewars tend to be pretty low quality, so they're deranked.
Really excited to see the rebranding from “hacker” news to “Corporate Sycophant”
Edit: I also find your deflection “rote” and “boring”. ;)
Edit: People not liking what you have to say is not draconian censorship.
I say that because #1 is the reason we moderate HN posts and #2 happens all the time in the fervid internet imagination.
[1]https://forums.unraid.net/topic/113817-virtualizing-windows-...
edit: adding missing not
Windows 11 mandates a TPM, for example - Windows 10 did not and works fine on any system without. There has been a huge amount of discussion here and elsewhere about the Windows 11 mandatory security changes, which themselves are similar to the changes Apple have made to how their own systems boot over the years.
Do they lack the user land polish of windows? Sure!
But really at the end of the day you’re storing files and opening applications, and the eternal web browser. (Of which, you have 2 engine choices!)
You can already see attempts at dissolving the rebellion against RA by Big Tech and the propaganda they disseminate. They don't want people to know this until it's too late. This warning should be taken in the same way as Stallman's "Right to Read".
For i-devices, yeah, true.
> You can only pay for software on their own store.
As nice as exposing the App store to more market effects might be, the app store monopoly enables them to force other companies to be less shitty on the platform (or else abandon it—but it's lucrative, so most don't), so it's a feature to me. I'd rather some of the behaviors they ban were simply illegal everywhere, but until then I like having the option to live the libertarian dream of paying for a private regulatory agency (Apple, that is). Beats having no option of that sort.
The big issue, as I understand it, is JIT. You can run any browser engine you like on iOS, but only WebKit (its JavaScriptCore component) is allowed to JIT JavaScript. Without JIT, the JavaScript performance will be bad; and considering the contemporary JavaScript-heavy nature of the web, that makes any alternative browser engine a non-starter.
(I wonder how it is implemented. I'm guessing that WebKit runs out-of-process, and that process has the JIT entitlement, whereas the host app process doesn't.)
IDK how it is now, but Apple used not to allow e.g. alternative Javascript engines in apps—you had to use Webkit's.
Having developed an app-building engine for Android in the days when some vendors shipped different engines to supply webview functionality (is that a thing? I actually don't know if they ever stopped) I can say I'm extremely in favor of this part of their policy. God that was a pain in the ass.
App Store guidelines say you have to use WebKit JavaScript for web browsing. I believe you are allowed to use third-party JavaScript for non-web-related purposes. That’s a rather small use case though.
Also, we have to distinguish between App Store policy and technical constraints. If you are just running your own software (e.g. developer, adhoc distribution, enterprise distribution), you don’t need to care about the former only the later-lack of entitlements to JIT is still an issue for the later.
Despite the branding, "Chrome for iOS" and "Firefox for iOS" are fundamentally different products than their Android or desktop counterparts. They're both just wrappers around the same bundled version of Webkit that Safari uses.
It isn't just a privacy argument. Browsers need security exceptions for full performance, such as compilation of Javascript/WebAssembly. The browsers may also not have enough process infrastructure to support their native sandboxing strategy on iOS.
Someone can make arguments on whether Blink's rendering engine would have business motivation for an iOS port. However, the sandboxing and javascript differences were large motivating technical factors in Blink forking from WebKit in the first place.
A few reasons for me, personally:
1) I like the consistency of all web pages being rendered by the same engine and having access to similar capabilities, no matter if it's a web-view inside an app, or in a browser.
2) Safari's a pretty great default for mobile devices, so I don't feel like I'm losing out by being "stuck" with it.
3) From a big-picture perspective, Apple forcing Safari on iOS is the only reason the entire Web client space isn't completely dominated by Google and subject to that—omitting some words I might choose to describe them, for civility's sake—company's every whim (instead it's only mostly dominated by Google)
4) Conveniently for me, I also happen to have no interest in having other browser engines on my phone or tablets, since this one's pretty good, and in some ways best-available, anyway. I have zero clue why I'd want another browser engine on my i-devices, and I've been doing this whole Web thing a while, long enough that I happily adopted and evangelized Firefox back when it was still called Phoenix—normal users have even less reason than I might. As in, I can't think of a single reason being able to install other browser engines would make my time using the devices better. Better battery life? LOL no, it'd be worse. Features I want? Nope, but several I actively do not want developers to even have as an option. I'd rather keep those capabilities away so developers can't start depending on them, so start forcing me to choose between using sites I want to use and avoiding things I don't think browsers should be able to do in the first place (I'm sad Safari's given up as much ground on this as they have, frankly, but again, it's only because of their i-device browser engine monopoly that they have any leverage at all here).
5) Meanwhile, this doesn't get in the way of my using the actually-important features of other browsers, they'll just have Safari's engine under the hood. Not a big deal, or even a small one (to me).
Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
> 2) Safari's a pretty great default for mobile devices, so I don't feel like I'm losing out by being "stuck" with it.
Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
> 4) Conveniently for me, I also happen to have no interest in having other browser engines on my phone or tablets, since this one's pretty good, and in some ways best-available, anyway.
Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
Already answered in my post. A cookie for you if you can quote the relevant sentences.
> Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
Ditto.
> Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
Ditto.
Ultimately, I really wish they had significant, competent competitors for the specific sort of thing they do. I like Apple because government has entirely failed to regulate absolutely horrible behavior by software vendors, so at least I can pay Apple to enforce some basic and largely no-brainer regulations instead, but I hate that the OS/platform market is so screwed-up that there's effectively no alternative that offers anything like what Apple does, and not just when it comes to defending against all-too-common bad actors.
From a bit ago: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s...
> The new App Store Small Business Program will benefit the vast majority of developers who sell digital goods and services on the store, providing them with a reduced commission on paid apps and in-app purchases. Developers can qualify for the program and a reduced, 15 percent commission if they earned up to $1 million in proceeds during the previous calendar year.
---
If you are making more than $1M, then its 30%. If you are making less than $1M, its 15%.
For subscriptions...
https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/08/apple-announces-i...
> Although the company's current 30 percent revenue cut will remain in most cases, once a customer maintains a subscription for over a year, that cut fall to 15 percent, giving developers a larger share of revenue for long-term subscribers, Schiller told The Verge. Subscriptions are also opening up to all kinds of apps, including games, instead of just categories like music services and magazines.
It is also my understanding the cut they insist on taking on e-books and audio and movies etc. makes it impossible to sell those at all in the app. I guess that strictly makes the in-app experiences on the iPhone more secure, though still pushes it out.
With Audible, I have a subscription and get credits and can use those credits in the app... but I can't use real money to buy a book in the Audible app. Similar with Kindle.
The tangent to that is that Apple is managing it. When my nephew, as a very young child, bought in app purchases that was able to be refunded through a single point of contact - Apple and they did it (I normally am the only user of my iPhone and thus have rather permissive permissions on device).
I am not sure that Outfit7 (makers of Talking Tom) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfit7 note the "Acquisition and leadership change" section and consider the difficulties involved with international charge backs) would have been amenable to refunding the purchases if they were the payment processor instead.
As it was, it was a notification of credit card activity on another iPhone, looking over at it, and then going through https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204084
So for me, the question is "is being able to manage my subscriptions through Apple worth it?" And for me, the answer is "yes." My subscriptions to various news sites are managed through Apple so that I can cancel them easily (compare the infernal nightmare of canceling WSJ subscription otherwise - https://darkpatternstipline.org/sightings/difficulty-in-wsj-... ).
For the sites with a subscription, they likely wouldn't have gotten it if I had to purchase it through them instead at all. 70% (now 85%) is much better than 0%. Similarly, the ease and security knowing the Apple is the only one touching my credit card when doing an in app purchase.
In 2022 the Internet is a hostile landscape where trillions of dollars are made on the back of malicious adtech by some of the largest companies in the world and there is no pathway for the average user to truly control their own system. At least Apple’s walled garden is better than Microsoft’s brothel and Google’s crackhouse.
https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/01/eu-force-third-party-app-stor...
This isn't accurate. macOS' default security settings (System > Security & Privacy) have "Allow apps downloaded from:" set to "App Store" by default. Selecting "App Store and identified developers" allows you to install anything from the App store, or anything that's been code signed.
If you want to execute unsigned code, you can disable SIP (System Integrity Protection) and relive all your 8088 glory days.
> You can only pay for software on their own store.
Also entirely inaccurate. Almost all of the macOS software I've purchased was done so outside of the App store, paying developers directly.
This still reads like all or nothing. All as in "App Store and identified developers", or user can turn off "System Integrity Protection" completely. Turning off SIP eliminates any protection.
Is that what it means to disable SIP?
I'm not aware of any Mac user among my friends who isn't aware of this.
Most OSS installers but even many commerical ones aren't code signed because devs don't want to pay the Apple tax.
I don't think any of my non-tech friends would know this.
As much as I love to hack and tinker with my OS, I also appreciate the safety inherent in the Apple ecosystem. That's why even as a life-long Windows user, I bought my Dad an iPad - I know the chance of him getting p0wned via some social engineering attack and having his banking password stolen are a lot lower than with a Windows or Android tablet.
Disabling SIP is generally a bad idea, but there are times when it can be useful, e.g. modifying stock applications like Dock.app.
You don't need to disable SIP to run unsigned code. If a binary is unsigned all you need to do is hold a key down while clicking the program. macOS will show a warning popup and let you continue. This isn't super user friends, but then again the majority of Apple's customers are not going to (or want to) run untrusted code, and if you do want to run untrusted code it is not that big of an inconvenience.
I think if you want to just run any code you want, you sudo spctl --master-disable. I’ve never had to use it.
It’s really exhausting pointing out how your argument would effectively force others to produce what satisfies your sensibilities and to protect what you feel is sacrosanct.
Programming is “just math”. I don’t need an 8088 to prove its adding, subtracting, comparing memory addresses. All the cognitive structure and literalness of the past has nothing to do with software and everything to do with hardware engineering.
That the industry has not clung to your nostalgic ideal does not mean there is a tyrannical conspiracy. It means the industry evolved.
Perhaps you’re just on the wrong career path?
This is actually very untrue in my experience. I can't tell you how many "normal users" ask me whether there is an open source equivalent they can use so they don't have to pay for X, for example, and many have shown interest in doing what they can to optimize their setup and/or reduce their financial burden by getting smarter about how things are set up.
Reusing existing software is not equivalent to expecting users who want share pics to learn from 8088 on up. In fact it’s quite the opposite; it’s good engineering to not waste time recreating the wheel.
I don't think I've ever had a non-dev ask me about "open source". Asking for free alternatives, sure, but it's very rare that I'd recommend open source alternatives for whatever normal people are doing.
Installing app from any source is not outrageous, I use it for my Pioneer receiver who would otherwise have no remote, I use it for my paragliding variometer. And I could use it for anything else I chose to, since I am free to decide. The list of what I can do with similar other devices but can't do with the most expensive of them is quite long. This is not expert level, experienced beginner at best (not for Apple products obviously since jailbreaking is advanced topic).
Due to above also being 100% stuck with only Apple payment system which takes 30% all the time vs having the freedom to choose. This can't be more un-american (at least to ideal, reality is another topic).
Life for others does not need to conform to your ideal - that goes both ways. Closed vs open systems to 'hackers' have a special meaning to many people here on this forum. And yes these topics are exhausting to us all, explaining ad nauseum why more freedom is better for users especially long term, and why Apple et al desperately don't want users to have it.
So the freedom angle to them is they don’t have to schedule the meetings and be compelled to speak the questions and answers to output what you want, or open themselves to repercussions of a hack in a stack that would never be there if they’d not built it.
Because computers are also real resources they’re making devices for a broader audience than computer hackers. The hobbyist hardware scene has a questionable set of ethics given the long term impact of meeting hobbyist demands to consume whatever number of widgets they want, but that’s another thread.
If you’re arguing for an open boot loader, I’m here for it, but you’re going to need to change law to force it; they can freely stick to their choices. Posting grievances such as yours; we’re not oblivious as you seem to believe but HN is not a forum of real influence. But iOS is a result of workers speaking free of coercion. If the output is not up to your expectations… I dunno what to say except other people don’t have to put you first, you know? Freedom equals tribalism. It’s a demand of freedom to allow tribalism not one size fits all ideals. deal with it gif
I would love to see Apple adopt a more open ecosystem, and I could see it happening in the net 5-10 years.
But, nobody cares about this aside from the tech community. The average smartphone user is fine with the status quo.
Apparently that's a radical position to have these days and I find it irresponsible that software folks of all people won't stand up more for the right to run their code on their own devices without the approval of the manufacturer. As you said, the existence of our industry is due in large part to the openness of previous systems. We owe it to ourselves and those that will come after to ensure this level of openness persists.
I don't know many engineers who actually like how Apple locks down their platform—it's just to them the perceived trade-off of "Apple's polish" vs "configuring free OSS software" isn't worth it.
If we're being realistic, most people I encounter want Apple to loosen their grip a bit so they can run software without Apple's permission or paying their 30% App Store tax.
At this point I don't think it's realistic to expect engineers to solve this problem —Apple would retaliate by booting them from the App Store of burying app reviews in red tape. What's probably needed is legislation that mandates hardware manufactures can't restrict what users are allowed to run on their devices.
Worth noting that you can actually install any 3rd party app you like on an iPhone these days. You just have a fair few hoops to jump through to do it.
That being said I like it. I don't have to deal with the crap that is Androids fragmentation of shitty UI and broken apps, not to mention the masses of malware and dodgy data tracking.
Can you describe those hoops to me?
I have a totally up-to-date iPhone, a linux computer (no macOS), and a usb cable that can connect the linux computer to my iPhone.
I found an ipa file I would like to run (say, this MAME emulator here: https://github.com/yoshisuga/MAME4iOS/releases/tag/2002.4 )
What set of steps do I take in order to install that on my iPhone?
Although I think you have to use a slightly different method if you're on Linux. Info on that here: https://www.idownloadblog.com/2022/04/03/altserver-linux-gui...
They mostly just want a web browser and e-mail. They buy ~zero non-free apps. And they want the "freedom" you're selling about as much as they want the "authenticity" of living off the land in rural Alaska.
I assume this is about Foxconn. Does that mean you'll be boycotting other companies that also work with them, like Amazon, Dell, Google, HP, Intel, Microsoft, Vizio, Acer, Lenovo, Nintendo, and Sony?
I'm genuinely asking. It's a tough pill to swallow to learn all our tech stuff we all enjoy is built on the backs of poor people on the other side of the planet.
That's not to say that working in a company like Foxconn is the nicest possible job (it's not but it seems to be better than a lot of places) or that China is great and can do no wrong (I'm generally very critical of the CCP) but I do think that sometimes it's easy to just spin up a story to shock people because that sells.
They're being installed on bridges all over the US for exactly that reason.
For example: https://www.goldengate.org/district/district-projects/suicid...
>It's a tough pill to swallow to learn all our tech stuff we all enjoy is built on the backs of poor people on the other side of the planet.
This is actually overwhelmingly a good thing. Life expectancy and living standards have exploded in Asia. They just haven't reached the point of developed Western nations yet. It's impossible to transition from very shitty conditions to good conditions hitting a midpoint of moderately shitty conditions. For example, the abundance of relatively high paying manufacturing jobs incentives teenagers to drop out of school and work instead. Of course, we are right to call out Apple for relying on child labor, but the goal should be to have a better control of their supply chain rather than move manufacturing back to the US.
I don't treat them as secure, however. I have not entered credit cards nor my Google account.
Watching some in depth documentaries on the global low-cost-fashion trade in textiles and garments is also a real eye opener.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Rana_Plaza_factory_collap...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_garment_factory_fir...
It's far far more than 'tech' stuff. A lot of everything we enjoy is built off the backs of the poor and exploited, that's how most of the system we have works at a fundamental level.
It would be easier to just ban them with legislation, similar to what's been done with Huawei
Counterpoint:
They could have just rolled out the feature change globally. Instead Apple makes it clear with singling out China, that this was a demanded change by the CCP.
No other nation has the combination of infrastructure, production networks, human capital, affordable energy, investment financing. I've long been fascinated by productive eco-systems -- how do they arise, what can destroy them, but suffice it to say that they are magical things. They often spring up out of nowhere, as a result of historical accidents, and then many try to duplicate them, usually without success. Lots of municipalities think they can create a new silicon valley in their dilapidated downtown areas if they throw in a few bike lanes, smoothie bars, and lofts -- and what happens is similar to Polynesian cargo cults, where you have bamboo air traffic control towers erected hoping that planes would arrive. Apple's failed attempts to move production to India should be an object lesson in how irreplaceable Chinese manufacturing is. Many Americans, which prize IP and design, yet are confused about manufacturing and insist it's just grunt work anyone can do, can't really fathom how uniquely productive Chinese manufacturing is compared to the rest of the world, and how difficult it is to matching even a fraction of that productivity.
New productive ecosystems will need to arise to replace it -- and it will eventually happen somewhere, but it's not going to happen on a corporate schedule and in locations you control. Similarly, attempts to "reshore" production to the U.S. are also doomed to failure. We do not have those manufacturing ecosystems anymore.
The productive ecosystems that sprung up in China are truly unique and stand along side the Ruhr valley, Silicon Valley, Detroit in its heyday, as world class ecosystems. You can't just move to another place and hope to get anywhere near the same productivity.
Apple has managed to make a lot of profit from China which feeds the demand for stock price growth in the US. I remember that Apple pushed for exemptions to tariffs on devices made in China. I believe Apple was indeed exempted.
Looking at this situation there is a moral dilemma. If Apple is doing something that is unethical that makes money in China, there could be pushback for trying to stop Apple from doing that. That way, the stock price can continue to grow at any cost.
You need to pick your battles instead of being idealist. Look at Russia. There was an opposition back in the day, but they couldn't agree between each other because of smaller differences. And now we have a complete dictatorship.
What we need is govt sanctions against china before this goes any further. Take china off the table so companies don't have to make these hard choices that impact their competitiveness.
It shouldn't but the fact is that if China decided right now that they were done with Apple the company immediatly loses all ability to make every single one of its products.
Even the ones that arent given final assembly in China still rely on chinese produced components.
It would obviously be a very foolish move for the CCP as it would be an instant red flag to the worlds tech companies who would all start the ball rolling on moving out. Meanwhile Apple would be all but dead in the water for a good few years, with no ability to manufacture anything at all for a fairly signficant amount of time.
Unlikely as that kind of a move would have a huge global impact. That might lead to all Chinese companies (Bytedance, Xiaomi etc.) being banned in the west/US etc.
There would be consequences though.
Apple has already soured competition in computing by making the App Store the only way to reach 51+% of Americans with your software. They heavily tax it, artificially limit your ability to update and deploy, force you to devote resources to regularly adhere to Apple standards, let people place ads under your name, kill your customer relationships, force deep Apple product integrations, etc.
"CSAM device scanning" is a Trojan horse that will absolutely be abused in situations like we're seeing in China now.
Apple sells itself on privacy, yet collects more info on you than Facebook to feed their growing ads business. It's hypocrisy.
Other major tech companies looked at China and said no. Why can't Apple?
Google did, and they were. Is it too much to ask that Apple be as courageous and idealistic as Google on privacy?
In the case of western companies operating in China it's even worse because this becomes a soft power the CCP can influence on the west creating a form of self-censorship or even capture (see Ray Dalio).
A lot of companies have told themselves that their presence will be a positive influence on problematic policy of a country they want to enter, but what ends up happening is that the policy is a corrupting influence on the principles of the company.
It's like that with everything. "Apple spies on you more than you might think"—OK, that's bad and I'd rather they didn't, but who's better? Hell, who's not worse? And god no, not Linux, I did that for over a decade and I mean a product that you can pay for to solve problems for you, like computers and tools generally are supposed to do, not one you can spend a bunch of time manually tuning and working around various limitations and problems and still not have something as useful as Apple's stuff in actual day-to-day real-world life. I want to solve problems, I don't want another hobby of maintaining my problem-solving machine, that crap's why people hate computers so much.
No surprise it's like this, really—there are two smartphone operating systems and three viable desktop operating systems (I'm being generous and counting ChromeOS) controlled by three total vendors. Of course the market's totally fucked up.
Not that I like Google, I actually actively dislike it and hate all the anti-competitive things they did (with Android, too), but let's stay with the facts here.
This is like saying you can eat for free for the rest of your life by just starting a farm. Sure, it's possible but it's out of the reach of most the population.
I suppose the alternative AOSP rom wouldn't even have "Nearby Share" as a feature? I suppose in that case you could use some other protocol/service that wasn't bound to Google (maybe Briar?).
China represents a huge potential market for Google that their investors won't let leadership forget about.
> China represents a huge potential market for Google that their investors won't let leadership forget about.
China represents a huge potential market that Google investors have already given up on because no one is expecting that market to reopen to Google any time soon
A large chunk of Apple's revenue comes from China. The majority of assembly occurs in China.
Google does a rounding error of business in China - assembly for Nest devices.
The Pixel 6 is exclusively manufactured by Foxconn in China. They are looking to move it to India, but as of right now, it's still in China.
https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/after-iphones-...
The most convincing article I found was an un-sourced piece from "hothardware" (and nothing shouts legitimacy in a source than a name like that) which says that only the budget pixel phones were actually moved to Vietnam, the high end versions are still in China.
As such, I have to assume that their production is still largely occurring in China.
I wouldn't mind being proven wrong though.
As a side note about the strawman accusation; pointing out Google's attempts to re-enter the lucrative Chinese market when the parent is using their absence to justify the position of "Google's Better" is absolutely relevant.
All through that time Tim Cook hasn't just been betting on China for manufacturing, but are addicted to the Chinese revenue. Apple is being held over the barrel by the CCP, both sides know it, and Apple are not doing anything to wean themselves off. As a result, Apple gives user data to Chinese authorities on requests thousands of times per year, and accept the vast majority of data requests [0]. In comparison, Google has given data on 2 accounts in the last decade. [1]
Isn't it pretty obvious that we'd like more companies to behave like Google in this situation, and no companies to act like Apple? Why are you trying to tear down the company that's done the right thing in this situation?
[0] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/cn.html
[1] https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?hl=...
Yes, Google got out (arguably, they got kicked out) of China. But their stealth attempts to get back into that market matter just as much. Because they display the current direction Google's leadership wants to take the company.
They want to take it back to China. And that matters.
Opinion time:
Wanting to get back into China is worse than having an existing relationship. Because they know the shit it will cause, the censorship they will have to implement, the human rights they'll have impinge upon, and they're ready to dive right fucking into that with their eyes wide open - ready to accept it all as the cost of tapping China's phat assets.
They can't even use the (weak assed) "we're a frog that's been slowly boiled" or the "what's capitulation to one more command" arguments.
Google did what Apple should have ten years ago and pulled out of China when faced with similar problems.
Google has also worked on many projects in order to appeal to China's government as well.
> Because of its self-imposed censorship, whenever people searched for prohibited Chinese keywords on a blocked list maintained by the PRC government, google.cn displayed at the bottom of the page (translated): In accordance with local laws, regulations and policies, part of the search result is not shown. Some searches, such as (as of June 2009) "Tank Man" were blocked entirely, with only the message, "Search results may not comply with the relevant laws, regulations and policy, and cannot be displayed" appearing.
> Do no evil. (still a part of their public motto)
> In their first letter to shareholders, our founders highlighted Google’s goal to “develop services that significantly improve the lives of as many people as possible.” This vision continues to guide all of us at Google. We believe in technology’s power and potential to have a profoundly positive impact across the world.
Google has capitulated to the Chinese government, taken "moral high ground" via their doodles (but only when it won't offend the censors), and absolutely sees itself as a savior of mankind.
Prior to 2018, Google's code of conduct was summarized with the phrase "don't be evil."
(edit) They appear to have taken some flack on that and you can find it in their investor code of conduct again: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
At this point everything just works there, including network location provider, with only one exception - google pay won't allow you to add a card for contactless payments in most of the cases. But GrapheneOS is not at fault here.
Does anyone seriously think that Jobs cared even the slightest about the Foxconn/Hon Hai Precision Industry factory workers? Or anything else other than the bottom line?
Hundreds of such anecodotes from hundreds of people. What do you expect from the corporate culture established by such a person?
Because obviously it serves the global revenue and china-source-revenue figure to sell more Apple devices in China no matter the human rights and privacy consequences.
I don't know if you mean this literally but to me it was very simple. Just stopped buying their products. I am still alive, productive and with a clearer consciousness.
From what I can see the entire world is completely addicted to China as a cheap source of medium to high skill labor and as a place where manufacturing can be done with little environmental regulation.
Your view matches what I can see from here too. And there's so many things you simply can't buy if you want manufacturing done in an ethical manner, no matter the price you're willing to pay.
Possibly some Google Pixel 7 -- Vietnam
ASUS -- Taiwan
Sony -- Japan
(Sometimes it's only specific models.)
If there was ever a time companies were good stewards to the world - that time ended before I was born.
Yes, Apple is not doing the right thing.
Show me any fortune 100 company in the world that would do the right thing...
What's frustrating - I think - in this case, is the amount of Apple fanboys who insist that Apple is literally the incarnation of God as a company, existing solely to bring about harmony and make the world better through the iPhone, not to take your money and put it in their shareholders' pockets.
Companies don't do anything. People do. The individuals who make up any Fortune 100 company most likely do want to do the right thing individually, but communication at scale is really hard which leads to all kinds of unintended consequences.
Maybe the majority of the worker bees.
The people who make decisions have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder profits.
This is a myth. There is an obligation to serve the share holders' "best interests", but that doesn't necessarily mean profitability. It probably doesn't mean maximizing profitability a lot of the time as shareholders are not single dimensional characters. Often shareholders of public companies are just plain old people with a retirement fund, who live regular lives like you and I. The choices made within the business, especially a Fortune 100, are bound to impact them in other ways.
But communication at scale is hard. Shareholders may not always accurately communicate to their nominated trustees what is in their best interest. Profit is an easy one to communicate, but "do the right thing", which likely requires a lot of nuance to understand, is definitely not.
If you look at any shareholder lawsuits - it's pretty clear what the obligation means, what you get sued for, and what you'll lose a lawsuit over.
The vast majority of Apple shares outstanding aren't owned by people who want to turn it into the world police or a charity. They want a return on their investment - not to turn their investment into a charitable donation to make the world a better place.
If you wanted to invest in charities - there's better options than owning stocks...
Indeed. And you will find that not maximizing profitability doesn't always lose. But if shareholders are suing for not maximizing profitability then that indicates that there are no other competing concerns among the shareholders, so no doubt it would be a challenge to defend that. It would be easier to defend more complex cases where there is nuance. As mentioned before, profit is the one thing – and probably the only thing – that is easy to communicate at scale.
> They want a return on their investment - not to turn their investment into a charitable donation to make the world a better place.
Shareholders want their world to be a better place. Profits are one way to grease that, but not when it is at odds with competing interests. There are countless examples where companies have not sought maximized profits to seek other benefits instead. Shareholders have to live in the world they create after all. Granted, because communication at scale is hard there are unintended consequences to be found.
2. The supply chain is not riddled with slave labor.
3. The chance to airdrop was made weeks before the protest.
You might not be basing your evaluation of Apple’s behavior on reality.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/apple-c...
Apple is lobbying against a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...
Chairs Issue Statement about Forced Labor in Apple’s Supply Chain
https://www.cecc.gov/media-center/press-releases/chairs-issu...
I’m not the one here who isn’t basing their evaluation on reality.
They champion them here in the USA where saying so is good for business.
They champion censorship in China because it's good for business.
They'll champion whatever it takes for them to break into a lucrative market.
The most private digital world — one in which everything is e2e encrypted — is arguably totally ethical (impossible for anybody to infringe on your personal rights) or the least ethical state of affairs imaginable (free for all for criminals, terrorists, etc…).
Indeed. I'd suggest everyone in our industry study ethics, particularly with an eye towards its (i) philosophical foundations and (ii) cultural differences. If one of those underpinnings doesn't grab your interest, try the other.
There is a rich body of ethical writing around individual behavior. When that discussion starts to involve groups of people, ... yikes ... it becomes even more complex.
Beyond that is there a better company that operates in China that is doing better?
Like the ones installed all over Europe and the US?
Netherlands for example also does suicide nets, here's one in a small town city hall https://www.tubantia.nl/almelo/anti-zelfmoordnetten-geplaats...
Their profit margin would suggest otherwise.
> the suicide nets
I know this was painted as a scandal, but was it actually?
First, at the time Foxconn — or rather more specifically, Longhua Science and Technology Park, which was the site of the suicides that got in the news — was employing approximately 50-80% the population of Wyoming at the time depending on who you ask. For reference, there were 170 deaths by suicide in Wyoming in 2019.
Second, I've seen anti-fall nets on the inside of the Galeria department store in Alexanderplatz Berlin, which has no relevant reputation I've ever heard of, and therefore seems like a straightforward health and safety measure.
It's agenda-based narrative pushing.
It is easy to criticize an organizations' behavior.
It is easy to criticize someone else's ethics.
What are your ethics? What would you do if you were in Tim Cook's position?
Why? I'd like to see how you perceive the options available.
As for me, the following is an open question: can organizations have something analogous to a conscience? How does it work?
I’ve lost count of how many scandals have come out of their relationship with China from the suicide nets to the repeated investigations showing their supply chain was riddled with slave labor that they would later campaign against protections that would prevent it. Now this. They are fucked as a company, I can’t get out of their ecosystem fast enough.