The Free Software world has had ample opportunity to produce something as carefully assembled, as smooth, and as capable as iOS, and what we got instead was Android.
I've watched the whole FOSS world happen in my career, and there are places where I cannot IMAGINE choosing a closed source solution, given my druthers. But it's also become super clear to me that the FOSS world isn't interested in producing polished user experiences. Sure, you or I could cobble together a FOSS-only phone-and-syncing stack, I guess, but I don't care to. Most people aren't us; doing so is beyond them.
Suggesting a normal person use something OTHER than iOS at this point is questionable at best.
Sometimes it works with a right BDFL, for some time (like Python). It also works with solo projects, and with projects with large commercial support (like Blender), especially those which don't normally accept your pull requests, except as a proof of concept (SQLite).
But the normal open-source model produces things like Linux, git, ffmpeg, VLC, etc, which are wonderful and have immense power, but are hardly sleek or excessively coherent. And each of them is much, much smaller than macOS or iOS.
The kind of person that uses Apple products/services cares about convenience. The person that uses the third party Android ROMs, in particular, cares more about the freedom.
It's more accurate to frame it as preferring low hassle to high hassle. Or to preferring well-designed tools to haphazard efforts. Or, from the other side, preferring some degree of DIY to turnkey products. (In particular, I think this is a HUGE piece of it; lots of hackers want to build their own toolchain, and then they get to feel noble because they're doing it for "freedom.")
I'm pretty "all in" on the Apple ecosystem. Each step of the way, I thought pretty deeply about my choices, and still ended up with an Apple option. But to characterize this as me caring more about convenience than "freedom" implies that I have somehow given up or endangered MY freedom, which isn't the case.
I'm able to do anything I want to do in this ecosystem. Macs are general purpose machines; I can build from source, and I can run code from any repository I want.
iOS is closed by design, and the result has been a very stable and predictable platform that I do not believe is possible WITHOUT that closed nature. I can't hack code on my phone, but I also don't WANT to. There are lots of appliance devices in my life I don't want to hack, and that I just want to USE.
I will admit, Macs are much better in the software realm, but the hardware has almost no internal upgradeability. There's some, but it's less. That's my point. And yes, many non-Apple computers also have that same problem. My gripe isn't with Apple. It's with companies who don't give maximal freedom with their devices, as I prefer more open systems, personally.
Sure. But this is also true of most modern, lightweight, thin laptops. And I'm pretty sure it's true of any phone worth using.
My experience is that a certain sort of FOSS person prefers theoretical freedom to actual usability.
The main reasons I left are repairability and upgradability; forms of freedom that you simply cannot deny Apple isn't great at, from design all the way up to policy. Privacy was also a reason. It is true that you have to place trust somewhere up the chain when it comes to the way specific software handles your data, but things like where it is stored and how it is encrypted are in your own hands when you DIY.
These things are not theoretical; if I want to use a different Wi-Fi adapter, a new SSD, RAM, a replacement screen, speakers or barrel jack then I can. There are parts available for very reasonable prices as well as the manufacturers' repair manual. It doesn't require solvents or esoteric tools.
Now I use a business notebook with Linux that is worse than the M1 in some respects, but in hindsight I'm willing to give up the battery life and cool runnings for the ability to repair and upgrade (and ports! Ethernet, yay!). Same goes for the phone (I went for a FairPhone).
It isn't as polished, very true. There's some rough edges and it takes a little more work, and yes, sometimes a bit of frustration. But the upside is tangible, it's not some form of feigned nobility.
Honestly, I suspect you just like having to tinker with your stack to get work done. (I mean, I've been there - I use OrgMode.)
Sure, being able to swap out parts is theoretically nice, but you'll do that maybe once in the useful life of a computer -- but I haven't needed or wanted to do either in easily a decade. How often does this really come up? On the other hand, you'll confront that lack of whole-package QA and general polish every time you turn your computer on.
And I'm really curious about anyone's privacy needs if they abandon APPLE for roll-your-own. Yes, it's all in your hands now, but most people don't have the time or inclination to be sure they're doing all the right things, security-wise and privacy-wise, to stay safe. There's a good chance your DIY approach is less secure than iCloud unless you literally do this sort of thing for a living. I mean, this is why I don't run my own mail server anymore (hello, Fastmail!).
So yeah, I think lots of people say "freedom" when they mean "I just want to tinker with my toolchain a lot and occasionally feel superior about it."
I use an HP 830 G5, a high end 13" thin notebook from 2018. It cost me 350 bucks. I sold my M1 for 70% of what I paid, and I can replace this thing for something similar, so it makes financial sense in my case. It's just a platform, I don't really care about the thing itself. It hooks into a thunderbolt dock for a lot of it's life anyway.
>Honestly, I suspect you just like having to tinker with your stack to get work done. (I mean, I've been there - I use OrgMode.)
I run Fedora 37 (35 and 36 upgraded without issue). I'm in the process of building a new house, which requires insane amounts of paperwork and communication as well as document storage and exchange. I need this to be rock solid, running E2EE on a NextCloud VPS in combination with this workstation setup does that for me. It's a little work up front, but it's been smooth sailing ever since setup was done. It just gets out of my way; I don't care about this WM versus that, this display manager, the whole systemd discussion. Everything except the fingerprint scanner just works, no tinkering required.
>Sure, being able to swap out parts is theoretically nice, but you'll do that maybe once in the useful life of a computer -- but I haven't needed or wanted to do either in easily a decade. How often does this really come up?
You can't predict breaking your computer. I managed a pretty large fleet of Macs for a living for about 2 years; build quality is great but they're not infallible. When they do break, you're at the mercy of Apple, and I simply do not have the time to wait for their repairs. With this setup, not only can I upgrade whatever, whenever, but anything that will run Fedora and has a modest amount of local storage can replace it for at least the time being.
Compare that to the situation I was in: Any repairs that I couldn't have DIY'd probably would have cost me at least the total cost of this computer (maybe even twice over) and would have put me out of business for a few days.
>And I'm really curious about anyone's privacy needs if they abandon APPLE for roll-your-own. Yes, it's all in your hands now, but most people don't have the time or inclination to be sure they're doing all the right things, security-wise and privacy-wise, to stay safe.
Sure, but I do. I simply hate surveillance capitalism with a burning passion; I honestly think there is a logical set of steps from that to political division and a worse world to live in. So I don't want any part in it. I must admit that that sounds like philosophical grandstanding, but I promise you it's a sincere belief. It's not so much about privacy from state entities; that's a lost battle in my threat model.
If you're locked into an ecosystem that you cannot easily get out of (and there's a BUNCH of dark patterns Apple applies to try and poke you to stay as well as the obvious loss of software licenses) you're a boiling frog. I see Apple going in a worse direction incentive-wise. Nowadays, I just don't care about where they're going anymore, it's not my problem.
Well, that one's not so bad, but is also mostly a commercially-supported endeavor and has been for a long time.
Now, the Linux desktop is a shitshow, sure. It'll remain that way until they can settle on One Windowing & UI Toolkit to Rule Them All, which looks to be happening never and is definitely in part a consequence of so many very basic parts of the GUI being swappable and having tons of competing options. Though the kernel's attitude toward providing stable driver ABIs (or rather, not doing so) isn't helping.
Some of us prefer Android to iOS :) Having used iOS as well, the one thing I miss in Android is Continuity. Other than that, I find Android gives me a better experience. I'm certainly an outlier in many ways though compared to the average user.
This is not the reason for security patches taking too long to be released to certain phones; Google has a monthly cadence of releasing security patches and zero-days have rarely (I can't remember a case of that happening but maybe it has happened) missed do you have a source for it?
> Oooh, ooh, no that's not my favorite thing, my favorite thing is how each cellular company gets to put their own bloatware on top of the bloatware that each phone manufacturer gets to add to it.
There are unlocked phones available and honestly this problem is mostly a US problem. Rest of the world isn't in the iron fists of their carriers.
> Oh wait, maybe it's patch support ending for new phones 3 years after they were released.
You can vote with your wallet and choose vendors where this is not the case; Google, Samsung and Recently OnePlus offer 5 years of security updates.
In the rest of the world phones are unlocked in terms of being able to use different SIM cards, but mostly the bloatware is still there and can only be disabled (not removed)
Yet and still Microsoft solved this problem years ago. Why can’t Google? Hell my 2006 Mac Mini got years of Windows 7 updates after installing Windows on it.
That's crazy, though. It's not like there isn't a module for that cellular modem, and they don't touch that code for every release.
That's like blocking a Firefox update because the Windows driver for the mouse could be impacted.
You mean the same OS that allows you to build your own open mobile OS as opposed to a closed source locked down OS that permits only 1 app store and 1 payment system?
>Suggesting a normal person use something OTHER than iOS at this point is questionable at best.
It's only questionable if you prefer the prison that is iOS.
I lol'd at "prison that is iOS."
In particular, reviewing open source code has been repeatedly proven to be way harder of a task, than the proponents of this strategy are painting it to be. If you want an auditable codebase, you pretty much have to throw Linux, Chromium/Firefox, Gnome/KDE all out the window - there's just way too much code.
Auditable code is naturally always preferable to non-auditable, but you need to choose your trade-offs - or at least stop pretending you can read a hundred million lines in your life time.
On top of that - do you know a single non-tech person who knows how to set up a VPS, or knows what Veracrypt is? OTOH I can just show my wife: click here to enable backups.
Let me reframe the problem: What is your threat model? How much effort are you willing to commit to mitigate the dangers?
The crazy thing is that apple hardware beats most other hardware, too, at a high price. Better phones, better tablets, better laptops. More secure, more private OS than the popular consumer alternatives (Windows, Android). Arguably much better OS all around, too (at least IMO -- iOS beats even stock Pixel Android at use-ability, MacOS v Windows is like the Harlem Globetrotters playing the Washington Generals.)
For me, and I assume most others, it's not that we expect to read all the code ourselves. It's that there's a large developer community and security researchers who have access to the code who will collectively read it all. Of course this isn't a guarantee that there are no security flaws, and you still have the pipeline problem of ensuring the binaries you get actually come from the code you think they do. But all else being equal, I think open source provides a significant level of threat mitigation.
Even if you fully trust Apple not to intentionally back door anything, there's far fewer eyeballs on their code. Given that access to source code also has the potential to reveal security holes that may have gone unexploited, there of course a tradeoff here too.
Yeah, about that, I'm as much of an Open Source buff as anyone, but:
> Analysis of the source code history of Bash shows the Shellshock bug was introduced on 5 August <<1989>>, and released in Bash version 1.03 on 1 September 1989.
[...]
> The presence of the bug was announced to the public on <<2014-09-24>>, when Bash updates with the fix were ready for distribution, though it took some time for computers to be updated to close the potential security issue.
Especially older Open Source software tends to have maintainers that haven't adopted modern software development practices so we're back to square one, since most of this older software is foundational technology, like Bash.
I'm not implying inferior quality, I'm implying no correlation.
There was a very strong assumption from back in 1999, that "lots of eyes make all bugs shallow", with a focus especially on security.
In reality, there's no correlation.
You need those eyes to actually be looking at stuff proactively, you want automated scans, you want modern software development practices and CI/CD pipelines, you want those eyes to actually be qualified to look at what they're looking correctly, etc.
Just putting stuff out there and assuming "people will look at its insides" is a bad assumption.
Open Source in my experience is not inherently superior from a security perspective to proprietary software.
And the problem with all these services that provide some kind of E2EE encryption and still have a way to push application updates (or run something in your browser), is that they just slip a version on your machine that sends the password to the feds/whoever when you type it in.
Apple has very publicly refused to do this for law enforcement and there's no evidence they have or ever will
Notably, the only other serious competitor in the space is also not open source. Sure, you can probably carefully construct a phone from only FOSS, with some compromises of course. But this is unfeasible for regular users, who have for all practical purposes only two choices. And those same users are unlikely to go for alternative replacements for built-in functionality just to reduce their exposure. Convenience wins every time.
my comment was that against main stream companies apple leads the way, and it's overall great for a consumer.
do you personally expect every piece of open source software? do you run your own email servers, music servers, photo backups, etc.? If not, you somehow trust those companies -- why?
Their software is not open source. Before this announcement you had to trust Apple not to look into the files you store in the cloud, now you have to trust that they're actually going to encrypt your files and not save the decryption key. Ultimately you still have to trust Apple. A combination of any open source OS, any cloud provider and Cryptomator or Veracrypt wouldn't require as much trust in one company.