Think few people realize how bad the Apple situation is. If your company just ships like an iOS app and an Android app maybe you don't really notice or maybe don't care.
But work at a company where you try to build something like new hardware devices or systems without having to resort to building either an iOS app or handing over 30% to Apple and the situation becomes very worrying to dire. Simple things suddenly become impossible or have workarounds piled on top to get their browser to function in the ways their desktop one does or Android's browser does.
You can feel some of their engineering choices are actively hostile against anyone trying to exist outside the App Store ecosystem. Sure I know some advocates push this as a good thing but I think they'll disagree when the endgame plays out.
Because in 10 years, what currently exists as the only option on iPad and iPhone will be the only option on MacBooks too. There is a reason why the last WWDC was all about making the iPad feel more like MacOS and making parts of MacOS feel like iPadOS.
I used to be a huge Apple advocate but I'm really worried with where they're heading as I'm trying to create new technology and Apple causes so much pain when you try to make anything other than an iOS app.
I do love my M1 MBP, have a lot less love for my iPhone these days but I'm worried where the tide is moving. It's all absolutely fine, until it isn't and then the problem is it's completely locked down from the touch screen to the silicon...
Apple is a monopolistic freedom-denying exploitative corporation which has essentially created a digital fiefdom for itself where it's allowed to tax companies for the privilege of reaching "their" consumer base.
I worry about the people living under such digital serf conditions. It was only a matter of time before they started promulgating changes like lords, like the client side scanning "feature" they tried to push. That is absolutely a problem that needs to be addressed and the answer is always computing freedom.
With that said... I shed zero tears when Apple screws over even worse exploitative corporations like Facebook. I simply have no sympathy for advertising giants complaining about being unable to continue their surveillance and exploitation of the most profitable market segment. The only problem is it took an Apple to put a stop to them when simply saying no should have been sufficient.
I think we saw the same behavior with Microsoft in the early 2000s. When a company becomes more preoccupied with "shoring up the moat" to keep the stranglehold on the market more than it cares about innovating what's best for their consumer, the internal decay starts to happen.
Fortunately I think for both Apple and Microsoft, they still have internal resources in the upper-ranks that truly care about what's best for their customers. If those people end up being the prevailing voices they will succeed. I think a lot depends on whether the CEO has control of the vision, or if they're actually just managing operations. Cracks are shown in the form of who they are able to retain & hire and who is leaving.
This scenario you speak of is on the center stage where everyone can realize it and see it: game consoles. The console itself used to buy the manufacturer a gaming platform to collect license fees. Now that being a gaming platform means reaching people on mobile, the console makers are _desperately_ trying to reach mobile without giving up gaming revenue share to phone makers. This has led cloud platforms like AWS and GCP to build cloud-based game delivery systems (Luna and Stadia, respectively). The issue is the mobile PWAs that are built to connect to these cloud platforms are clunky and have special ways to install / add to mobile home screen. To stream using proper native apps, these platforms need to separate each game into a separate App Store game entry. Kind of bullshit. In my opinion, this is the most interesting area where the power struggler will play out because it’s not the little guy with no power getting bent over here. These are companies like Sony and Microsoft. Just watching on the sideline with my popcorn.
It is sort of complicated. I understand why Microsoft and Sony would fight for gaming revenue as the playing field moves to a more “all screens everywhere” platform. At the same time I think: what have these middle men actually done in the past couple of game console cycles to warrant a platform they deserve to defend? They have basically been living off the innovation of x86 and GPUs made by others and packaging it in a power hungry box that plugs into a TV made by someone else. They are living off network effects not innovations. From a hardware standpoint, Apple has earned the right to pull in more of the profits in my view. They innovated across the entire stack to build lower power draw, high graphic intensity, custom silicon, deeper integration etc.
> Because in 10 years, what currently exists as the only option on iPad and iPhone will be the only option on MacBooks too. There is a reason why the last WWDC was all about making the iPad feel more like MacOS and making parts of MacOS feel like iPadOS.
This is pure supposition and reasoning with a UI feature that you have to explicitly turn on that helps you manage windows in way that's more like a traditional desktop than ever for the iPad than it is like a tablet for macOS is quite a stretch.
You could have said the same about other features that iOS/macOS got and it would have been just as unconvincing too: Screen Time, Control Center, Focus, Share Play, anything for Messages or Safari, etc.
>Because in 10 years, what currently exists as the only option on iPad and iPhone will be the only option on MacBooks too.
People love to say this, but there's no evidence it's true.
Both Windows and MacOS now have features that can limit the sources of software to vendor-approved channels, but they're also very very easy to turn off. You can still run whatever the hell you want on a Mac, and on Windows -- by downloading from vendor sites, or even by building from source.
Neither platform is EVER likely to block this. There's no upside to it. But having the OPTION to lock down either platform is GREAT because, well, we all have an Aunt Millie or whatever who clicks on everything and can't be arsed to learn to use the web safely, etc.
I understood that clearly when I owned an iPhone. Basic stuff that works on Android simply doesn't work on iOS. Apple practices are straight up anti competition and I'm surprised the EU barely lifts a finger against Apple. For example, I was pretty much forced to use iCloud for cloud backups since everytime I tried to backup with Google Photos Apple forced the app to stop running in the background, ruinning completely the experience of Google Photos auto backup. This is their behavior towards another major huge corp, now just imagine how bad they are towards the small developer trying to make a living.
I sold the iPhone, got back to Android and will never touch an Apple product again. They represent EVERYTHING that's wrong with the tech world nowadays.
I guess it's time other major companies start screwing over Apple as much as they screw over them.
> only option on iPad and iPhone will be the only option on MacBooks too
I've had so many MacBooks but only because of the hardware form factor, the moment they wall off the terminal is the moment I would abandon mac forever.
They will also lose all of their corporate customers.
Apple hardware is generally quite good. Besides the complete lack of repairability on recent models, new Macbooks are really quite nice work laptops.
The software experience, on the other hand... it's been slipping downhill for almost a decade now. I haven't been able to "full-time" MacOS since Mojave, and with each update I just find myself using it less and less. I suspect this is mostly driven by their attempts to appease shareholders: changes like the Big Sur UI overhaul, forcing everyone onto Metal, prioritizing SaaS offerings, all of it contributes to the Windows-10-ization of MacOS. Meanwhile, MacOS has major architectural issues they could be fixing, like their increasingly broken BSD compatibility layer or rectifying their licensing woes with GPLv3.
I really wish people luck in bringing Linux to modern Macs, but I'm not very hopeful that it will be a fruitful long-term relationship. Apple has time-and-time-again shown that their bottom line comes first, and if Linux becomes an appealing enough alternative for developers, I suspect they'll cut support for that too. People said the same thing about Nintendo when developing custom firmware for the Switch ("Who would shut down a project used for running Android/Linux on first-party hardware?"), but subsequent models came with extensive homebrew mitigations.
Instead of dealing with these issues, I've just cut Apple out of my life. As a developer, my life has gotten so much easier, and as a user, I've got so much more peace-of-mind. It feels great, but it's not a path everyone can take. Apple (like Microsoft and Google) deserves strict regulation to ensure that their behavior is ethical and doesn't promote harmful lock-in.
Paying 30% to get access to millions of users, with money and having distribution, backups, creditcard handling, user management etc. Handled for you.. seems like a pretty good deal.
I fail to see your point, really. I'm not sure how your premise of "[trying] to build something like a new hardware device or systems" forces anyone into the app store, or even if it did compel them - say in the instance of the Roku app - what reason is there to charge for this? Bake it into your hardware price.
While this stuff makes it hard for developers, it makes it more secure for users, so users will keep buying stuff until such hindrances get in their way. If it's bad enough they will move on to other vendors.
It's a good article in many respects, but its logic unwittingly falls down when they try to have it both ways, advocating for an outcome that is functionally impossible. From the article—
"It’s great when Apple chooses to defend your privacy. Indeed, you should demand nothing less. But if Apple chooses not to defend your privacy, you should have the right to override the company’s choice. Facebook spied on iOS users for more than a decade before App Tracking Transparency, after all."
The important thing to appreciate is that App Tracking Transparency isn't something Apple can enforce with code. It's not an API or operating system feature which shields users against tracking. Enforcement is purely the threat of retribution by Apple, made legal by the terms of the agreement which all developers sign. Apple's monopoly on iOS app distribution means that a wilful breach of Apple's privacy policies is a dangerous path for any developer to take.
I cannot see any plausible scenario where an Apple made impotent through legislation could possibly result in a net gain of privacy control for consumers. And even if there is a better way, how about we get that working BEFORE tearing down the current imperfect system?
That paragraph is a layer cake of wishful thinking. How does the EFF propose to enforce a consumer right to override Apple's choices over privacy within iOS? This kind of rhetoric is unhelpful, eliding reality on so many levels. The notion of consumers self-policing their own privacy is a nice sentiment, but as an idea that must be implemented in reality... rather optimistic.
Exactly. The US needs strong, sensible, strict privacy laws before they pass legislation that would be detrimental to millions of Apple consumers who bought the iPhone for Apple’s monopoly.
It's worth mentioning the case of tumblr - a giant social media company that was literally worth hundreds of millions of dollars. People remember the whole "wow, tumblr was so stupid for banning porn" but forget that the reason they did so was because Apple threatened to remove all of their users from tumblr if they didn't. Apple gave tumblr unreasonable "safety standards" that almost single-handedly killed a gigantic site for the vast majority of users.
Apple should not have this type of power. Maybe they used it for good with Facebook, but I wouldn't count on it always being the case. Apple can kill entire social media platforms if they want to. IMO, it's a matter of time before they start charging an "adult tax" (that just so happens to be barely below the profits a company makes from adult content via Apple users). Maybe the only thing preventing them from doing so is regulatory pressure.
I personnally feel that Facebook is way too powerful.
I don't want to use whatsapp, I could use any other messaging app and I'd rather use something open that is decentralized. But nowadays if you have to work with small business, it is either inconvenient by phone, or text based through whatsapp, many have abandonned the email (I can understand why). If you have kids, all the associative world use whatsapp by default to keep track of all the details about your kids activities/training/competitions. Nobody update their basketball club web page anymore. Heck, they don't even update or post on their facebook page, all his done on messy whatsapp groups these days. If you refuse to use whatsapp you can just tell your kids no more sports in a club for you.
If you have remote friends and you stop using whatsapp, you can still call them once in a while but good luck convincing them to call you on a regular basis. Some may do but most won't. People have forgotten what a written letter or a regular non video phone call was. It is not that you count less than their other relatives, but they will reach other people so easily you will just disappear from their life natuarally and gradually if you are too far away.
It is either you swallow it or you live like with only a tiny and very local social life.
I like my iPhone. I've got nothing against Macs but I prefer Linux/x86.
Facebook can die in a fire and the world would be better off. I was barely using my account before and I deleted it 4 years ago after all the Cabridge Analytica stuff came out. I haven't missed it at all. In fact I think my mental health improved.
Sure, Apple have a disproportionally large power that should be acknowledged and stifled sensibly by regulators, but man do they create truly beautiful products that make my life better in myriad ways.
Facebook, on the other hand, maintain a business model that seems to do little but incentivise actions that exhaust ill societal outcomes. It's exhausting (pun intended), and I've certainly felt my mental health crack slightly under the burden of some of their products (not WhatsApp, which is fantastic and I hope isn't integrated further into their ecosystem from a user perspective).
That’s the thing with iOS, I feel like it is really built around the user and what the user wants. Less so around what companies want.
Users love the product so it grew it’s enormous userbase to what it is today. Companies have to comply to the restrictions that Apple imposes on them, because they can’t miss out on the userbase as their customer.
As a user I can’t really think of any guidelines that I’d want to be changed or doors to be opened, I feel like it’s mostly non-users or companies requesting them.
I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with this article.
As a consumer, I like Apple’s App Store. In general I don’t like 3rd party apps and prefer web apps but when I do install a 3rd party app I feel that I am not loading malware. Also, when I buy books, audiobooks, and movies from Google Play I don’t mind buying from a web site and then having the content available from the apps.
I would like to see maximum support for web apps for too many reasons to list here. Apple should do better. I also don’t like Apple not holding themselves to the same privacy standards as other companies and platforms.
One thing that irritates me is not having easy access to books and movies bought from Apple on my Chromebook. I should re-check this, but except for going through the iCloud.com web portal, I am stuck. BTW, there is so much I like about the Chromebook model, especially because of built-in Linux containers.
Apple is definitely a compromise, at least in my opinion.
Apple is not compromise of anything. It's a company that is evil, but only isn't yet because it didnt win in all the market segments. But as soon as it gains majority share they will fuckover all their customers, because they are evil and they can. iPhone is already a hell hole from a lockin and customer freedom perspective.
In the case of Facebook, whole societies and the psychology of the masses have been negatively effected. So them being in a strong position harms society and individuals alike. - In the case of Apple we are talking about a company that dominates a market and harms its competitors and has the power to be the gatekeeper. Yes, that‘s power that should be limited, but it‘s a company that produces goods that their customers love. I don‘t see any harm in their products and services at all. Au contraire.
A golden cage is still a cage. No matter how comfortable they make your life, we can not look only at the services they provide, we need to also look at the restrictions they impose.
I think we often times confuse the harms of "people being able to talk to each other en masse" with "things uniquely caused by Facebook."
I am not sure why this is, but I think a large part of it is that it sounds much better to rail against Facebook than to say "I don't like the outcomes when large groups of people are allowed to talk to each other online without intermediaries." But really, the second thing is what you are typically actually saying.
> In the case of Facebook, whole societies and the psychology of the masses have been negatively effected.
In my opinion facebook is very beneficial to society, so I find it strange that such a strong negative claim, stated as a fact, yet only a matter of personal opinion is left unchallenged.
“Ask app not to track” is great. Any solution to apple’s power that means this privacy improvement couldn’t have happened is a bad solution. That’s the issue here. The only way to defeat network effects (like facebook’s surveillance) is with other network effects (like apple’s app store).
To be clear, I’d love a less powerful apple, but it has to be a solution that can still lead to users actual wants overriding a behemoth like facebook. I don’t know if that’s asking to have my cake and eat it too.
"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."
"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
That your blackness is mirrored in me."
- slowing down customer-purchased devices before pushing new devices to the market. Not every Apple user wants, needs or can afford new phone every year or two
- forcing users into SaaS model via secretive security updates. One can't have secure device (well, secured up-to-date, not saying that fully updated iPhone is secure) without Apple gutting existing software, changing UI/UX and doing whatever they please on the device customer has paid for, against the customer
- blocking the possibility to upgrade the OS to previous version. IMO many versions of macOS and iOS were downgrades in comparison to previous ones. We couldn't rollback iPhones and now we can't even install macOS that came with the computer. Just the newest one (at least that's my experience: every installer but the newest one crashes at the very end)
- pushing their agendas by forcing EVERY Apple device to download a shitty U2 album because Tim Cook says so. That's what I will remember Tim Cook for the most.
Jobs was not ideal but he had drive and imagination. The company he largely participated in building was something different than your usual corporation. Cook is just an unimaginative pencil pusher.
> - slowing down customer-purchased devices before pushing new devices to the market. Not every Apple user wants, needs or can afford new phone every year or two
Making this point throws the rest of your comment into question. This isn't at all a fair telling of what happened, it was done to prevent phones from shutting off as the battery got older, not some machiavellian plot to get users to upgrade.
> - forcing users into SaaS model via secretive security updates. One can't have secure device (well, secured up-to-date, not saying that fully updated iPhone is secure) without Apple gutting existing software, changing UI/UX and doing whatever they please on the device customer has paid for, against the customer
What are you even talking about here? Please give an example
> - blocking the possibility to upgrade the OS to previous version. IMO many versions of macOS and iOS were downgrades in comparison to previous ones. We couldn't rollback iPhones and now we can't even install macOS that came with the computer. Just the newest one (at least that's my experience: every installer but the newest one crashes at the very end)
I'm fairly certain you can install back to the version a mac was released with, your issues with downgrading sound like a problem on your end, not apple's. As for the phone I'm conflicted. Honestly I think Apple made the right choice is making the updates one-way for security reasons. Maybe now with the secure enclave there is a safe way to allow for "user-approved" downgrades but I don't know enough to say one way or the other. The goal, of course, is to prevent the ability to downgrade a confiscated/stolen device to a version that has a known-exploit to bypass the lockscreen. With how much sensitive data people have on their phones I have a hard time seeing one-way upgrades as anything but a good thing.
> - pushing their agendas by forcing EVERY Apple device to download a shitty U2 album because Tim Cook says so. That's what I will remember Tim Cook for the most.
It was a failed marketing stunt and people get so worked up about it. Did it really impact your life so negatively? This is what you will remember most about Tim Cook? Ok...
> slowing down customer-purchased devices before pushing new devices to the market.
This is wrong. Apple pushed out a fix that when the phone detects it has crashed due to the soc getting undervolted, they would limit the maximum cpu frequency to avoid the phone having future power failures. This is absolutely what the user wants. There is no point getting full cpu speed if it means the phone just reboots when you use it.
Where they failed was in communication. They should have signalled to the user that this has happened and that they should replace the battery. They now do this and have a whole battery health page.
Communication is a massive problem for megacorps because everything (usually rightfully) becomes a huge deal. But id not be so quick to jump to malice as an explanation.
Facebook is such a misunderstood company, I really wonder when and how they are going to communicate what they actually do to a sea of people who think they "spy" and "sell" data rather than guarding data religiously and enabling advertisers to feed data back to them so their ad placement algorithms can optimize for results that their clients tell them to look for.
I guess highly personalized ads are too scary to see
Its not the ads only - there is huge power over people when they can’t sort their feed and instead all they see is forced by an algoritm. It shapes people. Similarly how they recommend groups and people.
Powerful company complains competition is too powerful, needs regulators to take sides.
The issue of wether or not tech companies are too powerful should be one of "The People" vs these companies and we collectively decide what should be and should not be allowed.
Facebook's only interest is reducing any competitors power as much as possible and whilst their argument might have a point, they might not have a point.
This discussion needs to happen and if necessary laws changed but I feel Facebook spearheading this weakens the points made due to their clear conflict of interest.
We as a society need to decide if the benefit of these large tech companies in their current state is truly worth the societal cost.
Facebook being involved in such a fundamental discussion dilutes its importance.
Also funny Facebook calling out another company as too powerful when they have one of the largest databases of personal information that has ever existed. Arguably much larger than the personal information Apple has collected on the world’s population.
Who keeps adding question marks to titles on HN? I understand it's to soften strong statements, but it's clearly the EFF's opinion that they are right, why put words in their mouth?
At the very least make it "Are they right?" so it's a correct sentence.
Both Apple and Google have successfully “owned the platform” they rely on for revenue, Google with Chrome, Apple with iOS. Facebook have tried but never succeeded in owning the platform, it’s the biggest risk to their position.
Their strategy to owning the platform now seems to me not to be “owning” the legislative and political platform through lobbying. If they can’t own the OS/Browser they are running on, then they want to “own” the legislation that governs it.
If your competitors own the platform better to leapfrog them and attempt to gain control though lobbying for legislative limitations.
Having your no2/3 in the company being a former Deputy British Prime Minister, only shows how important the political and legislative situation is to the long term stability of them as a company.
The point is big tech has too much power. Apple, Facebook, Google all have too much power. Unfortunately the US government can't pass any reasonable laws around technology so we end up relying on these companies with too much power to be (hopefully) a positive for the users.
It's different for everyone, but for me in order of trust its Apple, Google, and FB is a distant distant last with almost anyone else you throw in there.
Selling your user information/attention for ad revenue is quite a scummy business model when it comes down to it. I quite enjoy the fact that Apple could pull the plug on Google, FB etc. any time it wanted to by announcing steps to make their devices “ad free.” Apple makes its money selling hardware and software and content, they have no need for ads. They basically have a gun to the head of the internet companies.
Apple is way too powerful. Not that Facebook is any better, but Facebook is not the gatekeeper for millions of peoples lives. When Apple boots you as a customer, you most likely will lose everything about your digital life.
If you lose your Facebook account, it's annoying but recoverable.
Apple has control over your phone, your passwords, your photos, your music, your emails, your credit cards/payment methods. And you can backup nothing of it in a usable way.
Without a working Apple account any iPhone is as good as a brick.
[+] [-] whywhywhywhy|3 years ago|reply
But work at a company where you try to build something like new hardware devices or systems without having to resort to building either an iOS app or handing over 30% to Apple and the situation becomes very worrying to dire. Simple things suddenly become impossible or have workarounds piled on top to get their browser to function in the ways their desktop one does or Android's browser does.
You can feel some of their engineering choices are actively hostile against anyone trying to exist outside the App Store ecosystem. Sure I know some advocates push this as a good thing but I think they'll disagree when the endgame plays out.
Because in 10 years, what currently exists as the only option on iPad and iPhone will be the only option on MacBooks too. There is a reason why the last WWDC was all about making the iPad feel more like MacOS and making parts of MacOS feel like iPadOS.
I used to be a huge Apple advocate but I'm really worried with where they're heading as I'm trying to create new technology and Apple causes so much pain when you try to make anything other than an iOS app.
I do love my M1 MBP, have a lot less love for my iPhone these days but I'm worried where the tide is moving. It's all absolutely fine, until it isn't and then the problem is it's completely locked down from the touch screen to the silicon...
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|3 years ago|reply
I worry about the people living under such digital serf conditions. It was only a matter of time before they started promulgating changes like lords, like the client side scanning "feature" they tried to push. That is absolutely a problem that needs to be addressed and the answer is always computing freedom.
With that said... I shed zero tears when Apple screws over even worse exploitative corporations like Facebook. I simply have no sympathy for advertising giants complaining about being unable to continue their surveillance and exploitation of the most profitable market segment. The only problem is it took an Apple to put a stop to them when simply saying no should have been sufficient.
[+] [-] Mertax|3 years ago|reply
Fortunately I think for both Apple and Microsoft, they still have internal resources in the upper-ranks that truly care about what's best for their customers. If those people end up being the prevailing voices they will succeed. I think a lot depends on whether the CEO has control of the vision, or if they're actually just managing operations. Cracks are shown in the form of who they are able to retain & hire and who is leaving.
[+] [-] enos_feedler|3 years ago|reply
It is sort of complicated. I understand why Microsoft and Sony would fight for gaming revenue as the playing field moves to a more “all screens everywhere” platform. At the same time I think: what have these middle men actually done in the past couple of game console cycles to warrant a platform they deserve to defend? They have basically been living off the innovation of x86 and GPUs made by others and packaging it in a power hungry box that plugs into a TV made by someone else. They are living off network effects not innovations. From a hardware standpoint, Apple has earned the right to pull in more of the profits in my view. They innovated across the entire stack to build lower power draw, high graphic intensity, custom silicon, deeper integration etc.
[+] [-] boardwaalk|3 years ago|reply
This is pure supposition and reasoning with a UI feature that you have to explicitly turn on that helps you manage windows in way that's more like a traditional desktop than ever for the iPad than it is like a tablet for macOS is quite a stretch.
You could have said the same about other features that iOS/macOS got and it would have been just as unconvincing too: Screen Time, Control Center, Focus, Share Play, anything for Messages or Safari, etc.
[+] [-] ubermonkey|3 years ago|reply
People love to say this, but there's no evidence it's true.
Both Windows and MacOS now have features that can limit the sources of software to vendor-approved channels, but they're also very very easy to turn off. You can still run whatever the hell you want on a Mac, and on Windows -- by downloading from vendor sites, or even by building from source.
Neither platform is EVER likely to block this. There's no upside to it. But having the OPTION to lock down either platform is GREAT because, well, we all have an Aunt Millie or whatever who clicks on everything and can't be arsed to learn to use the web safely, etc.
Is iOS locked down? Sure! I love it that way.
[+] [-] traveler01|3 years ago|reply
I sold the iPhone, got back to Android and will never touch an Apple product again. They represent EVERYTHING that's wrong with the tech world nowadays.
I guess it's time other major companies start screwing over Apple as much as they screw over them.
[+] [-] Aperocky|3 years ago|reply
I've had so many MacBooks but only because of the hardware form factor, the moment they wall off the terminal is the moment I would abandon mac forever.
They will also lose all of their corporate customers.
[+] [-] sydd|3 years ago|reply
We're already living in a world where most segments of your life are taxed in a way from these 3. In a few years they will cannibalize the rest.
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoldesu|3 years ago|reply
The software experience, on the other hand... it's been slipping downhill for almost a decade now. I haven't been able to "full-time" MacOS since Mojave, and with each update I just find myself using it less and less. I suspect this is mostly driven by their attempts to appease shareholders: changes like the Big Sur UI overhaul, forcing everyone onto Metal, prioritizing SaaS offerings, all of it contributes to the Windows-10-ization of MacOS. Meanwhile, MacOS has major architectural issues they could be fixing, like their increasingly broken BSD compatibility layer or rectifying their licensing woes with GPLv3.
I really wish people luck in bringing Linux to modern Macs, but I'm not very hopeful that it will be a fruitful long-term relationship. Apple has time-and-time-again shown that their bottom line comes first, and if Linux becomes an appealing enough alternative for developers, I suspect they'll cut support for that too. People said the same thing about Nintendo when developing custom firmware for the Switch ("Who would shut down a project used for running Android/Linux on first-party hardware?"), but subsequent models came with extensive homebrew mitigations.
Instead of dealing with these issues, I've just cut Apple out of my life. As a developer, my life has gotten so much easier, and as a user, I've got so much more peace-of-mind. It feels great, but it's not a path everyone can take. Apple (like Microsoft and Google) deserves strict regulation to ensure that their behavior is ethical and doesn't promote harmful lock-in.
[+] [-] martin_bech|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tagbert|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] memetomancer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stjohnswarts|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dontlaugh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmarreck|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simondotau|3 years ago|reply
"It’s great when Apple chooses to defend your privacy. Indeed, you should demand nothing less. But if Apple chooses not to defend your privacy, you should have the right to override the company’s choice. Facebook spied on iOS users for more than a decade before App Tracking Transparency, after all."
The important thing to appreciate is that App Tracking Transparency isn't something Apple can enforce with code. It's not an API or operating system feature which shields users against tracking. Enforcement is purely the threat of retribution by Apple, made legal by the terms of the agreement which all developers sign. Apple's monopoly on iOS app distribution means that a wilful breach of Apple's privacy policies is a dangerous path for any developer to take.
I cannot see any plausible scenario where an Apple made impotent through legislation could possibly result in a net gain of privacy control for consumers. And even if there is a better way, how about we get that working BEFORE tearing down the current imperfect system?
That paragraph is a layer cake of wishful thinking. How does the EFF propose to enforce a consumer right to override Apple's choices over privacy within iOS? This kind of rhetoric is unhelpful, eliding reality on so many levels. The notion of consumers self-policing their own privacy is a nice sentiment, but as an idea that must be implemented in reality... rather optimistic.
[+] [-] Jcowell|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexb_|3 years ago|reply
Apple should not have this type of power. Maybe they used it for good with Facebook, but I wouldn't count on it always being the case. Apple can kill entire social media platforms if they want to. IMO, it's a matter of time before they start charging an "adult tax" (that just so happens to be barely below the profits a company makes from adult content via Apple users). Maybe the only thing preventing them from doing so is regulatory pressure.
[+] [-] prmoustache|3 years ago|reply
I don't want to use whatsapp, I could use any other messaging app and I'd rather use something open that is decentralized. But nowadays if you have to work with small business, it is either inconvenient by phone, or text based through whatsapp, many have abandonned the email (I can understand why). If you have kids, all the associative world use whatsapp by default to keep track of all the details about your kids activities/training/competitions. Nobody update their basketball club web page anymore. Heck, they don't even update or post on their facebook page, all his done on messy whatsapp groups these days. If you refuse to use whatsapp you can just tell your kids no more sports in a club for you.
If you have remote friends and you stop using whatsapp, you can still call them once in a while but good luck convincing them to call you on a regular basis. Some may do but most won't. People have forgotten what a written letter or a regular non video phone call was. It is not that you count less than their other relatives, but they will reach other people so easily you will just disappear from their life natuarally and gradually if you are too far away.
It is either you swallow it or you live like with only a tiny and very local social life.
[+] [-] lizknope|3 years ago|reply
Facebook can die in a fire and the world would be better off. I was barely using my account before and I deleted it 4 years ago after all the Cabridge Analytica stuff came out. I haven't missed it at all. In fact I think my mental health improved.
[+] [-] fumblebee|3 years ago|reply
Sure, Apple have a disproportionally large power that should be acknowledged and stifled sensibly by regulators, but man do they create truly beautiful products that make my life better in myriad ways.
Facebook, on the other hand, maintain a business model that seems to do little but incentivise actions that exhaust ill societal outcomes. It's exhausting (pun intended), and I've certainly felt my mental health crack slightly under the burden of some of their products (not WhatsApp, which is fantastic and I hope isn't integrated further into their ecosystem from a user perspective).
[+] [-] leodriesch|3 years ago|reply
Users love the product so it grew it’s enormous userbase to what it is today. Companies have to comply to the restrictions that Apple imposes on them, because they can’t miss out on the userbase as their customer.
As a user I can’t really think of any guidelines that I’d want to be changed or doors to be opened, I feel like it’s mostly non-users or companies requesting them.
[+] [-] AlexandrB|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] misiti3780|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|3 years ago|reply
As a consumer, I like Apple’s App Store. In general I don’t like 3rd party apps and prefer web apps but when I do install a 3rd party app I feel that I am not loading malware. Also, when I buy books, audiobooks, and movies from Google Play I don’t mind buying from a web site and then having the content available from the apps.
I would like to see maximum support for web apps for too many reasons to list here. Apple should do better. I also don’t like Apple not holding themselves to the same privacy standards as other companies and platforms.
One thing that irritates me is not having easy access to books and movies bought from Apple on my Chromebook. I should re-check this, but except for going through the iCloud.com web portal, I am stuck. BTW, there is so much I like about the Chromebook model, especially because of built-in Linux containers.
Apple is definitely a compromise, at least in my opinion.
[+] [-] seabriez|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] submeta|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rglullis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whimsicalism|3 years ago|reply
I am not sure why this is, but I think a large part of it is that it sounds much better to rail against Facebook than to say "I don't like the outcomes when large groups of people are allowed to talk to each other online without intermediaries." But really, the second thing is what you are typically actually saying.
[+] [-] sgregnt|3 years ago|reply
In my opinion facebook is very beneficial to society, so I find it strange that such a strong negative claim, stated as a fact, yet only a matter of personal opinion is left unchallenged.
[+] [-] 6gvONxR4sf7o|3 years ago|reply
To be clear, I’d love a less powerful apple, but it has to be a solution that can still lead to users actual wants overriding a behemoth like facebook. I don’t know if that’s asking to have my cake and eat it too.
[+] [-] 1970-01-01|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hericium|3 years ago|reply
- slowing down customer-purchased devices before pushing new devices to the market. Not every Apple user wants, needs or can afford new phone every year or two
- forcing users into SaaS model via secretive security updates. One can't have secure device (well, secured up-to-date, not saying that fully updated iPhone is secure) without Apple gutting existing software, changing UI/UX and doing whatever they please on the device customer has paid for, against the customer
- blocking the possibility to upgrade the OS to previous version. IMO many versions of macOS and iOS were downgrades in comparison to previous ones. We couldn't rollback iPhones and now we can't even install macOS that came with the computer. Just the newest one (at least that's my experience: every installer but the newest one crashes at the very end)
- pushing their agendas by forcing EVERY Apple device to download a shitty U2 album because Tim Cook says so. That's what I will remember Tim Cook for the most.
Jobs was not ideal but he had drive and imagination. The company he largely participated in building was something different than your usual corporation. Cook is just an unimaginative pencil pusher.
[+] [-] joshstrange|3 years ago|reply
Making this point throws the rest of your comment into question. This isn't at all a fair telling of what happened, it was done to prevent phones from shutting off as the battery got older, not some machiavellian plot to get users to upgrade.
> - forcing users into SaaS model via secretive security updates. One can't have secure device (well, secured up-to-date, not saying that fully updated iPhone is secure) without Apple gutting existing software, changing UI/UX and doing whatever they please on the device customer has paid for, against the customer
What are you even talking about here? Please give an example
> - blocking the possibility to upgrade the OS to previous version. IMO many versions of macOS and iOS were downgrades in comparison to previous ones. We couldn't rollback iPhones and now we can't even install macOS that came with the computer. Just the newest one (at least that's my experience: every installer but the newest one crashes at the very end)
I'm fairly certain you can install back to the version a mac was released with, your issues with downgrading sound like a problem on your end, not apple's. As for the phone I'm conflicted. Honestly I think Apple made the right choice is making the updates one-way for security reasons. Maybe now with the secure enclave there is a safe way to allow for "user-approved" downgrades but I don't know enough to say one way or the other. The goal, of course, is to prevent the ability to downgrade a confiscated/stolen device to a version that has a known-exploit to bypass the lockscreen. With how much sensitive data people have on their phones I have a hard time seeing one-way upgrades as anything but a good thing.
> - pushing their agendas by forcing EVERY Apple device to download a shitty U2 album because Tim Cook says so. That's what I will remember Tim Cook for the most.
It was a failed marketing stunt and people get so worked up about it. Did it really impact your life so negatively? This is what you will remember most about Tim Cook? Ok...
[+] [-] Gigachad|3 years ago|reply
This is wrong. Apple pushed out a fix that when the phone detects it has crashed due to the soc getting undervolted, they would limit the maximum cpu frequency to avoid the phone having future power failures. This is absolutely what the user wants. There is no point getting full cpu speed if it means the phone just reboots when you use it.
Where they failed was in communication. They should have signalled to the user that this has happened and that they should replace the battery. They now do this and have a whole battery health page.
Communication is a massive problem for megacorps because everything (usually rightfully) becomes a huge deal. But id not be so quick to jump to malice as an explanation.
[+] [-] ig-88ms|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cynusx|3 years ago|reply
I guess highly personalized ads are too scary to see
[+] [-] nicce|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bamboozled|3 years ago|reply
Give me a break please...
[+] [-] drawingthesun|3 years ago|reply
The issue of wether or not tech companies are too powerful should be one of "The People" vs these companies and we collectively decide what should be and should not be allowed.
Facebook's only interest is reducing any competitors power as much as possible and whilst their argument might have a point, they might not have a point.
This discussion needs to happen and if necessary laws changed but I feel Facebook spearheading this weakens the points made due to their clear conflict of interest.
We as a society need to decide if the benefit of these large tech companies in their current state is truly worth the societal cost.
Facebook being involved in such a fundamental discussion dilutes its importance.
Also funny Facebook calling out another company as too powerful when they have one of the largest databases of personal information that has ever existed. Arguably much larger than the personal information Apple has collected on the world’s population.
[+] [-] ginko|3 years ago|reply
At the very least make it "Are they right?" so it's a correct sentence.
[+] [-] samwillis|3 years ago|reply
Their strategy to owning the platform now seems to me not to be “owning” the legislative and political platform through lobbying. If they can’t own the OS/Browser they are running on, then they want to “own” the legislation that governs it.
If your competitors own the platform better to leapfrog them and attempt to gain control though lobbying for legislative limitations.
Having your no2/3 in the company being a former Deputy British Prime Minister, only shows how important the political and legislative situation is to the long term stability of them as a company.
[+] [-] matwood|3 years ago|reply
It's different for everyone, but for me in order of trust its Apple, Google, and FB is a distant distant last with almost anyone else you throw in there.
[+] [-] mnw21cam|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] faangiq|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tycho|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kareemsabri|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ig-88ms|3 years ago|reply
If you lose your Facebook account, it's annoying but recoverable.
Apple has control over your phone, your passwords, your photos, your music, your emails, your credit cards/payment methods. And you can backup nothing of it in a usable way. Without a working Apple account any iPhone is as good as a brick.