←back to thread

1183 points robenkleene | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.994s | source | bottom
Show context
3pt14159 ◴[] No.24838967[source]
This is one of those tough cases where software cuts both ways.

Some people are smart, informed developers that install a trusted tool to monitor their traffic and have legitimate reasons to want to inspect Apple traffic. They're dismayed.

Most people are the opposite and this move protects the most sensitive data from being easily scooped up or muddled in easily installed apps, or at least easily installed apps that don't use zero days.

Is the world better or worse due to this change? I'd say a touch better, but I don't like the fact that this change was needed in the first place. I trust Apple, but I don't like trusting trust.

replies(19): >>24838993 #>>24839043 #>>24839086 #>>24839126 #>>24839194 #>>24839419 #>>24840315 #>>24841406 #>>24841984 #>>24842961 #>>24843115 #>>24843241 #>>24844017 #>>24844287 #>>24844319 #>>24844636 #>>24845405 #>>24845660 #>>24845932 #
api ◴[] No.24839194[source]
Tech savvy users are not just the minority. They're also cheap. They've been conditioned by the FOSS movement to think all software should be free as-in-beer. (The people who started FOSS didn't say that, but that's what it's become.) They say they want free as-in-freedom, but since they are not willing to pay for it they don't exist. Those who pay set the agenda for everything.

Developing a truly polished operating system with a whole ecosystem of services is far, far beyond what volunteers and hobbyists can achieve. It's just too much work. It also requires focus and coordination and someone who is able and willing to say no. Without that the FOSS community rewrites everything over and over again instead of doing the not-fun parts of programming like fixing bugs and edge cases.

TL;DR: we get what we pay for. We don't pay for freedom so we don't get it.

replies(5): >>24839264 #>>24839372 #>>24839597 #>>24840436 #>>24841094 #
1. Skunkleton ◴[] No.24839264[source]
> They say they want free as-in-freedom, but since they are not willing to pay for it they don't exist. Only paying users matter.

Citation needed. If you look at app store pricing models the opposite seems true. If I were going to take a random guess I would say that tech savvy users use open source software to avoid anti-consumer bullshit more than anything else.

replies(1): >>24839294 #
2. api ◴[] No.24839294[source]
If enough people said to Apple "hey, this stuff is not acceptable and we won't pay for it" and then they actually did follow through, Apple would stop.

My point is that the vast majority of people don't say that, only a very tiny minority. The vast majority of people want convenience, not control. They want their stuff to "just work" because even if they do have the technical knowledge they don't have the time to screw around with fixing their computer. Apple is giving the market what they want as evidenced by actual buying behavior, not posts on HN.

My other point is that while there probably are enough tech-savvy people who care about freedom to support a viable alternative platform, the majority of these users are not willing to pay for anything so there is not in fact a market for it.

Basically what it boils down to is that people don't actually care. Even the vocal people who say they care don't care because they won't open their wallets or change their buying habits. If you won't actually do anything about something, you don't care. Whining on the Internet is not doing something.

replies(3): >>24839662 #>>24842553 #>>24845466 #
3. notamy ◴[] No.24839662[source]
> They want their stuff to "just work" because even if they do have the technical knowledge they don't have the time to screw around with fixing their computer.

And that's why I picked up an MBP this year; it's caused me way less grief than my various Linux boxen have.

replies(1): >>24841093 #
4. lovehashbrowns ◴[] No.24841093{3}[source]
It's the opposite for me. Pop!_OS has caused me the least amount of grief. I tried switching to it as my main workstation but, sadly, Zoom doesn't run very well (in my experience). It crashed often and started using 100% CPU on all my cores.
5. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.24842553[source]
> Basically what it boils down to is that people don't actually care. Even the vocal people who say they care don't care because they won't open their wallets or change their buying habits. If you won't actually do anything about something, you don't care. Whining on the Internet is not doing something.

People aren't buying features off a list. In a situation like this a missing feature has to be so important that it completely disqualifies the product, which is a very different thing from a willingness to open the wallet.

It's similar to how you can get a kindle with or without lock screen ads. If the only option was with ads, you'd see more people buying that version because it becomes artificially hard for them to say "I don't want ads". Even though they're willing to pay for the feature.

And for convenience vs. control, well, this firewall bypass doesn't help convenience.

6. saagarjha ◴[] No.24845466[source]
> If enough people said to Apple "hey, this stuff is not acceptable and we won't pay for it" and then they actually did follow through, Apple would stop.

“The market will price this out” doesn’t actually work because it assumes that 1. Apple’s product strategy is done to match market desires perfectly and 2. The decision to buy is solely predicated on this particular thing. The first is false because nobody can do that and the second is because people buy Apple products for other reasons than just that. I personally know many people (although this sample is of course unbiased) that buy Apple devices for a number of reasons (they work well, they look nice, they have good support) but hate that they can’t do thing on them. But their purchase decision doesn’t reflect their opinions on this particular issue.