←back to thread

2603 points mattsolle | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
elmo2you ◴[] No.25076037[source]
Sincerely and without any intention to troll or be sarcastic: I'm puzzled that people are willing buy a computer/OS where (apparently) software can/will fail to launch if some central company server goes down. Maybe I'm just getting this wrong, because I can honestly not quite wrap my head around this. This is such a big no-go, from a systems design point of view.

Even beyond unintentional glitches at Apple, just imagine what this could mean when traffic to this infra is disrupted intentionally (e.g. to any "unfavorable" country). That sounds like a really serious cyber attack vector to me. Equally dangerous if infra inside the USA gets compromised, if that is going to make Apple computers effectively inoperable. Not sure how Apple will shield itself from legal liability in such an event, if things are intentionally designed this way. I seriously doubt that a cleverly crafted TOS/EULA will do it, for the damage might easily go way beyond to just users in this case.

Again, maybe (and in fact: hopefully) I'm just getting this all wrong. If not, I might know a country or two where this could even warrant a full ban on the sale of Apple computers, if there is no local/national instance of this (apparently crucial) infrastructure operating in that country itself, merely on the argument of national security (and in this case a very valid one, for a change).

All in all, this appears to be a design fuck-up of monumental proportions. One that might very well deserve to have serious legal ramifications for Apple.

replies(35): >>25076070 #>>25076108 #>>25076117 #>>25076130 #>>25076131 #>>25076194 #>>25076232 #>>25076348 #>>25076377 #>>25076414 #>>25076421 #>>25076460 #>>25076514 #>>25076630 #>>25076635 #>>25076649 #>>25076707 #>>25076786 #>>25076858 #>>25076908 #>>25076965 #>>25077109 #>>25077171 #>>25077401 #>>25077488 #>>25077655 #>>25077729 #>>25077764 #>>25077960 #>>25078164 #>>25078511 #>>25078513 #>>25079215 #>>25080127 #>>25108729 #
horsawlarway ◴[] No.25076194[source]
People chose to use Apple because it seems like a benevolent dictatorship.

And frankly, a benevolent dictatorship is basically the best government you can have, as long as you're part of the "in-group" who doesn't push boundaries, doesn't cause trouble, and supports the supreme ruler, Kim jon... cough* Apple.

---

The problem is that no matter how good the dictatorship might be today, it will eventually bite you. You will either develop a need that isn't addressed, or they will change the rules so you are no longer able to satisfy an existing need.

We're seeing this now with Google - Their motto was literally "don't be evil" for a long time. And during that golden period their users loved them. But as Google has shifted from "don't be evil" to "Make lots of money" people are starting to shift away.

Apple is still in the golden phase, but I'm not really convinced they're going to be there much longer.

replies(7): >>25076277 #>>25076326 #>>25076510 #>>25076522 #>>25076716 #>>25076878 #>>25080123 #
phs318u ◴[] No.25076878[source]
Speaking as an ex-Google user and an ex-Apple customer (still tied to Apple Music and iCloud for family phones), I'd compare Google to Russia - not particularly benevolent, a bit chaotic/random, citizens tend to shrug and accept their lot. Apple is more like Singapore, slick, seemingly benevolent, citizens honestly question why the rest of the world isn't run the same way.

EDIT: I'd add another way in which Google is like Russia and Apple like Singapore. Everyone kinda knows that Russia's leaders are a bit/a lot evil. There's still a debate about whether Singapore's leaders are evil.

replies(3): >>25076993 #>>25077074 #>>25077132 #
1. sjwright ◴[] No.25076993[source]
That's a perfect analogy.