←back to thread

2603 points mattsolle | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.316s | 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 #
ineedasername ◴[] No.25076630[source]
In short, the vast majority of users never need or want fine-grained control over their computers. In the HN community, we are mostly edge cases in terms of computer usage & functionality requirements.

I believe this is why there has never been any mass pushback against iOS/Android (even if Android is slightly better in this respect).

Further, neither iOS nor Android (and now OS X) have instituted huge restrictive changes all at once. Restrictions are gradual & creeping, basically moving the overton window of what is accepted.

replies(1): >>25076764 #
laurent92 ◴[] No.25076764[source]
> fine-grained control over their computer

Or just run BlueStacks, which is necessary to run Among Us (the popular game since lockdown), which isn’t signed because it’s an emulator. And it requires the “Control this mac” permission. Unsigned. There are many, many cases in which users are faced with unsigned apps.

replies(1): >>25077019 #
1. ineedasername ◴[] No.25077019[source]
I thought BlueStacks was just to emulate Android on a Mac/PC? Though I suppose you could run Virtualbox on a Mac to get an OS you "own"