←back to thread

2603 points mattsolle | 2 comments | | HN request time: 1.771s | 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 #
tshaddox ◴[] No.25076414[source]
> 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.

The answer is pretty simple: these problems are extremely rare, they don't last very long, and they tend to have fairly simple workarounds. You seem to have a principle that any non-zero chance of being affected by a problem of a certain type is a complete deal-breaker, but most people when buying a computer probably just subconsciously estimate the likelihood and impact of this type (and all other types) of problems and weigh that against other unrelated factors like price.

replies(11): >>25076548 #>>25076582 #>>25076599 #>>25076627 #>>25076657 #>>25076697 #>>25076821 #>>25076877 #>>25076970 #>>25077145 #>>25077228 #
satisfaction ◴[] No.25076548[source]
> rare, very long, simple

in this context those are simply weasel words in my opinion

replies(1): >>25076631 #
tshaddox ◴[] No.25076631[source]
It's true that I don't have data on how often this type of problem happens, how long they last, and what the workarounds are, but I'm using those words not to be intentionally vague, but to reflect my own impression from my own experience, and I strongly suspect my impression matches most people's.
replies(3): >>25076769 #>>25076779 #>>25077211 #
satisfaction ◴[] No.25076779[source]
If you use your laptop as mostly a youtube machine or a social media station then yes, the described problems are not a big deal, in fact they are probably beneficial to your well-being. But if you use your laptop to earn a living, that can be a major problem, day traders for a top of the head example. This also sounds like a nightmare for the corporate world. I suspect that these custom silicon iOS devices will be fully cemented as 'Fisher Price' computers.
replies(3): >>25077155 #>>25077335 #>>25078329 #
1. heavyset_go ◴[] No.25077155[source]
> If you use your laptop as mostly a youtube machine or a social media station then yes, the described problems are not a big deal, in fact they are probably beneficial to your well-being

I've set up a few Linux installations for people who only use their computers as Facebook and YouTube machines, and I haven't had a complaint. They also wouldn't be able to break their systems if they tried.

I'm of the opinion that if ChromeOS would fit a user's use case, then so would Ubuntu with Firefox or Chrome, most of the time.

Those same Linux systems would fit my needs as a developer with only a few small changes.

Security, simplicity, power and ownership don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can have a simple and secure computer, and also have power over your system and own your hardware.

replies(1): >>25078352 #
2. m4rtink ◴[] No.25078352[source]
Yeah, a modern Linux distro can satisfy the needs of a "regular" user just fine - an up to date web browser and maybe an email client and all is fine.

Yet at the same time it makes it possible for the user to "grow" and make use of more advanced features of the system for creative endeavors.

On the other hand on a locked down mobile device or chromebook, there is not really any room to grow and be creative, it's only good for consuming content.