←back to thread

2603 points mattsolle | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.015s | 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 #
floatingatoll ◴[] No.25076599[source]
The payoff for the very slight risk is an effective built-in malware prevention system that doesn’t treat me abusively and reacts in a timely manner to abusive circumstances.

After decades of production operations, I have no complaints about how this was handled, and I expect they’ll investigate and patch any defects exposed by the outage.

I went for a walk when this happened and when I got back it was fixed. Works for me.

replies(2): >>25077931 #>>25083651 #
1. craftinator ◴[] No.25077931[source]
What's it like renting a computer?
replies(1): >>25080580 #
2. floatingatoll ◴[] No.25080580[source]
The tricky part with renting a computer is that you have to insure it against accidental damage by the renter, and that has to be “gig economy” or “business” compatible insurance, because you’re profiting from loaning it to others.

There’s also not exactly a huge market for rental computers when you consider that libraries offer them for free, and often with better Internet connections than those renting a computer could offer.

Renting computers is a lot easier if you host them in the cloud and deny physical access to your customers, though — they generally can’t do permanent damage, and there’s no issues with theft/loss. But this isn’t typically viewed as “renting” anymore, but instead something like “colocation” or whatever EC2 is.

Why do you ask?