macOS unable to open any non-Apple application

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.

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.

I think the difference between the Google and Apple dictatorships is the business model.

Google's customers are not the users, they are the advertisers who rely on the data harvested by Google. The incentive to be evil is directly baked into the business model, and most users end up tolerating it because it is "FREE", and often the only viable option.

Apple's customers are the users. If Apple rocks the boat too much, their users might not feel so good about paying the premium prices Apple demands for its products. Making users upset is a direct threat to their business model.

> Making users upset is a direct threat to their business model

You can't really compare Google to Apple. You can switch to a different company if you don't like pixel phones and get almost the same experience. You can switch between manufacturers and use windows/Linux as well. The same isn't true about Mac os or iOS.

While you may think customers still have a choice, the reality is that they are locked in through their school, work or relationships (can't use imessage to talk to your spouse?). Apple makes it difficult to use third-party hardware and software it competes with so you will buy more and more Apple over time. People are prone to sunk cost fallacy and consistency. It's sales manual 101. I really can't recommend reading a good sales manual enough.