←back to thread

2603 points mattsolle | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.32s | 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 #
totalZero ◴[] No.25083651[source]
Normally I'm of a similar opinion to yours...but in this case I'm not.

What happens if you're trading securities, or if you have an imminent deadline? Apple sells a fail-closed security feature, without investing the resources necessary to keep it as near to 100% serviceable as possible, and never really discusses it with the user. When it hangs, most users don't even know why.

WTF!

Seems like they could partner with Akamai (or one of its competitors) to make the server-side component of this feature more robust.

If they are going to sell the MBP as a premium professional product, then they must recognize that it will sometimes serve as the linchpin of users' mission-critical activities.

Take a billion dollars out of the stock buyback, invest it in the product instead, and make this problem go away.

replies(1): >>25096903 #
1. floatingatoll ◴[] No.25096903[source]
Apple’s entire CDN collapsed on Big Sur launch day, which for years was and probably still is backed by Akamai. The OCSP endpoint was just one of many that was impacted. Seems like that’s exactly what you suggest they should have done to make this more robust. The endpoint failed for the first time in a decade this week. That’s better uptime than any stock exchange you’re trading securities on.