> We've given up on protecting our freedoms, and our devices aren't really our own anymore.
And yet TFA's entire point seemed to apply equally to a self-built machine running any OS (including any Linux) that you could name. So this really seems to have almost nothing to do with Apple or MS.
> I should expect to be able to run Windows on my coffee maker?
Yes, of course. To satisfy your pedantry: You should be able to put whatever software you want on your personal property and expect the device to boot it rather than refusing because it isn't signed by the powers that be. It's about freedom, not omnipotence.
> That's a bit of an exaggeration of course, but I do not think this is an important "need".
You do not get to decide what's important to other people. If you don't want care about running custom software, just don't do it.
> You can already buy an Android device if you want more flexibility
If Apple's lock in tactics didn't work. Also it means you have to choose between the things that made you go with Apple to begin with and freedom – even though you could easily have both if not for Apple's artificial restrictions.
> Now if we have to think of Apple as a hostile entity that is doing the same shit as microsoft, it makes me very disappointed.
It's sad and disappointing but not surprising in any way. The immutable truth is we simply can't trust these companies. We need to cut them out of our lives as much as humanly possible.
Linux is flawed but it's ours. I hope we continue to have unlocked computers to run it on forever.
> This puts Apple to shame, plain and simple. They obviously don't care about standards, or compliance, because they like people to be walled in their own little private garden
Is everyone missing the part where Apple left the door open for other operating systems and development thereof when it would have been relatively trivial for them to lock the laptops down.
They literally made their own silicon and built an entire platform. Do you think it's a mere mistake that they left it open to running other operating systems?
It's really disappointing to see everyone bashing Apple when it's clear to anyone paying attention that they made a conscious decision to leave the door open for 3rd party development.
> Perhaps we should be angry with the whole of Microsoft+Google+Samsung+Apple+etc all doing their own things, rather than sitting down in one room and agreeing on a strategy that benefits the users of all of their devices?
You mean, standards like USB-C, WiDi transfer, MTP, etc?
Because it's Apple that refuses to use those standards. I can use the same standards, no matter if Windows Phone (RIP), Android, Sailfish.
As long as you're outside of the Apple Silo, everything works fine, no matter the phone, no matter the OS.
It's only Apple that intentionally does its own thing to lock you in.
> Is it that much of a problem as long as alternate OSes can be installed by the user? For example, the M1 chip can run Linux.
And yet you can't run alternate OSes on iPhones and iPads because of Apple's efforts to make sure that you can't.
We're relying on the goodwill of companies that have all the financial incentives in the world to lock users out of the hardware they own, and those are the same companies that already lock users out of their mobile devices.
Too bad this ends on this line. So you recommend trusting another corporation over Microsoft to be virtuous over the long term? The only OS you can truly control is well known, and it's Linux.
> Apple has gone in the direction of net appliances
I agree that, with "Apple Silicon", they have left behind anything that could reasonably be traced back to the "openness" of old desktop computers.
New Apple systems are locked down from the silicon up, and you only get to do what Apple lets you do. As the Star Wars quote goes, "Pray I do not alter [the deal] further".
Sure, some people have managed to boot Linux on the ARM cores of the M1, but it's about as useful as pitching a tent in a corner of a stadium and declaring it useable housing. There is so much on the SoC that's closed and out of reach that I can only see the effort as misguided.
No, this is an entirely self-inflicted problem by the user.
It's 2023. Everybody knows about the telemetry, the unserviceable hardware, the "fuck you" style bug reporting and customer service, and of course the fact that you no longer own your own machine.
Anybody buying Apple (and to a large extend Microsoft) at this point, knowing they have no intention of letting you have access to your own device, also knowing that there are superior open-source options, deserves precisely what they get.
> apple-only, apple-only, apple user lock-in, apple walled garden, apple.
> don't tell me I can do this with something else than apple.
Of you cannot play windows game on your linux box and you cannot get the same experience you have in the walled garden outside of it unless you change and adapt you devices.
I have a client with a Linux ecosystem and a single iphone, apple does not provide itunes for linux so making backup and generally dealing with the iphone required buying a second hand windows laptop specifically to deal with this because with each update of the iphone OS apple breaks previous compatibility with linux that had been added by enthusiasts.
I have a thinkpad running linux, it is cheaper, more powerful, thin (though this is not important), trivial to keep up-to-date, repairable, serviceable on site. I've set up a seamless sync for my computerphone which I use exclusively for phone calls, SMS and as a clock (no need for a gadget computerwatch that cannot even tell what time it is for 24h straight), lastly I do not use wireless headphones but I could if I wanted to.
I'm out of the apple prison-system for a damned good reason too, it's overhyped, very expensive, is often not compatible with hardware outside it (could it be a reason you're all in on the apple walled garden ?), does not allow me to do what I choose, engage in huge amount of tax evasion with significant social consequences, locks user in, relies on free software makes huge profit but doesn't donate back and it goes on and on.
What you describes here is nothing else than the existence of an impenetrable wall designed and built by apple to keep control and increase their profit, you choose to live inside the wall and I choose to live outside.
We, outsiders, like to think people choosing to live inside the wall do so because they are blinded not because they are evil as this is easier on us than riskig losing faith in humanity.
> Why is it disturbing when Microsoft is starting to try to do something which Apple has already implemented with wild success?
I think Apple (and certain Android manufacturers) have made the wrong choice for long-term consumer welfare as well. Apple's increasing dominance is a tremendous threat to consumers' ability to control their own hardware.
In fact, Microsoft has historically been the good guy on this point. They are a big reason why we have such a large selection of cheap PC hardware. It's disturbing because, if Microsoft decides to move in the direction of locked-down hardware, there will be no major player left to support generic, OS-agnostic hardware. Which in turn leaves Linux users very much high and dry.
So really I sympathize with your perspective. It's ultimately the people who buy Apple products who have subsidized this disastrous trend.
>Apple doesn’t want to be hamstrung by people running Windows on shoddy devices for premium software and thus exited that market.
Yea that's really not true at all especially when you can set whatever system requirements you want.
There's nothing spectacular about apple software. It's not any better or worse than windows or android software that has has the same level of investment.
Apple is doing strategic moves to create temporary one-way streets from other platforms to their own and then shut those down before others manage to take advantage. They did that with itunes in the past and they do that periodically with cheaper iphones now.
The same thing happens with software. Shut down the alternative platoforms so you either switch software or you switch platoforms.
There's nothing magical about Apple. Stop trying to justify their decisions, they are not made with your best interests in mind.
There is a big difference between Apple's transitions between architectures and failed attempts by Microsoft - Apple is also a sole creator of its hardware, not only software. After they announced transition no more PowerPC would be sold few years later. Microsoft can only dream of banning hardware producers from making x86 laptops/desktops
> Apple aren't preventing anything, they're just not helping us out either.
It's the same thing. (And the only reason they aren't yet outright preventing it is because it would be bad PR - nobody wants their desktop computer to be like the iPhone or iPad. But it will happen.)
> Apple makes money from selling hardware, not from selling an OS
This reasoning is overused and wrong.
Apple's hardware is no good for other operating systems, it doesn't run well with either Linux or Windows, the support being shitty due to Apple's proprietary stuff. As an example the experience with the touchpad becomes much poorer and the battery life is reduced to about half.
Running Windows or Linux well puts Apple in the commodity hardware market and that's what they tried to avoid ever since Steve Jobs came back.
So as a matter of fact they do sell MacOS as a core part of the package and they don't intend for it to be replaceable. Just like they sell iOS. It's not like you can install another operating system on their iPhones and iPads. Those devices don't even belong to consumers that bought them actually. All you're getting is a license to use them.
Apple is definitely not in the hardware business. What they sell is licenses.
> The iPad runs iOS, which I suppose is what they meant. Windows ARM is less locked down than Windows S. iOS is still a walled-garden with a few holes here and there.
The conversation never mentioned “iOS” or phones and the submission is about Intel who has nothing to do with mobile or Android. He specifically said MacOS:
>> Well yes, but then you have to use macOS and the locked down close ecosystem that is Apple.
What does any of your response have to with Intel, Windows or MacOS?
> The problem is that people can easily be induced to install software that negates the benefit of Apple’s hardware. Apple can’t deliver their hardware benefits without also controlling the operating system.
Apple is less concerned about this than profits.
They could make their hardware ecosystem more open, that's easy, but that wouldn't make them a significant amount of extra money, so why would they?
And yet TFA's entire point seemed to apply equally to a self-built machine running any OS (including any Linux) that you could name. So this really seems to have almost nothing to do with Apple or MS.
reply