Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around

#81

Post by askafriend » Fri, Jun 09, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #35

eridius wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given their entire product design is built to serve apple, and the users are often secondary to that or ignored entirely; such as making UI more difficult on purpose so you're more inclined to use siri, or buying music instead of bringing your own. That's simply not true, and it's a really offensive statement for pretty much anybody working at Apple. There's no company I can think of that cares more about the user…

Apple is extremely user-hostile, they make it hard to do anything they don't want you to do with YOUR device. It's simple things like using uncommon screws internally, or soldering in the ram, or requiring a certain set of bits at the front of your hard drive, or making it so the batteries cannot be removed.

All the things you mentioned present significant downsides but also provide very significant upsides. So if we want to talk about them, we need to talk about both.

* Torx screws: More stable and more resistant to stripping. With Amazon, you can get a set of screwdrivers delivered to you in 2 days and they probably cost a couple bucks. Most people never ever ever open their devices.

* Soldering RAM: A thinner, lighter, more portable device. On most of their consumer desktop machines, they still allow users to upgrade RAM.

* Non-removable batteries: Allows tight, custom battery layouts that take advantage of every inch of space to allow devices like the Macbook 12" to be possible. Basicaly allows for thinner, lighter, more portable devices while not sacrificing battery life as much. For the segment of the population that wants more battery life, you have external iPhone cases that come with batteries built (at expense of weight/bulk). With USB-C charging, you can now charge Macbooks with external battery packs. So in both cases, optionality is preserved for both segments of consumers.

Re: Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around

#82

Post by soperj » Fri, Jun 09, 2017, 10:07 PM UTC

askafriend wrote: post #81

soperj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is extremely user-hostile, they make it hard to do anything they don't want you to do with YOUR device. It's simple things like using uncommon screws internally, or soldering in the ram, or requiring a certain set of bits at the front of your hard drive, or making it so the batteries cannot be removed.

All the things you mentioned present significant downsides but also provide very significant upsides. So if we want to talk about them, we need to talk about both. * Torx screws: More stable and more resistant to stripping. With Amazon, you can get a set of screwdrivers delivered to you in 2 days and they probably cost a couple bucks. Most people never ever ever open their devices. * Soldering RAM: A thinner, lighter…

Sorry, I meant soldering closed the unused ram slots, so that you can't upgrade in the future.

Wasn't just torx screws, but tri-wings as well. They're not using them for the non-stripping properties, since they're not even places where they're holding things together.

You didn't mention the bits at the front of the hard drive.

If it wasn't so many things then maybe I could get past it, but when it happens so frequently, it becomes evident what they're doing.

Re: Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around

#83

Post by gnaritas » Fri, Jun 09, 2017, 10:51 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #79

gnaritas wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An open market requires choice, including the choice for closed appliances. As long as alternatives exist, there's nothing wrong with closed platforms, those who want choice have Droid. Open devices and software come at a cost, they don't deliver the same experience you can get on a closed appliance that due to tight control over hardware and software can deliver a consistence experience impossible to deliver otherwi…

It's not impossible to deliver otherwise. Apple could open source IOS and it wouldn't preclude them from doing exactly what they're going to do.

Non sequitur. They could not deliver "their" experience without locking down "their" hardware/software on "their" devices to keep it under control thus avoiding all the issues faced by the droid camp. Whether they could or should release iOS to run on other hardware has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

Re: Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around

#84

Post by soperj » Fri, Jun 09, 2017, 11:06 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #83

soperj wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not impossible to deliver otherwise. Apple could open source IOS and it wouldn't preclude them from doing exactly what they're going to do.

Non sequitur. They could not deliver "their" experience without locking down "their" hardware/software on "their" devices to keep it under control thus avoiding all the issues faced by the droid camp. Whether they could or should release iOS to run on other hardware has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

What are you even arguing at this point? What's the difference between every android phone and an apple aside from the openness of the software? No one is providing open hardware.

Re: Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around

#85

Post by meesterdude » Sat, Jun 10, 2017, 1:36 AM UTC

askafriend wrote: post #65

meesterdude wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh but it is true, and I will happily offend them. Each and every one of them, on an individual basis. Who are they to be shielded from criticism? Apple has often been secondary on UX. Not always - sometimes they can nail it. But it's been more often they miss, or backburner it over other priorities. Do other companies suck more? sure. But apple has lost its way, or found a much more selfish one, and you see it play…

Please, if you're going to make broad, sweeping, bold statements, back them up with something. Provide us examples, screenshots, something of substance for us to respond to. Everything you've written so far is devoid of substance. I want to respond to your claims but I can't because you've given me nothing to drive the conversation forward with.

Sorry, I'm expressing my opinion, which is a summation of being a lifelong apple user. Only recently, around the loss of steve timeframe wise, have things gotten bothersome.

Anyway, i'm not anti-apple. Just... disappointed.

Re: Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around

#86

Post by gnaritas » Sat, Jun 10, 2017, 7:06 AM UTC

soperj wrote: post #84

gnaritas wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non sequitur. They could not deliver "their" experience without locking down "their" hardware/software on "their" devices to keep it under control thus avoiding all the issues faced by the droid camp. Whether they could or should release iOS to run on other hardware has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

What are you even arguing at this point? What's the difference between every android phone and an apple aside from the openness of the software? No one is providing open hardware.

> What are you even arguing at this point?

Ask yourself that question.

Re: Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around

#87

Post by ksk » Mon, Jun 12, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #74

ksk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context of the statement was technology causing humans to become less relevant via automation. Hes not talking about users of Apple products. To your statement though, Apple wants to make things less configurable with a large enough sandbox where the users don't complain about their restricted freedoms (applies more to their devices line). The earlier Apple wanted to give the best tools to their users, and let th…

> I equate this with the shift in games, where earlier games simply gave you a good control system and let you figure things out, where as now, its more about ensuring that the player has a good experience by gently nudging them towards a goal. A bit off topic, but I always see this mentioned when it comes to modern gaming, but fail to see the evidence. Older games came with instruction manuals (Nintendo had the most…

I agree that the controls in modern games are much more complex, and so are the games. My argument was more about things like "go into town and talk to X" or "find this thing to unlock the door" type of game elements.