Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

androidauthority.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 364 posts

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#111

Post by swiley »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #99
swiley wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's walled gardens don't solve the maleware problem. People get code Apple doesn't approve of onto their platforms all the time. What these things do make more difficult is community maintained software, which is what made the platforms you feel nostalgic about so nice.

Yeah let us stop using Anti virus software on PC because it doesn’t stop every virus. It is never about elimination but minimization. Reality is that macOS and iOS both have much smaller malware problem than competing platforms.

I would disagree, GNU/Linux has less of a malware problem than OSX and at the end of the day they all run browsers which have their own issues.

There's also a serious cost to the walled gardens. These things eliminate community maintained software which results in everything on your computer being controlled by a profit (often marketing) driven corporation. These always eventually die (taking your data with them) or abuse their special position of power.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#112

Post by romanoderoma »

newsclues wrote: post #94
romanoderoma wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather it is about making sure it is easy for regular users to get Apps in a safe manner without malware and Trojan horses. I don't intend to sound dismissive, but this line of thinking has a name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

Does that not apply to the State and government?

Not really

It was 6 centuries ago, when it was first invented, it has a much broader meaning now.

Anyway Apple is State and Government in Apple ecosystem

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/#Intr

> The civil law does not allow the enforcement of certain kinds of contracts, e.g., for gambling debts. It requires minors to have blood transfusions even if their religious beliefs forbid it. Persons may be civilly committed if they are a danger to themselves.

Doctors do not tell their patients the truth about their medical condition. A physician may tell the wife of a man whose car went off a bridge into the water and drowned that he died instantly when in fact he died a rather ghastly death.

A husband may hide the sleeping pills from a depressed wife. A philosophy department may require a student to take logic courses.

A teacher may be less than honest about telling a student that he has little philosophical ability.

All of these rules, policies, and actions may be done for various reasons; may be justified by various considerations. When they are justified solely on the grounds that the person affected would be better off, or would be less harmed, as a result of the rule, policy, etc., and the person in question would prefer not to be treated this way, we have an instance of paternalism.

As the examples indicate the question of paternalism is one that arises in many different areas of our personal and public life

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#113

Post by coldtea »

appleflaxen wrote: post #66
coldtea wrote: post #40

> Don’t be duped by performance, Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control Yes. That's the biggest benefit, and another reason I'm buying it (on top of great performance for my NLE apps). I want the Mac to be it's own platform, and be under Apple's control and vision. If it's also made foul-proof and air-tight, so much the better. I don't want another lowest common denominator OS converging on the same point.…

The Ben Franklin quote that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." seems particularly apt, here. Rhetorically: how much do you care about privacy as an issue? Because this is the trade you're making, and you should do it with your eyes open. I personally don't think the trade-off is worth it, but I also really really hope I'm wrong. My b…

>The Ben Franklin quote that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." seems particularly apt, here.

On the other hand, I'm a European, could not care less for Ben Franklin (or the Founding Fathers for that matter), and don't consider them some great sages of the centuries. Nor is their word gospel.

I say that because I see such supposed "deep" quotes all the time, as if a simplistic proverb-like statement settles a complex real world situation...

Not to mention that the quote is used out of context [1].

Safety is always temporary -- there are no long term guarantees in history. And we all give up all kinds of essential liberties for safety - that's part of living in a society. We pay taxes, we allow ourselves to be taken to prison if we break one of 1000000 laws, etc.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou....

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#114

Post by jackpeterfletch »

jmull wrote: post #90

What is it about Apple that makes people’s brains turn off? Apple silicon doesn’t change anything about Apple’s mac app store. Microsoft would need to release a native version of Windows, not Apple. He has a point with Rosetta 2, that it will very likely disappear (years from now), though that would affect software that isn’t being actively maintained (most of which failed to make the transition to x64 already). And…

Craig Federighi make a statement the other day that made it seem like Windows ARM Natively supporting the M1, without virtualisation, was very much in Microsofts court.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#115

Post by zinekeller »

Someone wrote: post #78
my123 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can be configured to boot other operating systems, see https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/macos-recovery-a-ma... .

From that page: “Review the following security options: Full Security: Ensures that only your current OS, or signed operating system software currently trusted by Apple, can run. This mode requires a network connection at software installation time. Reduced Security: Allows any version of signed operating system software ever trusted by Apple to run.” ⇒ it appears ‘other’ still requires OSes signed by Apple, but it a…

Edit: so like Secure Boot with only Windows key, Secure Boot with Microsoft-approved key (note that the key used for Windows and key for Linux signing is different) and Secure Boot disable.

Eh, I read reduced mode as basically how secure boot works on hardware with Microsoft-only keys in which MS signs a shim and it automatically blesses desendants (technically the OEM is not restricted to put other keys on the key database, but aside from business computers it seems that most machines have only Microsoft and OEM keys). Of course, Microsoft has a stronger incentive to sign these (or else they will be accused of antitrust violations), so Apple might not do that.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#116

Post by jrochkind1 »

jackpeterfletch wrote: post #104
socialdemocrat wrote: post #68

The truth is somewhere in the middle, so while this article has some good points it is too colored by a strong dislike for all things Apple and borderline conspiratorial thinking. I don’t think there is anything that suggests Apple is going to stop people from installing Apps outside their App Store. Rather it is about making sure it is easy for regular users to get Apps in a safe manner without malware and Trojan ho…

The fact that Apple stopped requiring dev licenses to sideload code onto iOS devices makes me think that their effort to ensure that "typical users" install signed apps on macOS, really is about security and experience. I think its funny that most people here wouldent trust a website with no certificate, but for applications the idea seems to be considered abhorrent.

Most people don't put much stock in "EV" certificates though, which to me would be the equivalent of the signed app, sort of, as it demonstrates that the person you are talking to is a specific known legal entity, sort of like demonstrating the app you are installing came from a specific known legal entity.

The "ordinary" certificates we use just are meant to prove the website you are talking to is the authorized owner of the domain you mean to be talking to... I'm not sure if there's really an analogy with installing apps, that kind of cert is I think maybe meant to protect against a kind of attack only relevant to network communications, not app installs.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#117

Post by Cthulhu_ »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #68

The truth is somewhere in the middle, so while this article has some good points it is too colored by a strong dislike for all things Apple and borderline conspiratorial thinking. I don’t think there is anything that suggests Apple is going to stop people from installing Apps outside their App Store. Rather it is about making sure it is easy for regular users to get Apps in a safe manner without malware and Trojan ho…

I'm pretty neutral about it myself; on the one hand, you give up a bit of control and freedom over your hardware. But on the other, 99% of users have no need for, or cannot be trusted with that freedom.

I mean I've worked with Windows for multiple generations of the operating system, and once the internet became a thing it was just complete shit. I had a side job fixing computers for people, and it was always adware, viruses, etc messing things up.

That was caused by an insecure operating system on the one hand - which can and has been fixed by core operating system mechanics - but a big factor was both freedom and lack of expertise from users. They're easily tempted by e.g. "install this browser bar for dank discounts" without understanding the consequences. They may not even really register what's going on because so much is going on.

99% of users need to be protected from themselves. And developers need to work with that.

Apple has already proven how a closed ecosystem is ultimately beneficial for the consumer - how many security incidents has the iphone had, ever? I can't think of ANY to be honest, outside of the odd scummy app slipping through that is a bit too liberal with user's data. But they have never compromised a user's system. Mobile banking apps became a thing while I was an app developer, and that would never have flown on an unconstrained system. Pretty sure they had a lot more trouble with the Android version as well in that regard.

Tl;dr, 99% of users will never know any better and will not care, they just want to hit install and for things to Just Work.

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#118

Post by prawn »

criley2 wrote: post #110
newsclues wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that not apply to the State and government?

The difference between the State and the Private Company is that citizens vote for the State, and Legislators (the "paternalizers") are directly installed by the voters. The iPhone buyer does not get a say in the development staff or direction at Apple. My government intends to be "Of the people, for the people, by the people". Imagine if Apple every single year had elections at every level of their company! Vote for…

Aren't you voting with your wallet when you voluntarily buy an Apple product?

Re: Apple’s M1 silicon is all about platform control

#120

Post by blackrock »

eganist wrote: post #88
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a cost to that though, the reality is Windows has become rather bloated because MS can't let anything go. It doesn't help that they have never been able to say no to anything and everything getting included.

> because MS can't let anything go. To be clear, this isn't really up to them. It's what market forces have dictated. Tons of old corp apps exist all over the place that necessitate this level of backwards compatibility.

One crazy thing I read about, was of a bug from some 3rd party company’s application.

On some Windows update, the application no longer worked. But since Microsoft wanted to ensure a seamless transition during upgrades, they changed their OS code to perpetuate the bug from that application, to allow it to continue working.

Kudos to them for doing so.

Post reply on HN