Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#121

Post by krn » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

josteink wrote: post #117

krn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am really conflicted about cellphones. I was unhappy with the crap ware preloaded on my Verizon Android phones. I am happier with a Verizon iPhone, as far as not having a lot of junk preinstalled. I personally prefer SIM-free Android One smartphones[1], which come without any bloatware and with monthly security updates. Not only they offer the best price / performance ratio, but they are also easy to keep private…

> I personally prefer SIM-free If I can’t insert a SIM card of my choice, how do I choose or switch provider? Is it hard coded to whatever Google prefers? I’m open to lot of things with phones, but you can take the SIM-slot from my cold, dead hands. That thing is not going.

From the FAQ of the UK-based Carphone Warehouse[1]:

"What is a SIM free phone?

SIM free phones are sold without any SIM card or network attached to them. Normally, people buy the phone and then choose a SIM only deal for their calls and data. All SIM free phones come unlocked, so you can choose whichever network you like.

What are the benefits of buying a SIM free phone?

Normally, people buy a SIM free phone when they want to own the handset outright and take out a SIM only deal. This reduces the cost of a monthly plan as you are only paying the network for your minutes, texts and data allowance. SIM only deals aren’t only less expensive but they can be more flexible, as 1-month rolling contracts and 12-month contracts are common place."

[1] https://www.carphonewarehouse.com/mobiles/sim-free.html

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#122

Post by jstanley » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:23 PM UTC

mch82 wrote: post #73

tokyodude wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of no security benefits to closed platforms. I know many people believe one platform that happens to be closed, iOS, is more secure than some other platforms but I've seen no evidence that it's more secure because it's closed. In fact, the platform that's generally considered the least secure, Windows, is also closed.

There was an entire controversy about how hard Apple made it for law enforcement to access iPhones, which indicates security benefits. Apple’s business model also aligns with user privacy (so far). It’s also worth considering Apple’s CEO personally values privacy because he had to keep his sexuality a secret his entire life until he reached such a prominent position he felt safe to speak out. I agree that the stronge…

> There was an entire controversy about how hard Apple made it for law enforcement to access iPhones, which indicates security benefits.

It indicates that Apple software is secure, it doesn't indicate that it is secure because it is closed-source. It might be even more secure if it were open source, because then many more people would be looking for vulnerabilities in it.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#123

Post by josteink » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

krn wrote: post #121

josteink wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally prefer SIM-free If I can’t insert a SIM card of my choice, how do I choose or switch provider? Is it hard coded to whatever Google prefers? I’m open to lot of things with phones, but you can take the SIM-slot from my cold, dead hands. That thing is not going.

From the FAQ of the UK-based Carphone Warehouse[1]: "What is a SIM free phone? SIM free phones are sold without any SIM card or network attached to them. Normally, people buy the phone and then choose a SIM only deal for their calls and data. All SIM free phones come unlocked, so you can choose whichever network you like. What are the benefits of buying a SIM free phone? Normally, people buy a SIM free phone when the…

If so the established term is “unlocked” (which is the default), making you free to use whatever SIM/provider you choose.

As such SIM-free is a terrible and confusing name making it sound like they are taking SIM-based freedom away (Kind of like Apple’s headphone jack-free phones).

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#124

Post by dmitryminkovsky » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:27 PM UTC

mch82 wrote: post #120

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am reading Cal Newport’s new book Digital Minimalism that is making me realize that I need to be more focused in how I spend any screen time. To this end I am launching an email service that sends and receives messages once a day. The idea is that with one delivery each day, you don’t need to regulate or discipline yourself as much, and you get a lot more space to think and enjoy your communication. It’s called P…

Cool idea. There’s no contact info on your website... how can people interested in this concept get in touch?

Thank you!

And thanks for asking. Just swapped home pages yesterday and the contact part got dropped. Bringing it back today. In the mean time it’s:

- dminkovsky on twitter

- dmitry@pony.gg

- dminkovsky@gmail.com

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#125

Post by derekp7 » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:28 PM UTC

kilburn wrote: post #119

ken wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by this standard, is there a computer that I should use, or is all computing in 2019 unethical? I see he's using a >10yr old Intel CPU, presumably to avoid the Management Engine, so presumably he thinks it's OK to pay money to these companies in certain circumstances?

By RMS's standard, it seems that it is ok to reuse old systems (irrespective of which company built them originally) provided you can use them without binary blobs (irreplaceable built-in no-source firmware is fine though). Quoting his "how I do computing page" [1]: > I use a Thinkpad T400s computer, which has a free initialization program (libreboot) and a free operating system (Trisquel GNU/Linux). It was not sold…

This is the thing that gets me, is that if a piece of hardware has firmware that you can't replace then it is OK to use. But if they add the functionality to replace the firmware, then it all of a sudden is not OK to use that hardware. Or, is it the case that if the firmware is pre-loaded, but replaceable, instead of needing to download the firmware to the board every time you boot, then that would still be acceptable. Not sure where he stands on that last point.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#126

Post by deogeo » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #98

The problem I have with Stallman is that he’s usually right, but he is remarkably horrible at coming across as someone with valid opinions. It is disingenuous to come to the table with clearly cherry-picked evidence, and calling companies and their products with stupid names is just childish. There are a lot of problems with companies, and Stallman is very good at recognizing them, but he’s just pretty bad at getting…

How is giving examples of misbehavior 'cherry-picking'?

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#127

Post by krn » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

josteink wrote: post #123

krn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the FAQ of the UK-based Carphone Warehouse[1]: "What is a SIM free phone? SIM free phones are sold without any SIM card or network attached to them. Normally, people buy the phone and then choose a SIM only deal for their calls and data. All SIM free phones come unlocked, so you can choose whichever network you like. What are the benefits of buying a SIM free phone? Normally, people buy a SIM free phone when the…

If so the established term is “unlocked” (which is the default), making you free to use whatever SIM/provider you choose. As such SIM-free is a terrible and confusing name making it sound like they are taking SIM-based freedom away (Kind of like Apple’s headphone jack-free phones).

> If so the established term is “unlocked” (which is the default), making you free to use whatever SIM/provider you choose.

"SIM-free" means "bought without a contract". In my country, even devices with contracts come unlocked, making this term useless.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#128

Post by 0815test » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

derekp7 wrote: post #125

kilburn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By RMS's standard, it seems that it is ok to reuse old systems (irrespective of which company built them originally) provided you can use them without binary blobs (irreplaceable built-in no-source firmware is fine though). Quoting his "how I do computing page" [1]: > I use a Thinkpad T400s computer, which has a free initialization program (libreboot) and a free operating system (Trisquel GNU/Linux). It was not sold…

This is the thing that gets me, is that if a piece of hardware has firmware that you can't replace then it is OK to use. But if they add the functionality to replace the firmware, then it all of a sudden is not OK to use that hardware. Or, is it the case that if the firmware is pre-loaded, but replaceable, instead of needing to download the firmware to the board every time you boot, then that would still be acceptabl…

The thing is, "functionality to replace the firmware" is not an unambiguous positive. A firmware that can be replaced is also a firmware that can be bricked, made less useful by a future update, or even subverted entirely by an intruder. So, RMS would like whoever is placing that firmware in there to tell the user the information they need in order to replace it without bricking the device.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#129

Post by kilburn » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:42 PM UTC

derekp7 wrote: post #125

kilburn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By RMS's standard, it seems that it is ok to reuse old systems (irrespective of which company built them originally) provided you can use them without binary blobs (irreplaceable built-in no-source firmware is fine though). Quoting his "how I do computing page" [1]: > I use a Thinkpad T400s computer, which has a free initialization program (libreboot) and a free operating system (Trisquel GNU/Linux). It was not sold…

This is the thing that gets me, is that if a piece of hardware has firmware that you can't replace then it is OK to use. But if they add the functionality to replace the firmware, then it all of a sudden is not OK to use that hardware. Or, is it the case that if the firmware is pre-loaded, but replaceable, instead of needing to download the firmware to the board every time you boot, then that would still be acceptabl…

RMS thinks that free hardware is a different matter than free software, on the basis that software is easily copyable but hardware is not.

If a piece of hardware contains unmodifiable software, RMS considers it an "integral part of the hardware". It is no different to him than a cog or any other physical piece in that thing.

In contrast, if said software (firmware) is replaceable, it means that it can be copied at no cost, modified, used on other hardware, etc.. It is a fine line, but I can see some difference.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#130

Post by craigsmansion » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

derekp7 wrote: post #125

kilburn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By RMS's standard, it seems that it is ok to reuse old systems (irrespective of which company built them originally) provided you can use them without binary blobs (irreplaceable built-in no-source firmware is fine though). Quoting his "how I do computing page" [1]: > I use a Thinkpad T400s computer, which has a free initialization program (libreboot) and a free operating system (Trisquel GNU/Linux). It was not sold…

This is the thing that gets me, is that if a piece of hardware has firmware that you can't replace then it is OK to use. But if they add the functionality to replace the firmware, then it all of a sudden is not OK to use that hardware. Or, is it the case that if the firmware is pre-loaded, but replaceable, instead of needing to download the firmware to the board every time you boot, then that would still be acceptabl…

It's a point that causes a lot of confusion.

As soon as a piece of software is replaceable, the one who provides you with the software can use its distribution to make you promise to ignore the four software freedoms.

If a piece of software is not replaceable, that point is moot, since the one who provided you with the software has no sway over you regardless. They have no control over you or the device.