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

Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 238 posts

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#201

Post by kilburn »

valuearb wrote: post #168
kilburn wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. It does, but do you know what's easier? Not collecting that data unnecessarily in the first place. 2. He does call against mobile devices altogether (see the Cellular Phones section [1]). 3. A company can choose where to conduct business. RMS's opinion is that companies should not conduct business where the laws impose said company to routinely act in ways that are harmful to society. 4. "I know better than them (…

What evidence is there that Apple collects data unnecessarily?

I didn't think this was a controversial assertion. Most big techs have been collecting plenty of information that is non-essential for their functions.

For instance, you must have an apple account (that includes your personal details) just to get MacOS security updates. Why is that necessary if you don't intend to buy any software from the store?

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#202

Post by leepowers »

Found at least one error on the list. This claim:

> Apple's mail service silently censors the mail people send.

Is based on this article:

https://www.cultofmac.com/103703/apple-may-be-invisibly-filt...

Where one user was unable to send one email via the MobileMe web interface because of an outgoing spam filter. The Mail app worked btw, and was not "censored".

From this Stallman extrapolates censorship of all users who use Apple email.

Give me a break.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#203

Post by talkingtab »

kbf wrote: post #115
talkingtab wrote: post #65

The #1 reason not to use Apple is their arrogance toward their users. I don't want them to lie to me about my battery, nor make me choose their music over spotify and engage in other customer-hostile policies to make money. If it were only that simple, sigh. Google is much worse. Apple at least lip sync's privacy, I suspect when it is to their advantage. I believe Apple just has no clue as to how to create products a…

>I don't want them to lie to me about my battery You say that, but you most likely do. Even if you absolutely don’t, the vast majority of users still do, even if they don’t know it. The whole point of software is to at least partly obfuscate what the hardware does, to the benefit of users. Making things easier to use and understand and hiding unnecessary complications is not arrogance towards users, it’s acting in th…

I meant the thing about throttling the performance because the battery was old.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#204

Post by robertAngst »

valuearb wrote: post #183
robertAngst wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s unclear what you mean by this, (did you read the article?) Proprietary connectors, overpriced hardware, high cost barrier to entry, closed ecosystem.

I much prefer lightning to USB, it’s cheap and easy to become a Mac or iOS developer, and also greatly prefer the security of a closed ecosystem. And when you use your computer 2,000 hours a year the extra cost of Macs per hour of work is trivial and the benefits are great.

>I much prefer lightning to USB

Cool anecodete

>it’s cheap and easy to become a Mac or iOS developer,

Its the most expensive system to develop for. So you literally lied.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#205

Post by mamon »

talkingtab wrote: post #203
kbf wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't want them to lie to me about my battery You say that, but you most likely do. Even if you absolutely don’t, the vast majority of users still do, even if they don’t know it. The whole point of software is to at least partly obfuscate what the hardware does, to the benefit of users. Making things easier to use and understand and hiding unnecessary complications is not arrogance towards users, it’s acting in th…

I meant the thing about throttling the performance because the battery was old.

Throthled performance might midly annoy some of the users, some of the time. Battery lasting less than 8 hours would enrage everyone very quickly.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#206

Post by rhodysurf »

hellofunk wrote: post #194
wayneftw wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My new iPhone XR needs to be charged only once or twice per week. It's not the only phone that does that and it's not a new feature. Even with older phones, you can simply get a battery case. > with an excellent user interface The user interface is terrible and all the core features are extremely limited with no extensibility whatsoever. Just about every other desktop OS has a better user interface. > Apple makes m…

> Actually, their iProducts are not even yours after you buy them. If you want to build an app for your own device you have to give Apple $100 every year just to be able to install it. So that puts them into a malignant category of their own. FYI this has not been true for years.

Unless you pay, the provisioning for that app only last a week!

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#207

Post by dang »

fwdpropaganda wrote: post #182
dang wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had to ask you several times before to stop breaking the site guidelines in your comments here. If you keep doing this, we're going to have to ban you. " Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Saying "google doesn't care about privacy" and giving examples is being divisive? This is starting to border on parody. You're doing a terrible job.

I was referring for starters to "HAHAHA stop spreading lies", which is obviously against the guidelines.

Since you don't seem to want to use this site as intended, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#208

Post by 8bitsrule »

supernova87a wrote: post #162

You can call out a multitude of things to be mad at Apple for. The question is, what alternatives currently available would do any better on the whole, for what you need? You demand a phone that has all these services and qualities to it. Or websites or apps that you like. What system have you come up with that provides a viable alternative to what exists? All these social media companies thought they could create a…

"The question is, what alternatives currently available would do any better on the whole...."

That's been our problem, and remarkably, there's been little concentrated and little continuous discussion, let alone successful remediation, in all of these years.

And so I've had to avoid all of the alternatives ... far from ideal!! I'd sure choose to use a service with much less sophistication, many fewer options, much less 'slick' presentation, but was forthright, dependable, and adequate. Shouldn't that much easier to create, fund, and maintain? And yet ... no show.

WHY? HOW did these terrible practices become thinkable, let alone acceptable? With all the spirit, spunk, and can-do sophistication of the pioneers in our community ... WHY?

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#209

Post by 8bitsrule »

robertAngst wrote: post #13

I consider it responsible Capitalism to not buy products from Apple, AT&T, BP, etc... Apple has not been pro consumer or pro developer in my lifetime. They do advertise a lot.

In Apple's case you can go back to the time before the logo changed from a rainbow to a chrome shield. The Apple II manuals were a model of readability, clarity, and personable communication. http://www.classiccmp.org/cini/pdf/Apple/Apple%20II%20Refere... The change when the Mac manuals came out was day-to-night.

Re: Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018)

#210

Post by azangru »

johnchristopher wrote: post #151
xondono wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m seriously kind of tired of this argument. We’ve gone from “not choosing is a choice” to “every choice is political”. I’m sorry but the latter doesn’t immediatly follow from the first. You can and are totally free to not use a technology or buy from a particular company for political reasons, but that does not mean that others are making a political choice when doing so. Similarly you should argue that eating meat…

I understand you don't like it but every choice, every act has a political significance. I believe it doesn't follow that you actively support or promote whatever comes with a choice but the fact remains that choosing a tech only on tech merits or choosing a tech despite who you support by buying it is still a political choice. That's why I use Firefox and not google chrome even though at some points one is better th…

> Now that's a bogus reasoning and I don't see why you twist the analogy like that since it loses relevance.

I am not sure this reasoning is bogus. Let me try to pick up on the analogy and develop it further:

Situation 1: I (hypothetically) am shopping for a laptop. I am used to Unix, dislike Windows, and couldn't get desktop Linux work for me. I am impressed by battery life of the latest Macbook Pro, as well as by its glorious screen, decent sound, and responsive touchpad. After certain deliberation I decide to buy a Macbook Pro. Apple’s corporate track record doesn't even enter into the calculation. And yet, I am told that my choice is political.

Situation 2: You (hypothetically) are about to order a burger. You are hungry and like burgers, and the animal suffering involved in the production of that burger does not even cross your mind. Yet you are told that you have made a moral choice. (Alternatively, you are told that you’ve made a religious choice, because in Jainism meat is not allowed; and obviously you couldn’t care less about Jainism.)

What I, as the previous commentator, find so objectionable is that it shouldn't be said of you that you are making a political choice if you are not involved in an act that you recognize as political. I can’t imagine that it is reasonable to expect of everyone to be constantly engaged in political activity, or to put political considerations before any other. I think it’s quite possible to be vaguely supportive of democracy, freedom, workers’ rights or the rule of law (and thus to be politically on one side of the spectrum), and at the same time not care that a corporation complied with undemocratic demands of an authoritarian regime or used legal loopholes to avoid taxes (and thus is on another side of the political spectrum).

Post reply on HN