631–640 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a user, I am totally fine with Apple restricting access to iMessage. In fact, now that I read this, I want them to do this, thanks Apple.
Other users might not want to, such are the reasons for toggles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And GP is saying that that’s totally okay.
I am saying folks who use Linux do not know how to utilize their time well. It’s tongue in cheek at the commentary to the GP but hope that makes more sense to you.
But it's perfectly possible to just use Linux and not muck around. Or, at least, to spend less time unwillingly mucking around than one would elsewhere.
(E.g., EndeavourOS, which is, perhaps unexpectedly/ironically, more or less just Arch with a nice installer and a welcome screen, is one of the easiest OSes to deal with. [Maybe not completely unexpectedly, SteamOS is also a customised Arch.] It's not the exciting distro, or the one I'm most likely to talk a lot about; but see the first point.)
I think people forget that Apple is not making devices for the Hackernews community. They are making devices for people that just want something that works pretty well and has reasonable security - even to the extent of protecting them from themselves. They have other things to do with their time than learn about security vulnerabilities and how to avoid them. They want to just click 'yes' on every popup and expect t…
This is an extremely dangerous mindset, even if you never leave Apple's garden. As a reminder, Facebook and TikTok are on the App Store. We cannot encourage this zombie-like behavior and simultaneously have a healthy, free society.
> Because they know that they are not qualified to answer that yes/no popup question
Apple put thought into their permission system and made it easy to understand even among non-HN users, so that regular people can make meaningful choices about what information they want to share with apps and the companies who make them. There might as well be no permission system and no sandboxing at all if users are just going to spam the "yes" button all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft absolutely got in trouble for purposefully making other Office suites not work correctly on Windows, for using private Windows APIs in Office that other companies didn't have access to, etc. If Apple makes a watch that can receive and send iMessages then there is no reason any other device shouldn't be able to use the same APIs that Apple uses. It absolutely creates a system where competitors literally cann…
They got in trouble for doing that stuff while having a monopoly on PC OSes. Using private stuff to give your own products an advantage is (legally) fine if you're not leveraging a monopoly to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Other then being lazy, which is totally ok. It's not OK. This collective laziness and convenience is our number one enemy. People don't want to be responsible, they want some corporation to manage everything so they don't have to think about stuff. We need more people to take responsibility and use Linux and free software and hardware. Owning the computing system means being responsible for it, and we need to get p…
This is such an incredibly HN take. What are you seeing in the world that would led you to think the average Joe can use Linux without someone like us supporting them? Maybe not day to day but they are absolutely going to run into pain points like “Netflix is low quality” or “I need to install this windows app for this new gizmo I bought”. It’s a fantasy world that Linux desktop is good enough for most people, it jus…
I think people forget that Apple is not making devices for the Hackernews community. They are making devices for people that just want something that works pretty well and has reasonable security - even to the extent of protecting them from themselves. They have other things to do with their time than learn about security vulnerabilities and how to avoid them. They want to just click 'yes' on every popup and expect t…
The post has a section regarding these concepts and why the author disagrees, why not respond to that directly instead? I tend to side somewhat with what the author is saying: they can be both relatively true statements and a way to abuse market power at the same time so identifying it as fitting the mold of one or the other is only the start of the conversation. People against the practices tend to care more about t…
Ah, yes, the author is clearly interested in an in-depth discussion of the tradeoffs in allowing 3rd-party users access to data that you tell your customers is 100% always encrypted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay then let me grant "Full Notification Access permissions" on iPhone and we're good.
None of this comment chain makes sense… how is this relevant when Apple operates across hundreds of jurisdictions? Most of which don’t allow users to waive rights based on a prompt. So Apple would still have liability anyways for grandma getting scammed, regardless of how expertly worded the prompts are. Which entails extra customer service costs, handling lawsuits, etc… that someone has to pay for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, but you see, they need to go to the Apple store and buy an Apple product, then with no clicking at all the app will work. If they go to a different store, and buy a non-Apple product, that's insecure. What they need to do is return it and go to the Apple store and buy an Apple product. That's secure. Give the money to Apple.
You're being sarcastic, but isn't this all just... correct? Yes, I do trust the company that developed Secure Enclave more than I trust random BLE firmware in a $49 Alibaba watch. More importantly -- my great-uncle can trust the same thing, because Apple has spent decades building that trust. Consumers generally should not trust random hardware. Apple is not random hardware.
If you don't want a future where you have to buy Apple milk to put in your Apple fridge (because the fridge stops refrigerating if you try putting any other brand of milk in it, citing "security issues") -- or worse, you can't get your Amazon fridge in your Apple house because it cites nebulous reasons and refuses to open the door - get out of the reality distortion field and accept that it is in people's interests for one item to work correctly with another, and to call venal vendors on their "oh but it wouldn't work or it wouldn't be secure" bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I probably dont get your sarcasm. But I never had a problem with Lightning. In the long run, I like the switch to USB-C... But when I got my first iPhone, USB-C wasn't invented yet, so... Also, I like the AppStore for its reviews, and would actually NEVER activate an alternative appstore. No need to weaken my security on purpose. I know, its apparently an unpopular opinion here, but that is mostly because many people…
You never needed speeds in excess of usb 2.0? LOL, this is such old hat, guys in IBM t-shirts telling me how nobody ever needed more than 64K, and why go third party with your treasured computation when you can get the best, the infallible, the International Business Machine?
I will die on the hill that the Lightning plug is superior to the USB-C plug. Lightning could some day have supported USB-3.2+ speeds, if they'd chosen to work further on it.
Still, I have never once transferred data to my iPhone over a USB cable. I have used an iPhone since the first generation. For me, it has only ever been a means to charge the phone and to connect it to CarPlay. With wireless CarPlay and MagSafe charging, they could remove the port and I wouldn't miss it all that much (except for fast charging).