Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm puzzled that people are willing buy a computer/OS where (apparently) software can/will fail to launch if some central company server goes down. Maybe I'm just getting this wrong, because I can honestly not quite wrap my head around this. This is such a big no-go, from a systems design point of view. The answer is pretty simple: these problems are extremely rare, they don't last very long, and they tend to have…
The payoff for the very slight risk is an effective built-in malware prevention system that doesn’t treat me abusively and reacts in a timely manner to abusive circumstances. After decades of production operations, I have no complaints about how this was handled, and I expect they’ll investigate and patch any defects exposed by the outage. I went for a walk when this happened and when I got back it was fixed. Works f…
What happens if you're trading securities, or if you have an imminent deadline? Apple sells a fail-closed security feature, without investing the resources necessary to keep it as near to 100% serviceable as possible, and never really discusses it with the user. When it hangs, most users don't even know why.
WTF!
Seems like they could partner with Akamai (or one of its competitors) to make the server-side component of this feature more robust.
If they are going to sell the MBP as a premium professional product, then they must recognize that it will sometimes serve as the linchpin of users' mission-critical activities.
Take a billion dollars out of the stock buyback, invest it in the product instead, and make this problem go away.