It's freaking annoying that you can't use an Apple device without being connected to Apple.
There should be a law against that sort of thing, for hardware that you fully paid for.
There should be a law against that sort of thing, for hardware that you fully paid for.
In fact it is proven that not only is Microsoft deeply in bed with the whole US Government, but the amount of vulnerabilities and flaws and outright back doors that have been publicly exposed in Windows is wildly larger.
I don’t even understand this immense focus on criticizing Apple, as valid as it is, when people use Android and Windows and Google services that are all shown as clear hangar door sized vulnerabilities.
It really kind of boggles my mind. Apple is constantly being out under pressure by the government and is constantly pushing increasing security and privacy features, as imperfect as they may be, but that is in comparison to Windows and Android, folks.
With that said I can still use Windows without a Microsoft account.
Only because you are a power-user and know the magic trick to perform when installing Windows to avoid signing in with a Microsoft account.
It sounds like you may not realize that you have never needed an Apple account (i.e. an Apple ID, which might call an "iCloud account") to use macOS. No magic tricks are required, although some Apple services will naturally not be avaiable.
and I'm sure if I searched I could find the same thing for Google, Facebook and others too.
Whether or not an upgrade for efficiency is worth it is subjective though.
It was true that power stagnated for a long time but it's finally back on the upturn.
Not sure why there is this persistent myth that you can only use Apple tech if "connected" to Apple.
So, if Apple were to say you didn’t fully pay for the hardware, it would be OK?
So do you mean use the software you paid for? (Fair)
Or am I missing a nuance.
Edit: Or are you referring to iDevices.
Also, is the Linux support actually official? Considering the above, I think not. I can't vote with my wallet for a company that has no clear map for the future, for my particular usecases.
Yes, iDevices are another problem. And yes, paying for the software when you use only the hardware is a problem too.
Too many problems with this company. I honestly can't understand why so many other hackers are happy being tethered and parent-controlled by Apple.
Obviously it varies from person to person.
Some just don't care about this at all and/or don't consider it an issue.
Some are just really used to it, or invested in the platforms, and don't want to waste time moving.
Some will just find much worse experiences for their taste anywhere else.
There are likely other personas in this story, these are just off the top of my head.
Frankly, I do not understand the disdain for Apple. They built their stack. That should be admired. Also, it's one ecosystem in the market.
Don't like it? Buy something else.
Not all the hardware, or at least not yet if you're on Apple Silicon.
> You can wipe it and install Linux and use the hardware you paid for unencumbered.
My point is, it works. In fact, it works fairly well. Some people use it as a daily driver.
Not all drivers are finished though, which is what I meant by "not all the hardware". By installing Asahi you are deliberately choosing to not use the GPU, not having brightness control and a few other things are missing.
With that in mind, my point stands: by installing Linux on an Apple Silicon machine, you cannot "use the hardware you paid for unencumbered."
Mainline Linux can now run all the critical features of apple silicon laptops and the remaining stuff like power management is really just waiting on someone to work out what the best way to modify Linux to support it would be.
> There should be a law against that sort of thing, for hardware that you fully paid for.
There is a vocal minority on most of these things:
- Powerusers and "learnt just enough to be dangerous" users complain about products not being targeted towards their wishes
- Privacy alarmists don't like what they can't control
- Commercial interests don't like having to pay for things, but do like getting paid for their own things
Technically all correct, but in practise this is nearly all in the same bucket as fastfood, sugar, air pollution etc. It's something that affects everyone, but it's much easier to deny it, ignore it, and just go with the nice, easy, comfortable, and profitable paths.
> It seems the market isn't what you tink it is.
I think that the market is an opportunity for companies to compete on features, price, service, and quality. Is that incorrect?
If Apple is not competing on features, then shouldn't the market provide an alternative company that does? Specifically, Apple requires a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality yet consumers do not like this. Other companies provide devices that do not require a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality, though possibly at a higher price (doubtful) or lower quality, or worse service. But the opportunity does exist.
I'm happy to hear where either my understanding is wrong, or where the market is failing.
Every time someone comes up with some confident theory on markets or how things should be, or how bad the things are as they currently are, they forget that the reality is 'the market' (whatever their definition happens to be at that time) did not, in fact, change due to either supply or demand.
So when you were to say "the market demands offline devices, and the big companies are failing because they don't deliver that", you're either talking about a theoretical market, or about a different market, but not about the mass consumer electronics market. Because the big companies aren't failing, and regardless of the demand, no significant portion seems to be supplied.
> Just look around you, do you see any critical mass on both the vendor or consumer side that does something the way you describe it?
> If Apple is not competing on features, then shouldn't the market provide an alternative company that does? Specifically, Apple requires a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality yet consumers do not like this.
So where is this proposed product? Where is the significant contender that satisfies all alarmists, privacy advocates and commercial interests, making this 'problem' not a problem?
There can't be conflicting truths, either we have a problem ("lack of product-market fit" or however we name it), or we don't ("market supplies products that fit").
Or do you dispute that a market-based economy is the proper form for designing, selling, and buying goods and services?
For example many people want smaller phones. However manufacturers all decided to make them bigger instead.
To function in society I need a phone, so I either buy one that needs 2 hands to be operated or be an outcast and have major problems having a normal life with no access to banking, communication and so on.