[ru999gol]

In principle code signing is a good idea, this way Apple can ensure an improved security standard over their competition.

But the downside is of course that Apple is in control, and like any corporation it will do things with that power that are unethical, immoral, anti-competitive, anti-consumer, etc. to the fullest possible imaginable degree.

Its like when you buy a DRM protected piece of content and that company revokes access in the future. Its entirely predictable and preventable.

Customers buy DRM content all the time and they buy Apple products instead of phones that give you freedom. Ignorance is not an excuse, I won't blame Apple, they aren't people, they just do what is natural in all corporations, I blame people/consumers, they deserve every single last bit of totalitarianism that is coming their way.

[Wowfunhappy]

> In principle code signing is a good idea, this way Apple can ensure an improved security standard over their competition.

There is nothing wrong with code signing. There is everything wrong with making Apple the sole arbiter of mandatory code signing. It's the difference between being against locks, and being against someone else owning the keys to your house.

---

> I won't blame Apple, they aren't people [...] I blame people/consumers

No, you can't blame people. It isn't the individual consumer's job to consider the ins and outs of how they may be limiting their free expression in the future. That's not realistic.

Corporations are not robots; Apple is run by people, and specifically people who should be considerably more knowledgable on this subject than the average consumer. They should feel some level of social responsibility.

This will not be the last time Apple ends up in this type of situation. I hope we have the right conversations about them, and I hope they make Apple hurt. Because this was entirely predictable, and entirely of Apple's own making.

[ru999gol]

> Corporations are not robots. Apple is run by people, and specifically people who are much more knowledgable on this subject than the average consumer. They should feel some level of social responsibility.

Sometimes I wonder how many instances to the contrary people need to get this falsehood out of their heads. Corporations are only beholden to their shareholders, if any one person at Apple (including the CEO) is not at all times acting solely to maximize the profit to their shareholders they will be replaced by someone who will. The government has to force corporations to their will through tight regulations, consumer protection and anti-trust legislation. Why are all corporations spending this incredible amount on political corruption/"lobbying", its because all these things work.

[Wowfunhappy]

This is a way of thinking that emerged within the past century. It was not always considered universally true, and I think it's harming society.

Why do we consider it acceptable for CEOs to shrug off any and all social consequences of their actions? We can and should outlaw actions that are socially harmful, but we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders when powerful people find ways to skirt those rules to enrich themselves.

[QuesnayJr]

They're really not. In court, it is sufficient to be able to argue that your actions are in the long-term interest of the company. In practice, CEOs are hard to replace, and it is easy for them to pack the board. Lots of companies have dual class shares so that a group of insiders can run the company however they see fit.

Anyway, even if it were true in practice, this is entirely the result of laws and court decisions. Governments could change it with the stroke of a pen.

[MaupitiBlue]

> if any one person at Apple (including the CEO) is not at all times acting solely to maximize the profit to their shareholders they will be replaced by someone who will.

Google apple largest shareholders

[michaelmrose]

This is mostly something people repeat on the internet it is only slightly related to reality

[alunchbox]

Looking right at Adobe with Venezuela, U.S based company is taking an executive order at face value and cut off anyone there to using their products. It's worse now since Creative Cloud must be active to use the core tools, at first they weren't even going to refund anyone that just paid a year but luckily due to the outcry they will now allow refunds at least.

Being a software engineer I side with consumers more as I use a ton of services, but that's the flip side to the convince the consumer has absolutely no ownership to anything.