|
|
|
|
|
by saagarjha
2051 days ago
|
|
The problem with the argument given is that it basically gives up to Apple because it thinks that the situation that Apple provides is the best default experience for the majority of users. It probably is, but the problem is that 1. Apple doesn’t really explain any of this stuff anywhere so a technical user may read about it and make an informed decision nor 2. do they really provide a way to alter the process to use someone who isn’t Apple: just because they are a good default shouldn’t mean they should be the only provider that your computer will ever trust. And I think 3. is anger that a system Apple put in place failed in an entirely foreseeable fashion and essentially knocked a bunch of people’s livelihoods offline without warning or explanation and people are sick and tired of their things breaking for opaque “security” reasons. |
|
I think 2 is much more complicated and the solution is not obvious, but it’s still a very valid issue, indeed I would say it is the most important issue in the industry today.
However much of what I saw in the comments was none of these.
Most of it was intended to dishonesty brand Apple a ‘spyware’ company, or to brand anyone who uses Apple hardware or software as a participant in some great evil.
Neither of these are intellectually honest paths.