[zepto]

“You no longer own your computer” has no traction outside of ideology.

There are a few people who bring it up, and then use manipulative rhetoric:

“Shouldn’t we own the devices we buy?”

Of course, who would disagree with that! But this is manipulative because you are affirming the consequent. I.e. leading the reader into accepting the conclusion that you don’t own your computer.

“The tech companies are trying to destroy the very concept of product ownership”

This is an ideological claim with no factual basis, there are no memos or recordings supporting that anyone is trying to do this. It’s just you claiming to know the plans of ‘the tech companies’.

It could just be that Apple is trying to stop malware. Perhaps not a secret plot! Maybe there is no conspiracy!

It’s also a laughable exaggeration, as well as black and white thinking . Do you own your house? Presumably not since there are many legal restrictions on what you can do with it. Do you own your car? Presumably not, since you can’t install your own software on its computers. Do you own your toaster oven? Presumably not since you can not reprogram the microcontrollers.

Perhaps the conspiracy is deeper than I realized!

“Consumers ought to fight to the end over this”

More manipulative language. Frame things in terms of a fight between corporations and consumers, and a ‘fight to the end’.

Are you a ‘consumer’?

But more importantly, what is ‘this’? It seems like you are asking to fight over the belief that ‘Tech companies are trying to destroy the concept of product ownership’. I.e. divide people and exhort them to fight over an ideological claim you are making about intentions that you haven’t substantiated.

How about examining some of the technical issues instead of ideological rhetoric?

Here’s one: If the security features can be disabled, how can I trust a Mac I haven’t maintained custody of the whole time?

Here’s another: If people don’t want their computer software to come from Apple, they can buy something else. What is wrong with that?

I have to assume you neither own nor lease any Apple devices. Why are you trying to control what other people do?

[_qulr]

> How about examining some of the technical issues instead of ideological rhetoric?

Way ahead of you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25076588

> I have to assume you neither own nor lease any Apple devices.

This was a ludicrously bad assumption.

[zepto]

It was also a tongue in cheek assumption.

However the question I have is given your views, why?

[_qulr]

> However the question I have is given your views, why?

I came to the Mac almost 20 years ago. It was very different back then. The first decade of Mac OS X was brilliant. I felt it was the best consumer OS ever made. It was also a fairly "open" system: Mac UI on top, UNIX underneath.

The second decade of Mac OS X (now macOS), has been a disaster IMO. It just keeps getting worse and worse. All of the restrictions we see now were added in the past 8 years or so.

In short, I was already fully committed to the Mac before it started to get locked down, but I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with it as time goes on. There's not a great alternative, however.

[tonyedgecombe]

It was only like that in the first ten years because it wasn't common enough to become a malware target.

[zepto]

There's not a great alternative, however.

I don’t think waging ideological war on Apple is doing anything to help us get one, especially not if you dismiss the real security benefits of their approach as part of some conspiracy to undermine the concept of ownership.

What would help is some analysis of how technically to achieve both security and openness. Nobody has achieved this yet.

Apple’s security strategy does place them as a trusted party in the system. I don’t see them changing this any time soon, since it’s an unsolved research problem, and they need to keep shipping.

I am curious what a system with no centrally trusted authority would actually look like.