[lovelyviking]

>It really depends on the threat you are planing against. What about oppressive let's say Russian government while you travel let's say in Ukraine and then occupation occurs. Not a fantastic scenario by the way ...

It really doesn't depend on the threat at all. It's about the model of the society you wish to have and what values you promote.

It's about who you wish to be responsible : the 'big company' caring about your safety and taking your freedom on the way or you caring yourself about own safety and preserving freedom on the way. I do not really think there is a choice here because the first option will always be abused at some point.

Freedom does matter and it comes with responsibility. THIS is the main issue here. THIS is what separates society with responsible citizens from the society with 'irresponsible people' who wish to trade their freedom for 'safety' resulting in loosing both (and democracy itself after some time).

[hraedon]

All sentiments like this one and those similar to it elide the facts that 1) we’ve tried relying on “user responsibility” before, and excusing the comically bad outcomes through victim blaming doesn’t change them; and 2) we didn’t get together and vote Apple the only manufacturer of computers.

If you don’t like their model, choose someone else. Why should average users who would otherwise be served perfectly well by Apple’s solution be required to be “responsible” for some subset of personal security you think denotes a “responsible” citizen from an “irresponsible” one?

[lovelyviking]

>If you don’t like their model, choose someone else.

Many follow their example and without push back there will be no someone else because average users my not understand consequences unless they are educated by people who do understand them. Like with many other areas requiring certain level of expertise to understand consequences of certain desicions.

> we’ve tried relying on “user responsibility” before, >Why should average users who would otherwise be served perfectly well by Apple’s solution be required to be “responsible”

Do you believe in choice? If you do then average users should have a choice whether to rely on Apple or switch such functionality off. Without having such choice people become less and less responsible. You can say they choose by buying such machines but I do not think this could be qualified as a choice just like accepting EULA. It's not really a choice.

[smoldesu]

User responsibility and device safety are not mutually exclusive. You can keep the iPhone exactly as-is and add a developer mode that would pretty much shut up every nerd this side of the Mississippi.

[marcan_42]

Which is exactly what they did with M1 (add a developer mode that doesn't put their normal users at risk by allowing for persistent supply chain compromise attacks), but it doesn't seem to be enough to make some people happy...

[Wowfunhappy]

To be fair to the other side of the argument, I think people are mostly upset about the iPhone. There's an implicit fear (which I don't agree with!) that if Apple is so insistent on keeping the iPhone locked down, that must be their ultimate goal for their other platforms as well.

I think if Apple was to add a developer mode to the iPhone, 99% of people would actually shut up.

[marcan_42]

People seem to forget that the iPhone is 15 years old, and Macs are still an open platform. It hasn't happened yet, but somehow it's always "going to happen"...

[Wowfunhappy]

I 100% agree with you and have argued the same point! I expect to get an Apple Silicon Mac at some point and to put Asahi Linux on it. :)

I just don't think that the counterargument is completely spurious. Craig Federighi taking the stand in court and saying that Mac security is at a place they "don’t find acceptable" doesn't exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy about Apple's future plans. And so if someone says they don't want to buy an M1 Mac, even if it's open today, because they see the iPhone as indicative of the direction Apple is going, I think that's fair, even if I disagree about Apple's intentions.

By contrast, if Apple added a way to unlock the bootloader on iPhones tomorrow, this argument would immediately evaporate. :)