Hacker News Reader

Comment by 51lver | Hacker News Reader

You're not wrong, you're just in the wrong place. Apple is the sysadmin and the phone holders are the users. They WANT apple looking out for them. Anyone who says otherwise stupidly wasted $1000 when they could have bought any number of unlockable devices for that money.

I say this with an unlocked and de-googled android phone next to me, and several hacked arm devices at home. I OWN THEM, with no doubt, so I agree with you in a different world.

View on HN

I mostly agree - except people want Apple products for other reasons too.

There are quite a few Apple users who like the hardware, the operating system, apps which are iOS-only, and the integration with other Apple devices - some of whom also want to run their own choice of software as well.

There's no alternative which has equivalent benefits, if that's what you're looking for.

(NB, I don't use an Apple phone personally).

No one is entitled to Apple’s operating system. If you want freedom, the price is Android or whatever. In fact, the restrictions that Apple imposes on iOS and MacOS are arguably what makes them desirable in terms of consistent user experience, robust default security, and lack of crapware. For some people, that’s a good trade off. For others, the allure of Apple’s walled garden is too tempting.

Is this true of people who voluntarily signed up to be paid for data collection? It's like saying that Nielsen panelists need to be protected from Nielsen by Vizio. (Insert standard caveat about the degree to which kids' autonomy is in the hands of their parents).

Users with spyware should be dealt with by their admins.

An important difference that Nielsen doesn't have an agreement with Vizio that they broke and the "protection" being Vizio terminating their end of that agreement as a response.

As much as I dislike Apple, its amorality, its attitude towards it users, its effect on the markets it's in, etc, I don't have any disagreements with Apple's actions here: Facebook/Google violated their license, so Apple revoked them.

But the terms of this license are by no means "protecting" users who voluntarily chose to install these apps for payment. A license can have multiple legitimate purposes, including protecting the business interests of the licenser. There's no need to pretend that Apple is protecting users in order to defend their actions here.

Indeed. The violation here really has nothing to do with protecting users, as you say, it's more of a positive side-effect. On the other hand, if it weren't for that aspect, the press-coverage that sparked Apple's revokal would most likely not have happened.

Apple found themselves in a position were doing "the good thing" aligned with business.

It's funny you should mention Nielsen, I did a bit of digging and found these very familiar-looking installation instructions: http://www.arbitron.com/research/installhelp/install_ios9_en...

Nielsen is a white Knight compared to what Vizio is doing.

If you asked IOS users about all the restrictions Apple places on apps, I bet less than 10% could tell you any of them. I also bet the majority of them would disagree with Apple's policy on forbidding real alternatives to Safari instead skinned Webviews.

Do you run your own firmware on the baseband processor?

I play in firmware whenever I have the opportunity, absolutely. SPI is fun!

Do you?

I don't; but the world is a better place because of people that have that skillset.

Give it a try. The tools are a little primitive, but it's not black magic.

The question isn't "do you", but "could you"?

And atm, you couldn't on a locked down device.

> You can’t do that on any modern smartphone with the UX most have come to expect of their devices.

FTFY

Never made this connection — genius

Reply on news.ycombinator.com