Hacker News Reader

>I know HN will see this as Apple further locking down the platform, but it's also plausible that they just want to reduce the number of ways the OS can be installed and upgraded.

How is reducing the number of ways one can acquire or install something not further locking down a platform?

That's pretty much what 'locking down' a platform comes down to, reducing the number of ways you can install various kinds of software on said platform. An OS is still another piece of software.

It is reducing the number of supported configurations that need to be tested, which reduces the cost of shipping software updates. It seems to go hand in hand with making the root filesystem read-only. Users tend to be happy when their system is reliable.

Perhaps this is incrementally progressing towards constant security updates like Chrome has had for some time.

> Users tend to be happy when their system is reliable.

Reliability is only one axis. Focus too much on one aspect, and increasingly fewer people will be happy.

Security is another.

If the last week has been any indicator, this property of software product value is very hard to provide and its value greatly underestimated.

I don't think that reducing the number of ways to do the same thing is at all what people mean by "locking down a platform."

Speaking purely as personal opinion, the difference is “lockdown” -> they care; reducing options -> they don’t care.

The effect is similar, unless you’re trying to find away around it.

Ok so you’re technically correct.

Most users do not care.

How is sitting on social media ranting about such things productive?

This is how corporate works. Do something different politically if it matters.

Example: https://swscan.apple.com/content/catalogs/others/index-11-10...

From which we find the URL to the 11.1 standalone installer (11.4GB):

http://swcdn.apple.com/content/downloads/00/55/001-86606-A_9...

How do you know what the catalog url is?

It’s easy to figure out. I am sure the next one will be https://swscan.apple.com/content/catalogs/others/index-12-11....

> Apple further locking down the platform

> they just want to reduce the number of ways the OS can be installed and upgraded

Isn't that synonymous?

Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they're being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity of the group is waning?

Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.

This is hilarious. They remind me of a politician.

It's just a temporary refund adjustment.

"Locking down" implies that they're adding restrictions. They're not doing that. People are just as free to download updates as they always have been. Now they just have to use a different address.

If I have two URLs pointing to my website and then I remove one, users can just go to the other one. I have not "locked down" my website or limited access at all.

No. Only reductions that affect user freedom fall under "locking down". If there are redundant ways to do something, removing one doesn't lock down anything.

Making it harder for users to review & inspect update installation packages does affect user freedom.

You just have to download it a slightly different way. Anyone who has any ability to actually review/inspect is able to do that.

The impact on user freedom is negligible.

But even if we decide this particular situation is in fact locking down, what I said is still true. Locking down is a subset of removing options, not synonymous with it.

The impact on user freedom is negligible.

Apple has been practicing incrementalism. Each small step by itself doesn't seem very significant. But the slow march continues, and the pieces add up. Current people with technical ability may be able to modify their behavior to work around it, but the technical bar has been raise slightly-- people without technical ability have one more small speedbump.

If you're right and Apple stops here, then sure, no big deal, and I'd be happy to be wrong. This isn't the hill I'd die on for the issue. It's the trend I don't like. If a few years go by without Apple locking down the OS further, I'd be okay with the status quo. Looking at the trend of the past few years though, it seems like Apple is slowly taking MacOS towards the iOS model.

People without technical ability aren't reviewing and inspecting installation packages.

If this was a typical increment in Apple's incrementalism, then even the sum total would be something you could ignore for a hundred years.

like anyone does that

Hahah exactly, like Apple don't have the resources to support multiple installs and have to sacrifice one method in the name of stability.....

In case of software money will only go so far to offset the scope creep.

If the scope is too large any company will fail, regardless of budget.

Apple historically was always removing features that add bulk but are not necessary (although some people need them).

To give some examples: - with one of the MacOS releases they announces there are no new features in the OS, just a cleanup of unnecessary stuff - they removed support for 32 bit apps a year ago - personally I found it painful as some stuff stopped working, but I understand this was done to streamline the system - and so on

Sure it’s sometimes irritating, but otherwise you risk ending up with a mess that Windows is.

As a side note - since they switched from physical medium it was weird to me personally that there even is a standalone installer - why not make it a system update? This year they finally did the switch.

Apple has an effectively infinite budget. Teams within Apple do not. You need to be able to cut costs to improve your ability to scale the eng org/reduce associated costs with that scaling. Reducing complexity in your SW stack is 100% critical as you age so that you can lay down technical debt and build new things faster with the freed up capital.

Shameless plug for my own little macOS app to see the contents of these update catalog files: https://github.com/hjuutilainen/sus-inspector

Ooh, this is cool. I’ll have to see if I can use it to replace reading the plist by hand!

> (Note that the update check does not send information about your system to Apple.)

It doesn't need to. Every Big Sur mac maintains a hardware-serial-linked TLS connection to Apple's push notification service (which exposes client IP, and thus the city you're in and your ISP) at all times when connected to the network. Also, opening the App Store app links your IP to your hardware serial number.

>I know HN will see this as Apple further locking down the platform, but it's also plausible that they just want to reduce the number of ways the OS can be installed and upgraded.

War is peace, freedom is slavery etc.

In other words they still provide a way to get them, just not at a URL they publish on their website.

Naah, don't you see this is about Freedom vs Slavery for all of the US, and perhaps all of humanity, so all developers should quit Apple and join Google or Microsoft to save the humanity.

It's a tool, not a religion. We use our computers to get shit done. People don't rail on and on about how DeWalt has a proprietary battery, why do people go off like this is some kind of holy war.

I could almost understand it if you were talking up Linux, at least there is some real difference there. Microsoft and Google? Give me a break.

Personally, I see it as a user hostile change.

Apple Bad Fanboy Club

Really? Approximately how many users, would you say, will be unable to install MacOS as a result?

Well, I run Linux on my Mac, and I legally virtualize macOS in a VM on my Mac, so this could impact my ability to do so.

Out of interest, would you mind describing your setup? i.e. hardware, linux distro, VM tech and macOS version?

It's nothing special. I use Kubuntu on a MBP, and I've talked about how I've setup Plasma Desktop before on HN[1][2].

I run Catalina in a VM because it's the oldest macOS version that supports the APIs I'm developing against. I used to use KVM for virtualizing macOS, but VirtualBox[3] is more portable despite being much slower, so I use that now.

If you can use KVM with Virtio and VFIO passthrough, it's really fast. Linux just got Virtio-fs[4], too. I've had to pass boot options to the kernel to get the IOMMU to play nicely on the Mac, though, and I just don't have patience for that these days.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23607374

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25172499

[3] https://github.com/myspaghetti/macos-virtualbox

[4] https://virtio-fs.gitlab.io/

Thanks. I've got an MBA6,2 lying around so may give it a go over the holidays.

Linux runs really well on Macbooks that came out before 2016. I've found powertop, TLP and TLP-GUI, and mbpfan to be useful laptop and Mac-specific tools on Linux.

Not the poster you're replying to, but a cheesegrater MP4.1 with Debian and this package (https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM) works just fine.

Never bothered with GPU passthrough however.

So, you run Linux on your Mac and virtualize MacOS but won't be able to locate and download the installer as others have indicated?

I haven't actually looked into it, hence why I said it could impact my ability to do so.

That might make you unique haha.

How does VM Mac on a Mac as a developer make one unique?

Buying a mac, installing linux as your daily driver, and then running macOS in a VM?

I honestly don't even know why you'd do that. I certainly have never heard of anyone doing that until now.

I think it's more common to virtualize macOS on a Mac running macOS.

Sure, but that is not the setup I interpreted from his comment, as I'm unsure why you would mention linux if the point of the comment was about virtualizing macOS on macOS.

Yes, I understand. But if you can't install macOS in VM on Linux (on a Mac) then you most likely can't do it in a VM on macOS either.

Likely because he wants more than a sliver of control over his OS.

Why?

Is your argument that we shouldn't care, or is your argument that it is not user hostile? Just curious.

I'm not personally affected, and my Apple outrage cup is already filled up with their sustained anti-repair pro-landfill stance.

It's an honest question to see if my priors are adequate.

My priors tell me that to a close approximation, this will prevent 0 people from installing MacOS. It's just "outrage porn".

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-greenest-tech-company-...

If you actually do care about the environmental impact of your electronics, Greenpeace are the real deal. They look into the details from renewable energy use, eliminating toxic materials, average device lifetimes to reduce device churn and recyclability, there's one clear option out of the big device manufacturers and it's not even close.

Oh are we playing a link game now?

https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-for...

Yes that’s completely true. However repairability only matters environmentally because it helps the device have a longer useful lifetime. iPhones have the longest useful lifetimes of any smartphones anyway though, so they’re still clearly the best choice overall.

My one criticism of the a Greenpeace report I think is that they don’t really put enough weight on average device working lifetime. It’s a direct multiplier on every other factor.

>iPhones have the longest useful lifetimes of any smartphones anyway though, so they’re still clearly the best choice overall.

Not exactly, because other phones can be repaired which extends their life.

Apple's doesn't do board repair themselves, and blocks others from doing it as well. This means more components end up in land fills. Apple's own extended warranty program makes billions of dollars. And the repair industry itself is quite large - millions maybe hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Apple products clearly fail and need repair at some point or another.

I hope you'll join everyone else in demanding Apple stop opposing right to repair legislation.

Repairability isn’t a significant metric because beyond battery replacement, which is very reasonably for iPhones since Apple halved their battery replacement prices a few years ago, very few phones are ever repaired.

“..researchers found that brand, an intangible property, is more important than repairability or memory size in extending the life of a product.”[0]

The article found that Apple phones last on average a year longer than Samsung’s.

[0]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181016142434.h...

Another estimate puts Apple device lifespans at 4 years 3 months.[1]

[1]https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-ipad-mac-heres-how-long...

The average for all smartphones is estimated as from 2 to 3 years, but bear in mind that includes many Apple devices, so non Apple devices must average the low end of that.[2]

[2]https://www.coolblue.nl/en/advice/lifespan-smartphone.html

The fact is repairability simply isn’t a significant factor in environmental impact overall. I do completely accept that wanting it as an individual right is entirely reasonable. There are plenty of solid arguments in favour of repairability, but environmentalism isn’t one of them. If you care about the environment more than right to repair, Apple devices win by a very large margin.

I posted direct quotes from Greenpeace. You're linking to ZDNet, and a random study that has no published data as far as I can tell. Note that I am not easily swayed by studies - I work in Vaccine R&D and I read tons of research papers, and many of them are junk. A study doesn't mean something is true. I'd trust Greenpeace knowing about the environment more than ZDNet.

>The fact is repairability simply isn’t a significant factor in environmental impact overall.

This is not a fact. Every single environmental group on this planet agrees that repair is significant component in reducing environmental impact. By definition it means fewer devices need to be re-purchased, fewer devices end up in landfills, more local repair jobs, more support-economy jobs, etc. I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise. I will let you have the last word. Have a nice day :)

A ‘random study’ from the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

Not swayed by studies. Sheesh. If the best you can do is “Laaa, Laaa, I’m not listening”, I’m done.

It may not be the "end of macOS as a developer platform" but it's one more sign that I should start looking for an alternative because the end is on it's way.

Apple's ideal business model is very similar to the model employed for cloud based Internet services, save that they want it to apply to all computer hardware and software, not just those services that are a good fit for cloud hosting.

While it can be argued that such a service model can have benefits for both the provider and the consumer, Apple has historically engaged in anti-consumer behavior and continues to do so.

So no, this sort of thing is not to improve anything for anyone but Apple.

"I know HN will see this as Apple further locking down the platform, but it's also plausible that they just want to reduce the number of ways the OS can be installed and upgraded."

I think you just repeated yourself.

HN will excuse Apple, just as you have.

No, HN will rush to Cupertino with torches and pitchforks based on an inflammatory headline without clicking on the link and realizing that:

- Apple hasn't officially said anything about this. The linked rantpost is verklempt because it's been 4 weeks since the release of a major OS revision supporting a new processor architecture and a standalone installer hasn't been provided (yet).

And here are his given arguments for the Collapse of American Way and Civilization in General if this situation continues:

- It's hard to reinstall Safari.

This basically happens ... never. I've been running OS X since the beta and have never had to reinstall Safari.

- It would make it difficult to recreate a specific point release in the future.

This is valid, but also a rare use case and this doesn't prevent you from doing it, you just have to apply the incrementals from Apple.

- It would eliminate "An effective panacea for some system problems."

I think I applied a combo update to fix some hosed up printer drivers after an HP update screwed the pooch one time but I could have just loaded an earlier version. This goes into the general category of "zapping the PRAM" to fix issues which originated from a real problem this actually corrected 20 years ago and morphed into a mystical incantation to utter when you have no idea wtf is wrong with the computer and don't feel like praying the rosary over it.

When was HN into excusing Apple? It's pretty much run of the mill apple emotional hate club.

Quote from the thread

"Apple finally has shown their true colours and no form of hardware or software advancement will push me to use their products. Can you imagine the world without Linux or BSD alternatives? What a nightmare."

Yep. Emotional Hate Club. After 20 years of using their products may be I know something more than a regular Apple wannabe in 2020. In 2006 paying equivalent of 4000EUR in cold cash for a laptop was no small feet in my country - actually this was a price for very good second hand car at the time. And surprise: it was worth every god damn penny. Since then all of my office computers and computers of my staff are made by Apple. For a long time this company offered a perfect blend for any kind of production. Since the big success of the iPhone things slowly faded away. At first Apple killed Studio Suite, then made Final Cut Pro from professional software to semi pro kids toy, started telemetry without user consent (I use Little Snitch from second version of the software, etc), touch bar nonsense, keyboard quality nonsense, repairability nonsense and still no good web camera. But hey, M1 will change everything. For good.:) In the future Apple will be old IBM on steroids. Personal Gatekeeper for common good. Enjoy your prison kids, war is peace - freedom is slavery - ignorance is strength.

Well, nerds get mad when you take away controls that existed for.. ever. Is your individuality perfectly expressed through the system preferences that Apple thinks you should have or through exercising your UNIX nerd cred by opening the hatch and messing with the guts? :)

It always seems a pretty even mix of anti-Apple & Apple apologists.

It would be a fun project to run an sentiment classifier against Apple related comments to see what the ratio actually is.

Isn't that all about tracking and knowing what you do with "your" computer? If you know more about customers you can more easily manipulate them.