Comment by Terretta | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Terretta | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The “user journey” you talk about, the road traveled to a destination, is not the software, it’s the job to be done with the combination of software and hardware.

There may be roads less traveled or places off road, but Apple has no obligation to release some kind of universal automobile fit for highway comfort as well as every terrain.

Apple doesn’t owe you a computing device without a user experience any more than Mercedes owes you an engine without a carriage. They are designed together, and sold together.

The old school insistence on an arbitrary division between hardware and software is like the 1900s division between carriages and bolt on engines before Ford and others realized designing them together made a better car. In modern computing, this false division forces a constraining snapshot of where that line happens to be drawn on this model, instead of recognizing the line is moving all the time as hardware is virtualized and software becomes firmware, all in pursuit of a better journey to the user’s destination, the job to be done.

With the majority of firms and devices selling badly matched hardware and software you can readily strip apart, Apple is making a user experience choice rather unique in the industry and their market success because of this thesis should not be resented or begrudged.

If you believe in general purpose hardware for arbitrary software, if you think Linux has done fantastically with, say, touchpads, touch input, and pen devices relative to Apple with the Magic trackpad, multi-touch screens, and Pencil with the hardware+drivers+OS+apps ecosystem to manifest user intent, invest in that. Buy that, code for that, advocate for that.

If you believe in a customer centric emphasis on “job to be done” and giving less technical end users frictionless tools that get out of their way, appliances for accomplishing their goals, advocate for Apple and the like.

Or don’t advocate, but at least don’t try to tear it down.

> Apple doesn’t owe you a computing device without a user experience any more than Mercedes owes you an engine without a carriage.

Maybe not the best analogy since auto makers have to sell spare parts to third part repair shops.

Yes it's a very bad argument - there are all sorts of regulations in place to prevent the types of monopoly powers which major software vendors currently enjoy.

Actually it's a fairly good argument; it's just a argument against their position, not for it.

Well apple may be forced to sell physical hardware to shops, I agree with many here you can’t force them to provide everything. Mercedes for example has tons of software and software tools just for mostly internal and some dealer use, that allow you to do many more things with the car (like changing configuration flags, updates for the ecu and entertainment systems…).

> Apple doesn’t owe you a computing device without a user experience any more than Mercedes owes you an engine without a carriage. They are designed together, and sold together.

Computing is relatively new in historical terms, and I think we're still figuring out what the legal boundaries should be around it.

One huge thing which separates networked computers from pretty much every other product which has ever existed is that it allows other actors to "do stuff" with with your property, with or without your consent. Google can install software remotely, and use my electricity, my network connection, and my CPU cycles to do something on my device. I think in the next few decades, we will see some regulations around "freedom from" certain types of actions like this on computer hardware that you own.

On the other side, hardware and software vendors have taken a place as gatekeepers about what you can and can't do with your computer hardware which you own. Smartphones are the main way most people access computing, and currently there are two companies which decide what you can and can't do with them. There has been a long history of regulations to prevent companies which hold this kind of advantaged position from using it to gain undue power over the market. For instance, the railroads cannot bias which customers have access to transportation, and the phone company cannot decide who can and cannot make calls. I think we will see similar regulation, establishing a "freedom to" do certain things with your own computer hardware.

This. I have recently gone back to the Apple walled garden and it's a next gen experience that transcends platforms. Now I only have to worry about what I want to do, never about how it should get done. I never 'see' the actual technology: hard- and software are designed together so well, it just works. There is no other platform in a position to offer that.

The thing is, just like a car can travel on any road a computing device can execute any software. Apple deliberately breaks this functionality.

Apple does not sell a subscription to me, they sell a physical product that can perform computing. That device is absolutely able to run a Linux kernel (in fact people already have made Linux work on M1), so why can't I just flash a new operating system and do that? I'm owning the device already and I don't have any obligation to Apple to buy more software from them, and I don't think Apple does me a favor by offering me an iPad to a "subsidized" price (like other people are arguing). Of course right now it's legal to do this kind of shenaningans, but I surely find it absurd.

Also, having used Cyanogenmod and LineageOS while I was an Android user I can tell you the Linux community would design a working OS for Apple tablets in no time if there was a legal way to do that.

> The thing is, just like a car can travel on any road...

I don't disagree with your comment as a whole, but this stood out to me as a classic example of why car::computer analogies always suck. No, not every car can travel on every road. Send your typical Camry or Accord down a fire road and it will be lucky to make it half a mile. Without some modifications, my 4x4 Bronco II would have issues with some trails.

Now, if you were limiting your scope to paved roads, I can kind of see your point, but there again there are certain roads that would give issues to the average car, particularly in places like Detroit where the road itself can be so deteriorated due to municipal neglect that it will destroy a car's suspension. Or, San Francisco where the hills can be so steep that driving a manual transmission car daily requires skill beyond that of the average driver to avoid rollback accidents, not to mention the extra wear on the clutch.

> ...a computing device can execute any software.

Not quite true. A microcontroller is a computing device; it executes code written in a human-readable language that has been compiled into a machine language, just like a full-blown consumer computer. However, you can't just throw any software on the microcontroller's storage medium and expect it to run. First you must be able to recompile it, which means you need access to the source code. Second, if said source code is not in whatever human-readable language the microcontroller's IDE expects, you'll have to spend the time porting it over to that language before even attempting to compile it. Even then, the microcontroller may not be powerful enough or have the right features to run the software the way you intended.

The point is that you can drive the car onto any road, not that it would be any good at it. I can buy a Camry and drive it off a cliff into the ocean. It's my right as its owner to do that. If Toyota said, nope, even though you paid full price for this car we're still not going to let you drive it off a cliff, I would be upset at that limitation. Even if my intention is not to drive it off a cliff.

It's about allowing the consumer to use the device however they see fit, there's no expectation that the car should be able to do everything outside of its operating range well.

You're moving the goalposts. The original statement was that just as any car can travel any road, any computer can execute any software. Both statements are incorrect, for different reasons. I get the point of the comment as a whole and I agree wholeheartedly with it, I was simply pointing out a bad analogy and an incorrect assertion.

By this argument, automatic braking systems should be disallowed since they attempt to limit your freedom to rear-end other cars or drive into barriers (“however you see fit”).

And that’s a great analogy to Apple’s approach: “It’s for your own safety and that of others.”

ABS can be disabled by pulling a circuit breaker in the car's electronics box, usually installed somewhere near the wheel or in the glovebox. I would be upset if my car started demonstrating problems consistent with faulty ABS and I or my mechanic would have no way to troubleshoot it.

> The thing is, just like a car can travel on any road a computing device can execute any software. Apple deliberately breaks this functionality.

But in this analogy, the hardware is the road, not the car. The road is the literal platform on which everything else runs. And Apple's argument is that they aren't quite building a "road", they're building a bespoke people-mover system that they continue to maintain (like the Boring Company's Las Vegas tunnel system).

Just to nit-pick the analogy some more, real cars don't run on just any road. Roads have weight limits, height limits, and speed limits (and most places make it illegal to drive significantly slower than surrounding traffic, effectively creating minimum speed limits). John Deere builds golf carts that aren't permitted on highways, and Scania's trucks too heavy for some bridges.

Compelling argument. I think it would be fine if Apple hardware didn't look and feel so good in itself, without the software. It's just a shame we can't use them with anything else we might prefer - I really dislike macOS and Windows and I wish these devices could run Linux simply.

But as you say I buy Asus or Lenovo and they work very well too, and they're starting to look and feel good too nowadays, so like you I won't care for long. Apple can try to solve specific problems with hardware-assisted software, and I can do my work on an Asus.

I just wish my thousand dollar “not a computer” could keep three tabs open in safari without reloading them all every time I switch to check a text message.

I’ve been a very heavy iPad user for over a year now. I keep telling myself things will get better. And you’re right, Apple doesn’t owe me. But I wish they’d just hear what people are asking for.

This Safari refreshing thing annoys me very much, specially when there are opened sessions that gets destroyed due to that..

same! And it’s senseless there’s no need for it whatsoever!

When my first gen iPad was no longer able to keep up with the increasingly bloated web, I sold it and got a 3rd gen. Eventually that too succumbed to the increasing bloat.

The Safari tab reloading was one of the biggest problems. If I was writing an HN comment on the iPad and needed to look something up, I had to select my in progress comment, copy it, switch to Notes, and save it there just in case Safari decided to refresh the HN tab. If after my lookup, Safari did indeed refresh the tab and wipe out my comment, I'd try pasting. Sometimes that would work, but sometimes that was gone. Then it was off to Notes to grab the saved copy and paste it into Safari.

The iPad Pro was fairly new at this point, and I considered getting one but could not find anyone who could tell me if they ad improved memory handling enough to get rid of the issue. Instead, I went with a Microsoft Surface Pro 4. The browser situation wasn't the sole reason--I also wanted something with a stylus what would be good for writing math/physics/electronics notes, and I had seen several positive reviews by scientists and engineers of using OneNote and the Surface Pen for that.

Browsing on SP4 was great--I could have many tabs open and switch between them without losing anything. The Pen and OneNote worked well too.

However, I'm not sure I can recommend Surface Pro. I used it heavily for a couple years for browsing, reading PDFs, and taking notes. But then I took advantage of Comcast's baffling iPad offer [1] and got a 6th gen iPad.

The iPad quickly became my choice for light browsing. Later I got an Apple Pencil and the iPad took over most note taking (using the Notability app). (I just really need the electronic equivalent of paper with multiple ink colors and copy/paste, and so a simpler program that does that well is fine).

After a couple years of that, with the iPad used daily and the SP4 used less frequently--the SP4 battery is heavily degraded. I think part of this is because it is not obvious how to really turn an SP4 off so if you take a fully charged SP4 and don't use it for a week it will be significantly drained. So even if you are infrequently using it, you are still putting mileage on the battery.

At 4 years old, now my SP4 does not run very long off charger. An out of warranty battery replacement from Microsoft is something like $500.

My iPad battery is degrading much slower than my SP4 battery did. I'm confident it will be in way better shape when it reached 4 years old than the SP4 was. And if it isn't, an out of warranty iPad battery replacement from Apple is $99.

Anyway, if you need to do a lot of browsing in multiple tables using a tablet, and are OK with the power management issues I mentioned above, the Surface products might be worth a look.

[1] Comcast had an offer open for a while to most of their subscribers to get a 128 GB WiFi iPad for $5/month for 24 months (which you could pay off faster if you wished). That's $120, which was around 1/3 of what you'd expect to pay.

It would be no problem if Apple were just doing their best to deliver the best experience to their users as you are implying they are doing here.

The problem here is that they are deliberately crippling and limiting what the hardware can do in a way that avoid any possibility of competition.

Limiting JIT's and external web engines are an example of not allowing the devs to have an option to develop for web SDK forcing them to stick with the apple SDK.

So, there's no problem in Apple trying to do things better. The real problem is the limitations imposed to curb competition and freedom for the developers to use the hardware the best way they can.

Apple is ur-facism encoded in a private company. Google or Microsoft dont get away with half of what Apple do, so people should look more carefully to what is beneath.

> The problem here is that they are deliberately crippling and limiting what the hardware can do in a way that avoid any possibility of competition.

Do you know that as a fact? Any documentation to that effect? Or is it just speculation? There is a lot of stuff that is the way it is not because of the reasons you think. Adobe Flash on iPad was argued about the same way. But the answer wasn’t because of an attempt to stifle competition.

> and freedom for the developers to use the hardware the best way they can

iPad is a consumer device. They don’t make it for “developers.” You aren’t their target audience.

Won't comment on your first point because i think its pretty well documented by now, specially for the HN crowd. But if you really want to to go down into this rabbit hole..

> iPad is a consumer device. They don’t make it for “developers.” You aren’t their target audience.

Sure, but the consumer is, a consumer who would want the best experience and the best applications on his device.

Crippling and curbing the developer forcing the hand where he cannot use certain technologies or certain paths only to suit Apple monopolistic, control freak neurosis, will in the end damage the users, as he would not have access to goodies he would like and want to.

This is basically the reason why Apple is getting away with it. The user doesn't even know he is being damage in certain ways so Apple can resort its control, because the application that should reach him, apps he would want if the option was given to him, never will reach him.

Because even if the developer miraculously circumvented an obstacle (that is not there for the final users sake) and published its app, the control over app store publishing would take care of censoring the application through the evaluation process.

Just a sample of where the final user is being damaged, the fact that he cannot really run other browsers that are basically UI shims over Safari, because Apple is afraid of web based applications multi-platform applications to work on your device.

> Won't comment on your first point because i think its pretty well documented by now, specially for the HN crowd. But if you really want to to go down into this rabbit hole..

I would. Where is this documentation of how Apple is deliberately (and arbitrarily) crippling and limiting what the hardware can do?

> Crippling and curbing the developer forcing the hand where he cannot use certain technologies or certain paths only to suit Apple monopolistic, control freak neurosis, will in the end damage the users, as he would not have access to goodies he would like and want to.

All you're doing here is illustrating that you do not understand consumer products, the iOS ecosystem, or the tradeoffs involved. You're thinking of Apple like PC vendors.

In reality, iOS products are consumer experiences where the hardware and software are implementation details. 99.99% of iOS users don't know or care how much RAM their device has. Most can't tell you what version of iOS they're running.

As a concrete example, Safari Web Extensions for iOS must be able to be unloaded at will. As a developer who doesn't understand "why", this obviously complicates their development for no apparent reason. For the developer who does understand, the need is obvious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com