A thing exists that I don't want.
I could:
(1) ignore the thing; or (2) complain that the thing isn't something I want
(1) seems so obviously the right thing to do. This goes double when the thing you do want does, in fact, exist.
But, no, the internet opts for (2). I guess complaining just feels good, even when it's about something that has zero actual effect on you (or on anyone, even).
There are market reasons for this behavior. Asymmetric information in markets (lemon markets), true cost obfuscation, hidden terms, platform capture, manipulations in form of anti-patterns, monopoly behavior, to just mention a few of the very large ones.
They could have just replaced their old macbook with a new macbook.
Not that there's anything wrong with trying something new, IMO. But if you do so without doing any research, and it turns out to not be what you expected, there's nothing to complain about. Hopefully OP just returned the ipad and got a macbook upon realizing their mistake.
You seem to be suggesting something deceptive is going on here, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that.
I would agree with you if 1000 vendors of versatile computing tools put out 10,000 products with all kinds of uncorrelated options.
I would agree with you if even one vendor put out high-end quality, safe but ungated, customizable products for all form factors. (Safe out of the box, but all safeguards opt-out enabled.)
But neither wonderful extreme exists. Unfortunately, not even scaled down, bad caricatures, in a dark room, if you spend a mint, versions of that reality exist.
Instead, due to increasingly locked down devices, we are all left making tradeoffs we wish we didn’t have to make.
And not because guardrail opt-outs would be hard or costly to provide, but because manufacturers work hard to eliminate technically trivial opt-outs, or even any hero level effort opt-ours, and tell us they are doing this — for us!?!?
“We want you to be safe.” I don’t want to be safe. “No, we want you to be safe.” Help, let me out! “No, we want you to be safe.” Can my family and friends at least visit me? “No, not those family and friends. Would you like to see our menu of family and friend options? We want you to be safe.”
If each of us only chose devices on one dimension, it is likely everyone could find a product they like. But we choose devices to balance many concerns, and the artificially inflexible offerings can feel bleak. Because they are! (Both artificial & bleak).
This is essentially the reason open source software exists. Providing ungated alternatives - enabling self-serve specialization by customization - and keeping closed/gated software on its toes. But the real economic conundrums of open source are nothing compared to the *practical* economic conundrums of open hardware. And increasingly, wide appeal operating systems are low-level integrated with hardware defenses - for good reasons. But without opt-outs.
My installation of arbitrary software onto my MacBook via Homebrew, Nix, mise, downloading a DMG or .pkg via browser, or even the dreaded curlbash feel just as uninhibited by MacOS as they felt to me in 2015.
At most I have the one-time check-a-box about unsigned software to contend with, or a per-install approval step if I used more security-conservative settings.
None of this was either difficult or forbidden to me.
No offence but people have been saying that since about a month after the iPad launched and yet.
> Already, it's difficult (not yet impossible) to install software outside the confines of Apple's app store.
What's difficult? You download the DMG, open it, drag the app to Applications, job done. Or you install Homebrew if you're mostly after CLI tools. Or compile it yourself if you're happy going that route. (I use all 3 on a regular basis.)
> Already it's difficult (not yet impossible) to develop software for a mac
No, that bit is easy.
> without paying Apple for the privilege of "signing" your code.
That bit can be problematic, yeah. But you can ship unsigned apps and people can install them just fine.
(AFAICT you also have to pay if you want to sign your apps on Windows. It's the cost of providing the infrastructure, I suppose.)
Honestly embarrassing reactions from people pretending not to understand the difference between a machine you control and a machine Apple generously (for now) allows you to use in the way you wish.
Mac products are especially famous for restricting the users in what in can do in exchange for whatever peace of mind that brings.
If you are going to spend hundred of dollars on a product without doing even a basic research about it, you are 100% responsible of the outcome.
The iPad is about to reach its 15 birthday.
No one should be forgiven for confusing it with a MacBook.
Probably 95% of people who own computers do not need root access and should not have it, possibly ever. The iPad is a great device for all the people who need what it offers. It's an amazing graphical tablet, it's a cheap way to watch movies and play games, and it's an amazing system to use while standing without a desk (e.g., for retail and outdoor situations). All of these use cases have nothing to do with gaining root access.
Heck, I don't even think most of my development tasks on a real desktop computer involve elevating into root privileges. I'd sure like the ability to but if it was taken away from me I'm not sure it would affect me all that much.
"I don't consider any system without root access to be a real computer. So anyway, I decided to buy a Roku streaming box as my main computer and it sucks! What's wrong with the world today!?"
I want to probe your definition a bit. Let's say a factory makes gears. All the broken ones get recycled. After all quality checks have been done, some of the passing gears are pulled off the line and redirected to the gift shop to be sold as paperweights.
1. Are unsold gears in the factory storeroom fit for purpose as gears?
2. Are unsold gears in the gift shop fit for purpose as gears?
2a. If yes, do they lose that fit at the moment of sale?
2b. If no, do they regain that fit if the factory has production issues and brings a crate back from the gift shop to sell as gears?
One is a device sold with a specific purpose that the buyers knowingly paid for, the other is a piece of isolated pieces pluggable hardware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5BLs51yDQ
“with iPad Pro + iOS 11, a post-PC world may be closer than you think.”
https://9to5mac.com/2017/11/16/ipad-pro-whats-a-computer-ad/
I think you'll find that you will quickly exhaust the max character limit...
Sounds like a general purpose device to me.
I have a Microsoft Surface 7 Pro. Even though Windows is not my favorite operating system, I enjoy using the hardware. I'm also looking forward to Framework's upcoming 12" convertible tablet; I also have a Framework 13 laptop.
There are other vendors with more open experiences.
If those vendors actually get enough market share, maybe even Apple might adopt them.
Exactly like they did with keyboards, pen, and windows management, that came before on PC and Android tablets.
But they should be able to take it to someone else who can use root access to fix it
The idea that a person should not have any access to be an admin of a physical device that they own is ridiculous
They might not need it, they might not ever use it, but they should absolutely be able to if a situation calls for it
It's hard for technical people to get their heads around just what a hostile environment the modern scam and hustler riddled slop and spam infested Internet is. Using the net as a non-technical user is like walking around a dodgy high crime area of some third world city at night as an unarmed sixteen year old girl there on holiday.
Tech folks get so good at ignoring and skipping all that nonsense that they stop noticing it. I get three or four phishing or scam attempts a week, some of which look convincing if you don't know how to examine an e-mail domain or a URL. It's a hellscape.
An exercise for readers who don't believe me: get on a Windows machine and try to use regular web search to find and download a piece of software outside the App Store. Pretend you are non-technical and just looking for something to get something done. Be sure you do this from a VM you can delete after it becomes compromised, assuming you can actually get to a download at all behind all the popups and scam "your PC is infected!" sites.
This is so much "you support free speech because you're a good person, but if you heard what some people say..."
> An exercise for readers who don't believe me
With the number of actual Windows installations I, and other technical people, have cleaned the slime off of, this isn't persuasive. People who use Linux generally aren't ignorant of Windows, although some extreme Apple partisans might be.
Every iPad user is an "admin" of their device. Apple isn't stopping you from "administering" it.
There are limitations to the device but every device has limitations somewhere.
On that spectrum, the iPad is a much less limited device from a software and hardware standpoint than a lot of other devices, such as game consoles, point of sale terminals, medical devices, etc.
A lot of devices are intentionally designed with safety guardrails for very good reason.
For example, an inexperienced end user should not be able to freely reprogram the firmware on a robotics system used for surgery. A system like that is very intentionally shipped with guardrails that prevent the owner of the device from making dangerous modifications.
Other guardrails exist for other hardware where the end user is given some freedom but still kept from destroying the hardware or harming themselves. For example, your processor or graphics card won't let you fry the system by exceeding thermal limits, but they may still allow you to change settings like clock speeds and voltages. These limitations generally make sense and I would not really appreciate if AMD allowed me to accidentally fry my processor. A car infotainment system that allowed you to play videos or games while you drive or disable driver attention monitoring during self-driving would be grossly negligent.
I personally think the "everything should and must be open source" crowd takes a good concept way too far and essentially wants to dictate business models and approaches to safety and security.
I would support a more moderate approach that would force Apple to support more of a level playing field for things like alternative app stores, interoperability, and fair competition with alternative software, software/hardware end of support anti-e-waste regulations, but forcing them to divulge schematics and allow you to modify sensitive parts of the hardware like the secure enclave is not particularly beneficial. Just my opinion, though.
And finally, I’m firmly in the camp that I’m not going to tolerate a shitty solution just because it’s open source. No, I’m not going to use a $1000 Librem 11 tablet that’s at least 4x-12x slower than an iPad Pro that costs the same amount of money.
Comparing an iPad to a device that controls matters of life or death is almost as ridiculous as pretending these "guardrails" exist to serve the user.
The guardrails exist to prevent the user from exiting Apple's garden. It is there to protect a monopoly, not to protect the user.
Can we stop pretending it's anything else?
I specifically mentioned in my reply that Apple should be forced by consumer regulations to remove guardrails like disallowing competing app stores, and they should be forced to have more interoperability with competing standards and products (e.g., iMessage/FaceTime should be an open protocol where other vendors could make compatible communication apps).
But they shouldn't be forced to allow you to gain full root or dump the secure enclave's private keys.
No one really cares about folks extolling the virtues of stuff. They want good, meaty, abuse.
I used to like Mr. Cranky, a lot more than Siskel and Eibert.
Tablets and phones are for consumption, not production. End of story. This person just wrote some clickbait to generate some ad revenue.
And I don't agree. Those of us who know that markets have network effects and who believe that open computing is a value for humanity and closed systems opposite understand that it is value for new readers to know that things could be better, so as to steer at least some of the consumer choice away from these toxic, disposable products.