Sometimes they withhold agency for good purpose though.
Actually, a good anecdote from today. We have an internal app within our company that a user had gone in and messed with a file it relies on. Consequently, the app stopped working correctly and multiple other people started complaining that the app wasn't working.
To prevent the issue from happening again - we've "Secured" the file away so users can't mess with it like they did ever again...
As so - vendors sometimes withhold agency to control how the product works - so it works as designed for their customers.
You own the hardware, but not the software. Re-read your EULAs.
The hardware is fine, you can (still) go and install Linux or maybe the open-source Darwin on it. Then you'll have the complete control, and also the complete responsibility.
The idea of iOS, and increasingly macOS, is that it's like a hosted service controlled by Apple, but on your local device. This allows for various valuable security and usability guarantees, and for an ecosystem for which commercial vendors are willing to develop software. It works exactly because much of the agency is removed from the user, and given to Apple, which has both different expertise and incentives.
I like my distro's package manager more than App Store, it gives me more freedom and a different set of choices. Most people, who are not versed well in computer internals, won't be happy to trade App Store to a package manager, and limit themselves with free software.
Freedom has a cost, and for many people the cost of a particular piece of freedom is too high.
This is free market for you. They offer something, you accept the offer if you want. Re-read the EULAs, for you have agreed with their provisions.
Would you prefer the government to set rules about what kind of access you have to have to your computer (and maybe force the evil corps give you more freedom)? That won't even be funny. Corporations at the very least are interested in keeping you as a customer. Any government, given a chance, would mandate spyware and backdoors, for your safety, but mostly for their safety. Examples abound; look at China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc.
Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it.
2 vendors, Microsoft and Apple, have almost 100% of desktop OS market share, so no, that's not a particularly free market.
> Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it.
This is completely false, because Apple has radically changed how they've operated the Mac in the past 20 years. That's my complaint. Apple keeps getting worse and worse, year after year. I was quite satisfied with the Mac years ago.
In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased.
Along these lines, I really loved Apple hardware at the times of Apple II, and Apple software at the times of HyperCard.
By that time, and through 1990s, Apple was very niche, much like desktop Linux today. It did not have viruses because nobody cared to seriously write them. Apple were catering for some specific professional circles, power users who were ready to pay quite a premium for the machine.
Since the iPhone revolution, Apple is about the mass consumer, with much more non-geek mindset, buying at much more affordable prices. They lock down their ecosystem both for users' security (because non-IT people have hard time understanding computer security), and to extract more money via App Store-only software installation in the future.
Againx the problem with freedom is its cost, and you have fewer chances finding pockets of it where the majority is. Fringe groups have more chances to value and protect it, like OSS movement, or early Apple / Amiga / all the way to Altair customer base.
> In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased.
This seems inevitable as computers become more accessible to less technical userbases. Foot-guns are fine(ish) when your user group is composed of specialists, but companies have incentive to minimize support requests.
> This seems inevitable as computers become more accessible to less technical userbases.
The only change is cost. Computers are more accessible because they're cheaper. My dad managed to figure out VisiCalc for himself back in the day, and he wasn't "technical", he was just in sales.
IMO there's an unfortunate tendency nowadays to infantilize users.
How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically incompetent and incapable of learning?
> companies have incentive to minimize support requests.
In my experience, for example supporting my mom, there's no difference in the volume of support requests. The only difference is that you can actually fix problems that occur on the Mac, whereas if someone experiences a problem on iOS, they're basically doomed.
> How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically incompetent and incapable of learning?
This succinctly captures the issue, though. Users don't want to read the manual, they want to use the appliance. They don't want to learn the idiosyncrasies of the device, they want to accomplish the task they had in mind.
As someone who always reads the manual, I agree with you on principle but the reality is, fewer people care how things work and just want to get stuff done.
I'm not sure how this is relevant? Almost every product of every kind comes with a manual or instructions, which buyers are free to read or ignore, possibly with dangerous consequences for the latter. You can stick a metal pot in a microwave. You can pop open a pill bottle and swallow. That's just a fact of life in a free society.
Going back to your minimization of support requests comment, if your mom is unable to delete a file (like when SIP is enabled) she won't make a superfluous support request as she was prevented from making the error. As computers continue to be used as appliances, we should expect similar controls over the device to be deployed to minimize the harm a user can cause. This in turn leads to loss of agency by the specialist.
Most people can understand the failure modes associated with microwaving metal and such (or if not, it can be a relatively cheap or expensive lesson). But that underscores the commoditization I was pointing at. The dangers of general computing devices can't be captured in simple aphorisms like "don't leave it on with a vessel that lacks contents" for a stove or "don't put metal inside" for a microwave. The warnings that accompany a computer would comprise encyclopedic volumes to encapsulate all the things that could go wrong, like "don't install software from someone you don't know on a computer through which you access your banking." There are so many instance like that it's unbelievable. Few other devices are so interconnected to so many aspects of our lives. The general nature simply lacks the guardrails and controls of a special-purpose appliance.
Put another way, can you imagine the reduction in request volume from your mother if she had a special device for reading the news, and another for banking, and another for shopping? This is the rationale. I don't agree with it but convenience seems to trump everything else.
Where you can choose between Windows's EULA and MacOS's EULA and declining is not an option.
Hardly a free market and "consent" is hardly valid if "no" is not an option.
Is there a huge barrier to entry? Some very expensive regulation to comply, like in pharma? Some colossal infrastructure cost, like with telecom?
I would say that the duopoly is due to the exclusive agreements with OEMs first and foremost (Windows, Android) and lock-up by the manufacturer (iOS). If I were to consider an anti-trust action, I'd concentrate on these.
Apple doesn't sell the product: "computer devices at which you can do whatever you want with". They sell "computer device which does lots of things easily. To ensure these things work properly, the nitty bits are secured away from you"
No, my problem is that Apple keeps changing the terms. The Mac that I purchased is no longer the Mac that I have.
Apple now only provides 3 years of security updates for the OS that came with your Mac. You can't even buy an extended service contract! So then you're forced to "upgrade" the OS or else live with a bunch of known vulnerabilities. But every new version of the OS locks down the Mac even more. That's not what I paid for.
Moreover, it was Apple's decision to start shipping major new OS versions on a yearly schedule. That's not how it was in the past. Mac OS X Jaguar lasted 14 months, Panther 18, Tiger 30, Leopard 22, Snow Leopard 23 months. But then Steve Jobs stepped down for health reasons, passed away, and Tim Cook "altered the deal".
If you don't like their terms or products - then don't agree to their terms and don't buy their products. If you want things your way - don't outsource - make it yourself.
Apple made their product. As so, why shouldn't they have the right to make their own terms?
> Apple made their product. As so, why shouldn't they have the right to make their own terms?
The issue is not legal rights. I have the legal right to be a complete jerk to other people. As a businessperson, I have the legal right to be a complete jerk to my customers. Normally, in a competitive market, I wouldn't be able to get away with that. But if the market is not very competitive, I can.
Apple has choices, legally. My problem is that they keep making the wrong choices.
Apple didn't always make the right choices under Steve Jobs, but they generally made much better choices than under Tim Cook, at least as far as the Mac is concerned.
>As a businessperson, I have the legal right to be a complete jerk to my customers
You're still not getting the point - which is you're not the customer Apple is trying to sell to - just as Mercedes isn't trying to cater to people who want ice cream.
>Apple has choices, legally. My problem is that they keep making the wrong choices.
This is your opinion. The world does not revolve around you. Do you honestly expect in a relationship that your spouse always revolves around your terms - and only your terms - and will not have terms of their own? Is it not fair Apple has their own terms? They don't want to be abused by their customers anymore than you do from them.
Apple has always made it obvious who they're customer is. That is someone that doesn't know anything about computers and wants email and stuff to work without problems as time goes on - so Apple to makes sure they hold the rights to update and secure things to ensure that product works for these customers.
Again, you are not the customer apple is trying to cater to. Steve Jobs himself never wanted to sell "computers which only nerds could use". He wanted to sell "an appliance which anyone's grandmother could use". Super customizability that you want was never their product! Don't buy it and then complain they're being a jerk when they stated what their terms were...
> You're still not getting the point - which is you're not the customer Apple is trying to sell to
Funny how they keep sending me marketing emails though.
This is kind of a weird notion, that Apple doesn't want me as a customer, as I've spent more $ on Apple products in my life than the majority of people.
> This is your opinion.
Does this really need to be said? Of course it is! Why would I state someone else's opinion?
> Steve Jobs himself never wanted to sell "computers which only nerds could use".
This is a straw man argument. I already mentioned that I preferred Apple under Steve Jobs to Apple under Tim Cook. They're not the same. Jobs said, "the computer is the most remarkable tool that we’ve ever come up with. It’s the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." For Tim Cook, though, computers seem more like a bike lock for the mind.
> Super customizability that you want was never their product!
Again, I'm comparing Macs today to Macs literally only 10 years ago. Those products existed. It's historical revisionism to claim that current Apple is exactly the same as past Apple. It's not. Not at all.
The strangest thing about the argument "this is the way Apple has always been" is that the linked article of this HN post is talking about a new change that hasn't even shipped yet but exists in the Big Sur beta. It's a completely novel macOS behavior, not the way the Mac has ever behaved, so it's just bizarre to argue in this case "that's just the way Apple has always been". Apple is changing... for the worse IMO.
>Funny how they keep sending me marketing emails though.
>This is kind of a weird notion, that Apple doesn't want me as a customer, as I've spent more $ on Apple products in my life than the majority of people.
Maybe that's because Apple is a company and you're 1 in a million? You bought their product so presumably maybe you're interested in what their products are? That you're one of their customers their trying to cater to (when you're actually not)?
>Does this really need to be said? Of course it is! Why would I state someone else's opinion?
Great we established it's an opinion, and not a fact!
>This is a straw man argument. I already mentioned that I preferred Apple under Steve Jobs to Apple under Tim Cook. They're not the same. Jobs said, "the computer is the most remarkable tool that we’ve ever come up with. It’s the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." For Tim Cook, though, computers seem more like a bike lock for the mind.
It's not a straw-man unless you want to have a separate argument over what Steve said / didn't say.
>Again, I'm comparing Macs today to Macs literally only 10 years ago. Those products existed. It's historical revisionism to claim that current Apple is exactly the same as past Apple. It's not. Not at all.
So what if they're different today? They've outlined what their products & terms are today just as they had in the past. How are they being a jerk when you can freely agree to or walk away from them?
> Apple has always made it obvious who they're customer is. That is someone that doesn't know anything about computers
What!?!?
No. Definitely not correct. They might be doing that now, but if so that change is precisely the complaint at some level. I used to buy Apple computers precisely because I did understand computers, but now I buy them in spite of that.
>I used to buy Apple computers precisely because I did understand computers
Maybe because computers were always complicated and messy to use - so someone who understands computers would appreciate a 'friendly to use' computer? My Dad is the same.
Steve Jobs anyhow, always wanted to make the computer as user friendly as possible, so that anyone should be able to use them - not just some super skilled tech person (which is what I meant in my above post). Hell, Steve even hated the concept of a multi-button mouse... deeming it as something unnecessary if the UI was simple enough.
I think an employer wanting to make decisions about how employees can interact with internal software isn't a good stand-in for OS vendors dictating terms to third parties.
But even given that example, we can learn from how Windows protects it's critical system files. They're hidden unless the user goes out of their way looking for them. But if you think you know what you're doing, MS lets you take control, for good or ill.
Even assuming OS vendors are truly benelolent, I'm not sure that makes it okay for them to make themselves the sole arbiters of how we use our computers.
Actually, a good anecdote from today. We have an internal app within our company that a user had gone in and messed with a file it relies on. Consequently, the app stopped working correctly and multiple other people started complaining that the app wasn't working.
To prevent the issue from happening again - we've "Secured" the file away so users can't mess with it like they did ever again...
As so - vendors sometimes withhold agency to control how the product works - so it works as designed for their customers.